Some days ago, there was a polemic in Spain about a 6-years-old girl who was allowed to wear Islamic veil (hiyab) to go to school (ABC.es). The Catalan Autonomous Government, who has “ended” the subject with a resolution that obliges the escolarization, considers that the director has made an interpretation by which if the little girl goes to class with the hijab she will be discrimnated by his colleagues and that will cause problems of coexistence.
The girl, who arrived a year ago in Gerona, where his parents were living already, studied the last term in other school where it was tolerated that she used the hijab, with an important internal debate. With some motives that have not been told, the parents of Shaima decided to change her to other school.
On Sep 18th, with the term just begun, the city schooling office appointed the girl to the school «Anexa-Joan Puigvert». When the parents arrived there with the little one they were informed that she could not go to school with Islamic veil.
There were critics to the measure, for example from the Democratic Union of Students (Libertad Digital: Recuerdan al Gobierno catalán que las normas civiles también rigen para los musulmanes):
This association denounces that “what the Generalitat has done is making everyone clear that the laws of the school can be just overlooked if the parents menace with the non-schooling of their children -non-fulfilling the law again- and secondly, that those laws are not the same for all the shoolboys; if a girl believes in something that prevents her for fulfilling all the laws and civil rights, the Spanish laws are not binding for her”.
UDE states that the use of the veil is not as the Generalitat says, the symbol of a religion, because it is not imposed by the Koram, or any other sacred text, but of tribal-ethnic uses in the Arab world (NOTE: and of the consideration of women under Islam).
With this decision, the Generalitat has opened the possibility to prevent that same schoolgilr from attending classes of Gymnastics, just because of being a woman, from eating in some moments of the year, from attendign classes while it’s her prayers’ time or from mixing with boys; of course, it has opened also the possibility to let women use niqab or hijab and to prevent a woman to be the teacher of some men, as has happened in France.
The worst of all is that, the people who is responsible of raising the girl, let that the law is not binding for her, just because of being a girl and having been born in a Muslim family.
Of course, there were fellow bloggers who aggreed with the Generalitat:
I think that the use of the veil is not preventing anyone to receive her education normally and mix with other children normally. To forbid her using the hijab is just as bad as forbidding a Jewish man to use the kipá
.
Mariano Rajoy has also supported the schools in their fight against hijab:
He stated on October 8th that the girls’ right to education is before anything because in Spain theeducation is free and compulsory and so, a father who travels to Spain has the obligation to fulfill all the Spanish laws as you and me fulfill them.
“We are in favour of integration: and that means that equal rights, equal opportunities, which implies equal duties and obligations. I really think that this decission is a bad precedent. I’m with the schools
What is the problem we are facing? Hijab is not a crucifix or any other religious symbol. Hijab is a symbol of male domination and at the same time, of the consideration of men as simple sexual predators who can’t dominate themselves if they see a woman who is not veiled. This is not only ridiculous, but it is an insult to the dignity of women, who must subdue to the sexual insticts of men, whether they want or they do not. But also to the dignity of men, who are not human beings with reason and will, but only a kind of monster animals who cannot hold back any time.
That is not something I am imagining, that is something lots of Islamic teachers/Imams have said:
- we have the Australian imam, Al-Hilali, who said that “immodestly dressed women who don’t wear Islamic headdress can be blamed for being preyed by men and likened them to abandoned meat that attracts voracious animals”. After that, the Australian clerics rallied around him.
- The woman is looked upon from a “higher” biologistic viewpoint regarding her as “seed field” that - under strict male surveillance signaled by “Islamic correct” veiling - guarantees for the continued survival and expansion of Islam. h/t Independent conservative. More: “We are dealing here with premodern, partly archaic thinking that divides its world into two Manichaean halves. Irrespective of the usual statistical remnant of liberal “dissidents”, the orthodox ideology bases on an Islamic half that accords to Koran and “prophetic” tradition and a non-Islamic half consisting of unbelievers and disobedient women. The religious war - known as “jihad” - against the latter two groups belongs, therefore, to the most prominent duties of the “believing” Muslim. Its “religious” dimension is boosted enormously by customary family “honor” installing male control from early youth on, often widening into brutal raping, sometimes incestuous punishing patterns”. More: “the primary form of human being is seen in the male that assumes the right and duty to assist Allah in conserving and expanding his “umma”, meaning his community. Its biologistic “thinking” demands the “pure” man as the real human dominating the “impure” woman as a lower form, rather close to some animal-like existence. Therefore, sexuality cannot be sublimated and has to serve - aside from ramifications into homo-, paedo- and sodo-variants - a basic double function: fertilizing and punishing”.
- In Italy, Daniela Santanche (MP) was menaced because of saying that the Quran did not call for women to wear a veil by an Imam: “I am an imam and I will not permit those who are ignorant to speak of Islam. You are ignorant of Islam and do not have the right to interpret the Qur’an.”
- An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are “asking for rape.” Fjordman writes: “Hijab, the Islamic veil, is thus not ”just a piece of cloth”. It serves as a demarcation line between proper, submissive Muslim women and whores, un-Islamic women who deserve no respect and are asking for rape. The veil should more properly be viewed as the uniform of a Totalitarian movement, and a signal to attack those outside the movement. Judged in the light of the Mufti who said that women who don’t wear it are asking for rape, how on earth can the veil be said to be about ”choice”? The freedom to choose not to be raped if you dress in a normal fashion in your own country? Is that what freedom is about in Europe in 2005?”
- In Algeria: the terrorising of women can be seen as an attempt to gain control of a very important section of Algeria. Women are seen as the custodians of Algeria’s “profound” traditional values. If women take to either the Maghrebi head scarf (haik) or veil (hijab and/or jilbab) - even out of fear - then it re-affirms tradition’s strengths. All the veil stands for: modesty, obedience, sexual probity, conformity - are expressed publicly and overtly when worn. If the veil is evident and widespread, if women appear traditional, then the message is sent - tradition is in ascendancy. The successors of the FLN’s secular struggle - OJAL - are not targeting women per se, but an evident symbol of fundamentalism: the veil (and also the beard). They wish to remove from public view the very signs of support for tradition that the GIA seeks to engender.
- Saudi clerics blames drought on women who unveil themselves or mingle with men. Oh, no!! I’m causing global warming!!!
Muslim rape, feminist silence:
No wonder why many Muslim rapists openly admit their actions and justify them smugly with casual references to their religious and cultural beliefs. This horrifying phenomenon was on display in a court trial in Australia last year, in which a Muslim rapist, going by the name “MSK”, taunted his sobbing 14-year-old victim and proudly professed the legitimacy of his sexual assaults on young girls by explaining that his victims were not veiled — as the Islamic religion mandates women to be. [1]
“MSK” is from Pakistan. He is doing in Australia what he learned best back home: in some of the most notorious rural areas of Pakistan, gang rape is officially sanctioned as a legitimate form of keeping women marginalized and “in their place.” […]
To compound this pathology, a notion has developed within the system of gender apartheid in which Muslims like “MSK” have grown up: the idea that a woman who does not veil herself is somehow responsible for any sexual or physical harm done to her. In the psychopathic mental gymnastics that occur in the perpetrators’ minds, the unveiled woman must be sexually punished for violating the “modesty” code. Thus, when Islamic Muftis like Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali and Shahid Mehdi declare that women who refuse to wear headscarves are “asking for rape,” they are merely regurgitating a popular theme in many segments of Islamic culture.
In traditional Islamic law, rape cannot be proven unless four males testify as witnesses (Sura 24:4 and 24:13). In other words, raped women cannot get justice anywhere Islamic law prevails. More horrifying still, a woman who has the courage to say she was raped, and fails to produce the four male witnesses (which is obviously almost always the case), ends up being punished because her accusation is regarded as an admission of pre-marital sex or adultery. And this is why seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.
In Holland, myriad women now bear the horrible scar that has infamously become known as “smiley,” whereby one side of the face is cut up from mouth to ear - a war mark left by Muslim rapists as a warning to other women who don’t veil themselves.
In France, the phenomenon of Muslim gang rape as punishment for non-veiling even has a word to describe it: “tournante” (take your turn). In areas where Muslims form the majority (i.e. the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France), even non-Muslim women feel pressured to veil themselves in fear of Muslim sexual and physical punishment.
The consequence of this theories is this:
The disaster he referred to happened in 2000. Miss C., an 18-year-old girl, was raped 25 times by up to 14 men. Her only enticement was being a young, white, unprotected Australian. Sitting on a train, she was dressed for a job interview in her best suit and reading “The Great Gatsby.” Accosted by the Muslim rapists, she was called a slut (and later, an “Aussie pig”). Bilal Skaf, one of the rapists, boasted to the terrified girl that he was going to rape her “Leb style.”
“I looked in his eyes,” she said. “I had never seen such indifference.” And this is what Elhilaly, in Muslim distortion of truth, calls “flirting.”
Because of course, you want someone to rape you:
Elhilaly commented: “A woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make?up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us … then it’s a look, then a smile, then a conversation … then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.”
Of course, you see a rapist and you take off your clothes, specially if you are in the presence of 14 men!!! With all of them you have dated the same day, the same time, etc…
Girls who want to look just like other French girls are considered provocative, asking for trouble.Samira Bellil wasn’t asking for trouble, but trouble came to her. She’s the granddaughter of Algerian immigrants and she’s written a book about surviving the hell of the Paris ghettos.
“I was gang raped by three people I knew, and I couldn’t say anything, because in my culture, your family is dishonored if you lose your virginity,” says Bellil. “So I kept quiet, and the rapes continued. The next time, I was pulled off a commuter train and no one lifted a finger to help me. …Everybody turned their head away. They were all looking out the window.”
When Bellil’s family discovered that she had been raped, they weren’t sympathetic. They threw her out onto the streets. But she’s since discovered that what happened to her was not the only case.
“There was a trial in Lille where a 13-year-old girl was gang raped by 80 men. Sometimes, it’s 80, or 50 or 10. It’s absolutely terrible,” says Bellil. “In the case of Argenteuil, it was horrible. A young woman was raped in a school. Of course, everybody knew, but they’re so afraid of these young men that they prefer to close their eyes. That’s the price of peace in the ghettos.”
Banlieue males may adopt the lifestyles of other French youths — pop music, fast cars and pornography — but they also frequently embrace the traditional prejudices of their immigrant parents when it comes to women: any neighborhood girl who smokes, uses makeup or wears attractive clothes is a whore. Bellil’s attackers targeted her because she dressed as she pleased, mixed with males and liked to dance — and had begun a romance with another teen. Owing to the fact that most rapes involve individuals known to victims, intimidation often suffices to ensure that charges are never lodged. “Victims know that they won’t be protected by the police,” says Bellil, “and that both they and their families will be threatened if they speak up.”
And then there are the idiot women, such as Unni Wikan:
Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, in 2001 said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”
Anyway, if you think Spain is not regarding this thing properly, Italy is even worse. As Italian blogger Unpolitically Correct reports, the prefect of Treviso has authorised the use of Burqa, even when it’s impossible to identify the woman (or man) who is wearing it. His move has been praised as having “good sense”.
Anyone considering the consequences?
Other related links:
Muslim Rape, Feminist Silence @ Free Republic.
Unveiled women invite rape.
Norwegian Government: Covering up Immigrant Rapes? @ fjordman.
Rape: Nothing to do with Islam @ fjordman.
Rape warning: Saudi students coming to America @ Israpundit.
Rape is women’s fault @ FFE.
A date which will always live in shame @ The Big Pharaoh. “I talked about about how it is extremely difficult for Egyptian girls, especially the unveiled among them, to walk on Cairo’s streets without getting verbally harassed. However, I never thought that the day would come when girls walking in downtown Cairo would get their clothes ripped off, not by a single street lunatic, not by 4 or 5 hormone driven youth, but by throngs of young men shouting “we will f**k, we will f**k”".
Sheik Hilali Sakedown @ VH.
Sé que ha pasado algún tiempo desde que ocurrió lo de la niña marroquí de seis añitos cuyos padres decían “que su decisión era llevar hijab a la escuela”. También sé que hay diversidad de opiniones: están aquellos que apoyan a la Generalitat y aquellos otros que consideran que es un error garrafal.
Lo primero es analizar por qué se lleva el hijab para no caer errores de bulto como equipararlo al crucifijo cristiano.
Por mucho que los apologetas islámicos consideren que estamos ante una decisión personal, los hechos demuestran que conforme aumenta el fundamentalismo islámico aumenta también el uso del hijab, del niqab y del burqa. En Marruecos hace 30 años las mujeres veían como algo maravilloso haberse librado del dichoso pañuelo para ver hoy que sus hijas se lo vuelven a poner.
En Argelia, se considera que si las mujeres se ponen, bien la bufanda de la cabeza (haik) o bien el velo (hijab o jilbab) -incluso por miedo- reafirma la fuerza de la tradición y todo de lo que el velo trata: modestia, obediencia, continencia sexual y conformidad, que son expresadas pública y abiertamente cuando se llevan. Si el velo es evidente y muy usado, si las mujeres aparentan ser tradicionales, entonces se manda el mensaje: la tradición se está imponiendo.
A pesar de que el corán no determina como una obligación el uso de estas prendas, la propia concepción de la mujer y del sexo en el Islam lo hace obligatorio.Y tenemos diversas declaraciones realizadas por imanes que así lo prueban. Entre ellas, el clérigo más importante de Australia, el imán Al-Hilali, egipcio de nacimiento que dijo que “las mujeres sin velar eran como carne que espera ser devorada por los animales”.
“Una mujer posee el arma de la seducción. Es ella la que se quita la ropa, se las acorta, flirtea, se pone maquillaje y polvos y se va por las calles…. que Dios nos proteja… luego una mirada, una sonrisa, una conversación, una cita, un encuentro, luego un crimen. Luego te toca un juez, que no tiene piedad y te caen 65 años.”
Ante el asombro de los australianos, la comunidad islámica en su mayoría dio su apoyo al imán, a pesar de que había dicho eso en el contexto de una ola de violaciones a adolescentes blancas por musulmanes. De todas ellas, las más espantosas fueron las realizadas por el inmigrante paquistaní MSK quien en el juicio, y ante una de sus víctimas de 14 años, dijo que ella era responsable de cualquier daño que se le produzca, físico o sexual.
En Dinamarca, el público soberano se quedó con los ojos como platos cuando uno de sus clérigos islámicos más importantes dijo sin ruborizarse en la mezquita que los padres debían obligar a sus hijas a llevar hijab porque si no “estaban pidiendo ser violadas”. Pero el imán no se desdijo, si no que encima fue apoyado por algunas personas, como la antropóloga Uni Wikkan quien dijo que las mujeres noruegas tenían que darse cuenta de que los extranjeros venían de países en los que las mujeres iban muy tapadas y que “ese era el precio de la multiculturalidad”.
En el fondo todo el problema reside en una consideración de la mujer como
mera receptora “de la semilla masculina”. La ideología ortodoxa basa toda su predicación en separar a las mujeres que se portan de acuerdo con el profeta de los no-creyentes y las mujeres desobedientes a esa tradición. La guerra religiosa -conocida como Jihad- contra las segundas es una de las principales obligaciones del “musulmán creyente”. Su dimensión religiosa se basa en un costumbrista honor que instala al hombre al control desde su juventud, incluso llegando a la violación brutal y a relaciones incestuosas. De tal modo que el hombre asume el derecho y la obligación de asistir a Alá en conservar y expandir su “umma”, o sea, su comunidad. Desde este “pensamiento biológico”, se demanda un “hombre puro” que domine la naturaleza impura de la mujer como forma inferior, más cercana a una existencia de carácter animal. Por tanto, la sexualidad no puede ser sublimada y ha de servir -junto con todas las ramificaciones, homo-, pedo- y sodo- - a una función doble básica: fertilizar y castigar.
Postura que defiende en parecidos términos algún que otro imbécil patrio, que considera que esa es mi única misión en la vida y que, además, por ser mujer, no puedo resistirme a ello, porque “soy pequeña y frágil”. Juasss. 
Me río por no llorar. Por cierto, que lenguaje tan barriobajero y soez no había leído en mi vida. Debe ser que la mala educación va unida al poco respeto al prójino.
Y es en este contexto donde tenemos que considerar la existencia del Hijab y demás vestimentas que lo que tratan es de que el hombre no sea tentado por ese infra-ser que son las mujeres. Fjordman (el link está arriba) escribió hace más de dos años:
Hijab, el velo islámico, no es sólo “una pieza de tela”. Sirve para demarcar la línea entre las mujeres musulmanas decentes, sumisas y las putas (sic), las mujeres no-musulmanas, que no precisan respeto y están pidiendo ser violadas. El velo debe ser considerado más propiamente como el uniforme de un movimiento totalitario y una señal para atacar a los que no estén dentro de ese movimiento. Juzgado a la luz del Muftí que dijo que las mujeres que no lo llevan lo están pidiendo así, ¿cómo se puede hablar de ello como una “elección”? ¿La elección de no ser violada en tu propio país si vistes de una forma normal en tu propio país? ¿Es eso lo que es la libertad en la Europa de 2005?
Pues eso parece ser. En Holanda a las chicas marroquíes que se niegan a ponerse el velo, se les hace un “smiley”, una raja de la comisura de los labios hasta la oreja, para avisar del peligro de no velarse.
En Francia, las chicas musulmanas que quieren simplemente tener una vida normal (pintarse, salir por la noche o tener novio), se les considera directamente como chicas fáciles, a las que se puede violar sin ningún miramiento. Son sometidas a las llamadas “tournantes” o violaciones en grupo, sin que durante mucho tiempo pudieran decir nada, porque nadie las ayudaba, a pesar de que todo el mundo en los suburbios lo sabía.
Samira Bellil no quería problemas, pero los problemas vinieron a ella,
Es la nieta de unos inmigrantes argelinos y ha escrito un libro de lo que es sobrevivir en los ghettos parisinos. “Me violaron tres personas que yo conocía y no podía decir nada porque en mi cultura, mi familia es deshonrada si pierdes tu virginidad”, dice Bellil. “Así que me lo callé, y las violaciones continuaron… Todo el mundo miraba para otro lado. Me tiraron de un tren de cercanías y nadie movió un dedo para ayudarme…. Todo el mundo volvió la cabeza. Miraban tranquilamente por la ventana”.
Cuando su familia descubrió lo que había pasado, no fueron nada simpáticos con ella. La echaron a la calle.
Pero descubrió que su caso no era el único.
“Hubo un caso en Lille en el que una niña de 13 años fue violada en grupo por 80 hombres. Algunas veces, son 80, otras 50 y otras 10″. “En el caso de Argenteuil, fue horrible. Una mujer fue violada en el colegio. Por supuesto, todo el mundo lo sabía, pero prefirieron cerrar los ojos. Es el precio que hay que pagar por la paz en los ghettos”.
Pero para las no-musulmanes la situación es aún peor:
Miss C., una chica de 18 años, fue violada 25 veces por un grupo de 18 hombres. Su única culpa fue ser una chica joven, blanca y australiana. Estaba sentada en un tren, iba a una entrevista de trabajo en su mejor traje y leía el Gran Gatsby. Pero fue rodeada por los violadores musulmanes y la llamaron “puta” y “cerda australiana”. Bilal Skaf, uno de los violadores, dijo a la aterrorizada chica que la iban a violar “stilo libanés”.
“Le miré a los ojos” declaró ella. “No había visto jamás tal indiferencia”. Y esto es lo que el imán El-Hilali llamó después “flirtear”.
En Paquistán las violaciones en grupo están a la orden del día, pero las mujeres no lo denuncian porque como necesitan cuatro testigos masculinos, al final se las acusa de sexo pre-marital y pueden ser condenadas a muerte.
Al final, no es sólo un insulto a la mujer, si no también al hombre, al considerarlo una especia de animal que no puede dominarse.
Pero Europa no puede dormirse en los laureles: En Italia el precepto de Treviso ha dado el visto bueno al burka, lo que determinará que las mujeres completamente veladas podrán frecuentar el colegio, ir al trabajo o circular libremente por Italia.
Es decir, esta foto podrá ser vista fácilmente por aquí:
Laura Bush, en los Emiratos Árabes Unidos. 
Encontrada en LGF via Winds of Jihad.
Enlaces relacionados: la víctima de una violación en grupo, perseguida por los violadores.
En otros blogs: la civilización islámica: hoy, las mujeres “esa cosa”.
Technorati Tags: España, niqab, burqa, hijab, Europa, Italia,
Entradas
