Liberal Support for the American Flag Hijab is an Endorsement of Slavery


By Tawfik Hamid (h/t Clare Lopez)
shepard-greaterthanfear-1-5550x7400-5690Shepard Fairey (the artist behind the 2008 “Hope” poster depicting then presidential candidate Barack Obama) produced a new set of images for President Donald Trump’s inauguration. One of his posters features  a Muslim woman wearing the American flag   as a hijab. The real irony here is that the Muslim hijab was originally designed as, and remains today, an intentional and literal symbol of discrimination and extreme disrespect and humiliation not only for women, but for all humanity. Many ideologues (be they of the liberal left or Islamophiles or whomever) are apparently blind to, or unaware of, or simply choose to ignore the fact that   traditional and unopposed Islamic teaching (which is to say, mainstream modern Islamic teaching) unambiguously states:
  1.        The Hijab is a dress code in Islam that was designed to distinguish “free” from “slave” women. According to Ibn Kathir (one of the most reputable interpretations of the Quran), and according to almost all authentic and approved Islamic theology and Sharia legal texts, the hijab exists to differentiate between free women and concubines so that free Muslim women will not be accidentally molested. Slaves and concubines (actual modern classes of human beings in Islam) enjoy no such protections.
  2.     Only “free” women are allowed to wear the hijab and cover their bodies. For example, Tafseer Ibn Kathir (again, one of the most reputable authorities in explaining the Quran) discusses the context (Asbab al-nuzil) of hijab verse Quran 33:59. According to this Tafseer and to most authoritative Islamic books men in Medina (the first capital of the Islamic Caliphate) would look at a Muslim woman, and if she was fully covered in the hijab they understood that she was a free woman and therefore refrained from sexually molesting her. On the other hand, if a woman was without a hijab, they marked her as a slave girl and [direct quote] “jumped on her to have sex.” In other words, according to traditional Islamic teaching, the command of the hijab was specifically to distinguish between slave and free women so that the early Muslims would not mistakenly rape the latter.
[Note: This religious teaching may explain the wave of sexual harassment and rape of European girls by many male Muslim immigrants].

3.     A slave woman is not allowed to imitate free women in wearing the hijab. If she dares to do so, she must be punished (“because her body is cheaper than and inferior to that of a free woman”). For example, Umar Ibn Al-khatab (one of the foremost disciples of prophet Mohamed) used to beat any slave girl who dared to cover her body as the free Muslim women did. Thus free Muslim women became distinctive from the slave girls. “When Umar Ibn Al-khatab travelled in Medina … If he saw “Ama” or a slave girl, he would beat her with his Durra [a special type of stick] until the hijab fell off and he would say: ‘How come the ‘slave girls are trying to emulate the free women by wearing the Hijab!'” Tabakat Ibn Saad.

4.     Free women must wear the Hijab when they reach puberty to decrease their sexual allure. According to Hadith of prophet Mohamed: “The Messenger of Allah turned away from his daughter Asma and said, ‘O Asma’, when a woman reaches the age of puberty (i.e. to become sexually attractive) , nothing should be seen of her except this and this’ and he pointed to his face and hands.”

5.      Free women who are supposed to wear the hijab will go to hell if they do not cover up with this dress. “Narrated by Abu Huraira that Prophet Muhammad said: women who are covered and naked at the same time [Kasiat Areat: does not cover their body completely] … will never go to paradise or even smell it.” Sahih Muslim

The above theological references are only few examples of many that illustrate the true symbolism of the hijab. It is truly hard to comprehend how the western liberal left has sunk to such a level that it can blindly accept, endorse, even promote a blatantly discriminatory dress code that supports slavery, explicitly defines women as sex objects, justifies sexual harassment and even rape, and then prescribes punishment for women who do not wear it. It is almost beyond imagining.
In brief, Liberal support for Slavery MUST Stop!

Germany promotes non-Muslim women wearing hijab

screen-shot-2016-09-16-at-10-11-35-am-596x283WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sept. 16, 2016:

“Enjoy difference – start tolerance,” says the blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman in a new TV ad running in Germany as she appears in a Muslim head covering.

The 18-second ad encourages German women to embrace “tolerance” by wearing the hijab.

The commercial begins with the text “Turkish women wear the hijab,” as a veiled woman is seen with her back to the camera.

But when she turns around she reveals herself as, not a Turk, but a fair-skinned German, before she says, “Me too! It’s beautiful!”

Watch the 18-second TV ad running in Germany:

The ad campaign is funded by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO, as well as German taxpayers.

There has been a international effort to get Western women to wear the Islamic veil to show “solidarity” with Muslims against so-called “Islamophobia.” Special “Hijab Days” have been organized on college campuses throughout Western Europe and the U.S. But on “World Hijab Day” in April, the effort backfired at a prestigious Paris university, where only a few non-Muslim students showed up in hijabs, the New York Times reported. Feminists and secularists condemned the protest as an “insult.”

Rampant sex crimes being covered up

Germany has allowed between 1.5 million and 2 million Muslim migrants to flow across its borders in less than two years, an unprecedented migration that many conservative pundits regard as national suicide.

The country has experienced mass sexual assaults of German women during celebratory events such as New Year’s Eve in Cologne and Hamburg, at public swimming pools and music festivals in other cities.

Gatestone Institute recently reported that sexual violence in Germany has reached “epidemic proportions” and the German government is covering up much of the data that would document this violence.

Up to 90 percent of the sex crimes committed in Germany in 2014 do not appear in the official statistics, according to André Schulz, the head of the Association of Criminal Police.

So instead of unveiling the sex-crime crisis for all to see, the government is teaching its female citizens to cover up and be more tolerant, says Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog and numerous books about Islam.

Is that really a hijab?

Not to mention, the ad is deceptive.

“The woman is not wearing a hijab. She’s just wearing a scarf over part of her hair. Much of her hair is showing,” Spencer told WND. “Some of her bare leg shows also as she struts around.”

All these elements of the presentation would make it absolutely unacceptable to the Islamic hardliners that she – and the German government, and UNESCO – are demanding that the Germans tolerate, Spencer said.

“The tolerance is, as always, one way: non-Muslims are told, on pain of charges of ‘racism’ and ‘hate,’ that they must tolerate an authoritarian, supremacist ideology whose adherents aim to take power, and once they do, will not accord non-Muslims that same tolerance.”

Is Germany ‘conquered?’

Anti-Shariah activist Pamela Geller said the ads are not only deceptive but coercive.

“The German government is determined to force its people to accept massive numbers of Muslims into their country, and as this commercial shows, to force them to accept Islamic culture as well,” Geller said. “But this cultural generosity will not be reciprocated. Where are the ads in Saudi Arabia telling Saudis they must accept and tolerate women who go out without their heads covered? It is always only the West that must be tolerant, even to the point of civilizational suicide.

“These are the actions of a conquered people.”

***

The “norming” of Islamic veiling:

***

In this video, Daniel Greenfield explains what Islamic veiling is really about:

See Quran 33:59 English translations – O Prophet ! tell thy wives and thy daughters, and the women of the believers, that they should pull down upon them of their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. That is more likely that they may thus be recognized and not molested. And ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

Also see:

Report: ISIS Bans Burqas

burka

The Islamic State is said to have banned the garment it once required following assassinations by veiled women near Mosul.

CounterJihad, Sept. 6, 2016:

The Islamic State (ISIS) is reported to have banned the wearing of burqas following the assassination of some of its local leadership near Mosul by veiled women, the International Business Times reports.  In the past, ISIS has killed or beaten women who refused to wear the burqa, a kind of veil that not only covers the body but contains a grille to mask even the eyes.  It is distinct from the niqab, which reveals the eyes, as well as the hijab, a scarf that covers the hair only.

If reports are accurate, several local ISIS leaders have been murdered by women wearing these veils in recent days.  The reports are unclear as to the women’s alleged motives, though as the IBD accurately reports, “ISIS has a poor record when it comes to women’s rights[.]”  This “poor record” includes sex slavery, rape, beatings, and the denial of basic freedoms such as speech, expression, and conscience.

There is some question as to whether the reports are in fact accurate.  IBD cites two different sources, one of which bears striking resemblance to Russian propaganda.  The other source is the Jerusalem Post, which in turn cites the Daily Mail out of the United Kingdom.  The Daily Mail‘s source turns out to be Iran Front Page, which translated a piece by Al Alam.  Al Alam is a state-run outfit out of Iran.  Iran and Russia have been coordinating their war efforts against ISIS as well as in Syria, and this may include propaganda efforts.  Nevertheless, the story is certainly plausible given ISIS’s history of abusing women.

The story is also plausible because the full face veil does indeed represent a real security threat.  The European Human Rights court threw out a case against a French law banning face coverings like the burqa both for security reasons and because it accepted the French argument that such coverings incompatible with the French way of “living together.”  The French law targets any face coverings, making exceptions only for things like motorcycle helmets and carnival masks.

A similar law in Belgium was defended as necessary for security reasons only, extending not only to the burqa but to the less-restrictive niqab:

Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian government, which introduced a similar ban in 2011 and which was party to the French defence, declared both the burqa and niqab “incompatible” with the rule of law.

The garments certainly do make identification more difficult, which can create problems for enforcement of the law as well as for security.  While reports that Illinois was considering allowing the burqa in drivers license photos proved to be significantly overstated, the arguments against doing so are legitimate.  The capacity for security officials to identify particular individuals is a crucial aspect of their ability to maintain the rule of law.

That rule is certainly threatened by ISIS in Europe, where the Islamic State claims it has “hundreds” of operatives ready to strike.  How many of them are women is unclear, although there have been incidents of men wearing burqas for tactical advantage as well.  The garments are so deeply concealing that they mask even the sex of the wearer, as well as readily veiling weapons or explosives.

A Famous Feminist Weighs in on the Burkini Affair

Phyllis Chesler

MEF, Arutz Sheva
September 1, 2016

Originally published under the title “Q & A: Burqas and Burquinis: A Famous Feminist Weighs in on the Burquini Affair.”

Does a democratic government have the right to legislate what women wear?

Phyllis Chesler: In my view, ideally, neither a government nor a woman’s family, both of which are patriarchal entitles, should have the right to legislate what a woman can and cannot wear. It is therefore very dispiriting that so many Western “progressives,” including feminists, are rushing to uphold Sharia’ law and increasingly reactionary Islamist interpretations of the Islamic Veil, (mainly the face mask and full face and body covering), even as they remain silent about the Shari’a based persecution of Christians, homosexuals, Yazidis–and Israelis–by those Muslims who are barbaric Jihadists. Even more ironic, is their relative silence about how freedom-loving Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents, including feminists, are being severely subordinated, tortured, and murdered by Muslim Islamists.

In my opinion, as long as any woman can be beaten, death-threatened, or honor/horror murdered in the West because she refuses to wear any version of the Islamic Veil—for this reason alone, the Western democracies should consider banning it. Doing so, will not protect us from Islamic terrorist attacks nor will it necessarily help foster integration—two very essential priorities, but it may help save the lives of women living in Western-style democracies.

Aqsa ParvezSuch bans concern women’s human and civil rights; her right to sunlight, (without which she will contract all the diseases associated with a Vitamin D deficiency); her right to see, hear, and walk—or swim—easily; her right to be comfortable in the heat by wearing light-weight clothing; her right to see and be clearly identified by others in the public square or at work.

Banning the Islamic Veil is one way of refusing to collaborate with such barbaric misogyny.

There is another reason a ban on the Islamic Veil might be essential. Remember the alarmingly high rates of Muslim male gang-gropes and gang-rapes of naked-faced women all over Europe, both infidel and Muslim? Not wearing the Islamic Veil (burqa, chador, niqab, hijab) is often interpreted as: “The woman is fair game, she’s a prostitute.” Thus, wearing Islamic head, face, and body-gear targets those women who are not “covered.” And, by the way, many “covered” women have, nevertheless, been assaulted anyway.

Does a democratic, post-Enlightenment government have the right to extend the rule of law to all its citizens, including female or immigrant citizens? I’d say that it has the absolute moral and legal obligation to do so.

So what is your problem with the burquini?

On the one hand, this is a false issue. Far more important is finding Islamic terrorists before they attack in Paris, Nice, Brussels, and elsewhere in Europe. Far more important is naming, fighting, and winning the War of Ideas, the Islamic religious war against Western freedoms which has led to terrorist attacks. Far more important, is either finding ways of integrating non-hostile immigrants or of stopping “the hostiles” at the border.

burkiniMy concern with the burkini as follows: It does not seem all that comfortable to be swimming in so much yardage; it is not safe to have one’s ears blocked while swimming either. Not to be able to feel the water directly against one’s skin is equivalent to wearing a monk’s hair shirt. Women are not being permitted the simple God-given pleasures of our sensory beings. Why? What crime have women committed to be so punished?

What about haredi women’s burquini type swimsuits?

I fully support modesty as a woman’s choice. That is the difference. I believe that reasonable modesty is a woman’s choice–and a sane one given the world in which we live. I oppose unreasonable modesty that is also unsafe and uncomfortable.

Why do you think France made an issue of this when there is so much other Muslim evidence of takeover? (Maybe they are afraid of doing anything else, as Giulio Meotti has written, and this is their weak and symbolic way to ‘fight’ Islamization.)

Perhaps Giulio is right and yet, France has a long tradition of “secularism” or lacite. They have banned the hijb in certain settings (schools, government offices), and they’ve banned the burqa (or face mask) entirely. Banning the burkini is just another such challenge on the long and difficult road to integration.

The burquini and the burqa are also on a continuum of demands and challenges which face Europe and America. It is not an isolated instance in which foreign cultural norms are being injected into Western culture. Where does it stop?

Female genital mutilation, polygamy, child marriage, honor based violence and honor/horror killing have dared the West to stop such gender apartheid practices; attacks on infidels, especially Jews in Europe, are another such attempt to import religious apartheid from the Muslim world. The demand for halal food in public, secular schools, demanding that Muslim holidays be recognized as if they were national holidays, etc., are part of this continuum.

Praying, eating halal food, taking holidays, is not the problem. Acting as if such observances are sanctioned by the state which, in the West is separate from religion, is the problem.

The Burkini is About Sexual Violence Against Women

kl_1

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, August 30, 2016:

The media has found its latest civil rights cause. It’s not the plight of Christians in Muslim countries who are being blocked from coming here as refugees because Obama’s refugee policy favors Muslims. Obama brought over 2,000 Syrians here in July. Only 15 of them were Christians.

It’s not the rising fear of an Islamic terrorist attack in Jewish synagogues. I have lately witnessed unprecedented levels of security at synagogues including guards in body armor and checkpoints. Racist Muslim violence against Jewish synagogues has been a staple of Islamic terrorism for too many years.

But instead the media has highlighted the civil rights cause of the burkini.

The “Burkini”, a portmanteau of “Burka”, the all-encompassing cloth prison inflicted on women in Afghanistan by the Taliban, and “Bikini”, was banned in France along with its parent, the Burka.

While Muslims massacre innocent people in the streets to shouts of “Allahu Akbar”, the media has once again decided to ignore these horrors in favors of broadcasting some petty Muslim grievance.

Does it matter what Muslim women wear to the beach? Arguably the government should not be getting involved in swimwear. But the clothing of Muslim women is not a personal fashion choice.

Muslim women don’t wear hijabs, burkas or any other similar garb as a fashion statement or even an expression of religious piety. Their own religion tells us exactly why they wear them.

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.” (Koran 33:59)

It’s not about modesty. It’s not about religion. It’s about putting a “Do Not Rape” sign on Muslim women. And putting a “Free to Molest” sign on non-Muslim women.

This isn’t some paranoid misreading of Islamic scripture. Islamic commentaries use synonyms for “molested” such as “harmed”, “assaulted” and “attacked” because women who aren’t wearing their burkas aren’t “decent” women and can expect to be assaulted by Muslim men. These clothes designate Muslim women as “believing” women or “women of the believers”. That is to say Muslims.

One Koranic commentary is quite explicit. “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)” The Yazidi girls captured and raped by ISIS are an example of “roving slave girls” who can be assaulted by Muslim men.

Muslim women who don’t want to be mistaken for non-Muslim slave girls had better cover up. And non-Muslim women had better cover up too or they’ll be treated the way ISIS treated Yazidi women and the way that Mohammed and his gang of rapists and bandits treated any woman they came across.

That’s what the burka is. That’s what the hijab is. And that’s what the burkini is.

And this is not just some relic of the past or a horror practiced by Islamic “extremists”. It’s ubiquitous. A French survey found that 77 percent of girls wore the hijab because of threats of Islamist violence. It’s numbers like these that have led to the French ban of the burka and now of the burkini.

When clothing becomes a license to encourage harassment, then it’s no longer a private choice.

Muslim women wearing a burka, a hijab or a burkini are pointing a sign at other women. The sign tells Muslim men to harass those other women instead of them. It’s not modesty. It’s the way that Muslim women choose to function as an instrument of Muslim violence against non-Muslim women.

In the Islamic worldview, sexual violence is the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator.  From the dancing boys of Afghanistan to the abused women of Egypt, the fact of the assault proves the guilt of the child or the woman who was assaulted.

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” the Grand Mufti of Australia said. “The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The Grand Mufti wasn’t discussing cats or meat. He was talking about gang rapes by fourteen Muslim men. “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred,” he said.

This is why there is a burka ban and a burkini ban. It’s why there should be a hijab ban. The existence of these garments gives license to Muslim men to target non-Muslim women. They allow Islamists to impose them as a standard by singling out women who don’t wear them. And they encourage Muslim men to carry out assaults on non-Muslim women who don’t comply with Islamic law.

That is what France has rejected. It’s what every country that respects the rights of women to be free from being “molested” by the “believers” who get their morality from Mohammed, a serial rapist and pedophile from whom no woman, including his own son’s wife, was safe, ought to reject.

The media has chosen to be deeply outraged by France’s ban of the burka and the burkini. It does not seem especially interested in the fact that Saudi Arabia forces women to wear the abaya, a covering not too different from the burka, not to mention not being allowed to drive or often leave the house. Or that Sudan’s Islamist regime arrested Christian women in front of a church for wearing pants.

It’s not that the left feels that women ought to be able to wear whatever they want in other countries. Certainly not non-Muslim women in Muslim countries. But that it believes that Muslims ought to be able to do whatever they want, whether it’s impose dress codes at home, resist dress codes abroad or even impose dress codes abroad. And the first targets of these dress codes are inevitably women.

Islam expands through violence. It imposes its standards through violence. Before the ban, the burkini, much like the burka, had already come to be associated with violent clashes. In one such incident in France, a man was shot with a harpoon. It’s not surprising that the French have grown tired of this.

The burkini ban, like the burka ban, is understandable. And yet it’s not a final answer. It limits the scope of Muslim violence against women. But it does not meaningfully contain it or end it.

It’s not the cloth itself that is the problem, but the Islamic attitudes that attach themselves to it. And the only way to stop the spread of Islamic attitudes toward women in Europe is to end Islamic migration.

The wave of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants in Germany make it quite clear that the moralistic amorality of Islam, in which women who aren’t dressed the right way are fair game, cannot coexist with the right of European women to leave the house without wearing approved Islamic garb.

Europe must choose. Australia must choose. Canada must choose. And America must choose.

Banning the burkini or the burka alone will not stop the assaults. Only ending Islamic immigration will.

***

Also see:

Bikini Versus Burkini: ‘The Republic Must Defend Itself’

French PM Manuel Valls (Photo: video screenshot)

French PM Manuel Valls (Photo: video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Leslie Shaw, Aug. 17, 2016:

In an interview with the Marseilles newspaper La Provence published on Wednesday, August 17, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls weighed in on the burkini controversy, stating that he understands and supports the mayors of Cannes, Les Pennes Mirabeau, Sisco and Le Touquet who have issued decrees banning the wearing of the Islamic swimsuit.

“I understand the mayors who, in the current tense climate, had the reflex to look for solutions and avoid breaches of the peace. I support those mayors who have issued decrees, if they are motivated by the will for communities to live in harmony rather than a political agenda.

“Beaches, like all public spaces, must be protected from contentious religious demands. The burkini is not a new range of swimsuit or a fashion. It is the manifestation of a political project, a counter-society founded on the enslavement of women.

“I do not think it necessary to introduce new laws on this question. Before introducing new laws, we will apply the law forbidding the burka in public spaces. We will reassert this law together with the minister of the interior, the prefects and security forces. Muslim authorities must also condemn the full veil and condemn acts of provocation that lead to violent confrontation.”

Mr. Valls went on to say that behind the burkini “is the notion that women, by nature, are indecent and impure and should therefore be totally covered up. This is incompatible with the values of France and of our Republic. Faced with these provocations, the Republic must defend itself.”

He launched a challenge to Muslims, saying that it is up to them and “their authorities, their families, in their personal, professional and social engagements, to declare that they reject this deadly vision of Islam.”

Speaking of the fight that broke out on the beach at the Corsican village of Sisco last weekend, he appealed for calm. “Generally speaking, people should not take the law into their own hands, all the more so in a period where there is a tendency to make hasty generalizations.”

Questioned about the presence in France of imams who preach hatred in certain mosques, Valls replied, “Firstly, some of them are French citizens. As for those who come from outside France and whose discourse of hate is punishable by law, they should be deported. We have already deported 82 of them.

“All of those who promote a discourse contrary to our values will be prosecuted. There will be no compromise with people who call our Republican political system into question. We also need imams who speak French and who are trained in and share our values.”

Valls also called on French Islam and its institutions to take a stand, concluding that his government “will be merciless against those who treat our Muslim fellow-citizens as scapegoats and who see Islam as being responsible for acts of terrorism.”

This tough talk coming from Valls is not surprising given the public outrage surrounding the burkini issue. It is also intended to steal the thunder of the Republican Party and the National Front, especially since Marine Le Pen is running high in opinion polls coming up to the parliamentary and presidential elections in May 2017.

National Front leaders have been railing against the threat posed by Islamic radicalism for years, if not decades, and that discourse has been vindicated in recent times.

The big question is whether mainstream French Islam – if it exists – will step up to the plate and take a stand against the Salafists who, as Valls himself has said, are increasing their influence over the younger generation of French Muslims. Up until now their silence has been deafening, apart from the odd pious condemnation of terrorism, accompanied by the codicil that it has nothing to do with Islam.

As for the burkini issue, it seems that mainstream Islam does not share the views expressed by  Valls, since the CCIF (Collective against Islamophobia in France) challenged the municipal ban in court and lost.

In a TV interview Marwan Muhammad, CCIF director, accused the government of “colonialism” and attacked the mayor of Cannes for discriminating against and “humiliating” Muslim women who wear burkinis, adding that the current controversy is being used to divert attention away from the mayor’s political failures, including his budget deficit.

Leslie Shaw is an Associate Professor at the Paris campus of ESCP Europe Business School and President of FIRM (Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management).

Understanding the Hijab

unnamed (48)Frontpage, by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, April 27, 2016:

I spent most of my life in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria until a few years ago. Now, living in the West, I am stunned with all misconceptions and misleading information about Islam. It seems to me that this stems from a large propaganda campaign coming from various platforms ranging from the dominant liberal media to Western Muslim scholars who have never lived in an Islamic country, but only read books published in the West. Liberals are brainwashed to view the West as the victimizers and the Muslims as the victims.

While covering all the misconceptions would require hundreds of books, I am going to only address the truth about the hijab in this article and the fallacies that are taught to ordinary people in the West about veiling, Muslim women, and the idea of victimhood.

(I have covered other truths and aspects of Islam in my memoir, Allah: A God Who Hates Women.)

Two of my own sisters have gone through the phases of wearing the hijab. I believe that the repression and domination of women in the Muslim world begins with the dress code — wearing a scarf, or hijab; wearing wide garments, chador; and hiding the body. In other words, the religion of Islam provides the language for men to dominate women by Sharia law, which takes possession of a women’s body from the moment a girl is born.

On the surface, a wide garment, scarf, or hijab looks like a piece of cloth. But, in fact, the dominating power of this piece of cloth is extraordinary. The idea is that once I can control your body, and once I can confine your body, I basically own you.

I believe and personally witnessed that wearing a scarf and wearing a wide garment, do not have anything to do with divine religious rules, as some ignorant imams or Muslims attempt to promote. Hijab is the first crucial step to possess a woman and make her follower of Islam.

I argue that the process of enforcing the hijab on women and making it feel natural to them is carried out through several institutional and psychological steps.

The First Phase: Indoctrination

The first phase is indoctrinating the idea of hiding one’s hair and body in the mind of a woman. The process of indoctrination begins from the moment a baby girl is born.

One concrete example is my sisters. They were forced to wear the hijab at the age of 8 in the schools of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria. So even before girls reach the age that they can make decisions, before they know right from wrong, they are indoctrinated to hide their body.  From age 3 or 4, they are repeatedly told about the “nice” things that will happen to them when they wear their hijab, and how they will be a good girl and be treated as a mature girl when they hide their body.

The Second Phase: The Superficial Pleasure

I call the second phase the superficial pleasure. In most cases, the first phase is followed with connecting fake pleasure with the action; in other words, this is the phase of connecting a bad or painful action with superficial pleasure and happiness.

For instances, there are ceremonies for the little girl when she wears the hijab. These ceremonies are performed at schools and often at houses as well. Psychologically speaking, the ceremony for the wearing of the hijab is skillfully, institutionally, and systematically orchestrated in schools to make the girls feel that these actions of hiding one’s body and listening to men elicit happiness.

Some Muslim women get stuck in these two phases for rest of their lives. For example, If you see some Muslim women in the West or East who wear the scarf and proudly argue and brag that they are wearing it happily and based on their own decision, they are actually unaware that they were subconsciously brainwashed from birth and that they are subconsciously confined in the aforementioned two phases. But since human beings normally are not cognizant of their subconscious thoughts that were formed while they were children, most of these women think that this is what they want.

More fundamentally, it is crucial to point out that there are also those Muslim women, particularly in the West, who get a different kind of superficial pleasure from wearing a scarf, wide garment, or hijab, even in the burning hot weather. These superficial pleasures are attention, materialistic gains, public sympathy, and a sense of victimhood.  They love the attention from the liberals primarily (whether from ordinary people, authorities or media), as well as the materialist gains that follows with that.

Many Western governmental and non-governmental institutions also might prefer to hire a Muslim woman who wears a scarf over other women, or give a women wearing a hijab more bonuses because they fear being sued for discrimination.

The Third Phase: Terror

The third phase I identify as imposing terror. The moment the two phases of indoctrination and connecting superficial pleasure with the hijab and hiding the body are fulfilled, the next phase begins, which is the process of imposing terror and fear in the girl in order to fix and cement the action.

This applies to those Muslim women who wear the hijab, but don’t brag about wearing it; these women have gone through this third phase.

Suddenly, the ceremony shifts to the real depiction of Allah, Khoda (in Persian); the Muslim god created by Muslim men. Allah becomes a torturer, an oppressor and a dictator.

The society tells the girls, as they told my sisters, that if you take off your hijab, scarf, chador, etc., and if you show your hair to people, Allah or Khoda will hang you from you hair for billions of years. When you die from being hanged or when all your hair is pulled out from being hanged, Allah will make you alive again and hang you from your hair again and again. If you talk back to your husband, Allah will hang you from your tongue. Allah will repeatedly burn you if you show the shape of you body to anyone other than your husband. Allah will take everything from you in this life and afterlife. The threats go on and on. Fear of Allah’s punishment is taught to those little girls. (One of my sisters had nightmares for many years after they taught her these stories at school.)

The hijab was imposed from the beginning to show women that they are second-class citizens, that men control their bodies, that men can force them to wear whatever the men choose, that they have no freedom, that they are created by Allah only to please their men, that they can only take off their hijab in the bedroom, that they are only a sex object for their husband, that they are not allowed to communicate with other people, that they are restricted, that they are cut off from the rest of the world, etc., etc.. They become a slave of Allah and other men.

The Final Phase: Liberation, Enlightenment and Freedom.

Finally, some women pass phase three and go to the final phase by revolting. I call this phase liberation, enlightenment and freedom.

If the oppression and restrictive laws of Islam go too far, become ubiquitous and unbearable, resistance and enlightenment will occur in some women. (This scenario is more likely to happen for some women who live in a country where religion rules the state — a theocracy such as the Islamic Republic of Iran — and where the state imposes Sharia law. In secular countries, i.e. Western countries or those Muslim countries in which the government is mostly secular, Muslim women are more likely to become more “Islamic,” in fact. I discuss the reasons in my book.)

Those few women who rebel go against all the indoctrination imposed on them from the time of their birth, and sometimes they protest regardless of the repercussions.

This is the real truth behind covering the body and wearing the hijab, which liberals need to comprehend if they truly believe in values such as human rights, social justice, freedom and democracy.