Rita Panahi: Muslim video condones domestic violence the Left won’t touch

Reem Allouche and Atika Latifi stirred up controversy when they discussed how husbands could beat their wives in a Hizb ut-Tahrir video.

Herald Sun, by Rita Panahi, April 16, 2017:

IT’S hard to imagine anything more ludicrous than two Muslim women trying to defend their faith against claims of misogyny, by discussing the implements that husbands can use to beat their misbehaving wives and describing the abuse as “a beautiful blessing”.

Striking a blow for women’s rights everywhere, the women demonstrated the correct manner in which they should be hit and the type of tools appropriate for the job, including a small stick.

If it was a comedy skit it would bring the house down, but sadly what was posted on Facebook by the Women of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia was a serious discussion that served only to show the deep gulf that exists between devout adherents of the Koran and the Australian mainstream.

Atika Latifi was keen to dispel the notion that Islam has a women problem. She did that by advising the veiled female audience in Lakemba, and those watching the video, that wives who display “disobedience to the husband” can be hit, but only after being scolded and deprived of sex: “Advise them first; leave them alone in bed; and hit them. He is permitted, not obliged, not encouraged, but permitted to hit her. That is what everyone is talking about. It should not cause pain. Not harsh.”

Fellow panellist Reem Allouche, who disturbingly identifies herself as a primary school teacher, agreed that a husband disciplining his wife could “promote tranquillity” and that “Islam is not gender biased”.

Allouche told the audience that a husband could hit his wife if she strayed from the teachings of the Koran because “he loves his wife, he fears for his wife, it’s almost a natural consequence”.

Feeling empowered yet, ladies?

It’s easy to dismiss Hizb ut-Tahrir as extremists whose views are not shared by the wider Muslim community, but the fact remains that the discussion between Allouche and Latifi came after prominent Muslim leader Keysar Trad caused outage by saying husbands could hit their wives “as a last resort” if buying chocolates and flowers didn’t fix the problem.

It’s also worth remembering it was Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi that ABC host Yassmin Abdel-Magied sought advice from after her appearance on Q&A, where she claimed that Islam was “the most feminist religion”.

Yet there are no outraged feminists, Muslim or otherwise, aiming at the group’s meetings and lectures. The courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali — herself a victim of FGM, who campaigns for subjugated women in the Muslim world — was a target of Australian feminists but the hate preaching of Hizb ut-Tahrir doesn’t result in online video campaigns or street protests.

Trad, often presented as the moderate spokesmen for the Muslim community, is president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and a married father of nine who has spoken openly about his desire to take a second wife. Displaying incredible chutzpah, Trad was on Nine News to condemn the attitude of the women in the video. But simply attacking the women and ignoring the problematic passages in the Koran is too convenient.

If we are serious about tackling such viewpoints then we must look deeper at the belief system that not only permits but encourages this type of submission.

A statement by the Australian Muslim Collaborative claimed that “Islam categorically prohibits and denounces the abuse of women” and “any promotion of violence is against the spirit and letter of Islam”. But anyone familiar with history and the Koran would snicker at that.

Sheik Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, is one of the most influential scholars in the world and is among many Islamic theologians who are clear about how the Koran’s teachings about husbands disciplining wives should be interpreted.

“It is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas,” Al-Qaradawi explains.

“To be specific, one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behaviour and if he sees deviation only in what she must do or obey in relation to him.”

The AMC statement was signed by 30 prominent Muslims, including the president of the Australian National Imams Council, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, who in the past has expressed disturbing views about women, homosexuals and jihad, and The Project host and “terrorism expert” Waleed Aly who, despite being a lecturer at Monash University’s Global Terrorism Research Centre, speculated that the Boston bombings were the work of homegrown “American patriots” and seems bewildered about what motivates the Islamist terrorists of Boko Haram.

It’s extraordinary that Sheik Shady, who has said AIDS is a divine punishment for homosexuals, women should be “hung by their breasts in hell” and those guilty of adultery should be stoned to death, is judging the women in the video.

It’s also perverse that at a time when efforts to combat domestic violence see preschoolers exposed to contentious gender theories in the hope that they don’t one day become perpetrators or victims of violence against women, we have clear examples of ugly, problematic attitudes all but ignored by activists.

The Left’s disdain for the values that underpin Western secular democracies sees them continually give cover to Islamists. They would do well to heed Hirsi Ali’s words: “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”

Linda Sarsour’s Muslim Identity Politics Epitomize Feminism’s Hypocrisy

lindasarsour

Although she thinks a President Trump will turn back the clock 300 years, Linda Sarsour forgets that Islam never left the Middle Ages in its view of women.

The Federalist, by Shireen Qudosi, January 24, 2017:

A Frankenstein’s monster of identity politics, the Women’s March on Washington heaved through the streets of DC one day after the inauguration in a fit of depraved hypocrisy.

That hypocrisy shadows activist and National Co-Chair of the Women’s March Linda Sarsour. In the past Sarsour has railed against women spotlighting misogyny in the Muslim world. She openly advocates for including sharia law in the United States. Yet sharia law would dwarf her march’s half a million turnout to 250,000, because under sharia a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s.

Sharia law would also punish the female protestors for vulgarity in publicly displaying “pussy caps” and other brazen symbols of womanhood. It would also allow men to beat their wives and daughters for participating in the protest. Although she thinks a President Trump will turn back the clock by 300 years, Sarsour forgets that Islam never left the Middle Ages in its primeval view of women.

image1

sarsour1

Venerated by leftists, Sarsour now rides the great beast of modern feminism much like the “god-King” Xerxes in “300.” This weekend she and other heads of the Soros-connected movement protested against a democratically elected president. This is a Palestinian woman protesting about the democratic process in the freest country in the world.

Sarsour is also handsomely funded by New York taxpayers and supported by other elevated women in a nation that gives equal space to women’s voices. These rights do not exist in Islamic theocracies, where we find the real war against women—something Sarsour seems to deny—and where the democratic process is a fantasy.

Yet Sarsour, much like many in the Women’s March, continues to see a legitimate presidential election through the filter of the third world. A day after the election, she tweeted: “We can disagree & still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of humanity and right to exist.”

Read more

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!

The Poisoned Veil: Are Muslim Women’s Rights Worth Fighting For?

41l0s4lrcol

I am pleased to announce that Brad O’ Leary has written this exhaustively researched book on the oppression of women under sharia using, in part, archives from the Counter  Jihad Report. This is the value of a counter jihad news aggregation site for writers and researchers.

In the introducton O’Leary states his reason for writing the book:

I am writing this book because I have six daughters, six grand-daughters, and four great-grandaughters. I don’t want them to become socially or emotionally involved, date, or go into business with people who have brought values with them that are inconsistent with the values my daughters and grand-daughters fought for and won, which is basically the quality and  the personal power as females to decide their lives based on their own views, not someone else’s views.

The book includes some interesting polling data on attitudes in the United States towards some aspects of sharia that O’Leary commissioned in conjunction with Zogby Analytics. The book views the Islamic reform movement favorably and is in favor of a Donald Trump presidency for his stance on immigration. The resource section at the end of the book is impressive. I can recommend this book for anyone looking for a comprehensive and personal analysis on Islam, sharia and Muslim immigration issues.

Press Release:

Flawed vetting process and language barriers bring immigration problems

AUSTIN, TX – 9/27/2016 (PRESS RELEASE JET) — An informative and controversial new book called The Poisoned Veil: Are Muslim Women’s Rights Worth Fighting For? is the 27th by the author, Bradley S. O’Leary.  The book points out that if immigration is indeed increased to 100-200,000, more money has to be spent for the vetting process to hire more Arabic-speaking citizens and females who speak Arabic because most Muslim families won’t allow the female member to be interviewed by a man.

Many of the families coming from the Middle East have lived under political leadership or in a society that has legalized many of the problems outlined in the book. In America, many of these practices are crimes, and Mr. O’Leary gives us suggestions on how to improve the vetting process so women coming into the United States can understand their new rights and privileges, while teaching the men how to live with equality in our democracy.

The book explores Islam and Sharia law in its oppressiveness to women and denial of equal rights with men. It looks at its approval of honor beatings and killings. The law denies women’s voices, keeps them segregated, forbids equal rights and the freedom to work, seek education or have any independent freedoms at all. They are hidden behind a veil and forced to do whatever men demand.

The book delves into the following issues, many of which are crimes under American law:
-the demand for a woman to accept a forced marriage
-the laws which allow Muslim men to have up to four wives and to marry girls as young as ten
-the interpretation of a Muslim man’s right to physically enforce his will on his wife or children
-the barbaric practice of forcing young girls to be subjected to female genital mutilation, or sexual blinding, an act that has been condemned by the United Nations and Western governments, but is allowed and supported by Muslim religious leaders
-the logic behind why a woman’s voice isn’t worth the same as a man’s in court
-the problems nations in Europe and around the world have in blindly accepting Islamic refugees
-the solutions to protect Islamic women from these atrocities

The book is published by Boru Books and is available on Amazon, Kindle and CreateSpace.

Media Contacts:

Company Name: Boru Books
Full Name: Bradley O’Leary
Phone: 3108046957
Email Address: bradoleary@aol.com
Website: www.thepoisonedveil.com

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.

Prager U Video: Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women

silence

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on why this matters more than ever.

Truth Revolt, June 27, 2016:

Are women oppressed in Muslim countries? What about in Islamic enclaves in the West? Are these places violating or fulfilling the Quran and Islamic law?

In Prager University’s newest video, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an author and activist who was raised a devout Muslim, describes the human rights crisis of our time, asks why feminists in the West don’t seem to care, and explains why immigration to the West from the Middle East means this issue matters more than ever.

Check out the short video above. Transcript below:

Culture matters. It ‘s the primary source of social progress or regression. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the status of women. The Judeo-Christian culture — and perhaps a more apt word is civilization — has produced over time the law codes, language and material prosperity that have greatly elevated women’s status.

But this progress is not shared everywhere.

There are still hundreds of millions of people that live in a culture  — the Islamic, for instance — that takes female inferiority for granted. Until recently, these cultures — the Western and the Islamic — were, for the most part, separated. But that is changing. Dramatically so.

Large numbers of immigrant men from the Middle East, South Asia and various parts of Africa have brought a different set of values to the West, specifically Europe.  More than a million arrived in 2015 alone. More are on the way.

As a result, crimes against girls and women — groping, harassments, assaults and rape – have risen sharply. These crimes illustrate the stark difference between the Western culture of the victims and that of the perpetrators.

Let me be clear: not all immigrant men, or even most, indulge in sex attacks or approve of such attacks, but it’s a grave mistake to deny that the value system of the attackers is radically different from the value system of the West. In the West women are emancipated and sexually autonomous. Religiosity and sexual behavior or sexual restraint is determined by women’s individual wishes. The other value system is one in which women are viewed as either commodities (that is, their worth depends on their virginity), or on the level of a prostitute if they are guilty of public “immodesty” (wearing a short skirt for example).

I do not believe these value systems can coexist. The question is which value system will prevail. Unfortunately, this remains an open question.

The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men.

One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny.  But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case.

Common among many Western feminists is a type of moral confusion, in which women are said to be oppressed everywhere and that this oppression, in feminist Eve Ensler’s words, is “exactly the same” around the world, in the West just as in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

To me, this suggests too much moral relativism and an inadequate understanding of Shariah law.  It is true that the situation for women in the West is not perfect, but can anyone truly deny that women enjoy greater freedom and opportunities in the United States, France and Finland than they do in Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Other feminists have also argued that non-Western women do not need “saving” and that any suggestion that they “need” help from Western feminists is insulting and condescending to non-Western women.

My perspective is a practical one: any efforts that help Muslim women — whether they live in the West or under Islamic governments should be encouraged. Every effort to pressure these governments to change unjust laws should be supported.

Western feminists — and female Western leaders — have a simple choice to make: either excuse the inexcusable, or demand reform in cultures and religious doctrines that continue to oppress women.

Nothing illustrates this better than what happened in Cologne, Germany on New Years Eve, 2015. That night, during the city’s traditional celebrations, numerous German women (467 at the last count) reported being sexually harassed or assaulted by men of North African and Arab origin. Within two months, 73 suspects had been identified — most of them from North Africa; 12 of them have been linked to sexual crimes. Yet, in response to the attacks, Cologne’s feminist Mayor Henriette Reker issued an “arm’s length” guideline to women. ” Just keep an arm’s length distance between you and a mob of Arab men, she advised Cologne’s female population, and you will be fine.

Mayor Reker’s comments underline the seriousness of the problem: a culture clash is upon us. The first step in resolving it is to unapologetically defend the values that have allowed women to flourish. Feminists with their organizations, networks and lobbying power need to be on the front lines on this battle. Their relevance depends on it. And so does the well being of countless women, Western and non-Western.

I’m Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University for Prager University.

SIGN THE PETITION! Demand that feminist activists fight for Muslim women! https://goo.gl/MmS1kq

***

Steve Coughlin drills down on the facts of Islamic law that Islam apologists either aren’t aware of or, in the case of stealth jihadists, purposely try to hide.

Responding to Muslim deceptions 1 Honour killings and innocence MRCTV:

Published on Jun 29, 2016 Vlad Tepes

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.