Why were protesters wearing hijabs?

Women’s March protesters in Washington on Jan. 21. (Photo posted at Cheri Berens blog)

Women’s March protesters in Washington on Jan. 21. (Photo posted at Cheri Berens blog)

WND, by Garth Kant, January 25, 2016:

WASHINGTON – They gathered by the thousands to watch history on television.

They cheered wildly when President Trump said in his inaugural address that the U.S. will eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.

The next day, they looked on in shock and horror at the violent protests in the streets. They were even more horrified when they saw American women wearing hijabs, Muslim headscarves worn as a sign of piety.

But this wasn’t Kansas. It wasn’t even the Midwest. It was the Middle East.

Cairo, Egypt. Home to tens of millions of devout Muslims.

Cheri Berens saw it first hand.

From her vantage point, “The entire coffee shop gasped in disbelief at the vision of American women donning the headscarf.”

Berens is an American who has lived in Cairo for years working as a researcher for the Egyptian Ministry of Culture. She witnessed the violence that preceded the takeover of the country by the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the counter-revolution that removed it from power.

Berens is an American who has lived in Cairo for years working as a researcher for the Egyptian Ministry of Culture. She witnessed the violence that preceded the takeover of the country by the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the counter-revolution that removed it from power.

(Photo: Twitter screenshot posted at Cheri Berens blog)

(Photo: Twitter screenshot posted at Cheri Berens blog)

Berens is author of “Cheri’s Memoir: An American Woman Living in Egypt” and is working on her next book, “The Cultural History of Egypt.”

And, in an essay on her blog titled “Women’s March to Islam?” she chronicled how for everyday Egyptians watching on television, packed into “every coffee shop in Cairo that had a satellite dish,” the scenes in the streets of Washington, D.C., were disturbingly familiar.

They recognized the same methods the Muslim Brotherhood used for decades to finally seize control in Egypt playing out in the American capital.

“First we saw protesters smashing windows and torching cars,” wrote Berens.

“Hushed murmuring began around me as every single Egyptian in the coffee shop could be heard saying the words: ‘Muslim Brotherhood.’”

She observed: “The images we were watching could have been taken right from a street in Egypt. It is exactly what we had experienced on a daily basis for more than a year.”

While the violence stunned the Egyptians, it was American women wearing hijabs that evoked agitation and even anger.

“We have been fighting to remove the headscarf. Why are these the stupid women putting them on?” asked an Egyptian woman within earshot of Berens.

Indeed, it is a question many have asked: Why would American women, and even the homosexual community, make common cause with those who would strip them of their rights and civil liberties?

Indeed, it is a question many have asked: Why would American women, and even the homosexual community, make common cause with those who would strip them of their rights and civil liberties?

WND put that question to former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who once introduced legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and who observed that the question of why collaboration occurs among disparate causes comes up often.

“People understand Islam abhors homosexuality, yet they often join forces in protests with gay activists,” she told WND. “The answer is simple, Black Lives Matters, the gay agenda, as well as Islamic supremacism, all seek domination over American freedoms.”

Still, why collaborate?

“They cannot reach their aims separately, but they can realize the fall of individual liberties if they work together. Once liberties fall, the groups break with each other in a race to impose their particular views on the American populace,” Bachmann explained.

“Causing liberties to fall is a long-term project, and they will use whatever allies they can get to realize that phase of their goals,” she concluded.

That strategy seemed apparent in what Berens observed.

Berens remarked how no one would ever think of damaging someone’s car or business before 2012, the year the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt.

But after that, “mobs of Muslim brotherhood would ‘protest’ in the streets, ripping apart public and private property and disabling normal activity – just as we were now watching on TV.”

“Some of the ‘protesters’ even covered their faces in the exact same way the Muslim brotherhood do.”

Making Egyptians even more uneasy was seeing police reduced to what Berens called a quasi-helpless state.

“Again the words ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ were mumbled throughout the coffee shop. The Muslim Brotherhood had disabled our police force via accusations of police brutality long before the violent protest began.”

She explained: “Via a well-calculated program of propaganda and lies, they were able to make the police force impotent. Police became afraid to stop the protest for fear of being accused brutality.”

Egyptians have experienced their own version of what’s come to be called the “Ferguson effect” and the epidemic of police shootings last summer in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests.

“During the last two weeks, 29 police officers have been killed in Egypt,” observed Berens. “Once the Muslim Brotherhood put this idea of ‘police brutality’ into place, police offers became fair game and are killed on a regular basis. Before 2012, killing a police officer was absolutely unheard of.”

Berens detected Muslim Brotherhood influence among the Washington protesters and rioters, and one facet may help explain how something many Egyptians consider a sign of oppression, the hijab, became a trendy accessory for some American women during their march.

One of the four main organizers of Saturday’s Women’s March was Linda Sarsour, a pro-Palestine Muslim activist who supports Shariah law, the strict Islamic code that renders women thoroughly subservient to men.

Sarsour worked with the Obama administration as what they called a “Champion of Change” and was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

She also is affiliated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case. Sarsour was seen recently posing for photos at a Muslim convention in Chicago with an accused financier for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

Berens said the Egyptians with whom she watched the protests were bewildered by the explanation offered on television that the women were marching for civil rights.

“The women in the coffee shop shook their heads and asked, ‘Rights? The headscarf will take away your rights!’ one young woman shouted at the TV.”

Berens recounted how the grand mufti of al-Ahzar, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, has ruled that the headscarf is not a religious requirement. She said that is well known to anyone who has read the Quran or studied Islam.

“And here, in front of our eyes, were non-Muslim, American women donning the headscarf!”

“In Muslim countries such as Egypt,” she continued, “women who do not wear a headscarf are often sexually harassed or attacked. They are beaten; they are raped; and sometimes, they are killed.”

“In 2012, when the Muslim Brotherhood took power, there were several attacks on Christian women on trains. They were grabbed, their hair chopped off, they were pushed off fast-moving trains. They were told they must wear headscarf – even though they are not Muslim.”

Berens stated plainly, “Any country in which the headscarf is imposed, women always suffer from abuses and restrictions.”

That included, she said, the law imposed by ISIS in al-Qaida in Syria against women sitting in chairs, because it will stimulate them and make them “go out of control with lust.” Out of the same fear, women in certain areas of the Sudan are barred from wearing pants.

“In most Muslim communities,” Berens observed, “even Muslim communities in America, the headscarf eventually leads to the full veil, because the headscarf leads to the belief that women easily become sexually ‘out of control,’ or they become too ‘tempting.’”

Berens said that is what American women should be protesting.

And she made a bold declaration: “This ‘women’s march’ wasn’t about Trump. Trump is being used as a scapegoat for the Muslim agenda.”

It was her research that led her to such a stark conclusion.

“I follow more than 100 Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and also several of their most powerful activists. They were all promoting this Women’s March.”

She then used a phrase more often associated with the previous president: “The activists, who call themselves ‘community organizers,’ targeted African-Americans and Hispanics, but even more heavily targeted was the LBGT community, pro-choice groups, and vulnerable university students.”

Berens echoed Bachmann’s observations about groups that would otherwise seem to be natural enemies coming together for a common cause.

She noted that “Muslims despise homosexuals” and that homosexuality is punishable by death in Islam, yet the Muslim organizations promoting the event targeted the LBGT community and claimed to promote their rights.

The author said that was done to enlist their aid, as Muslims have done with Christian and Jewish groups in attacking so-called “Islamophobia.”

Berens said the Muslims targeted pro-choice American women for the same reason, despite the fact that “abortions are illegal in Islam and no Muslim woman would dare have one.”

She warned: “They want American women to have abortions. They want the non-Muslim population to be stagnant while the their Muslim population grows. Numbers mean power.”

Berens also noted that the Muslim Student Association targeted students throughout the United States to go to the march.

“They have their finger on the pulse of the ‘gender identity crisis.’ They want American youth to be confused and frozen. They want American youth to be non-productive beings obsessed with their ‘civil right’ to a ‘safe space’ and ‘time outs.’”

That, she suggested, was the radical Muslims’ endgame.

“They want a young male population that is weakened, or with confused female tendencies, whether real, imagined or transgendered. They want to confuse the American youth so they are helpless and unable to fight. They want to oppress the women and weaken the men.”

And to that end, Berens maintains, subversive Muslims are employing misdirection.

“Most Americans have been focused on the stupidity of some of the goings on at the Women’s March instead of the deviousness of it. They want you distracted so that you won’t see what is really happening behind the scenes.”

And who does Berens blame for all the misinformation about the radical Muslims’ true intentions?

The American media.

She concluded with a revelation and a stark warning.

“Very powerful Muslim Brotherhood organizations helped organize and promote this event targeting very specific groups. And, starting in 1962, the Muslim Brotherhood placed very powerful people in the media profession to co-opt the media.”

And, a footnote, in case one would wonder: Why would Muslims in one of the most Islamic nations in the world erupt in cheers at President Trump’s promise to wipe out radical Islamic terrorism?

Berens made an observation that revealed some Americans might have more in common with the average Egyptian than they realize.

“We here in Egypt have experienced many terror attacks and all of us have experienced the death of a friend or family member who were members of the Army and who fight ISIS on a daily basis.”

***

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.

Muslim-American Olympian Criticizes her Country

muslimolympics_1470557862401_3289875_ver1.0_640_360

How Ibtihaj Muhammad describes life in America for Muslims.

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, Aug. 9, 2016:

A Muslim-American woman competing in the 2016 Olympics in Rio, Ibtihaj Muhammad, made history as the first American Olympic participant to wear a hijab while competing. The fencer won her first round, then lost in a second round. She is due to take part in a team competition later on during the Olympics. However, with all the media attention she has received to date for wearing the hijab and speaking out as a Muslim advocate against her country’s treatment of Muslims as well as against Donald Trump, you would think she had already won the gold.

Rather than focus on the fact that she was representing America as part of Team USA, Ms. Muhammad chose to distance herself from her fellow Americans. Before the competition even began, she complained about not feeling safe in America because she was a Muslim. She has been whining about how she feels threatened because of her faith, and has politicized the Olympic Games with derogatory comments regarding Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Considering that “anti-Semitic crimes accounted for roughly 60 percent of religious hate crimes last year,” according to a 2015 Washington Post report, and “anti-Muslim crimes now make up about 13 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes,” the Jewish-American Olympic competitors would have had more reason to speak out about not feeling safe in America. However, they are in Rio to compete for the gold on behalf of their country, not to trash it.

“I wish that, not just my life, but the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States,” Ms. Muhammad was quoted by the Associated Press as saying after arriving in Rio for the competition.  (Emphasis added.) “I’m hoping that with my first-time appearance as a member of Team USA here at the Olympics, I’m hoping that the rhetoric around the Muslim community will change.”

This is a woman who had the opportunity to meet with President Obama and even offer the First Lady a fencing lesson. Indeed, Ibtihaj Muhammad has lived the American dream. She graduated from a top school, Duke University, where she attended on a scholarship. To fund her ambitions to become a world class fencer, she worked as a substitute teacher and fencing coach. She also founded her own clothing line Louella. And she has gotten some big name corporate endorsements. She missed qualifying for the 2012 Olympics, but continued working hard to make the 2016 team, which, to her credit, she succeeded in doing.

Explaining her primary motivation for going after a spot on the 2016 team, Ibtihaj Muhammad focused on her attachment to the Muslim community, not simply on the honor to represent America. She said, “When I heard that there had never been a Muslim woman on the U.S. team to wear the hijab, that is when I made this conscious decision to go for 2016.” She added: “I am excited to represent not just myself, my family and my country – but also the greater Muslim community.”

 If Ms. Muhammad were truly interested in representing “the greater Muslim community,” she should use her celebrity status to speak out against the atrocious living conditions of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim majority countries.

Did Ms. Muhammad by chance have the opportunity to speak with any of the very few female competitors from Saudi Arabia, for example? That devout Muslim country discriminates against its own female population, all under the banner of Islam’s sharia law. It is allowing just four women athletes to compete in the Olympics this year, after having received an ultimatum from Olympic authorities in 2012. At home in Saudi Arabia, women are not even allowed to attend national team competitions as spectators, let alone participate in any tournaments or state organized sports leagues of their own. “Our society can be very conservative,” said Prince Fahad bin Jalawi al-Saud, a consultant to the Saudi Olympic Committee. “It has a hard time accepting that women can compete in sports.”

More generally, there is strict gender segregation in Saudi Arabia. And merely wearing a hijab head cover would not be enough to keep a woman out of trouble for dressing too immodestly.

In commenting on the recent spate of Islamic terrorism, Ms. Muhammad blamed it on an “unhealthy situation” caused by “(M)isunderstanding of religion, of what different societies need in order to thrive.” It would appear that Ms. Muhammad has a basic misunderstanding of the doctrines in her own religion that have fueled violent jihad around the world.

As an example of political correctness run amok, there was mounting pressure on Michael Phelps, who was elected by his teammates to serve as flag bearer in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, to decline the honor in favor of Ibtihaj Muhammad, who came in second in the voting. Various media outlets called for Phelps to yield. Perhaps the most ridiculous article was a CNN op-ed piece addressed to Phelps by W. Kamau Bell, in which the author says that “America has enough tall, successful, rich white guys hogging the spotlight” and that “Muhammad carrying the flag would be nearly a one-stop inclusion shop.”

The Olympics should be all about sports competition for the top prize based on merit. It should not be about religious faiths or domestic politics. Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time, earned the honor to carry the flag on behalf of the United States. Muhammad has not earned that honor, unless being Muslim, wearing a hijab while competing and trashing her country constitute the new standard of “excellence.”

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Also see:

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.

First Nude Protest Against Hijab in the Islamic Republic …

kl

Frontpage, by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, April 21, 2016:

As many Iranians have told me, and as I myself experienced in Iran from 2000-2009, there is always a way to protest Sharia and Islamic law, even if one lives under a theocratic, despotic, Islamist and authoritarian regime such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Standing against the draconian laws of the Iranian regime and the ruling mullahs, a young Iranian woman has just demonstrated this in an usual way: by a nude protest.  The repercussions of such an action are very grave under the Islamic law of the Iran.

The Iranian woman in this video is marking the first nude protest in the Islamic Republic. This woman is standing against the barbarian Sharia laws present in the Islamic Republic by writing on her body “I’d Rather Be a Rebel, Not a Slave.”

Several women, whom I have interviewed, have created similar videos, but they are waiting to leave Iran to post the videos. If a women gets arrested by the Iranian police for such an act, she will be tortured, repeatedly raped, and then executed for charges such as “fessad on Ardth,” “corruption on earth,” violating Allah’s, the Quran’s, and the Islamic laws of the Islamic Republic. The crime is also referred to as “muharabeh” “ enmity against Allah.”

In my recently published book, the memoir “Allah, a God Who Hates Women,” I illustrate in detail how the religion of Islam has provided a powerful platform for men, the ruling authorities in Iran, other Muslim countries, and Western Muslim men to dehumanize women, suppress and oppress them, and treat them like slaves. This is all happening while many Muslim women believe that they should follow the rules. Having lived most of my life in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria, I came to have first-hand experience regarding the intersection of Islam, the Quran, Muhammad, Allah, Mullahs, Sheikhs, authorities, repression, and women.

The suppression, oppression, and domination of women can reach intolerable levels under Sharia and Islamic laws. Some women decide to protest, rebel and revolt, while others decide to remain silent either due to the imposed fear of Allah (the God created by Muslim men) or due to materialistic gains that they achieve by following Islamic laws.

The religion of Islam provides the language for men to dominate women by the Sharia law, which takes possession of women’s bodies. The domination begins once a girl is born.

We should also remember that Islam infiltrates a political establishment and social beliefs very meticulously and often covertly. For example, before Sharia law was imposed on the Iranian population, almost no one would have thought — and in fact people ridiculed the idea — that Islamic law might be instituted in Iran. No one would have thought that a modern secular and civilized country might, all of a sudden, go thousands of years back to an uncivilized legal system.

No one would have thought that compulsory hijab would be imposed, that the legal marriage age for girls would be dropped from 18 to 9 years old, that speaking your mind or criticizing Islam, Muhammad or Allah would lead to execution, that the weight of the testimony of women would be half of that of men.

No one would have thought that the religion of Islam would take over so fast. But that is exactly what happened repeatedly, not only in the Islamic Republic, but also in many other places. The Islamists look for the momentum, and before anyone notices, they spread their local Sharia laws to larger social, political, and economic establishments and then they establish their Islamist judicial system, an Islamist army, and Islamist executive and legislative branches to advance their ideological principles by force.

When many liberal politicians, leaders, or scholars laugh at the idea that Islam might penetrate Western society and that Sharia law might infiltrate the social and political establishments of Western democratic countries, they have to take another look at history and concrete examples.

Finally, we should remember that President Obama is releasing billions of dollars to the same Iranian regime that does not grant its citizens basic human rights, does not allow them to wear what they like, to dance, or to listen to the music they desire.  We are giving money to the same regime that is ranked number one in rate of executions. We are giving money to the same regime that will execute women for asking for their rights. But regardless of the appeasement policy of President Obama towards the ruling clerics, many people in Iran will continue to stand against and resist the despotic and barbarian Islamist laws of Iran until either the regime is overthrown or completely reformed.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist, author, business advisor and public speaker, is president of the International American Council and serves on the board of the Harvard International Review (Harvard University).  Harvard-educated, Rafizadeh grew up most of his life in Muslim countries (both Sunni and Shiites nations). He is the author of the memoir “A God Who Hates Women” and the upcoming memoir “The Renegade.” Dr. Rafizadeh can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu. Follow him at @Dr_Rafizadeh.

Also see: