In a generation of unadulterated acceptance sweeping our nation, one can’t help but wonder where we begin to re-draw the line between acceptance and condemnation. Lately, I’ve seen an outpouring of support and backlash from the terror attacks in Belgium and Paris for the hijab and burqa, much of it coming from young women. Some of this response may be warranted. Who is any government to ban a religious artifact of clothing? In our country, this action would certainly last no longer than lower court of appeals, let alone the supreme court, due to the 1st amendment.
However, one can’t help but notice the incredible hypocrisy when criticism of the oppression of women by Sharia and Islamism is met with opposition from youthful liberals. This begs the question, is Sharia and the oppressive nature of Islamism gaining support and acceptance in the U.S.?
Recently, on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Dalia Mogahed, formerly Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs and an outspoken advocate of Sharia, had a field day with Trevor Noah’s softball question regarding the hijab. She gleefully makes the preposterous claim that the reason many people view the hijab as oppressive is that it privatizes a woman’s sexuality. She goes on to say that when you criticize the hijab as oppressive, you are essentially saying that a woman’s only source of power is her sexuality, since the hijab apparently makes sexuality a moot point. This exchange was met by whooping cheers from a hoard of liberal twenty-somethings.
"...when you criticize the hijab as oppressive, you are essentially saying that a woman’s only source of power is her sexuality."
There are a couple of major flaws in this absurd line of reasoning. For one, if it were the case that Islamic women could categorically make the choice to wear the hijab simply because they want to, this might hold water. However, in many Islamic countries (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan) a woman risks severe punishment by removing it, thus making it truly oppressive. What's more, the mass immigration of muslim refugees from war torn countries of the middle east brings this sexist and oppressive culture to the front door of the west. If the hijab or burqa is solely privatizing a women’s sexuality, then women would be able to have the choice to do with it what she wishes. Sadly, in many Islamic (and some predominently Christian) countries, this is not the case. Secondly, she attempts to assert that if you view the hijab as oppressive, you are a misogynist and have no right to any opinions regarding the hijab or the burqa. Ok Dalia, not all men care about your sexuality. Some of us care about women being murdered, raped, tortured, or being attacked with acid. These aren't one off examples of things that happen to Muslim women. No, they are frequent occurrences in Islamic theocracies and they happen with abundant regularity. Some of us care that if a religion or culture makes one gender a slave and commands that gender to wear a slave collar, if you had the choice to wear or not wear the slave collar, and you wear the slave collar, some people might see that as a symbol of oppression.
The best part about all of this, is that it was a MAN who invented the burqa and the hijab. It was not higher intelligence and it was not a woman. Islam, like every religion, was created by men. What’s more is that the Burqa and the Hijab are cultural items. They are not commanded by the Qur’an. The Qur’an makes suggestions and references to modest clothing and certain areas for men and women to cover but does not explicitly cite those articles of clothing. In fact, the origins of these clothing items pre-date Islam. This is only further proof that these articles of clothing are social constructs created by men. Women wearing hijabs and burqas of their own free will is the highest form of Uncle Tom-ish Islamism I can think of. To remain faithful and devoted to a culture and religion that demeans and devalues human worth based on gender is cultural stockholm syndrome, at best.
Dalia’s, and others like her, manipulation here is a deft one. In one stroke, she manages to gain feminist support for Sharia by painting men wishing to see the hajib or burqa gone as the enemy. She uses a common uniting theme of the over-sexualization and objectification of women as a red herring in her quest to gain support in the states for Sharia. The result of this skillful manipulation of logos, with a hearty dose of ethos, is the creation of a moral obscurity, the kind which the regressive left eats up like a plate of Georgetown Cupecakes at a startup company office party. My guess is that we will continue to see ironic growing support for Sharia among the SJWs lobbying for extreme multicultural acceptance. I would venture one step further to say that if the Aztec culture were to rise again, we would see this same group of young zombie liberals calling for acceptance of sacrificial cutting out of live beating human hearts in order to please to sun god. Analogously, they have been tricked into supporting Islamism's oppression of women and will continue on the champion the causes of patriarchy and cruelty under the guise of feminism. I can think of nothing more regressive or embarrassing.
I think I will take Ayaan Ali Hirsi’s council on this issue, instead of Dalia’s Sharia tainted spin, when Ayaan says, “The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and a Muslim veil blinkers both your vision and your destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of a sex.”
Aayan perfectly highlights the issue above. She has seen the oppressive nature of the hijab and the violence commited against women in the name of Islam when it is not worn or even not worn properly in certain countries. Aayan opposes the outlawing of the garment but also openly oposes it as a cultural and religious symbol. However, let us make no mistake, protection under the law does not equal moral superiority. Cultural norms aside, the absence of and improper wearing of the hijab and burqa have earned more women death sentences, rape, and physical harm than they have helped privatize women's sexuality. A woman's sexuality is already privatized, as is her right in most western countries. In closing, let's asked the women who have been raped regardless of their veiling, and see if they felt their sexuality was more or less privatized.