From the article:
|Referred to in the article: http://mystealthyfreedom.net/en/|
|Referred to in the article: http://mystealthyfreedom.net/en/|
From "If You Don't Stand By Muslim Women Now Then Don't Profit Off Us Later"
An article in the December 10, 2015, Forbes magazine, by Amani Al-Khatahtbeh
"While we’re dishing out MuslimGirl’s neatly streamlined numbers in pretty Powerpoint slides at shiny conference tables, quantifying in dollar signs why Muslim women’s voices are valuable, all I can really think about is how our site had to resort to publishing a crisis safety manual for Muslim women last week. All that hateful rhetoric in the media — Paris, Bernardino, now Trump — isn’t made in a void.
"The thing is, you can’t be cool with society demanding us to apologize for ISIS while also trying to compliment us on our headscarves.
"The social complacency that MuslimGirl intends to combat has real life or death consequences for Muslim women in Western societies. Our society is currently thriving off of scapegoating Islam: Muslim women quickly become the most vulnerable targets, and, yet, the fashion industry and corporations are simultaneously eager to profit off of them."
Click to read the whole article in Forbes.
"For many Muslim women, the headscarf is a symbol of resistance: against Islamophobia, against the imposition of societal expectations, against the violent erasure of our bodies. Countless women’s websites and news blogs this year have cashed in on almost patronizing modest fashion headlines, reducing Muslim women to their apparently shocking ability to dress well, rock a scarf, and look acceptable to the Western gaze. Meanwhile, a 6th grade Muslim girl was beaten up by a group of boys and called “ISIS!” in her middle school. How many women’s blogs flaunting modest fashion headlines have covered her story? Much to your delight, we can flawlessly rock a scarf with American fashion trends — but we’re still going to risk getting killed when we step out of the house."
Posted by Yasminn Mogaged, December 7, 2015 on Facebook
It was time to break my silence...
On my way home last week, I drove by a pretty bad car accident. It got me thinking about the things we fear in life and the role fear inevitably plays in our lives. With the heart wrenching events of last Wednesday, fear of backlash has begun to consume the Muslim discourse. Many sisters are nervous about the hijab and some leaders have called for laying low.
But in reflecting, I feel there is something wrong with our approach. Statistically, the risk of getting into a car accident is far greater than the risk of an Islamophobic attack. But we don't stop driving. We don't stop going where we need to go. And most certainly, we don't shift all our conversations to the dangers of getting behind the wheel. In other words, we don't feed into the paralyzing fear of hyper focus on a problem.
Yes we're aware of the risks of getting behind the wheel. So we take our precautions; we buckle our seatbelt, say our duaa, and put our trust in God. And then we continue to live our lives. We continue to drive. We stay awake--but not afraid. And there's a difference. Fear only takes over when we allow a problem to consume us. Focusing all our reading, all our thoughts, all our conversations on something only makes it grow disproportionately and deceptively in our minds. If all I talked about, read about, thought about was car accidents, I'd probably become too terrified to drive.
The question now is: what are those precautions we need to take for protection? Well, I apologize in advance, but I must stand up and unequivocally say I do *not* believe those precautions are wearing baseball hats and bandanas to hide our hijab.
I feel it is irresponsible for our leaders and public figures to spread fear, when what we really need is empowerment. What we really need is strength and hope and trust. And faith. When it gets dark, the believers don't hide. They shine. That's what light does. Light doesn't hide from the dark. It breaks through it.
Brothers and sisters, the darker it gets, the more we need the Light. The more the world need the light. The more we need to empower oursleves to be sources of that light. And the darker it gets, the brighter that light will shine.
You see every single moment we make a choice. We choose how we're going to live. We can either live motivated by fear--by what we hope *won't* happen in life. Or, we can live motivated by hope. By faith. By what we believe can and should happen. And then work for that. Remember, what you focus on grows. You get back what you put into the world.
Yes, there are horrible, tragic things happening in the world. Absolutely true. But, dear God, there are also beautiful, inspiring things happening too. The problem is, if you never turn off the news, you'll begin to believe the world is only dark. You see, good news doesn't sell. Only blood and guns do. Only 'radical Muslim terrorist' do. My dear brothers and sisters, refuse to buy into it. Refuse to allow the darkness to hijack the discussion.
Focus on what you can do to grow the light.
And to all my fellow sisters, who have to feel a little more scared today to put on their hijab, I say this: Remember why you wore it. And for who. Then ask yourself: Do you think the One for whom you wore it, the One who also happens to have sole ownership and power over the heavens and the earth and every Islamaphobe on it, won't take care of you?
But your baseball cap will?
My sisters, don't be afraid. Buckle your seat belt, yes. But keep driving. And keep your eye on the road; not on the belt. Keep looking up. The seat belt won't save you, and neither will your cap.
But Allah will.
Tell the world you won't hide, because your hijab isn't just a cloth. It's a symbol. It represents love. The love of God. And the love of God brings about everything good.
Sisters, by God, you are beacons of light walking around.
Hold it strong.
. . . The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - and specifically our fear of cultural influence.
This is a fear that is seldom openly admitted to - or, rather, no sooner is it acknowledged than it is countered by an appeal to some incontrovertibly estimable aspect of what we take to be our own cultural heritage. There are manifold examples of this strange and neurotic dialectic, but let me concentrate on just one - the recent furore surrounding the admissibility of Muslim women giving evidence in British courts while veiled. I say furore, rather than controversy, because I don't think that many people - except hard-line adherents of political Islam - actually believe there's anything at issue here at all, and these same people don't believe in the jurisdiction of British courts anyway. For those of us who do accept this the assumption that truth-telling is best expressed by a steady gaze and an open face is so ingrained that it has never needed to be articulated - or, rather, no witness or defendant in a trial who wished to be convincing has heretofore considered it a good idea to stand up in court with their features obscured, whether by wearing the niqab or a joke-shop horror mask.
There may indeed be cases in which the indubitable piety and overweening modesty of some individuals requires a certain bending of convention, but on the whole I think we can afford to keep our nerve and look the truth about our cultural values full in the face. It is not that we need to worry that jurors and judges won't be able to assay the veracity of evidence given from behind the veil - after all, serving police, military personnel and members of the intelligence agencies are often allowed to do just this - it's that they may well be inclined to take it at its literal face value, which is obscured and therefore, ipso facto, dubious.
|photo of french protest from Getty Images, attached to the BBC article|
An Ontario hospital is campaigning to recruit doctors and nurses from Quebec in the wake of the French province’s move to ban religious clothing in its contentious ‘values’ plan.
... Under the proposed ban, all public workers, including teachers and doctors, would be prevented from wearing jewelry, like cross necklaces, head coverings and any other religious apparel, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported Wednesday.
"To force people into a situation where they have to decide between their job and their religion or decide whether or not they are Quebecers first or Muslim first -- for me, that's not a question we should be asking people to think about, as Canadians or as Quebecers," [Federal Liberal Leader Justin] Trudeau said." ...
... The secular philosophy behind the French and Québécois laws, known as laïcité, has a noble tradition. It was first seen in the United States, where the predominantly atheist authors of its Constitution wrestled with the question of how to create a single government for a country founded and populated by competing extremist sects. The answer was to separate religion from public life, creating a neutral public sphere and making religion strictly a matter for private life.
This idea was adopted even more heartily in France (alkthough the idea of restricting clothing is a recent innovation), and in Turkey, where it is still illegal to wear Islamic head coverings in government-funded places.
And there are understandable reasons why Quebeckers are more open than others to the idea: The memory of religious interference is far more fresh. From the 1930s to the 1960s, the Union Nationale party of Maurice Duplessis created an effective Roman Catholic theocracy, harshly regulating private life. For historical and emotional reasons, laïcité holds a greater appeal.
But that doesn’t mean these charters are a good idea. You need to go back to the basic question: What problem are they attempting to solve?
Neither the French nor the Québécois charters were built on the idea of creating a secular public sphere. Rather, they both were born of bigoted attitudes toward Muslim immigrants, papered over with a slapdash bid for secularism that fails to confront the actual issues involved." ...
..."Worst of all has been the weird habit of constantly claiming to be a victimized minority, while increasingly trying to stomp on non-Francophone minorities.
Earlier this year, we saw the Quebec Soccer Federation ban players from wearing turbans or other religious head coverings on the pitch.
Now the Parti Québécois is proposing a ban on any religious head coverings or sizeable religious symbols for all public employees.
Obviously, this new proposed law is stupid, racist, and if it was held up to the values of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would stand as much chance of surviving as a delicate origami crane placed inside the engine of a large jetliner.
Why is this law being proposed in the first place? Marois has defended the so-called Charter of Quebec Values as part of the unique Québécois culture of secularism.
Well, I'm so full of secularism it's coming out my ears, and that's a load of steaming horse manure.
The freedom of people in Quebec to practise their religion or culture should only end when it causes demonstrable harm to others.
Let's say that I firmly believe that I must, at all times, wear a bedazzled purple pirate hat. Is this belief backed up by centuries of religious philosophy and tradition? Nope. Is it a statement about a proud cultural heritage? Nope. Should the government be allowed to say that I can't wear my spangly purple hat? Absolutely not. The point of freedom of religion means even freedom for dummies like me to believe whatever we want.
This law is not about bringing Quebecers together and uniting people in la belle province, as Marois and her supporters have claimed. It's about staking out a tribal enclave and making it clear to those who aren't white, pure laine Francophones that they aren't welcome.
- See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/news/stodgy-old-quebec-is-no-longer-a-cool-cat-1.608837#sthash.Nu2aCWWE.dpufQuebec has turned from a cool young rebel of the 1960s, with its Quiet Revolution and radical politics, into a stodgy, aging, xenophobic old twit, shaking his cane at the kids and telling them to get off his lawn. So basically, it's doing what all the other old hippies have been doing since the 1980s." ...
Jocelyn Maclure: The state should be secular in the sense that it should be separate from religious powers so that it can treat all citizens equally and respect their freedom of conscience and religion. But the state should not support secularization or the erosion of religious beliefs and practices.
One of the basic principles of secularism is freedom of conscience and religion. So it should not be anti-religious, it should not criticise religion, it should leave it up to the people to decide. ...
Quebec is heading into another fierce debate over the future of religious freedom in the province with the Parti Québécois government set to release a Charter of Quebec Values that could ban religious headwear everywhere from daycares to hospitals.Read the linked article for more, including to links to video and more articles on this, including the reversal of Quebec's ban on turbans for soccer players.
|photo from the article, and Associated Press|
MANILA — The Philippines’ Department of Education clarified Wednesday that it is not banning its Muslim teachers from wearing head coverings.
Last week, the department unveiled a new order requesting that Muslim teachers remove their niqab, or face-covering veils, when they teach. In the July 16 order, the department asked Muslim teachers teaching Arabic Language and Islamic Values Education classes to remove any face-covering veils in the classroom. The order sparked concern that the department was ignoring the teachers’ religious rights.
Muslims’ right to cover their faces has been a controversial issue in some countries. France, which banned the public use of full-face veils in 2011, has been struggling with riots in the last week over the enforcement of the law.I personally wish this were not at the level of misunderstanding that it is. Head covering is mandated in the Quran; face covering is not. "There is no clear-cut authentic hadith to the effect of making the face veil obligatory."
June 14, 2013 -- The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) said in a statement Friday that it is temporarily authorizing the wearing of male head covers at all levels of Canadian soccer, applying a 2012 ruling that allowed specially designed hijabs for women.
The statement outlines certain rules for allowing the male headwear on the pitch.
wearing turbans to protest Quebec soccer fed's ban
“(FIFA) authorises the CSA to permit all players to wear head covers ... in all areas and on all levels of the Canadian football community,” the statement from the world body reads.
FIFA’s position comes four days after the Canadian Soccer Association suspended Quebec’s soccer federation because the provincial body banned Sikh headwear. Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/sports/soccer/FIFA+fine+with+Sikh+head+coverings/8526036/story.html#ixzz2XTYHiPy7