Niqaab

[LayZie G.]

Aaliyah states:

So proud of ********.She made articulate arguments

more on the masked woman:

mashallah **** is an amazing speaker

and blessed added the following:

Unfortunately there are many ***** in the Somali community and you'll get the most aggravation from other Muslims rather than gaalo.

Blessed, I'm sorry that you find voicing concern for the plight of millions of Muslim women a nuisance of sort. I'm truly sorry, please accept my deepest apology on behalf of all those who work and speak tirelessly about women and issues facing women.

 

Marka kale, this exchange was bizzare and at times comical, seeing as a deranged masked woman was on the screen and I couldn't make much of her, except her eyes troubled me, she had shot eyes, very unattractive in a lady.

 

No one person in the so called "exchange", "interview" or even call it a "debate" won. Waayo, mostly the exchange was happening between the disgraced governor turned host and Mona Eltahawy.

 

 

Host Elliot Spitzer: A sexed-obsessed former attorney and disgraced governor of the great state of New York. A compulsive liar by profession, who has zero credibility on matters of moderating the so called "debate", much less hosting a show on cable news attempted to take Mona Eltahawy, a world renowed columnist to task and he failed. In addition, the so called exchange between the women was as much a sham as the host himself.

 

Mona Eltahawy, an accomplished columnist, whose writing appears on the pages of Washington-post, The guardian, New York Times just to a name a few, who delivers speeches, engages both Arab issues, and especially issues dealing with women and who enjoys a world wide recognition, from Israel to Sweden, was booked with a masked-nobody, that in itself is a failure, not by Spitzer as he is new to the television business but by his producers.

 

Going in, the masked woman , whose name I will not mention, enjoyed the warmth of her own shadow, seing as she can't see herself and by virtue of covering herself in the famous marx "drabe" characterization of the veil, she was booked along side an all-star in Mona Eltahawy.

 

Some of the shows audience were familiar with Mona. They knew her as the lecturer, researcher and were familiar with her work and understandingly so, spitzer attempted to take her to task in hopes of making the Masked woman look credible.

 

On the other hand, the masked woman, in an effort to gain recognition and some understanding, uttered the following words: " I HAVE A MASTER's degree in chemical engineering" when the so called debate was about the recent events involving the enforcement of the veil in France.

 

Mona did not speak about her lecturing engagements or mention her superb resume, that says more about Mona's character than the masked woman, who made attempts to make herself relevant on tv. with the claim that, the veil was her decision, and her decision only and if you dont believe me, just so you know, I completed graduate studies. She sounded like a broken record.

 

She sounded like she was trying to convince herself, more than attempting to articulate a point of view.

 

The masked human being did not have settling eyes, her eyes gave her away. She did not come off convincing nor did she put forward a logical argument, leaving me disappointed because I was looking forward to being challenged on this issue.

 

In sum, I would say that this "get together" was more about the rational discussion of the veil with the irrational among us, including but not limited to the masked woman.

 

I say "us" only because the masked woman had a female voice, otherwise, I would have questioned her gender as well as demanded to see her face.

 

Likewise, the masked woman appears to object the whole premise of banning the veil because she feels that its a right-wing ideology, yet she failed to to elaborate further, yet again, leaving me disappointed.

 

The masked woman claims that banning the veil is another example of "men telling women what to do" while having little or no regard for the counter claim that the veil is a form of "oppression" and the veil is used to suppress some women, which is why the opposition groups, including several countries have taken the liberty to protect the right of the person, that of a woman and subsequent bans taking place is genuinely concerned with providing women protection and platform to air their grievances, in other words, an opportunity to have their voice heard.

 

Failure for the masked woman, whose name should not be mentioned to concede the counter argument that some Muslim men are indeed forcing the "drape" on some women's throat and the numbers of those who object to this form of subordination is growing and in a way, these grassroots movements to ban the veil exists solely for the benefit of the woman was very evident throughout the show and it did not make a substantive argument. She did not acknowledge that some women are indeed forced to wear the veil, which shows that she has very little concern for personal choice, as she claimed it loudly. If she is concerned with personal choice, why doesn't she speak or acknowledge those that are robbed of the personal choice and liberty to wear what they want, when they want. The freedom to dress however they want, veil or unveiled. The option to have an education and make up their own minds about what is permissible in Islam and what is not? Why does she not acknowledge such women? She knows they exist but she choose to ignore them at the expense of her furthering her career as a blogger in this media business because her chemical engineering or whatever she studied not work out.

 

Her failure to concede the counter argument shows the flaw in her own argument that men are telling women what to do, thus, proving Mona and critics of the veil correct and giving them another ammunition against the ignorance associated with the veil and those who propagate the practice.

 

Moreover, the masked woman failed to recognize her own arrogant position, as a woman wishing to impose her own view on others while being dismissive of critics of the veil, the very same thing she accused Mona of doing in that so called "debate".

 

The masked woman fails to strengthen her position that banning the evil is wrong(perhaps she should have have attacked the constitutionality aspect of the ban, maybe she would have been versed in French so she can find holes in the government's legislation), instead, she circulates the claim that women, all Muslim women are indeed free-spirited women who can think for themselves, especially those in Saudia Arabia who Mona brought up but the masked woman dismissed rather arrogantly.

 

For this reason, I have to declare a draw between the so called degenerate former governer and Mona, as the exchange was mostly one between them and not so much about the so called masked, masters in disguise turned blogger and Mona.

 

And finally, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with Aaliyah. I adore you, you know this Aaliyah and sometimes, while I find you to be alert and insightful, as refreshing as that may seem, I have to say, this time, you are wrong about the masked one, the one whose name I will not utter in this thread.

 

 

Yours truly,

 

LayZie G.

 

 

PS: London, kindly show some restrain, especially when you are discussing women. You can and should be repulsed by the practice of the veil while at the same time attempting to have a meaningful dialogue and maybe generate a discussion about the issue of veil as it concerned not just women but society as a whole@CHE.(this is more than a wardrobe choice, its about politics, the role of religion and the infringement of personal freedom, women rights that should be a concern of yours as well as your pretty xalimo)

 

We are not trying to reject the niqabis of the world, we want them reformed. We want them denouncing the garb and embrace the universality of the human being. We want them to be secure in their bodies and at the same time, assertive in the presence of great adversity.

[Al-Miskiin]

Alle balankii waa in waxaas khuraafaadka ah laga jawaabaa! "the masked one, the one whose name I will not utter in this thread" ku te!

 

Walaasha Aaliyah baad hadalkeeda soo qaadatay, marka I'll let her answer, hadii kale walee qof kuu jawaaba waayi maysid! That kind of D level khuraafaad, meelna loogama hadhayo!

أعوذ بالله من هذا

[Aaliyyah]

First and formost we are all entitled to share our opinions. However, I am amazed that you put all this effort to write abt Heba in such a negative way. When all she said was that she had the right to wear her niqaab and no one can force her to take it off.

 

Neither Muna nor you need to speak on behalf of the niqaabis or any other women. And, decide that niqaab will hinder a woman from living her life? just like you are entitled nw to share ur opinion every woman is entitled to wear her niqaab or anything else for that matter....and there is no doubt that Heba won the debate. You also questioned why did she made that comment abt having masters? why shouldnt she? it is not abt her being arrogant but she was pointing that she had reached the highest place an educated person can reach yet she chose to cover herself. At the end of the day Heba was speaking abt herself and her entitlement to wear the niqaab. It is funny that you and Mona are on the same boat...and talking abt woman and freedom yet when it comes to niqaab woman shouldnt have the right to choose it...I am not all that surprised by Mona..shes just like ayan hersi and many others im sure she gets paid for what shes doing after all the western ppl love nothing more than a muslim woman who is conveying their ideal way life....... But, I am disappointed in you as my fellow muslim somali sister (and this is not the first time I seen you wrote such posts). It is one thing that you (layzie) dont want to wear the niqaab, many ppl that I know dnt wear niqaab including myself....... infact some of the girls i know go as far as wearing hijaab with tight a-ss jeans and what not (but there is difference between not wanting to wear niqaab and talking abt those who choose to wear niqaab in such a negative way..u went as far as saying i wont mention her name seriously layzie I am shocked)...

 

Anyhow, at the end of the day we are all free to say whatever we want. And, heba is also free to wear niqaab if she chooses to and there is nothing anyone else can do about that (and that is all her arguments boils down to I see no arrogance in her argument she said nothing but the truth)..where Mona was all day saying I THINK I feel..who gives a s-hit what she thinks she only decides what she is gonna wear (clearly she decided not to even wear hijaab let alone a niqaab and she is entitled it is her body after all)..samething applies to everyone..

 

And, your argument abt governments protecting its citizens by banning niqaab is just ridiculous. There are far more important things governments need to do than ban niqaabs..I am yet to see a niqaabi committing a crime? or is her only crime she is not integrating well in the community? give me a break! it is her choice! if she loses a job like mona was saying heba did ...why does Mona care??? at the of the day if heba decided to be a niqaabi and to not hold a job? how is that any of mona's business or anyone else?? mise dad baa shaqa ka dhiganaya we speak for women's right.....And, isnt part of women's right to wear a niqaab if she choose to?? or the phrase "women's rights" thats used way too much only includes certain rights while it excluded others....seriously there is no need for hypocricy. You are either fully for women doing what they want with their body...or Not! there no room for buts and being wishy-washy. The idea that women should be free but they shouldnt wear niqaab wa shaqo gaalo waana wax aanan ka fileen marka no need to be a hypocrite just like you are free to do whatever you want with your body every other sister is (including heba.)..

bottom line, if a sister wants to wear bikini she would, if she wants to not wear hijaab (like Mona in this video shes entitled)...or heba (who decided to go as far as wearing niqaab)...!!..theres nothing else to it..ma shaqeenaso waxaan raba xidhanaya dadka kalena way qaldanyihin say u labistaan (who asked anyone to be anyone's advocate!)..

 

And finally, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with Aaliyah. I adore you, you know this Aaliyah

lol I was not aware of that. But, thank you. Aside, from this specific topic I have nothing but good opinion of you. You come across like a smart sister!..

 

take care...good night~!

[LayZie G.]

Aaliyah states:

However, I am amazed that you put all this effort to write abt Heba in such a negative way.

My critique of the exchange in respect to the false praises afforded the masked one was to help you and blessed identify the areas in which your beloved masked one has failed to deliver, while showing you the flaw in her own position as a woman who made the decision to mask her identity. And while you may be entitled to your own view about my critique of your beloved masked one, my intentions were positive so far as to show that the exchange lacked logical reasoning with respect to the masked one.

 

and

 

just like you are entitled nw to share ur opinion every woman is entitled to wear her niqaab or anything else for that matter

this is precisely the point I made on my earlier post, which is to say that every woman is not entitled to wear her niqaab, not if she is an Arab and lives in a back alley (somewhere in the middle east) with its primitive practices. Therefore, it is our job, as females, as Muslims to take the initiative, to perhaps inspire in the case of Mona and allow her voice to reach these back alleys. Women, especially Muslim women need a voice and for you to sit there and pretend all women have the same entitlement is quite frankly dishonest.

 

The reality is that not all Muslim women have a voice, not all Muslim women want to put a veil, not all Muslim women are afforded education, which is another reason to speak out against falsehood thats spread by people like the masked one. She lives in a world that gives her opportunity to better herself, assuming that what she said on the interview is true, that said, not every woman is in the same boat, nor do women(some women) have the courage to speak out by the wrongs carried out by the men in their lives..

 

And, your argument abt governments protecting its citizens by banning niqaab is just ridiculous...

Take a moment to think about what government does on a daily basis. How does government affect your life? We are a country of laws (Canada), we obey laws, and the law protects all citizens equally. Some of the rights and freedoms you enjoy was enacted by a government body. The very pillar of our democracy is based on our Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms. We are guaranteed rights and freedoms as individuals, we have democratic values that our charter protects, we have equality rights, all of which was enforced by regulators, the very same regulators you said should focus on other things. Therefore, it is very hypocritical of you or anyone to say that government should mind their business when you are reaping the fruits of the government's labour.

 

Another example of people telling you what to do, including the private and public sector is the conduct of business and dress code. You do know that you have to follow your employer's code of conduct and personal behaviour, including but not limited to dress code policies. You, as an employee agree to adhere to the basic code of conduct of your employer, which means t hat, some of these dress codes, while protecting religious symbols in some places, does not protect the right to wear a hideous "drape" because Burka/Niqab is is not and never has been part of Islam, which means the garb needs to be banned from public places. It is only a phenomena among few religious zealots. Thus, banning the garb is exactly what rational thinking people should call for, wherever, whoever they may be.

 

Going back to this topic and the reason why you opened the discussion goes back to France and the recent veil enforcements that were put in place. Your beloved masked one did not argue the merits of the ban nor did you correct her, instead, you falsely praised her for speaking out and having courage. If she had courage and if she really wanted to make a point, she would have taken the veil off and stayed on topic, instead of bringing personal stories to the discussion.

 

To me it seems that you are not at all that familiar with Mona's work, which explains why you thought she was a bit faced out. If you had the pleasure of watching her going head to head with folks like Tariq Ramadan, you would know that Mona's passion comes out because she genuinely believes in the values that she is championing. Furthermore, the Mona you saw on T.V is the very same Mona all around, both in her writing and in her appearances.

 

Its one thing to disagree with her positions, its another to engage in betty insults by comparing her to Hirsi. Engage the issues not the people.

 

 

and lastly...

 

You are either fully for women doing what they want with their body...or Not! there no room for buts and being wishy-washy. The idea that women should be free but they shouldnt wear niqaab wa shaqo gaalo waana wax aanan ka fileen marka no need to be a hypocrite just like you are free to do whatever you want with your body every other sister is (including heba.)..

We are all for women having liberties for as long as they have reasonable limits and assurances are made that all women make decisions for themselves, starting with the initiative to outlaw this hideous garb. Culturally speaking, we live in civilized world not the Jahiliyyah era and niqab or Burqa or what have you has no place in this civilized world.

 

Yours truly and forever,

 

LayZie G.

 

 

PS: I almost forgot the person above. Unknown, hayehee, war meesha maku haysaa? Dont worry about others, speak for yourself as I'm known to entertain multiple views while sufficiently providing necessary feedback ee warka keen. Dont be shy, have your say aan ku dhahay.

[Aaliyyah]

you are arguing that women in the middle east have no voice and should be given a voice (which I fully agree islam is a religion of choice no women should be forced. She has to want to follow islam willingly)...Yet you dont believe the muslim women who live in the west should wear what they want but rather follow the laws that are implemented in the western countries by stating the below statement....

 

poted by layzie : we live in civilized world not the Jahiliyyah era and niqab or Burqa or what have you has no place in this civilized world.

 

This is a clear contradiction walaal. Do you think your arguments make sense??? Honestly speaking dib isku laabo walaal.....better yet we will just agree to disagree and end this discussion here.....

 

Engage the issues not the people.

lol I simply stated facts. She is like Ayan Hersi. Muslim women who convey western values so they can get some fame. It is really heart breaking to see muslim sisters who not just made sure to go astray but trying to enforce the wrong choices they made on others...(not only will they be responsible for their personal danbi which is ignoring to follow islam accordingly but also trying to push other ppl away from what islam teaches...I hope Layzie you understand the dangerous arguments you are trying to support ilaahay bari wuu kugula xisaabtami)..

 

And, I was not getting personal but rather u were with Heba (I wont call her by her name lol..or oh the masked one.. )..

 

Niqaabka nacebka u qabtidna mid caadi ah ma aha..you need to let it go! it is one thing to believe to help the sisters back home or in the arab world and allow them to make choice. It is another to make sure the sisters who live in the western countries should abide by the western values...waxaas wac macno samenaya ma aha...

 

Anyhow, .....Good night!!!

 

salaam

[Blessed]

Blessed, I'm sorry that you find voicing concern for the plight of millions of Muslim women a nuisance of sort. I'm truly sorry, please accept my deepest apology on behalf of all those who work and speak tirelessly about women and issues facing women.

 

You amuse me, wallahi.

[Aaliyyah]

^I pray that layzie is simply writing this for entertainment..!!...LOL

[Som@li]

I am sure there is something fundamentally wrong how girls/women are treated, and raised back home, and in many third world countries.

 

There is this Somali family, they consist of two brothers, two sisters, and two parents. The father was financially stable back in Somalia, and he made a huge investments on his two sons, they were both sent overseas , Germany, UK for higher education, Both have PhD and managed to take care of themselves, and their families. While the two girls are very poor and uneducated, one of them don't have basic literacy. :mad:

 

Whose fault is it?

 

Less than 10% of school students are girls

 

One should encourage, educate, treat kids equally the same, regardless of their gender.

[Blessed]

Aaliyah, I'd like to think that too, hon. Hadii kale gabadha dhibaata haysata.

[Prometheus]

I think a religious costume like the Niqaab is risible and ridiculous—but I would not, aesthetic considerations notwithstanding, ban it. There are interesting parallels (and distinctions) between this issue and the issue of polygamy. I’ve been trying to keep abreast with the landmark polygamy case in British Columbia, Canada. Polygamy is illegal in Canada. (It’s illegal in all developed countries, thankfully.)

 

Proponents of polygamy have argued that anti-polygamy laws constitute an infringement upon the constitutional principles and fundamental rights (religious rights) guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Trudeau, you might reckon, famously said that “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”. The government cannot intrude into the private lives of consenting adults. As a social liberal, I would have serviced the same argument in support of same-sex marriage. To be sure, it’s a powerful argument from civil libertarianism. But – as with all arguments from libertarianism—it is hopelessly naïve and unsound. The basic rights afforded by the constitution are invariably limited. Freedom of speech is not absolute (i.e. incitement of violence is illegal). Freedom of religion is not absolute (i.e. marrying a minor, say, a 9 year old, is illegal). What about grey areas that involve the Niqaab and Polygamy?

 

It should be conspicuous that cruel and exploitative practices cannot get a pass, even if such practices are rooted in religion. Historically, most pernicious and inhumane practices have enjoyed religious sanction; that some practice has a foundation in religion cannot confer legal immunity. You can’t perform female genital mutilation merely because you believe it is a tenet of your religion. Religion doesn’t give any citizen a trump card to trample on the rights of others. Religion doesn't give you the right to do anything. But I digress.

 

Back to polygamy. The intrinsically harmful effects of this ancient practise are well documented. One would have to be blinkered by piety or patriarchy to deny the social ills of such arrangements. The cultish Mormons in Bountiful, BC, however, fatuously appeal to freedom of religion as though such freedom was unlimited and unrestricted. It will be interesting to see ruling of the Supreme Court on this matter. Legal experts are betting that the anti-polygamy laws will not be struck down.

 

Is it possible to marshal a robust legal case against the Niqaab? In other words, can it be demonstrated, empirically, that the veil leads to an erosion of the rights of children and women, as is the case with polygamy? Does the government have a "compelling state interest" to ban the veil? Can the "notwithstanding clause" be utilized to effect such a curtailment of religious rights? If Layzie and others think it is possible to adduce an analogous case for the veil, and that there's no danger of a slippery slope, then I, too, would support the banning of the veil. Suffice it to say, I doubt it.

[Khayr]

Laws, legislations and policies change with the times. The yard stick for any particular law is not whether it stands up to a particular "charter of freedoms" but rather what the current social morals are. 20 years ago, gay marriage was illegal but because homosexuality has become accepted in modern societies, marriages (which was by definition a union between a man and women) were extended to homosexuals. Why? because marriage was scene as a social class and if the gay community was left out of it, then they would, by defaullt, have been discriminated against. Its all relative really. What was illegal 20 years ago e.g. prostitution, is and can be made legal today - if society is to be "progressive" and if legislators interpret legislation with that in mind. With the idea of evolving legal rulings. Hence, why polygamy won't be made legal and any arguments for it is over shadowed by the logical fallacies of Fear (fear for women, fear for children, fear and more fear). The same arguments are used against Niqaab.

[Prometheus]

^ I suppose you think there is no such thing as moral progress? Alas, the conservative mind is ever ossified. To suggest that humans have made only technological progress in the past 2000 years is flagrant fundamentalism. Obviously, you know more about science than someone who lived a thousand years ago. Do you really think that you know nothing more about ethics and morality than a bronze-age Bedouin? Has our moral knowledge, our moral imagination, not expanded one iota since the golden age when people thought camel urine a panacea? Unlike people who lived in 12th century, we no longer believe in the inherent inferiority of women—we don’t insist that a woman’s testimony is inherently inferior to the testimony of a man. Slavery is a moral stain that can never be whitewashed. Those who defend any form of slavery today—this is true of right-wing Christians and Muslims—are moral monsters. We can forgive, but not embrace, our benighted ancestors’ ethical abominations. Their moral ignorance was no less pronounced than their scientific ignorance. You wouldn’t trust a medieval doctor to perform surgery on you, so why would you trust his moral guidance? Why should a rational person pine for the moral traditions of a primitive people? Does the accumulation of knowledge mean anything to rabid conservatives?

 

I think you're conflating moral progress with moral relativism. Progress does not necessitate relativism.

[Johnny B]

Besides the meek Point of having the individual freedom in the west, Aliyah might not find neither rational nor religious reasons to pormote her wish to be Niqabi sister.

Lazy G has helped the sister vetnture à responsible idea to stay Human and not become à Hermit.

The choice as it were is yours Aliyah, and that the choice is only avaialable here in the filthy west goes without saying.

 

[Che -Guevara]

^You seemed to be obsessed with what women wear as much as the next mullah-what gives?

[Aaliyyah]

 

 

Mashallah...check this out folks.

 

salaam