By Salma#MuslimGirlProbs is our weekly link roundup of headlines, stories, events, and situations that make us want to rip our hijabs off. 
Brace yourselves. Here’s this week’s roundup with a side of stupidity, racism, abuse, and ignorance. Enjoy.
Week of 3/08/15:
- Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, announces that the niqab is “rooted in a culture that is anti-women”. Another old white male whose opinion is unwelcome. [Mediaite]
- An awesome article condemning the recent NYC School Muslim holiday announcement was released on PJ Media. Not only does this article target Muslims, it targets everyone who agrees that we should have two days of the school calendar dedicated to a cultural and religious celebration. [PJ Media]
- Jason Kenney, Canadian Defense Minister and, extremely ironically, Multicultural Minister, felt compelled on International Women’s Day to tweet pictures of Muslim women covered in niqabs, being led off by chains, as an attack on ISIS. Am I the only one who’s disgusted and offended? [Ottawa Citizen]
- This article seems to challenge the idea that there can be Muslim feminism. [Al-Monitor]
- A Muslim woman sues for being asked to remove her jacket, unnecessarily and humiliatingly, at a French airport. You’d think after Charlie Hebdo people would be more inclined to freedom of expression. Guess not if it’s a Muslim expression. [Daily Sabah]
- An Australian Muslim woman is traumatized by an online, abusive international hate campaign led by (surprise, surprise!) white US supremacists. [Daily Mail]
how is removing you jacket ‘humiliating’?
Somehow a impression is created by some cultures especially in Muslims that sex is bad thing and in case of women they should be over-sensitive. So anything even remotely concerned with modesty of women where they feel kinda exposed to perceived whiff-of-air of sexual thing is termed as offensive. Thus all these charade of women’s violation of privacy, sexual exploitation.
true, they seem extremely obsessed with sexual ‘purity’. fornication is a great ‘crime’ in islam.
24:2 Sahih International
The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse – lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
I find it strange that such a devout muslim woman would even own a sleeveless shirt? I’m calling bullshit on this one. I think she did this on purpose, wore a big puffy ass jacket and a sleeveless shirt so she could make a big stink about her ‘treatment’ and sue them, and garner some attention. this is the ‘flying imans’ all over again. she wants a private room, fuck her. don’t fly if you can’t make it through security. and that goes for the Sikh men who won’t remove their turbans exposing their hair in public. if you are this backward and superstitious, best not use modern transportation.
No, the reason for Sikhs to wear turban is different. For Sikhs it’s the obligation in their religion to wear five articles of faith so as to determine their allegiance, distinct identity or even culture. However, there’s exception to that custom/tradition, there are Sikhs who don’t wear turbans, are clean-shaven. They are called “Mona” Sikhs. It’s after some religious ceremony that Sikhs are allowed to wear the five articles of faith, there’s no boundation on them to necessarily accept the tradition of wearing these articles of faith, but if they accept the allegiance to wear them after proper religious ceremony, then they have to defend their action.
yes the ‘reason’ maybe different. I don’t care what the stupidity is behind it. what the superstition (custom/tradition) is. you want to get on a plane, you have to go through security just like everyone else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338257/Indias-UN-envoy-Hardeep-Puri-detained-U-S-refusing-remove-turban.html
is one of the articles a knife? there was a ruling in Michigan that lets them bring their knives to high school.
‘defend their action’? that means what? the rest of us have to jump through whoops to accommodate them?
Yes, one of the five articles required to wear is a knife (Kripaan). But, it could be symbolic form, that is mini-symbol like ring or pendant in the neck or something like that. In earlier times, it was longer, the proper sword or dagger. Again I state that if the Sikh person have taken a vow to accept the orthodox/traditional type of religion then he would have to wear those items, he can denounce these paraphernalia if he chooses and still remain a Sikh religion follower. Regarding parity with the others, I think most of the countries in the world have accepted the dress code of the traditional Sikhs.
you seem to be missing my point. it doesn’t matter if it is all Sikhs or just the oath takers. or if he can renege on his oath. the point is society doesn’t need to make accommodations for these superstitions. I shouldn’t be inconvenienced at the airport because a crazy Sikh doesn’t want to take his turban off. just like I shouldn’t be held up by some crazy muslim woman who says her elbows can’t be exposed.
https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multani_v_Commission_scolaire_Marguerite%E2%80%91Bourgeoys
As I said earlier, there has been Court cases against the wearing of turban and other paraphernalia in various countries on various times but the Sikhs have been successful in getting the grant of having the right to wear them. If they are given permission to wear them by the respective country laws, then the case against them doesn’t stand good. It’s a matter of perception/logic whether the dress really hurting the others or hampering any sort of disruption regarding proper mental, physical or any other expectation. Regarding the dress code followed by the Sikhs, I don’t think that it is hampering anything since the objectionable part, the sword has been relegated to just been a symbolical item. However, in the case of Hijab (Niqab), I do have some reservations as there has been numerous instances of women doing things like shoplifting, hiding their identities and also not suitable at some specific work-places.
Regarding the specific instance you mentioned in wikipedia link, I think that the school has the right to impose its dress code regarding wearing of any offensive article and Sikhs should also care to not involve children into adopting the religious items. If the family cared then they could have easily avoided the situation and accepted the “Mona” Sikh norm. By that way, the kid didn’t have to wear the offensive item and the unfortunate situation couldn’t have taken place.
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. or American culture. so say the Sikhs are allowed a ‘symbolic’ knife to carry into schools or onto planes. we have high schools were the students have to go through metal detectors. if you allow a Sikh with a ‘symbolic’ blade, like a butter knife, you now have to have someone there to check it and make sure it isn’t actually sharp and deadly. or with this (the one crying about needing a private room) woman’s bitching about taking a jacket off. or head scarfed women, we need a private room. now you have to take a female TSA agent off of her duties in the security line and fine a private room. or worse, they are demanding a room be built to accommodate their stupidity.
and yes, when someone covers their face it can be for the purpose of committing a crime.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/25/nation/la-na-nn-muslim-garb-robbery-20120425
but back to the Sikhs, I don’t want to miss a plane because some jackass won’t take his hat (turban) off.
but for some reason muslims act this this isn’t a possibility. I don’t find it ‘offensive’ just inconvenient, and a pain in the ass. there is a limit to freedom of religion. your-their freedom shouldn’t impede on me. it’s that simple.
Although I’m not a Sikh, but I don’t think you understanding my point. If the Sikhs have won the Court or legislative approval of US govt. Courts and Parliament then, your case is weak. If still you have complaint then you can demand overruling of that and maybe bring to the Court that same Sikh gentleman you pointed out in the mentioned link. He’s Hardeep Singh Puri, a very brilliant and educated/seasoned diplomat likely to make you eat your words in minutes and maybe India’s top diplomat.
Regarding the point about whether something is good and sane thing or whether there’s something wrong in it. There has to be some limits, although I’m somewhat atheist/agnostic but I am not that rigid enough. There has to be some leeway in order to have cohesion and if the religious person is willing to accept the changes as demanded by the changes of time then it’s quite Ok. Sikhs have compromised, even there’s talk of replacing the nomenclature sword, with some wooden or other material replica as replacement or completely abandoning the practice of compulsorily forcing the young ones to accept the traditional way of living/accepting the traditional form of Sikhism. Mind you, if you’re too willing to impose your thoughts on others then, it could be some sort of harshness, the changes has to be gradual based on fair and cohesive logic.