Articles

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Why the Burkini Ban is Right

The media has found its latest civil rights cause. It’s not the plight of Christians in Muslim countries who are being blocked from coming here as refugees because Obama’s refugee policy favors Muslims. Obama brought over 2,000 Syrians here in July. Only 15 of them were Christians.

It’s not the rising fear of an Islamic terrorist attack in Jewish synagogues. I have lately witnessed unprecedented levels of security at synagogues including guards in body armor and checkpoints. Racist Muslim violence against Jewish synagogues has been a staple of Islamic terrorism for too many years.

But instead the media has highlighted the civil rights cause of the burkini.

The “Burkini”, a portmanteau of “Burka”, the all-encompassing cloth prison inflicted on women in Afghanistan by the Taliban, and “Bikini”, was banned in France along with its parent, the Burka.

While Muslims massacre innocent people in the streets to shouts of “Allahu Akbar”, the media has once again decided to ignore these horrors in favors of broadcasting some petty Muslim grievance.

Does it matter what Muslim women wear to the beach? Arguably the government should not be getting involved in swimwear. But the clothing of Muslim women is not a personal fashion choice.

Muslim women don’t wear hijabs, burkas or any other similar garb as a fashion statement or even an expression of religious piety. Their own religion tells us exactly why they wear them.

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.” (Koran 33:59)

It’s not about modesty. It’s not about religion. It’s about putting a “Do Not Rape” sign on Muslim women. And putting a “Free to Molest” sign on non-Muslim women.

This isn’t some paranoid misreading of Islamic scripture. Islamic commentaries use synonyms for “molested” such as “harmed”, “assaulted” and “attacked” because women who aren’t wearing their burkas aren’t “decent” women and can expect to be assaulted by Muslim men. These clothes designate Muslim women as “believing” women or “women of the believers”. That is to say Muslims.

One Koranic commentary is quite explicit. “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)” The Yazidi girls captured and raped by ISIS are an example of “roving slave girls” who can be assaulted by Muslim men.

Muslim women who don’t want to be mistaken for non-Muslim slave girls had better cover up. And non-Muslim women had better cover up too or they’ll be treated the way ISIS treated Yazidi women and the way that Mohammed and his gang of rapists and bandits treated any woman they came across.

That’s what the burka is. That’s what the hijab is. And that’s what the burkini is.

And this is not just some relic of the past or a horror practiced by Islamic “extremists”. It’s ubiquitous. A French survey found that 77 percent of girls wore the hijab because of threats of Islamist violence. It’s numbers like these that have led to the French ban of the burka and now of the burkini.

When clothing becomes a license to encourage harassment, then it’s no longer a private choice.

Muslim women wearing a burka, a hijab or a burkini are pointing a sign at other women. The sign tells Muslim men to harass those other women instead of them. It’s not modesty. It’s the way that Muslim women choose to function as an instrument of Muslim violence against non-Muslim women.

In the Islamic worldview, sexual violence is the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator. From the dancing boys of Afghanistan to the abused women of Egypt, the fact of the assault proves the guilt of the child or the woman who was assaulted.

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” the Grand Mufti of Australia said. “The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The Grand Mufti wasn’t discussing cats or meat. He was talking about gang rapes by fourteen Muslim men. "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred,” he said.

This is why there is a burka ban and a burkini ban. It’s why there should be a hijab ban. The existence of these garments gives license to Muslim men to target non-Muslim women. They allow Islamists to impose them as a standard by singling out women who don’t wear them. And they encourage Muslim men to carry out assaults on non-Muslim women who don’t comply with Islamic law.

That is what France has rejected. It’s what every country that respects the rights of women to be free from being “molested” by the “believers” who get their morality from Mohammed, a serial rapist and pedophile from whom no woman, including his own son’s wife, was safe, ought to reject.

The media has chosen to be deeply outraged by France’s ban of the burka and the burkini. It does not seem especially interested in the fact that Saudi Arabia forces women to wear the abaya, a covering not too different from the burka, not to mention not being allowed to drive or often leave the house. Or that Sudan’s Islamist regime arrested Christian women in front of a church for wearing pants.

It’s not that the left feels that women ought to be able to wear whatever they want in other countries. Certainly not non-Muslim women in Muslim countries. But that it believes that Muslims ought to be able to do whatever they want, whether it’s impose dress codes at home, resist dress codes abroad or even impose dress codes abroad. And the first targets of these dress codes are inevitably women.

Islam expands through violence. It imposes its standards through violence. Before the ban, the burkini, much like the burka, had already come to be associated with violent clashes. In one such incident in France, a man was shot with a harpoon. It’s not surprising that the French have grown tired of this.

The burkini ban, like the burka ban, is understandable. And yet it’s not a final answer. It limits the scope of Muslim violence against women. But it does not meaningfully contain it or end it.

It’s not the cloth itself that is the problem, but the Islamic attitudes that attach themselves to it. And the only way to stop the spread of Islamic attitudes toward women in Europe is to end Islamic migration.

The wave of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants in Germany make it quite clear that the moralistic amorality of Islam, in which women who aren’t dressed the right way are fair game, cannot coexist with the right of European women to leave the house without wearing approved Islamic garb.

Europe must choose. Australia must choose. Canada must choose. And America must choose.

Banning the burkini or the burka alone will not stop the assaults. Only ending Islamic immigration will.

25 comments:

hmmm said...

thank you so much for this Daniel. i don't always take the time to tell you, but i hope you realize how much of a difference you are making as i am able to extend your remarkably well written knowledge to others i know who still seek understanding.

Anonymous said...

An essential part of our Western culture is our empathy. When a friend invites us into his home, we show gratitude and respect for it. We conform to his lifestyle. Conversely, we expect the same from guests in our home.

This cozy arrangement fails when confronted by the savage Islamic culture. Good intentions are seen as weakness, even depravity. An uncovered woman is fair game, just as an unlocked car or front door. It is always the fault of the unwary victim.

A very valuable accomplishment of Western culture is this very empathy and civility that lets us relax among ourselves. When we neglect it, we lose it. This is a treasure; we need to defend it fiercely.

ABSJ1136

Infidel said...

Great article (haven't finished reading yet though).

I remember when Bridget Bardot scandalized the world by wearing a bikini on a French beach (she looked great, of course :)

Bizarre that we are now facing an onslaught from savages trying to force us back to the 7th century.

Anonymous said...

Finally! Someone spells it out. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

It IS about religion, as religion has an authority apart from the individual. And it is a part of the coercive means of religion to subject people as SUBJECTS to God....

Pray Hard said...

What burkini ban? Oh, the one that was almost immediately rescinded by the high court in France?

PandaBrian said...

It is CHRISTIANS that are being annihilated in Iraq/Syria, NOT Muslims. The hypocrisy of Obama is sickening.

Brian Richard Allen said...

So. The fascist-Left loves the fascist Left by another of its names, The Sun rises again in the east, the pope is still a Stalinist and We Who Are Right wax on encyclopedic about what a bunch of barstewards Leftards are.

Meanwhile, in Reality's bigger picture, islam is a metastasizing cancer in Mankind and we will cut it all out -- or it will kill us.

Brian Richard Allen

Anonymous said...

Very well-written...I live in France and I must say that it's the first time that this "burkini" issue has been explained so well. Most of the pro-Islam journalists here just point out that France has become the laughing-stock of the world because of burkini bans and they (and the public in general) will benefit greatly from this blog if it could have been made available in French.

TheOPINIONATOR said...

Ignorant Feminists like to say it is the Muslim woman or girl's choice to wear a burka. Choice? What do they think happens to the woman if she chooses not to wear a burka yet the dominant male in the family - her father, brother, uncle, etc. insists that she does? In the vast majority of cases - she will be punished severely for disobeying. Choice to not be harmed?

Anonymous said...

Another of your excellent articles, Daniel. This one has given me a different perspective on the issue. Thank you.

joc said...

There wouldn't be a problem if there was a muslim ban.

Anonymous said...

The problem surely lies with Muslim men. If they even catch a glimpse of a woman's hair, or ankle, they are consumed with frenzied lust. I recommend frequent cold showers.

Anonymous said...

If you fancy an audience with Pope Francis, they will direct you to the charity of choice (don`t take my word for it and ask George Clooney or Mac Zuckerborg) and after you do the deed, Pope Pancho, or Pan-cheeto (colloquial Spanish for Francis) will entertain you for a while depending on the amount paid. Now think of the Clinton Foundation… Life is choices: Martini or burkini, Mr. Trump, a true patriot or Hillary, a wannabe ‘popess’, on second thoughts‘ayatoleenah’ would fit better

Stacey Gordon said...

Ahhh now I get it. Ok. Makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Daniel. What you say makes total sense, but how do you ban something like this in the US? It seems to me that it would NEVER hold up in court. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and there is some precedent for something like this. - Halevi

Anonymous said...

The U.S. government is not going to protect anyone in America. It has been totally compromised since the head Muslim took office. People have to protect themselves. I consider Europe already lost or will be lost unless they all throw the Muslims out if they do not agree to the customs and laws of their adopted country. People in America are preparing for war. You won't see it in the news because of Liberal policy. It's something the Muslim aggressors will never understand. The vast scale of anger generated toward them is on a scale they could never understand. Their laws and customs will never be accepted in a free society. All who want to be free in America are armed to the teeth. Smith & Wesson sales up 40% in one quarter. That is just one gun maker. Ammo is being purchased in mind blowing numbers...by the billions. There is a rumor of war in the air. There will come a time when it will be deadly for anyone to have their torso or face completely covered in sheets a free society. The ban is right because it promotes violence.

Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis, Daniel. This is exactly what has always bothered me about hijab. It is not a matter of piety or modesty, but an effort to avoid molestation or rape. Disgusting. Any chance you could translate this article into French and post it on some prominent Francophile website? FYI, I suppose that you know that a majority of French citizens support the burka and burkini ban, right? Political correctness trumps democracy, apparently.

While we're on the subject, just why should females be held responsible for the sexual depravity of men? Here is a novel idea: Let women dress as they please. Any man who demonstrates that he cannot control his lust upon seeing exposed hair or skin, however, will be subject to immediate castration. I suspect that would solve the whole problem quite neatly. Amazing how much self-control that human beings can summon up when faced with a terrifying alternative.

Y. Ben-David said...

This is a truly enlightening perspective. At first, I thought the ban was silly because I thought the real problem was that radical Muslims control the French prisons (where most of the inmates are Muslim) and thus are able to recruit new radicals, or that the mosques in France are propaganda centers, but you are pointing out that this form of dress is a code for Muslim men that everyone woman who is NOT wearing Muslim dress, either at the beach or in the street, is a legitimate target, as the Imam in Australia said openly.

Yosef Kerman said...

This is absolutely ridiculous and virulently anti-Muslim. The Quran's purpose in mandating women's covering themselves is immaterial when it comes to the reasons modern Muslim women cover themselves. Furthermore, the Quran didn't mean to make non-Muslim women "fair game"; it just was only concerned with protecting "believing" women.
A Muslim women puts on a hijab (which covers her hair and neck) or a burka (which covers her entire face) for her own modesty, or possibly to protect herself from harassment. She doesn't wear it in order to provoke Muslim men into harassing uncovered women. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous.
The Middle Easterners who believe that harassing any women who is dressed immodestly is legitimate are already in Europe by the thousands, and there are are plenty of European women who aren't planning on changing their style of dress to conform with Muslim standards. Banning burkas, hijabs, or "burkinis" (really hijab bathing suits) will not prevent a single rape of a non-Muslim. The only thing it might do is further anger Muslims that their wives and daughters are being forced to dress like slaves or prostitutes. If anything, banning Muslim womens' dress will only lead to harassment of Muslim women on top of non-Muslims.
Once Muslim standards of dress are outlawed, what's to prevent Jewish standards of modesty from being banned also? Such a ban would never go in the US, and rightfully so.
By the way, I have no idea what you meant about Muhammad's own son's wife not being safe from him. Muhammad only had one son who died in infancy.

Yosef Kerman said...

Correction- Muhammad had at least three sons, but they all died in childhood.

Daniel Greenfield said...

Muslim dress codes are routinely enforced with violence. Removing the codes, removes much of the impetus for the violence associated with them.

By designating women who may not be harassed and women who may be, Islam and its dress codes incite violence against non-Muslim women.

This incitement to violence must end.

So must the Muslim perception that a woman dressed in a certain way is a legitimate target. If Muslims want to retain their dress codes, they must see to it that such violence ends.

Mohammed lusted for his adopted son's wife. So he manufactured a message from Allah allowing him to marry her.

He truly was a depraved man.

Anonymous said...

Well said Daniel. For those of you interested in a Torah perspective on current events from a respected rabbi, go to Rabbi Mendel Kessin's Youtube channel: Torahthinking

- Halevi

Anonymous said...

@ Yosef Kerman your own depravity is showing when you imply that a women not wearing a burka/hijab or burkini are dressed like "slaves or prostitute." Furthermore, you display a tremendous cowardice and ignorance in arguing that we should avoid angering Muslims so they don't attack/harass Muslim and non-Muslim women. Are you unaware of "honor killings," stoning, flogging and mutilations of young Muslim women that is happening in Europe and even here in the USA? Don't be a coward, Yosef, and instead be prepared to defend your women, or shut-up and get out of the way.
Hilda Naranjo

Peter Hyatt said...

This is an article I continue to share with others. So few of us understand the purpose of the coverings of women in this supremacist criminal ideology. We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Greenfield for the clarity of this article.

I continue to see how Muslims are the first victims of the brutal dictatorial system of Islam.

Peter Hyatt

Post a Comment