Bloodthirsty Liberal

Two current essays have me thinking, and you know how messy that can get.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

The undisputed definition of Islam by all her adherents is “submission to the will of Allah.” This divine will is outlined in the Koran and in the teachings and deeds of Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith or Sunna.

…

As for the treatment of women, in the Koran and more elaborately in the Sunna, Islam assigns to girls a position in the family that requires them to be docile, makes them dependent on their male relatives for money and gives dominion over their bodies to these same male kin.

…

A woman in Islam is not competent and must always have a guardian. The responsibility of guardianship may pass from father to brother to uncle before a girl is married off, at which point she must answer to her husband. Marriage is typically arranged, with no choice given to the girl, and there is often an exchange of money in the process. Thus, under the religious rule of Islam, it is still common today that a woman’s rights are essentially sold to a man she may not know, and most likely does not love.

There is much more, all required reading, but you get the idea. An aside: why isn’t she modeling? With cheekbones like hers, the girl could definitely move jewelry, luxury cars, or furs. Just a thought.

Then there’s Daniel Pipes:

Once-exotic forms of Muslim women’s head and body garments have now become both familiar in the West and the source of fractious political and legal disputes.

The hijab (a hair-covering) is ever-more popular in Detroit but has been banned from French public schools, discouraged by the International Football Association Board, and excluded from a court in the U.S. state of Georgia.

The jilbab (a garment that leaves only the face and hands exposed) was, in a case partly argued by Tony Blair’s wife, first allowed, then forbidden in an English school.

Sultaana Freeman wanted her Florida drivers license to show her in a niqab, but an Orlando court said no.

The niqab (a total covering except for the eyes) became a hot topic when Jack Straw, a British Labour politician, wrote that he “felt uncomfortable” talking to women wearing it. If Quebec election authorities disallow the niqab from voting booths and a judge disallowed it from a Florida driver’s license, it is permitted in British courts and a Dutch candidate for municipal office wore one. A British hospital even invented a niqab patients’ gown.

The burqa (a total head and body covering) has been barred from classrooms in the UK, is illegal in public places in five Belgian towns, and the Dutch legislature has attempted to ban it altogether. Italy’s “Charter of Values, Citizenship and Immigration” calls face coverings not acceptable. A courtroom in the United States has expelled a burqa’ed woman.

In brief, no general rules govern Islamic headwear in the West.

Some observers would ban hijabs from public places, but what legal grounds exist for doing so? Following my rule of thumb that Muslims enjoy the same rights and obligations as other citizens, but not special rights or obligations, a woman’s freedom of expression grants her the option to wear a hijab.

But Pipes—with all due respect—wimps out. He suggests banning the burlap sacks on security grounds: who knows who or what’s under them? Also, without any exposure to sunlight, girls might get rickets.

Well, I suppose they might.

But that’s not the issue, as Hirsi Ali makes abundantly clear. Women in Islamic societies do not have the freedoms we allow a dog. Even those women who choose to wear the burqa have been beaten into it. Is that what we mean by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Hell, half these women (more? less?) don’t get to keep their clitorises!

Several years after high school, I ran into a girl I knew from those days. She was wearing a bright orange rain slicker, even though the weather was clear. I greated her warmly by name, but she corrected me. She was no longer [name]: she was Ma Deva [name]. She had joined the ranks of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, a cult leader whose acolytes wore orange and supported him to the tune of a fleet of Rolls Royces—until he got his ass kicked back to India by the Feds.

If [name], a smart, pretty, independent woman could be taken in by a shilling shaman, how can women raised in a culture that runs them down be expected ever to exercise self-determination? If a woman wears a burqa in Afghanistan, fine. But if she wears one in the Cambridgeside Galleria, why don’t the lefties stone her for betraying her sex? Fine, forget the stoning; try something more along traditional lefty lines like throwing a bucket of red paint on her.

If a culture called for women to be chained, would we “respect” that, too? Footbinding? Do we let Indian women throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre?

You’re in America, toots. Halter-tops, mini-skirts, and fuck-me pumps should be issued at the border.