News Opinions

Regardless of size, the Islamic veil is an insult to freedom

Regardless of size , the Islamic veil is an insult to freedom. In fact, Islam is totalitarian in its nature. It wants to fully control the public space .

It is sufficient to analyze the veil. When you think for two minutes – think about the message the covered women send us! The proudly covered women dream of a world where all women are covered. Imagine what this means!

In what state would the world be? It would have been easy if all the women were covered !! This would mean that the world would be completely ruled by the islam religion, where public spaces, any place and at any time, are religion, because in this world the work would be subject to religion, art must be subject to religion, the sculpture will be subject to religion, painting will be subject to religion, opera, ballet dancer would be subject to religion, sports would be subject to religion, recreation would be subject to religion, the toys would be subject to religion, fashion would be subject to religion, movie, tv advertising would be subject to religion .Hair would be subject to religion . In short, the veil is the visible sign that religion has control over all areas of society, no area escapes religion, nothing is independent of religion.That is the message of the veiled women!

This message is total, completely uncompromising . Islam must control everything, nothing should escape it! Not even Barbie dolls and Pokemon! It’s scary, but it’s the substance of the message.

Consider a few examples to illustrate; If all women were covered, that would mean that:
-In this world, religion will control sexual relations
-In this world it is forbidden to kiss his wife on the street.
-In this world it would be forbidden to hold his wife’s hands.
-In this world, flirting with a woman in a public space is forbidden.
-In this world it is forbidden to embrace his wife publicly.
-In this world, sex education would be prohibited.
-In this world, a woman is forbidden to show her hair publicly.
-In this world, a male hairdresser does not have the right to cut the woman’s hair.
-In this world, a male doctor is not allowed to see his female patient naked.

A world where religion would control the entire entertainment.
-A world without a dance club. A world without alcohol serving.
-A world without a nightclub.
-A world without mixed-sex sports teams.
-A world without a swimming club for both sexes.
-A world where the shops will be governed by religion.
-A world without swimming on the beach.
-A world without sunbathing on the beach in summer.
-A world where women have difficulty putting earphones in their ears for music players and cell phones, as a stethoscope for female doctors.
-A world that pops for the girls is covered.
-A world where video games are censored by religion.

A world where religion would completely control art.

-A world where ancient statues are to be removed from museums and destroyed, ending with Hermes (nude), Kouros, Venus (nude), apollon (nude) .

-A world where you never see undressed statues in fountains, in parks, in the streets and in gardens. Finished with the three graces, away with the Apollo Belvedere, away with Artemis… think of a little Frogner park without Gustav Vigeland! There would be no pictures of naked women or men in museums .
-A world of great masters in painting or sculpture: Donatello, Botticelli, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Velasquez, Rembrandt, Delacroix, Ingres, Monet Manet, Rodin, Dali, Cezanne . would be hidden or destroyed.
-A world where all women are covered in advertising images.
-A world where all women are covered in all movies.
-A world where movies that do not show veiled women would be banned. A world where advertising for shampoo and hair color products does not show pictures of women .
-A world where singers are covered. A world where sport is controlled by religion. No more women in swimming, water polo, synchronized swimming, no diving event, no gym, no running, no long jump, height.
It is the message of the veiled women who want a world where religion governs everything!
Now you will say; but you exaggerate! Unfortunately not! For this world exists already! Look at Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.–


  • To the attention of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
    Madam Prime Minister,

    It is with great sadness that we learnt of the tragedy that struck your Country resulting in the slaying of fifty New Zealand Muslims in the two mosques in Christchurch. A heinous crime that horrified the whole World. This dramatic ordeal that you share with your fellow citizens will take time and courage to overcome and start the healing process.

    But no tragedy can justify ignoring universal values of equality and freedom. As citizens of Canada of Muslim faith and /or culture, we find it crucial to inform you of the disastrous fallout of the pseudo-religious parody that you exhibited along with women in your Country, no doubt because of ignorance, and as a sign of solidarity, wearing an Islamist and not a Muslim veil. This veil symbolises the de-facto inferioritization of women. In its most degrading form, it serves as a banner for Islamist Groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram and Chebab who kidnap, rape, murder and unscrupulously imprison women in the countries where they rule. Doing so, New Zealanders seem to be unconscious about an extreme Religious Right which instrumentalises women in advancing a totalitarian political agenda.

    What about Solidarity with Muslim women who are struggling to free themselves from the oppression of the veil? How, in a country as egalitarian as New Zealand, can one choose to express compassion by wearing a symbol of women’s marginalization and sexual segregation? The most degrading is that this initiative emanates from women, who wear the veil symbolically for a few hours but who, in so doing, help to normalize misogynistic practices of which women are victim all their life.

    Let’s recall some facts. The Islamic veil is not a requirement in the book of Islam, the Quran. It was imposed in Iran after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and spread in the Arab countries towards the end of the 1980s with the rise of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood organisation, Saudi Wahhabosalafism, and large financing by the petrodollars of the Saudi Monarchy and Gulf countries. The Islamic or Islamist Veil is associated with political Islam, and represents its means of proselytizing and its the most effective Territorial Marker.

    There is no need to discuss the abuses committed by the various Islamist factions around the world, to impose their vision of an Islam full of hate and ressentment. Algerian women who have experienced the atrocities of a war waged by Islamists against civilians, many of whom were murdered because they refused to wear veils, are now marching in the streets of Algeria for demanding Democratic rule in their country, but also Equal Rights, Emancipation of women and the repeal of the Code de la famille, a set of social rules inspired by Sharia law.

    How do you reconcile that while Iran lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh is sentenced to 38 years in prison and 148 whip lashes for defending women who refuse to wear a veil, New Zealanders participate in normalizing the Islamic veil as symbol of Islam?

    Madam Prime Minister, we appeal to your sense of responsibility to stop trivializing the veiling of women and girls. As our compatriot Tarek Fatah says, compassion with the fallen Muslims in Christchurch is an absolute duty, whether they are men or women, wearing a veil or not. Consenting to become a living bilboard for this symbol of political Islam is an unconsciousness towards the Islamic agenda.

    It is by focusing on Universal Values of freedom and equality, beyond our religious differences and our philosophical convictions, that we can build solidarity between humans.

    The Quebec Association of North Africans for Secularism (AQNAL)

    Mohand Abdelli, retired engineer
    Nora Abdelli, chemical engineer
    Radhia Ben Amor, associative activist
    Djemila Benhabib, political scientist and writer
    Leila Bensalem, high school professor
    Nawal Bouchareb, school organization technician at the CSDM
    Fares Chargui, doctor of medicine, resident in Psychiatry
    Ferid Chikhi, employment Consultant
    Yasmina Chouakri, Consultant
    Nadia El Mabrouk, professor at the Université de Montréal
    Hassiba Idir, manager
    Nacer Irid, engineer
    Hassan Jamali, retired professor
    Ali Kaidi, activist for secularism
    Karim Lassel, organizational analyst
    Leila Lesbet, special education technician
    Nacera Zergane, financial advisor

  • The awful imposture of the hijab

    The explosion of oriental outfits in Western Berber land is one of the most noticed phenomena of recent years. Female accoutrements called “Islamic” abound. Why such a death craze, and what to do against? Response elements.

    Hassan Al Banna is said to have said: “the veil will mark our women as iron marks our cows”. Very fine comparison of the pope of political Islam, as always.

    The fact remains that his metaphor does not fish: the Islamic veil is an outfit that does not fail to attract the eye of the layman. Its extraordinary development over the last 50 years has made it an essential visual element of any land populated mainly by Mohammedans, from Jakarta to Marrakech.

    It is necessary to insist on the perfectly modern aspect of the veil called “hijab”; the latter should in no way be confused with the traditional headscarf worn by our old grandmothers.

    In its various variants, we find the scarf indifferently in Greece, Sicily, or enocre in Brittany. Peasant headdress par excellence, its port indicates, from Iran to Argentina, Berber villages in the Balkan valleys, the harshness of active life under a blazing sun. Is it really useful to point out that this traditional prop, fallen largely into disuse under the blows of urbanization and modernization, had no religious or spiritual aspect? It is found (or not) in a customary way, among Catholics, Orthodox, or Muslims.

    Let’s insist on the radical difference of symbolism with the so-called “Islamic” scarf. The latter is the anti-tradition par excellence: contemporary clothing, conceived in a thoughtful way, its value was from the beginning ideological.

    If it is admitted that there existed in the past, in various places of the Muslim world, very heterogeneous and disparate women’s traditions of veiling, these latter have an obvious cultural aspect, being only by their pre-Islamic character.

    The veil was never a unanimous rule in the Muslim world: thus the women of Jeddah, less than 90 km from Mecca, wore no veil at the beginning of the 20th century.

    The great victory of the Islamists is not so much the proliferation of the hijab (although the latter is considerable!), But of having managed to associate decisively hijab and Muslim religion.

    This association, largely rejected by non-Islamists two decades ago, seems today accepted by all. Including non-Muslims, which is not without posing a series of societal problems to the nations of continental Europe, where respect for “religious” freedom is a cardinal value.

    A criticism of the hijab is now akin to a criticism of the Muslim religion. From there, every believing Muslim is sooner or later led to adhere to the practice of buckling.

    So remember a fundamental fact: the veil is not an Islamic principle! No mention of the hijab technique exists in the Holy Quran. The latter is content to invite Muslim women to cover their breasts, as well as to dress with “modesty”.

    It seems difficult to conclude on the basis of such prescriptions, to a garment covering the whole body with the exception of the hands, feet and face, as it is mentioned in the doctrine Brothers-Moslems (Salafism broadening even the ” modesty “in Zorro’s mask). Just as it seems difficult to perceive the notion of “modesty” in some veiled women, whose outfits, “sexy” according to the contemporary term, leave the least to be desired in terms of renunciation of sensory pleasure.

    No, the hijab is not an Islamic principle, nor is it a tool of modesty. Its symbolism is that of a reification of woman: the purpose of the veiling is to subtract feminine beauty from the libidinous gaze of men. To the woman-object saw the animal-man. Here we are offered a beautiful perception of humanity.

    But why so fiercely fanatics around this piece of cloth? No doubt because it best represents their project of Islamization of modernity (in the absence of modernization of Islam). Thus Arab women, traditionally reclusive in their family homes, they access massively to a public space traditionally reserved for men, on pain however to submit to a dress code reminding their inferiority.
    The recent controversy over “Islamic” beachwear, called “burkini”, is a reminder of this antiphon: the practice of beach or pool swimming is a cultural behavior that appeared in western civilization towards the end of the 19th century, and which is not vital. Anyone can of course do without religion or any other reason. On the other hand, people wishing to indulge in it, are obliged to respect the cultural codes. Not to do so, it is to appear to the civilization initiating this leisure as a culturally diminished person, what the ancient called a “barbarian”.

    No doubt the perception that we have many spectators at the sight of the members of the Egyptian women’s selection of Beach Volley, the last Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro (who presented in hijab and long overall). This is the difference between the modern and ancient Olympic games; these were forbidden to the barbarians.

    Faced with this state of affairs both local and global, what to do? There is not a multitude of solutions: we must oppose firmly, and this in the name of our Berber civilization, which ignores the spirituality-spectacle, the veil of our women. Because if the non-Islam of the hijab can (and must) be the central argument of its rejection in the European countries, it is inadequate in a country like Kabylie, where Muslims represent a significant part of the population: it would displace the debate towards a religious sphere, which would already be a victory for Islamism, because implicitly validating the theocratic principle. Let’s cut the grass under the feet of political Islam by starting from the premise that there is no room for the Muslim-Muslim civilizational project in Kabyle land. The hijab and its symbolism are not part of our sartorial heritage, our ethno-national ideology, or the human landscapes of our land. It should remain so.

    It prevents. The immense success of the veiling through the Muslim populations of the world, symbol of the ideological victory of the Islamist camp, must lead us to question our strategy in the battle of contemporary ideas, undoubtedly one of the most decisive of our millennial history.

    Γilas Rabia

Leave a Comment