Why the Burkini Ban is Right, by Daniel Greenfield from the Sultan Knish blog

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.

16 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
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Why the Burkini Ban is Right, by Daniel Greenfield from the Sultan Knish blog

  1. θ says:

    “Article says: 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.”

    Is the author of the article above a Jew from Benjamin or Ephraim? If so, it is too ironic. The disgusting nonsense of the article must have a notorious evil “Free to molest” mindset of Jabeshgilead of the Bible (Judge 21:12-23) wherewith the poor Ephraimite women of Shiloh can be anytime kidnapped, snatched, and forced into marriage (that is, marital rape) by the men of Benjaminites, due to a shortage of the Benjaminite women after a long and exhausting civil war of Gilead between the tribe of Benjamin and other Jewish 11 tribes.

    Also the hateful article is an evident proof that the main purpose of Islamophobia is to dehumanise Moslems, especially Arabs, and to proudly lie on Islam by any means.

    In fact, Qur’an in Q.9, v.6 9:6 commands us, every Moslems to give a goodwill help for the heathen civilians, either males or females (Arabic: Mushrikin) – wherever we find them – to maintain their freedom of movement by accompanying, even escorting, guarding, protecting the rights and properties of those civilians until they proceed to other safe places.

    Q.9, v.6 doesn’t differentiate whether those heathen civilians are males, or females, or our Moslem’s allies, or just the strangers, but as long as they are polite and friendly they are safe under protection of Islamic freedom.

    In the Bible, whether the poor women of Shiloh (a region for the tribe of Ephraim) wear veils or not, still they are legitimate target or victims of kidnapping, snatching, and marital rape (forced marriage) of the Jewish sex maniacs and womanisers from Benjamin tribe.
    Jud 21
    12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.22 And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.23 And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities, and dwelt in them.

  2. θ says:

    Wicked mentality in the story of molestation in Jabeshgilead (kidnapping the women of Shiloh):
    (i) The molestation is related to dance.
    (ii) Women as the victims of abuse are to blame.
    (iii) Family has to agree giving up their women to the abusers or molesters.
    (iv) Shiloh women are treated like a dirt or property or toys of men.

  3. madmanna says:

    Daughters of Shiloh, Judges 21:20-21

    il-giva
    -After the Israelites heard the Levite’s story (about chopping up his dead concubine and sending her body parts to each tribe of Israel) they vowed not to “give” in marriage, their daughters to the Benjamites.

    Unfortunately, the Israelites had just finished killing all the Benjamite women (non-virgin) and children in Jabeshgilead, (Judges 20:48) whilst bringing back 400 virgin women to give to the Benjamites.

    But they were still 200 short. There were 600 Benjamite men that survived the war with the Israelites. (Judges 20:47)

    Ironically, the men of Benjamin were told to set an ambush by hiding in the vineyard, for the virgin girls, who were dancing at the tabernacle festival of Shiloh, in a women only event. These are young girls from all over the country and from every tribe of Israel.

    This was the same method used by the Israelites against the Benjamites at Gibeah (Judges 20:37).

    The plan worked flawlessly, and each man obtained his wife (200 only).

    Then the men of Benjamin went back to their own land with their new wives.

    Though the Benjaminite tribe was reduced to a small number, The other tribes were only interested in providing each Benjaminite man with one wife, not with any more, under the pretense of multiplying them faster.

    Thus, the elders undertook to reconcile the families to the forced abduction of their daughters. And the expression of their public sanction to this deed of violence meant that the girls had large estate since all the land of Benjamin was now divided between only 600 families.

    Background Reading:

    Daughters of Shiloh

    19 So they concluded, “Look, there’s a festival to the LORD every year in Shiloh on the north side of Bethel, south of Lebonah and on the east side of the highway that runs from Bethel to Shechem…” 20 So they told the descendants of Benjamin, “Go and hide in the vineyards. 21 Watch when the unmarried women from Shiloh come out to participate in the dances. Then come out of the vineyards and each of you grab a wife from the unmarried women from Shiloh. Then go back home to the territory of Benjamin.
    Judges 21:20-21

  4. madmanna says:

    The unusual situation demanded an unorthodox solution. The 200 warriors of benjamin left over needed wives to ensure the future of the tribe and we assume the dancing virgins also had a natural desire to get married.

    Why is it necessarily abusing and molesting? The young men were all warriors who had survived the battle and the natural thing for them would be to get married.

    We assume that the dancing virgins were of marriagable age. They were not six year olds playing with dolls.

  5. madmanna says:

    “Q.9, v.6 doesn’t differentiate whether those heathen civilians are males, or females, or our Moslem’s allies, or just the strangers, but as long as they are polite and friendly they are safe under protection of Islamic freedom.”

    That won’t help him/her. The Caliph can decide to kill, enslave, hold to ransom or set free. Set free is a bad financial transaction. The chances look slim.

  6. madmanna says:

    [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
    [9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

    To slay or not to slay that is the question?

    Of course all the pagans carried with them a filled out form of application for asylum on the battlefield. Just in case a Muslim raised up his sword to kill him he would quickly reach in his pocket and show him his application for asylum. Thereupon the Muslim would take him to his leader, read him a few verses from the Koran and escort him back safely behind enemy lines. Christmas in no-mans land cannot compete with this.

    The Koran is self contradictory so it cannot be the words of God.

  7. θ says:

    “madmanna says: That won’t help him/her. The Caliph can decide to kill, enslave, hold to ransom or set free. Set free is a bad financial transaction. The chances look slim.”

    Where in Q.9, v.6 and other verses do you read that a caliph can play with his life by pretending to be a new Prophet or new God?

    “madmanna says: To slay or not to slay that is the question? Of course all the pagans carried with them a filled out form of application for asylum on the battlefield. Just in case a Muslim raised up his sword to kill him he would quickly reach in his pocket and show him his application for asylum. Thereupon the Muslim would take him to his leader, read him a few verses from the Koran and escort him back safely behind enemy lines. Christmas in no-mans land cannot compete with this.”

    Slay? What slaying? Are you illiterate, Madmanna? Can’t you read the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th options of Q.9, v.5 that those Arabians and Moslems (i.e. the only people who are known to respect four Arabian Sacred Months) can be spared alive by Moslems – wherever we find them – by just arresting, spying and monitoring every move they make secretly?

    As far as I know, neither Jews nor Christians nor other traditions have four Sacred Mounts to observe. Is KJV-onlyist having four sacred months? If not, they are excluded from getting the object of Islamic warfare in Q.9, v.5.

  8. θ says:

    “madmanna says: Why is it necessarily abusing and molesting? The young men were all warriors who had survived the battle and the natural thing for them would be to get married. We assume that the dancing virgins were of marriagable age. They were not six year olds playing with dolls.”

    It is quite shocking that Christians could approve girl’s kidnapping and forced marriage by the victims of a civil war. There is no excuse to let the victims of civil war to victimise the girls with molestation.
    Virgin abduction, kidnapping or snatching is a great crime of abusing the person’s freedom.
    If you don’t know the action is a crime, you can read:
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction

    Moreover, the Shiloh’s girls referred by Judges 21:22 are still underage children because it is said that they are under the parent’s responsibility.
    Judge 21:22
    And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.

    Hadith on the dancing children.
    Hadiths mention the underage virgins of Arabs used to entertain a household with decent amusement such as dancing, on the holiday with the purpose of payment or just as free entertainment. It is allowed restrictively under decency, hence it is not for sin of personal cultism, pride, and lust.
    Abi Dawud, Book 42, Hadith 4904
    Al-Ruhayyi’, daughter of Mu’awwidh b. ‘Afra’, said : Some little girls of ours began to play the tambourine and eulogise those of my ancestors who were killed in the battle of Badr, and then one of them said: And among us is a Prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow. He said : Stop this and say what you were saying.
    Abi Dawud, Book 21, Hadith 3306
    Narrated ‘Amr b. Suh’aib: On his father’s authority, said that his grandfather said: A woman came to the Prophet and said: Messenger of Allah, I have taken a vow to play the tambourine over you.
    He said: Fulfil your vow.
    Adab Al-Mufrad, Book 55, Hadith 1298
    Abu ‘Uqba said, I once walked along the road with Ibn ‘Umar. I passed some Abyssinian lads who were playing and he brought out two dirhams which he gave to them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s