City
Is the Hijab a Symbol of Oppression?
A Mississauga teen died at the hands of her father yesterday after refusing to wear a hijab, the Islamic head scarf some Muslim women wear.
Aqsa Parvez,16, led a double life, preferring to assimilate with Western culture and dress while attending Applewood Heights Secondary School, where she was a grade 11 student. Parvez had been staying with a friend for the past week because of tensions at home. When she went home on Monday to collect her belongings, her dad's disapproval turned violent.
Her father, 57-year-old taxi driver Muhammad Parvez, allegedly called police and claimed to have killed his daughter. He has been charged with attempted murder. Aqsa's brother, 26-year-old Waqas Parvez, has also been charged with obstructing police.
Perhaps in other countries the noncompliance of the rigid rules of Islamic dress is viewed as shaming their family.
But here in Canada, where freedom of thought and dress is prevalent, many young Muslim women are in a difficult spot, trying to balance their family's beliefs with the prevalent culture of their schoolmates.
"The real shame is that a young woman had to die for not wearing a hijab," says Farzana Wahidy, 23, an international student from Kabul, Afghanistan. Wahidy doesn't wear a hijab when in Canada because she's not forced to wear one here, she says.
More on cultural intolerance and (some photos of) Afgani women below the jump....
"The way people think about wearing a hijab is viewed more in terms of culturally than religiously in my country," says Wahidy, who is currently studying photojournalism at Loyalist College in Belleville, Ont. "For sure, they'd kill me if I didn't wear a hijab in Afghanistan. You cannot go out without one.
"People will follow you, shout at you and even stone you if you tried to walk down the street without a hijab. Because of the culture, because of their husbands, because of their fathers. They're forced to wear them."
How are we, as a society that encourages cultural diversity and inclusion, going to grow if we cannot tolerate differences in belief? In situations where there is an obviously elevated conflict between parents and teens, what more could be done to alleviate some of this conflict?
While the details of the Parvez case continue to unfold, it is saddening to hear how few options young women in her situation may have.
Wahidy says that teenagers here in Canada should be more aware of their rights and options in our society. "Perhaps she could have asked for help by going to the police or any agency that would help her find a solution," says Wahidy.
Teenagers are always rebelling. But when it happens to include religious or ethnic implications, it sends some people overboard. There's a fine line between disapproval and intolerance.
Two years ago, Rajinder Atwal crossed that line. Atwal was convicted of killing his 17-year old daughter for pursuing an interracial relationship.
Should we, like one blogger suggested, as reported in this article boycott taxicabs driven by Muslims? Should we be calling on the Muslim community to ban mandatory wearing of hijabs outright in this city?
How should young Muslim women reconcile their desires to fit in with our society while appeasing their parents' religious upbringing? This isn't about just any one religion. At its core, this is an issue about acceptance and tolerance. Something we can all learn from.
We have a long way to go before we all realize that what's in your head is more important than what is on your head.
Photos of Afgani women by Farzana Wahidy.
Discussion
137 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Please logically explain to me what direct relationship this murder bears to Afghanistan?
You do realize what you've done here - you've made the step from a horrible murder in Toronto to women's rights in Afghanistan and hence to militarized conflict against extremism.
These things are not part of some common global phenomenon. Can't we see try to separate this from all of the talk that's flown around about in recent years about Islam and extremism?
Last I checked, it wasn't mandatory for women to wear head scarves in Toronto. (The Muslim community doesn't make any laws here.) More so, the implication that the Muslim community is one homogeneous entity is a bit ignorant. It's not like there is a Muslim "archbishop" for Toronto. How exactly would the Muslim community ban anything? This is a muddled article.
Muhammad Parvez is going to go to jail for killing his daughter. This is tragic irrespective of any oppression taking place anywhere else in the world.
And as for the phrase in the article itself about how this is "not about any one religion"... um, yest it is about one particular religion. Guess which one.
We don't tolerate religions that, for instance, require human sacrifice, do we? So why are we so tolerant towards a religion that has opression of women as one of its fundamentals? If accepting such a religion and the resulting opression was a purely voluntary step, then I wouldn't have anything against it, but as it stands right now, in many countries - including Canada, as we now see - a woman may end up abused and even dead just because she does not want to follow all religious practices her father wants her to follow. Moreover, it's not just her father's whim - Islam basically encourages - if not orders - men to control "their" women (including daughters), so it automatically implies that they have no choice - and even if so called "Islam scholars" will argue that it is not the case, most male Islam followers seem to believe that anyway, which is what really matters. That's something that impinges on basic human rights. I wish Islam just did not exist in the world, but not only does it exist, it is, unfortunately, spreading like an epidemic. Not PC, I know. Too bad.
True, I used images of Afgani women. But, as kari noted, it's contextually linked to the interview subject, who also took those photographs.
Women's rights in Afghanistan bears relevance to this article because women in families from Afghanistan (and other Muslim) countries come to Canada and some face these very real conflicts.
By posing the question whether we should call on the Muslim community to ban mandatory wearing of hijabs here, I intended to open up a discussion on the relevance of its place in our society here.
What an ignorant piece.
Why don't you go to your white trash trailer parks and see how common domestic violence is there? It's not uncommon to find women getting beaten by the drunken husbands in their trailer parks.
Am I to say Canada or America even is intolerant to women because of those trailer parks?
Get out of here. Even sports stars are arrested for beating their girlfriends, but hey, people like yourself only select incidents that suit your agenda and discard it when it doesn't.
I think it is incorrect to characterize this as a 'Muslim' problem: the wearing of the hijab is not a religious, but more a cultural practice.
Religion was just this father's way of justifying his personal thoughts on the manifestation of his culture, and not the root cause of this problem. Framing this as a problem of <i>Islam versus the West</i> will actually do the debate and discussion more harm than good.
What needs to be addressed, instead, is the growing cultural divide between immigrant parents and Canadian-raised children. Characterizing this as a 'Muslim' problem is completely off the mark.
And guess what faith was of Atwal, Muslim? Nope, Sikh.
Are you morons going to call for the banning of Sikhism as well? Idiots.
I agree that it is about culture, not religion per se. However, it is about a religious-based culture. The Quaran itself is not really to blame - the Bible, for instance, has a lot of horrific stuff in it. However, the Western Christianity-based culture has changed its ways to step away from literal interpretations of the Bible (well, more or less - there are still Christians out there who still believe in killing gays, but far fewer than Muslims who believe in stoning women for "shaming the family").
"The growing culturul divide" is indeed the root of this all, as Sameer notices; however, with most non-Islamic cultures growing cultural divides are less likely to result in murdering family members, just because most of them do not have this concept of "honour killings". Islamic culture does. Not saying that all Muslims subscribe to it, not by any stretch, but the concept is there, and is more likely to lead violent people to actually commit violent acts, because they can find a justification of such violence in their culture.
Maybe because it's not in their culture to do such things, perhaps?!
If you want to look at the problem, it is cultural norms. Too bad Canada doesn't have a death sentence or I would be calling for his death.
Furthermore, it's quite comical how Canadians think Muslims haven't done enough to condemn terrorism, yet did they ask the same thing to Sikhs over Air India Flight 182? Or French-Canadians over the FLQ? I doubt it.
Maybe because it's not in their culture to do such things, perhaps?![/i]
I was a teenager in an extremely diverse Toronto neighbouhood, and found that basically all my girl friends who were Muslim, no matter where they came from, had to follow the orders of the father, and lived in male-dominated families. Muslim is a culture of male dominance, there is just no way of denying that. This philosophy is not exclusing to Islam - in fact, until fairly recently it was a pretty universal philosophy - but at this point in history most Islamic cultures are more oppressive of women than most other cultures (even though most other cultures still remain male-dominated, just to a lesser degree).
However, it is also true that some Muslim-based cultures are far less oppressive than some others. And I can easily imagine an Islamic culture that has stepped away from the oppression to the same degree as the Western Christian-based culture did - or even more (of course that would require basically ignoring a lot of the Quaran, but that's all right - all but the most radical Christians today ignore a lot of the Bible). I just hasn't observed such a culture in real life, that's all.
Even if a little difficult to see, in some pictures...
If Islam is leading to the abuse of women, we should recognise this, not bury our hands in the sand. We shouldn't start from the assumption that Islam is perfect and can do no evil, as some people would have it. We should think whether Islam is really offering more good or more bad to Canada. If Islam is disproportionately resulting in the murder of teenage girls, than that's a fault of Islam that should be weighed. Just because your interpretation of Islam is not resulting in domestic violence doesn't mean other interpretations aren't. All those interpretations should be considered, not just the ones most convenient to protect the idea that Islam is inherently a "religion of peace."
And there are places in Ontario where wearing the hijab is mandatory. For example, at Islamic schools. An ISNA school lists the requirement for wearing the hijab right here http://isnahigh.org/handbook/information.htm#UNIFORM%20POLICY . What if Aqsa Parvez was sent to that school by her father? She would have been forced by law to wear the hijab then, because minors legally have to go to school, and it's the parents who get to decide which school.
woah, this just in - teenagers generally are expected to follow the orders of their fathers no mater where they come from! Its called parenting.
A burqa is a blue-coloured all-covering garb. A hijab reveals the face but covers the head: http://www.thehijabshop.com/press/images/THS_IKEA-HIJAB_01.jpg
I was going to lead with the second photo, because it depicts schoolgirls in Afghanistan. It was a last-minute decision to use the vertical photo, which admittedly doesn't go with the headline I used. Mea culpa.
Still, I believe the images as a group show a lot that the story itself cannot illustrate. And they, as a whole, work in conjunction with the quotes from Farzana Wahidy, who took them herself while living in Afghanistan.
What we have here are people ASSUMING the intent, cause and significance from this incident. I'm not bashing the discussion (if it's healthy then it can't be bad), but moreso the total lack of credibility and research that goes into making some of the broad strokes that the article and some of the readers have liberally applied here.
Do we really know for sure if it was just the daughter's refusal to wear the hijab that led to her death? Is anything as profound and devestating as a loss of life simple enough to be pegged into such a simple, convenient hole as a headwear? That of rash aggression and severed, cultural disconnect? How do we know for certain if it wasn't a culmination of a wide host of problems & tensions? In all of your family disputes, do you really think your stubbornness in not wearing your pants higher led to all the animosity in the house?
There's a lot that is still left to be explained here. And until we know the story, some semblance of it at least, then I think it would be most prudent that we let off from trying to dissect what we obviously have no clue of.
Focusing on symbols of tyranny -- which only gain meaning through others' interpretation -- is not nearly as useful as trying to eradicate the practises behind them.
To me, this appears like a pot just waiting to boil over.
A murder occurs in Toronto and the headlining photos are about Afghanistan the place we're, as I'm sure you know, fighting a war against extremism. So it's an immediate association; it doesn't matter if you don't mention it or not.
Murders like this have the potential for incredible demagoguery and divisiveness. Frankly, and your dismissal of the point about posting the photo of the burqa indicates this, I don't think you've really considered the role the media plays in that.
The first picture is of a burqa. What that says is: Afghanistan's problems are Canada's problems. That is not a reasonable or accurate depiction.
You don't get it still, do you? Even if you quote her friends, those are still people who are at best, speaking on what they perceived to be the cause and result. A lot closer than all of the posters here, but still assumption nevertheless.
Here: you have an extrapolation that not only crosses boundaries, you seeking out an Afghani student to speak about women's oppression in Islam, but also one that lacks substance and diligence. Particularly when the case is still not fully verified.
And then you entertain thoughts of boycotting cabs driven by Muslims? At what point does it stop becoming a speculation piece into a fully inflated hate rhetoric?
I don't need to (re)read an article to know that it's badly written and misinformed.
I quoted an Afghani student living in Canada as a lead-in to a discussion about wearing religious head scarves. This is a real issue in our society, regardless of whether it was the sole cause (or final straw) of the horribly unfortunate death of one young woman.
In case you missed it, I'm calling for is acceptance and tolerance. And better communication in families of cultures that have differing opinions on cultural propriety.
In case you missed it, *what* I'm calling for is acceptance and tolerance.
I wouldn't take everyone here too seriously. Look at what is being said by them. They're saying you shouldn't make an article while working from the assumption that she was killed for not wearing the hijab. There is enough evidence that is why she was killed. Her friend said she did indeed feared for her life. And they say that this was all "in the name of religion." Your critics reject this evidence as not good enough, but it is still evidence. Is there anyone who knew Aqsa who is standing up and saying the opposite: that she wasn't killed because of religion? Not at all.
That she was killed because she refused to wear the hijab is by far the most reasonable explanation, and indeed most news agencies have been saying something to the effect "it seems she was killed because she refused to wear the hijab." There's nothing wrong about writing an article working from the assumption that the most reasonable explanation is the correct one. You're not sentencing anyone to prison, you're just writing an article, you don't have to come to a conclusion that is "beyond any doubt." You don't have to wait for the verdict to come in from the jury in order to do what you do: you're not acting as a judge.
Ask your critics what a more reasonable explanation for her murder was. Oh, but next your critics will attack even that question: "We don't know if she was murdered! Her father only admitted to doing it! But he hasn't been convicted yet! So you have to wait until the trial is done!" Because they apparently don't accept anything until it has been prove in a court of law. I'm only semi-joking with that extension. Anyway, by their standards, we can't talk as if the Columbine murderers did it because they resented some of their peers, because they as well haven't been convicted!
Stop making the school uniform rules at an Islamic school sound so sinister and oppresive.
How is it any different than the "law" I had to follow requiring me to wear cheap itchy polyester pants from McCarthy's at a Catholic school?
Side Note- Would Americans or any women in specific be converting to Islam if it "secludes" women? No. Islam gives women plenty of rights, and I would know again because I am a Muslim woman.
Second, the way to prevent such a tradgedy is to make information about human rights fully available to all humans everywhere at every time.
Third, I am a woman of "western" culture. By that I mean I am not of any specific religion, however I choose to respect the best parts of each relion, in the case of Islam, I do often choose to wrap the Hijab.
Fourth, regarding mark's comments above, Catholic school uniforms for females are just as inapropriate to force someone to wear. What I mean by this is simple:
the girls wouldn't roll up their skirts so high if they weren't being taught that it is normal and proper for all women to wear these kinds of skirts. I find it just as feindish that catholic school girls are then held accountable for "disobeidiant and sinful" height of their skirt by the very people who have asked the girls to wear them.
That is all I have to say about this tradgedy, other than we as a community should have been taking steps to prevent this by reaching out to our neighbors, our daughters, our mothers, sisters, rather than using the Hijab as a sign of isolation.
I choose to wrap the Hijab for one reason:
So that foolish people, mainly men, see my mind and not my body. When I wear the Hijab I can safely walk the streets without being propositioned left and right.
To cover oneself is to speak as a conciousness, to move beyond the body.
Also, to the ignorant person who dreams of a world without islam:
Do you think the world is better off left in the hands of one of the other organized religions?
What most people don't realize is that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all baisically the same in their roots. They come from the same period in history, the same area of the planet and let's be perfectly frank here:
Islam came first. Christianity came DEAD LAST out of the 3, robbing most of it's stories from Islam.
In short, we all live on planet earth, we are all very small creatures in retrospect. Grow up and do some reading.
Some simple mistakes in your premises and conclusions. Let's start backwards:
School uniforms, whether Islamic, Catholic or otherwise, are not enforceable by law. Now, let's be clear about this, that particular ISNA school requires girls to wear the hijab or the jilab (just like many Catholic schools require girls to wear skirts) but that is not an Ontario law. If a girl that goes to that school does not comply with the dress code she will be reprimanded by the school authorities not the OPP. So to say that "there are places in Ontario where wearing a hijab is mandatory" is a bit misleading. It's not mandatory according to Ontario law, it is mandatory if you want to attend that school; but in that case you can say that there are places in Ontario where wearing a skirt, a Kippah or pants is mandatory.
You also bring up two interesting and multi faceted points, but then fail to bring proper nuance to them: 1) the interpretation of Islam and 2) Islamic contributions to Canadian culture.
The problem of violent interpretations of beliefs is not unique to Islam. And I think it would benefit the discussion if you approached this point from a far broader perspective. Many religious views, including Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Sikh, have been used to justify violence. In those instances it's always more specific religious dogma that causes a person or people to do violence. You have to consider a multitude of other factors including: upbringing, culture, state of society, societal expectations, etc. To ask "If Islam is leading to the abuse of women" or "If Islam is disproportionately resulting in the murder of teenage girls" is a moot point, precisely because it ignores other circumstance that surround individuals that commit violent acts.
As to whether Islam is offering more good then bad to Canada. I think it is much to vague and unfair a question. In what areas is it improving or making Canada worse. Economic? Moral? Environmental? Political? To paint all people who practice Islam as either good OR bad is too black and white and doesn't really solve any problems. It certainly wouldn't solve the problem of domestic abuse in Canada, after all this incident could have happened in a Jewish or Christian if
the father has an anger problem.
All in all: a very reactionary article of poor journalistic quality, as stated by Rajio "WTF blogTO?".
As I understand it, there is the religion of Islam, and then there is Sharia, a system of law. As far as I know, there is nothing rooted in the religion of Islam that can be seen to oppress anyone. I also believe the laws of Sharia are not fixed and are rather changed to suit the ruling government. Of course, I could be confused and I'll thank someone to correct me.
Based on my understanding stated above, I personally don't understand why Muslim people are targeted as they are.
Elyse, I'm glad you explained your choice to wear the Hijab because this is something that is very misunderstood. It may be hard for a western woman such as myself to understand on a personal level, but looked at from your perspective, it makes perfect sense: I don't want to be objectified, so I am going to protect myself. Unfortunately I do think the Hijab is attracting a another kind of objectification in Canada, because I often hear from people that they consider women who wear it to be submissive or ignorant.
And Michelle, Sharia Law comes from the Qur'an, they are not changed because they are original. But a radical group, such as Taliban, might claim that "they are following the guidelines of Islam" even though they are totally wrong because they are extremists.
I hope to change the points of views that people have about the Hijab and about Islam. It is not an ignorant religion, it is peaceful and very peaceful in fact, and considerate. :) Also, I hope that people do not think that women who wear the Hijab are ignorant, and again, they are not forced into it. Most women choose to wear the Hijab. Just like how Nuns wear their black gowns and cover their hair. If anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer.
I only wanted to comment on your assertion that Islam came first out of the Abrahamic religions. Actually, Islam is the newest out of the three, Judaism being the oldest, and Christianity being in the middle. There's no need to say things like the following:
"Islam came first. Christianity came DEAD LAST out of the 3, robbing most of it's stories from Islam."
That's ignorant and completely untrue. Also, who cares which came first? It really doesn't matter.
I don't think there was anything misleading about it. On the other hand, I think you are misleading when you say "it is mandatory if you want to attend that school." The minor doesn't have a choice. If her father sent the hypothetical student to that school, she has to attend it, regardless of what she "wants." You say that if she then chose to not wear the hijab, only the school would reprimand her, not the OPP. As if the only instrument of the law in Ontario was the OPP. The ministries can directly levy measures like fines on parents AND students that don't attend school. Schooling is compulsory by law in Ontario, and it's the parents who decide which school. If they decide an Islamic school, then Islamic schooling is compulsory for the kid by law. The child would be forced to wear the hijab in that instance. And even if it wasn't forced by law, that doesn't make it right. Say she refused to wear the hijab and she was suspended by the school for some time. For that time she was prevented from receiving an education merely because she didn't accept the hijab her father and the school chose for her. The coercion on children of Muslim parents to practise religion such as to wear the hijab is very real in Canada as this story of Aqsa Parvez very shockingly demonstrates; coercion from the law isn't the only form of coercion.
I'll combine your next two into one issue as I see it.
First of all, I'll state, I don't think bringing in considerations of other ideologies would benefit the discussion actually. Here, putatively, we have a girl killed because she didn't follow Islam. I say, well, this is a bad result of Islam, and how many bad results do we need before we consider the whole religion a net bad? You object, saying that other ideologies can have violent interpretations of their beliefs, and so you can't consider whether Islam is bad without also considering whether the other ideologies are also bad. Besides being essentially impossible for one person to consider every single ideology (how could one possibly have detailed knowledge Islam, Christianity, Thelema, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism etc. etc. etc.; I have enough trouble learning only about Islam), this also would only make sense if you HAD to choose one of those ideologies. You could withhold all belief if you wanted to, and not subscribe to any ideology. In this case, we can just look at whether Islam is bad, because we don't have to compare it to other ideologies' badness in order to determine whether it itself is bad. But you also object to this because there are too many factors? And so we couldn't possibly determine whether Islam is a net bad? But I respond to this, of course you would have to consider a multitude of other factors. The same could be said about KKK membership for example, but does that mean one shouldn't ask: "Is white supremacy bad for Canada?" That's a good analogy because almost everyone agrees white supremacy has bad results, and is bad and measures should be taken to prevent it's propagation. And, just like that, we do all the time say that certain ideologies have bad results, and a multitude of factors are considered in these cases. Just because those multitude of factors are there doesn't mean one can't reasonably come to a conclusion. The same should be done for Islam. Now I wouldn't contend that Islam's as bad as white supremacy, but is it still bad to a lesser extent? Let's look at this question. That's doesn't mean we can't look at other ideologies, like Catholicism, etc. that you point out as well. They too could be a net bad. But, again in turn, every time we consider one ideology, we don't have to consider every ideology, this would be both unnecessary and also impossible, because no one has adequate knowledge of every ideology.
And the problem with answering this question is that we have people who refuse to even consider the proposition, which is a reasonable one. In one camp here you have most Muslims, who see Islam as, by definition, good. They think it is something like a "gift" from God for all mankind. And that it is infallible truth:1 a revelation that can't be contested by reason. How can a debate start there? And then you have some multiculturalists of a very strident sort who also refuse to consider the possibility that a religion like Islam may be a net bad. Maybe they're not so lost, but they do many times refuse to enter into the debate, frequently wielding a claim of "hate speech" which seeks only to censor and not to contend with anything in dialogue.
A Jewish or Christian father could as well killed a daughter for the sake of Christianity or Judaism, you say? In that case, then all the worse for Christianity's or Judaism's value I say. Just as this case at hand is all the worse for Islam's value.
We can come to a conclusion whether Islam is bad. The same way we come to a conclusion that any ideology is bad. This may not be an infallible conclusion, but it can be a reasonable and an adequately certain one. And if it is indeed bad, then we should take measures to prevent its growth; measures commensurate with it's threat, just as we do with other ideologies like white supremacy which we are also adequately certain are bad.
Bravo Fred. Truly. It's insight like yours that lend credence to such effective solutions like hate/fear-mongering and bigotry.
Some clarification is needed.
First of, Schooling in Ontario:
I would like to direct you to the <a href="http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e02_e.htm#BK22";>Education Act</a> of Ontario.
It is mandatory to attend PUBLIC SCHOOL in Ontario if you're between the ages of 6 and 16 as per Section 21-(1) (even then there are exceptions as per Section 21-(2)a). It is not mandatory to attend PRIVATE or RELIGIOUS schools. Moreover, a parent cannot simply decide for their child to attend a private or religious school, they have to apply to the School Board for permission and the school they're hopping to enroll their child in must be approved and administered by the board, as per Section 21-(1.1)
As for the School Uniform issue, you've managed to craft your sentences in such a way as to mix up Compulsory Attendance and a particular private school's policy on appropriate clothing. It's rather strange to me that you take offense with an Islamic school having a uniform for their pupils, am I to assume you feel the same way about uniforms in Roman Catholic schools. If not, that's an obvious double standard. It seems as though you consider school uniforms a form of coercion in Ontario, that's fine, however that has nothing to do with Islam.
_______
Second, in your combining my two points into one you've misunderstood what it was that I said.
You attribute this thought to me: "you can't consider whether Islam is bad without also considering whether the other ideologies are also bad." I did not write that, and I do not want to give the impression that I thought that.
What I wrote is this: other ideologies have been used by people as justifications for violent deeds (note that I do not say that they are bad). In those instances it's always more then just religious dogma that has caused these people to do violence. (This is the important part) You have to consider other factors in those people's lives, not only their religion, when looking for an explanation of why they did what they did. Those factors can be social, economical, political or cultural.
LET ME UNDERSCORE: I'm not saying we should compare ideologies to see which one is the baddest, I agree with you there, that's next to impossible.What I'm saying is, religion's almost always not the SOLE cause of violence. There are usually other factors in a person's life that drive them to commit murder. Therefor, saying "we have a girl killed because she didn't follow Islam" is in-fact putative, but it's also an extremely narrow minded and impotent way of explaining the situation.
What other factors drove her father to commit this heinous act? Was he raised in an abusive environment? Was he mentally unstable? Did he have an anger management problem? Was he frustrated with his position in life? etc. The answers to those and similar questions, rather then "Islam may be a net bad", would go much further in helping to prevent things like this in the future.
_______
Finally, something for elyse,
The claim that Islam came before Christianity is hilariously wrong. There is a simple test you can do to disprove it. Prophet Muhammad was born in 570 AD. The First Council of Nicaea, which resulted in the Roman Catholic orthodoxy and eventually the church, took place in 325 AD, approximately 285 years before Muhammad received his first revelation from God.
In fact the letters AD at the end of Muhammad's birth date refer to Anno Domini. Which in latin means "In the year of (Our) Lord" referring to the year of the birth of Jesus. So 570 AD, is 570 years after the birth of Jesus.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
When it says everyone, that means every person. I'm sorry that I have to point this out, but a woman is her own person.
Okay, now we're referencing the actual legalese. IANAL, and one would probably be best to consult one to answer this question of compulsory education with regards to the fine legal details. But, in my humble opinion, what you reference doesn't support what you claim. (1.1) of Section 21, and Section 21 at large, doesn't say that a necessary condition for legally following the Education Code if the minor of the relevant age is not enrolled in a public school, is being enrolled in some other school "approved and administered by the board" as you claim, it says only that it is a sufficient condition. In fact, (2).(a) makes it clear that it is not a necessary condition when it says that the person is excused from attendance if "the person is receiving satisfactory instruction at home or elsewhere". This is indeed what all homeschoolers point to show that they are allowed to homeschool: they don't have any official approval or level of administration. And the Islamic school who mandates hijab can point to that as well. And (1.1) there certainly doesn't say that parents have to "apply to the school board for permission", and I'm not sure where you get that from.
And again, I say, even if it's not legally mandated, that doesn't mean it's not mandatory is other significant senses. You mention Roman Catholic school uniforms. If that is coercive just as hijab in Islamic schools is coercive, then so it is! I hold no double standards on that. And I'll clarify, I don't think it's necessarily wrong for Islamic schools to mandate hijabs. I just want to make clear that they do in fact mandate hijabs: there is in fact places in Toronto where hijabs are mandatory, which is what Roger contended in the post here, and what ramanan criticised Roger for suggesting; ramanan was implying that there is no mandatory wearing of hijabs in Toronto at all. It was ramanan I was responding to.
_______
In the second,
You seem to imply that I don't recognise that religion is not "the SOLE cause of violence." I plainly recognised that when I spoke of the "multitude of factors." My real point was that, it can be a cause of violence, even if not the sole. And, in that vein, it can be the cause of bad in general, even if not the sole. And, if it is more the cause of bad than it is the cause of good, then it itself is a "net bad." And if it is a net bad, then we should take measures to prevent it's growth that are appropriate for how bad it is exactly.
But, you say we shouldn't consider the ideology factor, but only other factors. To me, this seems like the narrow minded view, not mine. Mine is actually an extension of what you are implying we should do. You're saying: if abusive environments cause bad, we should look into that; if mental instability causes bad, we should look into that; frustration with position in life...etc. I agree, we should look into all those factors to determine whether any of them are causing bad. But we shouldn't stop there, we should include ideologies, which includes Islam, in this examination as well. If Islam is causing bad, then it should be treated the same as all those other putatively "bad" factors that you list. Just as we do for other bad ideologies like white supremacy. I mean, you can use the same skeptical argument you use here. You can say just as you say for Islam: "What other factors drove KKK members to commit their heinous acts? Were they raised in abusive environments? etc....The answers to these, rather than 'White supremacy may be a net bad', would be much further in helping to prevent things like this in the future." But no one reasonably suggests that; we do see white supremacy as a net bad, and we do do things to prevent it's spread, because preventing the spread of bad ideologies can in fact yield results in a such a way as to make it worthwhile, contrary to what you say. We don't reject white supremacy as a cause of things bad; and, as we see all the bad things that white supremacy causes, we conclude that white supremacy is itself bad. This is not an "impotent" way of explaining the situation. I propose we cast Islam onto the same standard -- let it live or die upon it.
_________
From your answer to Elyse:
If you believe that Muhammed did in fact receive a revelation from God, as you seem to imply, don't you think you might be a little reluctant to admit these revelations are bad which is what I'm considering? Or maybe you didn't mean to say that he actually received the revelations, but that only he is believed by some to have received them at that time. Whatever, too late for me now. I'll check this again tomorrow, but feel free to email me, it should be linked above.
I have several problems with BS like this.
First of all, whatever happened to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"? That is something I practice when I travel - if I were to go to a Muslem country, I know I would have to be prepared to follow THEIR rules, right? (Which is why my travel has been studiously restricted to culturally similar counties!) Why is it that people think that Canada is fair game, and that our rules and culture don't count for s***? If I have to wear a burka or hajib if I were to go to a Muslem country, then they can take the damn things off here.
Secondly, why do religious people in general - and Muslems, lately, in particular, think they can be free of tough choices? We all have to make choices. This or that, one or the other. If I want to do this, I have to give up that. If the rules of soccer say, No Headgear, then one must make a choice. Keep the headgear, or forget the soccer.
I am against special treatment for anyone of ANY religion. I am against allowing SOME people to cover their faces at the voting booth. I am against SOME people being allowed to carry a weapon to school (when I couldn't have a knife to defend myself from bullies!) I am against SOME people having an exemption from having their picture put on their driver's licenses (Hutterites, for non-Albertans who might be wondering). I am against turbans on Mounties (either wear the WHOLE uniform, or forget being an RCMP!) Rules are for everyone, not just for atheists! Because, when it comes down to it, if you give special treatment and exemptions to religious people, you begin to discriminate against people of no religion - they have to follow ALL the rules. Is this fair?
And why should Canadians be the ones to accomodate? Witness the Jews in Montreal who didn't want to see the people working out at the gym acros sthe street - why shoudl the gym cover its windows? Why didn't the offended Jews cover THEIR windows?
The sick thing is, the way the climate in Canada is now, this guy will probably get a light sentence for strangling his daughter, because of his religion. People are SO scared of being seen as intolerant, or racist, for admonishing religious nuts and immigrants for their foolishness, when these people are the least tolerant of all, and would cut the heads off the rest of us without even thinking twice!
If you were born in Canada, you're automatically a citizen which means the Charter applies to you. If you're an immigrant you can apply to become a citizen providing you've met certain criteria.
If you're 18 and over you can apply by yourself, if you're under 18 you have to apply with a parent/guardian, but you still become a citizen and the Charter still applies.
I would love to email, unfortunately I can't see you address.
As for my answer to elyse: I'm an atheist.
A quote from a recent editorial she wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07ali.html
<i>A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. Her crime is called ?mingling?: when she was abducted, she was in a car with a man not related to her by blood or marriage, and in Saudi Arabia, that is illegal. Last month, she was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a bamboo cane. ... When she is released, her life will certainly never return to normal: already there have been reports that her brother has tried to kill her because her ?crime? has tarnished her family?s honor.</I>
<i>It is often said that Islam has been ?hijacked? by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.</i>
<i>But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted ? and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done? </I>
I go to school with two Muslims. They had been friends since our program started 3 years ago. They don't wear Hijabs, but I have seen one of them wear it on occasion. The Hijabs aren't the issue in this particular case.
One of my friends started dating a guy outside of marriage (just dating, nothing beyond that). She wouldn't dare tell her parents. They aren't abusive by any means, verbally or physically, but they do have their beliefs and will stand behind them. If they were to find out, my friend would essentially be out of the family.
A few months ago, somehow the other friend's parents found out. They didn't want their daughter associating with my one friend that is dating someone. They forbade her from being friends, with similar consequences if she were to break her parents' wishes.
Now, these aren't dysfunctional families. Everyone gets along great, but because of the beliefs of the parents, two best friends are no longer speaking to one another.
If they were to go against their parents' wishes, they'd essentially be shunned from the family.
What I'm trying to say is, that if we take out the domestic abuse out of the equation, would the situation change? Obviously, she would remain uninjured, but I'm sure would still resort to extreme measures (albeit not relatively).
If someone gets disowned because their beliefs differ slightly than their parents, I'd still say there is an inherent problem, violence or none.
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
I despise when people say, "we're fighting a war over extremism". First of all, it's not over any kind of "extremism", secondly, if we're going to fight extremism, why aren't we fighting Christians or Jews (has nanyone noticed you don't hear about too many "extreme" Buddhists or Hindus?).
This is about a sick man who killed his daughter. For whatever reason, if he is gulty, he should and, more than likely, will be punished. But indicting a whole culture or religious practice because of what this nut-job did is knee-jerk and it's own form of "extremism". Someone just shot up a mall, no one said, "Well, if people weren't so extreme about shopping..." We just had a "Christian Soldier" shoot up a bunch of kids in Christian youth groups...I haven't heard anyone say we should declare war on Christianity (although I was someone would).
Israel seems to get a free pass from the west over what it's doing to the Palestinians, we haven't heard many here saying we should be fighting "extreme" Judaism.
If the father strangled her because he caught her smoking, drinking or banging a boy he didn't approve of, would we be blaming a culture or him?
There are sick, shitty fathers in every culture and every religion who have abused or killed thier wives, son's or daughters over less.
How about we declare a war on "extreme fatherhood"?
I think everyone means well, and has good intentions but there are certainly mixed views...Here's my take:
Well when read this, and everyone's comments it made me think of two things..This is terrible event, happening to such a young girl, beautiful, and from all the family characterizations...smart and full of energy..
the second part is this..
it made me consider why people whom emigrate from other countries move to Canada in search of a better life...It also begs a the question of what intent does their cultural background have on their emigration, i.e. Someone Korean who comes to Canada. Are they Canadian-Korean, or Korean-Canadian...is their intent to assimilate into the Western Culture, or still be from East no matter what...The same scenario could be applied to a person or family who is from Afghanistan, are they Afghani Muslim -Canadian, or Canadian-Afghani ? It certainly begs the question of how people choose to assimilate themselves into our culture.
Also, yes, she was pretty, but it shouldn't matter. Not a big deal, but when people say, "What a shame, and she was so pretty"....it just seems like we hate when pretty people die as opposed to less-pretty people. I know that when I die, people won't say, "What a shame,he was so handsome"
Basically, this father was a sick piece of shit, his religion or motive doesn't or shouldn't matter.
I am curious as to how or why the brother obstructed the police and what the mother and son will do from here on out. Makes for uncomfortable dinner conversation. "So, uh...your' father strangled your sister yesterday, and it looked like you were on your father's side....wanna explain that? Do I need to lock my door, son?"
And as for Aaron, I am a moderate Muslim, and I don't think that Saudi Arabia necessarily did the right thing at all. I mean sure the girl did not follow her religion, but that's her problem. Now, why do you only focus on the bad?? People, in general, seem to focus on the bad in Islam, as in this article for example, while people in certainly the majority of Muslim countries are living a happy and completely normal life. If this crazy father killed his daughter for not wearing the Hijab, that's his own problem that he interpreted Islam so extremely. That does not mean that anyone can judge Islam as a whole.
There is a website that is http://www.whyislam.org/877/ it is a great website that gives a different view on Islam, the right view. Again, if people don't know enough about Islam (and not just the negative) they have no right to randomly judge it and say things such as "I wish Islam did not exist" or "the hijab should be outlawed"
Jody Broeckel
Anyway, you can send anything to:
brittlehands@hotmail.com
Islam is the fastest growing religion and tons of women are converting, why? Because it gives them many many rights and it enforces equality between men and women. I reccomend searching through this website:
http://www.whyislam.org/877/Services/Literature/2.asp
Thank you
And about Jews, what do you mean? Most of my friends are actually Jewish, and we get along fine.
Thank you
Many Muslim women work of course, my mother is an architect who graduated from Temple University, and I am working my way up too. Islam enourages education for both genders. By the way, The Prophet's wife was a very successful business woman.
Also, just because that equals 10 million Muslims, those are not the only "bad" people around. There are non-Muslim terrorists and incidents that occur all the time such as the Oaklahoma city bombing, and a shooting that just occurred in a mall about a week ago and several local shootings or cases of abuse/murder. Who doesn't wish the world was a better place, but we are trying to do all we can do to help.
www.faithfreedom.org
That "Why Islam" site you list includes an article by the fundamentalist Creationist Harun Yahya wherein he claims that evolution is false. Evolution is a major part of modern biology: How does promulgating anti-science rhetoric in the name of Islam make Islam look good?
He also includes ridiculous dismissals of philosophical considerations such as one of Kant's for example, saying, "Immanuel Kant: Proposed the idea of a universe without a beginning or an end. He was terribly wrong." It's just plain ridiculous: He in no way even tries to establish what he claims. It reads like some sort of joke paper you might see sent out on a philosophy mailing list, but supposedly this guy is serious. Are you?
That CAIR group you mention were also unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism trial in the States. Apparently it's being re-tried right now. Doesn't sound like a very reputable group.
http://www.mujahideenryder.net/2007/12/12/the-death-of-aqsa-parvez/
Your lame "defence" of Islam and the veils turns out to be nothing but admitting what those of us against Islamic BS are saying all along!
And Rodya, I am not the maker of why-islam, it just has some good articles in there, so i can't argue against your point. And I never knew CAIR had anything to do with terrorism which it probably doesn't.
Its funny how people seem to be going so much against Islam, yet its the fastest growing religion in the world, and many many women claim that they found their freedom through Islam.
As for a female finding "freedom through Islam",. that's the product of the same kind of brainwashing doublethink that states that one can find freedom in slavery. (Remember the Nazi slogan in the concentration camps? Work will set you free?)
My problem is with people wanting to bring their cultures HERE. Muslems seem intent on spreading their Islamic ways to the West - to such an extent, that I feel Canada is being deliberately recolonized, not only by them, but also by Sikhs, and others as well. And yes, Sikhs are terrorist bullies too - look at the way they're bullying the government to keep some illegal in Vancouver here, waving their fists on TV and ganging up threatening the government, screaming that it's "racist" to send him back even though he lied to get here. So what if he's sick? There's doctors in India, and if they're so lousy as to not be able to take care of him there, why the hell are they allowed to practice here?
It seems to me the biggest racists nowadays aren't whie Canadians - they seem to be the group most likely to roll over and take the abuse, and are too stupid to see when THEY are being discriminated against.
For years Canadians have been fed the lie that there is no such thing as "Canadian culture", that it was defined by immigration. What a crock of s***. If Canadians don't start standing up for our own selves and our own ways, we WILL be recolonized, and people of European extraction will be living on reserves with their Native brothers and sisters. Do we really want that to happen?
Keep in mind this is a single instance of a crime. Compare it with the video that pops up now and again of a stalker abducting a young woman who is later found dead. Aqsa Parvez?s death is NOT a normal ?islamic event.? I remember a kid in 1st grade whose Christian mother forced him to kneel in rock salt when he was bad until his knees bled. When he was 12 she beat him so badly he lost hearing in one ear. Parents are sometimes overprotective, sometimes STUPID, like the woman who created the phony MySpace page that led to the suicide of Megan Meier. But that?s another story?
http://dave-lucas.blogspot.com/2007/12/double-life-of-aqsa-parvez.html
Jody
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/ALLAHTHEPIG
Closing our eyes to that will only make it more likely to happen again.
There is a segment of our society that elevates tolerance above all else, that's why they are prepared to ignore one of the main reasons for this young girls tragic murder.
And that's why it is more likely to keep happnennng if it is not loudly condemned.
You can't condemn something you refuse to acknowledge is happening.
They feel warm and fuzzy about their tolerance, too bad they aren't introspective enough to see that their unlimited tolerance contributed to this girls death and to the subjugation of muslim women everywhere.
Is this because a lot feminists belong to the cult of multiculturalism and don't want to be seen as " imposing " their western value system on people from the third world?
If this had been a white girl from an upper middle class Toronto home, I suspect feminist groups would be up in arms protesting and chanting etc. ie: Jane Creba -- the pretty blonde haired blue eyed debutante who was shot to death in gang warfare on boxing day in Toronto a few years back. There were vigils for this girl like you wouldn't believe. It went on night after night. And it's not that I disagree with that at all.
Black girls from the projects get popped all the time, but the feminist groups never to seem to say or do anything when that happens either. I just find it all rather curious.
Predictably, ironically, Asqa Parvez' family buried her yesterday at some Mosque. Which is probably not what Aqsa Parvez would have wanted. I suspect she would have wanted a non-denominational service that featured her favorite hip hop, rap and pop tracks.
And just to add insult to injury, in an attempt to keep control of the service, someone mislead the interested about the starting time. Thousands of her non-Muslim high school friends and supporters of her freedom, intended to show up. The posted time for the funeral was 4 pm or something. So her supporters showed up at the appointed hour, only to be told the service had already happened, at noon. So go home. Get out. Allah has spoken.
As if that wasn't enough, a throng of Islamic Women appeared and staged a candle light vigil for the television cameras. And their spokesthingy kept saying " this is not about a clash of cultures or religion. It's about teen rebellion and domestic violence. " Blah blah blah. How universal the problem is. etc.
In the meantime, a storm extraordinaire rages over Toronto and no is talking about poor Asqa Parvez; who was strangled for Allah. And I guess we won't hear any more until the trial. Or sadly, until another kid is finished off in another " honor " killing.
Just because Aqsa Parvez's father did this, does not mean you should automatically think that oh that's Islam, Islam is no good. Her father is the horrible person who killed his own daughter and he will be punished. Islam does not tolerate this at all. One of the Hadiths by Mohammad prohibits female infanticide, so it is completely against Islam. Her father thinks he did the right thing for Allah, but he is completely wrong.
As <i>The Globe and Mail</i> <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071217.wsaudipardon1217/BNStory/International/"; target="_blank">originally reported</a>, "The victim in the case, known only as the 'Girl of Qatif' after her hometown in eastern Saudi Arabia, was in a car with a man in 2006 when they were attacked and raped by seven men."
This happened just last year in Saudi Arabia. I wonder what the penalty would have been had it been a man who was suspected of cheating on his wife.
What does this say about the differences in public perception of justice and equality?
Muslims are not the enemy. Just because there are some people who have extremist views due to thier own shortcomings does not mean that Islam should harbour the blame. When a Christian kills someone we do not blame the religion we blame the person. So why in the case of the 16 year old, we are all so quick to blame the head scarf. First of all the scarf was not the reason she died, people are so ignorant. Its obviously domestic violence which unfortunatley occurs in many households whether you are Muslim, Christian or Jew. Islam does not promote violence. It promotes peace. I am sick and tired of the media propogating Islam in a negative light. IT HAS TO STOP. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and not by birht but by converts. This has show for something. People like what Islam is and stands for and therefore they coming to the faith in flocks. Satan is good but he's not that good. Good always prevails over evil.
Killing in Islam is prohibited. Islam teaches me that if I kill one person whether they are Muslim or not, its like killing all of humanity. People who kill in the name of God have thier own agendas. God does not need them to kill in his name, he needs them to give light and prestige to his name and that my friends is not achieved thtough killins ALL MUSLIMS know that! To all you Canadians out there who are blaming Islam and who believe that all Muslims are terrorits. I have this to say to you, All TERRORIST ARE NOT MUSLIM. READ THE QORAN SO YOU MAY BECOME ENLIGHTENED WITH THE TRUTH, STOP SPECULATING.
Next time when a Christian is killed in Toronto, we'll blame it on the "christian" who killed him
It should not be allowed in Canada? I'm sure that means that Nuns or devout Jewish women cannot cover their hair either, right?
Also, you said that men can control themselves...hey i have nothing against men but if they can control themselves, then why are there rapes, etc?
And, by the way, Hijab is all about choice, women have/ should have the freedom to choose and they do in most Muslim countries.
P.S. the hijab is so not the next step to the burqa...someone who wants to wear a burqa will not wear a hijab first, she wears the burqa right away. and also, if there are Muslim women who don't wear a headscarf (a.k.a me) that doesn't mean that they aren't "good Muslims".
And yes, rapes occur but men and punished and put responsible for it (in this country), not women. By using the hijab to prevent men from behaving inappropriately you are excusing their behaviour. This is just setting a lower standard for men in Islam. It is also insulting to men and makes women paranoid.
Again, if a man can pray 5 times a day and fast, he can control himself around a women with hair exposed.
Of course I didn't mean that first you wear the hijab and then you graduate to the Burqua if you are a good muslim. Do you think in Afghanistan they donned the burqua right away? They first started covering their heads and then it went from there. I meant in the long term this is what will happen when extremism takes over. Anywhere where there is a Muslim majority, women have no choice but to wear the hijab.
The only place where this wasn't happening was Turkey, which was secular, but the extremists are now slowing turning it around there too.
Nuns are a minute portion of Christianity who dedicate their lives to religious service (with a vow of chastity and standardized uniform). This is not comparable to women in Islam.
People need to be aware that wearing the headscarf all the time is not a requirement of the Koran. Even the Bible says that when praying, you have to cover your head. But only in Islam has this become distorted to imply that women have to wear it all the time. It only serves to drive a wedge between people and religions. In a Muslim school in Mississauga the principal refused to shake the hand of a female reporter. I do not want to live in a society where our cultural values become warped this way.
And the Hijab is a part of Islam, there are parables in the Qur'an that state that women should wear the Hijab in front of men, other than their father, uncles, grandfathers, father-in-law, etc. So in Islam the Hijab is required not only while praying. Now of course, not all Muslims wear the Hijab--aka me. And the burqaa is not a requirement either (not that you said it was).
I would first like to say that this article like many that exist, exists to turn people away from Islam. Isn't it amazing how many stories we are hearing this day on the news about Muslims doing this and that? People get killed every day by other crazy people, yet the focus is ALWAYS on MUSLIMS!!!
I was born into a Roman Catholic family, and you know what, my father is no different then that poor girls father. He's controllive, he thinks he's always right, you can't say a word to him, he never listens to anyone, also from the treatment I've seen him inflict on my mother, I'd say he's no different then those radical Muslims, but wait a second what is he? A ROMAN CATHOLIC!!!!! Just goes to show that anyone from any religion can be radical and treat people very badly.
By the way I love hijab and maybe one day I will even wear Niqab (wear the eyes are only left open). And for all you Catholics/Christians out there, I became more of a Muslim by reading the Bible! The Ten Commandments clearly state "you shall have only ONE GOD" and what's the second? "Do not make for yourself an IDOL" but what do people pray to in Church? IDOLS!!! Clearly going against GOD'S LAWS! Also if you read the BIBLE you will see many examples of the PROPHETS of GOD worshipping GOD the way that MUSLIMS do.
Unfortunetly for all us Muslims out there, we have all the media to thank for making Islam into such a bad religion (which it is not by the way, I see that as nothing but propaganda to turn people away from Islam) This article being an excellent example.
Also I'd like to say, Catholic/Christian Nuns are fully covered right? I'd call what they wear hijab, but in the Church that's ok, it's only when it's another religion that it is not ok. Hmmm?
Also if all you Catholics/Christians look up at your IDOL of Mary, is she not wearing hijab? And yes Muslims do BELIEVE in MARY and JESUS(peace be upon them both). To me the Holy Bible and the Holy Quran are family. They are both the books from God.
I think the people of this world need to seriously start to question what they are being fed by the media.
I am happy to see that Toronto is able to have this discussion however with the level of ignorance still in this forum, i suggest those of you that write before you bother to learn about what you're talking about, read a book, educate yourselves and avoid being an ignorant biggot...particularly on public forums...particularly about religion! Once you've done so, then you've earned the write to partake in intellectual discussion.
and i have never come across anything that tells us to kill our women for not wearing hijab... only a passage that tells us to tell our women to cover them selfs...
please do your research before writing articles (:
and to the people that find hijab oppressing... i feel oppressed by people telling me i cant wear my hijab... or that i have to show my legs or my arms... (: tell me why the idea of "freedom" is based on what men think is attractive...
a woman naturally feels awkward showing her body off... if a woman never showed off her body and was one day put in a mini skirt she would feel shy and awkward and out of place cause it is unnatural to show the whole world your body...
a woman is **naturally modest**
what we now think is beauty is no longer about if she has a nice smile and a good heart... its about if she has nice legs... being judged by things like that is oppression... the pressure you're putting on young women to show her self off to the point where they become suicidal over the fact that their body doesn't live up to your idea of even just normal... for get beautiful THATS oppression...
with hijab theres no judging someones body... you get to know the person and judge them by their morals and inner beauty... not weather she has nice legs, hair, chest and all that...
iv lived in canada my whole live and i was NEVER forced to wear hijab in fact i was never even told to wear hijab... the topic was never discussed but i started on my own and i prefer it to having my hair open and wearing shorts and t shirts... IM comfortable... go walk around Toronto and ask every hijabi you see if she is oppressed or if her family forces her to wear hijab... and see how many say they chose to wear it on their own and love it
Thanks for this post. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I have been talking about this subject a lot lately with my mother so hopefully this will get him to see my point of view. Fingers crossed! Canada Goose Men Utility Golveclassic ugg boots ugg lo pro button denim ugg nice boots ugg outdoor boots ugg promo codes zappos ugg boots sunburst ugg pas cher ugg kenly boots ugg infant boot chestnut medium next ugg boots ugg gissella boot ugg slippers women's uk ugg maxene chestnut boot ugg kalie women's ugg look alikes footwear ugg boots in raisin ugg boots women size 7 on sale ugg boots unique ugg boots canada goose art