Muslim French Minister: "Women who wear burquas live in prison."
A Moroccan woman who wears a burqua was denied French citizenship last month.
Now the country's Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara, herself a practicing Muslim, says she backs the decision.
From the news story:
The burqa is a prison, it's a straightjacket," Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara, herself a practising Muslim who was born in France to Algerian parents, said in an interview in Le Parisien newspaper yesterday.
"It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that advocates inequality between the sexes and which is totally devoid of democracy."
--
I've been uncomfortable about the burqua question for many years -- but in the end it was a Muslim woman who brought me around to being full-bore against it. Many women in her family wore the burqua and she had become something of a black sheep for rejecting it and deciding to go to college and study science. She was speaking from experience -- not having idle coffee table chat about something she didn't understand.
"But if you asked Muslim women who wear the burqua why, wouldn't they say it's out of sincere religious belief and that they choose it?" I asked her. "Shouldn't they be allowed to make that decision, even if we don't agree with it?"
"Sure," she said. "They should be allowed to do whatever they like. But the truth that most of these women will never tell you is that they would be beaten by their fathers and brothers if they did not wear it. And the 'belief' that makes them wear it is that they are the property of their fathers and husbands, which is what they have been taught from birth. That is what you support when you say it is all right for women to wear the burqua."
Bill Maher has a religious riff from his act of a few years ago that includes a bit about the burqua. It's in the below video and begins at about the 20 minutes 30 seconds point (some strong language):
In brief, without strong language: if any religion tried to sell us on the idea that they had to keep their black men in burquas because, after all, that's just their culture -- we would lose our minds. It would be apartheid all over -- but without a viable separate but equal pretense. But when they tell us the women have to be covered in this manner...well, that's just their religion. You have to respect that.
Where do you guys come down on it?
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
This story line just affirms my contention that Islam is a legalistic heresy of biblical truth. That one Muslim rejects the legalistic bondage of the burqua further affirms it, showing that sensible people see through its gross inequity and inhumanness. The larger picture is that Islam IS legalism, by virtue of its core theology, which lacks an historical and legitimate atonement, or grace factor.
Christianity, on the other hand, proclaims the atonement of Yeshua, the prophesied perfect Lamb of God, making those who trust in his cross-work free of sin-guilt before God, with no works or law-keeping required for acceptance, only faith, sola fide.
The Law is still very much in force for Christians, as a guide of righteous living, and as a revelation of the holiness of God; but NOT as the way to attain acceptance before God as perfectly holy – which no fallen human being can ever be – but which IS required for true and eternal fellowship with the all-holy Creator; holiness being the environment of God and of his creation-intent for man. It is the realm of joy, love, peace and perfect life. The atonement of Christ, actually and practically, provides this all things necessary for holy living, by canceling all sin-guilt (atonement), thereby imbuing the believer with the power of the Spirit to live the Christ-life.
Muslims know nothing of grace, atonement or the blessings of it conveys. They have a working knowledge about Jehovah because Muhammad and compnay “plagiarized” the OT and NT Scriptures, and devised a law-system that imposes righteousness by outward restraints and guides. However, the inner reality of grace, described above, is missing. That’s why they can so easily blow-up women and children in markets, and cut off hands and heads, while claiming to know God and do His will. Even pseudo-Christians, or Hindus, or humanists – ANYONE who has not been reborn by the power of the Spirit through the Gospel, inevitably defaults to some form of legalism.
Paul rebukes the early Christians in Romans and Galatians for “falling from grace” into SELF-righteousness and legalism. The clear insinuation is that to perceive grace-orientation is the sine qua non of the Gospel and authentic Christianity. Burquas are a glaring example of the bondage and death of legalism. Unless this grace vs. religious legalism is understood (revealed by the Spirit), the whole issue is seen as a human rights issue. It is not! It is about the truth of biblical Christianity and the error and darkness of all other pretended ways to attain eternal fellowship with the TRUE and living God of the Scriptures.
“There is ONE mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” – just what one would logically expect from the TRUTH.
Posted on July 20, 2008 5:00 PM
So when we criticize fundamentalist Christians or Christian doctrine we're endangering our very souls, but when we criticize Muslim fundamentalists or Muslim doctrine, right on?
Gotcha.
Posted on July 21, 2008 10:35 AM
The only thing that endangers one's soul is his personal relationship with God, Who has declared and confirmed in the historical words and work of His Son the only possibility of atonement for sins. To criticize people or churches is often a legitimate thing to do. Paul did it in his letters. To reject and demean Jesus Christ IS to endanger one's soul, because He is the essential and key issue in all of life and eternity.
Posted on July 22, 2008 6:15 AM