The creeping dhimmitude


no-helmets-300x272

We’ve all seen signs similar to this at banks and other security-sensitive places. We also come across it in department stores and schools. It is, of course, a ban on the wearing of full-face crash helmets. There are no exceptions and no one suspects any ulterior motive on the part of the institution or facility that enforces such a ban. We consider it reasonable and even in the interests of those not wearing such a helmet. We understand that the whole point of banning the helmet is so that the wearer’s identity is not concealed. Doing so not only improves the safety of all, but improves the feeling of security of all. It helps us all enjoy our public spaces as we are entitled.

We would consider it very odd, indeed, if the wearer of such a helmet objects to having to remove it, and then, as a “reasonable accommodation” compromise, demands a special private room in which to remove the helmet and reveal his or her identity to security personnel of a stipulated gender. Afterwards they can then put the helmet back on and rejoin others not concealing their identities. We would be justified in feeling that our public space was being violated in that a sense of insecurity is being imposed on us by an individual allowed to escape the usual security measures that make us all feel secure in the public space. We do not need to know anything about the wearer or his or her background, religion or musical tastes. We do not need to know what they may or may not have concealed under their clothes or in their bags. The insecurity comes from their identity being concealed, and not only from the security cameras, but also from everybody else around. There is no other consideration involved here. Chances are that the wearer of the full-face motorcycle helmet is male and a courier. Regardless of how many people hate men or the presence in the land of rabid courierphobia, we still need to know who this person is, and we are entitled to feel safe in a public place knowing there is no one wearing a mask in our midst (not to be confused with “safe spaces”, please).

no-niqabSo why should a sign such as this cause objection? The insecurity comes from their identity being concealed, not only from the security cameras, but also from everybody else around. There is no other consideration involved here. Chances are that the wearer of a niqab, burqa or chador is female and Muslim. Regardless of how many people hate women or the presence in the land of rabid anti-Muslim xenophobia, security personnel still need to be able to identify this person, and we are still entitled to feel safe in a public place knowing no one in our midst is hiding their face.

It is an affront to our society that someone wearing such a garment should demand a private room in which they might reveal their identity to someone of a gender of their choice, namely, female. What do they imagine would happen to them that does not happen to the millions of other women who do not conceal their identities in public? Are they saying that non-Muslim men can be expected to behave inappropriately if they should see their faces? Is this their experience with men where boys have had no sex education, social mores hold females to be fair game, or there are no laws against sexual violation? “Reasonable accommodation” has to be made for such bigotry? Yes, I accuse such women of bigotry towards both our society in general and towards our male population. We’ve seen this kind of “reasonable accommodation” demanded by bigots who did not want to serve same-sex couples who wanted to marry. We rightfully called out their bigotry, and we rightfully refused to accommodate them.

But no, we must be “culturally sensitive” towards this peaceful niqab-wearing woman who is obviously not a terrorist. That is not the point. The point is that we are “culturally sensitive” towards a culture that holds itself supreme above all others. We are bowing to Muslim supremacism. That is called dhimmitude. Before they have even imposed Shari’a upon us all, we already feel ourselves subdued, as the Qur’an commands them to make us feel (9:29).

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

When we spend of our money to provide such private rooms where a woman might reveal her identity, and spend of someone’s paid time to verify such identity, do Muslims who demand such “reasonable accommodation” pay to cover the cost? No, we are already paying the Jizyah. It’s as if the entire Western population has had some kind of madrassa toxin added to our water supply that slowly but surely turns free people into slaves, little reasonable concession by little reasonable concession.

Comments

  1. kimberly1091 says

    In western society, submitting to the mores and customs of foreign people signals virtue. The fact that some (but not all) cultures and religions take advantage of this is old news.

    I am staggered but not dissappointed to encounter these sorts of opinions being voiced at FTB.

    I’m on a bit of a journey myself about where I stand on all of this. I have been a fierce supporter (and promoter) of identity politics forever. I’m questioning a lot of things at the moment, and value your contributions even if, as I suspect, many here are appalled and confronted by them.

    • says

      Thank you. Just to add to your points, thought-policing begins already with peer pressure during childhood, and goes on from there, I think I’m correct in saying. If you’ve never defied peer disapproval, then not standing up for what you know in your gut to be right for fear of peer disapproval comes more easily than taking a stand regardless of who might be appalled or confronted. By that point you won’t say anything without first checking with the thought police. I believe Lurker is making the same point.

  2. says

    I think it’s a very simple matter. It’s not the institution who’s barring you from entering places, it’s your religion. If you think it’s worth the inconvenience, more power to you. But others shouldn’t be forced to indulge your religious sentiments.

    Most restaurants I go to do not serve kosher, I don’t think most of them even know what that is. The taquerias I go to serve red meat in holy saturday, even tough most people here are catholics. If you are a puritan christian and you are not allowed to gaze into pornography, it’s not the sex shop owner who has the responsibility of making a special black room for you to stand in when you come visit. If the rules of the place are irreconcilable with your own, don’t go, it’s that simple.

    If strict adherence to a religion creates too many problems for you, you are free to leave it, or ignore the inconvenient rules (most people do that anyway). In any case, when it comes to religions, philosophies and whatnot, the rules you choose to follow are your rules, not anyone else’s.

  3. says

    @1 kimberly1091
    I think there are several situations where identity politics stop being appropriate. They become harmful, even.

    I’ve seen some of Anjuli’s posts in the past and I hardly see any discussion in her comment section. I notice that a lot of the users in the network do take issue with the kind of statements she makes. I’ve seen them scream “islamophobia” for much less. I’m suspecting that white-knighting for her as a former muslim and white-knighting for islam in general becomes too much of a contradiction and they’d rather not engage than being drawn into a PC-pretzel.

  4. Pierce R. Butler says

    As a sometimes graphics worker (I make no claim to actual artistry”), I have to make two points.

    • The standard, “correct” No sign has a bar sinister – that is, the stripe runs from upper-left to lower-right. Not that everybody doesn’t recognize it either way, but for many of us this sticks out like a blatant spelling error.

    • The no-veil sign above, though drawn with an appropriate simplicity, still manages to convey a feeling. Those eyes, and the way they roll upwards just a bit, come across with a tinge of hostility and not-willing-to-look-straight-at-you shiftiness. The person who drew that clearly dislikes Muslimas, and wants the viewer to feel the same way: the “No” extends beyond the headdress to the person in it.

  5. Richard Simons says

    When people travels to another country, presumably they have at least some awareness of the local customs and, by going there, are implying that they are willing to accept them. For example, Western tourists to Muslim countries generally accept that arms and shoulders should always be covered. Similarly, Muslim visitors and immigrants to European countries should understand that, at times, they may be required to show their faces. Why is accommodation only expected to work in one direction? (Yes, I do know that at least some of the people who insist on remaining covered are native-born.)

    • says

      I do know that at least some of the people who insist on remaining covered are native-born.

      These are the ones with a sinister agenda, for they know full well that they are in a place with civilised norms, and that their behaviour can only offend those norms.

      • Adam Zain says

        I can’t help thinking that if I were going to do an armed robbery, I’d probably go for a Burka or Niqab rather than a motorcycle helmet. You can get your shotgun underneath it as well.

  6. says

    In the UK, there is a perception that beliefs are harmless and therefore Islam should be tolerated. This idea is born of the fact that most people in the UK, even those who might describe themselves as “Christian”, are functional agnostics. The Bible is a seen as a collection of nice stories (somehow, they always manage to gloss over the nasty ones), not literal truth (and anyone who has memorised more than a few verses, is someone you probably would cross the road to avoid). Fundamentalism is rare and considered eccentric, if not an out-and-out perversion.
    We have an established Church, but it has little real power. A few bishops in the House of Lords. And even the Clergy is full of doubters. Most self-described “Christians” don’t actually believe in Christianity; they just believe they believe in it. Even Creationists (and they are rare) get an annual ‘flu jab; even young-Earthers (and they are rarer still) set their watches by an atomic clock
    Against this backdrop, Islam could quite easily be mistaken for just another harmless belief. Let them believe in the Qur’an, if they want to,, people say. They aren’t hurting anyone, are they? But beliefs are not harmless. Beliefs can influence actions, and some actions can be very harmful indeed. If a person commits an act that causes harm, that they would not have committed had they had believed differently, then what they believe is surely harmful. And not every culture has such a flexible attitude to belief.
    And as long as the UK remains on paper a theocracy — even albeit a gentle, fluffy kind of theocracy, as opposed to the kind where unbelievers are beheaded and the survivors of rape are punished — anything said against Islam will inevitably sound like discrimination. Which, even when we do do it, which is more often than we would like to think, we at least make some sort of pretence of not doing it — suggesting that we at least accept the wrongness of discrimination, to the point of focusing our self-preservation efforts onto denying that we committed discrimination at all. But there is an unwillingness to challenge some of the more egregious beliefs of Islam, because that would constitute unfair interference with another culture. (A culture which approves of corporal and capital punishment. And a culture in which you can be punished for being raped.) And it would be utterly hypocritical to criticise one religion from under the banner of another one, this one state-sponsored. And simple societal inertia, and the lack of perceived need are enough to prevent the Church that was founded on the principle of easy access to divorce, from achieving one last divorce of its own.
    We have forgotten just how bloodthirsty the Bible is, when you look past Applegate, pairs of animals on a huge wooden boat, multi-coloured coats, the whale incident and babies being born in stables. And that places us collectively in flat-out denial of just how bloodthirsty the Qur’an is. After all, it’s just a collection of nice stories, isn’t it? Even if it’s not literally true, and it probably isn’t, where is the harm in believing?
    I suppose “super-weak faith” is really a kind of cultural privilege; it makes it easy to dismiss faith as a minor irritation as opposed to a vicious tumour that must be excised — and even harder to imagine anyone else holding a belief so strongly as to be prepared to kill or die for it. And it’s certainly very much easier for me, coming from such a culture, to question religion; there are countries where I could be punished, up to and including the death penalty, just for my atheism, let alone for being an out non-binary trans person.
    All of this is enabling some very unpleasant things. Already there are Shariah courts; their decisions are not legally binding, and there is always the option in theory to resort to the “proper” courts — as though there didn’t exist any social pressure against exercising this. The elimination of pork products from school menus has removed an excellent opportunity for a Teachable Moment. The innocent, inadvertent ingestion of a forbidden foodstuff, and the utter lack of attendant adverse consequences, would have been a germ of doubt that inoculated against blind faith.
    Unless our cultural weak faith rubs off onto Islam and it ends up becoming as diluted as Christianity has, I think we’re fucked.

    • Adam Zain says

      I can’t help feeling that the Church of England acts like Jenner’s cowpox-based vaccine; by giving the population a very weak form of the disease, it inoculates us against more virulent forms. If Islam had arisen within the native UK population, I don’t think it would have got a foothold; likewise, if it was imported as an idea – like Scientology in the UK for example, it would also be too weak to overcome our CofE inoculation against extreme religions. But, because the religion has come over with a new group of people, and is largely restricted to that group, and because in the UK, at least up ’til recent times, the faith has been associated with a particular incoming national/ethnic group, its legitimacy has been confused with the legitimacy of those new people in the country, and any critique of its ideas has been confused with criticism of that ethnic group of people. I think that’s what went wrong and why people don’t understand that Islam is an ideology – an ideology that can be safely put away much of the time, but can also be dusted off and brought out whenever anyone starts to step out of line.

      Agree, though, on British attitudes to Islam. Before I joined a Muslim family, I also assumed that Islam was just like the Church of England – a harmless cultural signifier that nobody took too seriously. It wasn’t until I started reading and experiencing it in practice that I realised how wedded to cultural identity it is, and how influential it still is in people’s thinking about the world. I do think it is weakening though, despite the increase in hijab wearers etc. I’m not sure that Islam can survive the internet age.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *