January 9, 2010
Quote of the Day
Radical Islam's obsession with covering women's hair is a new phenomenon. In 1981, Abol-Hassan Banisadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that scientific research had shown that women's hair emits rays that drive men insane with lust. To protect the public, the new regime passed legislation in 1982 making the new form of hijab mandatory for all females above six years of age, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code is punishable by one hundred lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment. By the mid-1980s, a form of hijab never seen in Islam before the 1970s had become standard headgear for millions of Muslim women all over the world, including Europe and North America. Many younger women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab is an essential part of the Islamic faith.
Muslim women anywhere in the world could easily see the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by going through their family albums: they will not find a single picture of a female ancestor who wore the cursed headgear now imposed upon them as an absolute "must" of Islam. This fake Islamic hijab is thus nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism; it is a symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam, and is designed to promote gender apartheid. And yet this prop of visual terror was presented by Khomeinist ideologues as a fundamental value—as "a pillar of Islamic existence," and as "our most effective weapon against the enemies of Islam," according to Rafsanjani. One well-known female Khomeinist wrote, "The superpowers know that hijab is the foundation of Islamic government and that to conquer the Persian Gulf and plunder its oil resources, they must first eliminate hijab."
To counter the Islamist claim that the hijab blocks the dangerous, lust-provoking rays emanating from a woman's hair, some women have proposed other forms of hijab. One Iranian designer came out with a wig made of horsehair, thus ensuring that a woman's own hair remains hidden while she still "looks like a normal human being." Some Iranian actresses suggested they be allowed to appear in plays and films wearing wigs made of animal hair. The French cosmetics firm L'Oreal tried to market a transparent hijab that would show a woman's hair but keep its "dangerous rays" locked in. The Khomeinists would have none of it; they wanted women to be seen in public in a state of submission.
From The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution
Posted by Michael J. Totten at January 9, 2010 3:11 AM
Comments
Just swapped over the feed address, but it's kind of a hassle not having the whole post. Kind of defeats the purpose of using a feed reader if you ask me. Have you thought of using a complete feed like before?
Posted by: reader at January 9, 2010 5:34 am
"Many younger women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab is an essential part of the Islamic faith."
The "neo-hijab", whatever he means by that, may be a new design, but covering women from head-to-toe, and cloistering them into a separate part of the household comes directly from Muhammad.
The hijab:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/026.smt.html#026.5397
The "curtain" (segregating women) is also in the hadith. Muhammad revealed "Allah"s desire that women be kept behind a curtain after some of his dinner guests tarried too long speaking to Zainab, the wife he essentially stole from his adopted son, after their wedding.
It was around the time of the latter episode that he also "revealed" that adopted children are to be held as inferior to one's natural offspring:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/033.qmt.html#033.004
Posted by: Squires at January 9, 2010 10:07 am
The "neo-hijab", whatever he means by that, may be a new design, but covering women from head-to-toe, and cloistering them into a separate part of the household comes directly from Muhammad.
The hijab:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/026.smt.html#026.5397
The "curtain" (segregating women) is also in the hadith. Muhammad revealed "Allah"s desire that women be kept behind a curtain after some of his dinner guests tarried too long speaking to Zainab, the wife he essentially stole from his adopted son, after their wedding.
It was around the time of the latter episode that he also "revealed" that adopted children are to be held as inferior to one's natural offspring:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/033.qmt.html#033.004
L'Oreal tried to pander to these tyrants?
Posted by: gus3 at January 9, 2010 3:51 pm
I've seen this claim by Taheri before, and it makes me distrust him. Perhaps it is technically true in some narrow sense; but I've read too many old accounts of Moslem women being covered from head to toe to believe that this is anything genuinely new. I have one such account in front of me right now: Slim's account, in his book "Unofficial History" (p.97), of, as a young officer posted to India, searching a house into which a Moslem assassin had run. The assassin attempted to hide among the women of the house, who were all wearing "bourkas"; and so strong was the prejudice that it was "out of the question" for him to demand to see the women's faces. Hands were all that he could ask to see:
"Then seventh or eighth came a muffled figure with hands that, although little, were a shade darker than any that had gone before. True, they drooped languidly from the wrists; yet those very wrists were by no means innocent of black hair, and there was a hint of sinewy forearm... Still I hesitated. A mistake would be most unfortunate. How were we to be sure? The sergeant rose again to the occasion. With seeming carelessness he let the butt of his rifle fall sharply on a slippered foot. Instead of a feminine squeal, there burst from the bourka an undeniably masculine howl!"
As for Taheri's suggestion to examine old family albums, please. Whatever they wore outside, it'd be mighty strange for anyone to have her family portrait taken inside a dress that shielded every part of her from observation.
Posted by: Norman Yarvin at January 9, 2010 4:50 pm
"Then seventh or eighth came a muffled figure with hands that, although little, were a shade darker than any that had gone before. True, they drooped languidly from the wrists; yet those very wrists were by no means innocent of black hair, and there was a hint of sinewy forearm... Still I hesitated. A mistake would be most unfortunate. How were we to be sure? The sergeant rose again to the occasion. With seeming carelessness he let the butt of his rifle fall sharply on a slippered foot. Instead of a feminine squeal, there burst from the bourka an undeniably masculine howl!"
As for Taheri's suggestion to examine old family albums, please. Whatever they wore outside, it'd be mighty strange for anyone to have her family portrait taken inside a dress that shielded every part of her from observation.
Norman,
He's not saying the burkha or veil is a modern invention. He's referring the headscarf that needs to cover the dangerous "sex rays" that are supposedly emitted by women's hair.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 9, 2010 4:55 pm
He's not saying the burkha or veil is a modern invention. He's referring the headscarf that needs to cover the dangerous "sex rays" that are supposedly emitted by women's hair.
Taheri is specifically talking about hijab. Prior to 1979, you could see women wearing the chador in Iran but it was not required. Wearing the hijab in Iran is a law created by the IRI.
Everyone who knew Iran before the current age of darkness knows this...
"As for Taheri's suggestion to examine old family albums, please. Whatever they wore outside, it'd be mighty strange for anyone to have her family portrait taken inside a dress that shielded every part of her from observation."
Must be nice to be so confident and comfortable with one's own ingnorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlNipGD1ylk
Iran was never Arabia. God willing, it never will be...
Posted by: Been there at January 9, 2010 6:58 pm
Everyone who knew Iran before the current age of darkness knows this...
"As for Taheri's suggestion to examine old family albums, please. Whatever they wore outside, it'd be mighty strange for anyone to have her family portrait taken inside a dress that shielded every part of her from observation."
Must be nice to be so confident and comfortable with one's own ingnorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlNipGD1ylk
Iran was never Arabia. God willing, it never will be...
The YouTube link above illustrates Taheri's point very well!
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 9, 2010 7:52 pm
An interesting historical photo collage. Thank you.
Posted by: Paul S. at January 9, 2010 8:05 pm
It's rather easy to read language like "they will not find a single picture of a female ancestor who wore the cursed headgear", as meaning that neither that headgear nor any other that would be equally curseable existed, historically, in Islamic countries. If all he really means is that one particular modern fashion of headscarf was unknown, although equally-oppressive clothing like burkhas existed, he could do a lot better job of saying it.
Posted by: Norman Yarvin at January 9, 2010 9:12 pm
I think his comment is focused on the difference between Iran and the Arabs whose treatment of women is little changed from the 8th century. Iran was rapidly modernizing but, like Russia in 1917, fell into the hands of a tyranny that has interrupted their development which will resume if they can throw off the oppressors. I hope they are not so severely damaged as Russia was.
Taheri's book, which I reviewed on Amazon, has a lot of information on the differences between Sunni and Shia that I had seen nowhere else.
Posted by: Mike K at January 10, 2010 12:18 pm
Taheri's book, which I reviewed on Amazon, has a lot of information on the differences between Sunni and Shia that I had seen nowhere else.
I agree with Norman. It's just not accurate that "radical Islam's obsession with covering women's hair is a new phenomenon". The evidence Taheri cites merely suggests that there was too little "radical Islam" in Iran before the 70's for it to matter at all, which is quite another matter.
I'm also pretty sure that he's wrong about the hijab being for the purpose of subjugating women. My impression is that people who talk about things like the scientific proof of insanity-inducing emmissions from women's hair tend to believe what they are saying.
Posted by: maor at January 10, 2010 12:50 pm
I'm also pretty sure that he's wrong about the hijab being for the purpose of subjugating women. My impression is that people who talk about things like the scientific proof of insanity-inducing emmissions from women's hair tend to believe what they are saying.
I've tried to search for more info on this but literally the only link that comes up is this post, no other webpage even mentions this. Also according to wikipedia Amir Taheri has been a little creative with facts in his career this combination makes me really distrustful of the info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri
Posted by: JantjePietje at January 10, 2010 4:19 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri
JantjePietje,
See here for more info, in English and Turkish.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 10, 2010 4:57 pm
See here for more info, in English and Turkish.
Here is a reference to it from six years ago in the NY Post.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 10, 2010 5:07 pm
Unfortunately the NY Post reference six years ago is also Mr. Taheri.
Posted by: Undertoad at January 10, 2010 5:47 pm
Here is a link to an album of my Iranian family's pictures, which almost all pre-date the revolution. My grandmother, for one, is almost never without her chador or head covering.
http://picasaweb.google.com/DNiknejad/Jul272009_2?feat=directlink
Posted by: D. Niknejad at January 11, 2010 7:06 pm
http://picasaweb.google.com/DNiknejad/Jul272009_2?feat=directlink
One Iranian designer came out with a wig made of horsehair, thus ensuring that a woman's own hair remains hidden while she still "looks like a normal human being."
The Al-Sheitel?
Posted by: Yitzchak Goodman at January 11, 2010 9:02 pm
The Al-Sheitel?
Post a comment
