Burkini: Aussi symbolique de l’islam que le col Mao de la culture chinoise (Look what they’ve done to our nuns’s coiffe, Ma !)

KabulIranFemale_hijab_in_Islamburkini-not-allowedcol-mao LangJack_Lang_MottakiFencingJe suis et demeure un combattant révolutionnaire. Et la Révolution aujourd’hui est, avant tout, islamique. Illich Ramirez Sanchez (dit Carlos)
L’erreur est toujours de raisonner dans les catégories de la « différence », alors que la racine de tous les conflits, c’est plutôt la « concurrence », la rivalité mimétique entre des êtres, des pays, des cultures. La concurrence, c’est-à-dire le désir d’imiter l’autre pour obtenir la même chose que lui, au besoin par la violence. Sans doute le terrorisme est-il lié à un monde « différent » du nôtre, mais ce qui suscite le terrorisme n’est pas dans cette « différence » qui l’éloigne le plus de nous et nous le rend inconcevable. Il est au contraire dans un désir exacerbé de convergence et de ressemblance. (…) Ce qui se vit aujourd’hui est une forme de rivalité mimétique à l’échelle planétaire. Lorsque j’ai lu les premiers documents de Ben Laden, constaté ses allusions aux bombes américaines tombées sur le Japon, je me suis senti d’emblée à un niveau qui est au-delà de l’islam, celui de la planète entière. Sous l’étiquette de l’islam, on trouve une volonté de rallier et de mobiliser tout un tiers-monde de frustrés et de victimes dans leurs rapports de rivalité mimétique avec l’Occident. Mais les tours détruites occupaient autant d’étrangers que d’Américains. Et par leur efficacité, par la sophistication des moyens employés, par la connaissance qu’ils avaient des Etats-Unis, par leurs conditions d’entraînement, les auteurs des attentats n’étaient-ils pas un peu américains ? On est en plein mimétisme.Ce sentiment n’est pas vrai des masses, mais des dirigeants. Sur le plan de la fortune personnelle, on sait qu’un homme comme Ben Laden n’a rien à envier à personne. Et combien de chefs de parti ou de faction sont dans cette situation intermédiaire, identique à la sienne. Regardez un Mirabeau au début de la Révolution française : il a un pied dans un camp et un pied dans l’autre, et il n’en vit que de manière plus aiguë son ressentiment. Aux Etats-Unis, des immigrés s’intègrent avec facilité, alors que d’autres, même si leur réussite est éclatante, vivent aussi dans un déchirement et un ressentiment permanents. Parce qu’ils sont ramenés à leur enfance, à des frustrations et des humiliations héritées du passé. Cette dimension est essentielle, en particulier chez des musulmans qui ont des traditions de fierté et un style de rapports individuels encore proche de la féodalité. (…) Cette concurrence mimétique, quand elle est malheureuse, ressort toujours, à un moment donné, sous une forme violente. A cet égard, c’est l’islam qui fournit aujourd’hui le ciment qu’on trouvait autrefois dans le marxisme.  René Girard
Au printemps, le keffieh se portera en étendard : en version classique noir et blanc, en bleu indigo ou de toutes les couleurs… Magazine féminin  
Le tourisme halal est une sous-catégorie du tourisme religieux qui s’adresse aux familles musulmanes se conformant aux règles de l’islam. Les hôtels de ces destinations ne servent pas d’alcool et ont des piscines et spas séparés pour les hommes et les femmes. La Malaisie, la Turquie ainsi que beaucoup d’autres pays tentent d’attirer les touristes musulmans du monde entier en leur proposant des services conformes à leurs convictions religieuses. L’industrie du tourisme Halal offre aussi des vols où l’on ne sert ni alcool ni produits à base de porc, où les horaires de prière sont annoncés et où des émissions religieuses font partie des divertissements proposés à bord de l’avion. Wikipedia
En Turquie, les hôtels répondant aux règles islamiques voient leur fréquentation croître de façon exponentielle. Cet engouement va de pair avec l’enrichissement de classes sociales amatrices d’un tourisme de loisir mais aussi culturel. Saphir news
Austria‘s alpine towns of Zell am See and Kaprun have been criticised for producing an eight-page guide for Middle Eastern tourists, featuring « cultural advice » on how to behave. The booklet, in English and Arabic, features tips such as the idea that Austrian shopkeepers do not expect haggling over prices, and that eating on the floor in hotel rooms is a « no-no ». Drivers are informed that wearing seatbelts is compulsory, and they will be given guidance on understanding road signs, to reduce their risks while driving. Visitors are also advised not to wear burkas, and to « adopt the Austrian mentality ». (…) It explains that there are many restaurants where Halal meat is served, and with Arabic-speaking staff, but that Austrians also pride themselves on their food. (…) Alpine destinations are exceedingly popular in the summer with Middle Eastern travellers, who look to escape the extreme heat of their home countries. (…) Leo Bauernberger, executive director of the Salzburger Land Tourism company, told the Austria Press Agency that « Arabs are here in the summer for more than 470,000 nights, making them the second largest visitor group after Germans ». But Peter Padourek, mayor of Zell am See, said that tourists wearing the burka was a cause of friction in the area.(…) But other hotel operators have criticised the leaflets, saying that it unfairly stigmatised Arab visitors – who spend an average of £195 per person per day; more than double the daily amount dispensed with by European tourists. Telegraph
SURFERS Paradise and Broadbeach will convert to Islam and feature more prayer rooms, halal restaurants and extended trading hours, says Mayor Tom Tate. On his return from the Middle East, Cr Tate will meet with traders, restaurant owners, hotels and marketing bodies to look at how both tourism areas can better cater for high-yield Middle Eastern tourists. He also wants to extend trading hours during Ramadan to cater for the later rising and dining tourists as one of the major criticisms was the early closing hours of many Gold Coast restaurants. About 20,000 Gulf tourists visit the region each year, staying on average for about a month with combined spending of between $53 million and $75 million.  Gold coast.com
C’est en fait un bikini deux pièces islamique, ce qui peut sembler idiot. Aheda Zanetti 
Le climat politique actuel n’est pas facile, les musulmans sont scrutés à la loupe et j’espère que les gens comprennent à travers moi ce que veut dire être musulmane. Ibtihaj Muhammad
In 2009, a public swimming pool in Emerainville excluded a burkini-wearing woman, on the grounds that she violated pool rules by wearing street clothes. But burkinis only erupted into a national political issue on Aug. 12 when the mayor of Cannes, a resort town on the French Riviera, banned burkinis (without legally defining what exactly they are) on the Cannes beaches because it represents Islamism. (…) This development astonishes me, someone who has argued that the burqa (and the niqab, a similar article of clothing that leaves a slit for the eyes) needs to be banned from public places on security grounds. Those formless garments not only hide the face, permitting criminals and jihadis to hide themselves but they permit the wearer to hide, say, an assault rifle without anyone knowing. Men as well as women use burqas as accessories to criminal and jihadi purposes. Indeed, I have collected some 150 anecdotes of bank robberies, abductions, murders, and jihadi attacks since 2002; Philadelphia has become the Western capital of burqas and niqabs as criminal accessories, with at least 34 incidents in 9 years. In contrast, the burkini poses no danger to public security. Unlike the burqa or niqab, it leaves the face uncovered; relatively tight-fitting, it leaves no place to hide weapons. Men cannot wear it as a disguise. Further, while there are legitimate arguments about the hygiene of large garments in pools (prompting some hotels in Morocco to ban the garment), this is obviously not an issue on the coastal beaches of France.Accordingly, beach burkinis should be allowed without restriction. Cultural arguments, such as the one made by Valls, are specious and discriminatory. If a woman wishes to dress modestly on the beach, that is her business, and not the state’s. It’s also her prerogative to choose unflattering swimwear that waterlogs when she swims. The Islamist threat to the West is very real, from the Rushdie rules to sex gangs, taharrush, polygyny, honor killings, partial no-go zones, and beheadings. With the influx to Europe of millions of unvetted Muslim migrants, these problems will grow along with the number of Islamists. Nerves are on edge and the political scene is changing rapidly, as symbolized by half the vote for president of Austria recently going to a hardline anti-immigration politician.Issues concerning Islam are arguably Europe’s number-one concern, ahead even of the European Union and the financial crisis; they need to be dealt with by confronting real problems, not by focusing on symbolic irrelevancies such as burkinis, halal shops, and minarets. Burqas and niqabs must be banned (as the German government may soon do), freedom of speech about Islam and Muslims must be reconfirmed, Saudi and Iranian funding for religious purposes must be cut, and a single legal code must apply to all. So, my advice: focus on these real problems and let Muslims wear what they wish to the beach. Daniel Pipes
« What is it about Philadelphia, burqas, and robberies? » (…) The demographics of Philadelphia, whose Muslim population is among the largest in the U.S., make it particularly fertile ground. While only a very small percentage of Philadelphians wear niqabs, they are sufficiently numerous to be seen with regularity. Desensitizing the public to this radical attire opens many doors. (…) Simply put, the increasing prevalence of face-cloaking Islamic garb is rendering traditional masks obsolete. Both provide anonymity, but a niqab grants the wearer access that a mask does not. Whereas spotting a masked individual entering a bank or business strongly indicates a robbery, someone in a niqab doing so may represent just another patch in Philadelphia’s multicultural quilt. Indecision about the wearer’s motives — indeed, most women in niqabs do not have criminal intent — buys crucial time for a heist to unfold on the perpetrator’s terms. The relatively common sight of niqabs, as opposed to masks, also enables a robber to travel to the crime scene in the same face-blocking apparel, further lowering the chances of being identified. Moreover, they take advantage of political correctness, which cautions against scrutinizing people who don such clothes. (…) Islamists promote this cultural paralysis. Case in point: the victimhood narrative pushed in the wake of the latest Philadelphia robberies. One imam declared them « a hate crime against Muslims, » as they allegedly put Muslim women « in danger of being stereotyped, victimized, and ostracized. » City Councilman Curtis Jones Jr. doubled down on the persecution theme: « In many ways I’m reminded of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, stereotyped because of a garment called a hoodie. » Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chimed in as well. « Islamophobes love to see this sort of thing, because it gives them fuel to express their hatred, » he claimed. « Now they can say, ‘See, this is why Muslim women shouldn’t dress the way they do.' » Therefore, banks must run the gauntlet of « Islamophobia » charges if they pursue a seemingly obvious remedy: forbidding attire that hides customers’ faces from security cameras. Financial institutions nationwide have worked to deter more conventional robberies, reportedly with some success, by implementing dress codes that ban hats, hoods, and sunglasses, but Islamists have fought restrictions on headgear. When disputes arose several years ago over women being asked to remove headscarves or be served in alternate areas, CAIR characteristically demanded more sensitive policies and issued dubious calls for federal probes. Just as predictably, the banks and credit unions tended to cave and exempt hijabs. No doubt robbers note the deference toward Islam enforced by Islamists — a phenomenon exacerbated in cities like Philadelphia with copious Muslims and an aggressive CAIR chapter. (…) How to proceed? The ultimate solution would entail proscribing face-covering apparel everywhere in public, as France and Belgium have done. Yet American banks enjoy plenty of leeway to ban it on their premises right now, assuming that they ignore CAIR’s specious threats and frequently bogus tales of Muslim victimhood. The First Amendment may protect niqabs on the streets, but banks are private entities and thus not bound by it. They also are not listed in Title II of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act among « places of public accommodation » where religiously discriminating against clients is illegal — not that faith-neutral dress codes are « discriminatory » anyway, regardless of Islamists’ pleas. In addition, though numerous states, including Pennsylvania, have civil rights laws that are more expansive than the federal version, the various requirements to accommodate religious practices of customers or employees are not absolute and typically must be balanced against the hardships imposed on others. One can debate whether banks should tolerate hijabs, which often obscure less of the face than hoodies or caps, but it is inconceivable that banks are somehow obligated to welcome niqabs that purposefully hide the face and burden others by undermining safety in a venue where security is paramount. If ski masks are not permitted, niqabs should not be either. Drawing the line with clear policies that prohibit all criminal-friendly garments on bank property would be a significant step in the appropriate direction — and almost certainly a legal one. Situated at the leading edge of this problem in the U.S., Philadelphians have a special responsibility to find effective solutions. Other American cities must stay alert as well, because the ingredients that make Philadelphia a prime target exist elsewhere; Detroit comes to mind. If Philadelphia manages to curtail the trend, its approach can be a template for comparable cities to follow. But if it fails, criminals in the country’s niqab-heavy metropolitan areas may soon thank the trailblazing burqa bandits of Philadelphia for having provided a successful model of their own. David J. Rusin
Aheda Zanetti, une entrepreneuse australienne d’origine libanaise, ne s’attendait certainement pas à ce que tous les regards se braquent un jour sur sa société, Ahiida, créée en 2004 à Sydney lorsqu’elle était à peine âgée de 40 ans. (…) À l’origine, Aheda Zanetti affirme avoir eu l’idée de créer ce concept de mode pour aider les jeunes femmes musulmanes à faire du sport. Arrivée du Liban en Australie lorsqu’elle avait deux ans, la créatrice explique sur son site de vente en ligne: «J’ai remarqué que les jeunes filles et femmes qui suivent les préceptes de l’Islam, en adoptant notamment des tenues vestimentaires modestes, doivent souvent se résigner à ne pas participer aux activités sportives que l’Australie a à offrir.» Il y a 12 ans, estimant que le marché avait du potentiel, elle a donc lancé son entreprise de mode spécialisée dans les maillots de bains et tenues de sports pour les musulmanes. Elle a, dans la foulée en 2006, déposé les marques Ahiida®, Burqini® et Burkini®. Le succès a été immédiat, selon l’entrepreneuse. «Nous avons vendu plus de 700.000 tenues de bain (depuis la création de la marque, NDLR) et nous écoulons également bien nos produits en Europe et en France», explique l’entrepreneuse au Figaro. Les ventes ont, selon elle, augmenté de 40% durant l’été 2016. (…) D’après Aheda Zanetti, 40% environ du marché est porté par des clientes non-musulmanes, pour certaines des femmes qui veulent se protéger du soleil avec ces tenues. Slim fit, grande taille, anti-coup de soleil, la gamme de vêtements proposée par Ahiida est vaste. Les prix oscillent de près de 80 euros (même si en ce moment certains produits sont en promotion à environ 60 euros) jusqu’à près de 130 euros, selon les coupes, par exemple. L’entreprise propose aussi des modèles pour enfants. Malgré les polémiques récurrentes à travers le monde, et sans doute aussi un peu pour en profiter, les grandes marques commencent à s’intéresser à ce marché. Marks & Spencer a lancé une collection de burkinis au printemps dernier, une initiative que la ministre des Droits des femmes Laurence Rossignol avait alors qualifiée d’«irresponsable». De leur côté, les enseignes de mode peuvent-elles réellement passer à côté de la manne de consommation que représente la clientèle musulmane? Selon une étude de Thomson Reuters et de l’institut d’études newyorkais DinarStandard, les dépenses en habillement de la communauté musulmane dans le monde devraient passer de 230 milliards de dollars (204 mds€) en 2014 à 327 milliards (290 mds€) en 2020. Le Figaro
Contraction de « bikini » et « burqa », le burkini est un costume de bain qui enveloppe l’ensemble du corps, des cheveux jusqu’aux chevilles. Son invention est attribuée à l’Australienne Aheda Zanetti, qui a lancé sa gamme de tenues pratiques pour le sport et « religieusement correctes » en 2003. En Australie, où la plage est une véritable « culture », que ce soit pour le surf ou la simple baignade, il y avait « un vide qu’il fallait combler », expliquait-elle à l’Agence France-Presse en 2007. (…) Dans le livre sacré des musulmans, explique Franck Fregosi, spécialiste de l’islam, « il y a des éléments relatifs aux règles de pudeur, mais pas de codification ». Si plusieurs versets du Coran mentionnent le voile, son port n’est pas explicitement exigé, et les avis divergent quant à l’interprétation des textes. (…) Le burkini ne cache pas le visage. Comme le voile, il est donc autorisé en France dans les lieux publics. Seul le voile dissimulant le visage (niqab) est proscrit dans l’espace public depuis 2011. Les municipalités côtières qui ont récemment pris des arrêtés prohibant le burkini sur les plages ont mis en avant le risque de « troubles à l’ordre public » dans le contexte de menaces d’attentats. Le Point
Malgré eux, les islamistes sont des Occidentaux. Même en rejetant l’Occident, ils l’acceptent. Aussi réactionnaires que soient ses intentions, l’islamisme intègre non seulement les idées de l’Occident mais aussi ses institutions. Le rêve islamiste d’effacer le mode de vie occidental de la vie musulmane est, dans ces conditions, incapable de réussir. Le système hybride qui en résulte est plus solide qu’il n’y paraît. Les adversaires de l’islam militant souvent le rejettent en le qualifiant d’effort de repli pour éviter la vie moderne et ils se consolent avec la prédiction selon laquelle il est dès lors condamné à se trouver à la traîne des avancées de la modernisation qui a eu lieu. Mais cette attente est erronée. Car l’islamisme attire précisément les musulmans qui, aux prises avec les défis de la modernité, sont confrontés à des difficultés, et sa puissance et le nombre de ses adeptes ne cessent de croître. Les tendances actuelles donnent à penser que l’islam radical restera une force pendant un certain temps encore. Daniel Pipes
Amid all this intellectual and moral confusion, Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit have deftly proposed the notion of « Occidentalism. » This is a play on « Orientalism, » the formulation advanced by the late Edward Said, whereby a society or its academics and intellectuals can be judged by their attitude to the « other. » Avishai Margalit is a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has been very much identified with the secular and internationalist wing of the Israeli peace camp. Ian Buruma is known to a large audience for his witty and profound studies of Asia, Germany and England. Both authors had in common a friendship with, and a strong admiration for, Isaiah Berlin. … The authors demonstrate that there is a long history of anti-Western paranoia in the intellectual tradition of the « East, » but that much of this is rooted in non-Muslim and non-Oriental thinking. Indeed, insofar as the comparison with fascism can be made, it can be derived from some of the very origins and authors that inspired fascism itself. In many areas of German, Russian and French culture, one finds the same hatred of « decadence, » the same cultish worship of the pitiless hero, the same fascination with the infallible « leader, » the same fear of a mechanical civilization as opposed to the « organic » society based on tradition and allegiance. Christopher Hitchens
We generally understand « radical Islam » as a purely Islamic phenomenon, but Buruma and Margalit show that while the Islamic part of radical Islam certainly is, the radical part owes a primary debt of inheritance to the West. Whatever else they are, al Qaeda and its ilk are revolutionary anti-Western political movements, and Buruma and Margalit show us that the bogeyman of the West who stalks their thinking is the same one who has haunted the thoughts of many other revolutionary groups, going back to the early nineteenth century. In this genealogy of the components of the anti-Western worldview, the same oppositions appear again and again: the heroic revolutionary versus the timid, soft bourgeois; the rootless, deracinated cosmopolitan living in the Western city, cut off from the roots of a spiritually healthy society; the sterile Western mind, all reason and no soul; the machine society, controlled from the center by a cabal of insiders, often jews, pulling the hidden levers of power versus an organically knit-together one, a society of « blood and soil. » The anti-Western virus has found a ready host in the Islamic world for a number of legitimate reasons, they argue, but in no way does that make it an exclusively Islamic matter. The Economist
They are not expressions of an outburst in the West of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict in the Middle East. It is truly modern, aimed against American imperialism, capitalism, etc. In other words, they occupy the same space that the proletarian left had thirty years ago, that Action Directe had twenty years ago. . . . It partakes henceforth of the internal history of the West. (…) It can feel like a time-warp, a return to the European left of the 1970s and early 1980s. Europe’s radical-mosque practitioners can appear, mutatis mutandis, like a Muslim version of the hard-core intellectuals and laborers behind the aggrieved but proud Scottish National party in its salad days. (…) In the last three centuries, Europe has given birth and nourishment to most of mankind’s most radical causes. It shouldn’t be that surprising to imagine that Europe could nurture Islamic militancy on its own soil. (…) In Europe as elsewhere, Westernization is the key to the growth and virulence of hard-core Islamic radicalism. The most frightening, certainly the most effective, adherents of bin Ladenism are those who are culturally and intellectually most like us. The process of Westernization liberates a Muslim from the customary sanctions and loyalties that normally corralled the dark side of the human soul. (…) It would be a delightful irony if the more progressive political and religious debates among the Middle East’s Muslims saved their brethren in the intellectually backward lands of the European Union. Reuel Marc Gerecht
Wherever it occurs, Occidentalism is fed by a sense of humiliation, of defeat. It is a war against a particular idea of the West – a bourgeois society addicted to money, creature comforts, sex, animal lusts, self-interest, and security – which is neither new nor unique to Islamist extremism. This idea has historical roots that long precede any form of ‘U.S. imperialism’ . (…) Blood, soil, and the spirit of the Volk were what German romantics in the late 18th and early 19th centuries invoked against the universalist claims of the French Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and Napoleon’s invading armies. This notion of national soul was taken over by the Slavophiles in 19th-century Russia, who used it to attack the « Westernizers, » that is, Russian advocates of liberal reforms. It came up again and again, in the 1930s, when European fascists and National Socialists sought to smash « Americanism, » Anglo-Saxon liberalism, and « rootless cosmopolitanism » (meaning Jews). Aurel Kolnai, the great Hungarian scholar, wrote a book in the 1930s about fascist ideology in Austria and Germany. He called it War Against the West. Communism, too, especially under Stalin, although a bastard child of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, was the sworn enemy of Western liberalism and « rootless cosmopolitanism. » Many Islamic radicals borrowed their anti-Western concepts from Russia and Germany. The founders of the Ba’ath Party in Syria were keen readers of prewar German race theories. Jalal Al-e Ahmad, an influential Iranian intellectual in the 1960s, coined the phrase « Westoxification » to describe the poisonous influence of Western civilization on other cultures. He, too, was an admirer of German ideas on blood and soil. Clearly, the idea of the West as a malign force is not some Eastern or Middle Eastern idea, but has deep roots in European soil. Defining it in historical terms is not a simple matter. Occidentalism was part of the counter-Enlightenment, to be sure, but also of the reaction against industrialization. Some Marxists have been attracted to it, but so, of course, have their enemies on the far right. Occidentalism is a revolt against rationalism (the cold, mechanical West, the machine civilization) and secularism, but also against individualism. European colonialism provoked Occidentalism, and so does global capitalism today. But one can speak of Occidentalism only when the revolt against the West becomes a form of pure destruction, when the West is depicted as less than human, when rebellion means murder. Wherever it occurs, Occidentalism is fed by a sense of humiliation, of defeat. Isaiah Berlin once described the German revolt against Napoleon as « the original exemplar of the reaction of many a backward, exploited, or at any rate patronized society, which, resentful of the apparent inferiority of its status, reacted by turning to real or imaginary triumphs and glories in its past, or enviable attributes of its own national or cultural character. » The same thing might be said about Japan in the 1930s, after almost a century of feeling snubbed and patronized by the West, whose achievements it so fervently tried to emulate. It has been true of the Russians, who have often slipped into the role of inferior upstarts, stuck in the outer reaches of Asia and Europe. But nothing matches the sense of failure and humiliation that afflicts the Arab world, a once glorious civilization left behind in every respect by the post-Enlightenment West. Humiliation can easily turn into a cult of the pure and the authentic. Among the most resented attributes of the hated Occident are its claims to universalism. Christianity is a universalist faith, but so is the Enlightenment belief in reason. Napoleon was a universalist who believed in a common civil code for all his conquered subjects. The conviction that the United States represents universal values and has the God-given duty to spread democracy in the benighted world belongs to the same universalist tradition. Some of these values may indeed be universal. One would like to think that all people could benefit from democracy or the use of reason. The Code Napoleon brought many benefits. But when universal solutions are imposed by force, or when people feel threatened or humiliated or unable to compete with the powers that promote such solutions, that is when we see the dangerous retreat into dreams of purity. Not all dreams of local authenticity and cultural uniqueness are noxious, or even wrong. As Isaiah Berlin also pointed out, the crooked timber of humanity cannot be forcibly straightened along universal standards with impunity. The experiments on the human soul by Communism showed how bloody universalist dreams can be. And the poetic romanticism of 19th-century German idealists was often a welcome antidote to the dogmatic rationalism that came with the Enlightenment. It is when purity or authenticity, of faith or race, leads to purges of the supposedly inauthentic, of the allegedly impure, that mass murder begins. The fact that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and a general hostility to the West often overlap is surely no coincidence. Even in Japan, where Jews play no part in national life, one of the participants at the 1942 Kyoto conference suggested that the war against the West was a war against the « poisonous materialist civilization » built on Jewish financial capitalist power. At the same time, European anti-Semites, not only in Nazi Germany, were blaming the Jews for Bolshevism. Both Bolshevism and capitalism are universalist systems in the sense that they do not recognize national, racial, or cultural borders. Since Jews are traditionally regarded by the defenders of purity as the congenital outsiders, the archetypal « rootless cosmopolitans, » it is no wonder that they are also seen as the main carriers of the universalist virus. To be sure, Jews had sound reasons to be attracted to such notions as equality before the law, secular politics, and internationalism, whether of a socialist or capitalist stamp. Exclusivity, whether racial, religious, or nationalist, is never good for minorities. Only in the Middle East have Jews brought their own form of exclusivity and nationalism. But Zionism came from the West. And so Israel, in the eyes of its enemies, is the colonial outpost of « Westoxification. » Its material success only added to the Arab sense of historic humiliation. The idea, however, that Jews are a people without a soul, mimics with no creative powers, is much older than the founding of the State of Israel. It was one of the most common anti-Semitic slurs employed by Richard Wagner. He was neither the first to do so, nor very original in this respect. Karl Marx, himself the grandson of a rabbi, called the Jews greedy parasites, whose souls were made of money. The same kind of thing was often said by 19th-century Europeans about the British. The great Prussian novelist Theodor Fontane, who rather admired England, nonetheless opined that « the cult of the Gold Calf is the disease of the English people. » He was convinced that English society would be destroyed by « this yellow fever of gold, this sellout of all souls to the devil of Mammon. » And much the same is said today about the Americans. Calculation — the accounting of money, interests, scientific evidence, and so on — is regarded as soulless. Authenticity lies in poetry, intuition, and blind faith. The Occidentalist view of the West is of a bourgeois society, addicted to creature comforts, animal lusts, self-interest, and security. It is by definition a society of cowards, who prize life above death. As a Taliban fighter once put it during the war in Afghanistan, the Americans would never win, because they love Pepsi-Cola, whereas the holy warriors love death. This was also the language of Spanish fascists during the civil war, and of Nazi ideologues, and Japanese kamikaze pilots. The hero is one who acts without calculating his interests. He jumps into action without regard for his own safety, ever ready to sacrifice himself for the cause. And the Occidentalist hero, whether he is a Nazi or an Islamist, is just as ready to destroy those who sully the purity of his race or creed. It is indeed his duty to do so. When the West is seen as the threat to authenticity, then it is the duty of all holy warriors to destroy anything to do with the « Zionist Crusaders, » whether it is a U.S. battleship, a British embassy, a Jewish cemetery, a chunk of lower Manhattan, or a disco in Bali. The symbolic value of these attacks is at least as important as the damage inflicted. What, then, is new about the Islamist holy war against the West? Perhaps it is the totality of its vision. Islamism, as an antidote to Westoxification, is an odd mixture of the universal and the pure: universal because all people can, and in the eyes of the believers should, become orthodox Muslims; pure because those who refuse the call are not simply lost souls but savages who must be removed from this earth. Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, among others, but did not view the entire West with hostility. In fact, he wanted to forge an alliance with the British and other « Aryan » nations, and felt betrayed when they did not see things his way. Stalinists and Maoists murdered class enemies and were opposed to capitalism. But they never saw the Western world as less than human and thus to be physically eradicated. Japanese militarists went to war against Western empires but did not regard everything about Western civilization as barbarous. The Islamist contribution to the long history of Occidentalism is a religious vision of purity in which the idolatrous West simply has to be destroyed. The worship of false gods is the worst religious sin in Islam as well as in ancient Judaism. The West, as conceived by Islamists, worships the false gods of money, sex, and other animal lusts. In this barbarous world the thoughts and laws and desires of Man have replaced the kingdom of God. The word for this state of affairs is jahiliyya, which can mean idolatry, religious ignorance, or barbarism. Applied to the pre-Islamic Arabs, it means ignorance: People worshiped other gods because they did not know better. But the new jahiliyya, in the sense of barbarism, is everywhere, from Las Vegas and Wall Street to the palaces of Riyadh. To an Islamist, anything that is not pure, that does not belong to the kingdom of God, is by definition barbarous and must be destroyed. Just as the main enemies of Russian Slavophiles were Russian Westernizers, the most immediate targets of Islamists are the liberals, reformists, and secular rulers in their own societies. They are the savage stains that have to be cleansed with blood. But the source of the barbarism that has seduced Saudi princes and Algerian intellectuals as much as the whores and pimps of New York (and in a sense all infidels are whores and pimps) is the West. And that is why holy war has been declared against the West. Ian Buruma
Il est malheureux que le Moyen-Orient ait rencontré pour la première fois la modernité occidentale à travers les échos de la Révolution française. Progressistes, égalitaristes et opposés à l’Eglise, Robespierre et les jacobins étaient des héros à même d’inspirer les radicaux arabes. Les modèles ultérieurs — Italie mussolinienne, Allemagne nazie, Union soviétique — furent encore plus désastreux …Ce qui rend l’entreprise terroriste des islamistes aussi dangereuse, ce n’est pas tant la haine religieuse qu’ils puisent dans des textes anciens — souvent au prix de distorsions grossières —, mais la synthèse qu’ils font entre fanatisme religieux et idéologie moderne. Ian Buruma et Avishai Margalit
Tell that to the creator of the burkini, the Australian designer Aheda Zanetti, who coined the name for a line of swimwear she introduced to offer women who did not want to expose their bodies — for whatever reason — the freedom to enjoy water sports and the beach. The British chef and television star Nigella Lawson wore a burkini on an Australian beach in 2011, presumably of her own free will. Meanwhile, the world has watched Muslims proudly compete at the Olympics in Rio in body-covering sportswear
Le multiculturalisme c’est justement accepter que l’autre soit culturellement différent, et l’on ne peut imposer une culture exclusive sans aliéner ceux qui s’en sentent exclus. Annika
Il est malheureux que le Moyen-Orient ait rencontré pour la première fois la modernité occidentale à travers les échos de la Révolution française. Progressistes, égalitaristes et opposés à l’Eglise, Robespierre et les jacobins étaient des héros à même d’inspirer les radicaux arabes. Les modèles ultérieurs — Italie mussolinienne, Allemagne nazie, Union soviétique — furent encore plus désastreux …Ce qui rend l’entreprise terroriste des islamistes aussi dangereuse, ce n’est pas tant la haine religieuse qu’ils puisent dans des textes anciens — souvent au prix de distorsions grossières —, mais la synthèse qu’ils font entre fanatisme religieux et idéologie moderne. Ian Buruma et Avishai Margalit
Germany is facing its hijab problem, with a number of Islamist organizations suing federal and state authorities for “religious discrimination” because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear. In the United States, several Muslim women are suing airport-security firms for having violated their First Amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers. All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam. That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet. This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi’ite community. In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. (A casual visit to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.) Sadr’s idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shi’ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon. Sadr’s neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah’s regime. When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands. In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that “scientific research had shown that women’s hair emitted rays that drove men insane.” To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 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 gear for millions of women all over the world, including Europe and America. Some younger Muslim women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab was an essential part of the faith. (Katherine Bullock, a Canadian, so loved the idea of covering her hair that she converted to Islam while studying the hijab.) The garb is designed to promote gender apartheid. It covers the woman’s ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out. Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries. These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne’a and picheh, among others. All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colorful Headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless.) Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute “must” of Islam. This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilization. It is used as a means of exerting pressure on Muslim women who do not wear it because they do not share the sick ideology behind it. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war. The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a “good Muslim” without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab. Even today, less than 1 percent of Muslim women wear the hijab that has bewitched some Western liberals as a symbol of multicultural diversity. The hijab debate in Europe and the United States comes at a time when the controversial headgear is seriously questioned in Iran, the only country to impose it by law. (…) The delicious irony of militant Islamists asking “Zionist-Crusader” courts in France, Germany and the United States to decide what is “Islamic” and what is not will not be missed. The judges and the juries who will be asked to decide the cases should know that they are dealing not with Islam, which is a religious faith, but with Islamism, which is a political doctrine. Amir Taheri

Attention: une coiffe peut en cacher une autre !

A l’heure où la température du débat sur le burkini va bientôt dépasser celle du soleil sur nos plages …

Et que de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, l’on présente comme une grande avancée de l’émancipation féminine une musulmane qui pousse la pudeur jusqu’à porter le masque sous son masque d’escrimeuse …

Pendant que pour  fustiger une France qui a dix fois plus de musulmans, le NYT lui-même monte au créneau …

Pendant que de l’autre côté de la Méditerranée l’on interdit tranquillement dans les piscines des grands hôtels …

Ou qu’entre la Turquie et la Malaisie ou l’Autriche ou l’Australie se développe le « tourisme halal »

Peut-être faudrait-il aussi rappeler avec le politologue irano-américain Amir Taheri …

Qu’au-delà des radicaux qui récupèrent ou tirent plus ou moins les ficelles derrière …

Ou, contrairement au burkini légalement non-sanctionnable, des petits malins qui s’en servent pour commettre des délits

Et bien après les pratiques ancestrales qu’elles sont censées reprendre et sans compter les fantasmes de nos orientalistes …

Le hijab comme la version plage de la burkha (c’est l’étymologie proprement oxymorique – voire « idiote » du propre aveu de sa créatrice libano-australienne – du terme burkini) sont, comme l’islamisme, toutes des inventions récentes inspirées et imitées d’inventions occidentales (la tunique, le voile et la guimpe de nos religieuses, notamment au Liban pour le premier, les tenues de plongée moderne pour le second) …

Par des musulmans immigrés en Occident ou occidentalisés redécouvrant et faisant redécouvrir à leurs contemporains, en réaction avec l’Occident qui les fascine et donc comme nouveau marqueur identitaire à la manière de nos « born again » et avec le zèle du nouveau converti (voire, pour les plus intellos, comme l’équivalent féminin de la vareuse, de la casquette ou du col du Grand Timonier aux 30 millions de morts qu’appréciaient tant nos jeunes gens engagés des années 60 ou du keffieh des terroristes palestiniens si tendance d’aujourd’hui) …

Une pratique de l’islam largement et souvent volontairement oubliée comme rétrograde par la génération de leurs parents à leur âge, Iran comme Algérie ou Afghanistan compris …

Et donc que l’on est et que l’on reste effectivement en plein multiculturalisme, invention aussi occidentale que récente !

This is Not Islam

FRANCE’S Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a committee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. The decision has drawn fire from the French “church” of Islam, an organization created by Raffarin’s government last spring.

Germany is facing its hijab problem, with a number of Islamist organizations suing federal and state authorities for “religious discrimination” because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear.

In the United States, several Muslim women are suing airport-security firms for having violated their First Amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers.

All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.

That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.

This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi’ite community.

In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. (A casual visit to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.)

Sadr’s idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shi’ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon.

Sadr’s neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah’s regime. When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands.

In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that “scientific research had shown that women’s hair emitted rays that drove men insane.” To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 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 gear for millions of women all over the world, including Europe and America.

Some younger Muslim women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab was an essential part of the faith. (Katherine Bullock, a Canadian, so loved the idea of covering her hair that she converted to Islam while studying the hijab.)

The garb is designed to promote gender apartheid. It covers the woman’s ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out.

Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries.
These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne’a and picheh, among others.

All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colorful Headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go Topless.)

Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute “must” of Islam.

This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilization.

It is used as a means of exerting pressure on Muslim women who do not wear it because they do not share the sick ideology behind it.
It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war.

The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a “good Muslim” without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab.

Even today, less than 1 percent of Muslim women wear the hijab that has bewitched some Western liberals as a symbol of multicultural diversity. The hijab debate in Europe and the United States comes at a time when the controversial headgear is seriously questioned in Iran, the only country to impose it by law.

Last year, the Islamist regime authorized a number of girl colleges in Tehran to allow students to discard the hijab while inside school buildings. The experiment was launched after a government study identified the hijab as the cause of “widespread depression and falling academic standards” and even suicide among teenage girls.

The Ministry of Education in Tehran has just announced that the experiment will be extended to other girls schools next month when the new academic year begins. Schools where the hijab was discarded have shown “real improvements” in academic standards reflected in a 30 percent rise in the number of students obtaining the highest grades.

Meanwhile, several woman members of the Iranian Islamic Majlis (parliament) are preparing a draft to raise the legal age for wearing the hijab from six to 12, thus sparing millions of children the trauma of having their heads covered.

Another sign that the Islamic Republic may be softening its position on hijab is a recent decision to allow the employees of state-owned companies outside Iran to discard the hijab. (The new rule has enabled hundreds of women, working for Iran-owned companies in Paris, London, and other European capitals, for example, to go to work without the cursed hijab.)

The delicious irony of militant Islamists asking “Zionist-Crusader” courts in France, Germany and the United States to decide what is “Islamic” and what is not will not be missed. The judges and the juries who will be asked to decide the cases should know that they are dealing not with Islam, which is a religious faith, but with Islamism, which is a political doctrine.

The hijab-wearing militants have a right to promote their political ideology. But they have no right to speak in the name of Islam.

Voir aussi:

France’s Burkini Bigotry

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
The NYT

After bans on full-face veils, head scarves in schools and rules about students’ skirt lengths, France’s perennial problem with Muslim women’s attire has taken its most farcical turn yet with a new controversy over the “burkini,” body-covering swimwear whose name is an amalgam of burqa and bikini. As of Thursday, five French mayors had banned the burkini, calling it, variously, a threat to public order, hygiene, water safety and morality, tantamount to a new weapon of war against the French republic. Thierry Migoule, an official with the city of Cannes, the first to ban the burkini, declared the swimwear “clothing that conveys an allegiance to the terrorist movements that are waging war against us.”

This hysteria threatens to further stigmatize and marginalize France’s Muslims at a time when the country is listing to the Islamophobic right in the wake of a series of horrific terrorist attacks. And with presidential elections scheduled for next spring and the right-wing National Front’s popularity on the rise, French officials and politicians have leapt to support the mayors.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls on Wednesday called the burkini a symptom of “the enslavement of women” that “is not compatible with the values of France” and said “the nation must defend itself.” France’s women’s rights minister, Laurence Rossignol, declared the burkini “the beach version of the burqa” and said “it has the same logic: Hide women’s bodies in order to better control them.”

Tell that to the creator of the burkini, the Australian designer Aheda Zanetti, who coined the name for a line of swimwear she introduced to offer women who did not want to expose their bodies — for whatever reason — the freedom to enjoy water sports and the beach. The British chef and television star Nigella Lawson wore a burkini on an Australian beach in 2011, presumably of her own free will. Meanwhile, the world has watched Muslims proudly compete at the Olympics in Rio in body-covering sportswear.

The fact that French parents are increasingly dressing their toddlers in remarkably similar suits to protect them from the sun, or that a wet suit also covers the head and body, adds to the hypocrisy of this debate. But at the heart of the dispute is something far darker: French politicians’ paternalistic pronouncements on the republic’s duty to save Muslim women from enslavement — by dictating to them what they can and can’t wear. The burkini rumpus is also a convenient distraction from the problems France’s leaders have not been able to solve: high unemployment, lackluster economic growth and a still very real terrorist threat.

Voir également:

Burkini®, une marque déposée en 2006 en Australie

La société Ahiida a été créé en Australie en 2004 par Aheda Zanetti. Elle est aujourd’hui implantée au Moyen Orient, au Canada, à Singapour, en Afrique du Sud et en Europe. D’autres marques se sont lancées sur ce créneau.

Aheda Zanetti, une entrepreneuse australienne d’origine libanaise, ne s’attendait certainement pas à ce que tous les regards se braquent un jour sur sa société, Ahiida, créée en 2004 à Sydney lorsqu’elle était à peine âgée de 40 ans. En pleine polémique sur le burkini en France -qui s’étend en Espagne-, des voix s’élèvent pour demander une loi afin d’interdire ce type de tenue de plage couvrant le corps et la tête des femmes. À l’origine, Aheda Zanetti affirme avoir eu l’idée de créer ce concept de mode pour aider les jeunes femmes musulmanes à faire du sport. Arrivée du Liban en Australie lorsqu’elle avait deux ans, la créatrice explique sur son site de vente en ligne: «J’ai remarqué que les jeunes filles et femmes qui suivent les préceptes de l’Islam, en adoptant notamment des tenues vestimentaires modestes, doivent souvent se résigner à ne pas participer aux activités sportives que l’Australie a à offrir.»

Il y a 12 ans, estimant que le marché avait du potentiel, elle a donc lancé son entreprise de mode spécialisée dans les maillots de bains et tenues de sports pour les musulmanes. Elle a, dans la foulée en 2006, déposé les marques Ahiida®, Burqini® et Burkini®. Le succès a été immédiat, selon l’entrepreneuse. «Nous avons vendu plus de 700.000 tenues de bain (depuis la création de la marque, NDLR) et nous écoulons également bien nos produits en Europe et en France», explique l’entrepreneuse au Figaro. Les ventes ont, selon elle, augmenté de 40% durant l’été 2016.

À l’international, Ahiida a désormais un pied sur chaque continent. L’entreprise est, d’après son site, implantée au Moyen Orient, au Canada, à Singapour, en Afrique du Sud et en Europe. «Nous sommes ravis du volume de commandes internationales, passées par des femmes en quête de tenues de bain et de sports pudiques», commente Aheda Zanetti. «Nos marchés les plus importants sont les États-Unis, le Canada et l’Europe.» Selon elle, les ventes de l’entreprise ne souffrent pas des interdictions prononcées dans certains pays, comme cela a été le cas au Maroc. «Nous pensons que les femmes européennes, notamment, ont adhéré à nos lignes Burkini Swimwear et Hijood Sportwear et à ce qu’elles représentent.» D’après Aheda Zanetti, 40% environ du marché est porté par des clientes non-musulmanes, pour certaines des femmes qui veulent se protéger du soleil avec ces tenues.

Boom de la consommation musulmane

Slim fit, grande taille, anti-coup de soleil, la gamme de vêtements proposée par Ahiida est vaste. Les prix oscillent de près de 80 euros (même si en ce moment certains produits sont en promotion à environ 60 euros) jusqu’à près de 130 euros, selon les coupes, par exemple. L’entreprise propose aussi des modèles pour enfants.

Malgré les polémiques récurrentes à travers le monde, et sans doute aussi un peu pour en profiter, les grandes marques commencent à s’intéresser à ce marché. Marks & Spencer a lancé une collection de burkinis au printemps dernier, une initiative que la ministre des Droits des femmes Laurence Rossignol avait alors qualifiée d’«irresponsable». De leur côté, les enseignes de mode peuvent-elles réellement passer à côté de la manne de consommation que représente la clientèle musulmane? Selon une étude de Thomson Reuters et de l’institut d’études newyorkais DinarStandard, les dépenses en habillement de la communauté musulmane dans le monde devraient passer de 230 milliards de dollars (204 mds€) en 2014 à 327 milliards (290 mds€) en 2020.

Voir encore:

Histoire du burkini, des origines aux polémiques

Après la polémique, retour sur l’histoire du burkini : son invention, son apparition en France, et le marché qu’il représente aujourd’hui.

Source AFP

 Le Point
17/08/2016|

4 commentaires pour Burkini: Aussi symbolique de l’islam que le col Mao de la culture chinoise (Look what they’ve done to our nuns’s coiffe, Ma !)

  1. jcdurbant dit :

    Many Islamists advocate total segregation between the sexes, and in fact they would reject the burkini. The full-body swimwear would certainly not be allowed in today’s Saudi Arabia: still too revealing! In that sense, it is actually a step forward from Islamism’s peak in the ’90s. But it is still a step backward from before theocratic Islamism took hold among Muslims. The more women succumb to this Not Muslim Enough charade, the more theocrats demand of them. Is it any wonder, then, that some of the most abusive, oppressive societies for women happen also to be the most religiously conservative? (…) Just like any other practice rooted in religiously inspired misogyny, the burkini cannot be detached from the body-shaming tied to its origins. Aheda Zanetti continued to insist that her product is “about not being judged” as a Muslim woman, yet she is wedded to a practice that inextricably judges the female form as being “immodest,” as she, too, did in her own piece …

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/25/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-burkini-wars.html

    J'aime

  2. jcdurbant dit :

    Au Maroc, on se moquait gentiment de cet accoutrement avec une sorte de distanciation rassurante …

    Burkini est un mot valise composé de burka et de bikini. Personne ne savait ce que burka voulait dire avant les attentats du 11 septembre. La guerre déclarée par George W. Bush à l’Afghanistan qui cachait les cerveaux d’Al Qaida, à leur tête Oussama Ben Laden, nous a fait découvrir – ou rappelé, cela dépend de votre âge, moi j’avais 14 ans – l’existence des talibans. L’une des particularités des talibans, c’est qu’ils forcent leurs femmes à porter une tente bleue perforée au niveau du visage pour qu’elles ne suffoquent pas. Ils sont aussi connus pour défigurer leurs femmes, à l’acide, au feu ou au couteau, pour un oui ou pour un non. J’exagère peut-être, mais j’ai vu trop d’Afghanes aux nez et aux oreilles tranchées et je pense que défigurer quelqu’un est un châtiment qui ne sied à aucun crime. On a donc appris par la même occasion que cet habit s’appelait burka et on en a fait des blagues ; on les a comparées à des sacs poubelles et on a pensé à l’absurdité de leurs photos de famille. On a aussi pensé à la souffrance de ces pauvres femmes sous le soleil de Kaboul et de Kandahar.

    Au Maroc, on se moquait gentiment de cet accoutrement avec une sorte de distanciation rassurante ; on n’avait pas ça chez nous. Parce qu’il faut savoir qu’il fût un temps où il y avait les voilées et les cheveux au vent. Les ninjas, les Darth Vador, les tchadors et les burkas étaient rarissimes et, de toute façon, elles étaient vues avec un regard suspicieux parce qu’à l’époque, personne n’avait besoin de faire preuve d’excès de zèle pour prouver sa foi – ma mère est une voilée et elle les déteste viscéralement -. Puis les chaînes de préchi-précha, le wahhabisme saoudien, l’argent qatari, la montée en force du PJD – et d’autres facteurs qui doivent m’échapper parce que je ne suis pas une experte en la matière – ont fait que le voile intégral s’est normalisé et s’est répandu. Maintenant ce sont les filles en jean qu’on regarde de travers. N’importe quel Marocain de plus de 30 ans vous dira que c’était quand même mieux avant, c’était plus cool, même qu’il y a 40 ans on avait nos propres concours de Miss Bikini organisés sur les plages de Casablanca. Il y avait beaucoup plus de femmes en maillot deux pièces que maintenant, les voilées se baignaient toutes vêtues et c’était leur problème. Des fois on entendait parler de plages privées d’intégristes, où hommes et femmes se baignaient séparément mais tous nus. C’était évidemment une légende urbaine, mais c’est pour vous dire qu’ils étaient tellement rares qu’ils nous faisaient fantasmer. D’ailleurs avant, il n’y avait pas autant de plages privées, il n’y avait pas ce besoin de louer un relax à 300 dirhams pour être tranquille, parce qu’on l’était déjà partout. Vous allez me dire qu’il y a de l’alcool dans les plages privées ; croyez-le ou pas, il y a 15 ans, les zoufris mettaient leur bière dans des théières et ça ne dérangeait pas grand monde.

    Et regardez où l’on est. Les barbus qui font leur prière du vendredi dans les plages pour intimider les baigneurs, c’est récent. Les jeunes qui se photographient avec une pancarte sur laquelle est écrit « no bikini respect ramadan », c’est récent. Les pages Facebook qui divulguent les photos volées des filles en bikini en menaçant de dévoiler leurs identités, c’est récent. Le burkini, c’est récent. Ça, c’est ce qui arrive quand on tolère un peu trop une idéologie qui ne tolère pas la différence et quand on démusèle des gueules souffrant d’un sérieux complexe de supériorité. J’ai déjà raconté, dans un autre billet, comment on nous apprenait à l’école que nous étions le peuple élu, qu’Allah s’adressera à nous en arabe le jour du jugement et que les juifs sont des singes et les chrétiens des porcs.

    Maintenant c’est la France, pays de la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme, de Brigitte Bardot, de Kiki de Montparnasse, de Toulouse-Lautrec, de Simone de Beauvoir, d’Olympe de Gouges et de Manuel Ferrara (franchement, merci la France) qui se demande s’il faut ou pas laisser les musulmanes se baigner en burkini. La question ne se pose même pas ! Oui, il faut l’interdire, c’est un symbole d’oppression et une provocation abjecte étant donnés les tristes évènements qu’a connus la France. Les défenseurs qui le comparent à une tenue de surf, vous vous foutez de qui au juste ? Vous comparez une combi à un habit spécialement conçu pour les femmes qui ont bien intégré l’idée que tout leur corps est un organe sexuel et que le désir qu’il provoque chez les frustrés est leur propre responsabilité ? Ces femmes-là ne sont même pas censées se trouver dans un endroit où les corps quasi nus des deux sexes se mélangent, c’est pour ça qu’elles veulent des piscines privatisées. Quoi ? Le burkini est un moyen de les sortir de chez elles ? Donc vous admettez qu’elles sont en fait opprimées et que leur voile n’est pas une liberté, mais une contrainte rationnalisée en choix. Faites attention, elles ne vous tolèrent pas comme vous les tolérez, demain ce sont les bikini qui seront minoritaires sur les plages françaises.

    Noujad Fathi

    http://mondafrique.com/filles-jean-quon-regarde-de-travers/

    J'aime

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :