Probably the dumbest hijab story ever

The proposed charter of Quebec values is tearing the Montreal Community apart. Many Islam women feel that they are no longer welcome in Quebec. This charter which is packaged as unifying the various ethnic groups with the main culture is Quebec is causing controversy and dissention.

The proposed charter of Quebec values is  not tearing anything apart. Muslims divide any community in order to destroy it from within. Since allah has already divided the world in believer and unbeliever, this is ignorant blather. Carol Roach lacks basic education about Islam.


The proposed charter of values forbids religious symbols and headgear in the public sector. This has become a point of concern for many Muslim women who protest that wearing a hijab does not make their work inferior than the work of other women who do not wear the hijab. For years they have worked in the public sector in harmony with the general and ethnic community. Now they feel they are being singled out. Some women have already been harassed since the proposed charter first surfaced in the news.

These women remember how they once felt welcome and now they do not feel welcome anymore. They came to Quebec thinking they would have freedom of expression and good live. Even Muslim women who do not wear the hijab empathize with their Muslim sisters who do. The proposed charter is already making things difficult for them and the charter has yet to be approved.

Two sisters decided to show the diversity of ideas by bringing the debate to the forefront. They want to educate the general public about the hijab and about Muslim women. Their main point they wish to bring across is that Muslims are not all the same. Yes, they follow the Muslim religion but many of these Muslim women are strong women, feminists, and well-educated for the most part.

These sisters show the diversity among the community. One sister, Sama Al-OBaidy wears the hijab while her sister Yusr doesn’t. Sama is a business analyst and comes from a well-educated family. They started a group called “Support Another” when one woman tried to take off Sama’s hijab.

Both sisters say the wearing a hijab is a choice not a sign of oppression though they will not deny that some Muslim may feel like they are forced to wear it. The men in their lives do not control them nor tell them what to do. For Sama and Muslim women like her, the hijab is a symbol of modesty and a religious symbol showing humility before God.

Western women have often been told the hijab is enforced upon a woman by their men. These two women say it is not so.

Yursr is in the process of deciding if she wants to wear a hijab as a fashion statement and also in solidarity with her Muslim sisters.

These women are surprised that a debate should even exist about a hijab and so is this examiner. Muslim women are hurt. Canada prides itself on welcoming new people and new cultures into the Canadian mosaic. Unfortunately, Quebec has got it all wrong.

6 thoughts on “Probably the dumbest hijab story ever”

  1. Quebec got it correct!!! What is it that stupid muslims do not understand about common law taking precidence over cultural dogma!!!!!

  2. “Many Islam women feel that they are no longer welcome in Quebec.”

    Ladies, you are not welcome anywhere in the civilized Western world.

  3. “Western women have often been told the hijab is enforced upon a woman by their men. These two women say it is not so.”

    Argument from anecdote; FAIL.

    They only wear the hijab as protection because they want their fellow muslim men to know who they are and in times of war who not to kill, and in times of false peace who not to rape. Muhammad came up with that plan to protect his wives and all the other captive wives of his followers while they were engaged in battle. To know which men were muslim it was decided that they should grow a full beard with no mustache.

    The Hijab is not a fashion trend, it’s a prison uniform!

    It’s also an insult to both sexes; from Sura 33:59, it is a slanderous statement that implies the muslim men (and all men, just like Muhammad) are so at the mercy of their hormones, that they must molest and rape any and all women they can see; so it’s always the women’s own fault for not covering up. It also says the muslim men have a duty to molest and rape all the infidel women for not covering up!

    “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. That will be better so that they will be known so as not to be molested. And Allâh is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’ân 33:59)

    How will they “be known” in the freedom sack?! Certainly not as in: “Oh, I know her! Hi, Mary!” but “known” as muslimas – as members of the gang! And why is this important? “so as not to be molested!”

    Which again implies that muslims DID and always WILL “molest” (i.e: rape,) all the NON-muslim (“infidel”) women! That it’s the infidel women’s faults, because they don’t cover up, that the muslim men “must” molest (rape) them!

    Moe also said women are created by allah as domesticated animals, created for men’s pleasure, and like fields to be tilled at wil by them.


    Before Moe, covering up was optional; any fool could ignore it if they wanted to. The tafsir ahadith isnads (supplemental, explanatory material apending the Qur’an) explain that the Sura in question (33:59) arose because Moe’s wives were seen by moonlight as they went potty outside his tent one night. But, quite unlike any other self-respecting warlord, who would have had the peeping tom executed for spying on his wives, Moe agreed with the man and blamed his victims, (his own wives) perhaps because the peeper was a rich or influential member of an allied tribe.

  4. @Uncle Vladdi,

    Brilliant rebuttal.

    Although, I would argue one step further that the hijab is more than a prison uniform, it really is a cultural signifier for a slave class. As a woman, the iconographical significance I attach to the hijab is (willing) captive-willing and unwilling, subclass.

    Furthermore, there is a certain type of woman, in Feminism and militant hijabies who embrace any means to hide or eliminate their gender and will deliberately funnel that self loathing into a political activism to justify their shields of self-defense and thus see signifiers like the hijab as a means to empower themselves through a deliberate cultural rejection. For a certain type of militant feminist the power is wielded against their indigenous society. For the muslim female the rejection is against the ‘foreign’ host society. In essence, both have selected metaphorical Armour as a defense against a world they are both angry at and feel rejected by.

  5. “Muslim women are hurt.”

    Really, well boo hoo. Who cares?

    Where is the Western woman’s consideration for our diversity in the mosaic? Where is the cross cultural respect for my “choice” in embracing my 21st century, Western cultural identity?

Comments are closed.