A pair of Arab hands were once subjected to the torment of being confined in thick gloves. Their mistress, taken by an American movie decided that she had to wear western clothes to look cool. Unfortunately for the hands, her idea of 'western clothes' derived from wester seasonal nations' winter fashion. She lives in the blazing deserts of Arabia.
Imagine someone in oven-like Arabia wearing thick gloves the likes of which even the Inuit wear only in the severest winters - the hands were fried. As their mistress was not too smart and prefered superficial appearance over self comfort, the hands continued to suffer. They drowned in their own stinking sweat and subsequently developed skin infection.
Only when their mistress was admitted to the hospital for high fever (I wonder why!) did they get some relief.
Because of their bad experience with gloves, the Arabian hands decided that gloves were bad for hands. Gloves are symbol of torment, confinement and backwardness. It was something that ALL gloves should be protected from.
They started the anti-glove movement.
"Gloves are the symbol of an ancient era. An era where hands could be forcefully confined to gloves against their will at their masters whim, an era that has ended". "ALL hands wearing gloves are being oppressed, and must be freed". "Wearing gloves is a hindrance to the function of a hand. It makes hands less efficient and thus must be rid off". These were among the principles that guided the Arab hands' anti-glove movement.
Indeed their arguments seemed valid at a glance (by the not-so-thinking). Plus, well...the Arab hands were loud and to add to that, no hand was brave enough to say otherwise even if they did not agree. As a result, the International Parliament of Hands came to a consensus to ban the wearing of gloves among hands.
The law came: No hands may wear gloves in public (because it is a symbol of oppression), hands wearing gloves will not be allowed into government buildings and will be denied the basic human right of education (because the government is against oppression!?), those hands found wearing gloves will have their gloves FORCIBLY ripped off of them to give them the WILLING CHOICE of not wearing gloves.
When this (self contradicting) law came into effect, it so happened that the northern hemisphere was having a particularly terrible winter. Alaska among others was covered in snow and the temperature was well in the negative.
A pair of Alaskan wood cutters hands came out in the open wearing the thickest gloves you have ever seen. Well obviously! Take the nature of their work and the climate, it would be inane to don anything less.
A group of enforcers instantly grabbed the Alaskan hands, verbally abused them and forced them to strip out of their gloves. Of course, the Alaskan hands refused. Not only would taking off the gloves forbid them their work, it would also deny them the right to wear whatever clothes they choose… And also for the obvious reason that it was freezing cold!
Intriguingly, despite the Alaskan hands' vehement refusal to take their gloves off, the enforcers continued to perceive their wearing gloves as being against their will.
The Alaskan hands were sued for 'willingly wearing gloves against their will(!???)'.
However, the Alaskan hands wouldn't go down without a fight - well duh! They fought back against the OPPRESSIVE and MINDLESS law against gloves.
They argued that:
1. Maybe there are some hands that do not want to wear gloves but are forced to wear them by mindless masters - but NOT ALL. Some hands WANT to wear gloves of their own accord.
2. There are hands that HAVE to wear gloves. Not all hands live in blazing hot Arabia like the Arab hands where wearing thick gloves is not practical. But for hands like the Alaskan hands that live in the freezing north, they have to and want to wear gloves. Willingly.
3. For hands that WANT to and HAVE to wear gloves, FORCING them to not wear gloves is OPPRESSION and an infringment on the RIGHT to wear what they CHOOSE - it is NOT freeing them from oppression.
The Alaskan hands fought for their RIGHT to CHOOSE what they wear. They refused to take off their gloves.
Curiously enough, the Arab hands insisted that the law was to protect hands like the Alaskan hands from the oppression of gloves. Their curious insistence continues to this day…
1. (The truly believing) Muslim women WANT to and HAVE to wear the headscarf. FORCING them to take their headscarf off, denying them employment and education because they WILLINGLY CHOOSE to wear headscarves is OPPRESSION. What would you say to traversing the north pole in just your underwear? That is the similitude of denying Muslim women the RIGHT to wear a headscarf, or the niqab (for those who hold the opinion that it is obligatory).
2. Indeed there are women doning Muslim names who oppose Allahs Laws (Islamic laws), His Order for the believing women to cover their aurah (the whole body save their face and the palms of their hands at the very least). Let them be with their opinion then (and they shall answer for it before Allah themselves). But there are also those who hold the opinion that wearing the headscarf, and the niqab are obligatory. Allow them their WILLING, EDUCATED CHOICE as well!!!
3. Choosing what we wear is a basic human right that every person is entitled to. If one is unable to accept another persons choice for no other reason than their whims, then they are intolerant bigots, oppressive fascists and pornographic racists. They have no place in civil human society and should be dealt as such.