From the time immemorial, boys and girls are raised very differently. In that, girls are raised to be caring, giving, gentle and submissive persons, whereas, boys are raised to be leader, provider, assertive and strong. Girls are encouraged to be caring and abiding. Occasional emotional retrospectives are accepted from them, but not from boys. They are praised for their physical strength and encouraged to hide their emotional vulnerability. Boys are encouraged to be dominant and defensive.
Boys are raised to become frontrunner, while most girls are encouraged to stay behind and support their men. These "leader" and "subservient" roles are established by the cleaver men, construed by the clergymen, and accepted by families. Governments' 'rule of law's are made based on these systematic discriminations.
Canadian's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau’s support for "Muslim women’s choice of attire" is one of the prime example of this. If Justin Trudeau himself insists that face-coverings are “rooted in a culture that is anti-women,” why did he defend Rania El-Alloul and justified wearing niqab was part of Canadian liberty?
The ISIS ideologies do not represent Islam and only the people of radical Islamic faith are violent. Wearing niqab doesn’t make a women true Muslim or violent. In fact most credited Internet sites I visited clearly stated that Islam doesn’t require the Muslim women to wear niqab.
Covering body parts seems to have been started as a symbol of wealth somewhere is Arab and in the Middle Eastern countries. Protecting women’s delicate bodies from the desert heat seem to have been the main purpose for burqa’s discovery.
I don’t know what the future Muslim women will think about Canadian Government's laws. But I know that women themselves can’t break the men-made-rules without being ostracized, or even lose their lives from the very hands that they and suppose to be protected.
Boys are raised to become frontrunner, while most girls are encouraged to stay behind and support their men. These "leader" and "subservient" roles are established by the cleaver men, construed by the clergymen, and accepted by families. Governments' 'rule of law's are made based on these systematic discriminations.
Canadian's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau’s support for "Muslim women’s choice of attire" is one of the prime example of this. If Justin Trudeau himself insists that face-coverings are “rooted in a culture that is anti-women,” why did he defend Rania El-Alloul and justified wearing niqab was part of Canadian liberty?
The ISIS ideologies do not represent Islam and only the people of radical Islamic faith are violent. Wearing niqab doesn’t make a women true Muslim or violent. In fact most credited Internet sites I visited clearly stated that Islam doesn’t require the Muslim women to wear niqab.
Covering body parts seems to have been started as a symbol of wealth somewhere is Arab and in the Middle Eastern countries. Protecting women’s delicate bodies from the desert heat seem to have been the main purpose for burqa’s discovery.
I don’t know what the future Muslim women will think about Canadian Government's laws. But I know that women themselves can’t break the men-made-rules without being ostracized, or even lose their lives from the very hands that they and suppose to be protected.
