It is easy to be brave when there is no risk to oneself – monetarily, physically or emotionally. It is much harder to be brave when there is a considerable risk, if not certain, to one's safety, security, or their very life. Protests for a better government in Iran have seen women reject the theocratic government steeped in Islamic Sharia law by removing their oppressive hijabs, risking their very lives. Yet, the self-proclaimed feminists who marched against the election of President Trump during his inauguration remain silent in their support for these oppressed women. There is nothing for American women to fear in supporting Iranian women protesting their oppression and moving for a government without women-oppressing Sharia law. Still, these "women's groups" remain silent, as a whole.
The Washington Times reported:
The Women’s March has ignored the plight of Iranian women risking their lives for, among other things, the right to go out in public without covering their heads. Instead, the U.S.-based feminist movement is busy making plans for more anti-Trump demonstrations, where marchers will again freely sport their signature hats.
Fox News' Greg Gutfield stated American feminists "should be ashamed of their tepid response to the protests."
Commenting during Fox News' The Five, Gutfield stated, "The silent American feminist should be stewing in their own shame for not saying anything about this, for remaining silent, for basically saying that American oppression and Iranian oppression is the same thing."
In reality, American feminists remaining silent in no way means they believe American oppression is the same as Iranian oppression – they know it isn't. If, as a whole, these women's groups come out backing the protest by Iranian women against the Iranian government steeped in Islamic Sharia law, these groups would be alienating supporters of Islamic Sharia law whom they repeatedly support. Remember, these groups tout Islam as a "religion of peace," as a symbol of freedom for women, and their greatest supporters in the pretend plight of oppressed American women. It would mean exposing Islam and Sharia for what it truly represents.
One of the biggest hypocrites inside the women's movement, self-described "homegirl in a hijab," Linda Sarsour proclaimed conservatives hypocrites for supporting the Iranian protests because conservatives don't support the right of women to commit murder upon their unborn children. In a tweet criticizing President Trump, Sarsour wrote, "Is it just me or is Trump praising Iranian protesters AND at the same time also banned Iranians from entering the USA?"
Notice how Sarsour refrains from addressing the protest of Iranian women who are oppressed by the Sharia-following Iranian government. Instead, Sarsour ignores the issue but turns around calling conservatives hypocritical for not supporting, in her words, "American women to choose for their own bodies." As we have seen for decades now, "Women's choice" became synonymous with murdering innocent babies in the womb. However, Sarsour premised her argument from fallacy. Sarsour presumed one possesses the "right" to murder another, particularly those who are least able to defend themselves, if one is a woman and is pregnant, while conservatives maintained all along that murder, regardless of the age of the victim, is morally, legally and yes, biblically wrong. Sarsour conveniently ignored the multitude of choices available to women to prevent unwanted pregnancies, while supporting an act that remains immoral and illegal. As a reminder, Supreme Court decisions are not law.
Sharia-supporting Sarsour would be hard pressed to find any type of choice in Islamic Sharia governed countries for women for there are none. But, one thing Sarsour can count on with Sharia is the "right" to murder is promoted heavily in Islam from commands to wage jihad to honor killing those who dishonor their family.
She chided President Trump for supporting the Iranian women's protest as he denied Iranians entry into the US. It has been shown that Iran is one of the world's heaviest supporters of terrorism and terrorists. Again, Sarsour ignored the facts.
But, I digress.
Notable feminists like Ashley Judd and Madonna, have remained silent; however, several progressive women and Sen. Bernie Sanders have spoken out in support of oppressed Iranian women protesting their government, but did so in a general way.
According to The Washington Times:
Hillary Clinton said the Iranian people are “protesting for freedom and the future they deserve. I hope their government responds peacefully and supports their hopes.”
Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent, said all people have the right “to speak out against their government.”
“The government of Iran should respect this right and heed the voices of thousands of Iranians who are demonstrating across the country for better opportunities and a better future,” Mr. Sanders said on Sunday.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, said she stands with the “right of the Iranian people to peacefully protest.”
“The people of Iran deserve a government that respects human rights and works to address their grievances,” Ms. Warren said in a tweet on Tuesday.
These political hacks operate from the perspective of living in a republic under the Constitution for the united States of America that recognizes and guarantees our God-given individual unalienable rights, despite government's continued trampling of those rights they themselves condoned. They forget that governments steeped in Islamic Sharia law do not recognize women as having rights, as their "Allah" and prophet has great contempt for women. Under Islamic Sharia law, women have no right to protest against anything, much less the government of men who lauds over them. Allah is not the same as God. The Qu'ran is as far from The Holy Bible as it can get. These political hacks attempt to fool the people into thinking differently. But, if Allah is the same as God and The Qu'ran the same as The Holy Bible, why would Islamic Sharia governments not recognize God-given individual unalienable rights? The short answer is because they are not the same. If Islam and Christianity were the same, the women would have no need to protest because there would not be oppression of women. Remember, holding traditional views on the roles of women does not equate to oppression.
Moreover, while the country of Iran under Shah Reza Pahlavi may have brimmed with corruption and oppression against political parties seeking to undermine the Shahs' movement toward a secular government, Iranian women enjoyed many freedoms – freedom of choice in professions, voting, western dress, government protection from child marriage, polygamy, educational segregation and exclusion from public society, as well as attempts at reforming the restrictive family laws. After the Shah's overthrow by strictly observant Islamists, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, the advances of women regressed by 1000 years. Odd isn't it that women reverted to being oppressed when strict Islamists gained control of Iran, if Islam does not oppress women as feminists would have us believe?
Getting back to bravery. The women of Iran who stand in protest against their government and their oppression risk a great deal – arrest, imprisonment, beating and even death. They exhibit courage in the face of much adversity and great risk to themselves. In contrast, women in the united States who "claim" oppressions have little risk to their protests – arrest and jail if they break the law. Women, in the united States, are then afforded due process, just as a man. Women in Iran who are arrested and imprisoned are denied due process – their testimony is half that of a man's and are judged solely by men. Basically, the due process of the women of Iran consists of "yes she protested and disregarded Islamic Sharia law, beat her then kill her" by the men standing in judgment, which is not equality and certainly not due process. If an Iranian woman under the Islamic Sharia government reported being raped, government sanctions her death under their rules – women's testimony is half that of a man, there has to be two witnesses, etc. Again, I digress.
It's easy to expose oneself in America as a man masquerading as a woman, in the case of Bruce Jenner. There are no fatal consequences from government. To call this brave is to lack a total understanding of bravery. It's easy to proclaim being homosexual in America because there are no fatal consequences of doing so from government. However, these incidences under an Islamic Sharia law steeped government would find one thrown from a rooftop or killed in another manner. Government does not protect those types of individuals nor prosecutes those committing the murder because it operates under Islamic Sharia law. A woman reporting rape in Iran under the Islamic government is condemned not supported, unlike here in America.
Needless to say, you won't find any "feminists" or homosexuals dashing off to Iran to stand by the women who are truly oppressed under the Islamic regime nor will you find them standing in solidarity with them here in the united States, where the risk to their lives is zero from the government. Their "bravery" relies on zero risk, which isn't bravery at all. At a time when these women should stand with women truly oppressed, their type of "bravery" and "courage" are absent. These "feminists" dare not risk alienating Islam, a theocracy they claim as a "religion of peace" and one supporting their position, or exposing its true tenets. Better stated, fear is the word for the feminist type of "bravery" and "courage"; more specifically, it is the fear of those in America who practice Islam.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.