Nazreen Bibi

Ex muslim athiest.

[Monireh Kazemi @MonirehKazemi]

Es ist ein absurder Widerspruch in sich:
Das Kopftuch soll angeblich als Schutz dienen, um die Blicke von Männern abzuwehren. Wenn Frauen den Hijab dann aber mit auffälligem Make-up und modischer Kleidung kombinieren, betreiben sie genau das Gegenteil: Sie ziehen die Aufmerksamkeit erst recht auf sich. Unabhängig von dieser kosmetischen Heuchelei verkörpert die islamische Verhüllung das exakte Gegenteil von Gleichberechtigung. Sie ist nichts anderes als ein patriarchaler Kontrollapparat über die Frau und ihre Sexualität.

Diese systematische Unterdrückung zeigt sich an folgenden Fakten:

- Der Zeitpunkt ist kein Zufall: Die Verhüllung wird in religiösen Kreisen genau dann eingefordert, wenn Mädchen ihre erste Periode bekommen – also mit 9 bis 15 Jahren, in manchen Fällen sogar früher. In diesem Alter soll ein Mädchen plötzlich „aus Überzeugung“ entscheiden, seine Bewegungsfreiheit, Freiheit und gesamte Lebensführung massiv einzuschränken. Der Grund ist biologisch klar: Mit der Geschlechtsreife wird die Frau gebärfähig und damit sexuell relevant. Die Verhüllung setzt genau dort ein, wo die weibliche Sexualität beginnt.

- Das tierische Männerbild und die Schuldumkehr: Die Verhüllung basiert auf der absurden theologischen Annahme, dass der weibliche Körper eine permanente sexuelle Provokation für den Mann darstellt. Damit wird die Pflicht zur Selbstbeherrschung komplett auf die Frau abgewälzt. Diese Vorschrift unterstellt Männern pauschal, sie seien ungesteuerte Triebtäter, die ohne Stoffbarriere über Frauen herfallen – ein primitives Männerbild, das man sonst nur aus der Tierwelt kennt. Das ist zutiefst antifeministisch und menschenverachtend für beide Geschlechter.

- Sichtbare Ungleichheit: Frauen müssen sich bedecken, Männer nicht. Das ist keine Gleichheit, sondern eine öffentliche Demütigung: Der weibliche Körper wird per se als etwas Schamhaftes und Gefährliches markiert, das man verstecken muss.

- Der Mythos der Freiwilligkeit: In islamischen Ländern wird die Verhüllung durch Gesetze, Milizen und familiäre Gewalt erzwungen. Doch selbst die vermeintlich „freie Wahl“ im Westen ist eine Illusion. Der Hijab bleibt das Symbol einer totalitären Ideologie, die die Geschlechterrollen des 7. Jahrhunderts festschreibt. Das zeigt sich im Beziehungsleben: Keine verschleierte Frau legt das Tuch nach der Heirat mit einem Muslim ab. Umgekehrt werden jedoch unzählige zuvor freie Frauen nach der Hochzeit unter den Schleier gezwungen. Der Druck von Ehemännern und Clans ist der wahre Treiber.

- Wer ernsthaft behauptet, das Kopftuch könne feministisch sein (etwa entgegen den Thesen von Aktivistinnen wie Dr. Emilia Zenzile Roig👇), hat Feminismus nicht richtig verstanden und verwechselt schlicht Zwang –sei er nun von Männern oder direkt von Allah –mit Befreiung. Das ist intellektuell genauso absurd, wie einen Keuschheitsgürtel als feministisches Accessoire zu verkaufen.

- Und zum Kern des Feminismus – der vielbeschworenen „Sisterhood“: Gerade die lautesten „feministischen“ Hijab-Trägerinnen zeigen keinerlei Solidarität mit den Frauen, die im Iran, in Afghanistan oder auch in Berlin, Hamburg und Essen sowie sogar im eigenen Familien-, Verwandten- und Freundeskreis gezwungen werden, sich zu verhüllen – und dafür ihre Freiheit, ihre körperliche Unversehrtheit oder sogar ihr Leben riskieren. Wer die Zwangsverschleierten im Stich lässt, nur um das eigene religiöse Symbol zu verteidigen, ist keine Feministin. Sie ist Teil des Problems.

❗️Ein Ziel des Feminismus ist es, Frauen aus religiös-patriarchaler Kontrolle zu befreien, nicht diese Kontrolle als „Empowerment“ oder „Wahl“ umzudeuten. Wer echte Gleichheit will, muss die Verhüllungspflicht kritisieren –nicht romantisieren.❗️

[Stephen Evans @Stephenmevans1]

Thousands of children at risk in ‘dirty and dangerous’ illegal schools.

Frustrating to still be seeing these headlines despite years of campaigning on the issue. Some progress. Not enough.

https://t.co/ag8OxHTgSM

[Nazreen Bibi @NazreenBibi1]

Women have periods, period, full stop.

[Basil the Great @BasilTheGreat]

The father of a Pakistani gang rapist does not see what his son has done as rape

He blames the 13 year old victim

This is how these people think

[Ex-Muslims of North America @ExmuslimsOrg]

Why do we readily critique Christian theology, Mormonism, or Scientology—but become hesitant when it comes to Islam?

Ideas should be evaluated by the same standard, regardless of who believes them.

If a religious teaching contributes to misogyny, homophobia, or restrictions on freedom of conscience, should it be exempt from criticism because it belongs to a minority faith?

Watch "Being Muslim Is a Vibe". https://t.co/zkqkcLPOxK

[Azat @AzatAlsalim]

Half a million Yezidis were facing Genocide by lSlS and the UN ignored them!
10,000 were killed,7000 were kidnapped and raped for refusing to convert to lsIam.
2599 still missing.

No one marched for them!
Not a single MusIim protested for missing Yezidis.

[Diana Alastair💚🤍💜 ⚢ ❌❌✡️ @sappholives83]

Hijab is not a “choice.”

[Nazreen Bibi @NazreenBibi1]

@Keir_Starmer wants to ban social media for under 16 to protect them from mental health issues, grooming and harmful content. Religious parents and religous content has a similar impact on children. This poor child!

[Dr. Maalouf ‏ @realMaalouf]

Zohran Mamdani’s intern Hadeeqa Arzoo Malik explains that electing him was all part of a Holy War and jihad:

“This is all jihad, this is all ibadah, this is all counted by Allah. How committed am I to this? What am I willing to sacrifice for this noble cause?”

[National Secular Society @NatSecSoc]

We are committed to ending all forced non-therapeutic genital cutting. This includes #FGM and ritual #circumcision of boys. A child's right to bodily autonomy must not be overridden by other people's religious or cultural beliefs. Join our campaign 👇https://t.co/F0avMpMtw8

[Isaac @isaacrrr7]

Los musulmanes de toda Europa están conmocionados tras la histórica y valiente decisión de Suecia: dejará de usar el término «islamofobia», acuñado por los Hermanos Musulmanes, por considerarlo un concepto manipulado políticamente para silenciar las críticas al islam.

La ministra de Asuntos Exteriores sueca, Maria Malmer Stenergard, anunció que su gobierno presionará a la Unión Europea y a las Naciones Unidas para que dejen de usar este término fraudulento.

El concepto de «islamofobia» fue diseñado deliberadamente para equiparar la crítica legítima a la doctrina islámica con el racismo. Se utilizó como arma para silenciar el debate sobre textos islámicos fundamentales que contienen mandamientos para hacer la guerra, violar y someter a los no musulmanes.

Suecia acaba de reconocer lo que millones de europeos ya saben: criticar una religión que abiertamente llama al asesinato y la esclavitud sexual de los no creyentes no es una fobia, sino sentido común y autoconservación.

Esto supone un duro golpe para el lobby islamista en toda Europa.

¿Estás de acuerdo con la decisión de Suecia?

[GB News @GBNEWS]

‘Promoting them in children’s books is not a neutral act.’

Julia Williams believes that safeguarding concerns have reached an ‘alarming’ level in some children’s gender-ideology books and calls for a rethink of storytelling rather than social activism.

[SubRosa )✿( Magick @subrosamagick.bsky.social @SubRosaMagick]

She was 57 years old.
White hair. No carefully managed image. No media training designed to make her more palatable. Just thirty years of accumulated knowledge and the calm, unhurried authority of a woman who had spent her life mastering her subject.
She sat on a BBC panel, answered questions about immigration and politics, cited evidence, made arguments — and then went home.
The next morning, her inbox looked like a crime scene.
Her name is Mary Beard — Cambridge professor, classicist, one of the most respected scholars of ancient Rome and Western civilisation alive. And the internet had decided that a woman speaking with quiet authority on television needed to be punished for it.
The messages were not criticism. They were not debate. They were rape threats. Death threats. Coordinated campaigns of personal destruction targeting her appearance, her age, her voice — anything that could be used to remind her that spaces like the one she had just occupied were not meant for her.
Most people would have gone quiet.
Mary Beard went further in.
She did what scholars do when they find a pattern that disturbs them: she followed it backward. Through decades. Through centuries. Through millennia. All the way back to some of the oldest texts in Western civilisation.
And she found it had always been there.
In Homer's Odyssey — one of the foundational works of Western literature, nearly three thousand years old — there is a scene that most readers pass over without registering its quiet violence. Penelope comes downstairs and asks the poet to sing a different song. Her own son, Telemachus, cuts her off. He orders her back to her room and tells her plainly: speech is the business of men.
She goes.
Mary Beard read that scene and recognized it immediately.
Not as ancient history. As a pattern.
In ancient Rome, women who dared to speak in public were not described as orators or thinkers. They were described as noise — disorderly sound, something that did not deserve to be called language or argument. Their voices were not speech. Their thoughts were not thoughts.
In the medieval world, women who claimed public authority were labeled as witches.
Elizabeth I — Queen of England, ruler of a nation — had to rhetorically reshape herself into something masculine just to be taken seriously as the leader of her own country.
The silencing of women who speak with authority was not invented by social media. It was not a modern pathology or a cultural accident. It was built deliberately, over centuries, into the very foundations of how Western civilisation defined who gets to speak, what authority sounds like, and who is allowed to take up space in public life.
Mary Beard had found something important.
In 2017, she published Women & Power: A Manifesto — short enough to read in an afternoon, substantial enough to reframe everything you thought you understood about why this keeps happening.
Her argument was precise and devastating.
The problem is not that women lack the ability to lead. The problem is that the model of leadership itself — the template for what public authority looks, sounds, and feels like — was built by men over centuries and has never been redesigned. When a woman enters public life and doesn't fit that template, she is not failing. The template was never built for her. It was built specifically to exclude her, and it has been doing exactly that, efficiently and continuously, for three thousand years.
The solution, Beard argued, is not to teach women to perform power the way men have always performed it. The solution is to dismantle and rebuild the very concept of what power is allowed to look like.
She kept teaching. She kept writing. She kept appearing on television — white-haired, unhurried, carrying her decades of authority without performing it, without packaging it for comfort, without apologizing for it.
The threats continued.
But other messages began arriving too. Letters from women and girls who had spent their entire lives feeling that every door was slightly too narrow, every table slightly too high, every room slightly reluctant to make space for them. Women who had spent years wondering what was wrong with them — why they couldn't quite fit, couldn't quite belong, couldn't quite be taken seriously no matter how much they knew or how hard they worked.
They read the book and understood, perhaps for the first time, that nothing had ever been wrong with them.
The room had been designed without them in mind.
That is not a personal failing.
That is a three-thousand-year-old architectural decision.
And one Cambridge professor with white hair and a calm voice — who refused to go quiet when the internet told her to — spent her career documenting it, naming it, and handing that knowledge to everyone who needed to hear it.
Telemachus told Penelope that speech was the business of men.
He was wrong then.
He is still wrong now.
And Mary Beard has three thousand years of evidence to prove it.
via The Inspireist

#FeministFriday #HERstory

[Khadija Khan @KhadijaKhan__]

This is gender apartheid, blatant women’s right’s violations , full blown manifestation of Islamic misogyny and systemic erosion of Afghan women.

Where is the outrage?!

[Dr. Maalouf ‏ @realMaalouf]

In Afghanistan, women are not allowed to work and have money.

To survive, those without husbands or fathers have to beg in front of mosques to bring bread home.

[Stephen Evans @Stephenmevans1]

All forms of non-consensual cutting of children's genitals raise serious child rights concerns, and risk lasting sexual, psychological and physical harm – including death. Religious or cultural tradition should never place a practice beyond scrutiny.
https://t.co/HzQ4vXM0Cz

[National Secular Society @NatSecSoc]

'I started to question why a healthy part of my body was removed without my consent'

Profoundly moving testimony from a young man who was circumcised because of his father's Jewish fath 👇

[National Secular Society @NatSecSoc]

The regulator has opened an investigation into Bread of Life church after we referred the charity for homophobic and anti-Muslim statements.

Organisations promoting regressive and harmful dogma should cease to be publicly subsidised👇

https://t.co/rAGKXJiQvU

[Nazreen Bibi @NazreenBibi1]

#FGM is illegal: no medical need, risk, no consent = abuse.
Non-therapeutic circumcision? Removes healthy tissue, no consent, real risks.
Same principle applied differently.
Why?
Children either have protection from avoidable harm, or they don’t.

[Nazreen Bibi @NazreenBibi1]

Had a wonderful day today representing the @NatSecSoc Ban faith schools. Children deserve education, not indoctrination. Identity should be chosen, not assigned.