Ida Auken, prominent Member of the Danish Parliament for the Liberal-left party that some Muslims chose to rely on in this summer’s parliamentary elections, because it is considered “tolerant” of Muslims in Denmark – called a Muslim man an idiot, solely because he refused to shake her hand. This is despite the fact that the man had tried to explain to Auken his point of view based on his Muslim identity.
Paradoxically, Ida Auken was one of the politicians who voted against the infamous handshake-law. Still, Auken was quick on the keys this time, as it seems she has eyed an opportunity and a need for this kind of despicable self-promotion, by publicly launching a verbal attack on a Muslim citizen, who has approached her; and she attributed to him – implicitly thereby his Muslim values and community – several negative descriptions. She called the man’s rejection of the handshake “blatant suppression of women”, and an expression of a view that considers women to be impure.
However, this nonsensical and ignorant response says more about Auken’s own character and cultural bias. With her outburst, she projects her own history of the oppressed Christian, European women onto the Muslim woman. The European woman was for centuries the property of her husband, and therefore had to take his name, whereas the Muslim woman retains her own name and is no property. European women were not allowed to own property, whereas the Muslim woman was always entitled to this. In addition, her earnings are always solely her own, while the husband’s earnings are for the whole family. – Is it then the man who is oppressed in Islam? And when a Muslim woman refuses to shake hands, is she then a “man oppressor”?… This logic is absurd.
Unfortunately, it is not a new trend that Danish politicians from both the “right” and “the left” do not see beyond their own euro-centric nose tips… Is the lack of gender struggle and the Western concept of “equality” equal to women’s oppression? Indeed, there has been a world history and a distinct Islamic history outside of Europe. Whether this is something Auken and like-minded politicians can imagine or not.
The Muslim woman is constantly depicted as oppressed, and examples of Islamic rulings are brought up: she must be obedient to her husband and cover herself more than the man etc., as well as examples that distort the truth (such as Auken’s accusations).
In Islam, gender roles do not exist for one gender to suppress the other, as was the case in the history of Europe, and it still is to this day. Islam simply does not share the cultural, political, and religious history that gave rise to the struggle of feminism in Europe and serves as the perpetually emotional argument for the flawed, secular concept of equality, which is totally redundant in Islam.
Islam recognizes that there are natural differences between men and women, and these differences are taken into account by the fact that (in certain areas) different rights and obligations exist for men and women respectively. In this way, a harmonious life between man and woman is created, free from rivalry and gender struggles.
The foolishness becomes tangible when populism and superficiality dominate political life. At the same time, it is sad to see that Muslim representatives continue to display the smallest degree of trust in spiteful politicians who, by public shame, do not hesitate to publicly shame them as heretics, in the name of equality!