Has everyone seen the photo of the Archbishop of Canterbury presenting an award to Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi? If not, please have a look

[TheStateWeAreIn]

I don’t know what to say really, I just want as many women on MN as possible to see this picture.

Particularly Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi‘s wife.

There’s so much going on there.

(I know there’s another thread about the award and it’s subsequent withdrawal, I just wanted to start a thread to focus on the photo)

Because we care about women's oppression!

I always wonder why people who make this asinine point believe that the only place that socialisation/social pressure/the internalisation of misogyny doesn't exist is in Islam.

Absolutely. The Church of England and Catholic Church have terrible histories in that regard and the problem is an ongoing one.

The image is appalling - and the message of tacit support being sent by standing next to a woman so completely covered her eyes are barely visible is entirely shameful.

I was glad to see that award had been rescinded but sickened that the line in sand was apparently not reached when presented with this extreme example of female subjugation.

A lot of women will tell you that they feel very liberated being dressed in a manner that keeps the negative attention of men away from them. As a western woman, I have always wondered what it would be like to wear something like a niqab or burqa and if it would make me feel less like a piece of meat on display for the patriarchy to leer at. I think it is something to consider most certainly.

Yes. It's really fucking bad. That poor woman being covered up. Bollocks is it "her choice".

It was due to what the man said, but yes it is a stark image.

Absolutely. I really question the morals of the other woman in the photo that she didn't say, hang on a minute, this is wrong I won't endorse this.
It makes me fear for the future of women in our country. It's basic stuff this.

The image is so shocking. And women coming out with all the “it’s her choice” lines to justify it when I very much doubt that they said the same when they saw the pictures from the Taliban is equally shocking.

It just shows how easily some people can be influenced in the name of “tolerance”.

Good points

Seriously????

Do you honestly believe them? Did the women of Afghanistan voluntarily decide to leave school and any hope of an independent future and shroud themselves in black?

I didn't see the photo until I read an article about the award being withdrawn. I didn't initially realise there were three people in the picture, the bloke's wife seems to be tiny in addition to being blacked out. I think it's horrific.

It is an interesting point, but again it highlights that men (patriarchy) are the problem. I go back to the question someone else shared up thread - what would be the consequences if this woman changed her mind and made a choice to wear Western clothing, with her face, hands, and maybe arms and legs on display?

That's a really sad way of looking at this - that you've always wondered what it would be like to be under one of these, and that you'd seemingly feel better hiding yourself away from society.
Your viewpoint is something to think about, certainly but from a viewpoint that you feel like you want to be hidden. 😓

I agree with you OP. The photo is the perfect poster for everything we're being told to accept. Not only is a terrorist sympathiser being handed a certificate for his "work" but a woman stands behind him dressed as an indistinguishable blob. I'm left leaning and these are not my values but I being told they should be.

Are you waiting for a man or a God to give you permission to wear one yourself?

Being barely able to see or breathe properly shouldn't be necessary to stop men leering. If it is then I would suggest the men are the problem and perhaps tackling that might be better than having women encasing themselves in fabric.
It is possible to dress modestly without covering your airways. And some men will still leer.
Don't you see how ridiculous it is to put the solution on women? It doesn't solve anything, it in fact makes it worse.

It affects me because I don’t want my daughter growing up in society that seeks to rationalise or normalise such extremes of female subjugation.

It affects us all because because we have ‘moral’ leaders who would sacrifice women on the alter of interfaith courtesy. The same institution that spent years insisting female bishops were a gospel imperative now
treats an image of female invisibility as entirely unremarkable - because it arrived wearing a different religious label.

Same.

It's a horrific and shocking photo. Thanks for the awareness OP.

Everything about this picture makes me angry.

The gormlessly grinning white woman who probably thinks she's being oh-so accepting and modern, the misogynistic, gluttonous man who most likely sees the white woman as an infidel and an inferior being, and the downtrodden wife swathed head to toe in black with her expressions hidden, her mouth covered, and her humanity erased, accepting her role.

Ain't religion great?

It is a microcosm. A perfect encapsulation of the madness of the UK in 2026 and people’s unwillingness to think beyond the mantras they are fed in their eagerness not to be labelled a “bad” person.

People will literally support the subjugation of women if they are told that’s the “progressive” belief to hold.

I think it's a hideous image of female oppression. Does anybody know if the archbishop actually spoke with the woman at all or was she just there as a token?

But that's not what we're talking about, at all. Classic whataboutery/poor critical thinking.

This is a picture of a figure who nominally represents our society, openly colluding with the principle that a 'good' woman must be invisible - the absolute negation of what almost all of us would call identity or agency.

The Church, for all its massive issues, doesn't publicly approve of child abuse.

A massive part of the clusterfuck that is now multiculturalism could have been avoided if Britain had enforced a basic and rational hierarchy of rights which, because it is the first binary, put women's rights at the top rather than 'cultural values'.

But it didn't, probably because that would have created a precedent which would cause men's general primacy to collapse.

That's just it - I'm really torn on this subject and find myself agreeing with lots of conflicting opinions!
On the one hand, if women are happy wearing this, and they want to, that it's their belief etc, then they should be allowed to.
If they suddenly turned around one day and decided they wanted to wear skirts, tops and have their hair on display, what would happen to a lot of the women? Would they be allowed to or would it be dangerous for them to do so? Because if so, that's not a free choice, is it. It's not a choice at all if that's the case.