PDA

View Full Version : Head-to-toe Muslim Veils Test Tolerance of Stridently Secular Britain



Pale Rider
06-21-2007, 07:39 PM
Head-to-toe Muslim Veils Test Tolerance of Stridently Secular Britain


By Jane Perlez
Thursday, June 21, 2007

LONDON: Increasingly, Muslim women in Britain take their children to school and run errands covered head to toe in flowing black gowns that allow only a slit for their eyes.

Like little else, their appearance has unnerved Britons, testing the limits of tolerance in this stridently secular nation. Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. At the same time, efforts are growing to place legal curbs on the full Muslim veil, known as the niqab.

The past year has seen numerous examples: A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear her. A teacher wearing a niqab was told by a provincial school to go home. A student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the courts, and lost. In fact, the British education authorities are proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether.

David Sexton, a columnist for The Evening Standard, wrote recently that Britain has been "too deferential" toward the veil. "I find such garb, in the context of a London street, first ridiculous and then directly offensive," he said.

Although the number of women wearing the niqab has increased in the past several years, only a tiny percentage of women among Britain's two million Muslims cover themselves completely. It is impossible to say how many exactly.

Some who wear the niqab, particularly younger women who have taken it up recently, concede that it is a frontal expression of Islamic identity, which they have embraced since Sept. 11, 2001, as a form of rebellion against the policies of the Blair government in Iraq and at home.

"For me it is not just a piece of clothing, it's an act of faith, it's solidarity," said a 24-year-old program scheduler at a broadcasting company in London, who would allow only her last name, Al Shaikh, to be printed, saying she wanted to protect her privacy. "9/11 was a wake-up call for young Muslims," she said.

At times she receives rude comments, including, Shaikh said, when a woman at her workplace told her she had no right to be there. Shaikh said she planned to file a complaint.

When she is on the street, she often answers barbs. "A few weeks ago a lady said: 'I think you look crazy.' I said: 'How dare you go around telling people how to dress,' and walked off. Sometimes I feel I have to reply. Islam does teach you that you must defend your religion."

Other Muslims find the niqab objectionable, a step backward for an immigrant group that is under pressure after the terror attack on London's transit system in July 2005.

"After the July 7 attacks, this is not the time to be antagonizing Britain by presenting Muslims as something sinister," said Imran Ahmad, author of "Unimagined," an autobiography of growing up Muslim in Britain, and the head of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. "The veil is so steeped in subjugation, I find it so offensive someone would want to create such barriers. It's retrograde."

Since South Asians started coming to Britain in large numbers in the 1960s, a small group of usually older, undereducated women have worn the niqab. It was most often seen as a sign of subjugation.

Many more Muslim women wear the headscarf, called the hijab, covering all or some of their hair. Unlike in France, Turkey and Tunisia, where students in state schools and female civil servants are banned from covering their hair, British Muslim women can wear the headscarf, and indeed the niqab, almost anywhere, for now.

But that tolerance is eroding. Even some who wear the niqab, like Faatema Mayata, a 24-year-old psychology and religious studies teacher, agreed there were limits. "How can you teach when you are covering your face?" she said, sitting with a cup of tea in her living room in Blackburn, a town in the north of England, her niqab tucked away because she was within the confines of her home.

She has worn the niqab since she was 12, when she was sent by her parents to an all-girls boarding school. The niqab was not, as many Britons seemed to think, a sign of extremism, she said. The niqab, to her, was about identity. "If I dressed in a Western way I could be a Hindu, I could be anything," she said. "This way I feel comfortable in my identity as a Muslim woman."

No one else in the family wore the niqab. Her husband, Ibrahim Boodi, a social worker, was indifferent, she said. "If I took it off today, he wouldn't care."

When she is walking, she is often stopped, she said. "People ask, 'Why do you wear that?' A lot of people assume I'm oppressed, that I don't speak English. I don't care, I've got a brain."

Some commentators have complained that mosques encourage women to wear the niqab, a practice they have said should be stopped. At the East London Mosque, one of the largest in the capital, the chief imam, Abdul Qayyum, studied in Saudi Arabia and is trained in the Wahhabi school of Islam. According to the community relations officer at the mosque, Ehsan Abdullah Hannan, the imam's daughter wears the niqab.

At Friday prayers recently, the women worshipers were crowded into a small upstairs windowless room away from the main hall for the men.

A handful of young women wore the niqab and spoke effusively about their reasons. "Wearing the niqab means you will get a good grade and go to paradise," said Hodo Muse, 19, a Somali woman. "Every day people are giving me dirty looks for wearing it, but when you wear something for Allah you get a boost."

http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6263112

Gaffer
06-21-2007, 08:39 PM
Sounds like Britain's tolerance is wearing thin. Let the riots begin.

diuretic
06-21-2007, 09:55 PM
First up, in a society where everyday social interaction depends on the ability to interpret body language, including facial expressions, then the niqab should be prohibited. If someone wants to wear it then they're welcome to go to a society that approves or requires it.

Secondly, now that it's sneaked into British society, the legislature is going to have to be very careful about its response. Yes, it should be prohibited, but how they go about it - if that is what's decided - will be interesting.

Thirdly, I don't care if the wearer is a Muslim, a Christian, a Druid or whatever, the fact is that the garment hides the individual and in an open society that requires face to face communication to work, it can't be permitted.

Gaffer
06-23-2007, 05:16 PM
Hiding ones identity seems to be very mainstream in muslim society. All part of the religion of peace.

diuretic
06-23-2007, 10:25 PM
Hiding ones identity seems to be very mainstream in muslim society. All part of the religion of peace.

I think it's more to do with the innate puritanism of the religion. It seems to have a horror or even fear of sexuality. I think - not sure - that the idea is to stop the beauty of women tempting men (you see as all us blokes know, we see a woman without a veil and we just have to rush over and ravish her, we can't help ourselves). And then there's the idea that the woman belongs to the men in her family (father, brother and later, husband) so no other man is allowed to see her. That reeks of property rights. All in all it's complete bullshit.

Kathianne
06-23-2007, 10:28 PM
I think it's more to do with the innate puritanism of the religion. It seems to have a horror or even fear of sexuality. I think - not sure - that the idea is to stop the beauty of women tempting men (you see as all us blokes know, we see a woman without a veil and we just have to rush over and ravish her, we can't help ourselves). And then there's the idea that the woman belongs to the men in her family (father, brother and later, husband) so no other man is allowed to see her. That reeks of property rights. All in all it's complete bullshit.

Now, now, that last sentence really isn't culturally sensitive. ;)

Trigg
06-23-2007, 10:31 PM
I think it's more to do with the innate puritanism of the religion. It seems to have a horror or even fear of sexuality. I think - not sure - that the idea is to stop the beauty of women tempting men (you see as all us blokes know, we see a woman without a veil and we just have to rush over and ravish her, we can't help ourselves). And then there's the idea that the woman belongs to the men in her family (father, brother and later, husband) so no other man is allowed to see her. That reeks of property rights. All in all it's complete bullshit.

This is exactly the problem I've always had with this religion. The women are to be "protected" from the men who just can't help themselves if they see a women who isn't completely covered. Where is the self restraint in the male population??

Muslim women seem to bear the brunt of the punishment. Women are expected to commit suicide after a rape to save the family from shame. I will never understand this religion that sacrifices it's girls.

Kathianne
06-23-2007, 10:49 PM
Related, see the video:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25967_Video-_Our_Friends_the_Misogynistic_Saudis&only


In a lecture on Saudi Arabian television, Saudi cleric Abd Al-Aziz Al-Fawzan says Islam guarantees rights to women, and anyone who says differently is an Islamophobic, ignorant, insolent infidel who’s trying to damage the image of Islam.

Then he proceeds to explain that women are twisted, silly, ignorant, prone to errors, driven by emotion, and weak. And when a Muslim man wants sex, his wife had better drop everything else she’s doing and get right to it. (Courtesy of MEMRI TV.)



Click picture to play video. Requires Windows Media Player; Mac users should install Flip4Mac.


Abd Al-Aziz Al-Fawzan: The Prophet Muhammad said about women: “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you,” and so on. This hadith and others like it were misunderstood by the ignorant. Corrupt people interpreted it in a way that differs from its original intent. Because of their ignorance, their insolence, their stupidity, and because of their enmity towards Islam and Muslims, they turned this hadith into evidence that Islam disgraces women, diminishing her value, and describes her in inadequate terms. ...

These hadiths provide some of the most decisive evidence that Islam protects women and guarantees their rights. Islam has surrounded the woman with a fence of compassion and mercy. It has shown that the twisted nature of women stems from their very creation. This is how Allah wanted woman to be. Therefore, the husband must adapt himself to her and be patient with her. He should not giver her too many things to do, or things that she is incapable of doing. He should not make her do anything that is contrary to her nature, and to the way she was created by Allah. In addition, he should turn a blind eye to her mistakes, he should tolerate her slips and errors, and put up with all the silly ignorant things she might say, because this constitutes part of the nature of her creation. In addition, women have surging emotions, which in some cases, might overpower their minds. The weakness with which women were created is the secret behind their attractiveness and appeal to their husbands. It is the source of women’s seduction of men, and one of the elements strengthening the bond between husband and wife. This is one of the wondrous miracles of Allah: The strength of a woman lies in her weakness. Her power of seduction and appeal lie in her emotions, which might overpower her mind at times. ...

Both husband and wife should satisfy their spouse’s natural urges, and should try to gratify their desires, as long as nothing prevents this. This is why the Prophet said: “When a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs, she must go to him, even if she is busy with the oven.” Imagine this: There is fire in the oven, and she wants to bake bread. But even if she’s busy with this work that cannot be neglected, when he calls her, she must leave the oven and go to her husband. Another hadith says: “She must go to him, even if she is on the back of a camel.” She must go to him, even if she is riding.

Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 9:43:41 am PST

diuretic
06-24-2007, 12:29 AM
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.

Cole Porter knew of which he wrote.

I don't suppose it occurs to the mediaevalists that forcing women to cover themselves head to toe may result in a male, seeing an eyebrow accidentally revealed, going into a sexual frenzy. I mean, a revealed eyebrow can do that to a man, trust me, I know, I'm a man.

This is the problem with Islam. It has denied modernity. I don't know when it started to ossify but I think we all know that in its earliest years, as a culture rather than a restrictive religion, it yielded so much for humanity. Philosophy, science, medicine, literature and so on, all the things that define humanity apart from animals, flowered under Islam. Now what has it turned into? It's a religion for mediaevalist nutters. It protects the most backward and vicious aspects of barbaric cultures instead of exposing those practices to modernity. Whoever is in charge of Islam should extract the digit and start modernising it. This mediaevalism is just stupid.

Rahul
06-24-2007, 12:51 PM
I think it's more to do with the innate puritanism of the religion. It seems to have a horror or even fear of sexuality. I think - not sure - that the idea is to stop the beauty of women tempting men (you see as all us blokes know, we see a woman without a veil and we just have to rush over and ravish her, we can't help ourselves). And then there's the idea that the woman belongs to the men in her family (father, brother and later, husband) so no other man is allowed to see her. That reeks of property rights. All in all it's complete bullshit.

What you have just described is not just applicable to Muslims, rather, a lot of non-Western cultures. Most traditional Asian cultures are like this. So, it's not fair to just blame Muslims for it.

Rahul
06-24-2007, 12:52 PM
This is the problem with Islam. It has denied modernity.

Not all Muslims have denied modernity. There are just some fanatics who give the rest a bad name. It is not right to brand an entire religion backward just because of them.

glockmail
06-24-2007, 12:56 PM
First up, in a society where everyday social interaction depends on the ability to interpret body language, including facial expressions, then the niqab should be prohibited. If someone wants to wear it then they're welcome to go to a society that approves or requires it.

Secondly, now that it's sneaked into British society, the legislature is going to have to be very careful about its response. Yes, it should be prohibited, but how they go about it - if that is what's decided - will be interesting.

Thirdly, I don't care if the wearer is a Muslim, a Christian, a Druid or whatever, the fact is that the garment hides the individual and in an open society that requires face to face communication to work, it can't be permitted.

Good points. Don't many US States prohibit wearing of masks, except for entertaimnet purposes, due to their use by the KKK?

diuretic
06-25-2007, 04:11 AM
What you have just described is not just applicable to Muslims, rather, a lot of non-Western cultures. Most traditional Asian cultures are like this. So, it's not fair to just blame Muslims for it.

Point taken. But it is a feature of cultures where Islam is the dominant religion. And at the risk of being shouted down I'll say that a culture that forces women to cover up is resisting modernity and is oppressive towards women.

diuretic
06-25-2007, 04:14 AM
Not all Muslims have denied modernity. There are just some fanatics who give the rest a bad name. It is not right to brand an entire religion backward just because of them.

The progressives in Islam are losing, if they haven't already lost. I'm more than happy to acknowledge progressive Islam and to call on western governments to help it get on top of the mediaevalists. The problem is though that the realpolitik dictates that the most absurdly conservative form of Islam, Wahabbism, is supported by the West because of petro-politics. The home of Wahabbism is Saudi Arabia, the most repressive of the repressive.

diuretic
06-25-2007, 04:19 AM
Good points. Don't many US States prohibit wearing of masks, except for entertaimnet purposes, due to their use by the KKK?

I really don't know, I do know in my jurisdiction that it's unlawful to wear an article of disguise. We inherited that piece of law from English law. The English made it an offence because some parliamentarians found themselves mugged in London (a place called Blackheath near Greenwich) by robbers who were wearing disguise. To pre-empt the muggings it was made a criminal offence to wear a disguise in public (especially by night). Just a bit of a historical tangent there.

Rahul
06-25-2007, 07:34 AM
Point taken. But it is a feature of cultures where Islam is the dominant religion. And at the risk of being shouted down I'll say that a culture that forces women to cover up is resisting modernity and is oppressive towards women.

Actually, you would be wrong on that one - this is a very dominant "feature" of Indian culture for one - where Islam certainly is not the dominant religion.

Now, they don't FORCE their women to dress conservatively, but the women do anyway. . . I would think they do so because of social pressure. . .


The progressives in Islam are losing, if they haven't already lost.

I don't know about that, but there are too many extremists running around for sure, which doesn't help the issue one bit.

Rahul
06-25-2007, 07:51 AM
And at the risk of being shouted down I'll say that a culture that forces women to cover up is resisting modernity and is oppressive towards women.

And, I wouldn't even want to live in such a place for any length of time. ;)

diuretic
06-25-2007, 09:33 AM
Actually, you would be wrong on that one - this is a very dominant "feature" of Indian culture for one - where Islam certainly is not the dominant religion.

Now, they don't FORCE their women to dress conservatively, but the women do anyway. . . I would think they do so because of social pressure. . .

I've never been to India (landed at Mumbai/Bombay airport once but that doesn't count). I've seen Indian woman in western countries dressed in saris. They look extremely elegant.

Hagbard Celine
06-25-2007, 09:38 AM
I think that when women--or anyone for that matter--go out in public dressed like this or in similarly ridiculous attire, they should be laughed back to their homes by everyone they encounter. If society didn't take this crap seriously, they wouldn't do it. Atleast that's my theory.

Gaffer
06-25-2007, 10:17 AM
There is only one major religion that requires women to be covered from head to toe. islam.

And due to islams devious nature it's not a good idea to let woman be fully covered. Men can then disguise themselves as women.

Rahul
06-25-2007, 01:32 PM
I've never been to India (landed at Mumbai/Bombay airport once but that doesn't count). I've seen Indian woman in western countries dressed in saris. They look extremely elegant.

Sure, they may look elegant to you, but thats a different story - they ARE still covered from head to toe. . . Saris, salwar kameez, all the traditional Indian dresses require the girl to be covered from head to toe.

Now, China is different. . . ;-)

Trigg
06-25-2007, 01:41 PM
Sure, they may look elegant to you, but thats a different story - they ARE still covered from head to toe. . . Saris, salwar kameez, all the traditional Indian dresses require the girl to be covered from head to toe.

Now, China is different. . . ;-)

There are other religions that have a dress code, Amish comes to mind. But they don't have a police force for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice the the Islamics had running around