Another busybody article about hijab
A woman called Deborah Orr (or should that be Deborah Borr) wrote an article for today's (Saturday's) Independent attacking Muslim women who cover their faces ([1], [2]), alleging that face coverings are "are physical manifestations of outdated, cruel and degrading traditions". The article is paywalled except for the first two paragraphs: the paper is the weakest of all the former broadsheets and the only one which paywalls its comments, laughably claiming that its "Portfolio" gives us access to "a collection of some of the best content on the web" (their star columnist is Robert Fisk, and you have to pay £10 a month just for his articles, and an extra tenner for the rest of their comments). So I'm going to answer this partly from memory of what I read on the news-stand in Borders, and partly in a more general sense. (More: here.)
First of all, she simply has no reason to be offended. Most of the women who dress like this cause no harm to anyone. They do not shout in the street or make a nuisance of themselves. They are not the people who make train and bus travellers feel threatened by their behaviour. Put quite simply, they mind their own business. Why on earth can't Deborah Orr do the same?
Of course, people causing offence by the way they dress is nothing new, and the vast majority of the guilty parties show vastly too much flesh in the street; they even go to Muslim countries like Morocco and do the same (or worse) there. People display their midriffs (and sometimes a bit more), their cleavage, their butt cracks; they sometimes wear (or wore, as this particular fashion has largely died out over the last year or so) thongs which come up higher than their trousers with tops which don't quite cover the area, or tops with a bit scooped out to show a bit of cleavage. Nowadays it's not just young women who do this; it's also middle-aged women who are supposed to be setting an example (some of them are actually in professions that are supposed to be respectable).
But my biggest objection to this article is that it makes the tired old association between hijab and oppression, which is in my opinion misplaced. Just by watching a woman in niqab in the street, you have no idea of her personal circumstances or of why she wears the veil - whether it is because her husband told her to or because she chose to for religious reasons, or because it is part of the culture with which she grew up. As for the "outdated, cruel and degrading traditions" their veils supposedly represent, far worse things are known to go on in countries where the veil is not common, like the Indian subcontinent for example, and not just among Muslims. We all think we know "how bad" things are for women in the Gulf Arab region, particularly from the lurid and often exaggerated, or just plain fabricated, stories which appear from time to time in the press, and even from human rights organisations which should know better (case in point: Amnesty International publishing a passage from Jean Sasson's Princess, a book which itself lacks credibility, but they failed to note that the incident appears in the book before the assassination of king Faisal in the mid 1970s).
Among the other misconceptions and ill assumptions in this piece is the suggestion that the daughter of the veiled woman she saw was "dressed prettily in Western clothes that she'd one day, presumably, be told to cover up in shame at being a female". I've been Muslim for several years and have read a variety of Muslim literature on the subject of modesty, and I've never heard it being suggested that a woman should be ashamed of being female; rather, both sexes are required to display modesty and women are in particular required not to make a display of themselves in public. Even so, just because a woman chooses to dress in such a way it does not necessarily follow that she will insist on her daughters doing the same.
I actually fail to see why Ms Borr has started noticing the veiled women going about their business anyway - they have been doing so in London for years, even decades. They generally fall into two categories: the Gulf Arabs (found in Arab districts like the Edgware Road and Bayswater) and the strictly religious (found pretty much anywhere else). I'm sure Deborah Orr did not bother to find out which of the two categories the women she saw fell into; she does not know how well educated they are (and one finds plenty of them in any London university except, perhaps, Imperial College which banned them for "security reasons"), what their home situation is like, why they dress that way, or anything about them at all. If one wishes to find out such things, and one is a woman, one might ask them. If you cannot be bothered to find out such things, don't write about them.
Comments
Yusuf,
You are witnessing the prioritization of Muslim womens issues by the white liberal left in the West. I was having this same discussion over there on Harrys Place about women in Afghanistan and thier Burkhas. Why do people insist that the issue of the Burkha is a priority for women in the Sub continent? I mean forget that they live in object poverty, their children suffer from dieases that they dont have to worry about. Its the Burkah that is on the minds of all these women. The is really a problem for the self indulgent narcisistic Western (read white) woman.
It was the same with them been barred from going out of the home without a male escort? Half of these feminzed men in the West wouldnt want to travel alone in Afghanistan by themselves. I remember when we had the Los Angeles riots and my parents made it a point not to leave the house. Now this is in Los Angeles not Kabul. When there is a lack of law and order, some people just dont get that women and children are always the first to be preyed upon.
Posted by: Bikhair aka Taqiyyah | July 9, 2006 6:10 PM
Covering the face is an anti-social and threatening political act. It has no place in a civilised society.
Women can be terrorists and suicide bombers too. We need to be able to identifiy them. The niqab etc should be banned.
And if they don't like it, well...
Posted by: Old Pickler | July 9, 2006 11:28 PM
a ban on niqab would only increase the sense of injustice felt by some within the Muslim community and would do nothing to change the security situation because it is not the cause of terrorism. Further, if there are some women who are forced to wear it (and I would contend that those who choose it outnumber those who grudginly wear it) then banning it would mean that such womens'going out of doors may be curtailed by husbands unhappy with their wives going out sans face veil, thus making a ban counter productive.
Posted by: aicha | July 10, 2006 9:37 AM
Have been reading your blog for quite abit, thought why not contribute my 2 penneth's worth now. Would like to point out that over here in Singapore [with an ethnic Chinese majority, but the island rightfully belongs to the mostly Muslim Malay "minority"], I can't help it but notice the following phenomenon: Those headscarfed [what you'd call hijab but here it's known as "tudung"] ethnic Malay women seem to do very well academically and professionally - mostly doctors, engineers, accountants and even lawyers. Beside, many are proud car owners, more so than their male counterparts. Some are even so proficient in Mandarin as third language that they can even read the dailies!
Whereas their lesser, mainly less economically well-off counterparts tend to dress like slappers [ie: no different from the chavettes in the UK], getting themselves drunk [kid you not], are generally drug addicts, and worse still, can't even string a decent sentence in English - which is in fact an official as well as first language at work and schools here.
Now, with regard to the above comment made about the West being a civilised society, I have yet met a truly civilised Western/white male who doesn't treat Asian women like playthings to be taken advantage of. Or assume that all Asian women are plainly daft, submissive and generally hard-up for white men and their wallets.
Me sounding bitter? Hardly, I'm just fed up of the attitude of the average expat - both male and female - thinking they are the more superior species just because they come from a civilised society. Thinking it's their god-given right to behave badly in other people's country.
Posted by: Ange | July 10, 2006 11:38 AM
Ange: As a S'pore PR, some of your comments, both good and bad, about Malay tudung wearers are a bit over the top, IMO. I agree that there are a lot of successful women here who wear tudungs; likewise, there are some women who don't wear tudungs and have made messes of their lives. However, there are also pious women who wear tudungs whose lives are less successful than other's, and there are some very smart, intelligent women who don't wear tudungs. I don't condone the latter, of course, but these women exist in S'pore and Malaysia.
"I have yet met a truly civilised Western/white male who doesn't treat Asian women like playthings to be taken advantage of."
To which my wife responded, "Have her talk to me." :) Yes, I know there are some white expat men who treat Asian women lightly, but I also know a number of other white expat men (who all happen to be Muslims, like me) who have married local Malay women. Of all your generalizations, this seems to be the most overboard.
Posted by: JD
|
July 10, 2006 2:06 PM
JD - My generalisation on white men's treatment of Asian women seems to be the most overboard? Perhaps, as it may come across as such on platforms like the Internet. Let's put it down as a matter of perception as I personally witnessed too many of such, shall we? Or did I touch a nerve ;)
Likewise, some of the super-intelligent, successful Muslim women I personally acquainted with tend to be tudung-ed types. The key words here are "personally" and "tend to be". It so happened that Yusuf mentioned about intelligent hijab-ed women that I talked about a similar phenomenon [which I believe I have stated rather clearly on my previous comment] happening right here on this islet. Surely it'll take ages if I waffle on about successful non-tudung-ed women and non-successful tudung-ed ones. Hence my remark sounding akin to a "generalisation".
Not sure why I should talk to your wife though, to each his or her own :) It's funny you didn't talk on the part about the average expat bad behaviour!
btw, what gives you the impression that I'm a Singapore PR? Why, Singaporeans hardly comment on non-local blogs? That's a generalisation too on your part, isn't it :D
Posted by: Ange | July 10, 2006 3:11 PM
Assalaamu alaikum,
Alhamdulillah I don't live in the UK, so I can wear my niqab and don't have to deal with attitudes like Old Pickler's.
So many times, I'm sitting with a group of Muslim women wearing hijab and/or niqab and thinking that they are an amazing group of women - because of their personalities, their education, their accomplishments, their character, etc. The idea that hijab=oppression is just plain ignorant.
It's so ridiculous that someone sees a woman in hijab (or niqab) and automatically pities her. Here's something I wrote about Kuwaiti women: http://hijabimadness.blogspot.com/20060601hijabimadnessarchive.html#115170394112951817
Posted by: Ann
|
July 10, 2006 10:28 PM
ange wrote: "Not sure why I should talk to your wife though, to each his or her own :) "
Because my wife, the Singaporean Malay (who wears a tudung), would tell you that her husband, the white American expat (yours truly) is the exception to your statement ("I have yet met a truly civilised Western/white male who doesn't treat Asian women like playthings to be taken advantage of.") Obviously, you haven't met me. ;)
"It's funny you didn't talk on the part about the average expat bad behaviour!"
To be honest, I don't hang out with the expat community that much here. Most of the expats I'm friends with are guys like me, white Muslim men who've married local Malay women. As a result, I don't see a lot of that "average expat bad behavior."
"btw, what gives you the impression that I'm a Singapore PR?"
I didn't have that impression. I'm the Singaporean PR! :) And that's how I know you've overgeneralized, because I'm very familiar with life here in S'pore (he writes, as he looks at the S'porean flag flying over the neighborhood CC next door).
Posted by: JD
|
July 11, 2006 3:15 AM
We don't need Islam in America --
And there I must stop your irrelevant rant. This is about the UK, not America. Read the article, dumb prick.
Posted by: Antonio H. Villela | July 12, 2006 4:48 AM
Jus tcome across this. Good post - thought I'd let you know about the piece I wrote on this at the time at my blog
Posted by: Jim Jay | July 12, 2006 2:49 PM
Im a indian sikh girl.if i will be in kuwait then do i need to wear the islamic dress like hijab or headscarf etc etc.?? please mail me as soon as possible with details. is kuwait is safe for indian girls?
Posted by: Preet | December 13, 2007 3:40 PM