First up, here’s Abu Eesa: “this is an excellent opportunity for qualified Muslims to debunk the mysteries behind such a visually obvious, mysterious and perhaps even shocking statement of a Muslim woman’s identity”. As you might expect from him, particularly strong on Islamic legal positions.
Today’s Independent letters page contains a bizarre letter from one Fawzi Ibrahim, claiming that a woman’s choice to wear the niqab is somehow not valid if she has been “conditioned” to wear it from her upbringing:
Grown-up women conditioned into wearing the veil throughout their childhood cannot exercise true choice. My mother could not walk out without the veil even after the revolution of 1958 in Iraq, and with the full support of her enlightened family. She said she felt naked.
“Enlightened”, huh? I’m sure most Muslim women would if wearing the hijab or covering their face was natural to them. Since when did “conditioning” mean that someone is not their own man or woman and fully responsible for their actions?
Marcel Berlins, in today’s Guardian, raises the issue of veils in court. In this particular case, even scholars who regard veiling is compulsory allow for their removal for the purposes of testifying, because justice requires that it be ascertained that witnesses are who they say they are.
Another ignorant secular Muslim is given a voice in the Times, namely that of Saira Khan, who numbers the veil among “issues” like “domestic violence, forced marriages, sexual abuse and child abuse that are rife in the Muslim community”. Just in case anyone wanted to write them a letter.
Possibly Related Posts:
- The real value of online friendships (Hadley Freeman revisited)
- Panorama and other media coverage of the Gilderdale affair
- Muslim women driving, and contrasts on niqab
- Rod Liddle and the Independent
- Facebook ‘fakery’ and vaccine scares
Muslim women have the choice as to whether they wear a veil and it is not Jack Straw’s position or place to demand that veils be removed in his presence. Mr Straw is a politician and should therefore keep his personal views to himself and cease from attempting to inject his secularist ideas into political debate and government policy. The calls to remove him from his position must be followed if New Labour is to uphold its supposed commitment to multiculturalism, equality and human rights. I assume that Mr Straw is required to follow an anti-discriminatory policy as well as the recent legislation outlawing religious discrimination in the workplace. Mr Straw has offended the sentiments of the Muslim community with his statements that ignore the rights of Muslim women to wear a veil, and has effectively discriminated against Muslim women by restricting them direct access to his political consultation/representation based upon their choice of religious practice/expression. Let’s not forget that when Ken Livingstone offended the sentiments of the Jewish community by likening a journalist to a “concentration camp guard”, he was suspended. Or is it only Jews that receive recompense when they are offended?
In some countries women are “conditioned” to wear niqab by the threat of arrest and beating, rape or having acid thrown in their faces. While I wouldn’t say that those who wear it in countries where they do have a choice necessarily think these methods of persuasion are a good thing, I would regard them the same way I would someone who wore a swastika armband because they thought it was pretty.
Yasim Alihbia Brown makes the astonishing claim in the Independent today that women who wear niqab don’t understand their “sacred texts”. Unlike her of course. I was under the impression anyway that Ismailis believe the Qu’ran’s true meaning can only be discovered by mystical imams.
Two quick points. 1) The argument about conditioning. In that case why don’t we talk about everything that is forced on to a child, like what clothes to wear, what language to speak and even what TV programs to watch. If we start using this argument, it may well be that we’re not allowed to raise our children as Muslims or any other religion at that.
2) Saira Khan asks why any woman living in a free country would wear a “restrictive garment”. In my experience, it’s always those people who say “do what you want to do”, who actually are opposed to people who do opposite to what they would do themselves. In other words, “if you don’t do as I would do, then you can’t really be free!” This is the kind of attitude that comes mainly from these types of rebels from their own community, they just can’t take the fact that people are happy with something that they are not.
I think that in secular Europe these things are going to happen. People do not relate to the lnaguage of faith and the Muslims grow up in a climate of relativsm.
Interesting blog, which you may be interested in;
http://exposinguncletoms.blogspot.com/
There is something about the niqab, and some Muslims responses.
Jack Straw gives green light to bigotry
In the middle of August, some Muslims wrote a letter to Blair, arguing that British foreign policy was helping extremists (which, I should add, I disagreed with). Politicians slapped this down as a ‘green light’ to terrorists, without ever engaging
Some of these idiots need to learn the meaning of “conditioning,” we’re talking woman who make the choice to dress the way they want to, not some pavlovian dog waiting for the sound of a bell. Seems hijabs/niqabs are only a problem for dirty perverted men and degenerate proggie communists. Exposing Toms, I like your blog.
Assalaamu alaikum,
I found Saira Khan’s attitude quite arrogant. What she was saying was that she had made certain choices and that all Muslim women should want the same things that she does - and if they don’t, they must be oppressed and missing something in their lives. It’s certainly not true that a woman wearing niqab can’t start a business, anyway. And she uses a common tactic of describing her mother as a pious Muslim woman, but saying that it’s OK that she takes her hijab off or goes swimming in a “normal bathing costume”. This makes it seem heartless to point out that while her mother may be a wonderful woman, a Muslim woman shouldn’t be wearing a normal swimsuit. Personally, I feel sorry for Ms. Khan and think that it’s she who’s missing out on what’s important in life. Trying to be accepted by showing how “liberated” from Islam she is will never make her happy.
I’m not keeping up with all the blogs and articles about this, so maybe these points have been made, but I haven’t seen them.
Isn’t the Member of Parliament supposed to serve his constituents and not vice-versa? Don’t the constituents hire and fire him by voting, and don’t they pay his salary through their taxes? Who is Jack Straw to put conditions on the women who come for him for help - i.e., I want you to uncover your face if you’re going to speak to me? (I know he says the women did it voluntarily, but if a woman was coming to him for help, she probably didn’t want to risk refusing his request.)
The niqab is about separation, but it’s not separation of Muslims from non-Muslims; it’s separation of women from men. If Muslim and non-Muslim women got together socially or for whatever reason, I assume that the Muslim women would not mind taking off their niqabs. They would also take them off if they were meeting with a female Member of Parliament (if there were no men). On the other hand, they would wear the niqab around unrelated men, whether they were Muslim or not.
Thersites,
In some countries women are “conditioned” to wear niqab by the threat of arrest and beating, rape or having acid thrown in their faces.
This is funny Which countries?
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan for example, Synonym
obviously it’s a woman’s choice to wear something or not. focusing on the potential negativity of a societal requirement to do so is quite another matter. that can be considered an ‘issue’ by some people - it harldy makes them ignorant.
I wrote to Polly Toynbee today. This is an abridged version of what I said:
“I find your opinion on the veil reactionary and deeply prejudiced. I was brought up a muslim, I am now married to a non-practicing Christian but I have not and (probably) never will wear the veil so I feel I can respond to you without any personal bias apart from on one count.
My mother, who is 70, wears a hijab, sometimes with and sometimes without a facial cover and I would like for you to consider for a moment why she does so - even though, technically, as a post-menopausal dowager, she is not required to.
She wears it because she loves God and she wants to go to heaven. This may be a childish concept to some in this day and age but that’s basically the reason. She does not steal, she does not hurt anyone, and she is anything but a witch or someone I would even remotely consider to be sinister given that she is 4 feet, 9 inches in height and always says please and thank you to strangers with her limited vocabulary.
She only started wearing the hijab in later life than most, in her fifties out of her own choice. My father never made her wear it. Her father never made her wear it. Is it really so hard to believe that a woman of any culture might choose to wear a garment that covers her entire body and its shape? My mother has never told me or asked me to wear it either.
Please stop getting onto some media band-wagon. It feels to me, at this moment, that there is a frenzy of opinion and debate about Islam and every aspect of life in that context. It’s understandable to an extent but it also seems to be a non-apologetic attempt at setting some kind of agenda, and influencing public opinion. Suddenly, the hijab has become a symbol of something “sinister”. I guess it depends on who’s looking at it and how they are looking at it.
Yes, in some countries with poor record on human rights, it is oppressive. Yes, in some contexts, it is about control. But in so many others, it is not.
I am not a devout muslim. I barely even remember anything I was taught but if I were to say that all women who wear make-up, high-heels and mini-skirts are whores and bound to be raped, perhaps many might feel I was a) a prude b) unsophisticated or c) unable to comprehend a woman’s sense of fashion. But ultimately, it is her CHOICE to dress like a whore, yes?
Just like, in this day and age we appear as a nation and society to have lost all bearing on any moral compass when it comes to buying dolls called “Bratz” for little girls that are dressed like a Paedophile’s wet dream.
Does my view of the “Bratz” dolls offend you? Does is seem somewhat over-zealous and reactionary?
I have 5 nieces and 2 nephews from 2 siblings. The oldest niece, she’s 21, she loves Islam, is a polyglot with a brilliant business sense and will probably become a highly successful make-up artist by the time she is 25. The second is 20, she wears a hijab - when she’s in the mood, goes to Uni, studies Law and loves to sing. The third niece, she’s just turned 13. She’s mad, about clothes! The fourth one, she’s 12, just started high school and writes poems, draws flowers, loves Nigella Lawson. The fifth is 5 on Christmas day. She’s called Mary.
My nephews. Hmm, the youngest 18 never seems able to get out of bed and the other one 19, has got his first job as a trainee construction manager, and doing a part time degree.
One day, should I feel so inclined, I might choose to wear the hijab, or full veil. I might choose to take that particular road to God or might choose not to. I might wake up tomorrow and become a Buddhist. Either way, it would be my choice, from my will alone, no-one else’s. But if that faith is sinister to you, then you are clearly mis-educated.
There is a person behind that sinister, witch-like veil.
It’s my mother, my niece. Maybe one day my daughter or my neighbour or even one day, me.”
Thersites, have you ever been to any of those places? I’ve been to Saudi Arabia many times, and I can assure you that many women there don’t wear niqab. And whatever the Saudi religious police might be guilty of, I’ve never heard of them raping women or throwing acid in their faces.
I haven’t been to Iraq, but from what I’ve read, there are some areas where women are wearing hijab even though they don’t really want to. (Although having to wear a scarf on their heads is the least of their problems, with up to 100 people a day being killed there.) I’ve never heard of women being expected - much less beaten, raped or having acid thrown in their faces - for not wearing niqab.
I remember reading about one group in Kashmir at one time that threw acid in women’s faces; I’m not sure if it had to do with niqab or hijab. I don’t know anyone who would support that. But anyone can tell you that many Pakistani women don’t even wear hijab, so the idea that Pakistani women all wear niqab because if they won’t they’ll be beaten, raped or have acid thrown in their faces is also ridiculous.
Been to Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan have you Thersites?
“Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan for example,…”
Whao, there’s so much going on around me, that I didn’t know. Thanks to someone from the UK who alerted me.
Really, this does not merit any respone. Now you have proved your level of oddity.
You really should read more carefully. Where did I say that every woman in Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Pakistan wore niqab because they faced the threat of arrest, beating, rape, or having acid thrown in their faces? However, there have been cases in each country of men enforcing their idea of islamic moral standards by these methods; to be precise, women have been arrested and beaten in Saudi arabia [and driven back into a burning school], raped and/or murdered in Iraq and had acid thrown in their faces in Pakistan for failing to meet local standards of islamic dress. Jack Straw’s preference for looking someone he is talking to in the face looks pretty trivial by comparisn, don’t you think?
I personally think that Jack Straw is an idiot, but here’s an idea:
Why not use this as an opportunity for Muslims to kindly, politely show to non-Muslims that for many Muslim women, niqaab is a choice?
Couldn’t we stop freaking out and instead reach out? Positive Da’wah, people!
Really, it’s like when someone says something nasty to my mom (who wears niqaab). Instead of getting mad at them, she addresses them in a calm, reasonable tone and tells them that she CHOOSES to wear it, that her husband has not forced it upon her, and that she’d appreciate it if the nasty person was a little more respectful towards her.
The nasty person in question usually ends up bug-eyed, slack-jawed, and speechless at the fact that my mum can actually speak English and have an opinion!
In some countries women are “conditioned” to wear niqab by the threat of arrest and beating, rape or having acid thrown in their faces.
I have never heard this before in my life that women are conditioned with threat of arrest, beating, rape, etc in order to wear niqab (i.e. the face covering). The problem here is ignorance, because you are just regurgitating whatever you hear amongst the exposed masses. Granted, maybe in Afghanistan, and that’s from what we hear. People who visited Afghanistan during the reign of the taliban have said otherwise. In anycase, the extreme case of Afghanistan is just like that of France, the rest of Europe or US where women are being threatened with no jobs, social exclusion, discrimination, social disrespect, etc - as evident by the ex-Foreign minister’s statement (by the way it is more that a threat) for not wearing “liberating clothes” or “western dress” (I am not sure what that means exactly).
But you comments come as no surprise, because if you think about it…. The ex-Foreign minister also thinks that it would be better for women to dress in a certain way when they come to his constituency - yet he claims to believe in liberal values and freedom. There is a conscience crisis here. Either he doesn’t believe in liberal values and freedom and in which case he is entitled to be prescriptive, or he believes in those values and freedom and in which case he ought to learn to live with a non-monolithic expression of human cultures and traditions.
The problem here is hypocrisy, which is a disease of the heart.
There is no apology that Islam does not preach this kind of Utopian freedom, so it is natural, expected, logical, and rational for Islamic agencies to be prescriptive, to have a minimal threshold on acceptable actions in muslim societies. So for example, a minimum level of modesty is defined in the society, and if necessary enforced…but wearing niqab is generally agreed to be above that minimum level of modesty. And in fact, non-muslims are not required to conform to the religiously based limits. So for instance, non-muslims are not required to wear hijabs (even in Saudi Arabi, the world capital of Islamic Frenzies), but they are required to observe modesty in dress when appearing in public space. This is not an Islamic prescription, nor a religious one in fact. As we have discussed here before, it a traditional and universal values that exists in all human society - the virtue of modesty.
So, I don’t understand in which countries people are being threatened with rape if they do not wear niqab. Thersite, this type of mentality as yours really borders on the edge of insane ignorance. And it would be scary to learn if this is how most people think in the UK. No insult intended, but try to learn more about Islam from Islamic sources not from channel 1,2,3,4, etc.
…but wearing niqab is generally agreed to be above that minimum level of modesty.
I just have to expand on this, that I don’t mean people who wear niqab are on the extreme/maximum. Rather, in fact, personally, I feel it is normal. People have a choice to wear or not to wear it, and those who don’t wear it should keep quiet and not criticize those who do!
I keep thinking about this idea that woman can’t freely choose niqab because they are somehow “conditioned” to wear it.
I see pictures of politicians or bankers or lawyers or business executives and it occurs to me that they’re “conditioned” to wear business suits, with shirts buttoned up to the neck and with ties. Seems uncomfortable and expensive - and who would actually choose to wear that if they were completely free to choose?
On the other hand, my husband wears a long, loose robe, because he’s “conditioned” to wear it, since it’s the national dress for men. Of course, it’s more comfortable than a suit and tie, but is anyone worried that men in the Arab Gulf countries are oppressed because of that?
I won’t go into the “conditioning” that tells young girls they should dress in skimpy, sexy clothing, but none of these people seem to worry about that either.
In traditional societies, people were “conditioned” to wear the clothes traditionally worn in that area, and now many of them are “conditioned” to wear jeans and baseball caps, because they’re conditioned to believe that West is best.
Do these people pretend that everyone other than Muslim women are freely choosing their clothes, but that Muslim women have to be rescued from the way they dress?
Politicians, bankers and lawyers are not conditioned to wear suits and ties, any more than soldiers are conditioned to wear uniforms. They are not put into them at an early age or threatened throughout their childhood with what will happen if they do not wear them. They have decided as adults that, for the purposes the aim for, that particular clothing will best serve their ends. If they decide they no longer espouse the beliefs they expressed by dressing as they do they can stop wearing them withouit opprobium or violent repurcussions.
If you look at any organisation concerned with the effects of the media- advertising especially- on people, including children, you will find a great deal of concern with the effects of childhood conditioning. As far as I know, however, except in science fiction, no-one is threatened with hell for not wearing the right kind of clothing by advertisers or physically attacked for failing to do so.
Talk about being conditioned NOT to wear a veil:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/eng.....046992.stm
Threat of social exclusion?
Assalaamu alaikum,
I looked at that BBC report… I don’t know anything else about that case, but going by what they say there, I don’t understand why she can’t lift the niqab in front of children. A lot of teachers in my children’s school wear niqab, but not in the classroom, unless a man has to come in for something.
As far as I know, however, except in science fiction, no-one is threatened with hell for not wearing the right kind of clothing…
Basically, you are trying to say here, why would anyone go to hell simply for not wearing the right kind of clothing ?
Basically, you are being sarcastic?
It is not about wearing a particular type of clothing that would get people into hell. Rather, it is the way they nurture their souls before death.
However, it is very difficult to nurture your soul without a belief and/or performing an action (including wearing a particular type of clothing).
So for example, if you believe that you were created by a Creator and that He is your Master, Friend, Guardian, etc, your soul will be nurtured by such beliefs - in a particular way that would be different if you believe otherwise.
Of course, that’s if you believe is the existence of a soul. If you don’t believe in a soul then your beliefs and/or action goes to waste when you body dies. Really?
Anyhow,…if you go on to do actions such as wear a particular type of clothing because you believe your Master requires of you (forget whether the belief is true or not), the forementioned configuration of your soul would be reinforced and consolidated - by such an action. And so on.
Now, when you die, you would find your soul just as you have nurtured it. In fact you don’t need to die before discovering its status, but the distraction here makes it difficult.
Anyway, when the material whithers away and everything is barebone, you would discover yourself and see how you really look in your new soul form (whatever form that is).
If for example you look big, i.e. big ego as a result of iconoclastic nourishment, unfortunately there would be no space for you - because Allah would have necessarily taken up all the Space: If we could talk in these terms.
So, you would have to disappear, but it won’t be possible. innakum makithoon - 43:77.
So, you would have to burn perpetually (not you, God Forbid). Burn is an understatement here. Hell (just like Paradise) is indescribable. Basically, you would have to be put out continuously.
On the other hand, if you manage to come small, i.e. with a soul configured as nothing, no ego, no airs, due to the right nourishment - right beliefs, right actions. In this case, you would be able to associate with Anything you want. Even where there is no space, nothingness always have its way.
That is just a metaphor.
Few words are usually enough for the perspicuous, more would only confuse the dull-witted.
Try to ask questions as opposed to positioning yourself as an intellectual Umpire and ridiculing religious practises thereby.
“As far as I know, however, except in science fiction, no-one is threatened with hell for not wearing the right kind of clothing…
Basically, you are trying to say here, why would anyone go to hell simply for not wearing the right kind of clothing ?
Basically, you are being sarcastic?
It is not about wearing a particular type of clothing that would get people into hell. Rather, it is the way they nurture their souls before death.
However, it is very difficult to nurture your soul without a belief and/or performing an action (including wearing a particular type of clothing).
So for example, if you believe that you were created by a Creator and that He is your Master, Friend, Guardian, etc, your soul will be nurtured by such beliefs - in a particular way that would be different if you believe otherwise.
Of course, that’s if you believe is the existence of a soul. If you don’t believe in a soul then your beliefs and/or action goes to waste when you body dies. Really?
Anyhow,…if you go on to do actions such as wear a particular type of clothing because you believe your Master requires of you (forget whether the belief is true or not), the forementioned configuration of your soul would be reinforced and consolidated - by such an action. And so on.
Now, when you die, you would find your soul just as you have nurtured it. In fact you don’t need to die before discovering its status, but the distraction here makes it difficult.
Anyway, when the material whithers away and everything is barebone, you would discover yourself and see how you really look in your new soul form (whatever form that is).
If for example you look big, i.e. big ego as a result of iconoclastic nourishment, unfortunately there would be no space for you - because Allah would have necessarily taken up all the Space: If we could talk in these terms.
So, you would have to disappear, but it won’t be possible. innakum makithoon - 43:77.
So, you would have to burn perpetually (not you, God Forbid). Burn is an understatement here. Hell (just like Paradise) is indescribable. Basically, you would have to be put out continuously.
On the other hand, if you manage to come small, i.e. with a soul configured as nothing, no ego, no airs, due to the right nourishment - right beliefs, right actions. In this case, you would be able to associate with Anything you want. Even where there is no space, nothingness always have its way.
That is just a metaphor.
Few words are usually enough for the perspicuous, more would only confuse the dull-witted.
Try to ask questions as opposed to positioning yourself as an intellectual Umpire and ridiculing religious practises thereby.”
Eh?
Assalaamu alaikum,
About the teacher who supposedly wouldn’t take the veil off in front of her students…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....050392.stm
…Disputing the school’s version of events, she insisted she had always been willing to take off her veil in front of the children but would not in front of male colleagues.
She said she had taught in class without the veil when there were no males present…
“Ms Azmi later admitted she had taken the veil off to be interviewed for the job by a male governor. “
Assalaamu alaikum, Just few more words and facts about Saira Khan and her ideas of being the “role model for moderate Muslims”: 1- she openly drinks alcohol; 2- she shakes hands with men; 3- she never goes to mosque; 4- she is married to a kuffar (non muslim) !!!!
and her list of sins is by no means exhaustive.
In a few words, she is nothing but the worst enemy of Islam.
To Hazera Forth,
Make-up, high heels and mini skirts are normal attire in our society and have been so on and off for about 40 years; they are not the mark of a whore!
What right do you have to criticize our developed modern society by using the standards of your alien backward medieval and dictatorial religion? Your standards are not absolutes, they are merely an archaic set of rules drawn up by males who can’t control their sexual urges and don’t want to take responsibility for that themselves. They thus put the blame on women in the same way that the Puritan preacher did in the Salem Witch Trials.
I find your attitude quite offensive; if you don’t like our culture get off back to where you came from!
Mike - please take a moment to read my email again because you will notice the word “if” - I was trying to demonstrate to you that people can be upset by the merest difference in opinion and language. I was NOT saying that women who where make-up and mini-skirts are whores but was asking how people would react if I were to do so because that is exactly how I felt about Polly Toynbee saying that the Niqab is oppressive and sinister. Words have a lot of power, Mr Martlet, so before you tell me to go back to where I came from, try reading my email properly and within the context I wrote it. I could ask you where you are from? Do you know?
Here is the text to which you refer:
“…IF I were to say that all women who wear make-up, high-heels and mini-skirts are whores and bound to be raped, perhaps many might feel I was a) a prude b) unsophisticated or c) unable to comprehend a woman’s sense of fashion. But ultimately, it is her CHOICE to dress like a whore, yes?
Just like, in this day and age we appear as a nation and society to have lost all bearing on any moral compass when it comes to buying dolls called “Bratz” for little girls that are dressed like a Paedophile’s wet dream.
Does my view of the “Bratz” dolls offend you? Does is seem somewhat over-zealous and reactionary?