Veiling (discussions by white people who don’t know what they’re talking about) sucks
Published by R. Mildred October 17th, 2006 in Imperialism for Dummies, Filtered Propaganda, TortureReading this thread at Feministe made several highly salient points magically appear in my head about the Veiling Debate that’s been going on:
1) Why am I the only white person in the world it seems who knows that muslim women are not actually commanded by their religion to veil in front of children - which means she’s veiling to avoid the male gaze of her colleagues not the children - according to the Quran? I’m pretty sure I read a english translation of the Quran at some point unless I secretly learned arabic without me realising, so I’m kinda shocked to see so many people who are so utterly unclear about that point, I’d assume it’d be like having at least a passing knowledge of the bible - sort of fundamental to commenting about islam and most of the geo-political hoo-haa surrounding the various islamophobic pogroms really.
2) Last I checked it was illegal for a woman to wander around without a top on in most american states, where are the legions of anti-mandatory-chest-covering protestors? It’s the same principle and I really could have done with out the mandatory bra + shirt combo I had no choice about wearing back in the summer - covered breasts do also seem to send crazies (like ann althouse or John “The Pedobear” Derbyshire) into a complete tizzy so it would save everyone a lot of trouble really because so many people freak out at covered chests and just can’t stop staring for some reason.
Oh, and it’s fucked up to ingringe on people’s personal liberty to wear whatever the hell they like or not just because some crazy white asshole finds something offensive - like that’s anyone’s problem but their own.
3) If a class of 6 - 12 year olds needs to see the teachers lips to understand her (which I’m sure has nothing to do with a presumption by anyone about her ability to speak english - because I’m sure everyone knows that like all most (innit!) british muslims she speaks english better and more eloquently than pretty much any and all canadians ever will), then I assume she has the training to deal with a special ed class and when she say “the kids can understand me fine” (as she has done) we can pretty much take her word on it - and if she’s teaching deaf kids she should need to be able to sign anyway and that she wears a niqab is an incidental side note that isn’t really relevent.
But having said all that, I really do have to agree with all the rest of the knee jerk white reationaries that it’s about time Britain and America both started to deal with the scandal that is muslims wearing hoods on their head.
Don’t you just lurve the deeply ironic context of it all? I know I do.
42 Responses to “Veiling (discussions by white people who don’t know what they’re talking about) sucks”
- 1 Pingback on Oct 18th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
- 2 Trackback on Oct 18th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
- 3 Pingback on Oct 31st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
But… but… seeing women wearing the veil makes me uncomfortable!
From what I remember of the Quran (I read parts of it a couple of years ago for Gender and Society and Middle Eastern history courses), there isn’t mention of veiling specifically. The verse deals with modesty in dress and manner. I could easily be wrong, of course (as happens frequently).
As we well know, people with different viewpoints/beliefs/anything are evil and must be destroyed..
::sigh::
R. Mildred:
Without getting blood all over me for asking (I need to keep my clothes clean), what should the discussion at Feministe been about regarding the veiled teacher, or do you think it should not have been a topic at all?
My 24 hours wearing the Niqab.
Also, there were complaints from the children that she was hard to understand. As I pointed out at Feministe, in cultures where the niqab is commonplace, women are not supposed to even speak to non-mahram men, much less look at them. Boys are girls have strictly segregated schools, so there is not even a question of a male or female teacher being with an adult member of the opposite while teaching.
Anyone who has either worked with children or studied the way in which children learn understand how important visual cues are. Children learn to speak not only by hearing the sounds and words but by watching the way in which speakers move their lips etc while they are speaking. It is also worth mentioning that one of the reasons that breastfeeding is advantageous is that it positions the infant’s head in such a way that it can see the mother’s face–which is essential to the bonding process. One of the primary symptoms of a young child who has not been able to bond with primary caretaker is the inability to make eycontact. Etc. etc. As a parent, I would NOT want my child being cared for or taught by an adult who is wearing a mask. Nor would I want an evangelical teacher to flaunt her Christianity.
It is also worth noting that the woman in question interviewed for the job with a man without her niqab. She did not speak directly to the press, rather her husband spoke for her.
Bottom line: I will always defend a woman’s right to wear or not wear what she chooses, but just as I would not ride in car or plane being driven by a woman with a niqab (it does impair a woman’s vision), I would not want to see children being cared for by adults who hide their faces.
Mikess - It’s a discussion in so far as british government types are considering making it legal to discriminate against muslims and to make it legal to stop them being able to observe their faith.
The discussion should primarily center around how incredibly fucked up this is of course, and how it’s a wonderful example of what happens when a country lacks a church/state divide insofar as it never insures actual state observation of a religion but does always involve downpressing a handy scape goatable religion - see also northern ireland.
but whether or not a woman can wear a paperbag on her head or something similar - not really much to debate there, I may not agree with it personally but I’ll fight for her right to wear it damn it, simply because the alternative is to stand by while descends into another round of bash the non-whitey.
I’m outraged that so many no-nothing ghoras and ghoriis feel its even a question, OF COURSE you don’t fucking well start telling people how they can and cannot observe their religion - it’s the first fucking amendment ffs. That it’s a valid comparison to point out that this sort of thing is precisely what preceded several of the inquisitions is another point that pisses me off - that the blood libel hasn’t been aired out yet is a miracle.
Toria - the hadith actually has muhammed say that women can be modest and show their entire faces and hands - explicitly, so there’s no real doubt that it’s a pagan holdover like all veiling customs are, but then again O’fallafel is going to start harping on about how the saturnalia must be observed or else this country is DOOOMED so I think if we’re going to start objecting to some of the religious customs of abrahamic faiths because they’re pagan holdovers the catholic church’s belief in sperm magic can go first me thinks, then christmas and niqab can go after a long list of other much more horrible pagan holdovers, not least of which is the cross.
A pregnancy free Festivus for everyone dammit.
As I’ve had long winded discussion on the intricacies of scooby doo with the children of freinds while we both stare at the TV screen and not at each other’s faces, I feel that a teacher can teach with teh niqab. The niqab doesn’t even hide as much facial information as people assume, it just takes a bit of familiarity to get used to reading the eyes without the landmarks.
hell, if a child learns to communicate from a woman wearing a niqab, she’s had a masterclass in reading people’s faces, give them a full face and they’ll be able to read people’s minds.
Now if she was teaching poker I’d see reasons to object, or if she was caring for the really young, but what we have here is 6 - 12 year olds - they’re not going to be mentally scared by one teacher in a mask, some teachers will in fact scar them less if they wear a mask (if I remember my school days).
When I studied status in theatre class (by which I mean, the unconcious perceived status that two people feel when relating to each other– not talking about social class here– a king can play low status to a chimney sweep), I learned through experience that anything which makes it harder to read your expression enhances your perceived status in other people’s eyes. So, for instance, sunglasses naturally increase your status because people cannot see your eyes moving; they even may get the sensation that you are calmly staring straight into their eyes at all times, even if you’re really just looking everywhere at once nervously. Hence their popularity with cops, and dudes aspiring to be Joe Cool.
Anyway, I imagine a veil would probably act in a similar fashion. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing for a teacher. Depends on the teacher, really. It might make her scarier if she’s naturally scary anyway; but it also might get the kids to take her more seriously if she’s naturally nervous or tentative.
“a woman can wear a paperbag on her head or something similar”
I wear a paperbag on my head on the internet (not sure if I am ready in outside world, –mostly just desire not to be approached,—–EVER!, unless of course I was in trouble), because I refuse to get the benefits of my appearance, the very benefits that make me question if what good I have experienced in life was from me earning it, from my goodness, my words, and/or my European white standards of beauty. I have a voice, dammit, why look at my “seductive hair”, or my “bedroom eyes” (how many times have I heard that? I would be rich if someone would give me a nickel), or my motherly breasts to decide if my points are valid or not.
And by the way, R Mildred, that photo was pretty unnerving. As it was meant to be, of course, and in this case I fully support your uncivil, but reasonable, discourse. You’re quite right about what is the real scandal, and what the veil hubbub is meant to draw us away from. (Looks like it’s working so far…)
“My 24 hours wearing the Niqab.”
Gah! I’ve got really serious objections to using that narrative as an anti-veiling argument. Ask anyone in disabilities activism if it’s a good idea to put somebody in a wheelchair “for a day” to show them what it’s really like.
Temporary “adoption” of a social, physical, cultural, whatever barrier is NOT the same thing as durable inhabitance of an idenity constructed in response to that fact. The tourist has none of the knowlege, experience, support, training, or coping stratagies, and experiences “disability” in a completely artificial and unrealistic fashion. By selective appropriation or by revulsion, the tourist response almost always lacks grounding or respect.
While the author wrote of her concern of exploring her Muslim idenity in this way, I’m worried that consumption of this article as anti-veil is to miss what this experience is and isn’t. For one thing, it is NOT an accurate representation of what daily life is like for a woman wearing the niqab. Definitionally, a tourist (even one from a nearby country) is not the same as a native.
As long as disability has been introduced here, any deaf children in the classroom would be required to ask her to remove her veil if they wanted to understand her, or be removed to another classroom if she refused. And before any of you pile on me, *I* was that non signing deaf child in the class who constantly had to teach her teachers not to face the blackboard, to look at us, etc. To this day I still have to educate my teachers (I continue taking classes in all kinds of things.) Access to the visual expression on someone’s face is critically important for me and other non signing deaf. It is not a choice. It is not “some whitey” making glib objections. It’s a fight against ableism or disablism (pick your country).
Oh, so you are comparing veiling to being disabled?
A disability is NOT a choice, a veil is (sometimes). One chooses to wear it for a day or a month or a year or a lifetime, but one does not choose to be disabled. One simply is or is not.
My point is that when VALID needs/rights of two groups of people collide, someone is going to have to step back–better if both parties do to some extent. And I would be hard-pressed to fight for an adult’s “rights” at the expense of a child’s needs.
For example: as an adult living in a “free country” and protected by the “first ammendment” I can say whatever the fuck all I want to, to whomever I want to fucking say it to. As does anyone else. But if you are a teacher and your right to speak your mind is harmful to my child or anyone else’s child, we have a problem. A real one.
In this instance, it is the school’s responsibility to put the needs of the children first and foremost. They tried to accomodate her by agreeing she could wear her niqab in the hallways and other public parts of the school, but remove it only when she was actually working with children in a language class. But she refused and only then was she removed from her position.
BTW–I have worn various kinds of hijab (including the niqab) voluntarily, as I have lived and traveled in the middle east quite extensively. Usually my reason was simply to respect the desires/ethics of the dominant culture. Sometimes it was for safety reasons, not wishing to stand out as an American–particularly when traveling alone. But I can tell you that when your face is covered, your interactions with both men and women are very different. This sort of thing would be compounded with children.
Almost any reasonable person would agree that there are certain kinds of language and behavior which is fine among adults but is not appropriate (ie, it can be potentially harmful) around children. Children rely on facial cues. Smile at a strange, tense child in a stroller sometime and see what happens.
It is interesting: One of the main criticisms of Muslim women have of western style feminism is that they are selfish. That they put their own needs before those of children. The rationales used to support this one woman’s desire to cover her face for religious reasons with hardly a thought as to the needs of real live children seems to give some credence to this suspicion.
muslim women are not actually commanded by their religion to veil in front of children - which means she’s veiling to avoid the male gaze of her colleagues not the children - according to the Quran?
Good point.
I’m reading Reza Aslan’s No god but God right now, and I just finished a section that speaks about the origins of veiling. In fact, it appears that Muslim women are not even commanded by their religion to veil at all; the verse regarding veiling was specific to Muhammed’s wives. Aslan posits that Muslim women began donning the veil to emulate Muhammed’s wives, and, for various reasons having mostly to do with it being only men who translated and interpreted the Quran for centuries, it was re-interpreted as a requirement–an interpretation that some Muslim feminists are now challenging.
And the reason I bring that up is because it shows how complex this issue really is: Muslims are only now debating the requirement of the veil. That it was an explicit requirement laid out by the Quran has been taken as read for so long. Now, not only is the requirement being debated, but necessarily what its imagery is to the women who wear it.
My understanding is that the relevent section in the quran is where muhammed is asked, what is always appropriate to be seen on a woman? and he points to the hands and the face!
It is not a prohibition on any particular part of the body, in fact it is a statement saying that the face and hands may ALWAYS be seen (and presumably the rest of the body would or would not be seen , as approrpriate to given circumstances).
Now, various *cultural* norms in effect in various countries are another aspect. The source is simply not in the quran. I don’t know why even muslim insist that it is, but then again I’ve seen plenty of equally ignorant beliefs about the christian bible, so…
Another thing - English/”British” culture likes having foreign invaders to focus on (a.ka. scapegoat). Virginal Britannia stands tall against Romans and Saxons and Danes and Normans and Christians (when they were pagan - see Romans) and Pagans (when they converted) and Jews and the Irish and the French (once they stopped occupying most of present-day France) and Spain and the Papists and Protestants and then Papists again and then radical sects of Protestantism and then naughty “children” (colonies) and then “savage” children (Ohhh, look at that poor white man’s burden ::rolls eyes::) and also Boers and Zulu and those that lived in the Crimea and then Russians and Germans and other imperialistic powers and the Irish and then Germans (again and then again) and then Indians and then Egyptians and then various other colonies that wanted independence and then people that didn’t look like them from those former colonies and then…
Not to mention troubles had with various Middle Eastern mandates and peoples frequently lumped into “British” identity: Welsh, Cornish, Scots. All were “other-ed” at some point.
I’m sure that I’ve missed at least ten…British history can be viewed by studying who/what they are scared of “invading” their land/culture at that point. Maybe its being an island…I don’t know.
If this is off-topic, I apologize.
Meh. I’ve never been a fan of the “not a choice” distinction over what one can be proud of when it comes to other people hating on you for something. It’s senselessly reductionist and outright hostile to a whole host of people who don’t fit a classist notion of social propriety. Anyhow. Your binary “is or is not” pretty much signals that you’re entirely unfamiliar with disabilities activism.
So i’m going to walk past your righteously stupid anger on that one, and explain why i chose that example. It’s bleeding obvious. Disability advocates have been loud and clear about why “for a day” is not a legitimate means of experiencing oppression or dispriviledging, because their issues have repeatedly been subjected to such misinformation and hurtful “advocacy” performed against their will.
Sly civilian, are you referring to me or someone else in this thread?
the thing requiring examination is how easily a kind of parody of political debate errupts about this woman’s dispute with her employers. No one really knows anything about the case, how good a teacher she is (as if, say she was a lousy teacher, this would require New Laws, because god knows there has never been a lousy teacher in britain before), etc. It’s a packaged Anecdote, a stacked deck, a piece of entertainmentpolitics, and everyone is ready to vote on whether to throw her out of the teacher house a la big brother, and indeed take this as some kind of ‘political crisis’; one has to pick “a side” and this will acquit one’s civic duty and reestablish one’s own identity politically. What’s scary is that there seems to be no acknowledgement that this is a tv show, that we know nothing, that spectators to this packaged anecdote can’t legitimately have an opinion about this woman’s performance as a teacher, and that we are just passively accepting a “debating point” handed to us by the television as from mike meyers cawfee talk. It is plainly placed in the headlines to displace the lancet’s revelation of the iraq death toll. “we’d rather talk about ‘islam’ and ‘the clash of civs’ with regard to this anecdote; this is our text, not that dreadful thing from the epidemiologists: is the mumbling muslim menace a threat to our children? discuss. oh and here, our menu of possible thoughts will be useful.”
For your information, Sly Civilian, I live with a person who is in a wheelchair. And certainly not “in it” because she chose it. I just showed her your post (she can’t type either or she would be writing this herself) and she thought your comparison was ludicrous. She lives with a serious physical disability and I don’t. It is as simple as that in her mind.
Anyway, my point was that it is ludicrous to compare a woman who choose to wear a veil in a country in which it is not mandated with another woman who is confined to a motorized wheelchair due to a life threatening disabling illness. So if my anger is stupid, it is no more stupid than your stupid analogy.
BTW–I am not disagreeing that being disabled for a day is not not a legitimate way to experience oppression, because the fact remains that if I were to toodle around in a wheelchair I would at any time have the right and the capacity to get out of it if I felt I needed more mobility. That is not the case of a woman wearing a niqab in the UK (though it might be for one wearing one in Saudi Arabia). She has a choice. My sister with MS does not.
And one more thing: I never ever formulated any argument based on any idea of social propriety. You are making that one up out of thin air. I did mention that there are certain kinds of verbal abuse that a child should not be exposed to–as a way of illustrating that some kinds of social interactions which are fine among adults are not so good for children.
Analogy!=one to one correspondence.
And you’re misreading me pretty sharply if you think that the comparison is in disability=veil. x for a day and y for a day necessarily share something. That would be, for the record: “for a day” tourism to marginalization land.
And if trying on social magins for a day is asinine in one regard, you wouldn’t conclude that it may be equally unproductive in the other? Shock, a lack of genuine understanding, and a lack of conscious processing of social location is what provides the fireworks of these kinds of “experiments.”
The author was surprised and disconcerted to vastly change her appearance and social location for a 24 hour period! Are we actually surprised? Do we actually think there is any valid commentary on what the veil means to those who wear is daily and for reasons that aren’t best summed up as “i’d like to try it?” Do we actually think that shock and lack of cultural grounding are going to produce actual insight on such a topic?
Choice and not choice have *nothing* to do with if an experience of discimrination is legitimate. Speaking a non-dominant languge is often a choice. Political affiliation is a choice. The fetish of thinking that only the ways “we can’t help” not living up to the domination system are legitimate greivances against us is what performs bi-and trans erasure in queer communities, sidelines people with less outwardly visable disabilities, targets people who express non-dominant culture, and leaves the whole system intact after writing a few formalistic protections in that do nothing to actually bring about an actual pluralism.
Trying to unpack this:
Choice and not choice have *nothing* to do with if an experience of discimrination is legitimate.
Discrimination is discrimination whether or not the person has a choice in doing whatever got them discriminated against in the first place? Perhaps. There are always larger contexts, of course. Sometimes discrimination (used in its textbook meaning, which doesn’t necessarily mean bias, which is how it’s often misused) is a very necessary thing. Sometimes one has to choose between several issues, each of which, absent the others, is an issue of discrimination.
Speaking a non-dominant languge is often a choice.
People who speak another language are doing so out of choice? Sometimes. Sometimes not. I meet plenty of people (southern CA) for whom Spanish is their only language, which they have no choice but to use while learning (if they can/have the time/resources to do so).
Political affiliation is a choice.
Okay… not sure what the relevance of this is in the larger context?
The fetish of thinking that only the ways “we can’t help” not living up to the domination system are legitimate greivances against us is what performs bi-and trans erasure in queer communities, sidelines people with less outwardly visable disabilities, targets people who express non-dominant culture, and leaves the whole system intact after writing a few formalistic protections in that do nothing to actually bring about an actual pluralism.
Erm…
The fetish of thinking that only the ways “we can’t help” not living up to the domination system are legitimate greivances against us Only those things bi/trans can do nothing about which go against the norm [and thus result in bias] are legitimate to raise as discrimination? Is that what you’re syaing? Why not gay, why only bi/trans, out of curiosity?
If I understand you, and I’m not at all sure that I do, then I think what you mean about sidelining people with less outwardly visible disabilities is something like this: “if I believe I can do something about a particular problem I have because of my disability, then I shan’t complain about it. Only when it’s something I can’t help, will I complain.”
Is that what you mean?
I’m terribly confused by that, obviously. I have no idea what you’re driving at. Deafness is not a choice; it is a nearly invisible disability for many of us, and there are lots of workarounds we can use, but at the same time most of us raise issues anyway. Sure, I can go out and find someone to help me out with the telephone or with something a non captioned movie/tv show says. But that doesn’t stop me from lobbying for more and more routine captioning of shows (that recently got sidelined by the FCC, so a big middle finger waved in that general direction) and that type of stuff.
Now, I’m guessing that one of your points is that even though wearing of the veil is this woman’s choice, the discrimination against her is no less real, no less valid (and really, if that’s what you meant, you could have said it much more simply.
I would never dispute that. However, when her choice comes up against my non-choice, something has to give. Either I’ll trot off to another classroom or whe will take off her veil for me. There’s really not any room for me to compromise in this instance and it’s not because I’m some sort of idiotic bigot.
I suppose in other contexts, let’s say perhaps she is the cashier at a store and I need to ask her something. I can simply ask someone else, or use a pen and paper. A classroom, I think, does not admit of this type of alternative accomodation. I note with irony, that if I look at her and choose to ask someone else my question in the public context, she may very well see me do that and assume I avoided her for entirely different reasons than deafness.
>In fact, it appears that Muslim women are not even commanded by their religion to veil at all;
…then again, it’s not like “but that’s not actually even in the original text” has ever stopped the more commonly found-over-here variant of Text-Thumpers.
see: abortion, “Supply-Side Jesus,” etc. ad nauseum.
if she’s teaching deaf kids she should need to be able to sign anyway
By the way, bad assumption. Not all deaf kids sign. Even in this day and age.
Thanks for the powerful post. Debates and struggles about dress have been happening among Muslim and Arab women far longer than some commenters might think. But what’s being lost in this ‘debate’ among non-Muslim, non-Arab people, in which this ‘debate’ is really just regurgitating TV talking points about a specific issue of a specific woman we don’t really know much about, is how it is just one extra little piece of an ever-increasing toxic political environment of Islamophobia–putting Muslims constantly in fear or on the defensive. I don’t agree with everything this journalist (quoted below) is saying, particularly how if it’s cool for Muslims to discuss something, that gives everyone else automatic permission, but he makes a good point about what might seem in isolation like a rational debate, is really a component of a broad media spectacle reinforcing hysteria about Muslims:
“That’s how it’s been almost every day since Jack Straw raised the matter of the veil nearly two weeks ago. Even before, Muslims could barely open a paper without seeing themselves on the front of it. David Cameron’s speech to the Tories a week earlier was trailed in advance as an appeal for Muslims to open up their single-faith schools: “Ban Muslim ghettos” was one headline.
Taken alone, each one of these topics could be the topic of a thoughtful, nuanced debate. The veil, for example, has found feminists among both its champions and critics, proving that it’s no straightforward matter. There should be nothing automatically anti-Muslim about raising the subject, not least since many Muslim women question the niqab themselves.
Similarly, Ruth Kelly was hardly out of line in suggesting, as she did last week, that the government needs to be careful about which Muslim groups it funds and with whom it engages, ensuring it leans towards those who are actively “tackling extremism”. Other things being equal, that was a perfectly sensible thing to say.
Except other things are not equal. Each one of these perfectly rational subjects, taken together, has created a perfectly irrational mood: a kind of drumbeat of hysteria in which both politicians and media have turned again and again on a single, small minority, first prodding them, then pounding them as if they represented the single biggest problem in national life.
The result is turning ugly and has, predictably, spilled on to the streets. Muslim organisations report a surge in physical and verbal attacks on Muslims; women have had their head coverings removed by force. A mosque in Falkirk was firebombed while another in Preston was attacked by a gang throwing bricks and concrete blocks.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1924677,00.html
[…] I want to look at this specific case of Aishah Azmi and the discussion on some feminist blogs where disability has come up in more than one context. […] Neither R. Mildred or Jill, the original posters at PunkAssBlog and Feministe, respectively, have appeared to consider the intersection of disability, though it’s part of the discussion everywhere.[…]
Belledame222 is right — whether or not veiling has support in Islam’s founding texts is really beside the point, because religions evolve over time, even in ways far removed from the writings of their founders. It is undenyable that veiling is now quite central to Islam as practiced in many places (yes, not all), and for us non-Muslims to sit here and say the veil is non-Islamic based on 2nd hand accounts of a text that hardly any of us have ever read is pretty silly, and ignores overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.
I mean, if a Muslim were to tell you that abortion and homosexuality cannot be central to American evangelical Christianity because there are only five or so sentences in the entire Bible on either of these topics, you’d think he were pretty far off, no?
I mean, if a Muslim were to tell you that abortion and homosexuality cannot be central to American evangelical Christianity because there are only five or so sentences in the entire Bible on either of these topics, you’d think he were pretty far off, no?
The centrality wasn’t my point - it was just the assumption that many people make regarding the veil. From the little I admittedly understand, the veil (and the various forms it takes in different geographical areas/cultures) can be just as much about regional or ethnic identity as it can be about religious modesty. I wasn’t trying to imply that the text was the issue; I just thought that it may be helpful to point out the way some people “other” all Muslims into one big group who all have the exact same cultural traditions (instead of a diverse group of individuals and geo/ethnic specific cultures). That is part of othering itself, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
What a holy book actually said never stopped anyone before, of course. Though I will say that I always found Evangelical focus on abortion and homosexuality (considering the actual text in the Bible) to be, well, insulting at best. People trying to manipulate religion and faith to suit personal agendas come in all stripes, sadly.
30 years ago, the niqab was almost unheard of outside of KSA and the other Gulf States. Even Saudis will tell you that the veil has more to do with Saudi culture than it does Islam. There was a great deal of diversity in the practice of Islam–but much of that diversity has been dissapearing–in some places.
So why has the face veil become so prevalent in the last 10-15 years? Why are the daughters and grandaughters of women who would disavow it with all their might wearing it? While women who are native to the countris of its origin are beginning to refuse to wear it, in spite of harassment from family and religious authorities?
Two answers: colonialism and Saudi Arabia (which, it could be argued, is another form of colonialism).
Donna Matsson is the president of the North American Islamic Society (or something like that–I don’t have time to google all this). She is a Canadian born revert, but she is also an academic professor of religion at a college in CT, I think. I have heard her interviewed and have read her writings. She is really worth checking out. She is often asked about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism (niqab-wearing could be read as a symptom of this, since it is not expressly mentioned in the Quran). According to Matsson, Islam traditionally does not have a priestly heirarchy (should be remembered that she is speaking from a Sunni perspective, Shia’ism differs somewhat in this respect), but it does have a rich tradition of scholarship. Islam was always open to interpretation. If you know anything about Islam during its pre-Crusades heyday, you would be shocked at how “different” it seems, since then it was truly liberal and enlightened when contrasted with the Christianity of that same era. Until relatively recently, Islam was not a “literalist” religion. Anyone who knows even a little Arabic knows how ridiculous that idea is. The text is largely incomprehensible without some degree of contextualization; you will see this even in the most so-called literal readings of it.
So, when western powers colonialized the Arab World, particularly Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, this rich tradition was disrupted. The scholarship was lost. And without the foundation of centuries of scholarship, the ability to interpret the texts floundered, new scholarship was not done, texts were lost or not read or not understood or even banned, and into that vacumn moved the uneducated (like the taliban) who began to perpetrate a much more literal view of Islam. It shoudl be remembered that what is commonly referred to as Wahabbi Islam (founded in the najd region of the Arabian Penninsula) is a relatively new interpretation of Islam (founded in the 17th century) and actually reflects the very old cultural values and traditions of this part of Arabia, which among other things is renowned for its fierce independence, rigid segregation of sex and class (KSA makes me think of the ante-bellum south in many respects) and xenophobia (it is the tribalist’s ultimate tribe). It likely would’ve remained an isolated and small offshoot of Islam (sort of like the Mennonites) without both the advent of the Al Saud family and the discovery of oil.
30 years ago Islamic scholarship was almost non-existent in the Islamic world, having been destroyed for one reason or another by colonialism. Saudi Arabia (with a lot of US backing, it shoud be noted) moved into the vacumn–and began to establish its version of Islam as THE authentic form of Islam (it should be noted that religious diversity is not tolerated in the Kingdom, Sufis and Shia are particularly oppressed, even jailed for the crime of apostasy). It poured HUGE amounts of money into mosques, masjids, schools and textbooks which claimed that the Wahhabi-Salafism as the only geniuine “true” Islam. Part of this occurred within the context of the cold war and fighting “godless” communism and all, which is why it was so appealing to the US. The other reason was fear of Iran by both the Saudis and the Americans, which has its own unique form of theocray.
Anyway–to make a very long and complex story very short, the point Donna Mattson makes is that only recently have Islamic scholars began to get their hands on and recover the old texts and to rediscover and re-interpret the tradition which was destroyed first by coloniliasm and 2nd by a corrupt oil-rich regime in the Arabian Peninsula. And that the roots of the “problem” of Islamic fundamentalism (of which the niqab is as much a symbol of as certain chasity-protecting clothing styles are in evangelical Christianity) lies unequivocally in colonial conquest of the region.
On another note: I have been corresponding this morning with 2 saudi friends. One a woman who lives in this country as a student, who has been able to forgo wearing a niqab in KSA ONLY because she has the support of her family (most of her female relatives do wear it) and another woman who lives in KSA who routinely wears a niqab when she is in public because of her religious convictions and her respect for her own culture. The second is a working mother and does not wear the niqab while working with patients; she is an MD who works only with women patients and children (she is a GP).
Both thought the idea of a woman wearing a niqab while working with children was absurd and said it was a “misinterpretation” of the purpose of the niqab. That if it was important for her not to show her face to men, then she should not be working in a mixed sex environment in the 1st place, as part of the practice of wearing a niqab is to avoid ALL contact with non-mahram men, which includes even speaking to them.
Anon-
Okay. You know what i mean by discrimination, so i’m going to keep using it in that sense.
“Often a choice.”
I believe that people have the right to use the language of their choice, especially as an expression of solidarity of others in their community who don’t have a choice.
Relevance? Larger context?
The trace of the argument is this. Talking about choice/non-choice makes it sounds like the choice is neutral to the person making it. It’s not. Just like a political affiliation, we’d be loathe to simply compromise because somebody who’s more powerful says otherwise. Veiling, amongst other things has come to signify resistance to western power. Yes, it’s a “choice” but its not individual in the same way that the color of one’s shoes is…and it’s certainly not neutral or simply aesthetic. It’s a cultural marker, and a freighted statement of idenity. Simply legislating against it is wrongheaded and unproductive.
Why just bi and trans? Because the construction of sexual idenity usually hinges on “we/they can’t change, we’re born that way” rhetorics often produced by gay and lesbian communities and their allies. A person with more fluid gender or sexual idenity might have the choice of “passing” as het. But only by ultimately privledging the dominant model, does the choice automatically revert to a het model. Only my ultimatly priviledging the west, does the choice automatically revert to our patterns of dress.
“Only those things bi/trans can do nothing about which go against the norm”
That’s exactly what i’m arguing against.
Passing as hearing, het, western, secular, whatever…is a stratagy of adaptation. And if we think that ablist, het, western, secular rhetorics are truely better, passing is morally required.
But if we don’t…choice is legitimate. And even the resistances we choose are constructed as protectable speech.
Could i have said this more simply? Maybe, but i’m trying to do justice to the complexity here, and demonstrate the broader connections behind this issue. if it doesn’t make sense…just give it all a pass.
That if it was important for her not to show her face to men, then she should not be working in a mixed sex environment in the 1st place, as part of the practice of wearing a niqab is to avoid ALL contact with non-mahram men, which includes even speaking to them.
Yes but this is britain we’re talking about, a land were the headscarf and hotpants combo isn’t exactly unheard of, if we’re going to start forcing people to do stuff due to theological silliness then I put in my vote for “Nuke Britain” followed shortly by “Nuke the World” just to be extremely fair about such things.
For your information, Sly Civilian, I live with a person who is in a wheelchair. And certainly not “in it” because she chose it.
Actually it’s pretty obnoxious to say that a person chooses their religion also, it’s kinda fundamental to their identity, the idea that religion is a choice overlooks the huge number of people who’ve died for their religious convictions and their belief, once we start going around saying “they can just give up aspects of their religion” and are part of a culture that will force another oppressed group to give up a pretty benign custom, that’s the point at which you become a downpresser and start to enable a downpresser.
Are you really saying RMildred that we are “born” genetically coded into one religion or another?
Which is actually an interesting argument from an Islamic perspective, which believes that there is no such thing as “conversion” to Islam, rather those who are not born into Islam and embrace the faith (shahada) actually are “reverting” to the natural human condition, which is Islam.
That was a great post, sunrunner, wrt colonialism, Saudi Arabia et al.
It also seems part of a larger global theme, the rise of fundamentalism(s) in response to advanced corporate…whatever you want to call it, colonialism, capitalism, some strange new hybrid. Karen Armstrong talks about this really lucidly. The old traditions get vacuumed up and swept away, not just by “outside” colonizers…or, well, not necessarily just by outside -nations,- but by giant chains, the forces of the “global market,” constant disruption. And nature abhors a vacuum. and people turn reactionary in response: yes, it’s about the uneducated sweeping into power, all the books are destroyed and in any case who has the time to read, who has the time for more than sound bites and anyway these folks are so -persuasive-;
but also, people turn super-literal because they feel the ground, the very foundations of reality crumbling beneath their feet: structure! Structure above all! It’s material; it’s also existential.
and that last bit in particular (how upsetting it is to have all the old -beliefs- swept away, on top of course of the socioeconomic instability, wars, famines, Depressions, and so forth) is something i think not nearly enough people pay attention to.
then again: shit, we’re just barely able to even address the -material- part of the instability. So much less pleasant a thing to contemplate than a simpler “those people over there, or maybe those MEN, goddam but they’re barbaric. Clearly what they need is _____, and all will be well. Now it’s just a question of implementation.” Because we’re all implicated as well: both as part of the cause and part of the effect, ultimately.
RM, please check your email. Not sure how else to reach you but here.
Are you really saying RMildred that we are “born” genetically coded into one religion or another?
Is genetics the only level by which we judge something as inherent now? Is a person who lost a sense or ability in an accident or due to disease less disabled than those born with similar problems? Religion is very much inherent to people’s sense of identity, back when I was a christian (though I think steinbeck’s (completely unconnected) term “Christian Athiest” is probably more apt, who cares what god thinks, fuck the ressurrection, fuck the churchs’ insular communities and ad hoc rules, but by the gods, this jesus guy is interesting) I wasn’t choosing to do good deeds, or help my fellow people or any of that, I did that stuff because it was what I believed in, and that belief was central to who I am.
So too with most religious people, who they are and how they observe their faith are often indistiguishable aspects of theri personality, and to say that a religious person has a real choice in how they choose to observe their faith is as bad as saying that the poor choose to be poor - we don’t, the religious don’t, disabled people don’t.
just because there’s a theoretical ability to choose, doesn’t mean you cna ask somone to make it.
So I was reading this thread on digby
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116141293728827122
(sorry I am retarded and cannot make links)
and I was thinking, along with digby and some commenters, that it’s ridiculous that this is even a debate in a free society. My comment went somewhat along the lines of “the fundamental point is that I’ll be damned if I’m going to tell anybody else what they can and can’t wear.”
But then I was reading some of the other comments and I realized it of course goes deeper than this. If women are coerced into wearing the veil, how “free” is that? Digby made the point that people have always been made subjects of suspicion for dressing differently — he/she (not sure if D. is boy or girl) made an analogy to punks in England during the late 70s being ostracized. But then another astute commenter says that there’s a big difference — punks dressed the way they did deliberately, as a representation of their demand for *greater* freedom, where the veil can be seen as a sign of anything but a freedom to dress while you want.
The thing is I still think that this is a battle for Muslim women to fight within their own communities, if they choose — state intervention in how people dress is just too odious an idea, with too many horrible implications, for a person like me to support in any capacity. So I stand by what I said at first, which is that I will never, ever support an effort that allows the state to tell anybody what to do with their body (you can see exactly what sort of “implications” I mean when you consider this phrase). But you also have situations like the female Muslim teacher who covers her mouth, potentially making it tougher for the kids to learn. When you agree to work for the state as a teacher, don’t you agree to abide by whatever rules they set? It’s not like you *have* to be a teacher.
Well said Ersatz. The “state” has no business having any say in what people do and do not wear. And for that reason, Jack Straw is an uncivil and pompous ass. But a school does have a right (and an obligation) to manage a learning environment which caters to the needs of children (ie, prioritizes those needs). Which is why I believe that if Aishah Azami wishes to avoid contact with non-mahram men, and still feels called to teach, then she should make an effort to find employment in an all girl’s school.
The ironic thing about all this is that in cultures in which niqab wearing is commonplace, there would be no question that it would be totally inappropriate for her to be in a classromm (or any room) with a non-mahram man without some kind of chaperone. For that reason, all education is strictly gender-segregated.
“Last I checked it was illegal for a woman to wander around without a top on in most american states, where are the legions of anti-mandatory-chest-covering protestors?”
They’re in NYS, where breastfeeding protestors won a top state court decision some years back, and women have the absolute Constitutional right to go topless anywhere where men have the right to go topless. (As a result you will actually see a lot more “shirts and shoes required” signs than before.)
yawn… sorry no one knows what they’re talking about including you.