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

[TheStateWeAreIn]

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

Particularly Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi‘s wife.

There’s so much going on there.

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

I may have misunderstood you but do you think that anyone on this thread had attacked the woman?

Yes, any sensible person would be appalled at this image.

I live in a multicultural neighbourhood. I do think it's disrespectful towards western culture to wear such a garment.

It would be like me going to a Muslim country and walking down the middle of a city wearing a miniskirt and low neck top and high heeled boots. I'd be arrested. And yet we have to be endlessly tolerant.

Because the archbishop’s outfit doesn’t remove her agency or reduce her to a nondescript background featureless nonperson.

As human beings, we are hardwired to read faces.
We do not look at faces the same way we look at ordinary objects. Humans possess a specialised, highly efficient neural highway specifically for faces, primarily located in a region called the fusiform face area FFA)This region activates within milliseconds of seeing a face-like pattern, processing information long before our conscious mind finishes evaluating the scene. This dedicated wiring is actually why newborn babies naturally prefer looking at faces over any other visual stimuli.

While language is powerful, human faces possess incredible physical dexterity. We can signal more than 20 different categories of emotion simply by contracting or relaxing various facial muscles. I find this absolutely mind boggling and amazing.

Seeing a face allows us to instantaneously gather data on a person's identity and familiarity, their emotional state and mood and their focus of attention. Stick a niqab on a woman or a mask on a man and you throw all that mental data gathering out of the window.

I’m sure that’s why I personally find the niqab both and equally subjugating for the wearer and unnerving as an observer.

You said, "I imagine she would say it’s her choice. Because she has no choice but to say this."

Yet you don't know this. You have no proof.

You are actually assuming this woman has no agency about her clothing because you are making assumptions. There are many reasons why women in the UK from other countries wear a full covering that is not just about being forced.

As I said, I think you'll find it a bit more complicated than you've stated. That is my response from now on.

Women can wear what they want.

Yes, all those women in Afghanistan suddenly decided they wanted to wear living shrouds when the Taliban took power, didn’t they?

And you really think a woman who has risen to the highest position in the Church of England has no choice over what she wears and couldn’t propose a change if she wanted to wear something different. In any case her Bishop’s clothing does not demean her, unperson her, imply she needs to be hidden away, hide her face or any of the other effects of the shroud. Plenty of people wear uniforms. Saying this is the same as wearing a shroud to cover every inch of your body is absurd.

Okay, this woman is covering her face. If she is doing it of her own free will, do we still have a problem with it?
If she is wearing it because her husband is forcing her to, then she has a much bigger problem than what she is wearing. She would be in the same position as any other woman experiencing abuse. But the truth is, we don’t know her circumstances, do we? We are simply assuming she is oppressed because of her clothing.
My son’s SEN school TA wears a niqab. Initially, I wasn’t sure how he would respond or whether he would be able to engage with her when he couldn’t see her face. But he has been absolutely fine and adores her. To him, she is just like any other TA, regardless of what she wears.
So, what exactly is the problem?
Yes, we can’t see her face. But if she is comfortable with her choice and is not harming anyone, why should we have a problem with it?
If she is being forced to wear it and is living in an abusive situation, then she deserves help and support, just like the thousands of women who experience abuse every day. But we cannot assume that is the case simply because she wears a niqab.
Someone mentioned Sara and suggested that social workers failed to notice something because she was covered. But there are plenty of examples of children who were not covered and were still missed by social services for various reasons. The issue is safeguarding failures, not simply what someone chooses to wear.
If you see a woman wearing a niqab, talk to her. Treat her like any other person. Ask questions respectfully if you genuinely want to understand her choices, rather than assuming she is oppressed.
She has the right to practise her religion in the way she chooses, as long as she is not harming others. We should focus on actual harm and abuse, not make assumptions about someone’s life based solely on their clothing.

Excellent post which really brings home the dehumanising effect of the niqab.

@ragdollout I personally don’t think the right to freedom of religion should result in a flagrant refusal to abide by the cultural norms of the culture you have chosen to live in.

Again, if I am comfortable and my choice and I am not harming anyone to wear a string bikini at all times- why should anyone have a problem with it?

must we see and read every human’s face? You still can interact with them normally.

What if you are deaf and interact by reading lips?

Trust me there are plenty of ways to communicate, if you want to.

you are wearing a bikini when you want to. Are you ok if I ban it because I feel uncomfortable?

It is effectively banned. I could get arrested if I wore one in the street or most certainly told to cover up. I certainly wouldn’t keep my job

Since when have we had a female Archbishop of Canterbury? I'm an atheist so this passed me by.

I'll adopt this approach the minute I'm allowed to walk down the street in a Muslim country wearing a miniskirt, low neck top and high heeled boots, without being arrested. And not before.

I’m not going to voluntarily engage in conversation with anyone in a niqab. I rely heavily on lip reading due to partial deafness, as do many people. I wouldn’t even try, it would be a disaster.

I also try not to have conversations with people wearing sunglasses if I can help it as I find not being able to see someone’s eyes very disturbing and it makes me very uncomfortable. I don’t know how well you would see the eyes of someone in a niqab (because it’s not just the eyeballs that convey emotions, it’s the area around the eyes, muscles, eyebrows etc).

If as you say it’s completely optional and a choice (I don’t for a minute believe it is) then I’m not going to voluntarily try to have a conversation with someone who has chosen to disable several of the important aspects of human communication so that I will find conversation extremely difficult and uncomfortable.

This made me laugh. She was nominated in October last year and installed in March.

Agree 100%, this is why many countries are now banning the burka and nikab. But not Britain. No, we must be endlessly tolerant. We must tolerate the intolerant.

😂 I googled this when I read the thread as this had also passed me by🙈

TBF that wasn’t said explicitly AFAIAA. The report on the BBC news this morning said the award was physically handed to his wife because the imam couldn’t take it from a woman.

They didn’t say that’s why she was there. But it’s hard to see why she was there otherwise, when Dame Mullally’s husband wasn’t so it wasn’t a “social” meeting. I don’t expect fully covered women usually have their pictures taken at their husband’s award ceremonies do they?

You absolutely cannot. Sorry if you are covering your head, face and entire body in a shroud, nobody will be able to interact with you normally.

It’s also about what is normalised.

Companies House validation will not accept a hidden face
nor will DVLA
nor will the passport office
nor should ANYBODY else

@TheStateWeAreIn If you don’t want to communicate voluntarily with someone who is wearing a niqab, that’s your personal choice. But does that mean you think the niqab should be banned simply because you feel you can’t communicate with someone wearing it?
For example, imagine you’re in a situation where your doctor is wearing a niqab, and they’re the only doctor available. Would you really refuse to communicate with them, or would you find another way to communicate effectively?
There is almost always a way to communicate when it’s necessary. A lack of face-to-face communication shouldn’t automatically mean that someone’s choice of clothing needs to be banned.