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)

Well it certainly makes it difficult to tell how old she is.

There are loads of Muslim women going around in the niqab where I live, in a diverse part of London.
I would like to see it banned. I don’t think women can take place in society, work, etc, when they dress like that. The whole set up leaves them dependent on men, and where there’s that sort of power imbalance, abuse is a lot more prevalent.

Yes the image is stark but imo it’s less about the AoC than changing legislation generally.

Thanks for posting. Yes, this is a perfect example of a well-meaning but muddle-headed institution enabling and encouraging the more fundamentalist forms of Islam.

I used to be a member of Amnesty some years ago. So glad I cancelled my subscription.

Yes, but I don't think it will change in Britain. But I can see them banning face coverings but making an exemtion for face coverings worn for religious reasons. I can just see that happening.

Sadly so. For monitoring and face recognition too. I hope not though.

That Amnesty quote is utterly ridiculous. I wonder if they say the same about the one eye rule in Afghanistan. They probably do,

Yes, and it creates division and damages community cohesion. I also live in a multicultural neighbourhood. I wouldn't like to see an increase in women wearing the niqab.

It's really tragic when you see film footage of Afghanistan in the 1960s, the women in their trendy clothes, compared to now. Just awful.

I think we already are and are viewed as such by other states such as the UAE.

I was surprised to read that some Muslim majority countries ban them, but good old Wikipedia said this:

There are currently 24 states that have banned the burqa and niqab, both Muslim-majority countries and non-Muslim countries, including:
Africa: Cameroon, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Senegal, Tunisia, Zambia
Asia: China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Europe: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal

Interestingly, there was also a reference to Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, an Egyptian Islamic scholar who served as the grand mufti of Egypt and then as grand imam of al-Azhar who issued a fatwa in October 2009 arguing that veiling of the face is not required under Islam and that the niqab is a cultural tradition without Islamic importance. Other posters said the same.

However, I cannot see a ban ever being enacted here. A combination of strong Muslim support including from within political parties and well intentioned liberal progressives would never allow a ban to occur. Maybe 20 years ago as some countries did, but not now. And likely, even 10 years ago, I’d also have argued that a ban was unfair based on a belief in religious freedom. Now, the rapid increase in women wearing the burka and niqab is concerning.

That is right on brand for Amnesty circa 2026. T

The thread wasn't about her ' enabling' oppression of women. That's your take on her- once again it's a lot to read into a photo. Just standing next to someone hardly oppresses them. Would you have her refuse to be in a photo with a woman in a niqab? How do you know what conversation went between them? Doesn't having a photo taken assist with visibility- given the woman's name is not public nor her role whether professional.or domestic?
Sarah ( because her name isn't being used ) is the first female Archbishop and maintaining her position, also a lesbian and due simply to those things a large part of the worldwide Anglican communion has decided to unrecognised her authority .....she has to manage all that- And this is her oppressing women and being spineless?
I haven't seen anyone post a link to the supposed spineless views ?
But as a midwife she'd have delivered babies to all sorts of women. Maybe it makes one place less emphasis on what they are dressed in.

If you're talking about the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dame Sarah Mullally, the only person I've seen using her first name only is you. I certainly haven't done so - I mostly called her some version of AB of C - though I believe it's considered acceptable to call her Dame Sarah - I've heard that used on the BBC.

But I've definitely never heard that she was lesbian: I expect her husband, an Irish IT and enterprise architect called Eamonn Mullally to whom she's been married for about 40 years, will be even more surprised.

Beaming from ear to ear was hardly a great look was it, though. There is just something about that photo that screams 'female socialisation'. When Pope Francis met Trump, he made sure he was photographed with a face like a wet Sunday, and people thought that was great.

Oh my- I've confused her with Bishop Cherry Vann, who is the first female ArchBishop in Wales! and has discussed being a lesbian . Yes Sarah Mulally's husband most probably would be as would she!
Apologies to both!
On first names it's common in the C of E to use first names for Clergy. So that doesn't feel odd to me but I appreciate some people are more formal.
Curiously in view of headlines neither prominent leader has expressed any views about the niqab. Although you'd expect them both to attend interfaith events there are no photos of Archbishop Cherry with women wearing Niqabs. . So why so many determined headlines suggesting Archbishop Sarah is positively in favour?

Could it be misogyny in the press, attributing women views they have not expressed? Or a more determined political backlash- as the establishment is challenged by the presence of women leaders?

And I'm really curious @FiveMinuteArgument as to what you think: In your view should they refuse or avoid being photo'd with a woman in a niqab?

In fact turns out he gave his wife the award and since she hasn't expressed controversial views publicly, it might have been better to cut out the middle man and just have the two women in the photo

@5MinuteArgument see above

I think AoC and this image is just a symptom of a wider issue. It is stark enough for most to say this isn’t right but the reason we’re seeing it goes much deeper than one cleric, and the church even.

It’s political and institutional too.

Seems to me there's a pivotal issue of visibility. Her name isn't public, her face isn't seen but the woman presumably chose the photo as did her husband? Maybe that bit of it wasn't a mistake?

“In fact turns out he gave his wife the award”

So it’s hers now and not his? Seems quite rude of him. What did she do to deserve it?

Why do you think it is that some women are fine with it now? What do think’s changed?

The issue is wider than Sarah Mulally. She's done well to become the first woman A of C. But the leadership of the Church of England is similar to so many organisations and institutions in the UK. They adopt a smiling acceptance of radical Islam and their actions unwittingly further its agenda. The example up thread of Amnesty reacting to Denmark's very sensible banning of the face veil is a good example. There are many others in education, health, turning a blind eye to the grooming gangs, growing sectarianism, accepting the segregation of men and women at political meetings.

Here's another example: Barnet Hill Academy in north London requires girls as young as seven to wear hijab as part of their school uniform. The school receives state funding. My taxes are going on this.

time for this cartoon I think

I haven't rtft but discussions like this are often dominated by people who seem to have no idea how completely immersed they are in their own culture.
First off, we have no idea what that lady thinks about what she is wearing.
However, by my understanding, if she, her husband and the archbishop had been alone she would not have needed to be veiled. The veil is for when you are in mixed sex environments (hence the importance of single sex provisions), therefore in nearly all public situations.

Our standards of what is 'decent' depend on so many things. Is it OK to wear PJs in public? If not why not, you are all covered up? Would you walk down the street in underwear? If not, would you wear a bikini on the beach, or at a pool?

The feeling of discomfort or exposure at being inadequately covered is influenced by standards that are arbitrary, changing. Perhaps this lady feels the same about appearing in public unveiled as I would feel if for some reason I had to go shopping in bra and pants, ie very exposed and uncomfortable.

As an example, a few years back I was visiting a very remote town in East Africa. I knew it was a fairly conservative place and chose my clothes carefully. However, what I thought was a very modest knee length skirt and short sleeved blouse turned out to be far too revealing and i felt uncomfortable and a bit dis respectful (of course everyone was far too polite to notice)

I think this whole debate would benefit from a more open and curious attitude to other women's choices.

OF COURSE I'm not talking about where women are compelled to cover up. I'm talking about women who are free to choose what to wear.

this cartoon

Yes, in dd’s school in yr 5 a girl began to be fully covered (not just headscarf). Her dm wore the garb similar to the woman with the AofC, except with added gloves and a grille over the eyes as well. And there was the school falling over itself to accommodate this absurdity, eg no PE/Games for the girl.

hmm its not posting

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/veiling/content-section-2.1