Imperial bans Hijab

[peacedove]

[quote]Imperial College London has issued a ban on its staff and students wearing hijabs or hoodies in its buildings as part of an effort to improve campus security.[/quote]

education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1648360,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

very interesting, indeed.

slug, in this thread you were not that "certain individual", but you have disappointed me in another thread.

I do not agree with the logical conclusion bit. One doesn't always carry reasoning to their logical end. And I will ask you to reconsider the analogy of the young daughter of a non-Muslim being dressed in bride-wear.

We see this as inculcating the relationship with Allah at an early age, that's all.

What harm comes to the West by accepting this explanation?

I guess it's about looking at the motivations behind the practise. I accept that you see it as indoctrinating your children into their religion at an early age, along with whispering in the child's ear at birth. However, if you take gods out of the equaltion and accept that cultures are defined by their practises, it becomes distrubing to the Western eye.

For example, there is a raging argument going on at the moment about whether or not women are partly responsible for rape if they are intokicated. If you look at it dispassionatly, why is it that women are being held to blame for men's actions? What does this say about the society?

I will admit to being disturbed by Islamic attitudes to women. They whole idea of sheilding them from male view underlines their position as a sex object. You let slip that attitude by your comment that even ugly muslims cover up. I am also disturbed by the inferior place women have in the legal system, their testimony being half of that of as male. And yet all my muslim friends insist that muslim women are treasured. The two don't tally in my mind, or in the experience of the muslim women I count amongst my friends. After all, look at what happened to the treasured sisters in Afghanistan.

I'm sorry if I disappointed you on another thread. I'm disappointed that a system of belief that prescribes the dealth penalty for any that chooses to reject it still feels justified in describing itself as peaceful.

What appaling spelling I have, and Me! a teacher!

Muslim women cover up, Jewish women go to the micrah after menstruation, women cover their heads in Chritian orthodox churches, and have only just been relieved of the tradition of 'churching' to 'cleanse' them after childbirth. (At least in Islam men's 'bits' are considered as in need of splashing with water before prayer as women's are!). Apologies for any details wrong, here, but ALL these religions developed in different times and places, all are examining (with struggle) how they fit in in a modern world, and all have a complex mixture of cultural and doctrinal expectations, and in some communities, the journey is at a different stage, and the original premise more exacting. Personally, I don't like any of it from the point of view of the image of women, . And I certainly condemn any co-ersion to make women conform.

But I don't understand how people can support banning a headscarf, worn voluntarily by an adult woman, or feel so 'against it' when it doesn't harm them in any way. I fully support a separation between religion and state - which should start with the ousting of the 25 unelected bishops that sit in the House of Lords - but within a democartic and free state, surely people should be able to practice their own religion of their own free will, if it does not harm anyone else?

Blu I think that churching was changed to a service of thanks giving for the safe delivery of the mother and child when Cranmer made his changes to the C of E in the Reign of henry the 8th.....I'm happy to be corrected if that is worg. But half a millenia isn't really 'jest recently '

One thing that worries me about what you say about the changes that happen with the canging place in society is that the Koran cannot chane because it is percieved as the abosolute truth goven to Muhammed by God. That is the only miracle that all Muslims believe in. therefore there cannot be a reformation in Islam, as the people changing it would be considered apostates and the punishment for apostacy is death.

MB - I hope you are right about 'churching', but I only heard about it because I was at university with someone who had recently been to a churching ceremony - I remember because I was so shocked by the description of it's purpose!And you may well be right about the Qoran, but there are plenty of very strong independent Muslim women in this country who are not subject to Sharia law (no stoning in Ruislip) and have interpreted the hadith about covering in a very liberal way. I am not denying that there ARE points of frictioon between different views of the world, but I still can't see why an educated intelligent western muslim woman who chooses of her own free will to put a bit of cloth on her head should be banned from doing so, or invoke such antagonism, from people who are not harmed by it!

I don't quite understand why she does it, I don't think it looks nice, I rankle against any apparant restriction on women...but you know, I fee exactly the same about high heel shoes, for exactly the same reason! They restrict women's movement terribly, look awful (IMO!), BUTU that's just my opinion, and no reason for me to feel that other women should feel the same!

I shamelessly copied this from the web, but IFAICR there was a major shift in the serivice at the time of the English Reformation

'As I mentioned earlier from about the eleventh century onwards rites of purification are to be found in liturgical books. ......While there are hardly any parallels in the continental reformed tradition [Schmidt 1989, 108], the rite is slightly altered and translated into English for the 1549 prayer book where it is simply called The Ordre of the Purification of Women. Keith Thomas sees it as 'another semi-magical ceremony which the Anglican church seemed reluctant to discard' [Thomas, 68]. The major shift in the tradition happened in the development of the 1552 prayer book where any notion of purification is dropped and the rite is renamed 'The Thankesgiving of Women after Child-birth, commonly called the Churchynge of Women. This marks a clear shift in the theological concept of the rite. Yet, the shift was to remain mainly theological. It is quite evident that in popular perception the superstitious belief that a woman should keep away from both church and society was retained. '

So it would seem from this that at the time of the reformation the ortodox theology of the C of E did not see it as a ritual of purification but of thansgiving. The views of the people were slower to change

Oh absolutly, wear whatever you want girls, but if we are supposed to be aware of how our clothing affects men (cf women and rape discussions) why not also be aware of the what covering ourselves from the lustful gazes of men implies abour our position in society.

Personally, I wear a hijjab stlyle scarf in the winter, my muslim students taught me how to tie it, it keeps the wind out of my ears.

In public I do like to wear a bra and some kind of top, usually. A gazing man could be driven quite wild, otherwise.

And I feel a bit embarrassed, in a cultural sort of way, in the freezer section of M&S without my trousers and skirt.

I would have thought that intelligent Muslim women can do their own thinking, without us yelling at them (smile)

Oh me too, but equaly without mulim men yelling at them either

Spot on, mb!

A womans testimony is only half of a mans in certain cases, where the case entails something that a woman would be more knowledgeable in her testimony is sufficient.

As for the Hijaab making a woman a sex object, if I remember correctly I read in the other thread that a woman did not receive justice because she wore a skirt at the time of rape, what a woman is wearing is taken into account when she is the victim of such an abhorrent crime in this liberated country.
Then why is it so suprising that the advice to wear a hijaab is so one avoids unwanted attention- although to be perfectly honest I think if a man is going to go out and choose a woman to rape he will just grab the nearest random woman, unless the perpetrator knows the woman. There is also the stipulation in Islam that both men and women lower their gaze, and be business like when dealing with alien (ie not immediate family) members of the opppoosite sex.
As an aside I have noticed men tend to talk to me when I am dressed in Hijaab, I have very long curly shiny reddish brown hair, which never fails to be the centre of attention should I remove my hijaab, I prefer people dealing with me not various parts of my anatomy, hence I wear the hijaab. Whilst at uni a man stroked my hair and I mean he ran his fingers through my hair, whilst my head was bent pulling books out of a bag on the floor, he then acted like nothing had happened...that's when the hijaab went firmly on my head it still creeps me out to this day when I remember it yeuchhhh.

thats right fuzzywuzzy, but let me tell you where a womans testimony is ten times a man.

imagine,a really rich, powerful, maybe landed man. he dies. his wife is newly pregnant.well, until she gives birth, his estate cannot be divided. if a boy is born, the division will be different to if a firl is born, or twins, triplets etc. or if she has no baby.
but what if she gives birth to a boy. who dies, minutes later? the division of the entire property then rests on the midwifes testimony. because by taking even one breath, the child inherits from his/her father. and when he/she dies, his inheritors are different from those who would have inherited had he never existed.

i think thats a lot of power.

surely that would only be the case if primogentiture was still the law, stitch?

as i understand modern intestacy laws, the wife would inherit whether the child lived, died or was born with two heads.

and anyway, the midwife could be a man.

Isn't Imperial just banning face covering?

Someone once told me it's illegal to cover your face on a demo. Is that true?

Stitch, I don't think that case would crop up very often though, would it?

Wheras under sharia law a woman's testimony is almost always worth half that of a man. Women's right to divorce under islam are not equal to a man's either, are they? (happy to be corrected) And I would imagine that would happen a whole lot more often than a widow giving birth.

Don't know about the demo thing Caligula

Women's testimony is worth half as back in history her life was concerned with the home and the man was the one who was out so therefore more knowledgable about the outside world. WOmen can have it writtn into their marriage contract to have the same rights at divorce and if the man is at fault then she gets to keep the mahr.

Martianbishop, a woman can have the option to divorce written into her marriage contract. A woman can seek divorce for whatever reason she so chooses even if the option is not written into the marriage contract, she is allowed to go to court and get divorce if her husband refuses to give her the divorce.
It's merely easier to divorce if he's not willing and she wants one and it's in her marriage contract to obtain divorce.

Does the man have to have it written into his contract? If not, why the difference?

A woman can divorce a man even if it's not in the nikkah (contract).

A woman can divorce a man even if it's not in the nikkah (contract).

A woman can divorce a man even if it's not in the nikkah (contract).