Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on the burka

[mrsruffallo]

Have to say I agree with her. She makes an eloquent case against the burka, and the dilemma facing liberals in Europe on this issue.

Can I ask any of the women who do cover their face if they ever consider the effect this has on other people? I have heard it said it is a personal choice between the wearer and God seemingly with any consideration of others.

It is widely accepted that most communication is non verbal and I would guess the face carries a big proportion of this, therefore to cover it handicaps everyone you meet and puts them at a disadvantage to you. Although you might dispute this and argue that seeing other peoples faces is of no consequence and you can interact with them easily, or even more easily (especially if they are male)with the face covered. Personally I think you can convey so much with the face without even speaking, also you can see how others are feeling through their face.

The other think you may consider is that as more and more women take up the face covering other women will come under pressure to follow suit, we have already seen some Muslim one-upmanship on here. Although I believe most women at the moment do chose to wear it this will not always be the case if it becomes the norm for 'good' Muslim women.

Anyway, please answer if you do have any thoughts on this.

Yes, Darcymum, the effect on other people, and the inability of some to understand how their appearance is coming across is extremely puzzling.

And it's ironic that something that is supposed to make you less visible as an individual out and about doing your business in fact marks you out as different in a spectacularly obvious way -- hence you know you are the only Muslim in the village, etc. Or maybe you assume since you are the only veiled woman in a village that you are the only Muslim there?

Math I think you misunderstood, or I wasn't clear enough. I was saying the decision to wear a niqab is a choice. It is not a necessity in Islam. The hijab (as far as I am aware) is an obligation that should be worn from puberty.

"Some Muslims appear to have an issue with the right of cartoonists and newspaper editors to publish cartoons that are not illegal in the countries where they are published, ditto for filmmakers, novelists, even Muslim ones. In what sense is issuing a fatwa respectful of human rights or the laws of any given country where murder is illegal?"

I can understand why muslims get upset, insulting the Prophet is like somebody insultng your mother. The reaction was extreme and the fatwa's and burning effigies were completely wrong and indefensible.

"Campion your name has got a song stuck in my head that I can't get rid of (off topic)
It goes "Walk like a champion talk like a champion whatta piece of body gal tell me where you get it from". It's doing my nut in!!" Wondered where your name came from

Darcymum, I don't cover so I can't answer your question first hand. I just know that part of the reason I choose not to wear burkha (besides the fact that I would feel extremely claustrophobic) is that I feel like I would be under pressure in this society. I would stand out, I would be stared at, I may be whispered about. These things happen because you make other people feel uncomfortable. I get that. But it is also the reason that I don't have bright pink hair (although I reckon it would be so cool - although wearing a hijab nobody would know anyway ), I don't have tattoos on my neck and face, I don't have numerous piercings etc etc. Similarly, if I lived in Saudi (which I wouldn't for numerous reasons) I would want to wear the abaya for the same reasons. That is just my personality.

I don't think its wrong to feel intimidated/uncomfortable around people who wear a burkha, but I do think it's wrong to ban it because of nothing else but because you feel uncomfortable allied with a false sense of danger (terrorism).

Ahem - got my name from Thomas Campion, Renaissance poet and composer of whom I am rather fond.Also campion's quite a pretty flower .
Don't think I fit the latter category but I'm liking your modern quote, junglist - especially the bit about the body

Back on topic - living on the edge of a district which has one of the largest concentrations of muslims in the UK I have become unsettled by the increasing separateness which has happened over the last few years.'Traditional' dress has become the norm, including small girls in hijab,and the niqab is commonplace. I can't help thinking that it has little to do with piety ( which shouldn't be displayed) and a lot to do with politicisation and misplaced group identity.

I don't think the bans are anything to do with feelings of discomfort or anything subjective of that sort. I think the west is pushing back against a force (Islamic fundamentalism) which is quite correctly perceived to be hostile to its culture and secular ethos, and disrespectful to its history and the philosophy and legal theories upon which its brand of civilisation is based.

I do think the fear of terrorism is used as a justification for banning the veil, but essentially I think the impetus is cultural.

I also agree with Campion that there is pressure to conform in Muslim communities.

"I think the west is pushing back against a force (Islamic fundamentalism) which is quite correctly perceived to be hostile to its culture and secular ethos, and disrespectful to its history and the philosophy and legal theories upon which its brand of civilisation is based."

Well put.

But I seriously object to the mask per se too.

1. I think Islam is not hostile to western european culture and secular ethos but completely at odds with it. Tbh, western Europeans have done very little to make things better.

The concept of separation of church and state is just a very modern concept that has yet to be conceptualised indpendently by muslim scholars. The constant meddling in internal politics has not helped one bit.

Historically, there have been such attemps with the Baath movement in Irak and Syria for instance.
The main problem is that muslims have a lot of history with western european former colonial powers.
One day they are supporting authoritarian corrupt regimes (Irak under Saddam Hussein & Syria under Hafez Assad) against muslim arab nationalism (Iran and Hezbollah namely); and the next they are funding and providing intelligence support to fundamental fringe muslim groups against these same regimes when they become a bit too established in their nationalist experiments.

Turkey however is a great example that it can be done. The contemporary resurgence of a party (in power) with an openly muslim platform is a great proof that democracy can withstand such a test.

It's hard to argue that Islamic fundamentalism, rather than Islam, is not hostile to western European culture and ethos.

mathanxiety specifically used the term fundamentalism. Which the burkha can and does represent.

Slim: do excuse if I sounded abrupt, I am finding your posts interesting.

Not abrupt at all. I personally find all posts are very informative. We all have different views and argue our corner.
I think its fantastic that we have this opportunity to hear different views.
On the street, we would never have the opportunity to talk to a woman wearing a full burqa and I think many non muslims would have had few opportunities to hear veiled woman talk openly.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe it is Islamic belief that you must respect the culture and sensibilities of the country you choose to live in ( even if it is an non islamic country).
So the burka is an extreme political statement of rejection of western values NOT just a piece of cloth at all.
Honestly, if I were a moderate muslim I would be irate at this becoming the symbol of my religion. For the majority of muslims it is simply not the done thing.

Of course, but also retain your identity, work for the welfare of your community. Like everyone else.
The problem as I said before is that if you believe that the law of God supersedes the laws of men, you are at odds with the idea of separation of church and state which is now non negotiable in western Europe.

I believe that religions,historically, were intended to give a set of instructions on how to best keep a peaceful structure to people?s lives.
Today, it well acknowledged that the social pact is that the secular state has the ability through the representation of its people to define what the society as a whole deems right and proper.
So having human ?interpreters? for what is ordered by an unseen and inaccessible ?god? easily leads to all too human abuses of power and domination.

So yes, it is not just a piece of cloth. To me, as a muslim, the burqa makes a vastly eloquent point that I'm not ready to compromise on.

Slim22, the problem arises when one or more (musims in this case) believe that their religious values come before the law. As you say, you are at odds with the idea of separation of church and state; my point is that isamic values are irreconcilable and totally at odds with western values of equality, fairness and democracy.
Islamic values today are the same as they were 1000 years ago, so women's obedience to their husbands/fathers/brothers is compulsory. You may say that 1000 years ago (or whenever the Koran war written)that was socially accepted, but in 2010 that is abhorrent (as is much of the Hadith, which I have read).

How do you reconcile the Islamic view of women with being a woman in a civilised country in 2010?
Do you agree with Sharia law?

"that the law of God supersedes the laws of men"

This is dangerous and frightening. People are right to be wary and suspicious of this, and there is no discrimination in rejecting Islam totally if we are required to accept this as part of being "tolerant". I do not tolerate this and don't accept that it's discriminatory not to tolerate this.

This is where against all my better judgment I want to say: leave. If this is what you want, there are countries where this is available to you. Go there. Leave.

Wearing the burqa is not "a law of God".

Onestonetogo, I was saying pretty much the same thing, read my previous posts, i think you misinterpreted my last post.

Do I agree with sharia law? no.
In the UK, you have the right to question it even if you are subject to it.
In Britain, sharia courts are permitted to rule in civil cases, such as divorce and financial disputes. According to a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996, they are enforceable by county and high courts.
But Sharia courts are classified in the same way as arbitration tribunals - with rulings binding in law provided both parties in the dispute agree to give them the power to rule on their case.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

So this brings me to backtotalkabout this. Gently show all the practising muslims and jews the door?
Nice.

my turn to apologise. Sorry that last bit was abrupt.

I guess what am trying to say is we can coexist but cohesion takes time.

Nothing wrong with sharia law if it is subject to the purview of courts as they will enforce the rule of law.
ie: no "arranged" weddings of underage girls, no stoning etc....

I think banning the burqa, along with the above sends a strong message as a deterrent.
We integrate muslims, we enforce their costumary practices but within reason.

That's ok.

I understand: but if people of ANY religion say "I may disregard the law of this country because of my religion":if they are not of the country concerned yes, I would ask: why don't you simply leave?

To be shown the door a crime would have to be committed though. There's no justification in showing people the door for exercising freedom of speech -- I think that goes without saying, again I should have been clearer.

Sorry to harp on but I'm not really the sort to want to show people the door, I've lived in too many countries. But I've never thought anything but that I ought to respect the law and customs of those countries. It's not just a one-sided thing though.

Quite often it is the 'British' converts who want to wear the Burka as a political statement or women who are forced by their husbands to wear them. Banning them will take all this away and make them equal. It is not a requirement of Islam to wear them so really this is a non-argument.

If you really feel that strong over wearing them, move to where they are the norm. I haven't seen that the Saudis are falling over themselves to accomodate Christians. I think it is even illegal to carry a bible there. I don't want to go there.

Sorry but any civilised coutnry needs to stand firm against excessive, damaging superstition and superstitious funamentalism, whether that's Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism or any other kind of fundamentalist superstitous where it;s not enough for the people into it to believe whatever old cock their particular tribal myths include, but they demand the right to inconvenience or hurt other people with it. It;s important to make it very clear that the superstitious are not exempt from the law. While it's OK for sharia, etc to act as kind of mediators in civil matters, they can't be allowed to rule over things that are completely contrary to the laws of civilised countries - such as saying that it's OK to perform genital mutilation on children despite such mutilations being illegal 'because [our imaginary friend] is more important than human rights and the law'.

"Ahem - got my name from Thomas Campion, Renaissance poet and composer of whom I am rather fond.Also campion's quite a pretty flower .
Don't think I fit the latter category but I'm liking your modern quote, junglist - especially the bit about the body"

haha Campion sorry didn't mean you, was talking to junglist. Walk like a champion was an old (very old) jungle choon!

'' but in 2010 that is abhorrent (as is much of the Hadith, which I have read)''

have you read through all of Bukhari and Muslim?

'' such as saying that it's OK to perform genital mutilation on children''

female genital mutilation is not part of Islam. are you taking about circumcision of boys?

"I recently saw footage of the entrance gates to a Turkish University, where hijab is banned. Woman after women had to stop and remove her hijab under the supervision of guards. That is hideously demeaning and just as wrong as forcing a woman to cover up."

You know this threat of Muslim fundamentalism you people think was born on 11 September 2001? Turkey has been fighting it for almost a century. Headscarf ban in state premises is but one battle in this war. "Demeaning" is a very superficial analysis of the situation, and you will not be able to make a better one unless you inform yourself about the history of this country and its struggle to keep the identity of a secular republic with a 99% Muslim majority.

Slim22, I think you are mistaken regarding the operation of Sharia and whether it is binding law in the UK. Using a Sharia court as a mediating forum is accepted, on the same basis as any mediator, but not as an acceptable alternative legal system. Same goes for the Bet Din, and the Catholic Church's annulment tribunals. There is only one legal system in the UK, and that is the Common Law. The idea that there is or should be two (or more) to accommodate the religious or cultural practices of any given group or groups is ludicrous.

An attempt to introduce Sharia law in Canada is reported here. The significance of efforts to introduce Sharia law as an alternative to the civil law of western states is that Sharia law as interpreted and promoted by the fundamentalist Wahhabis is a serious attempt to impose on all Muslims a Wahhabi fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran and Haddith in place of the law and culture of any given western society, specifically as they relate to gender relations and the place of women in the Muslim community.

It is promoted in order that Muslim women should not have recourse to the civil law of any western society in which they live in the vital areas of gender relations and child custody (family law in general) which without exception would offer them freedom and civil rights they would not have in Saudi Arabia, but instead rely only on the tender mercies of a Sharia court, just as they would have to if they lived in a fundamentalist Islamic state -- thinking of Saudi Arabia here. It is an attempt to create a 'home from home' for women in the vital areas of marriage and divorce, and child custody.

Wahhabis reject any reinterpretation of religious questions that are considered settled however many hundreds of years ago and in whatever circumstances those questions may have been settled. In practice, this means that the place of women in a fundamentalist Muslim society today is the same as the place of women in that society many hundreds of years ago.

The idea of separation of church and state in the west was clearly enunciated at the time of the French Revolution, and it is a basic principle of the constitution of the USA. So not entirely new, and the idea didn't occur to the revolutionaries in either state overnight or as some sort of whim.

Turkey has held the line for about 100 years now.

It's important to remember that Turkey's development didn't occur in a vacuum either there were reform movements within Islam in the 19th and early 20th centuries that sought to bring Islam more in line with western development in the area of human rights they have come under pressure from the fundamentalists over the course of the 20th century, ever moreso since the flow of money for oil began in earnest into Saudi Arabia, and the flow of money outwards into mosques and schools and scholarship funding by the Wahhabis gained steam as a result. The sudden appearance of so many veils in the west is no coincidence -- there is a massive struggle for minds and hearts going on in the Muslim world.