Racism veiled as liberation

[earwicga]

IMO, this is a brilliant article today by Madeline Bunting - an excerpt:

"The veil debate is making it entirely legitimate to pillory, mock and ridicule a tiny number of women on the basis of what they wear. French politicians described the full veil as a "walking coffin"; on comment threads online there is contempt and sneers for the full veil and those who wear it ? "hiding under a blanket", "going round with a paper bag over your head". In France it is estimated there are only 2,000 women who cover their faces with the burqa or the niqab out of a Muslim population of five million. The response is out of all proportion.

Let's be clear: the niqab and burqa are extreme interpretations of the Islamic requirement for modest dress; few Islamic scholars advocate their use, and many ? including Tariq Ramadan ? have urged women not to use them. They are as alien to many Muslim cultures as they are to the west. And yes, there are instances of patriarchy where some women might be encouraged or even forced to wear a full veil by their husbands or fathers. But generalisations don't fit. Increasingly, young women are choosing to wear the full veil, seeing it as a powerful statement of identity.

Invoking the full weight of the state to police dress codes in public is an extraordinary extension of state powers over an aspect of citizen behaviour which is largely regarded as your own business. Provided you are wearing some clothing, western public space is a free-for-all, and across every capital in Europe that is strikingly self-evident"
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/14/forced-into-freedom-france

One example of a young French woman's reaction to this can be found here: bit.ly/aBVa4x

What do MumsNetters think? Seems to me that if we condemn those who dictate as to women's clothing in Sudan for example (see Lubna Hussein) then we must equally condemn those who dictate as to women's clothing in Europe.

By CoteDAzur Tue 27-Jul-10 08:45:52
There is very little difference between Islam and Christianity, which is hardly surprising, given that it says it is sent down by the same God and mentions Jesus, Mary, et al in the Quran,

If anything, Islam is more rational of the two. You need to be good at suspension of disbelief to believe in some of the more ridiculous claims of Christianity like virgin birth, Mary being impregnated by God himself through a holy ghost etc.

It might help to remember that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. Where was Christianity 600 years ago, posie? Was Christianity "cohesive and loving" during the Inquisition and the witch hunts?

Christianity was well on it's way for a big shake up 600 years ago, in a totally more barbaric and uncivilised society. Are you saying in less than 100 years you are anticipating the Islamic reformation?

Xenia - You seem to have a prejudice about tolerance in Muslim countries re non-believers.

I was born in a Muslim country, never believed in God for a second even as a small child, and was rather vocal about it. Obviously, I lived to tell.

You people living in Western Europe, who received the bulk of your information on Islam post-9/11, run the risk of letting paranoia color your perception.

Also re "bad religions" (as opposed to "good ones"?) - There is no such thing. The three major religions "of the book" are practically identical. The major difference between say Christianity and Islam is that the latter is 600 years behind the curve, in its "dark ages", where scripture is taken literally and deadly serious. Remember the Inquisition and the witch hunts, where tens of thousands of women were burnt to a crisp because they lived alone, had a mole, were seen with a cat, or just generally displeased someone of influence? That was Christianity. "Bad religion"?

Islam will also have its Enlightenment. I can only hope that it will be less bloody than that of Christianity, but I doubt it

'it was religion as one of several other societal institutions and principles that could have undermined their movement and had competing claims to power or authority or narrative. it wasn't driven by a need to prove your belief system with regard to god as the right one but by a need to dessimate all other authoritative and organising institutions that could undermine your own political agenda. essentially it was communism not atheism.'

I think Lenin saw atheism as a positive aspect of the new order he was trying to achieve. The Church in Russia was heavily identified with the Romanovs, and a symbol of the old order, but had no temporal power, just an ideology that was anathema to Lenin and his followers, who made up communism as they went along to some extent under Lenin, due to the vagaries of the civil war, and to a much greater extent under Stalin. Obviously the Bolsheviks needed to take power initially, in order to set Lenin's vision in motion, but atheism, and the destruction of religion in Russia and eventually the world, was a major part of his vision of utopia. When conditions allowed, un-communist elements of Russian society such as NEPmen, were bulldozed into obliteration, collectivisation went ahead -- one by one, after power was consolidated, Lenin's targets were overthrown to make room for his vision, including the Church.

Power for its own sake was much more important to Stalin, otoh. Interestingly, during the darkest days of WW2, Stalin encouraged a brief revival of the Orthodox Church in order to boost feelings of patriotism and Russian national identity, and stiffen resistance to the Nazis, among the Russian Orthodox or formerly Orthodox anyway.

Since the history of Christianity is intimately bound up with the history of the Roman Empire in Europe, and since Catholicism has especially been identified with Rome since the days of the split with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and then the Reformation, I would consider Christianity a European institution, even though it originated in the Near East. The move to Rome was accomplished by Peter, one of the Apostles, so it occurred pretty soon after the beginning of Christianity -- within one lifetime. From the reign of Constantine in about 300 bce, Christianity had the seal of approval of the Empire (whose seat had by then moved to Constantinople) and Rome remained the centre of the Christian world until the Reformation. Eastern Orthodoxy had Constantinople ('the second Rome') as its centre from 1054 (the Great Schism), and Moscow ('the third Rome') became the leading centre of Orthodoxy after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Rome remained the centre of western European Christianity - it expanded quickly to the west and north within only a few hundred years of the life of Christ.

There are more tolerant muslim states and Christians lived in Iraq etc for years but that is not the trend, sadly. The trend has been backwards, not forwards. Also the non radical muslims are not doing very much PR in the West. They need to up their ante.

There is more tolerance in most Western nations of Islam than there is of Christianity in most Muslim states. Is that correct? I believe it to be so.

You can cover up in the UK and wear a burkha etc. I could not strip off in Iran in January when I was there. I was in Dubai earlier this year and yes I know that's more liberal but it's still hardly as free as London which is why so many muslims want to live in the UK. It's not safe to have extra marital sex in Dubai and yet in London you can keep 4 wives, or be celibate or have 20 lovers and practise most religions. But change will come and plenty of Muslims are moderate. I'm not discouraged but as woen we have a huge part to play in all the paternalistic sexist misogynist religions to tell the men and some women who perpetuate sexism which any God would be pretty cross about to stop now their practices. If anyone should be covered, let it be men, why women?

Get each muslim woman on mumsnet to make her husband totally cover up and not go out unless accompanied by a female relative for a week -0a sort of radical free women muslim week but they don't seem to go in for those gestures which is a pity.

..although there was that driving protest in Saudi where women en masse drove cars. Didn't get them too far but better than nothing.

Comparatively it's much more free though, just look at we're pretty fabulous here comparatively

PS this was in the Daily Mail and so I've tried to exclude the DM and found the story elsewhere.

the local report

but are there really roots for the punishment in the Qu'ran?

likewise.

Women do wear what they want, even religious women have days when it doesn't suit their needs, don't they?

OTOH, I think I heard somewhere that rapists get the death penalty in Islam. So if more than women did come forward, you'd be okay. Unlike the recent case of a MN who witnessed a man getting a very light sentence after 17 women came forward.

True, but not bad for 1400 years ago. It's only recently that some western countries have admitted rape is a crime.

Can't we just deal with now, today? We have the knowledge now.