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.

Is that a current episode in British mythology or do you have a point?

Posie - Islam channel UK, Islamic Relief, Muslim Aid each had a massive fundraising drive for Haiti. They've also done other charitable work in non Muslim areas hit by disasters and famine.

If you spent 5 minutes on Google, you would've found that out, but you seem quite happy to hold on your prejudices.

Muslims have been here for over 300 years. I know you keep making the point about what Muslim cultures did 500 years ago, but what concerns me is now, today. You're right I do find other religious practices bizarre, but those are mainly about the hierarchy and not the average follower.

I appreciate you may have difficulties looking at your religion objectively, after all part of having faith is being blind to the idea that it is simply made up. Obviously you would have a problem understanding atheism too, but I wouldn't try to silence your opinion with patronising reminders that you have no right to comment.

Aside from predominantly Muslim population Islamic countries where do Muslims habit peacefully? Surely something must be done to stop this divisive religion from being such a contentious practice. It needs a reformation or something to coexist better.

Point being that society not evolving is not inherent in the Islamic faith.

I can see how Islam might not fit into a culture that favours profit and exploitation over knowledge and charity.
Misogyny is a separate issue, that does affect every part of the world to a greater or lesser extent.

Yes, those charitable oil giants and the inequality for women is not exploitative at all. Islam does need to change then perhaps it can be more readily accepted all over the world. No religion escapes misogyny, no religion escapes weird rituals and practices and follow texts that are neither proven nor relevant.

The world would be a happier place without divisions.

"just as sick as dressing little girls in sexy clothes. " Most parents with their heads screwed in right don't dress their little girls in sexy clothes, though. And what is some man to think of a child who is wearing a headscarf and long robe? Usually what is under the scarf and long robe is a fully grown woman, and the message to not even think about sex with that woman is understood by the clothing. Should a man be thinking about sex with a prepubescent child, or any minor, that she needs to send out this message? Should a man be thinking of sex every time a woman crosses his path, veiled, covered from head to toe?

How do you know the full veil is enough, anyhow? What if God had really intended women to remain in their houses all day every day, and never venture out, veiled or not?

I grew up in Ireland and have attended Catholic churches there where men and women/small children were seated on separate sides of the church, and where women wore a mantilla. That has all been swept away now. Course there's still much to be done... But in Islam, women do not pray with men, but separately, and with covered heads.

Change can come to old and large institutions, but Islam is not a centralised religion as Catholicism is, and so there will always be 'holier than thou' groups and sects pushing their interpretation of godliness or what the religion was always meant to be, with greater or lesser degrees of success, and impossible to rein in as the pope can try to rein in Catholics who reject the Church line and move either towards fundamentalism or liberalism. Unfortunately perhaps, Islam will always be swaying in the wind, which right now is blowing from Saudi Arabia. Change will always be contested, and whoever has the most money behind the message they bear will dominate.

I think the community aspect of the organisational structure is what makes change less likely to happen, not more likely. A community council running a religious institution can more easily be dominated by a group claiming religious legitimacy or more authenticity than almost any other community council.

I also suspect, in the case of veiling, that the community run aspect of the organisation results in a lot of pressure to conform to a certain dress code, depending on which way the religious wind blows in the community council. It would be very difficult for a woman in an average immigrant or even up to third generation household or family, to go against the community to which she and her family belong, the centre of her family's religious and even social life, and resist the pressure to veil. Often the alternative to veiling is to adopt the role of outcast, and very few women anywhere are socialised to carry off that role, not only in the Muslim community but in the wider arena. I think what the French seek to do with the ban is to diminish the power of the community councils which support or influence or encourage or pressure women into adopting the veil. I have an idea that these councils are seen as organisations inserting themselves into the life of French women as a quasi government replacing the civilly elected one.

Loyalty to the civil, democratically elected government and to the democratic process is an enormous concern in France, which has a history especially in the 20th century, of faction and even treason (cf the tottering history of the Third Republic and the rise of Petain when the Nazis invaded). The French do not now tolerate any bodies setting themselves up as extra layers between the civil democratic process and the people, be they cabals of generals and former prime ministers, newspaper editors or magnates, churches or whatever -- so the wings of community councils will be clipped just as the French body politic has in the past clipped the wings of other religious organisations (mostly Catholic).

When you have a religion that is not centrally organised, you can end up as a loosely defined umbrella group, like 'protestants' which encompasses everything from the Episcopal Church of the US to the bible-thumping Free Presbyterians of NI and all stops in between, but the little fundamentalist groups, who claim some sort of true succession are always able to attract adherents, always able to make their presence felt, and always seem to bang the loudest drum. They will never go away. The Muslim fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are also alive to the possibilities of change, and see things panning out according to their vision, naturally. That vision includes women covered from head to foot.

'Math - Community councils'? You really do not have a clue do you?

Do you think a bunch of uncles sit around a table going "Pink hijab bad, niqab good"?

You are always comparing Islam to Christianity (and there's a definite implication to the way you set Christianity up as the default, but I'll leave that for you to figure out).

They are not the same for a variety of theological, political and cultural reasons.

You can't compare x to y without an understanding of what x is in the first place. You don't have that understanding. You need to read and listen a bit more and talk a lot less.

Okay, I have to concede that Xenia has a point about nuns. The whole point of covering is so that women don't have to worry about being defined as sex objects; and yet if women in Iran are having plastic surgery that sort of eliminates the point of wearing the scarf in the first place.
Then again, I believe it must be very freeing in many ways to throw on a scarf: a nice one if you're young and want to be attractive, or a less ostentatious one if you just want to be left alone.

Yes you must remember Math that there's no reasonable evolution or discussion 'allowed' in Islam. Much more of a directive religion that centres the Muslim as the most enlightened and 'special' individual. They even oppress women by telling them what they where is pleasing to God. It's only comparable to Christianity in a 'read the Old Testament' make it more controlling and a more vengeful God and voila you have Islam. A religion that's interpretation by, mainly, men in a very non western way and within cultures that remain unchanged almost since someone put ink to paper and, like The Bible, wrote it down.
Let's face it a religion that's followers threaten to kill people who draw a picture of the Prophet is hardly a cohesive and loving one, never heard Muslim leaders condemn these threats either.
And besides why would a God that sent a very important prophet (Jesus, yes Son of God to Christians) and allow his words to be written and then, when that didn't work well, send another? Seems to me a failed plan twice.

Posie, Islam is a much more female friendly religion than Christianity.

I think some of the Islamic scriptures were written by women, for example. BUt best ask a muslim.

I disagree.......but then I am looking from a Western outsider.

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?

I speak as I find, Riven. I've met many horrid Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics etc. I have met loads of lovely Christians, Muslims, Atheists, agnostics etc. Never met a fundamental Atheist that wished harm upon any group, went to war with their belief system as an excuse. And my experience, probably lead by my fundamental wish that the sexes are equal and that women are not sexual property, is the Islam may have peace for it's followers but that peace is not bestowed on others, except a little nod to the 'poor' Christian.

Men invented religion, so it is theirs to twist.

In the UK now, this minute there are more people blinkered by Islam than Christianity. there is a reason that these Muslim teens turn to fundamentalism for their path, and I do believe the fault lies with the exclusivity of Islam.