So banning the Burka - freeing women from opression or taking away free choice...?

[Portoeufino]

I read that in Belgium there is a draft bill to ban burkas and also the niqab.

As they put it " There is nothing in Islam or the Koran about the burka. It has become an institution of intimidation and is a sign of submission of women. A civilized society cannot accept the imprisonment of women."

They then talk of "matters of public safety" - is that implying that if you wear a burka is it therefore likely you might have it stuffed with explosives? Or if you cover your face, then there are security issues connected with that?

I have to admit I am very ignorant about all this. DO women only wear this clothing because they are opressed? Do they choose to? What happens if it is banned? Are women freed, or will they end up forbidden from leaving the house?

I am very interested to learn and understand more about this.

"I suspect than in areas where people become more integrated, women who are not Muslim will start wearing the hijab in the future simply because it often looks good."

Well it was the upper middle class housewife look - don't go pinching it for Islam - Margot in the Good Life and all those medieval women in britain which is when nuns' outfits were designed and retained. I still think ti's a wretched nuisance and I'm sufficiently a feminist not to think or do anything about my hair except I do now dye it myself. I am here earning money and having a good time. I am not fussing over how I look. Feminism is in part freeing women from having to define themselves by their looks. Their currency, their bride price, their future liveihood is not based on how they look and act to their husbands and they earn their own money, they are a valuable asset because they';ll earn £100k a year for the next 40 years not someone who has to be bought and paid for.

The other comment above is true too - plenty of girls are forced into the clothes in the UK and are delighted if their secondary school bans it because then they can resist family pressure.

"they earn their own money, they are a valuable asset because they';ll earn £100k a year for the next 40 years not someone who has to be bought and paid for"

well if that's feminism then i am definitely not one, Xenia.

Women are NOT assets. AND their value is not defined by how much they earn anymore than by what they wear. God, what a disgusting way to look at women- at people, for that matter.

Yes, but all due respect and all that Riv, but your dh isn't Muslim.

My Dh is a Muslim and it is definitely a partnership as Riven describes it.

totally agree that muslim marriage should be a partnership, my husband and I definitely treat it as such and make decisions equally.

also agree with whoever said that banning women from wearing burqas (ugh I hate that word, in muslim company we only ever use the word jilbab) would stop those who genuinely believe it is compulsory (from their interpretation of the Quran) from going out at all. Can we really afford to isolate these women any more than we already do?

before Islam, women were treated as goods to barter, baby daughters were buried alive as a matter of course, women had no rights in marriage, politics and inheritance. Islam gave them equality and respect in the eyes of God and society, the right to vote centuries ahead of the Western world, the right to educate themselves, to marry who they chose.

last thing, women and men covering and 'guarding their modesty' is part of the bigger picture in terms of safeguarding society and the institution of the family.

test

fuzzy - Well, I am born into Islam and have studied the Quran, and agree with Xenia's understanding of the subject.

Quran advocates modesty for both men and women. It does not say women should be invisible. It certainly does not say a woman's face should be covered.

Quran says two things:
(1) Draw your overgarments (cloaks) over yourselves to be recognized as believers/free women so you won't be harassed. If I recall correctly, this was to distinguish these women visually from slave women, who were apparently fair game.

(2) With your headscarves, cover your bosoms "and valuables/adornments" from the eyes of all men outside of family. Headscarf seems to be a given, but it was the dress code of the time and probably rather essential under the sun, so I'm inclined to doubt that it was expected as part of religious faith.

The whole debate stems from the reference to these "adornments". Part of this surat seems to be referring to physical beauty that can cause temptation (don't show to men who can have physical desire) and part of it is clearly referring to jewellery (don't stomp your feet and rattle your hidden adornments which might then draw attention to them), which is consistent with the previous mention of covering oneself so as not to be mugged on the streets. Not in those words, but you see what I mean. [Too lazy to look it up]

These "valuables/adornments" are later on interpreted by the more control-freakish men as a woman's eyes, her lips, her ears, and every square centimeter of her skin. It is certifiably insane to hang that much onto a single word, especially given that it isn't mentioned anywhere else and women weren't expected to live in burqas in Mohammad's time.

The thing is with all these rules including Jewish ones about not eating pork and circumcism which actually are Muslim too, they were right in their time and geographical region. Pork goes off in heat. Shell fish does too. It's hard to clean under the foreskin if you don't have clean water etc. Men were taking lots of women and not looking after them so limiting them to 4 wives protected women. They were right in their time and just as Christians have abandoned some bits from the Bible which are not needed nowadays I am sure plenty of muslims have too. There are lots of bits in all the mainstream religions about slaves and a huge load about Christians not to lend money (which is why we had the Jews doing it in the UK in the 1500s and 1600s for us) but most sensible religious people take the good and leave the bad and ignore sexist scholars exploiting the words for their own ends.

Essentially Christians, Muslims and Jews are exhorted to treat others as they'd be treated themselves and a lot of other very good fundamentally sensible things but bits from 2000 years ago which should be interpreted for that time and altered for now some choose not to do.

Riven, I tink what mumbelchum was saying is that the reason why you feel your couple is a partnership is precisely because your DH is not Muslim I sincerly hope hope I misunderstood.

"The other comment above is true too - plenty of girls are forced into the clothes in the UK and are delighted if their secondary school bans it because then they can resist family pressure."

I think we are going in circles , nobody said(on this thread, that is, as I am not blind to the fact it can happen) that girls/women should be forced to wear anything. The problem is when you ban something, you stop someone from having a choice too.

Cote, I'm talking hijab here, according to what I have studied in the Quran, now the extent of hijab ie does it extend to the face, is up for individual interpretation, however the women who choose to wear full covering do so according to what they believe is the correct interpretation.

The hijab ie covering the hair and modest clothing is not up for debate according to my understanding.

Also I think it depends entirely on how one studies the Quran, if you studied from a transliteration you lose the nuance and what is actually written. For this reason my children are learning the Quranic arabic so they know what it is they are reciting.

I reckon arsehole, controlling and bullying men exist in all religions and societies. Just read the relationship threads on here..........

Since 9/11 more and more muslim women are wearing the burkha so it seems it is also being worn as statement piece, one I find mildly threatening TBH. I applaud Belgiums decision and hope it catches on through the rest of the western world although I can't see it happening!!

bright young thing, do you mean the niqab (face veil)? Burkas are v thin on the ground.

agree with fuzzy! wear a hijab dont wear a hijab its all about personal choice, ny ds dad is a muslim (alledgedly) and ds has always eaten halal meat , when he is a bit older his dad will take him to the mosque to learn the koran and about islam, then if when my ds gets older and choses to follow islam he will and if he doesnt that his his choice too and at least he will have learnt arabic.

Surely banning the wearing of any item of clothing is simply the government assuming the oppressive role of a husband or father? Muslim women would still be patronised.

Shouldn't governmental effort go into enabling women to have a choice whether or not to wear the niqab without fear of abuse and reprisal?

There's a mother at dd's school who wears the full veil plus a mask. She wears gloves as well.

When her husband comes to the school too, she walks a few paces behind him. Last year when there was a bit of sun I saw the man spitting ostentatiously behind mums who were exposing a bit of flesh (not brazen hussies; they were wearing frumpy mum shorts).

How can this woman engage with anyone else? I have no idea what she looks like, whether she's friendly or nasty, nothing. All I see is a woman bowed behind some brutish-looking man.

Surely this can't be right in today's world?

I have the solution!

There is a lot of debate about whether/what covering is necessary and there is no consensus. From this I conclude that it is not a cut & dried matter and so there is no wrong in occasionally not wearing it. Also, apparently, there is no punishment for non-wearing.
So why not designate one day a week when you do not wear it? This then shows that the wearing is voluntary and not forced; it proves that the other six days are a matter of choice. Obviously, everybody has to abide by the same non-covering day or it wouldn't work. I'm not saying that everyone should parade around in a bikini, just everyday clothes like any self-respecting woman would wear.
It would have to be self-policed and the community should enquire after a sister that consistently does not show herself (ie is being forced to stay in the house) on mufti day.

This would show the world that muslim dress is not the representation of a bygone, repressive era but a chosen, modern manifestation of faith. I know that some women might feel uncomfortable to start off with but it would be worth it for the greater good it brings to islam.

What do you think?