More on the veil question
Just look what Jack Straw has started!
Here’s Robert Spencer in FrontPage magazine on the issue.
Taking whose picture?
(I didn’t take this photo. It was sent to me by a friend, who got it from the Internet, I assume.)
And this very interesting article by Saira Khan in The Times of 9 October is entitled Why Muslim women should thank Straw.
Saira Khan’s parents moved from Kashmir to the UK in the 1960s. They brought their faith and their traditions to their new home. But they also understood that they were starting a new life in a country where Islam was not the main religion. Saira herself wore the traditionl salwar kameez at home and a typical English school uniform at school. Her parents did not feel that wearing English clothes compromised her faith. They wanted her to fit in and to make use of all the advantages that school offered. She captained the school hockey team and took part in county athletics, not things she could have done wearing the salwar kameez, let alone being entirely covered by a jilbab or niqab.
No one in her immediate family, she says, either in the UK or in Kashmir, wears the niqab, the blackout veil that covers the face.
Her mother had no problem with removing her chador when she used to operate heavy machinery at work. And she jogs in a tracksuit and swims in a normal swimming costume.
Of course, this is not acceptable to Muslims who believe there is only one way to dress as a Muslim, to express Muslim beliefs and do Muslim practices. Such Muslims, Saira Khan says, forget
that the Muslim faith is interpreted in different ways in different places and that there are distinct cultures and styles of dress in Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. But it is not a requirement of the Koran for women to wear the veil.
Ah, so there’s something else behind the increasing pressure on Muslim women to cover themselves completely, to hide their faces from the rest of society.
Saira Khan thinks that the growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of radicalization. She tells of her shock at discovering that some of her fellow students at University in the late 1980s had turned very religious and started to wear the jilbab. They had never worn this before, nor had their mothers before them. But the university’s Islamic Society had told them they were not proper Muslims if they failed to adhere to the strict dress code. She continues:
It is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask. The veil restricts women, it stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: ?I do not want to be part of your society.?
Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don?t agree. Why would any woman living in a tolerant country freely choose to wear such a restrictive garment? What these women are really saying is that they adopt the veil because they believe that they should have less freedom than men, and that if they did not wear the veil men would not be accountable for their uncontrollable urges ? so women must cover-up so as not to tempt men. What kind of a message does that send to women?
But a lot of women are not free to choose. Girls as young as three or four are wearing the hijab to school ? that is not a freely made choice. Girls under 16 should certainly not have to wear it to school. And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls that are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to universities, they have little choice in who they marry, in many cases they are kept down by the threat of violence.
Saira Khan thinks that Jack Straw was right to raise the issue and that no one should feel threatened by his comments…
…after all, the debate about veils has been raging in the Islamic community for many years. To argue that non-Muslims have no right to discuss it merely reinforces the idea that Muslims are not part of a wider society. It also suggests, wrongly, that wearing the veil affects only Muslims. Non-Muslims have to deal with women wearing a veil, so why shouldn?t their feelings be taken into consideration? I would find it impossible to deal with any veiled woman because it goes so deeply against my own values and basic human instincts. How can you develop any kind of a social relationship with someone who has shut themselves away from the rest of the world?
And if we can?t have a debate about the veil without a vocal minority of Muslims crying ?Islamophobia?, how will we face other issues, such as domestic violence, forced marriages, sexual abuse and child abuse that are rife in the Muslim community? These are not uniquely Muslim problems but, unlike other communities, they are never openly debated. It is children and women who suffer as a result.
Thank you, Saira Khan, for writing so frankly about an issue that is stirring up profound discomfort in Britan. I’m a Baha’i and the Baha’i Faith has, as a fundamental principle, the equality of women and men. Baha’i women do not wear any kind of veil. The famous 19th century Iranian poetess, Tahirih (see my previous post with Tahirih’s story), inspired by the teachings of the B?b made a dramatic break with the male dominated past by publicly removing her veil in male company. To borrow a phrase from a letter of the Universal House of Justice, “We have crossed a bridge between times”. There can be no going back, no return to oppressive traditions. How can women and men be equal if women’s faces are hidden?
I leave the last word to Saira Khan:
This is my message to British Muslim women ? if you want your daughters to take advantage of all the opportunities that Britain has to offer, do not encourage them to wear the veil. We must unite against the radical Muslim men who would love women to be hidden, unseen and unheard.
I was able to take advantage of what Britain has got to offer and I hope Mr Straw?s comments will help more Muslim women to do the same. But my argument with those Muslims who would only be happy in a Talebanised society, who turn their face against integration, is this: ?If you don?t like living here and don?t want to integrate, then what the hell are you doing here? Why don?t you just go and live in an Islamic country??
Technorati Tags: Saira Khan, Muslim, Kashmir, salwar kameez, jilbab, niqab, veil, chador, Koran, Islamophobia, Baha’i, Tahirih
Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite
No related posts.
3 comments
Hi Barney,
I just stumbled across your blog via recommendation as I’ve been following the Jack Straw veil issue from afar (I’m in Australia).
As a Muslim feminist who veils, I thought you might be interested in Salma Yaqoub’s very good article at the Guardian’s Comment is Free site (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/salma_yaqoob/2006/10/what_happened_to_sisterhood_1.html_ to give you perhaps a different perspective.
I don’t veil my face in Australia, mostly because people here do find it strange, although I did wear the face veil at times when I was studying in Yemen as it is perfectly normal over there.
As a woman I wear the Islamic veil for a variety of reasons, to state that I am a Muslim but also as a feminist statement against the objectification of women’s bodies by the panopticon of the (male) gaze. (Katherine Bullock another Australian convert to Islam has a very good chapter in her book _Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil_ on veiling as a feminist response).
You might be interested to know that like Huda Sha’rawi, Qurrat al-’Ayn Tahirah removed her face veil, not her headcover and there is, according to Denis MacEoin, an instruction of ‘Abd al-Baha’ to Baha’i women that they should wear dress very similar to Islamic dress including headscarves and long clothing.
Kind regards
Umm Yasmin
Umm Yasmin, thank you for your comments. I find it interesting that for you the veil is a feminist statement as well as a marker of your identity as a Muslim. If understand correctly what you are saying, it is the responsibility of women to defend themselves against the \”objectification\” of their bodies by the male gaze. Why isn\’t this the responsibility of men as well as of women?
Baha\’u\’llah, writing about chastity, clearly gives men a duty to be chaste in thought, word and deed:
\”Say: He is not to be numbered with the people of Bah? who followeth his mundane desires, or fixeth his heart on things of the earth. He is My true follower who, if he come to a valley of pure gold, will pass straight through it aloof as a cloud, and will neither turn back, nor pause. Such a man is, assuredly, of Me. From his garment the Concourse on high can inhale the fragrance of sanctity?. And if he met the fairest and most comely of women, he would not feel his heart seduced by the least shadow of desire for her beauty. Such an one, indeed, is the creation of spotless chastity. Thus instructeth you the Pen of the Ancient of Days, as bidden by your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Bountiful.\”
Thank you for the link to Salma Yaqoob\’s article. I cannot say I found Ms Yaqoob\’s argument persuasive.
The point you make about Quratu\’l-\’Ayn Tahirih is an interesting one, but does not detract from the force of the story, precisely because it was the face veil she removed, considering it a sign of women\\\’s oppression.
Personally I do not rely on Denis MacEoin\’s understanding of the Baha\’i Writings, but it may well be the case that \’Abdu\’l-Baha advised the Baha\’i women in Iran, for their own safety (since Baha\’is were subject to pogroms and extreme forms of discrimination), to adopt a form of dress that would not be offensive in Iranian society in the early part of the 20th century. Now, of course, women in Iran, Baha\’i or otherwise, have no choice at all about whether or not to wear the chador, because state agencies enforce the wearing of this particular garment. However, I understand that many Iranian women rebel against the chador by turning it into a fashion statement and by allowing a lock of hair to emerge from under the veil.
As for Baha\’i women in the rest of the world, there is no requirement to dress in a manner similar to Islamic dress. If there were, all the Baha\’i women I know would be breaking Baha\’i law.
I found Saira Khan\’s account of her life and her relationship to the veil most illuminating. I don\’t know whether she would consider herself a feminist or not, but it seems to me that her position is truer to what I would understand by feminism - that education of women and girls and their full participation in the life of society is more important than maintaining what are, ultimately, cultural traditions.
Historically, the fight for women\’s rights in the West in the 19th and 20th centuries was in part a fight for less restrictive clothing, for clothing that gave women the freedom to show more of their bodies and to undertake the kinds of physical activities that men could do freely. This, surely, was part of what Saira Khan was saying. So I have to say I find it surprising that you consider the adoption of restrictive and face-obscuring garments as a pro-feminist move.
Erica, my wife, also read your response to my blog post and did not at all agree with it. We are both old enough to remember the feminism of the 60s and 70s. We recall very clearly the time when Erica, a Maths graduate and a qualified computer programmer earned far less than men doing exactly the same programming job in a large industrial company, when married women couldn\’t have bank accounts without their husband\’s permission, when gender-based discrimination was routine and largely accepted by a male dominated society.
Erica was angry about that discrimination at the time - and still is, if you remind her of those days. She, like other women, some of whom were committed feminists and others of whom were not, fought against it and gradually the law and attitudes changed. Clearly the situation is still far from perfect, but it is hugely better for women in the UK and in many other countries than it was in the 1970s and before.
So I\’m afraid I still do not understand why wearing a face-covering veil allows women to be fully emancipated, to be full participants in society, politics, leadership, business, sport and so on, on an equal footing with men.
Finally, there is no particular form of clothing that is a mark of Baha\’i identity for either women or men. We are bidden to dress reasonably and not to make ourselves the playthings of the foolish - but what is reasonable may be interpreted differently in different societies. More important than making outward statements by adopting forms of clothing is the quality of the inner spiritual life and of the reflection of that spiritual life in service to our fellow human beings.
Hi Barney & Erica,
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment.
“it is the responsibility of women to defend themselves against the \?objectification\? of their bodies by the male gaze. Why isn\?t this the responsibility of men as well as of women?”
It is, but the interest for Westerners always seems to be on Muslim female dress LOL. Actually there are more hadiths on the topic of what men wear, and on this very topic the Qur’an instructs men to lower their gaze and dress modestly. The aim is to desexualise the public sphere and remove sexuality to the realm of the private: that is a responsibility on *both* men and women.
“The point you make about Quratu\?l-\?Ayn Tahirih is an interesting one, but does not detract from the force of the story, precisely because it was the face veil she removed, considering it a sign of women\\\?s oppression.”
Then can we infer that she did not believe covering the head to be a sign of women’s oppression?
“… but it may well be the case that \?Abdu\?l-Baha advised the Baha\?i women in Iran…”
Hmmm, but how does a Baha’i distinguish which of ‘Abdul-Baha’s commands are binding or not? For example, contextualising his prohibition on women serving on the House of Justice is not accepted by Baha’is - why contextualisation in this case?
“Historically, the fight for women\?s rights in the West in the 19th and 20th centuries was in part a fight for less restrictive clothing, for clothing that gave women the freedom to show more of their bodies and to undertake the kinds of physical activities that men could do freely. This, surely, was part of what Saira Khan was saying. So I have to say I find it surprising that you consider the adoption of restrictive and face-obscuring garments as a pro-feminist move.”
There has actually been a number of ‘waves’ of feminism in the Western world, and parallel movements in other parts of the world. First wave feminism was concerned with sufferage, for example. Second wave feminism, was very much about sexual liberation and access to the workplace. Third wave feminism - which is where I fit best - has been quite critical of second wave feminism, which was mostly concerned with rights of white, middle and upper class women. For example, the right to wear ‘less’ clothes may have been of immense interest to second wave feminists but that doesn’t mean that all women are interested in copying what their second-wave feminist sisters consider to be ‘normative’. The ‘right’ to work was not a universal concern, where women in the global South were already working in slave conditions, and second-wave feminists have often been accused of co-operating with Western and Orientalist oppressions of their darker, lower-class sisters. For example, that second-wave feminists can support the banning of hijab, support the removal of free choice for other women is absolutely astounding.
“Clearly the situation is still far from perfect, but it is hugely better for women in the UK and in many other countries than it was in the 1970s and before.”
In some areas, but there have been massive backward steps in others. For example, free access to abortion (something for which second-wave feminists fought) has resulted in a massive rise in numbers of abortions performed every year. As a third-wave feminist, I would be much more interested in fighting to change a society that stigmatises young women who have fallen pregnant in unfortunate circumstances, than simply decide free access to abortion is what society needs.
I can’t speak for the U.K. but here in Australia we have a *massive* problem with domestic violence. According to VicHealth, the leading cause of death and injury for women between the ages of 18-44 is domestic violence. Furthermore, while we have legislated equal pay for equal work, women still only earn, on average, 84% of a man’s wage. Only 1.3% of Australia’s CEOs are women. I could go on, but we are dreaming if we think that “we” have achieved equality.
“So I\?m afraid I still do not understand why wearing a face-covering veil allows women to be fully emancipated, to be full participants in society, politics, leadership, business, sport and so on, on an equal footing with men.”
It’s about freedom to follow one’s faith of choice. Not all women see emancipation in copying what men do. For women who want to have careers and be leaders in society, politics, leadership etc. then I say go for it. We have many precedents in Islamic history of women playing precisely those roles. But some women don’t want to do that - they want to stay at home or seclude themselves behind the veil, because they believe that is what God is asking them to do. And I fully support their right to practice their faith as they interpret it. *That* is more free than the current hostility and prejudice that veiled women are being forced to undergo in many Western societies.
Kind regards
Umm Yasmin
Leave a Comment