In comments on the post below, Baybers links to this article in Britain’s Telegraph written by a Janet Daley. Using the recent niqab debate as a launching pad, Daley moves into a discussion about whether the state has the right to force people to be free and whether constituents have an obligation to accept all of the freedoms that are provided to them.
Does a woman have a “right” to repudiate the freedom to be treated as an equal by society? No, she does not. If mandated democratic governments have passed laws that say that women should be educated, enfranchised and treated the same as men by the law, then that is the judgment of the nation as a whole and should be accepted by all those who reside here.
Being “free” does not mean that you can pick and choose among the freedoms that are on offer, as if the political culture were a supermarket. It is as much an undertaking on your part to uphold the responsibility of freedom as it is the undertaking of the government to safeguard it. Under this formulation, freedom does not mean what you choose it to mean: it means what the nation as a whole has decided is in the best interests of all the people.
In other words, Daley is advocating the tyranny of the majority: the demand that all citizens of the state must comply with what the state decides is ‘freedom’. If the judgment of the nation as a whole”, as embodied by the laws of the state, is that women should be free to uncover their hair or their faces, as it is in the United Kingdom and Australia, then those women that still decide to cover should be opposed.
This idea of the “judgement of the nation” to which all must submit seems awfully similar to the idea of the “General Will” advanced by the father of fascism, Rousseau. Rousseau argued that the state should force men to be free; an idea that formed part of the ideological pedigree for Robespierre and the Reign of Terror that followed. Indeed, these same arguments about the state’s ability to discern this General Will and the necessity of enforcing it on all people forms the basis for much of the killing of the 20th century. It is a recipe for totalitarianism and yet that seems to be exactly what Ms Daley is advocating in her piece.
A more sensible alternative to the broader challenge of building ‘cohesiveness’ out of people of different faiths and cultures can be found in this piece by Peter Saunders. Referring to the work of Emile Durkheim, Saunders argues that, in a pluralistic and diverse society such as Australia or the United Kingdom, “it is a mistake to try to create a cohesive society by getting everyone to subscribe to the same values and march to the same tune.”
He concludes:
What is necessary, though, is that everyone respects the right of others to be different. Durkheim called this the core value of individualism – the distinctively modern idea that individuals have a right to their own beliefs, that they should be allowed to pursue their own version of the good life, and that they should allow their neighbours to do likewise.
This seems an infinitely more sensible approach to the issue. If a Muslim woman’s version of the “good life” is to live her life in accordance with the teachings of Islam then that should be tolerated, as should the right of one’s non-Muslim neighbours to live their lives with similar freedom.
34 comments ↓
The only other point that I wish to make is that the comments section of this online article reflects the fading quality of the telegraph’s readership (and implicitly, that of British conservatism) who appear to have no core set of principles beyond hatred of Muslims. Less then 1% understand the implications of JD’s comments.
As a group they are to be pitied rather than feared.
Western conservatives look like leftists, adopting their philosophy, state-worship and paranoia; Western Muslims promote individualism and remind Westerners of Burke et al.
What a funny old world.
What an ingenious argument for the oppression of women!
I assume you can also come up with half-decent arguments for beating them up. After all denying them the right to a good flogging is hardly consistent with freedom of choice.
Nobody is arguing for the oppression of women. In fact, given oppression means the arbitrary and cruel application of power against an individual or group, I think we are arguing for the exact opposite: that women should be as free to cover their face as other women are free to not cover their face.
There is no correlation between veiling and flogging. In any case, Islamic law prohibits beating up women so I don’t know what you are talking about here (and, I suspect, neither do you).
You are writing about the right of people to choose not to be free. You suggest that under Islam women enjoy the right to be treated as less than an equal to men and that that is a form of freedom. What nonsense when it is men who are making the judgments and when women, who are second-class citizens, are not part of the decision process.
The veil as a way of liberating women and giving them free choice? Tell that to the Muslim women in France attacked in the streets by Muslim males for not being veiled. Taliban-like attitudes as a means of emancipating women? It is ridiculous.
Islam is associated with mysogyny, honour killings, legal discrimination against women, genital mutilations etc in every part of the world. It is inconceivable you don’t know what I am talking about. It is the major PR problem Islam has in all non-Islamic societies.
Does the Koran rule out the right of a husband to beat his wife? I know the question has been posed 1000 times but it is a simple question and your response that implies it does not denies what you must know to be true.
Whenever the issue of mysogynistic attitudes is raised the response is always ‘that’s not what Islam teaches’ it is just what gets practised and that’s different. It is not credible and you should honestly face up to what you see everywhere in front of your eyes.
You have conflated two seperate issues: the oppressive and unjust treatment of some women by men; and the voluntary wearing of the veil by some women.
With regards to the latter, what is wrong if a woman decides, for whatever reason, that she wishes to veil? It is true that the law affords her to the right not to cover, but then the law also affords us many other rights that we may choose, as a result of personal preference, to refrain from taking up. If a woman is being forced to wear it, then I can understand one’s objection however the reality is that the vast majority of women who wear it do so of their own choice. The fact that some people may not like the veil is not then an argument for limiting one’s freedom to voluntarily wear it.
As for your second point, about the association of Islam with misogyny, honour killings, genital mutilation and so on. Nobody is arguing that these things don’t happen and that some Muslims don’t engage in these things. Non-Muslims also engage in honour killings and the principle motivations of jealousy and a desire for power and control are mostly the same. Likewise, genital mutilation is carried out by some Muslim groups from Africa but also by animist and Christian groups from the same regions. It’s a cultural problem more than a religious one. That isn’t to say that some Muslims don’t do it, but the fact is that Islam, as a religion, isn’t responsible for these things. Muslims are speaking out against these problems. In fact, there was a post on this very site that attacked the practice of honour killings.
Those non-muslims who are sincerely interested in why Muslim women choose to wear the veil would do well to take time and read this account from Yusuf Smith’s web-site of a Somali sister who wears the Niqaab (the veil)
link: http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blo.....w_on_niqab
HC,
your comments are so ignorant that it is difficult to know where to begin, so I will address them in point form
1. “(by wearing the Niqaab) we choose not be be free”. It looks like English is your second language. By exercising choice, I am to some extent “free”. One cannot choose to be “not free” that is an oxymoronic statement. What you need to prove is that I, am not exercising choice in wearing the niqaab, which you have failed to do.
2. Nowhere does the article suggest that Muslim women “enjoy the right to be treated as less then equal”. Nor is this the case in Islam. It is obvious that your understanding of the world outside your hometown comes from the seriously deficient websites you list on your blogroll. Where is your evidence for this statement?
3. I don’t see any men making judgements on behalf of women (that is except for you). Curious that a wrinkled white defender of Muslim women’s rights seems to be the only one here verballing Muslim women.
4. Muslim men are harassing women for the way they dress. You implicitly suggest that this is a problem to Muslim women. Obviously a western women would NEVER receive comments about the way she dresses from western men, would she? Every non-Muslim girl I know has been subject to wolf-whistles and cat-calls at some time in their life, and has received unwanted direct sexual attention. To suggest that this is a problem peculiar to Muslims is to argue in bad faith.
5.Genital mutilation does occur in the Muslim parts of Africa, but they also occur in Christian parts of Africa too, so why don’t you suggest it is an African problem? Perhaps because it is not self serving as blaming Islam.
6.There is an excellent piece on honour killings in this website, I suggest you read it.
7.The next paragraph is incomprehensible, so I cannot respond to it.
8.The last is another pre-digested opinion, difficult to know what to do with it except to say that your attack on Islam is limited by three devastating flaws
a) your extreme ignorance about your chosen topic
b) your inability to construct anything resembling a logical argument which continually forces you into dreary rambling monologues
c) your poor grammar and sentence construction.
I suggest you work on these things before you bore us with your opinions again.
Let’s look at what HC has said here. HC says:
(A) Some Muslim women wear a veil;
(B) Some Muslim women get beaten up, subjected to genital mutilation or are victims of honour killings;
Therefore, he concludes that because (B) is bad, that (A) must also be bad. Let’s apply HC’s strange logic to another example:
(A) Some clowns are male;
(B) There have been clowns that have been serial killers.
Therefore, according to HC’s logic, all males should be treated like serial killers.
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
Please can you correct the link to my article (in Baybers’s comment), by removing the #more tag, which will take you to the second paragraph of the article, rather than the first.
When linking a blog article, always copy from the permalink, which can be gained on various blogs by right-clicking the article’s title, the word “permalink”, a linked # symbol, or the date (on mine, it’s the title and the word “permalink”; here, the permalink is in the title).
Fixed.
HC, your silence is deafening
Just been busy with my day job Baybers. Watching the debate. The article you cited made me feel sorry for the women concerned - she wears her veil to feel closer to God. What on earth does that mean? Religiobabble? I guess wearing a burka puts you right next door.
Maryam is happy being oppressed - good luck to her. We agree on one thing - I am ‘white’ and ‘wrinkled’. She needs to distinguish attempted abuse from debate. Just immature.
AbuUmar plays a trite, irrelevant logical game which proves zilch. Instead of addressing the issue of female oppression he tries to muddy the waters with shallow illogic about generalities and particulars.
Muslims generally won’t admit any problem in relation to the role of women in their societies. This is manufactured blindness and a deliberate deceit. The difficulty is that Muslim attitudes to women are an anachronistic in western society - a major reason for the gulf that exists. To most of the developed world the attitudes and practices in relation to women are ugly.
I’ll watch and learn.
HC,
Thank you for your reply and for the noticeable improvement in the tone of your comments (this is not Tim Blair). Rather than get into a slanging match about who is oppressed or isn’t, I will tell you about my family, and then readers can make up their own minds.
I have a medical degree from an aus uni (as has my older sister)and am working as a doctor in Oxford. My mother is a doctor, as are to of my aunts (OBGYN and Anaesthetics), All did their medical degrees from Pakistan and are currently working abroad. At university I was the med student society president.
My best friend here in Oxford (Affiyah) is from Pakistan, she wears the niqaab and is here on a Rhodes Scholarship. She only wore the niqaab here in Oxford against the wishes of her parents.
My sister in law is a paediatrician (Cambridge mbbs and dphil), as is her mother. All of us a from Pakistan and dress in a conservative manner with a hijab etc..
By any western marker of academic success and freedom we are more liberated than 99% of our white post-Christian Australian or British counterparts. If this is the necessary oppression of Islam, then I will take it any day.
You are however right to say that many contemporary Muslim societies (as they are currently formulated) do oppress women, but they do so for reasons other than Islam, or from an ignorant misogynist tendency that occurs in all decaying cultures (eg balck getto culture in the US).
We have no manufactured blindness to this problem, but it is not one intrinsic to Islam. If you had any meaningful relationship with Muslims you would have realised that.
HC,
your comments so far have not constituted anything resembling a “debate”, you have had three goes to bring any substantive points and failed to do so.
times up
I’m not playing any such thing but merely pointing out what, I think, is a substantial logical fallacy in your argument. You have attempted to make a link between a woman veiling and female genital mutilation, spousal abuse, misogyny and honour killings yet you have neither demonstrated a correlation or causal connection between veiling and these hideous practices. Some Muslim women veil and some Muslim women are victims of human wickedness, ergo, veiling is also wicked seems to be the gist of your argument so far.
Actor Steven Berkoff has a letter in The Independent about the niqab debate:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opi.....ntentSwap1
I think that the main issue here is that fine women ought to be free to wear whatever they want. Including skimpy dresses. Perhaps they like to show off their womanly charms.
But if a woman wearing Niqab expects to get a job teaching six year old kids, then parents should also be free to refuse that. You see a very good argument can be made that kids simply can’t learn when the teacher’s face is covered.
This similarly, applies to other jobs, such as being a doctor and a truck driver. In fact I don’t know of a single job where the Niqab would not be an impediment. So I wouldn’t blame employers for refusing to employ women who wear the Niqab. Employers should be free to choose a person whose habits are best suited for the job.
Finally, you have a weird take on Islamic requirements for the Niqab. The Hijab is enough, except for the lunatic fringes. Principally, comprising extreme Salafists who state openly that a women showing their faces are nus 3aryaneen (half naked for the Arabic challenged). This notion of nus 3aryaneen is rejected by almost all the Muslim world except those who have enough money from oil that their women folk don’t need to work for a living, or those who are influenced by oil rich takfiriyun.
All four madhaahib (schools of jurisprudence) recognise the niqab as a valid form of dress. The principle debate between scholars over the last 1,400 years hasn’t been whether niqab is allowed but whether it is or is not fard and the circumstances surrounding that ruling. This certainly isn’t the “lunatic fringe” of Islamic thought but rather the main body of it.
Also, your characterisation of the pro-Niqab people as “extreme Salafists” is a bit off the mark. For example, the niqab is also worn by many Pashtuns who are anything but Salafist in their beliefs and practice. Rather they are following the Hanafi madhab and are likely to be more influenced by Sufi practices than Salafis.
The bottom line is that veiling the face does have some basis in Islam, is a legitimate form of dress for Muslim women, and it is not merely the product of “extreme Salafists” funded with petro-dollars. Whether or not it is compulsory or not, and the conditions for that ruling, has been, of course, a subject of scholarly debate. But I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest it is just a product of the “lunatic fringe”.
The specific case of the sister in the UK who was sacked for wearing the niqaab, is also more than initially reported.
She attended her job interview without a niqaab and did not say that she would want to dress with one (i.e. a niqaab) as a necessary part of her employment, but later wore it to class. The school is a state school and pupils are non Muslim as well as Muslim.
In this instance, my sympathies lie with the school board and teaching staff rather than the Muslim sister. If you live in a wider non-Muslim community one must accept that there are things that one cannot do with a niqaab.
As a principle of fiqh we are in relatively uncharted territory, with so many Muslims living as minorities in non-muslim countries whose social mores are very different from ours.
Rabee your argument makes no sense other then your using this as an excuse for your own sectarian agenda. This attitude does not help Islam or Muslims one bit.
On a side note: Shaikh Muhammad Nasr-ud-Deen al-Albani was of the opinion that wearing the Niqqab is mustahab not wajjib.
There goes your anti-”salafist” argument.
You would also find the female students of Shaikh Nuh Ha Meem Keller who also wear the Niqqab (last I checked he was no Salafi scholar).
And also the points Amir added are also important.
Baybers from what I read she attended the interview and was asked to remove the Niqqab and she did. The Niqqab also was no problem until after the comments by Jack Straw, also her classroom was not secluded and males could freely look in. So from the sisters point of view it is legitimate to argue that in the case of the interview it could be considered a matter of necessaty, but when it came to the class it was not necessary, and this seemed to be the case up until Straw made his comments and the school decided to act.
And it seems that the court whilst agreeing with the school, ruled that the school did not follow proper procedures in this matter.
My reply was in regard to article “We will force them to be free.”
There are two parts to the freedom argument regarding the Niqab.
First, women should be free to wear whatever they want. Second,
the Niqab somehow frees women from the leering eyes of strange men.
For the second argument to be reasonable one simply must address a main issue:
* Who owns a woman’s sexuality and sexual charms?
By owns I mean who is the residual claimant to this sexuality?
1) Does she own her own charms? If yes, then she should be free to choose whatever she wears. She may enjoy the leering eyes, and strange men enjoying her presence.
2) Is the ownership shared by here and her men folk (father, husband, brothers, uncles)? In this case she may be constrained by those who share her ownership of her sexuality.
3) Is it owned exclusively by her men folk? Well then I can see an argument for the Niqab.
4) It’s partly owned by society. In which case, there is an argument that society can constrain her choices and how she expresses her sexuality.
Of course, the reasonable answer is (1) A woman owns her own body. She ought to be free to choose whatever she wants. Anything and anyone that impedes that freedom is a thief. She may well choose a Niqab. But the issue is that the choice is hers. In that case we have a solid argument for freedom.
If we accept 2) or 3) or even 4) I have an issue with the dispossession and thievery that such a world view has to offer. It is unjust.
Its only now that this discussion is becoming interesting.
Rabee, your point would be valid only if the overwhelming reason that a woman wore the niqaab was to limit the sexual desire of other males. That would be an absurd and insufficient reason to wear the veil. However amongst the sisters I know who do wear the niqaab, that is simply not the case. They do so for the pleasure of Allah, the same reason that nuns wear a habit. The reaction of other men is simply immaterial to their decision.
It would be equally absurd to suggest that non Muslim women dress they way they do to increase their sexual allure to men (although I’m sure some do), the overwhelming majority do not. This is however changing as shows such as “what not to wear” discuss the mechanics of dressing oneself like a butcher would dress meat. To suggest that women dress in a particular way to either limit or arouse sexual desire amongst men, is itself demeaning of women.
I agree that in some Muslim countries piety has been institutionalised and women are forced to dress a particular way, and this has sickening results (SAF space has a article on it), but here in the west, Muslim women (at least for the time being, are able to dress how they choose)
In the first line of your first post you mention that women should have the freedom to wear whatever they want and to be free to dress in a manner that “shows their womanly charms”.
Well now, who is suggesting that women define their dress in terms of male sexual desires? that would be number 4) in your list of of who owns a woman’s body, wouldn’t it.
Maryam
The problem is that the main arguments for the Niqab are predicated on the idea that women ought to wear the Niqab to keep leering eyes of strange men away from them. It is not my argument. The overwhelming reason for advocating and justifying the Niqab is as a limit to the sexual desire of men.
I am addressing my view to that argument, and there are plenty of scholars that propose that motivation for the Niqab. In fact, this blog is permeated with that view.
Here I’m taking the underlying normative aspects of that argument and seeing where it goes. The consequence in that setting is then who owns a woman’s sexuality?
Once we agree that the argument for the Niqab is not the protection of women’s charms from strange men, then the question becomes, what exactly is the motivation for advocating the Niqab.
Now my question of who owns a woman’s sexuality still needs to be answered. Independently, of the attitudes of the west and independently of the issue of the Niqab:
Do we agree that it is the individual woman who ought to own her sexuality and ought to be the residual claimant to that sexuality?
Rabee,
Thank you for your very thoughtful comments, its an interesting question. To what extent is any clothing for women (or for that matter, men) an expression of personal freedom and absolute choice, and how much is due to social cultural and religious strictures? This discussion is equally valid all all cultures and with all clothing (e.g. a bikini) as much as it is with the veil.
The hijab is enough in the eyes of all the sheikhs and sheikhas to wear when a woman is on Hajj, in-fact many religious authorities (eg Shafi madhab) say it is forbidden for a woman to cover her face on Hajj, when she stands next to and prays shoulder to shoulder with men who are unknown to her. If the niqaab was as you content “overwhelmingly about limiting sexual appeal of women” then logically this would be the context to wear it the most, rather than the hijab. But the opposite is correct.
I think that we can get into a long tortured discussion about my first contention for a long time. But today is the last day of Ramadan, and I do not wish to spend it debating with a sister. So this will be my last post for a while.
So EId Mubarak for tomorrow Inshallah, and mayy Allah SWT give from the best of this world and the next.
I don’t think you can reduce anything in a religion down to a set of purely rational arguments alone. We wear niqab for the same reasons we wear hijab and that is because we believe this is pleasing to Allah based on what we have understood from the Qu’ran and Sunnah. For those other women that think it is compulsory, it is because they interpret certain words in the Qu’ran to include the covering of the face.
The reasons are irrelevent to this discussion anyway. Regardless of what reasons she has for covering her face and whether they can be empirically proven or rationally argued, the real issue is whether she is forced or not.
This may be how some people have sought to rationalise or justify in secular terms the wearing of niqab, but I don’t think this is the main argument. The main arguments for niqab are, without doubt, arguments based on fiqh not on pop sociology.
In any case, if people are going to promote the veiling of the face, appeals to the supposedly uncontrollable sexual urges of men are not amongst the most compelling rational arguments. Simply, “sexual desire of men” will not disappear just because the object of someone’s desire is obscured from them, no more than I think people would feel less thirst if water was only bottled in opaque containers. If that were the case, societies with more conservative dress codes would be free from sexual perversion and misconduct. However, as we can see from some recent reports from the gulf, this is obviously not the case. Therefore, the causal connection between conservative female dress and conservative conduct by males is not necessarily as strong as some might claim. A far more effective measure is to encourage men (and women) to show self-control and restraint. In other words, fear Allah.
Anyway, tomorrow is Eid so I wish all of you a blessed and happy Eid. May Allah accept all of our good deeds this month, forgive our sins and make our siyam and salat a shield for us all on the Day of Judgement.
This is an interesting question. Although I think the point is moot because most women wear niqab for religious reasons, the question of ‘ownership’ of a woman’s beauty is nonetheless an interesting one.
I suppose one could argue that for a non-covered woman, everyone owns her ‘womanly charms’ (to use your expression); in that, anyone can enjoy or benefit from them by looking at them. By covering, she is then essentially reclaiming her ‘charms’ and can now choose who she allows to see them. Therefore, a woman that is covered has a much stronger degree of ownership of her ‘charms’ or sexuality than a woman that is not.
What unbelievable nonsense. You guys spend far too much time with your butts up in the air and far too little time exercising ordinary commonsense.
Your perception of the world, Amir, is that men steal women’s beauty not just that they just enjoy life by doing what comes naturally. Do you really see the world this way? By making herself look like a sack of potatoes a woman controls the property rights to her beauty???? Men and women are beautiful to each other Amir - no need to hide this and why do it?
Suffering is a pain in the butt, Amir, pleasure is better. Suffering is a virtue only for those for whom it does not matter since it is their life. They are miserable sods that the world would be better off without.
Is it your owm lack of intrinsic intelligence that forces you to such crazy positions? Go outside and smell the flowers Amir. Enjoy your life and forget about the wizened old fools who teach you this nonsense. It is a time-wasting delusion.
Christianity (and particularly the Catholic Church) have oppressed generations of Westerners with this nonsense for centuries. Be a wise guy - learn from the mistakes of others.
for pity HC,
once again you resort to breathless rhetoric when imagination, logic or intelligence fail. We are in your corner buddy, but you have to make an argument, So far you have retreated from genital mutilation and from wife beating to merely restating your opinion over and over and over again. Why not try the Arthur Herman”s (of CIS) tactic of suggesting a period of western imposed paternalistic midwifery on the Muslim world? Its an absurd position but it does have the veneer of a sophisticated argument, something which your comments have lacked.
This may work with your students who unfortunately have no avenue of escape, but in the cyber-world, academic pomposity and bombast count for nothing. So far Maryam has made mincemeat of your views and you are now seriously out of your depth. It might work at that jumped-up technical college that you refer to as a university, but it has demonstrably failed here.
Its time to get up off the floor and and come up punching, get your game face on, your playing first grade, son.
And you are incorrect to suggest we spend to much time with our backsides in the air, we do not spend enough. We must spend more time in prostration to our Lord.
I encourage you to do likewise, if for no other reason than it will assist in blood flow to your brain.
HC: I never said they were stealing her beauty. It has been said previously by others here that a woman’s “charms” are her own property and she has rights over that property; in that she can decide to show them to the world.
So, if her charms are her property and she has rights over the use of that property, then, like other public goods, they suffer from the problem of nonexcludability. By covering, she is essentially attempting to reduce that nonexcludability and, by doing so, there would be a commensurate increase in the notional value of those charms to those that she does make them available to.
As I said, I tend to think the reason women cover is because they want to practice their religion. But if we are going to define “charms” as property and make it subject to property rights then it does have interesting consequences.
The Sheik’s statements in the newspaper today clarified why Muslims want women to be veiled or wear the hijab. It is an interesting insight.
http://www.theaustralian.news......01,00.html
Women practicising their religion and making free fashion choices or a grossly distorted view of relationships between men and women? I’ll go for the latter interpretation.
Of course some of you will say that the Sheik’s views have been distorted or that he does not represent mainstream Islam but isn’t this tale wearing thin? There is a problem and it needs to be comprehensively addressed.
Harry, I’ve posted something on the Sheikh’s comments already. See here.
Leave a Comment