Politics of De-veiling

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

It is baffling how a man can feel so confident in assuming he knows exactly how it feels to wear the hijab or why women decide to take it on. Mr. Adnan Sattar has gone to great lengths to persuade us that the hijab is in fact not subjugating or repressive but liberating and a means of asserting identity.

It is precisely this attitude of not letting women speak for themselves that results in women from such backgrounds to take on the hijab so that they may gain a voice. This by no means implies that the hijab has suddenly miraculous qualities which enable those underprivileged women from backward environments to become assertive and thus speak up. Sadly, it only means that without it they are constantly suspect creatures, and with it passably second-rate.

Lastly, I would like to ask the proponents of hijab in France the following: how liberal are they in their ``live and let live`` policies? If a French woman in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or any other conservative country went out in a mini-skirt would we condone her behaviour as free thinking or would we be disappointed in her lack of consideration of societal norms? Similarly, a Muslim living in the West should adapt his/her religion such that it does not raise eyebrows when they venture out. To do otherwise is being inconsiderate and rigid and perhaps people who feel so singlemindedly should make their way to some far away village where everyone else thinks the same as them.

Tired and old topic. Hijab is a way of coping with modernity. It is part identity when outside ones are being foisted on you, and it is part expression of community (very frightening to those who are stalwart individualists). Still to others, it`s simply a requirement. To others, it`s evil in cloth form.

There is a sickness in the Muslim world, and that`s to discuss ad nausea topics that are deemed relevant to us by others. And let there be no doubt about this - this particular `issue` is not one raised from within. But discuss it we will. I happen to be just such a fool.

If western fashion was all about modesty, would we even be having this discussion? No. Would we be having a similar discussion? Hell yes, whatever the complaint de jour is...we`ll be jumping on it with a jerk knee..

Are there ``real`` gender issues to tackle? Yes. Is this one of them? Nope.

---

Ayesha,

``If a French woman in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or any other conservative country went out in a mini-skirt would we condone her behaviour as free thinking or would we be disappointed in her lack of consideration of societal norms``

Those countries don`t proclaim to accommodate such things. Modern France has no active tradition of dress - dress as you like, and they have no problems. Except for the Hijab, that is. This is about curbing expressions of religious identity that most francoists find scary. Ultimately, it is France`s right to ban the Hijab...but you can`t have it both ways. France then joins the ranks of Saudi, Afghan, etc. in forcing a mode of dress.

Second, the idea of a westerner accommodating conservative Muslim dress codes is laughable. I would wager most, except those who are generally foreign-culture friendly, would be horrified to wear a burkha or even Hijab, and wouldn`t do so without extreme reservations or unless it is absolutely mandatory. Typically, they wear whatever the male dress is - notably just as concealing, but this is a fact that I suppose we can overlook. Male dress...gotta love it...so much for sisterhood. This idea that they would don conservative dress and say ``when in rome`` is quite frankly not characteristic. Simply read or watch the correspondence from any female westerner visiting Muslim countries, and you will catch my drift. I can not think of an exception...

``Similarly, a Muslim living in the West should adapt his/her religion such that it does not raise eyebrows when they venture out. To do otherwise is being inconsiderate and rigid and perhaps people who feel so singlemindedly should make their way to some far away village where everyone else thinks the same as them. ``

Muslims in the west must take ownership of their citizenship, and make their mode of dress irrelevant by making a name for themselves within their communities. People exist in a natural state of ignorance, and ghettoizing (a ``real`` problem with the community) only reinforces this ignorance towards us. People will naturally be inconsiderate towards us otherwise, either out of their ignorance or simply because they deem it fit and affordable not to tolerate us as we are. Nothing comes for free, and if we insist on rigidly following a path, we must understand that their are tolls to be paid on this road we travel.

The idea that we have to be ``considerate`` in how we dress to those who walk around half naked this time of year is a bit hard to swallow. I can tolerate my neighbor (great guy, btw) who wears metal-tipped boots, has sharp green hair that`s shaved at the sides, wears black lipstick, and has tongue + nipple piercing (which he insists on showing). Now, if *this* is considered acceptable....then guess what...they can sure as hell accept a floral scarf around the head.

This ``accommodate local custom`` business meant something in the `50`s. It doesn`t mean squat now days. Blame those damn hippies...

Of course, it`s not about the clothing, it`s about what it represents. What does it represent? Let`s follow your own advice of ``letting women speak for themselves``. However, I`d go a step further and say it`s not a generic ``women`` thing...no such group with a common voice or set of ideas. The only opinion that maters are those women who actually wear the thing...

Well Adnan you seem to have caused a bit of a stir here!!

I find your article to be pretty objective and balanced - its a simple argument for democracy and autonomy.

America is the land of the free, France too claims to be a proponent of democracy, so arm- twisting and negation of rights, or even a ``take it or leave it`` stance becomes invalid in these countries. They must abide by the constitutions they have made - or change them and take it from there.

As for Muslims in the west, they have for the most part, balanced very well, a fine line between religion and the state. Yes the fact that they might not want to compromise their values could be a source of contention for some. But then as trends go nowadays - Islamophobia is sexy!

If suggested, I would suffer little unease to buy that your were drunk while you critiqued, for you could be mentally retarded too.

``It is precisely this attitude of not letting women speak for themselves that results in women from such backgrounds to take on the hijab so that they may gain a voice``

I don`t think author`s attitude has prevented or suppressed any woman from speaking. Nor do I think a man is forbidden from writing about a woman`s problem from any number of perspectives (``It is baffling how a man can feel so confident in assuming...``). However, this is not what makes me laugh. The author of article seems to stress, vehemently, that there are multitude of reasons behind women observing hijab, many of those do not imply a `non-autonomous` `suppressed` woman etc. And here you are, asserting in one breath, that you knoweth with certainty and precision the sole reason why some women choose to observe veil: ``It is precisely this attitude of not letting women speak for themselves that results in women from such backgrounds to take on the hijab so that they may gain a voice.`` What a case of gross simplification!

Tell us one thing, why do you claim to know what lies in every woman`s breast when she wears hijab? Is it only becuase you are a woman yourself, while author is not (btw, I don`t see where author meant to say he knows what occurs in every woman`s mind). Is this difference so big?

``If a French woman in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or any other conservative country went out in a mini-skirt...``

You seem to have gotten the point there. I totally agree that from my experience Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and many others invariably would not tolerate women in mini-skirts. Yes, these countries are not founded on recognition of individual freedom; at the same time a stimulus of woman in miniskirt is a bit too much to digest, and would not help them evaluate their shortcomings. They have yet to learn respect of opinion and individuality. You are only insisting that France should join the club of these countries. Why the duck should anyone raise eye brows when someone wears hijab in a free country, which I believe, French want their country to be. Afterall the law was not passed in reprisal to intolerance exhibited by Iranians and the like.

But to begin with, there is no need to assume that all proponent of hijab in France are Iranian- and Saudi-like etc.

#3 vertex:

``The idea that we have to be ``considerate`` in how we dress to those who walk around half naked this time of year is a bit hard to swallow. I can tolerate my neighbor (great guy, btw) who wears metal-tipped boots, has sharp green hair that`s shaved at the sides, wears black lipstick, and has tongue + nipple piercing (which he insists on showing). Now, if *this* is considered acceptable....then guess what...they can sure as hell accept a floral scarf around the head.``

Let`s be clear about one thing--the French ban does not apply to people roaming about in the streets. It applies only to public institutions such as schools--where incidentally all forms of religious symbolism have been banned--not just the hijab. So, for example the Christian cross or the Jewish Star of David may not be worn either. Why aren`t the other communities protesting??

............. next thing you know the ummah in paris will be demanding their own family laws and asking for the right to sacrifice sheep on champs elysee and soak their feet in wash basins aboard air france ..............there is no end to this madness!

....... the politically correct folks seem to be confusing the hijab with a simple fashion statement like pierced nipples ............. it is not ...... it is comparable to the nazis demanding the right to goose trot around the eiffel tower dressed in brown shirts ........... some might say that america allows the clowns from the kkk circus to march around in their funny hats..... sure they do, as long as they have a permit and every cop with a night stick and a bad attitude keeps a close eye on these fools.................. so, if the sisters want to walk about dressed in their death shrouds and veils they should be allowed to do so as long as they are not wearing explosive vests and have shaved their legs - there is nothing more disgusting than a suicide bomber with hairy legs ..............

``Let`s be clear about one thing--the French ban does not apply to people roaming about in the streets.``

The ban is against any grand display of religious symbolisms in public schools- and currently does not apply to small religious pendants. The wearing of Hijab, Jewish skullcap and the Sikh turban (collatoral damage, if you will) are realistically the only acts affected by this law. The Jewish community has not really protested, but then, the wearing of the Skullcap is not regarded as `mandatory` by them.

Lawmakers admit that the Sikhs, on the other hand, were not really considered. Overtures by some politicians hinted at the exclusion of the Sikh headgear from the law because they argue that wearing the turban is `cultural` and not `religious`, LOL. What a load.

Also, there is talk of expanding the scope of this law. Polls suggest that there is overwhelming support for such an expansion. Needless to say, the scope of the law is not the point of the issue, nor your ``be considerate`` comment.

Any honest commentary on the issue recognizes that this law does indeed target the Muslim community in particular. It`s not necessarily targeting Islam specifically, but rather the inability of the French to tolerate `insufficiently` assimilated foreigners on their soil. Rather than religion, this is a race-relations issue that is Muslim specific. Everyone knows it, so that’s why other communities don’t care enough to protest. Politicians just don’t want to be honest about it (targeting specific communities in laws is a BIG no-no in modern legal frameworks of most Western countries - something the likes of Taliban, Iran and Saudi are heavily criticized for).

---

``there is nothing more disgusting than a suicide bomber with hairy legs .............. ``


...well, there’s always guys like you.

vertex #8:

Please don`t twist the facts to suit your argument. The ban is not just on ``grand display of religious symbolism`` as you say, but all religious symbolism. Moreover, it is not just on turbans, headscarves and skullcaps but does very much include crosses around the neck, etc.

And how convenient for you to decide that the wearing of a skullcap is not mandatory for Jews but implying slyly that the hijab is mandatory for Muslims (many would disagree) and going on to presume that Sikh turbans are imminently exempt and thus the law is Muslim-specific--very very tenuous argument vertex--you have to do better than that.

This is partially a race relations issue, but it is twisting the facts to call it Muslim-specific. Equally importantly, it is also an issue of women`s rights, which you ignore. Many many Muslim women in France lobbied for the ban--a fact we must not ignore.

I think we should also devail this newly growing Wahabi fundamentalism in our society. Before this fundamentalism people of Pakistan respected each other as brothers and sisters. Pak men never had to hide their wives from their real brothers and fathers., not even from their uncles, cousins and nephews. They all respected the family women like their real sisters and daughters. Even the un-related neighborers and mohallay dars respected the ladies as the members of their own very family. Now there`s a growing education of non-mehram in our society. A women is supposed to hide hereself from her father-in-law and brothers-in-laws living in the same house. This is not the traditionof our forefathers. It`s the tradition of Arabs who look at women with very different eyes. They don`t spare even the small girls of their close friends although in veils and pardah. They propose them for marriage. This is disgrace of humanity.

vertex

.... you are right when you say, ``that this law does indeed target the Muslim community in particular``..................... and it should! ...... islamists (not to be confused with your everyday cultural muslims) should be identified and exterminated before they blow up another tall building or kill more innocent people .............the hijab is a particularly insidious tool used by the homicidal jihadis to draw recruits to their murderous ideology .............. no, i am not saying that all these silly ``sisters`` in abayas and death shrouds are suiciders, but they are not that far off and, certainly, their children are at great risk ................ so let`s stop pussy-footing around the issue and recognize the fact that the hijab is not as innocuous as a poor sikh`s silly turban even though i am hard pressed to understand why a grown man would not want to get a civilized hair-cut ................

There is no symmetry between being pressured to wear the hijab and not wear it. Let me give you an admittedly extreme example. If a child would like to go to school wearing underwear only and the parents have no objection, should the state intervene? You argue that a girl choosing to wear hijab in the face of peer pressure is exhibiting greater autonomy of thought. It actually depends on peer pressure versus parental pressure. If she chooses to wear hijab, it may reflect nothing more than greater pressure from the parents. Your examples of iran & french algeria are flawed and products of hysteria. As far as i know, france has not outlawed the hijab from public sphere, only from public schools. The question is whether the greater society or the parents have the right to brainwash children in public schools. I believe in the right of parents in the privacy of the home and the right of the society in public schools.
I also think there`s something perverse about muslim men living outside of france defending the right of muslim parents in france ghettoizing their children.

Ayesha,

``Please don`t twist the facts to suit your argument. The ban is not just on ``grand display of religious symbolism`` as you say, but all religious symbolism. Moreover, it is not just on turbans, headscarves and skullcaps but does very much include crosses around the neck, etc. ``

I double checked, and ``In public elementary schools, junior highschools and highschools, students are prohibited from wearing signs or attire through which they exhibit ostensibly a religious affiliation.`` Little pendants are easily hidden beneath the clothing, and therefore easily avert the wrath of school officials. In practice, then, the ban is on what I said - those displays of religion which cannot be so easily hidden, which we may as well call `grand` displays on par with the Hijab and Sikh turban.

``And how convenient for you to decide that the wearing of a skullcap is not mandatory for Jews but implying slyly that the hijab is mandatory for Muslims (many would disagree)``

Disingenuous. A good number of those who do wear the Hijab, in particular those who are opposed to this law, do in fact regard the Hijab as mandatory. There is no slyness here. That`s simply how it is. You and I can disagree with them until we`re blue in the face...now, are there any Jews who feel the same way? If not, then you can understand why there is little opposition from them. That was the point.

``... and going on to presume that Sikh turbans are imminently exempt and thus the law is Muslim-specific--very very tenuous argument vertex--you have to do better than that. ``

No, as I said all and sundry in France recognizes the laws as Muslim (in particular North African)-specific. If you want tenuous, then banning the Hijab on grounds of secularism, in spite of the fact that the French govt. heavily funds religious organizations is VERY tenuous. The law as a means of upholding France`s secular traditions (laïcité - allegedly the ``real`` issue here) is a joke.

``This is partially a race relations issue, but it is twisting the facts to call it Muslim-specific.``

Nope, no twisting. Just a realistic look at what`s going on.

``Equally importantly, it is also an issue of women`s rights, which you ignore. Many many Muslim women in France lobbied for the ban--a fact we must not ignore. ``

Why can`t we ignore it? Like I said, the Hijab in and of itself is not a women`s right issue. No more than mandatory dress (i.e. a top, pants) are.

One poll suggested that 49% of Muslim women support the ban and 43% did not. Last I checked, Western notions of ``freedom`` weren`t a matter of a vote. The only opinion that does matter is those who choose to wear the Hijab. At least that`s the way it works with every other issue, why not this one? Personally, as I`ve stated, I think France has the right to do whatever the heck it wants. Just wish they had a coherent reason behind it...and yeah, coming out and saying ``we want North Africans to assimilate into French culture`` is a valid enough reason, no matter how unpleasant it sounds.

Speaking of tenuous arguments, this idea that the ban is being done on behalf of those who are ‘forced’ (or pressured ) to wear the Hijab is a joke. Children are `forced` to do many things...including wearing clothes in general (a no brainer). They`re forced to wear uniforms in some schools even. Hell, they`re even `forced` to get educated. You can`t argue for ``religious`` freedom in once breath, and argue against ``personal`` freedom in another if you want to be consistent. Parents will raise their children as they see fit, and if that means pressuring them to adopt to familial norms, then that’s what EVERYONE does.

Now, there were also feminists who were trying to link the banning of the Hijab with rape in the inner-city ghettoes by Arab brutes, who in fact do harass women who don`t dress ``modestly``. The argument goes that this causes many women who would otherwise not think o fwearing the Hijab to wear it. This is a VERY important issue, however linking it with a ban on Hijab in elementary and high schools is semi retarded though. Personally, I would go after the brutes with a vengeance, not school children who wear the Hijab.

---

hamidm2,

``islamists...should be identified and exterminated before they blow up another tall building or kill more innocent people``

I dunno, secular types of your breed have a knack for inventing reasons to invade countries and `shocking and awing` them to death. Sorry dude, 9/11 is small-time compared to your types. You moaning on about Islamists is like a tiger telling everyone to beware the mouse. It`s just dumb.

Don`t you have a prisoner to rape? Better yet, go to some middle eastern country, set up a check point and start randomly firing at passing cars. Great fun!

It’s hilarious you use nazi analogies, yet you yourself are a closet fascist. When will the hypocrisy and double standards end? Either you’re a godless goosesteper, or you’re all for the freedom fries. Can’t have both, son.

---

soysauce,

``I believe in the right of parents in the privacy of the home and the right of the society in public schools. ``

A fascinating dichotomy.

``I also think there`s something perverse about muslim men living outside of france defending the right of muslim parents in france ghettoizing their children. ``

This is so fascinating. Ghettoization is a much more dangerous, and complex problem faced by ethnic groups from all over the world. France, in particular, has a HUGE North African (mostly algerian) community, and it is largely in ghettos. The idea that the Hijab espouses ghettoization is simply excusing those in the mainstream who would ghettoize these women for wearing somethig on their head. Indeed, many staunch secularists took to the streets citing exactly this - if anything, banning the Hijab from school may cause the Algerian community to take their children out of the public school system altogether and into some makeshit alternatives of pooer quality in the ghettos. NOT a good way to integrate a minority.

As for ghettoization, who`s to blame? If these young women would otherwise like to attend public school, and aspire to take part in society as a whole then they are not at fault. Those who can`t tolerate them are. On the other hand, those who wear the Hijab as a manifestation of a greater desire to isolate and segregate from the larger society are themselves at fault. I would be reasonable and assume you get both types. In the end, though, this has nothing to do with the particular issue, or Hijab wearing in general. In fact, it`s a greater problem.

its all a question of hunger for ATTENTION and ATTENTION -- nothing else ...

a weirdly attired hijabi woman in public -- is making two statements -- one for MEN and another for WOMEN:

to men she says -- I am hungry for male attention -- look at me the weird one -- in the sea of conventionally dressed nondescript unnoticed women -- I stand out like a big boil on the the face of womanhood -- you have no choice but to notice me.....look at me

-- to a woman she says -- look at me -- with my head covered -- and my body in a sack I am more PIOUS than you -- because I cover my beautiful hair with an ugly scarf -- and you don`t....you are a Hair-Hooker -- because you want every male on the street to look at your sinfully sinuous flowing hair -- and salivate inside....I don`t -- I make them turn their head away from me in disgust....so I am a better woman than you ....?

but why...

little they realize -- these repressed brainwashed religious stupidos -- that with that weird unconventional attire -- in Paris, in Washington DC or in Islamabad -- they attaract thousand times more attention -- from MEN -- in one day -- than the conventionally attired sinful women...in their whole lifetime...

Dear mind reader, which of the two thoughts does a `weirdly attired hijabi` woman arise in you? Oh, whatever it may be, since SHE is weirdly attired, its all her fault, isn`t it?

Hey, speaking of weirdly attired people, what statment, do you think, one makes who `wears metal-tipped boots, has sharp green hair that`s shaved at the sides, wears black lipstick, and has tongue + nipple piercing(which he insists on showing)`? Well, I am sorry if it is discriminatory to call such an attire a weird one! (hijab still is weird though, isn`t it)

nikki: ``I`m a product of India and America...growing up in India i was a part of the society and state that i lived in and subscribed to it`s ways and means...after emigrating to the US i became a part of american society subscribing to its` ways and means...I have integrated fairly well into american society and have thrown in my lot with other americans experiencing all that this society has to offer , both good and bad...of all the immigrant communities it is those from the so-called `islamic states` that refuse to integrate into the society they emigrate to and insist on reaping the benefits only of that society...they are shrill in demanding rights based on religion and they emigrate to countries that are secular in nature...that`s the paradox that i find baffling..it seems they want to have their cake and eat it too..and that`s why last year the twenty five countries deemed a threat to the US were all `islamic` and their citizenry who were not regularized in the US were all deported...As far as France, the French have a right to demand that headscarves not be permitted as long as the law was enacted according to established democratic and legal procedures and those who don`t agree should just take their behind out of there...simple....do in rome as the romans do or leave.... `` --

man u sound like a total Uncle Tom

where did u get this nugget from: ``and that`s why last year the twenty five countries deemed a threat to the US were all `islamic` and their citizenry who were not regularized in the US were all deported...`` ????


``As far as France, the French have a right to demand that headscarves not be permitted as long as the law was enacted according to established democratic and legal procedures and those who don`t agree should just take their behind out of there...simple....do in rome as the romans do or leave.... `` -- tell that the sikhs of france too nikki o wise sage


````I`m a product of India and America`` -- yes, it shows --