Politics of De-veiling

jang #48
Correct, I do not see why any number of headscarfs and burkhas, new world or old world, would create a problem in India.

However, if behind the proliferating headscarfs there are a set of religious edicts that an Indian woman may not do certain things(including not getting a school education, as in the case of some Indian Muslim sects), then a proliferation of headscarfs or burkhas is a sign which their fellow Indians must take serious notice of.

soysauce,

When I antcipate a long post, I usually pluck out my handy-dandy word pro and compse the reply in there...just a tip. That`s why from time to time my spelling becomes near perfect :-)

I`ll keep my response brief as wel (er, by my verbose standards)...

``if you agree that the schools ought to have a dress code (which they do, at a minimum requiring that the child be clothed) then they certainly have the right to restrict certain types of clothing.``

a) Private schools, yes - Publically funded ones becmoes a public issue though.
b) Even if I agree otherwise, I would appreciate honesty on the matter as to why it is being done, or a plausable explanation without obvious flaws in logic.


``Just because you aren`t threatened by hijabi culture (which within the modern world could connote extremism) doesn`t mean that others shouldn`t be or aren`t.``

a) If others are fearing without knowledge, and are propogating their reasons for fear with an agenda - then the fear mongering needs to be exposed as a crock.
b) Your comment on education is very true. How sensitive should the immigrent community be? Not any more vigilant than the majority community. The majority community owns no proper argument to cultural continuity when it itself comes from a history of abandoning tradition. But I admit that inconsistancy is always a right, and so is knee-jerk reactionism to the unkown. That`s only human.

``To educated muslims these are extremists who oppress their women``

If this is a slight, then I am amused by it. I would like to think there is no difference between knowledgable and allegedly educated Muslims.

``It appears that`s how you see the native-immigrant relationship which is very relevant to your argument. ``

That is how I see your prescription for the native-immigrant relationship.

#45 vertex, I typed a long reply and tried editing it in the preview pane but it gave me a blank box. This has been a recurrent problem for me and my only choice seems to be post with typos & other errors.
Anyway, I`m not going to retype all that. In sum, if you agree that the schools ought to have a dress code (which they do, at a minimum requiring that the child be clothed) then they certainly have the right to restrict certain types of clothing. Just because you aren`t threatened by hijabi culture (which within the modern world could connote extremism) doesn`t mean that others shouldn`t be or aren`t. If the immigrant wants to be accepted as is, then she has to make the effort to educate. But then muslims themselves are divided over the role of hijab. My experience is similar to jang`s. Where i come from shuttle-cock burkas have popped up among certain communities that see themselves as more pious. To educated muslims these are extremists who oppress their women.
You brought up the master-slave topic. It appears that`s how you see the native-immigrant relationship which is very relevant to your argument.
Re: circumcision versus clitorectomy, one has been around for hundreds of years and hence has come to be tolerated. The other may or may not survive. Only time will tell. You`re expecting the french to jump over their shadows as it were - to live in their future now.

i NEVER saw hijab in india before 1990s (i grew-up right next to, maybe indide, a very large muslim ghetto, so i know what i am talking about. and mumbai has had all kinds of ghettos, sikh, sindhi, bengali, tamil, gujju and marathi etc). when travelling abroad, any dark (i mean wheatish) moon-faced hijabans would invariably be malay. now however, hijab seems to have really proliferated, from airport chai-wali to my local physicians assistant (initially i thought that its a nursing uniform thing but on closer inspection it turned out to be the hijab). how did this happen? before, the only time one would see hijab was when Door Darshan dutifully showed ``Daya Re Madina`` on Eid eve, the whole song had this very sad hijaban in front of a koran. due to these childhood memories, i associate hijab with deep sorrow and boredom.

i suspect the growing children of gulf-returnies has brought back this garment to india. this is cultural imperialism and i expect shivsena to stage a strong protest any day. hindu widows in past wore a pallu to cover their head, but that was because they shaved their head. will a ban-movement against hijab happen in inidia? unlikely, but surely it will be very violent. in many schools, kids wear uniform, but mostly these are private, and muslims (with hijab) go to their own schools. so hijab wont cause any friction there. maybe we will get a Aaj-Tak news anchor or MTV VeeJay in Hijab soon? Anyhoo, india being truely secular (as compared to france) i dont see this EVER being a problem. India being india, however, the hijab may start to deivate with Bandhani Prints, and Zari borders (Like Daler Medndis Pugaree) etc. THAT however may cause friction among the true believers and mere hijabans.

Also, can anyone among the learned here can explain the political statement behind wearing form-fitting clothes along with Hijab, which seems common among US teens of orthodox parents? And why do middle-easterners wear so much parfume? Is it not haram being alchohol based?

thank you, and i will take my answers off-line and happy fathers day hamidm.

vertex,

...you might be interested in reading the article on jilbab ( the next thing the muslimas will be demanding in france).............. http://www.danielpipes.org/

............ the fact of the matter is that the hijab is just a symbol of the islamists insane hatred for western civilization ............ the french simply chose to nip the evil in the bud..........

Folks, (Adnan and Vertex and others too) I am greatly indebted to your disection of the issue for a much clearer understanding. Hamidm2, thanks for your ........... . `........` is like a head scarf that distincts you, alas we must tolerate it!

soy,

``Little girls don`t choose to wear hijab - they are made to wear them. They are a sign that these girls are different - as girls and as girls of a different religion. It`s not simply a fashion statement that is the result of experimentation that will soon fade away to be replaced by something else.``

Come now, soysauce....every girl or boy is made to wear clothes too. And don’t be disingenuous and say that they may not be forced to wear particular clothes. The proper analog would be that they are forced to wear clothes period, and are not allowed by their parents to roam around nude. Of course a parent is going to raise them according to their own moral framework. For some, I repeat some, wearing Hijab becomes an established normative practice. Weather you agree with that practice or not, or weather you want to label it abusive for your own personal gratification is not at issue, nor is it relevant.

As for fashion, you missed the point. If the whole point of fashion is to make onself distinctive, then if it is done through Hijab what’s the problem? Because it’s a religion based distinction? Now, my point was that if France had a history such that it in fact strongly looked down on any kinds of assertion of identity through clothes, then I could understand this as a source for the ban (this ties in with the ‘secularity’ argument). However, no such tradition exists, and indeed on another level distinctive dress is encouraged. I’m not looking for potential problems, which you seem keen on inventing. I’m looking for the origins of the ban. This attempt at an excuse is obviously not it.

As for what the Hijab means, you can impose any meaning you want on it: distinction, solidarity with some other alien species. Doesn`t matter. What are these girls taught? That it is a requirement to dress ``modestly`` and that this is required to fullfill a certain requirement. Abba jee no doubt is walking around with `flood` pants and sports a beard as well for no other reason than `it is sunnah`. Yeah, yeah, it’s done to distinguish one as a Muslim and there`s a 1001 `benifits` they cite, but to suggest that it implies a subversive political ideology that espouses – I dunno, seraptism or something, then you’re out to lunch. I could care less if one agrees or not if these are `requirements` of Islam...but to call it or suggest a motivation for the act that the practitioners don`t...well that is sinister.

``There is no ideology behind them. I have to agree with others here that you`re being disingenuous at worst or conflating things at best.``

LOL, of course there’s an ideology behind them. The ideology is called ‘freedom’.

As for the Hijab, I’m afraid that’s not a matter of debate, but knowledge. I am a member of the community, I know exactly what is being taught and what is not. You can proclaim any kind of deviant desires on behalf of this community, but that only admits to your own desire to have this community persecuted.

``FYI, clitorectomy is not a fashion statement or a sign of rebelliousness either. It`s being branded, literally. Don`t you really know these distinctions or are you arguing for argument sake?``

A re-iteraiton of my last question to you on this topic: why not this if circumcision is allowed? I put aside the `children harming selves` argument for the sake of `circumcision vs. clitorectomy` argument. Why ban one and not the other? And here I am refering to the minor form practiced in the Middle East and not infibulation.

“ It won`t be a smooth process but there have to be gives and takes. I assume you are an immigrant yourself. Do you see the ``natives`` as your masters? If you do, there`s something seriously wrong with that. If not, do you take the north african immigrants to france as fools or cowardly?”

Soysauce, now you’re going on a serious wild tangent here. My point: IF the reason of these immigrants for not protesting the ban is not to rock the boat for fear of what the majority community thinks, THEN they are being rather cowardly. Second point: Long time immigrants, and first geners will have no such fear, nor should the latter even have to think about it. Third point: this obsequious mode of thinking being advocated here by the proponents at assimilate-at-any-cost types is ironically a sign of NOT being assimilated.

“…french people, are not endowed with the extraordinary qualities that you apparently possess of not feeling threatened in the presence of something very different and perhaps even antagonistic to your ideals, of accommodating everyone without receiving much in return, etc.”

As with the Hijab, you have a rather strange desire to project your own thoughts onto other people:

The facts (and I really shouldn’t have to do this) on france…

a) French people have a tradition of pluralism. This applies almost universally. Race, gay culture, religious/non-religious, and the list goes on. Now, you accuse me of coming down hard on the French…I recognize this about them. Okay? Happy?
b) In this tradition of pluralism, they have among other things toleration for mode of dress. Indeed, wear as much as you want, wear as little as you want. It is regarded as a ‘freedom’. On the topic of freedom, they also have a value that all citizens an practice their faith (PRACTICE) ‘freely’ – on an individual level of course. These are ‘personal’ freedoms.
c) They have passed a law that curtail certain personal freedoms. Yes, all across-the-board freedoms are subject to restrictions, but :

i) These laws, although applied across the board were intended to target a group.
ii) The invocation of ‘defense of secularism’ argument is absurd because of past govt. behavior which can only be deemed ‘unsecular’, and indeed the limited scope of the change is utterly irrelevant to France’s secular order which is hardly being undermined.
iii) It’s a sticky situation, but France has managed to get itself into a situation where they are now doing something inconsistent with their core values. Ugly, but hey, it happens. Given this, I only expect them to either attenuate their core values or admit to this inconsistency and correct the conflict by remaining true to their espoused values. This is as pro-French a position as you can get as this is the only logical outcome of the whole episode!!!!!! Now, I’m not really interested in excuses for this inconsistency, or lame attempts at reconciling it for the French (which I must admit, I always feel compelled to shoot down). Merely recognition of what is obvious.
iv) France, in the end, has ultimately the right to do whatever it wants.

Where is the utopia? Where is the coming down hard on France part or impossible expectations of them on my behalf? Calling a spade a spade is easy…people like you only make it difficult when you insist on calling a spade a shovel or a pick axe – and then to boot trying to give strange apologetics as to why this is or rather should be the case!

---

Ayesha,

“You have a remarkable ability to think that others are proving your points when in reality they are doing quite the opposite.”

Example?

“The questions you asked in your last response to me are already answered in my previous posts so you can look those up again.”

The questions were intended to provoke a clarification, which you seem unwilling or incapable of providing an answer for. No, you didn’t answer my questions.

“However, I will end my commentary on this discussion by saying the following: only a man who has no personal experience with either wearing or not wearing the hijab can argue in the manner that you have done, e.g., not recognizing the larger ramifications of the practice and convoluting the argument to make it just that--an argument.”

Or a woman. It’s silly to suggest that this is a women-only thing or that only women can understand this issue. I find it disgustingly hypocritical that you can go on about women who are forced to wear the Hijab, yet show outright support when they are forced to take it off. It is also sad that you fail to even acknowledge that some women choose to wear the thing. I mean, come on. You must not have any contact with the Muslim community to think this. However, I have no doubt you stuck to that rather indefensible position because of your flawed line of argument that sought to distinguish between “freedom to wear” and “freedom to impose”.

vertex,

I have pretty much reached my limit of debating a given topic on chowk with respect to this hijab issue, so I`ll let you have the last word you`re so dying for. Besides, soysauce is doing a pretty great job of countering your repeated arguments.

You have a remarkable ability to think that others are proving your points when in reality they are doing quite the opposite. The questions you asked in your last response to me are already answered in my previous posts so you can look those up again. However, I will end my commentary on this discussion by saying the following: only a man who has no personal experience with either wearing or not wearing the hijab can argue in the manner that you have done, e.g., not recognizing the larger ramifications of the practice and convoluting the argument to make it just that--an argument.

Omar:

What are you like 12??? HAHAHA. I know what an ABCD is. Too bad for u I am not one.

Do you know what a FOB is though?? With your chip on the shoulder attitude and immaturity, you certainly fit the stereotype. And mind you, don`t take this as anti Pakistani behavior coz its not. You would be equally noxious if you were Indian...

#38 vertex
Little girls don`t choose to wear hijab - they are made to wear them. They are a sign that these girls are different - as girls and as girls of a different religion. It`s not simply a fashion statement that is the result of experimentation that will soon fade away to be replaced by something else. Fashions don`t pose any threats. There is no ideology behind them. I have to agree with others here that you`re being disingenuous at worst or conflating things at best. FYI, clitorectomy is not a fashion statement or a sign of rebelliousness either. It`s being branded, literally. Don`t you really know these distinctions or are you arguing for argument sake?
As for the french not living up to their standards and you pulling them up for it, you must think that the immigrants have such low standards that you cannot really expect anything of them. Perhaps the french have a little more respect for the immigrants in that in addition to letting them in they also think that the immigrants are capable of assimilating eventually. It won`t be a smooth process but there have to be gives and takes. I assume you are an immigrant yourself. Do you see the ``natives`` as your masters? If you do, there`s something seriously wrong with that. If not, do you take the north african immigrants to france as fools or cowardly? They are some of the most raucous, most demanding minorities anywhere. As to the french feeling threatened, it is very natural. You ought to realize that most people, and that includes most french people, are not endowed with the extraordinary qualities that you apparently possess of not feeling threatened in the presence of something very different and perhaps even antagonistic to your ideals, of accomodating everyone without receiving much in return, etc. People like you are to be found only in a mythical land called utopia. I have a feeling that you probably don`t believe much of what you say either.
I sympathize with the french because they seem to be trying deperately to find a middle way between pure intellectualism and raw emotionalism.

``............. are you denying that there is no parallel between the hijab and the kkk hoods or the nazi brown shirts?``

I dunno why you`re making the comparison as if you consider it a bad thing...you clearly think like the kkk or a brown shirt nazi yourself. ``Protect the fatherland from the foreign barbarians!!!!``.

You`re a closet fascist, but the thing is you dont` like it when you preceive other fascists from pissin` on your territory. Add delusion and paranoia to the mix, and you have yourself one screwed up person.

`no offence` stuka but u really are an obnoxious prick yourself -- ever heard of the term ABCD stuka aka moron -- yea you`re the guy who thought the marriot in khi is constantly attacked because people think its US owned -- and u apparently work at marriot HQs -- do going stuka, oh i mean `obnoxious prick` u sorry ass loser -- and by the way spell my name correctly stooqa

vertex,

............. are you denying that there is no parallel between the hijab and the kkk hoods or the nazi brown shirts?........... you are right when you say that the ban is islam-specific ....... but that is how it should be .......... it would be silly of the french government to go around preventing the sikhs from making a spectacle of themselves, or trying to stop the mormons from cycling around town in white shirts and black ties - these people might be eyesores and pesky nuisances, but they are not a threat to the french way of life .............. enough said ............ now you can go on and indulge in your silly sophistry trying to justify the cultural practices of an ideology that is a threat to civilization ............

Soysauce,


“Vertex, I have thought more about the points you raised. Personally, I think veiling isolates girls. Peer pressure can be extremely taxing. “

You’re really stretching the argument now. Same can be applied to anything, including say mini-skirts. Muslim girls who don’t wear skimply clothings should be punished as well? How about obese girls, who feel isolated from the “thin and sexy” skinny ones? More realistically, how about skin color, or a thick accent? How about wild hair that can’t be combed into the latest fashion? How about…the list goes on. Come on, peer pressure has nothing to do with it since these girls go to schools with a good size community of people who are at the very least neutral to the Hijab.

I personally think you’re like me, and deep down don’t care either way if they wear the damn thing or not. Give me a favor: don’t come up with dumb reasons not to wear the Hijab and I won’t cite dumb reasons for wearing the Hijab, like some of the women quoted in the article. Deal?


But beyond that, my own bias is that veil is anti woman. I may be projecting my own feelings on the french government action.

But this is the point of the author, that beyond your own personal bias lies the realm of possibility (which many hear laughably refuse to admit) that some of these girls may do it on their own whim. And that in the end, it’s not your “Feelings” that matter, it’s in fact the feelings of these girls. Period. I may feel like you’re an anti-Muslim bigot. Does it mean that your are in fact a bigot? No.

”However, you may be right that the french government may have motivations other than deghettoizing or helping the girls. I don`t think this has been their argument.”

Nope. Their proclaimed argument has been only about ‘secularism’.

“Moreover, their banning the display of all religious symbols negates this line of thinking.”

Not really. Let’s say they ban all ‘sacrificial’ slaughter of animals. The ban may be across the board, but one has to be seriously living in denial to suggest that it’s not a targeted ban. Like I said, can you think of anything analogous to the Hijab in other faith communities? Anything that is recognized as necessary religious apparel, not easily hidden? Sikhs come to mind, but I’m not making it up when I say the French govt. has suggested in excusing them on grounds that the turban is ‘cultural’ and not ‘religious’. Nor am I making it up when I stated that the govt. did not consider the Sikhs when passing the law. Well, gee…what’s one to think. :)


“As i recall, the french muslim opinion on the matter of enacting this law tipped a bit in favor of it and many vocal muslim women were in favor of it as well. “

Sorry, I missed the point…and?

”In sum, I am not exactly sure if there were ulterior motives to this ban other than a fierce adherence to their secularism.”

Don’t see it. How fierce is their adherence to secularism when they at about the same time as the Hijab ban announced an increase in funding for religious organizations, particularly mosques?

In the end, my points are simple and two fold a) This ban is in fact targeted and b) it’s not at all about maintaining France’s secular order when the government itself practices wholly unsecular acts like funding religious organizations. Indeed, if Hijabi school children threaten France’s secular order, it can only mean that it is a hell of a lot more fragile than I thought…rather pathetic when you think about it.

---

soysauce (again),

“Of course you`re expecting the french to be better people than most others and want them to speed up the assimilation of newer immigrants with more accomodation. What`s with ``french masters?``”

French masters describes the way some immigrants would look upon the majority, not the attitude of the majority themselves. I expect nothing of the French other than being honest and avoiding hypocrisy. For example, they tout values and are violating them. There’s no easy way around that. It’s difficult and I sympathize, but I won’t make excuses for them. And you seem to acknowledge EXACTLY what they don’t: this is about the assimilation of immigrants. Then why the previous defense of the ‘this is for secularism’ crap?

“(Is there any nation out there that is doing the right thing most of the time or are they all failing your high standards?) “

What high standards? Expecting consistency with one’s own values is too much to ask for? I’m sorry, you have low standards if you don’t expect the same. Yes, yes, secularism is a “value”. But to suggest that this value is being defended is just absurd given greater violations of state-church separation than a bunch of school children wearing a scarf on their head in public school.

”Clitorectomy and circumcision are imposed on babies. The state has a duty to protect babies from acts that may harm them.”

Whatever. The point was why circumcision and not the former? The answer is obvious.

“Your argument that there`s something sinister about the timing - is there a better time?”

Sinister? No. Peculiar. It took these guys 100+ years to catch on that people were wearing religouns apparel in school? LOL. No, that’s not the case.

“One thing that bothered/bothers me is that apparently there were very few veiled girls attending school which makes you wonder if the law was necessary at all.”

I think overall that may be the case, but when you look at particular schools – we’d call them “inner city schools” in America – they’d have a significant number of students wearing the Hijab.

---

Ayesha,
”If you`re pro the ban, as you say, then I don`t understand why you would go to such lengths to argue for it.”

I think you mean argue against it? Not really. I’ll restate my position with regards to France in particular: they can do whatever the hell they want. It would, however, be very nice if it is done with a shred of honesty. As for going to such lengths, we all get our kicks one way or the other.

Now, on the other hand this issue has led to attack on the Hijab in general. Personally don’t care if someone wears it or not. But if you’re going to attack it unthinkingly, or even suggest that this is a good thing, then I’m sorry – I’m just too weak to resist challenging that notion.

“I completely disagree with you on your first point. And I do maintain that if a religious symbol is hidden from view, it is not violating the ban. And no, one cannot hide the hijab, which is why it is contentious.”

I’ll restate my point: the ban is targeted. In a way you proved my point: citing the inablility to wear religious pendants in class is not at all a good example of ‘others’ who are affected by this law.

“(although I believe it existed beforehand, not in the shape of a ban but otherwise, as an issue for women not being able to enter Islamic centres without it, etc.)”

How is that related to wearing Hijab in schools? Is this an issue? Yes. Is this a relevant issue? No.

“--how it is dealt with is clearly a reaction that the Muslim community could have thought of and deliberated upon by prioritizing the teachings of Islam instead of dealing with it in classic knee-jerk fashion.”

So, in other words the Muslim community should remain silent and obedient to the whims of the majority? What knee-jerk fashion are you talking about? Protesting? That is a KEY way of getting your point across. Pray tell, how should the people who are affected by the law deal with it?

“Lastly, I think you really need to spend some time in societies where women are forced to wear the hijab.”

I can play this game to.

I think you need to spend some time with those women who are forced or compelled to remove the Hijab. And, much to your surprise, they don’t only exist in Turkey or Algeria, but are also prevalent in America, UK, France, etc. It is not pleasant for these women to be reduced down to the scarf on their head. I personally know of several (dozens) cases of women who were told that they weren’t fit for a job because of they way they dress. Perfectly qualified, non- the-less. Yes, they were actually told this (yes, it violates laws in the states – yes it’s possible to sue, but everyone who tried was warned off by their lawyers).

So please don’t go on about the “poor women forced to wear a scarf” routine. Perhaps in the minority of the cases it’s like that, but that is just a minority. In most cases, the hijab is much more salient than you would like to believe.

---

Hamidm2,

“...............your argument is rather disingenuous and the usual islamist attempt at obfuscation and subterfuge ..........”

There is more substance in your ‘...’ then the random words that surround them.

---

Jang,

“vertex, your large number of posts seem to stem from attempting to hold the french to ``higher standard``.

Large number of posts? Well, that’s one way of looking at it…wouldn’t be so many if I didn’t’ get a large number of replies, no? :)

As for holding French to a higher standard, no I don’t think I am. Just trying to call a spade a spade. You just did, so I suppose I have no quarrel with you :)

no one (i dont think) disagrees that the french ban is anti-muslim and a political statement. vertex, your large number of posts seem to stem from attempting to hold the french to ``higher standard``. this law is an attempt by the french to say enough is enough regarding muslim influence diluting frenchiyat. they do it all the time, sometimes protesting McDonald, making Coke more expensive than Perrier (not an easy task) and other sundry things. not a week passes by when we hear of the french farmers protesting against algerian champagne or fake wisconsin brie. and who told you that french are accomodating people at all? they are the most snobish.. i heard an older french lady complain about her algerian neighbor. she said something which sumed up as ``we french love foreign influences from these folks as long as they talk french with correct accent, eat, dress and look like french``.

so in summary, no one, least of all the french, will put-up with ``percieved`` in-you-face stuff. if you want hijab ``in`` like the male circumcision, it will have to come via non-threatning route after long years of strong contributions (like the topiwallas) in various walks of modeern life. i can imagine then the french themselves will hold an exibition in their musee about hijabs, and house of dior will introduce the new fall line of hijabs. so, confrontation without clout (via percieved contributions to the larger society) will merely get the facists more votes. by contribution i mean stereotyping of north-african (or arab) muslims as doctors, lawyers, musicians, professors. so, Dr ben Cohen should be as stereotypical as Dr bin Caliph (or something). See, a win-win situation!

``......... so, it is not an innocuous little piece of cloth that scares the escargot out the french and other civilized people ................ it is the ideology that lies behind it …………it is the ideology that claims to be superior to all others and seeks to destroy anything that is different.............that’s what this is all about, period(s)...............``


Precisely.