HOME | DD
Velica β The curious case of the niqab
Published: 2010-02-11 01:16:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 18307; Favourites: 101; Downloads: 871
Redirect to original
Description
All across Europe a strange phenomenon is occurring.Both the left and right wing strongly oppose the use of niqΔb and the burqa by Muslim women. Months after the minaret ban in Switzerland commotion begun in France, UK, Germany and other European countries to ban the face enveloping garment.
However, and this is in my opinion the curious bit, the reasons behind this opposition are completely different between left and right wingers.
The right bases its argument on security and integration. This is, of course, a mask for the post-9/11 islamophobia and the result of a conservative bunch not liking to see people dressed differently. Maybe the next ban will be the Sikh turbans, then the tatoos, long hair and so on.
At the left the word of order is equality, female emancipation and fight against patriarchy.
From my description of things you can imagine I sit closer to the left than to the right. Yet, I can not agree with any sort of government-endorsed ban on clothing. I too disagree that women should cover themselves for fear of punishment, shame or any sort of oppressive force but it is up to them to initiate the struggle against it.
The western values of freedom, equality and emancipation should not be imposed to anyone. Instead these values should remain strong here amongst us and seduce other cultures to adopt them. If they want.
Related content
Comments: 245
Who is looking down on which religion?
π: 0 β©: 0
I've also put this on my blog - [link]
If you want me to take it down, just ask
π: 0 β©: 1
Cool, shouldn't be a problem. I can't access your blog though, so can't really see the post.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree to the fear due to security reasons, but i wear the niqab and most of us niqab/burqa women open or lift our niqab to be identified by banks, police and air ports...so why cant all countries do that?
I believe there's more to it then 'security' and 'women's rights' because all niqab women I know wore niqab BEFORE marriage and with not any family pressures...I wore niqab before marriage and my family aren't Muslims so I wasnt pressured by anyone
π: 0 β©: 0
It is a very interesting image!
But firstly you should maybe understand that the burqa is NOT a religious symbol, and so as such isn't banned in some countries based on religious motives. Some commentators said really intelligent things, and in theory I would agree that to ban a garment isn't the way to go. I consider myself to be quite liberal and equalitarian, but recently I've been "forced" to adopt more radical views (although they aren't that radical).
I live in Belgium where the burqa/niqab was recently banned, and I can't say I disagree with the passing of this law. I don't believe it's the best thing to do, but unfortunately how could it have not come to this? By banning the burqa we are banning a symbol. And yes it is unfair for the women who have to wear it (helping these women at the root would be the real solution) or even choose to wear it, but guess what some muslims make other claims that are unacceptable to a society that upholds the values of tolerance and harmonious living. Claims that express the desire to receive accomodations at work, at school, etc... But if we accept those demands, we would then be obliged to accept the demands of every religion! It is not possible to do this in countries where church and state are (supposed) to be kept apart! I mean in France you have towns where there are public swimming pools where men and women are separated! It's ridiculous...
We're more than tolerant, we are laxists. Go to Saoudie Arabia or Iran and you'll get arrested if you are a woman walking in the street uncovered... I do believe that the situation in Europe is far better...
So not only is banning the burqa NOT a form of oppression against a religion whose faith is twisted by some men anyway (like it happened for centuries with christianity...), it is a way of saying STOP! Of showing that we live in a country, on a continent, that refuses to step back in the Middle Ages, in an age of moral, religious and societal repression. And yes, the fact that we have to do so through the ban of a piece of black or blue cloth is somewhat pathetic, but isn't it better than civil war or voting for extremist parties, which we'll sadly come to if the situation continues the way it does... ? Maybe one day we'll live in a truly tolerant society, where men and women are truly and finally equal, where women and men of all faiths and clothing style will be able to walk in the street peacefully. But I kind of doubt it, which is immeasurably sad. Oh well, what's life without dreams?
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not sure I understand you.
We should ban the burqa because its unfair to women, because if we dont Europe will return to the dark ages or because in Saudi Arabia and Iran they do things like these than its ok for us to do it here?
And what about accommodating muslims? Do we not have to accomodate christian demands as well? Do we not have to accommodate vegetarians? In Britain you have female only gyms, pools and driving schools. What about? Does it affect your life?
Also, blocking the lifestyle of a minority to avoid "a civil war" is basically condoning with oppression.
Who is to say that in the next ten years Europe will turn increasingly more conservative. Then who is next to be culled to avoid "unrest"? The sikhs? The hindus? The communists? The atheists? The homossexuals?
Banning the burqa opens a very dangerous precedent.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is why I'm saying that the burqa is NOT a religious symbol. By definition banning the burqa is not repressing the muslim community! I have nothing against muslims in general, I even have a muslim friend who wears the veil or hidjab. The burqa or niqab is not prescribed by the Koran (you could even argue that it doesn't prescribe the veil as such). So technically speaking you're not attacking the religion in itself.
My point is that in Saudi Arabia and Iran they are much more repressive than we are. Even by banning the burqa we're much more open and "liberal" than a lot of so called "muslim" countries. It is a symbollic gesture more than anything else. I mean do you honestly think that they are going to arrest women wearing burqas in the street. Obviously I can't speak for Britain but in Belgium where the police isn't really good, I highly doubt it'll happen, but that's another matter...
I don't think we should make accomodations to every single religion residing in our countries in the public sector simply because it would make a hell of a mess! We're supposed to be living in countries where religion and state are separated, and where religion is to be a matter of private life. For example, I don't think the state should pay for the construction of new churches or mosques, etc...
I don't know that Europe will turn more conservative, I hope not, but when you see for example that in Brussels, my home city, there are communes with a majority of muslims from north Africa where some families are moving because there is basically no law and order and the young population is becoming increasingly radical, you start to see things differently. It is more sad than anything else, and yes, it is just one example, but that IS reality.
So I'll repeat that banning the burqa is not the best of solutions, far from it, but I can't say that it is the worst either.
π: 0 β©: 1
The burqa may not be a necessary symbol of Islam (although some branches of the religion defend it is) but its surely a cultural symbol. But that doesn't matter as it is a person's choice.
Again, just because SA and Iran are repressive theocracies that doesn't mean we can ban things and then say "look, its still worst off in Iran". Two wrongs don't make a right. The state has no right to tell you what you can and can't wear in civil life.
Its not about making accommodations. Its about "live and let live". Just because there are women-only swimming pools or halal restaurants doesn't mean that the state has become less secular. Of course the state shouldn't fund the building of religious centres but privately the communities should be free to do so.
All EU countries have immigration problems and ghetos with unintegrated communities. Banning elements of their lifestyle will only increase hanger and disgruntle towards the dominating community (the Belgians, the French, the British).
The burqa ban in Belgium has come to such a ridiculous point that even the Americans are making fun of it.
π: 0 β©: 1
The burqa ban may be ridiculous, still now the French are considering doing the same thing.
I can understand your point of view, still I don't think that "live and let live" is the answer either. It should be. I completely agree that ideally it should be, but for the moment it just isn't possible. I mean some "cultures" condone genital mutilation and honour killings, does that mean we should let it live? Yes, the burqa is far less serious than those issues, but still, it is posing a limit, albeit a "symbollic" one.
And if the government shouldn't be allowed to decide what you can and cannot wear, why is public nudity illegal? It is the opposite extreme. Because it is offending to the majority of the population? Because it is morally wrong? By what standards? It works both ways.
But I can accept that you disagree with this reasoning. Honestly, I would rather trade the burqa ban with better regulations on immigration and social laws in general. Maybe, hopefully, these will come next.
π: 0 β©: 1
Burqa, genital mutilation, honour killing. All the same, I suppose.
There is a limit to an argument and you have just stretched it. Any reasonable person would not think of comparing these things in the context of this debate.
As for the nudity, again, stretching an argument to its very extreme. Still, I'm sure nudity would be something to be considered if (weather permitting) a significant group of people showed interest in it. Let's just remind ourselves that homosexuality was deemed immoral and illegal not that many decades ago.
The banner of post-Fascist Europe is and should always be freedom of the individual. It's a shame to see it change just because we swallowed "war on terror" propaganda so readily...
π: 0 β©: 1
Exactly my point. I don't think nudity is immoral or "wrong", but since society deems it unacceptable, I have to keep nudity confined to my private life, not my "public" one. In a society where several cultures have to live together, freedom of the individual should be valued and upheld as extremely important, because it is, but my freedom also has to end where yours begins. Again, in the "public" sphere.
But I agree it is quite a complex debate. There is no easy solution. And I'll stop here, because like you said I've reached the most extreme arguments (although the argument on nudity sounds quite logical to me) and because it is clear that I am unable of making myself understood. I don't know if you've read my answer correctly, but I never actually said that the burqa and genital mutilation were the same!
π: 0 β©: 1
You did repair the mutilation and burqa argument in the end by saying it was not *exactly* the same. Yet, you compared them.
I just don't understand how a woman wearing a burqa (her freedom to do so) interferes with your freedom. It's simply none of your business.
You start with the burqa, then retract the rights of homosexuals, then all other minorities ending up in one damp uniform mash of scared white Europeans. Let's grow up.
π: 0 β©: 1
Retract the rights of homosexuals...?!
Ok, whatever you say.
π: 0 β©: 0
hi, I liked this picture so much that I featured it in my journal [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
you're most welcome, it was a very interesting concept
π: 0 β©: 0
I like this. As you know from our other discussion, I am a Muslim woman. I wear neither a headscarf or a burqa, and, while I feel burqas are unnecessary, banning them angers the feminist in me more than the Muslim in me. To take anything away from a woman is oppression, if I were no longer allowed to wear the comfortable clothes I wear that make me feel safe and forced to wear bikinis, that would be oppression, same as removing a woman's right to cover herself.
I find anyone who supposedly holds to ideals of equality and freedom who supports banning it, to be a hypocrite quite frankly, though I can understand some objections to it.
To don a veil or not is solely a woman's choice and hers alone to make, men [or even other women] have no right to tell her what to do, that's real egalitarianism when a person's right to choose is respected.
π: 0 β©: 2
Oh, ignore my first reply to your comment. I didn't realise your talking about this cartoon.
π: 0 β©: 1
Please, re- re-read my previous comments. I'm very much against the burqa/niqab ban or any other form of state-endorsed law on clothing. So, in terms of where the law should be it seems we are very much in agreement.
My stand against a woman covering herself is personal but, in the last stand, it is her choice, not mine. Still, I would not visit a country where my wife, mother or female friends would be forced to cover themselves due to "decency" laws.
I hope our debate hasn't been offensive in any way.
All the best
π: 0 β©: 0
What I don't like is that all the countries that I know of that deal with niqab say they are secular, but they single it out because it's a religious symbol. I never heard of people being concerned about surgical masks that people wear sometimes, or such. If it's legal to cover one's face in public (which it usually is) then it should matter whether the face cover is for religious or some other purpose. And if banks or some such don't let people with covered face in for security reasons, well then they won't let anyone wearing a niqab either, but that wouldn't have anything to do with religion.
π: 0 β©: 1
The whole debate is very illogical.
Can you imagine if such demands and bans were applied to the Jewish community?
π: 0 β©: 0
You're also not allowed to wear hoodies in most shopping centres, or halloween masks when you go into banks. Make of that what you will.
Beautifully drawn image, and fantastically thought out.
π: 0 β©: 1
I remember the first time I went to a bar in England and I was wearing a hoody (it was raining outside). The "bouncer" was really aggressive about it and made me take it out.
Still shocks me how British urban societies can be so aggressive, especially in the most-deprived areas.
π: 0 β©: 1
Need to be. If you look intimidating on the bus, nobody is going to start a fight with you.
Unfortunately, that leads to everyone being cold and intimidating on all public transport.
It's nice when you get past that and have a conversation.
I think what would be fairer to say is that the British public are FRIGHTENED/paranoid, and not aggressive. When we travel, we put on masks to prevent theft or bodily harm. Cold personas which aren't open to emotional blackmail. Of course, not once in my time as a British citizen have I ever seen any of these crimes, but it is a constant worry. Get past that, and we're as friendly as your own aunt.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've been here for almost five years. Its not just in the bus.
Still, I've met some of the most interesting people I know in this little island
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
What's that short for?
I've always heard it, but could never point to it on a map.
Oh, that and 'Brummer', someone from 'Brum'.
π: 0 β©: 1
Birmingham. Ex-capital of the industrial revolution. Current chav capital.
π: 0 β©: 1
Duh! Of course.
Brum=Burbrins and caps.
I don't envy you.
π: 0 β©: 1
But why is it that no one seems to care about how Sikhs dress. Or Jewish men. Or women in Sari? They all dress differently and have very strong culture. Maybe they are not in the news enough. Maybe we have to wait until Britain invades India or Israel. Who knows?
Muslims are different. Sikhs are different. Damn, even Portuguese are slightly different. Are we all supposed to become snobbish rugby-loving imperialists just because we moved to Britain*?
Of course, with this I'm not implying that people should do whatever they want. But as long as we are not breaking any law, who cares if we wear a turban, a hijab or a very flashy t-shirt?
*stereotyping used for the sake of emphasis
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I've been fermenting against the British government for a long time and don't even get me started on the monarchy. But then again, I know quite a lot of Brits that think like me so I think I'm fitting in anyway.
Yes, devout muslims are against drinking and liberal sex. So are devout christians and, generally, devouts of most religions and sects, indigenous or not. I also don't agree with many aspects of British society and yet, I contribute to it. Not agreeing with the dominant lifestyle doesn't mean you can't fit in. There was, there are and always will be sub-cultures inside societies, even in the absence of migrants.
I feel that the problem lies with young British muslims that feel a bit divided between cultures and are prone to radicalization because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It would help to end those mindless wars, I think.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, if the government/monarchy is often incorrect and rules unjustly against its citizens or citizens of another country, then dissent (either by satirists or traitors) is a duty.
I think after Europe's history of colonisation and exploitation of the world, asking for "submission" is, at best, slightly cynical.
Terrorism has been around for many years (and the Brits should know, because most of it has been against them). Do you go on and use that as an excuse to begin wars and re-seed the colonial feeling? I think it is time for the Western nations to submit as well.
π: 0 β©: 1
We should remember our shady past when we demand things from who our ancestors used to exploit. Not compromise our way of life, but at least, have it in mind.
Besides, justifying these wars with "security" is throwing sand in our eyes. How many civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can feel slightly safer around here? How many people do you know that have been murdered in a terrorist attack?
There is absolutely no cause behind this other than financial interest. Even though I despise the religious fundamentalist's way of life, at least these guys are fighting for a cause. They're defending their land.
π: 0 β©: 1
As I said, I despise their political and social views. I'm pretty aware of their fascizoid nature. But who put the police hat on the US and Britain to go around and SELECTIVELY putting things "in line" or "civilised"?
I also don't agree with the Hindu caste system. Or with child mutilation in Africa. Or the dauri culture in Asia. Or with the autocratic regimes in North Korea and China. What about these places? Shall we invade them all and bring them the values of our "oh-so-advanced" culture?
And what's going to happen now in Afghanistan? Our brave troops will keep spending billions of pounds fighting shepherds until they finally push them into Pakistan? Then perhaps invade Pakistan and ravage our way until Tehran? Put them all in line.
Me and many other Europeans are getting pretty fed up with the attitude of our governments towards the rest of the world.
π: 0 β©: 0
I have to add that if those women had taken the matter into their own hands, this issue wouldn't have become a political piΓ±ata.
π: 0 β©: 1
So blame it on the women? No one, not even the government, would listen to them! Stop being ridiculous!
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not blaming anyone. All I'm saying is that if you're not willing to stand up for your rights, don't expect anyone else to do it for you.
π: 0 β©: 2
it sometimes feels as though nobody cares to get the insight from muslim women on the burka issue...i am a muslim living in britain and i wear the hijab....not the veil yet but i know a lot of women who do and not one of them have been forced into it. In fact people might find this hard to believe because of what the media has fed everyone but many of the girls i know have had a hard time from their families for wanting to wear the burka. Mostly because people are afraid of the stigma that comes with it so they will not allow their daughters or wifes to wear it. We don't cover ourselves to please men or follow their orders...we believe women are precious and their beauty is something sacred and should only be shared with certain people. We wear it because we are told by Our God to not make a display of our beauty...we do not wear it for any other reason. So in actual fact putting a bann on the burka is oppression for many many women. Its ridiculous for it to be perfectly okay for a woman to walk around naked but bann a woman from wanting to cover up
π: 0 β©: 2
Don't take this the wrong way I am merely curious. You can correct me If I am wrong. I have been to many Muslim country's and I was told it was not part of the religion. There use to be many belly dancing etc and the only reason someone would wear a burka is because of the dessert. To stop sand from hurting in sand storms? So its more of a cultural thing the a religious thing. But as I said. I have no idea if this is true or not. That's why I ask you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hi,
Its not a cultural thing the difference within the main group of Islam is that same say it is obligatory and others say it is recommended but not obligatory
some people are not very well versed in their religion and someone says something in the media and they all think well that must be correct, but as for the ladies who choose to wear it the majority of them study Islam in-depth and feel the need to wear it
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks very much for your explanation. I appreciate the extra knowledge
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>