Islamic Like Me: Why The Veil Is A Threat

My series about my adventures in a Saudi burka generated a lot of fascinating comments by Huffposters. Yesterday I replied to those who insisted that our Western culture was more sexually oppressive than the burka. Today I'll deal with the frequently-made-observation by readers: If a woman wants to wear a burka in a democratic society, what's it to us? (Readers who are catching up can click here to see a video of my experience, which appears in Canada's National Post. Click here to read all four parts of my series and the subsequent debates.)

Just because veiling is culturally different from our customs, why should we feel threatened by it?

A good question. Tolerance of other cultures and religions is one of the founding pillars of a democratic society. Certainly I found the tolerance with which I was greeted all week in my burka to some degree heartening: Whatever thoughts, opinions, surprise, fear or anger my appearance provoked in others was, with rare exception, suppressed; everywhere I went most people went out of their way to be polite -- when they weren't utterly indifferent to how I looked (see Part Three for more on this point).

Yet tolerance in a free society should not extend to accepting (or ignoring) practices that violate our laws and our norms. Honor killings; female genital mutilation; female illiteracy; women forced to hide their faces in public; women forbidden to leave the house without the company of a man: these are phenomenon which we, in the West, imagine happen in other places, to women far away in the Middle East or living among distant Muslim tribes.

But we are out of touch with what is happening in democratic societies -- until it is shockingly brought to our attention. The murder of a 16-year-old Muslim girl by her father this week in Toronto -- allegedly for the girl's refusal to wear hijab -- is now being decried as Canada's first honor killing. It may better be described as the first one we officially know about. For how many of us here know that female genital mutilation takes place in the United States? How many of us realize that women in allegedly free societies such as Holland and England are being imprisoned in their homes, by their own husbands and parents? How many are aware that women in places as familiar as northern Italy or upstate New York have been victims of the "honor killings?"

In Western democracies, religious freedom is not only tolerated but encouraged. Womens' rights are not only respected, but legally enforced. Most of the time, these two principles are thoroughly compatible. Yet in recent years, women's rights have been systemically undermined by Islamic religious authorities operating in full and knowledgeable defiance of the law.

Shockingly few in the West are willing to speak up on behalf of these victimized women, not least because those who do are subject to threats of physical harm and even death. Brave women such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lives in hiding under armed protection, activist Wafa Sultan, and Canada's Irshad Manji, literally put their lives at risk every time they speak out against Islamic tyranny. But ignoring this tyranny comes at our own peril. If we excuse assaults against our citizens and our laws on "ethnic" grounds -- believing, as too many on the left do, that these assaults are culturally relative -- we will one day wake up to find ourselves living in societies we no longer recognize. The most fanatical brands of Islam will be setting the rules we live by.

Consider what is happening already (and forgive me readers if I go on longer than the usual posting to set out examples):

Erosions to our freedom of speech and religion

* According to the Sunday Times of London, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, England, says that the persecution of Christian converts from Islam is so widespread that it may be only a matter of time before there is an "honour killing" of a convert by family or relatives. He spoke out as the Barnabas Fund, a charity that looks after persecuted Christians around the world, estimated that there are more than a thousand attacks each year against former Muslims across Britain.

* The BBC reported that a Muslim dentist in Bury, England made a woman wear Islamic dress as the price of accepting her as a patient in the National Health Service. The dentist is said to have told the patient that unless she wore a headscarf she would have to find another practice.

* Here in the U.S., a popular syndicated comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident was deemed too controversial to run because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists, according to Fox News: The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run a Sunday installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.

* The National Iranian American Council claimed a "mutual victory" after convincing writer-director Wayne Kramer and one of his stars to remove a family "honor killing" from a film starring Harrison Ford and Sean Penn. In the original plot, an Iranian-American woman is killed by her brother after having an affair with a Latino man; The act is sanctioned by their father. After the NIAC learned of the story, its director contacted Kramer and one of the stars; under pressure, Kramer agreed to reshoots and script changes in order to take out the phrase "honor killing" as possibly offensive to Muslim-Americans.

Women citizens are being denied education, forcibly married, beaten, and imprisoned against their will.

* In the course of teaching Dutch to immigrants, a woman in Amsterdam met Samira, a 40-year-old Muslim wife and mother of three, who had being imprisoned in her home by her husband: "Samira can't read, can't write, can't count, and doesn't speak a word of Dutch... I take the brochures of the supermarket to point to images: "bread," "tomatoes." ... [but] she's only allowed to go shopping on Friday with 'mister' to haul the groceries. Other than that, she's not allowed to go outside. When I propose that we're going to do something [about this,] she turns red out of fright." [translated from an article in the Dutch newspaper, Het Parool, Sept. 5, 2007]

* In Derby, England, an 18-year-old woman named Lina finally escaped to a women's shelter after being imprisoned by her parents in their home. Until then, Lina had never worn Western clothing. Her parents, immigrants from Pakistan, insisted she wear the jilbab, a head-to-toe covering favored by conservative Muslims. When she turned 16, her parents informed her that she was "engaged" to her first cousin, a 21-year-old man she detested. When she balked, her parents withdrew her from school and locked her in her room, where they told her she would remain until she consented. They padlocked her door, locked the windows, installed spikes along the top of the backyard fence so she couldn't climb over. For two years, she was allowed out of her room only to do housework , and beaten frequently. [from The Chicago Tribune, Jan.2, 2006:"`I knew I was only one of many'; Jasvinder Sanghera escaped an arranged marriage and started a shelter to keep other women in Britain from being forced to marry"]

* In March 2007, a German judge used the Koran in her ruling to deny a German Muslim woman's request for a fast-track divorce. The case concerned a 26-year-old German woman of Moroccan origin and her violent Moroccan husband, a man who had beaten and threatened to kill her, despite having been ordered to stay away by the authorities. When the woman's attorney filed a petition for an expedited divorce, the judge, Christa Datz-Winter, stated that there was no evidence of "an unreasonable hardship," and therefore no need to dissolve the marriage immediately. Instead, the judge argued, the woman should have "expected" that her husband, who had grown up in a country influenced by Islamic tradition, would exercise the "right to use corporal punishment" his religion grants him. The judge even went so far as to quote the Koran in the grounds for her decision. In Sura 4, verse 34, she wrote, the Koran contains "both the husband's right to use corporal punishment against a disobedient wife and the establishment of the husband's superiority over the wife."

Children are being abducted and Western parents are being denied custodial rights.

* The daughter of an English mother and Pakistani father,Molly Campbell, vanished from Scotland in August 2006, re-appearing days later in Lahore, saying she had begged her father to escape from her mother's home. Molly's mother claimed her husband had abducted the girl. Molly's father stated that no Muslim girl should live with an "apostate mother" in a sexually permissive culture. Just months after her departure from the UK, the girl was wearing a burkha and had enrolled at the Jamia Hafsa madrassa in Islamabad. The school is known for its pro-Taliban views and suspected links to al-Qaeda.

*In the United States, the all-too-common case is of a Saudi father taking his children back to Saudi Arabia, no matter what custody arrangement has been ordered by a judge. Typical is this instance from the St. Louis-Post Dispatch on March 28, 1993:

"It's been a year since Debra Smith last saw her daughter, Amirah, at the traumatic end of an international custody fight between two determined parents and two clashing cultures. Smith vividly recalls how her ex-husband, Adel Mohammed Zaghbi, a Saudi Arabian airline pilot, took "a solemn and binding oath" before a judge and then before an Islamic leader. Zaghbi swore on the Koran, the Islamic holy book, that he would allow his daughter at least three visits a year to the United States to see her mother. He also agreed to allow mother and daughter to communicate by letter and telephone. That hasn't happened.

"Smith, 31, of St. Louis, hasn't heard a word from Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, about her daughter's well-being. In fact, her letters have gone unanswered. And 7-year-old Amirah has not been sent to the United States for visits with her mother, as ordered by a divorce decree that settled the custody case."

The tribal practice of female circumcision/genital mutiliation is being forced upon girls in the United States and other Western countries.

* From the Boston Globe: Based on the census data of 2000, the African Women's Health Center at Brigham & Women's Hospital, which tracks the practice, estimates that 228,000 girls and women in the United States have either undergone female genital mutilation or are at risk. "Some experts who work in the communities, say they have not seen evidence of a flourishing underground practice....[but] they do believe...that some immigrants might send their daughters back to their native countries for the procedure...."

*From the same source above: In Seattle in 1996, Somali mothers giving birth at the Harborview Medical Center requested that their daughters be circumcised [mutiliated] as well as their sons. The hospital devised a compromise: the girls would be "nicked" on the clitoral hood, in a symbolic gesture meant to deter the families from performing the traditional practice. The plan, which the immigrants supported, was to perform the procedure under local anesthetic when the girls were old enough to give informed consent. When news of the proposal broke, public outrage forced the hospital to back down from its compromise.

Women are being murdered on Western soil, victims of "honor killings."

* In 2004, a Turkish immigrant was charged with killing his wife and critically injuring his two daughters in their Scottsville, NY townhouse. In his court defense, he argued that he had acted as a matter of honor: He had attacked his wife and daughters after learning that his brother had molested them. He also said his four year-old daughter had been "sullied" by a gynecological exam. [From the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Apr. 24, 2004]

*From London's Observer: In 2006, in Italy, a 21-year-old Pakistani woman called Hina Salee was murdered for daring to have an Italian boyfriend. Hina's father, aided by three male relatives, cut his own daughter's throat, after a family council condemned her to death for her liaison with Beppe Tampini, a local carpenter. The Saleem family had arrived in Brescia from Pakistan five years earlier.

*From London's Guardian: In 2006, in Britain, Samaira Nazir was murdered because she wanted to marry her Afghan boyfriend, rather than someone from the family circle. She argued with her family -- neighbors heard her shout at her mother "You are not my mother any more" -- and tried to escape. But she was dragged back into her house by the hair. Her family held her down, tied a silk scarf round her neck, and slashed her neck three times.

* The Dutch estimate that "several tens of people are killed per year because of honor vengeance." In the Hague alone, police say that between October 2004 and March 2005, 119 young people were victims of violence by their own families, though most non-lethal. Usha Sood, a British human rights lawyer, has told BBC Radio [that] "honour crimes of some sort," whether or not they resulted in death, are becoming more common in Britain as well. Diana Nammi, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization, told the BBC she believed there, in addition, "lots of cases where woman have been forced to commit suicide." Police estimate there are 30 honor killings a year in Britain, although lawyers and social workers believe the number is much higher.

AND THESE ARE only a handful of examples that have taken place worldwide in democratic countries. So to go back to my original question: What does all this have to do with tolerating a woman on the subway with a burka?

I would argue: Everything. The more pervasive and familiar a sight it becomes in our society, the more indifferent we will become to its meaning -- and to those who are forced to wear it. For the burka, as I noted in Part One, is not itself a religious garment: "North American and European Muslim leaders insist that the Koran does not require full cover-up, that little more is required than modest clothes and a headscarf." Indeed, there is much debate within Muslim circles as to what the few vague verses in the Koran that refer to female dress actually mean (just Google "hijab" and you'll pull up dozens of sites engaged in this very question). What it is is a cultural and even political garment, imposed upon women in societies where they are regarded as property, not human beings. Even if a woman takes it up willingly -- as some do -- that doesn't detract from the burka's symbolism. As some Huffposters have noted, many of these women veil themselves in order to protest Western culture and show their defiance towards it.

That's honest of them--and we should be honest in return, by not accepting their defiance -- nor their forced compliance -- in our free societies. In Part Four I compared the wearing of a burka with the wearing of a Klan robe:

"If I had chosen to walk about Washington in a white hood and sheets rather than black ones, I doubt I would have encountered such universal politeness. And yet, what the Klan outfit represents to someone of African-American descent is exactly what the burka should represent to every free woman. Those who impose it upon women believe that a whole category of human beings can be treated as property; that this category may be beaten, sold into marriage, divorced at whim, denied education and work, raped with impunity, and stoned to death for offenses that would be pardoned in a man. For the wearer of the white hood, the subjugated category is defined by race. For the wearer of the black hood, it's defined by sex. Otherwise the two garments carry the same meaning--with the slight variation that one is worn by the would-be oppressor, the other by the oppressed."

For this reason, and as the price of joining secular society, the French and Turkish governments have taken steps to ban all forms of hijab. Americans needn't -- and obviously shouldn't -- have to go that far. Minimally, we should not cave to pressure tactics nor tolerate customs that are hostile to a democratic understanding of human rights.

Many societies have recognized that under certain circumstances, concealment is something more than a personal choice. As long ago as 1875, the U.S. Congress attempted to prohibit the wearing of Ku Klux Klan robes. In the last days before the fascist takeover, the Italian parliament banned the face masks worn by fascist bands. Kemal Ataturk's Turkish reformers banned hijab -- not only the veil, but even just the head covering -- in all public places.

I'm hanging up my burka for now. It's lovely to breathe in fresh air again-both literally, without a mask, and figuratively, in the debate my series has inspired among you. That's what we do in a free society -- debate, women equally alongside men.

Comments

[philhubb]

Has it occurred to anyone that under Taliban rule (strict Sharia law) men also have a very strict dress code? I've never seen a man in Afghanistan who wasn't covered from head to toe, even in intense heat. The only flesh you can see on him is the part of his face that refuses to grow hair.
For that matter, the men in Saudi Arabia wear long, flowing robes and must cover their heads at all times.

Honestly, Islam promotes modesty in the extreme, for both men and women.
All this hoopla about the burkha is just more crap taken totally out of proper social context .
And if a man were to wear that burkha, he would be presumed a criminal, trying to conceal his identity, and probably stoned to death. It's a dress code and it doesn't just affect women. Though one wouldn't know it to hear the westerners wail about it.

As an aside, just what is meant by the following quote, taken from the article?
"Yet tolerance in a free society should not extend to accepting (or ignoring) practices that violate our laws and our norms."

Tolerance that doesn't extend to practices that aren't within the norm is no tolerance at all.
One could use Ms Crittenden's statement in defense of punishing homosexuals or even left handed people, since they are "outside our norms."

This is the sort of ad hoc argumentum that leads most thoughtful observers to the realization that feminist scholarship is not ready for prime time.
It's no wonder feminists need their own department at the university. When you're relying on such tepid sophistry, you need to stay cloistered. It all gets blown to hell in the light of day.

[magen]

These are all problems that need to be worked out within Islam's OWN culture and traditions.

Just as you can't export democracy, you can't impose your cultural values upon people, without force, which eventually is defeated by the masses.

A lot of Muslims consider the hyper-sexualization of western society a threat to their culture.

[Circe]

The wanton display of ignorance about Islam, people who believe in Islam and the position of women in Islamic society indicated by most of the posts here is appalling.

Having worked with women of the Islamic faith from various countries has taught me that Islam, like all other world religions has variations and nuances beyond measure.

Most modern Islamic women (and their husbands, fathers, and brothers) find the burka as physically dangerous to the wearer as Ms. Crittenden indicated. In the European cities I visit regularly (I live in the Netherlands), the burka is the exception rather than the rule. The hijab or headscarf is worn, or not; and to be honest, the women of my acquaintence who wear it, wear it of their own accord.

Most people of the Islamic faith are peace loving, good, hard working people who just want to get on with their lives and aren't concerned with imposing their religious beliefs on others (unlike the Jehova's Witnesses who show up at my door every weekend).

Female circumcision is a heinous crime and actually a cultural (rather than religious based) practice in parts of North Africa and among some nomadic peoples. Where is the outcry about western women having their labia altered to suit the current ideal of beauty? Fair's fair---It's ridiculous to circumcise anyone, including male babies and even considering altering one's genitalia to fit what's trendy is absolutely sickening.

There are fanatics of all faiths, colors and philosopical standpoints. The majority of us are not fanatics although this does not make for "good" press or exciting news.

It seems to me that the world needs a collective "time out" after which we must begin to identify those things which bind us as humans on a deeper level rather than concetrating on our superficial differences. Issues such as human rights, the environment, world hunger, the spectre of malaria, TB, HIV and other problems are so much more important.

[Archie1955]

The reason I detest seeing a woman wearing anything like the attire you wore is firstly because it is a visible manifestation of the lowly position of women in the Islamic world, secondly because in a society where women are socially equal to men and are open in dress and discourse, such attire draws attention to the wearer rather than creating modesty (it is totally out of place) and finally I believe the wearing of such attire is a vulgar insult and shows contempt and derision for western culture.

[hoopoe]

So, muslim attitudes toward women are going to destroy western civilization? We might be brought down by an article of clothing? Laying it on a bit thick, no? crittenden obviously has no concept of the origins of western civilization.

For example, she may not be aware that it was the very philosophy behind the practice of veiling that gave rise to the European Age of Chivalry and Courtly Love. Western values and attitudes about honor, personal conduct, etiquette and love we held up as ideals were adopted from the Islamic world, which inspired Dark Age Europe to transform itself from a lifeless, oppressive Christian theocracy (not to mention helped initiate the Renaissance) into a society based on the cultivation of personal honor, love, beauty and the selfless defense of the poor, orphans, and women as the highest form of social endeavor. This was in direct opposition with the Christian church of the time, which condemned these beliefs as unchristian (they were, in fact, Islamic.)

Much of the literature of the age, including the great grail romances, were reworked Islamic tales, and troubadours, playing their 'lutes' (from the Arabic 'oud') sang of the deeds of heroes in defense of women, the purification of the soul through holy quests and sacred love, the sanctity of femininity and men's obligation to protect it, etc.

If follow the author's absurd example and speak in hyperboles, one could say the hijab is responsible for creating western civilization, not destroying it.

Of course, chivalry is all but dead in the west, but, if we allow ourselves to think outside our own cultural box, we might conclude that, when one speaks of respect for women, one should remember that respect means many different things and takes many different forms.

[nammy50]

I am not a fan of religion, any religion. But Islam is particularly abhorrent. I urge everyone to learn more about the prophet Mohammed and Islam.
The fact that immigrants from Muslim countries are settling in western countries and applying their medieval customs is shocking. What is even more shocking is our acquiescence. In the name of multiculturism we are allowing Muslims to do things that we would consider barbarous if commited by anyone else. We are even being urged to let Muslims settle their differences in a Sharia court!

[rabb046]

Here are some homegrown stories of abuse on American soil. No burka required.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/13/pananikalos.ut.woman.chained.ksl

http://www.recordcourier.com/article/20071021/NEWS/110210020

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/12417836.html

[tumblewind]

I am glad I was born in the good old USA. Even though my childhood was very difficult and trying with the fundamentalist Baptist religion that was shoved down my throat daily. It wasn't impossible to endure like these women lives are. I used to have a Pakistani girl who did my nails all the time. I guess she wasn't the devout Moslem who wore the headscarf and burqa. But, a lot of people thought she was Iranian and she was very sensitive about that. I honestly don't know if she was Iranian or not and don't really care. She went on to become a doctor much later. But, she was a sweet girl.

[retcon]

Finally, liberals who believe their culture and values are worth a damn.

[AIPAC]

One of the most interesting aspects of the liberals, communists, secular humanists(­apparently unborn children are not human), leftist regressives(or as they call themselves "progressives"), socialists, and other morally challenged left leaner's belief systems, or lack there of, is the utter hatred, and contempt, for Zionism or Israel, and while we are at it Christians, while fanatically defending Islam, and the mistreatment of muslame woman. They will never acknowledge wrong doing on the part of muslames. There is always a pathetic attempt to change the subject, and talk about the evil's of Zionism, or the perceived plight of something called "palestinians". The terrible, swift sword of the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is dangling above the head of the muslame people, like a billion Damocleses.

[Horst]

Americans are far more tolerant of Muslims than most Europeans. This may change if the Islamists blow up buses and subways in New York or Chicago as they did in London. Left wing American apologists for Islam will learn the hard way as have their Euro counterparts.

[MARTYB]

I am of the opinion that if you immigrate to another country YOU MUST adopt that country's cultural, social mores. If you do not wish to conform to that society, don't come. I would never consider moving to any Islamic country, under any circumstances having been to Bahrain more than a few times, thanks to "Uncle Sam." Those that wish to immigrate to the WEST should understand that our tolerance does have it's limits. The very idea of female genital mutilation gives me nightmares, and the fact that it is mostly done in African Moslem society's is rather ironic considering castration of Black males was considered OK in certain parts of our country.

[anaeem]

From the kinds of people who brought you Jihad Watch, Jew Watch, and Campus Watch, we now have Hijab Watch by Danielle Crittenden. In Mrs. Crittenden's case, she seems to believe that all these crimes she has cited above stem definitively from what clothing attire a person chooses (which is the operative understanding for me) to wear. According to her, domestic abuse, tribal African FGM, and Iranian-Americans not wanting to be portrayed as barbarians are all examples of the grave danger of Muslim women wearing Islamic dress (however way they interpret it). Most of all, it's telling Mrs. Crittenden did not even attempt to engage with average Muslim women on this topic, but rather relied on the works and perspectives of neocon cheerleaders and islamophobes like Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Ali Hirsi. Give me a break.

What has really shocked me from reading this whole series has been the number of I would assume otherwise intelligent commentators who have applauded Mrs. Crittenden for this as they call it "insightful" exercise. My God, this charade on the part of Mrs. Crittenden is no more insightful than me putting on black-face for a week while continuing to live my suburban life as is and then proclaiming that I know what it means and understand the ills to be an African-American from the ghetto. This whole exercise on her part is superficial, patronizing, and quite frankly stupid.

Lastly, many of the cases she has listed in this last blowhard article of hers are obvious cases of domestic abuse and they should be prosecuted as such. As far as I am concerned, it's immaterial whether they were inspired by zealous rage or intoxicated rage. In fact, I am absolutely certain the latter is still more of a problem in terms of causing violence in our society than the former. Maybe Mrs. Crittenden should have written about the merits of prohibition, but we all know that would be silly. However, the ignorance over Islam seems to have no end in sight.

[isis]

These tortures are forms of human sacrifice.

[ToastedSuzy]

I like how shocked this author is by "so much tolerance. Unbelievable tolerance!"

lol

I mean, here's this woman wearing a Burka! In good American public (going to McDonalds?!? You can't eat a Big Mac in a Burka! Not on my watch, missy!).

But no one attacked her or yelled at her? No one chased her down and ripped off her mask and spat in her face for looking like a terrorist? It is AMAZING!

I guess this is not the America Ms. Crittendon thought it was.

Thank God. Or Allah. Or whatever.

God this articles are so thoroughly offensive--to everyone--they are ... well, AMAZING!