The controversy over Muslim women's dress is taking on global proportions. France, some time ago, banned the wearing of hijab, the head scarf in public, and now Syria, that most secular of Arab nations, has banned the niqab or full-face veil in schools. In a report on NPR the head of the Syrian Women's Observatory (sic), whatever that is, a man, made the dubious claim that the niqab constitutes "violence against women."
Let me be clear -- I don't support anyone being required to wear or not wear anything against their will. I agree that if a woman is forced to wear a head scarf or veil by her government or her husband or her father, that is wrong and should not be allowed. But I've heard and read interviews with women who wear the hijab and even the niqab voluntarily, who want to wear it, and who feel religiously bound to wear it by their own beliefs. On what grounds can a government or institution require that they not wear it, and isn't such a requirement the equivalent of requiring someone who does not want to wear it to do so?
I suppose the argument will be made that women in the latter group have been brainwashed or some such thing and need to be protected, but even if we grant that (and I don't), isn't that the selfsame paternalistic and patronizing attitude that the women's movement has always been against?
More broadly, why is this group being singled out? Other religious groups -- maybe every religious group -- have groups that adopt a particular garment or style of dress. Some Hasidic Jews dress in clothes that were common in 14th Century Poland. Mormons wear "temple garments," albeit under their clothes, Buddhist monks and nuns wear robes, Hare Krishna adherents wear a queue with the rest of their head shaved, Orthodox Jewish men wear skullcaps, and the women dress modestly in long sleeved blouses and long skirts, and often wear a head scarf over their ritually required wigs. Then there are priests' collars, nun's habits, monk's robes, and on and on. Why is no one proposing banning all those as well as that most visible of symbols, the Hindu bindi or dot on the forehead?
Sadly, I think the answer is that we are all too ready to conflate religious fundamentalism, or even orthodoxy or conservatism with terrorism where Muslims are concerned, though we don't do so nearly as much when it comes to other faiths. Every religion has its fundamentalists, and terrorists have perverted every world religion (except maybe Quakerism) to justify their crimes. Terrorists who act in the name of Islam are only the most recent and currently active example.
But to tar all Muslims (or in this case Muslim women) with the brush of terrorism is racist, anti-Muslim and, dare I say, sexist on the part of those who claim to be acting in these "oppressed" women's interests.
Again, I am not advocating that one person in the world be required to wear or refrain from wearing anything against their will. I'm not even crazy about school uniforms or dress codes for the same reason. I am saying that I'm equally opposed to anyone being required to wear something they don't want to or to refrain from wearing something that, as an adult, they choose for whatever reason to wear.
Follow Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/egurowitz
Anne Peterson: Know Your Veils: A Guide to Middle Eastern Head Coverings (PHOTOS)
Liz Ryan: Does Dress Code Trump Religious Freedom?
Spain parliament rejects burqa ban _ for now
In Syria, Ban On Veil Raises Few Eyebrows
Graduate of Va.'s Oakton High charged with trying to join terrorist group
Samina Pure Makeup Launches Halal Cosmetics for Muslim Women in UK
Why Welcoming More Mosques is good for America
Plain rubbish. They do not hide the face, as niquab does. Why muslim women do not exercise the obvious option; go back to your country of origin.
"terrorists have perverted every world religion (except maybe Quakerism) to justify their crimes. Terrorists who act in the name of Islam are only the most recent and currently active example.
Again rubbish. Quote the instances where others have carried out offensive and vicious attacks on unarmed civilians for the last 1400 years; jihad has been waged against almost all communities and quite frequently against themselves. IRA and LTTE had limited objectives; they did not aspite for world domination. Read this:
As he famously observed, "Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. The question naturally rises as to whether this pattern of the late 20th century conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim groups is equally true of relations between groups from other civilizations. In fact, it is not. Muslims make up 1/5 of the world's population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization....Islam's borders are bloody, and so are its innards" (The Clash of Civilisations. p. 256. Samuel Huttington)
I will also say what I need to say:
> Islam is not a religion per se; it is three dimensional. The other two sides are society and state. It is consequently different from Christianity and Hinduism.
> Islam and the followers can not function as a productive and peaceful either as a majority or as a minority. Name one muslim country in which they treat their minorities with equity and justice or one non muslim country in which they live productively and peacefully with others. Even in America they drive planes into twin towers.
> No muslim who believes in the Book can
-accept that all religions are equal
-genuinely accept and practise gender equality
-not accept local and secular laws in lieu shariaa
-not aspire for world domination of Islam and universal imposition of shariaa.
> They will always remain unacceptable to others and will flaunt such undesirable status with pride. They are an incongruent component in any flourishing plural society, which they will always try to destroy.
> It is a socio political movement that will never reform and will always be a problem for others.
1) Someone mentioned breaking free from my country. Well, I'm Canadian. I was born and raised here and this is my country so I think I'll stay here, thanks.
2) I should have clarified what I meant when I said people look at me strangely. This RARELY happens where I live. The only times it only happens when I visit the US and rural towns. Here, I have a regular job, go to university, hang out with my friends who have different backgrounds and religions and everybody is OK with that.
3) I find that many people commenting on this are extremely close minded. I feel as though they aren't commenting to have an educated discussion or share their well thought out views but merely to promote hatred and prejudice.
4) I find it funny how many people are saying that Muslim women shouldn't wear a hijab, one person even going so far to say that they want to rip mine off of me, yet at the same time the condemn these so called 'Muslim' men who force women to wear hijabs. Isn't that the same thing? You're taking away somebody's freedom of expression and freedom to wear what they find appropriate. I don't care how others dress and nor should you...
P.S. My daughter didn't follow my teaching. She very much dresses different than I would like.
And I think that is evasive rhetoric. Four pages later of well thought out concerns and debate, you can hardly have been said to participate. If hate mongering and prejudice exists, join in, challenge it.
I think there have been more, well thought out debate then not, and I think that anyone who has read all the posts certainly would agree, if they themselves choose to set aside their bias. A broad rage of underlying issues have been discussed, rather then suppressed with a 'freedom of religion', or 'freedom of speech', or Islamophobia false turmp card, that is often one sided. In fact limiting the debate to those three issues, is oppression when it does not include recognition of the very same rights of the community at large. While many here in the USA and abroad would like to think that the constitution is about protecting the rights of the individual, it does not exclude the well being of the whole. And as I have shown, the Supreme Court has and will uphold the right to tell someone to what to wear, for the betterment of the communtiy.
The constitution is based on the premise, 'we the people in order to form a more perfect union'.
Ok on to the serious (maybe). From what I have hear and talked over with a poster that became Muslim to marry a man it seems as if these women live in the past. Brilliant deduction you will say. But it is that simple. Women have NO rights and have totally convinced themselves that this is the way it is supposed to be. With everything there are always extremes. I won't be around for enough years to see all of this pass. I feel it will. We have the same battles with other imigrants. Complaining that they won't speak our language etc.
All I have to say is that if they want to live in America be an American.
Which is what exactly?
And what of the rights of women, in multiple religions who are raised to do nothing but breed? And does that mean all women of that religion are oppressed? No. I know many Catholics who are just as cowed by their husbands as the stereotypical idea of a Muslim woman. It doesn't mean everyone in a faith is oppressed.
Yes. Certain regions are more oppressive than others, and many Muslims who leave those areas leave because they want to be freer then they are there, they want better lives for their family, but they want to be true to practice their religion as they want.
That is American.
Unfortunately, being intolerant to other's beliefs that may be contrary to your own is seeming to become more American day by day. That's disgusting to me.
Yes, there were those sects who fled Europe and came to America to practice their irrationally, but that begs the question would you like to have fallen under their authority? Salem Mass., comes to mind. As does Joseph Smith.
Still, there are women who, out of religious conviction want to wear the niqab, so what to do? One possibility would be to provide a means for them to un-veil in front of another woman to verify their identity - we already do this with airport pat-downs and police searches. Still, it's an aspect of the issue to which I didn't give sufficient consideration in writing the original post. Thanks for a discussion that has made me smarter.
But to answer your proposed solution, will you then be required to have the additional security personnel aboard public transit, inside banks, shopping malls, grocery stores, casinos, hospitals etc. ? And if so, who will pay for this ?
I am morally opposed to this as a feminist, and have grave concerns with regards to security / identification issues.
What I don't understand though is how people can't seem to see that forcing someone to not wear something, is the same kind of mentality as forcing someone TO wear something. You're taking away a person's right to choose, and over what? A piece of cloth?
Why don't they make ski masks and scarfs over faces illegal while they're at it? See how many people would jump on the "That's an outrage!"/"That's absurd" wagons then.
Let's put aside the fact that many Muslim women who are forced or culturally coerced into wearing a full face covering or head scarf are subjected to century old myths about the "power" women wield over others, and men specifically, or the evil eye, etc.
The fact is, as was witnessed last week when Darth Vader robbed a bank on Long Island, it's a public safety issue that will not be tolerated.
http://www.nationalledger.com/ledgerdc/article_272633544.shtml
Wow! And no one initially took him serious, they thoght he was a joker. Exactly the problem. And seeing burqas come and go, who would take them as anything but a woman in a burqa?
When the police were dispatched they were told to look for a man in cap and Darth Vader suit, which again, they thought the dispatcher was joking. But, he got away, and now no one knows who this person may be. Criminal running free because they covered their entire face and committed a crime.
Ask "who would take them as anything but a woman in a burqa?" to the people that have been maimed by suicide bombers dressed as women in burqas and see what the tell you.
In civilized society it is a requirement, unspoken until now, that to participate you must be visible.
And if they don't, they are faced with public pressure in a society that deems that women are only free when they conform to the idea of exposing their physical attractiveness.
NO FACE COVERING in the public square. It is a safety issue. Right now, I see very few burqas or face veils in Philly and no one objects particularly. As soon as the first high profile bombing or theft occurs in which the perpetrator is wearing niqab or burqa, that will be the end of tolerance for this custom in America.
How bout' we ban minarets?
They are free when they recognize that their acceptance of "irrational" social constraints are misguided, "internal struggles", exerted to salvage the self by projecting onto another their deepest inner fears; "undeserved" self, and culturally learned loathing.
Providing the link below in no way is meant to imply that women of Islam, or Afghanistan are the only cultural guilty of the women attacking women. That would be unjust. It would be biased, bigoted, prejudice, and racist. IT IS PERVASIVE IN ALL CULTURES. I write in caps not to shout, but because there is no other way to emphesize my point. It is pervasive in America, in Christianity, Judaism, secularism. Atheist do it too. Movie stars, and celebrities do it, housewives do it, business women do it. Having said that, I must necessarily apologize to anyone that may potentially be offended. It sincerely is not my intention.
The very things said in the topic of the link I am providing, I have heard many times, over and over, here in America, by women against women.
It is difficult to be human. Perhaps it is this 'struggle' that is spoken about by the word jihad.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-in-burqa-condemns-woman-in-chador%2C169/
It is time that we stop giving America a pass on engaging in continual and repeated wars "in the name of freedom to war".
When Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. supports the ' so called ' right of Caucasian males to do their banking whilst wearing white sheets in Alabama, then I will value his opinion on this topic.
I will (unfortunately) likely never value his opinion on this topic.
Excellent point Jenna. fanned an faved
But how can you tell in Florida? A good knock on the head would seem an excellent prescription for many down there.
I understand why people are confused about Islam but what people don't understand is that what we hear about in the news; the honour killings, etc. are customs that are CULTURAL and not RELIGIOUS. They have nothing to do with me and the majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims don't follow them. Even if thousands of Muslims went on with these evil and disgusting practices, it still is only a small fraction of all the Muslims on Earth which account for nearly 23% of the world's population. It really saddens me to read some of these posts and and to know that it's so easy for people to just talk about which they do not really know anything about. It's up to everyone to truly investigate past the headlines and articles individually. Otherwise, our society is going to end up fearing and hating rather than understanding.
You're not doing it because god insists you do?
"WOMEN are taught from early childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness. We feel compelled to pursue abstract notions of beauty, half realizing that such a pursuit is futile.
When women reject this form of oppression, they face ridicule and contempt. Whether it's women who refuse to wear makeup or to shave their legs, or to expose their bodies, society, both men and women, have trouble dealing with them.
In the Western world, the hijab has come to symbolize either forced silence or radical, unconscionable militancy. Actually, it's neither. It is simply a woman's assertion that judgment of her physical person is to play no role whatsoever in social interaction.
Wearing the hijab has given me freedom from constant attention to my physical self. Because my appearance is not subjected to public scrutiny, my beauty, or perhaps lack of it, has been removed from the realm of what can legitimately be discussed."
"It is difficult, if not impossible, to trust someone whose face is covered, and, as Francis Fukuyama so well argues, a high level of trust is a necessary component of the social cohesiveness modern states need to function well in the global market economy.
The niqab is one way Islamists seek to prevent the Muslim diaspora from becoming part of a non-Islamist circle of trust. Banning the face veil is one way the French state seeks to defend itself."
http://article.nationalreview.com/438553/should-france-ban-the-burqa/nro-symposium
Is trust a social virtue and a necessary one to building successful and prosperous societies, states, and nations? I think it is, it intuitively makes sense to me.
As a neuropsychologist, and coach perhaps Dr. Gurowitz would like to weigh in on the issue, in that he has brought up the issue? Neuropsychology is a field of considerable expertice and respect
And when trust is violated, what happens to that society, state, or nation?
The veil presents a contradiction to the mind, which in turn presents a conflict. Conflicts must be resolved and if not we are forced to live with the consequences. Trust is the conflict being presented by the veil. A masked face, expecially in the west, presents what contradiction/conflict to the western society? What opportunities?