Banning the “Burka” « Inner Reflections Transcribed

Banning the “Burka”

June 25, 2009 at 3:08 pm | In Culture, Discursive, Islam, Media, Men, Muslims, Non-Muslim, Patriarchy, Society, Women | 17 Comments

Recently French president Sarkozy, upon returning from Afghanistan stated that the burka was not welcome in France and argued for it to be banned despite it being a rare practise in the province.

There have been calls in favour of this , largely due the argument of it being synoymous with oppression and subjation of women, whereas others argue state intervention in how people dress to be a dangerous ground to tread, and its subjectivity.

Surely state interference in what is acceptable to wear in public (as France may very well be on the path towards) makes it similar to other countries who enforce various dress codes for its citizens (e.g. Saudi, & Iran – and Afghanistan during Taliban rule). These countries are often attacked for being limiting, intimidating and impinging on rights of its citizens as a result of their laws and regulations, some being puritanically enforced moreso than others.

Much of this discussion has spread into Britain which has its own chequered history regarding the niqaab, as was the infamous comment made by Jack Straw who found interacting with niqaabed women as “uncomfortable”. Others argue the aggressive alienation that niqaab perpetuates, it indicates “I wish not to talk to you” or “I wish to be different”. Perhaps the Emo’s, Punks and Goths (and the numerous other groups who pride on being “different”) are trying to be inclusive by their demeanour? Another commentator in a tabloid newspaper stated the niqaab prevents communication and explicitly states “I don’t wish to talk to you”. I don’t recall there being a single occurrence where I have witnessed a hubbub of conversation on the Tube amongst complete strangers. None of them are “impaired” by having a niqaab on. All but a rare few have their face on full show for communicative purposes, so where is this chitter chatter?!

Despite calls by some segments of the population to follow Sarkozy’s call for banning burka (niqaab), such an enforcement would not be possible in the UK which prides itself on being a multi-cultural country, and promotes cultural diveristy, where freedom of faith and religious practise is key. Much argue this multiculturalism is the cause of the lack of integration and assimilation of slivers of the minority ethnic, and was the often touted cause for the 7/7 tube bombings and concern over growing and silently breeding extremism/islamism amongst its Muslim minority. And of course the result of this and many other situations involving individuals from BME communities, has led to the increasing popularity of the right wing political group, the BNP.

Instead discussions involving niqaab and its undesirability in the UK have focused on issues of identity and security and have remained within those parameters. Very occasionally has the discussion spilled over the veil being a male symbol of repression of the woman quite as fiercly as Sarkozy has propositioned.

One would argue in a free society (which Britain supposedly is – despite the much Big Brother style surveillance) the state cannot dictate what is or isn’t acceptable to wear in public. So you can dress in niqab, hijab, a turban, a Somali style khimaar, Orthodox Jewish attire, long robes, small shorts and a tank top, vest tops and hot pants or in your underwear etc. Only thing illegal is nudity in public spaces, unless it is has a permit to allow nudity.

The argument of whether the niqab is a religous order or a cultural phenomenon is irrelevant as the primary focus in this discussion sparked by Sarkozy is the item of clothing itself and its symbolic association with repressive practises. Despite interpretations and associations of the symbolic nature of the niqaab (confused with the burka here) there will remain a proportion of women who will wear it with convinction of it being a personal choice, regardless of the arguments of its requirement or otherwise on religious grounds.

17 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

He just needs some diversion because French economy is in the dumps, no one cares about French foreign policy, the French language is dying and in France the immigrants are not integrated. Total failure of leadership = a diversion needed.

Comment by Mezba — June 26, 2009 #

Reply
- You may have a point there Mezba, after all his rant about the burka was out of the blue
  
  Comment by Sumera — June 28, 2009 #
  
  Reply
It ticks me off because I get this attitude about my headscarf: people ASSUME its my father/brother making me do this. On the contrary, I have had long ‘talks’ with my Dad about my right to follow the interpretation of ‘cover’ that I think is correct, not him, because he doesn’t believe in this.

Why the burka = lack of brains is being bought on, beats me. WHY is it instantly assumable that the woman is subjugated and being MADE to wear the burka/headscarf/niqab?! And from the sheer ignorance of their comments, one can know the people passing judgments on what it is and it isn’t have never met a person in a burka, let alone tried and worn one themselves even is just as an experiment (they can’t know anything about the ‘heat’ till they step in those shoes, duh!)

Concluding,I absolutely agree with you using the goths and punks analogy; the government shouldn’t have the right how to tell anyone to dress; that goes for those with hijab AND those without. It should be a personal choice!! PERSONAL!!!

Comment by Specs — June 26, 2009 #

Reply
- Specs for most women who wear it, its usually enforced and so where there is this negativity the prevailing stereotypes of it being a male driven garb will remain. Some of the comments are from ignorance, some from assumptions and some from media drivel.
  
  Comment by Sumera — June 28, 2009 #
  
  Reply
Well this is a very critical issue, I have my openion, but being a muslim, i dont want to comment on this. I am completely in favour of “burqa”….

Comment by Khurram Zahid — June 27, 2009 #

Reply
- Do share your opinions on this Khurram, being Muslim (like most of us on this blog) shouldnt deter you from sharing your thoughts
  
  Comment by Sumera — June 28, 2009 #
  
  Reply
An excellent post! Very thoughtfully written and very good argument. I don’t think you are asking for opinions on this – its more like your opinion. But I’d still like to add a few things if you don’t mind
Keeping aside why Sarkozy said what he said (though I think Mezba sums it up pretty nicely), I do feel that the burqa will never be accepted as it perhaps once was tolerated.
Sarkozy’s reasoning is a bit off the mark though. I believe that burqa/veiling/niqaab/hijab are not personal choices. In highly rich and upper class families in the GCC, it is a personal choice. These very rich women wear Western clothes in the West and in their countries pull down a drop-down full-face veil on their faces when out and about because they are too good to be seen and recognised. For the Middle class burqa/veiling/niqaab/hijab is often the choice of the patriarchs. I accept that many women wear it because they think it is important but there are also many women who are forced to wear it. I have been working with such women for the past 8 years and I know there are many, many such women. The lower-middle class women wear it for religious reasons.
Whether a woman wears it because she thinks Allah wants it, or she wears because her father/husband/brother forces her, it is not a personal choice. There is no personal choice in religion – when you believe something is compulsory and that is why you do it, you give up what you want for what God wants.
Sarkozy is thus banning religious choice. And all people are intolerant. Music is food of love and life in France but try making that in Saudi Arabia. Had face-veiling been against Islam the same people who fight for it would have fought against it with equal zeal.
Personally I feel we should remember the origins of veiling. Muslim women began veiling in Medina where there were pagans who walked bare-breasted and Jews who wore niqaabs. Muslim women walked the middle path and were thus easily recognizable. To not be recognized they had to dress like them. They couldn’t dress like the pagan women so they began veiling. They didn’t have to be recognized as Muslim – Muslims were the enemies of pagans and Jews who didn’t fear Muslim women and would have attacked them if they were recognized. They had to be unrecognizable. Remember that all men – Jews, Muslim, pagan dressed the same way. It was women who dressed differently. That was the aim and still is in Muslim countries where veiling works very well to make all women look identical and therefore unrecognizable and non-individual. But in the West that same veil is a cause of concern. It defeats the whole purpose behind veiling because Muslim women who veil are easily recognizable. Why do they get upset when they are scorned? Isn’t that expected?
In a city like London where we are watched 24/7, niqaab can be extremely dangerous. That equals public masking and how can we expect it to be accepted?! It could potentially lead to recruitment of women for terrorist activities. It could even lead to men wearing burqa and terrorizing. Imagine one incidence of a man in a burqa blowing himself up and what it could lead to – totally ostracizing of a veiled woman! Those who will still insist on veiling will never be able to go out again.
And this is what’s happening in France where veiled women are being ostracized by the society. Looking silly like the punks and goths is one thing but making yourself invisible is another thing. It has a very powerful force. A woman inside a veil may feel scorned but there is still a strange protection that the veil offers – the person scorning her will never know who they are scorning; what she looks like – and that gives power to the woman. I see it in another way – I see it as being a sad affair that niqaabi women have to be compared to the punks – the deviant from the normal – and that is enough reason why women should not veil in the West.
But reasons Sarkozy gives are naïve, uninformed, and biased.
And if I understand this post correctly, I have only paraphrased what you are saying 

Comment by Achelois — June 27, 2009 #

Reply
- Of course you can share your opinion Achelois Regarding having no personal choice if you believe it is obligatory on you by God – that belief itself is formed through understanding and therefore if they believe it is obligatory upon them then in a way it is a personal informed choice. So I would differ in my understanding of this from yours Achelois.
  
  I used the examples of goths and punks because they too are seen as alien as niqaab’d women (and daresay I also include hijabi’s in this loose category) – and there is always someone or some groups who is perceived as not the norm and so looked down upon and in some cases discriminated against – people of colour, the Irish, the economic migrants, asylum seekers etc The “target group” for looking “weird” is ever evolving. But I do agree public masking in the current climate is an obvious threat to security and identity. And on that grounds I don’t have an issue with the niqaab debate – its when it swings over into the sphere of symbolic subjugation is when it becomes messy and murky.
  
  Comment by Sumera — June 28, 2009 #
  
  Reply
  - Yea, Rawi understands personal choice in the same manner as well which is different from how I see it but interesting and valid, nonetheless.
    
    No, your example of punks was spot-on, I would do the same.
    
    I think Sarkozy is just finding ways to show his hatred for Muslims. Does it mean there can’t be any ‘religious’ Muslims in France any more? Very sad.
    
    Excellent post, once again!
    
    Comment by Achelois — June 28, 2009 #
It seems to me that hijab – whatever your interpretation of that may be, i.e., burka, headscarf, abayah, etc. – is the uniform of the Muslim woman. It serves a practical purpose in terms of protection from unwanted attention, but it is also symbolic of one’s subservience to Allah. Especially with respect to ayah 33:59: “O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

I agree that it is both a personal choice, and an obligation (as you said, an informed personal choice).

Sarkozy is doing what many Muslim men have done, and still continue do: step on Muslim women. For some reason, we’re seen as easy targets. He is no better than the men he claims to oppose.

Comment by iMuslim — June 28, 2009 #

Reply
I recently attended a very interest talk by Sh. Hamza Yuusuf and someone asked him about the ayah 33:59. He explained it in detail talking about the history of those times and the political and religious situation as well as social norms and mores. He explains it as the command was that women “may be known” as free women (as opposed to slave women who were teased by men from all religions/social strata). It made sense because free women from Jewish/Muslim/Christian/Pagan backgrounds all dressed in a similar manner and one could not tell if the women in the veil and cloak was Jewish or Muslim.

Comment by Achelois — July 14, 2009 #

Reply
Excuse the typos

Comment by Achelois — July 14, 2009 #

Reply
i dont think the burqa is very well accepted in a lot of muslim societies either. a lot of the people raise their eyebrows in Pakistan wen they see educated, modern women wearing a burqa or a hijab cuz it is considered to be something enforced upon women by men in the family. so sarkozy has only gone a step ahead and paved way for all the islamophobic people to stand up in his support and ask for similar legislations in their countries

Comment by Leena S. — July 19, 2009 #

Reply
Personally I believe that the greatest problem with contemporary Muslims is that they don’t try to understand the history of any Islamic edict. Covering the hair/face grew out specific situation; women were told to cover their hair/face not to be recognized as Muslim per se but to be recognized as free women as opposed to the uncovered slave women and so not be harassed. These slave women when they were free also covered their faces (especially if they were elite and Jewish) but once they were captured they were not allowed the ‘’freedom of the luxury to appear elite and free.’’ Has anyone thought why the Prophet married two Jewish women who were from the family of the chiefs of two Jewish tribes? Because they ‘’covered’’ and had to uncover as slave women had they become part of the booty. Remember he put a cloak on Safiya? Imagine that shock and humiliation involved for these women to suddenly expose their faces! But those times and political situations demanded that a woman in a veil remove it when captured. I have never heard anyone say that was unfair or totalitarian.

The political situation especially after 9/11 is very different. Sarkozy wants to ban the ‘burqa’ but has promised Manmohan Singh that the Sikh turban will not be banned. It shows hatred for Muslims and in such a situation women who cover their faces will be harassed. Even women in hijab are harassed and even killed – there have been at least two cases. Calling Marwa a hijab martyr is so dangerous because we fail to judge the seriousness of the political and social dangers and this way other women will put themselves in danger by emulating Marwa – which is exactly what Islam doesn’t want. The whole purpose behind asking a woman to veil is to protect her.

Women want to exercise the freedom to cover their hair and faces but that freedom is also a Western concept and at least Iran and Saudi Arabia do not give women the same freedom of not wearing an abaya or a headscarf if they don’t want it. Whenever a Muslim army occupied a non-Muslim country they brought with them their own laws and rules that everyone was asked to follow. In Muslim countries everyone has to respect Muslim sensibilities. A face cover, as I have seen myself, even often upsets the sensibilities of Muslims. Not every Muslim agrees with it, you know. Yet, while a woman is clearly prohibited from covering her face during Haj there are muttawa who stand close to the Kaaba and yell at women to cover their faces. What I’m saying is France has always been racist and proud of their language, cuisine, people and behavior. It is not surprising they want to ban the burqa or niqaab or whatever we may want to call it. Personally I would really mind the ban when all Muslim countries begin allowing non-Muslims to fully practice their religions.

Comment by Achelois — July 22, 2009 #

Reply
What about the special ones for children ?

Comment by Malena — September 17, 2009 #

Reply
- Thats hijaab, not the burka which is the topic.
  
  Comment by Sumera — September 19, 2009 #
  
  Reply
I hope you’ll join us and write about the efforts we are making to help support those sisters who do decide to wear it:

http://loga-abdullah.blogspot.com/2009/10/ban-niqaab.html

BarakAllah fiikum

Comment by Loga — October 19, 2009 #

Reply