Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable
To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
I am a Shia Muslim and I abhor the burqa. I am offended by the unchallenged presumption that women covering their heads and bodies and now faces are more pious and true than am I.
Islam in all its diverse forms entitles believers to a personal relationship with Allah – it cuts out middlemen, one reason its appeal extended to so many across the world. You can seek advice from learned scholars and imams, but they cannot come between your faith and the light of God. Today control freaks who claim they have a special line to the Almighty have turned our world dark. Neo-conservative Islamic codes spread like swine flu, an infection few seem able to resist.
The disease is progressive. It started 20 years ago with the hijab, donned then as a defiant symbol of identity, now a conscript's uniform. Then came the jilbab, the cloak, fought over in courts when schoolgirls were manipulated into claiming it as an essential Islamic garment. If so, hell awaits the female leaders of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Soon, children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves ("so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing," said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls' school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.
White liberals frame this sinister development in terms of free choice and tolerance. Some write letters to this paper: What is the problem? It is all part of the rich diversity of our nation. They can rise to this challenge, show they are superhuman when it comes to liberty and forbearance.
They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled or their sons became fanatic Islamicists and imposed purdah in the family. Such converts are springing up in Muslim families all over the land. Veils predate Islam and were never an injunction (modesty of attire for men and women is). Cultural protectionism has long been extended to those who came from old colonies, in part to atone for imperial hauteur. Redress was necessary then, not now.
What about legitimate fears that to criticise vulnerable ethnic and racial groups validates the racism they face? Racism is an evil but should never be used as an alibi to acquit oppressions within black and Asian or religious communities. That cry was used to deter us from exposing forced marriages and dowry deaths and black-upon-black violence.
Right-wing think tanks and President Sarkozy of France scapegoat Muslims for political gain and British fascists have turned self-inflicted "ethnic" wounds into scarlet propaganda. They do what they always have done. Self-censorship will not stop them but it does stop us from dealing with home-grown problems or articulating objections to reactionary life choices like the burqa. Muslim women who show their hair are becoming an endangered species. We must fight back. Our covered-up sisters do not understand history, politics, struggles, their faith or equality. As Rahila Gupta, campaigner against domestic violence, writes: "This is a cloth that comes soaked in blood. We cannot debate the burqa or the hijab without reference to women in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where the wearing of it are heavily policed and any slippages are met with violence." What happened to solidarity?
Violent enforcement is evident in Britain too. A fully veiled young chemistry graduate once came to my home, her body covered in cuts, tears, bites, bruises, all happily hidden from view. Security and social cohesion are all threatened by this trend – which is growing exponentially.
As for the pathetic excuse that covering up protects women from male lasciviousness – it hasn't stopped rapists in the most conservative Muslim nations. And what a slur on decent Muslim men, portrayed as sexual predators who cannot look upon a woman without wanting her.
We communicate with each other with our faces. To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity. Unreasonable community or nationalistic expectations disconnect essential bonds. Governments should not accommodate such demands. Naturists can't parade on the streets, go to school or take up jobs unless they cover their nakedness. Why should burqaed women get special consideration?
Their veils are walls, keeping them in and us out. We need an urgent, open conversation on this issue – which divides the Muslim intelligensia as much as the nation. Our social environment, fragile and precious, matters more than choice and custom should to British Muslims. If we don't compromise for the greater good, the future looks only more bitter and bleak. Saying so doesn't make me the enemy of my people.
y.alibhaibrown@independent.co.uk
More from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
But your last two sentences suggest that, when it comes to integration, the situation is dark and could get darker. There does seem to be a growing divide between the "Muslim community" and society at large. On the one hand there is the uncompromising Islamist insistence on separation (Muslim first, British second ... if at all; or even Muslim first and therefore anti-British), on the other there is growing expression of "indigenous" nationalism (as exemplified by the BNP).
It is a pity that you think that arguing for compromise (on, you say, a matter of custom not religion) should make you an enemy of your people. It is a pity that you think there is a "my people" (an "us" and "them") at all.
Let's face it, you are an insult to Islam.
You compare 'naturist' against Muslims, well why don't you become one of them and stop bothering for Muslim ladies' welfare.
Islam taught what it good for internal purity for men and women, and that is why unnecessary interaction with the opposite sex is discouraged. If you are communicating within women, the hizab does not prevent your face to face communication. You know it too, well, as you see Muslim ladies who chose to wear it lead a perfectly normal life, they have families, they have their own parties, they go out and enjoy within the bounds of Islam. Not everyone wants to be naturalist like you, similarly not everyone needs or wants the so called "freedom" of walking around half-naked and attracting evil looks or thoughts.
You as a Muslim, as you claim yourself to be, could have at least reminded the minimal sense of modesty to your western readers, much of them clearly having lost the meaning of it. (See all the public sexual activities and moral collapse around you?). It was your Islamic duty, far more important to cry foul for a few deviated cases of domestic violence and compare Islamic revival to "swine flu".
Anyone mocking with Islam goes straight out of the fold of Islam, no matter how s/he claims otherwise.
Regards,
If you do not have the ability to teach your children this without imprisoning them behind walls of cloth then maybe you should refrain from having them until you can.
1) talking about extremism in th Muslim community but not about extremism that saw a Muslim woman in Germany murdered by white Christian extremist who had been successfully sued by this brave freedom martyr for racism. The woman is Marwa el Sherbini.
2) denying the right of those women who want to wear hijab or burqa out of their own free volition because they want to express their piety/and or/ Muslim identity (a variety of)
3) not condemning nuns for covering their hair etc
4) being very selective.
You are a grave disappointment. There's a burqa covering your heart and mind, I am afraid.
Maybe YAB should focus on the Christians attacked and killed in Eygpt each month, their Churches burnt down and their women and children attacked and murdered. This certainly doesn't seem to have come to the notice of those Eygptians protesting over that poor woman in Germany.
It is about time someone from Islam spoke openly against this sexist and culturally insensitive practice.
There's no point in irritating others ("my people" as you put it) by being holier-than-thou, in a western manner of speaking. Your column is clearly addressed to a predominantly western readership and is not going to bring any change either to the attire of Muslim women whose ostensible cause you seek to espouse or in the attitude of the orthodox who are certainly not going to be pleased and more likely to take offence.
Perhaps it would make more sense to bring this issue up widely in Muslim women's (and Men's!) groups and let the opinion build up from there, rather than castigating the entire society, however indirectly, in a forum such as this.
There are many branches of Islam, and many different interpretations of how a "good" Muslim should behave. However, there is nothing in the Koran which states that a Muslim woman must be covered from head to foot, this is simply a very extreme interpretation/view/teaching of some Islamic clerics, in particular those who come from the Wahhabi Sunni sect of Islam. If we look at certain Islamic countries - Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia and even Iran, there is a very relaxed dress code for Muslim women, no insistence on the Burka or Chador/Hejab. We have to move our attention to countries which have been seen as our friends, to observe the strictest Islamic dress codes, and attitudes to women's rights - Saudi Arabia, some parts of Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, and of course Afghanistan.
The only reason why Muslim women wear the Burka, is because they have been instructed in extreme Islamic views from an early age, and it is all to do with the chauvinistic control of women by Muslim men. Within certain Muslim communities/families, there is no opportunity for dissent, because of the rigid rules being applied to the women.
We are talking about fear of violence, and of fear of exclusion from the family or community, which makes some Muslim women observe these outdated practices. There is no place for this in 21st Century Britain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZ
I would fully support legislation that stopped the covering, even partially, of faces. It already exists in part. No one could go into a bank with a balaclava on, or with their hoodie so tightly drawn around their faces that their features were obscured.
I've seen white women, white men, Asian men and Asian women all wearing sunglasses at night and in nightclubs. It is a fashion, you can flick through any magazine and see celebrities doing it.
Big broad strokes
Breasts, NOT hair, not face: these are false hadiths and their practice - i.e. wearing a burka , is blasphemy.
what utter rubbish the obviously male muslim posters on here and other forums write about muslim women having a "free" choice whether or not to wear these backward, iron age clothes.
they have no choice. very few of these persecuted, downtrodden, controlled, abused women would actually "choose" to wear this crap if given a totally free choice, and dont any muslim nutter try to tell me otherwise. people are not completely stupid you know. they know what goes on behind the closed doors of many muslim homes because we see the results of it when yet another man goes to jail for killing yet another woman because she has offended "allah" or the family or some other trumped up or invented offence.
the muslim religion needs to crawl out from under the stone of ignorance it has been under for centuries. i also by the way would apply this to all other religions but they dont seem for the most part to be as violent and controlling as the islamic variety.
All the same old bigotry and arrogant Western superiority dressed up as concern for women (which I am, btw, and not a Muslim).
otherwise who cares what anyone wears - the cost of freedom to participate in wider society outside the home is to conform to the minimal norms of that society (who wants to have to sit on damp bus and underground seats vacated by nudists?); otherwise leave it to health and safety and common sense and/or stay at home!
Patronising and insulting people is no way to have a debate, or address the valid concerns around the safety and human rights of oppressed and abused women (happens in all cultures), but also to address the discomfort many feel with the full facial veil.
Yasmin is just jumping on the Islamophobic bandwagon to promote personal popularity and is not qualified to lead an intelligent debate on this matter
You haven't yourself addressed any of the issues Yasmin mentioned? What about the women who are coerced into wearing the hijab or burqah or nikab? You say millions of women 'by complete personal choice'. That wasn't my experience, nor many people that I know, I have some friends who still feel obliged to wear it, even though it's already been an instrument of torture for them for years.
What kind of a choice is it when you the alternative you are presented with is to an eternity of burning hellfire, a lifetime of being labelled a whore and bringing 'dishonour' and disgrace to your family. What choice is it when you are born into a Muslim country where the it is the norm to wear hijab, those who do not cover are condemned and judged by all and to not wear hijab is against the law? Or am I just jumping on the Islamophobic bandwagon as well?
It's like insisting slaves have a right to wear shackles, and then getting some slaves to agree that shackles are a good idea, or a matter of religious freedom, or part of a slave's culture.
What is interesting is that nobody seems able to come up with any decent counter-arguments (I ignore rants, of course). And that is not your job (this is, after all, not a scholarly journal).
So, well done.
Allowing Muslim schools to practice this kind of cultural apartheid is simply reinforcing the cultural/religious dominance of Muslim men to continue. The schools should be required to conform to British standards - ie no covering whatsoever - UK school uniform should apply. When a Muslim female becomes an adult - 18 in our society - then she may choose to wear the sack and mask - but she will have to understand that if she chooses not to participate in our society, then our society cannot protect her.
This article displays a great deal of good sense.
Whilst I did not agree with all the points in Yasmin's commentary, there is one thing that she wrote that I agree wholeheartedly with and which in my opinion is the most important argument I have read on this issue:
"To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity."
That is right on point. Furthermore, if all Muslim women were so keen to wear the burqa then they would not need to be forecd to do so at gunpoint would they? I am a fervent believer in religious freedom - it is a basic human right. However, in my view, acknowledging and reinforcing our shared humanity - that is the shared humanity of ALL people is of greater importance than religious or ethnicity identity. We are human beings first and foremost - if everyone remembered that then there would be less hatred, less conflict and less human suffering.
I believe that Muslim women should be free to wear the burqa if they wish to do so - but in social spaces where human interaction is essential - such as at work or in educational institutions, it should be left at home.
I don?t really understand why Sarkozy?s stance is considered in any way controversial. Of course it would never happen in the UK where women?s rights are considered secondary to ?multiculturalism?.
But it?s certainly pretty uncontroversial in the light of la�cit�.
Atheist bus ? Canadian Atheist bus ? Atheist buses in Barcelona, Madrid & Malaga ? Bus Kampagne, Germany ? Bus humaniste (fran�ais), Qu�bec, Canada ? Campagna Bus, Italy ? Dutch Atheist billboard campaign ? Finland Atheist bus ? Seattle atheist bus, USA ? Washington DC atheist bus, USA ? Atheist trains Ireland ? Atheist trams in Zagreb, Croatia banned ? Atheist Bus Madison, Wisconsin, USA ? Indiana Atheist Bus, USA ? Chicago Atheist Bus, USA ? Atheist Bus Austria stopped ? New York City Atheist bus
recently converted to Islam myself- I did this a year ago at the age
of 19. I have always been incredibly frustrated by the treatment of
women in Islamic communities. My experience
of Islam is heavily influenced by Pakistani culture, where thankfully
the wearing of the burka is not required, though several women wear it
at the mosque. When I attended a "peace symposium", a name given to
community-relations events, with a Q&A; at the end, a non Muslim man
asked about the treatment of women in Islam. The imam present
responded by saying they did not encourage the wearing of the full
burka, but did want women to wear some of the other forms of veil.
They justified it by saying that the "ladies" need to be protected
from the men's sexual desire. This sounded absurd to me and a poor
excuse for a pretence to a more sinister reason for wearing the veil-
the immature sexuality of many Muslim men, caused by their lack of any
social contact with any women outside of their family. This fosters a
feeling of ownership over women and a jelousy which manifests itself
in the wearing of the burka, usually, in my experiece, something which
is forces upon women. I was relieved to see you highlight this in
your article, though you didn't mention the source of this new form of
islam- the wahhabiist school of Islam, primarily funded by money from
oil.
I was really encouraged reading your article- it's incredibly rare for
any Muslim to criticise the state of Islam, even rarer for a woman to
do so. I think this issue is vital to the future of Islam, especially
in it's relationship with the west.
Thank you
PS. I find it incredibly ironic that some comments say that you are a traitor/infidel etc etc. The burka is enforced by the same school of islamic thought that prints edits korans. They choose passages which they feel are no longer relevant and remove them. How can they claim to be true muslims when they edit the word of God? Why do they feel they are true muslims when they support a school of islamic thought which is funded through american oil money, by some of the least islamic men in the world- the Saudis. How much of islam do they follow? How ironic that they are amongst the top 20 richest people in the world yet simultaneously claim that thy represent the true version of islam- edited korans and all.
People who support the wahhabiists will make islam fester and stagnate until it collapses under its own hypocrisy and corruption.
To a_al_amin: try reading an unedited koran and perhaps you will see the true version of Islam. You seem to be so entirely ignorant of the history of Islam, and the curious absence of any mention of the Hijab until 50 years ago. You mention moral collapse- have you seen what's happening in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran or any arab state? Prostitution still exists, though under the guise of a 30 minute marriage, all approved and overseen by an imam. Rape is a lawful punishment. You pathetically swallow what your clerics tell you without going through the process of itjihad and relying on your personal link with god.
Your final sentence really summarises the kind of person you are: so entirely out of touch with true islam and a willing follower of the new "Ignorance is Strength" mantra of the wahhabiist movement.