Why is it religious to put on a headscarf but never to take one off?
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Chapter of Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves
‘This book’s title is intended to be provocative, not sociologically precise.’
-
Jesus and Mo Talk About Atheists
Jesus is reading Dawkins’s book, Mo is reading Dennett’s. They feel cross.
-
Not so fast
Something from an essay by Richard Rorty – ‘Globalization, the Politics of Identity and Social Hope,’ in Philosophy and Social Hope (1996). See what you think.
As I see it, the emergence of feminism, gay liberation, various sorts of ethnic separatism, aboriginal rights, and the like, simply add further concreteness to sketches of the good old egalitarian utopia…In that society, people who wanted to think of themselves as Basque first, or black first, or women first, and citizens of their countries or a global cooperative commonwealth second, would have little trouble doing so. For the institutions of that commonwealth would be regulated by John Stuart Mill’s dictum that everybody gets to do what they like as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people’s doing the same.
Well – it was 1996, which probably helps to explain it, but that passage strikes me as way too easy. Basque first, women first – right; but what if it’s Saudi first, or men first? What if you pick the hard examples instead of the easy ones? What happens then? Is it just an accident that he chose easy examples? I don’t know – but I can’t help thinking that he should have realized that ‘women first’ necessarily implies ‘men first’ and that then should lead to the thought that ‘men first’ could very easily include ‘men who define maleness as superiority to and dominance of women’ among the men who want to think of themselves as men first; and that that puts the whole easy formula in question. That’s one of the rocks we keep tripping over in this identity thing – for some people, it is the case that their identity is closely involved with the right or ability to subordinate other people, and/or to deny them the ability to think of themselves as whatever they like first. And the emergence of, for instance, ‘ethnic separatism, aboriginal rights, and the like’ does not necessarily work toward a more egalitarian utopia; it can work for the opposite. What if part of the ‘ethnic’ in ethnic separatism consists largely of the segregation and subordination of women? I bet we can – right now, all by ourselves, with no help – think of some ethnic separatisms of which that is the case. I can. Can you? I knew you could.
So – it’s too easy. And he wrote it in such a way that it’s too easy – he wrote it in such a way that it slides neatly around the hard part. Objection, Your Honor.
-
Revisiting the question of the veil
The question of the veil has become a heated debate in the British media. In this debate some fundamental principles seem to be at stake: individual freedom to practice one’s religion, freedom of choice, freedom of clothing and discrimination against a particular community, that is, the so-called Muslim community. Islamists and some human rights activists maintain that the so-called Muslim community is being stigmatized and has been under racist attack since September 11th. They argue that the latest attempts to ban the burqa or the niqab are a violation of individual freedom and another racist attack on Muslims. Let’s examine these issues more closely.
Two events following one another brought up the question of the Islamic veil in the British media: Jack Straw’s comment on the women wearing the niqab, and the case of Aishah Azmi, a 24 year old support teacher, who was ordered to take off her full veil, including the niqab, when teaching. She took the school to court and the court decided in the school’s favour, and so she appealed against the court’s decision.
In my opinion defending the right to wear the veil in any form or shape and in any circumstances as freedom of choice is fallacious. It overlooks other, just as important, rights recognised by modern civil society. In unconditionally defending the right to wear the veil, one comes, at best, into collision with other set of rights, i.e. children’s rights, women’s rights, societal rights, and the principle of secularism. In debating about the freedom of wearing the veil, one must take different circumstances into consideration. 1. The age of the person wearing the veil. 2. The extent of the veil and 3. Where the veil is worn.
Why are these factors relevant in the discussion?
First and foremost it is important to define what the veil is. Is it only a fashion item, a mere clothing style? The argument that classifies the veil as a style of clothing is totally misleading. The veil is a religious ritual, a religious costume. Moreover, nowadays the veil has become the political banner of a political movement, namely, political Islam. The veil has become the symbol of Islamic power. Wherever Islamists gain power, they force the veil on women, as a sign of their victory and supremacy.
Why is this argument relevant to our discussion? It may be argued that irrespective of its religious or political character and significance, one must be free to wear any “political or religious symbol” one chooses to wear. My response, and I believe many others’, to this is a categorical NO. It must be said that in most countries, including Western democracies, there are certain dress codes at workplaces and wearing different political or religious symbols is not allowed in the workplace. Therefore, the veil must also be viewed in this light. We should tear out all this romantic falsification surrounding the veil. The veil is a religious and political symbol of a religion and movement that degrades and deprives women.
The veil as a symbol of women’s subjugation
The veil is both the symbol and the tool for women’s subjugation. Islam, like all other religions, is a misogynist ideology. Islam is a direct product of patriarchy. Islam, particularly, due to its earthly characteristics, penetrates every aspect of the private and social lives of men and women. A woman, according to Islam, is an extension and subject of a man. She does not have an independent identity, and is defined by her master. The veil has been prescribed to hide men’s property from potential violators. A “free” woman, according to Islam, is considered an open and free target.
It is absurd to regard the veil as a fashion item, or a dress style. We should define the veil as it really is, and as it really functions in the lives of many women under the rule of Islam: a symbol of servitude and subjugation.
Nevertheless, it may be argued that, if one chooses a life of servitude, one should be free to do so. Modern civil society has a different answer to this argument. In a free, modern civil society, when safeguarding human rights, children’s rights or women’s rights, there are laws limiting individuals’ right to harm themselves or to deprive themselves of certain rights and privileges. By the same token, there must be some limitations imposed on the use of the veil. This is perhaps where some disagreements arise. This is where those above-mentioned circumstances come into the picture.
The veil must be banned for underage girls
One of the achievements of the modern civil society is the recognition of society’s responsibility to safeguard children from any kind of abuse. The society must be responsible for children’s safety, happiness, health and their normal growth and development. Past decades have witnessed a great struggle by decent, human-loving individuals to establish the concept of children’s rights, to recognise children as an individual and not the property of their parents. This is a landmark achievement, which contradicts the essence of religion. According to Islam, the child is the property of the father or grandfather, who even have the right to take the child’s life. Therefore, modern children’s rights charters are in basic contradiction with religious laws and customs. They, in fact, nullify certain religious or “divine” rights. This must extend to girls living in Islamic communities.
The veil is a pure discrimination against girls. It hampers their physical and mental development. It segregates them from the rest of the society. It restricts their growth and future development. It assigns to them a prescribed social role according to their gender and a division of labour. Therefore it must be banned. Society is duty-bound to safeguard free, healthy and normal development of these girls. It is a crime to ignore this obligation. Freedom of choice is purely nonsensical regarding the veil for underage girls. “A child has no religion.” It is the parents’ religion that is imposed on the child. Society must respect the child’s right to a free development. Just as modern society recognises the undeniable right to education for all children, bans child labour, and regards physical abuse of children as a major crime, it must also ban the veil for underage girls. This must be added to all international children’s rights charters. The veil is a physical, mental and social abuse of girls and it must be recognised as such by the international community.
Secular society verses the veil
In a secular society, religion must be a private affair of any individual. The state must be separated from religion and stay away from promoting any religion. A secular society can better defend individual rights and civil liberties. Contrary to the commonly held belief, religious hatred or communal stigmatization can better be avoided in a secular society. In a secular society, wearing or carrying any religious symbol at state institutions and in the place of education must be prohibited. By doing this, the state and the educational system avoid promoting any particular religion. Religion remains in the private sphere, and clashes between followers of different religions are somewhat avoided. Therefore, I believe that the recent legislation in France regarding the banning of wearing any religious symbols in state institutions and schools is an appropriate step in the right direction.
However, I believe that its main shortcoming is to still allow private religious schools to operate. This leaves the girl’s fate in the hands of religiously-fanatic parents to send her to private religious school and ghettoize her life completely. This is not respecting individual freedom and civil liberties; this is discrimination against a group of girls who are isolated from the society at large and their lives are ghettoized by their parents and so-called leaders of their communities. The society must defend the right of children; girls living in Islamic communities are no exception. The society and the state have responsibility for their normal, healthy and happy development.
The burqa or the niqab, an individual right or a societal right?
The veil comes in different forms and shapes, from a scarf, to a robe-like loose garment that covers the woman’s whole body (it looks somewhat different in different countries, or according to different Islamic sects’ rules) and finally the burqa or the niqab. The burqa has become known as the symbol of theTaliban, the most severe restriction imposed on women’s appearance.
Must a woman be allowed to cover herself under this most severe form of the veil? In my opinion: NO. The banning of the burqa or the niqab can be argued from two angles, 1) the societal right and 2) the women’s right.
Firstly, in my opinion, when dealing with the burqa or the niqab, we surpass the sphere of individual rights. Here, we enter the sphere of what I call societal rights. The person under this kind of veil has no identity in the face of fellow citizens. The society cannot work with faceless humans. At a workplace, and I mean any workplace, it is the right of the fellow workers and customers to see the faces of colleagues and personnel. There is also the issue of trust at stake. You cannot trust the person who has covered their face. Eyes and facial expressions are the key to communication; if you hide these, there can be no real communication. Therefore, wearing the burqa or the niqab must be banned at the workplace.
I believe that the question of trust and identity goes further than the workplace. It is just as important on the bus, in the park, in the recreation ground, and so on, that you can see the face of the person in your immediate surroundings. Here it is the question of individual rights verses the societal rights. There are instances where the society rightfully decides to deprive certain individuals of certain rights for the benefit of society as a whole. For example, banning smoking in public places and imposing severe restrictions on smokers, limits the individual rights of smokers, but it is defended on the basis of health benefit for the whole society. The burqa or the niqab must be banned for the benefit of society.
Secondly, we argued above that the veil is a symbol and a tool for women’s subjugation and degradation. This is one of the main reasons for demanding that it be banned for underage girls. Nevertheless, we agreed that in a free society an individual has the right to choose servitude, if he/she chooses to do so. However, we also argued that there are certain limitations imposed on self-harming practices by individuals. Female circumcision, which after a long and hard battle became known as what the practice really is, being female genital mutilation, is now banned by many Western governments. Women’s rights activists had to fight vigorously in order to bring consciousness about this brutal practice and to ban it in many countries. There are many different religious sects and not all their practices are permitted by the law. Therefore, religious freedom does not mean freedom to practice just any religious command or custom.
I believe that the burqa or the niqab should also be categorized as those religious practices prohibited by the law. The burqa or the niqab deprives a woman of any identity. By allowing its use, we recognise the existence of some identity-less women who walk around in a ghost-like shape. This is a real insult to human dignity. The society should not permit such a degree of degradation and humiliation of humans. This must fall under the category of the limitations society imposes on self-harming practices. I add in passing that I doubt deeply the nature of voluntary and free choice regarding the veil, particularly in this severe shape. But we will not get into this debate here.
We should redefine the veil. We should debate this question widely and openly. Hopefully, we come to the agreement that certain limitations must be imposed on the veil: banning of all shapes of the veil for underage girls; the use of the veil at public workplaces and educational institutions; and a total ban on the burqa and the niqab.
-
Two Historians Win Prize for Study of Humanity
John Hope Franklin and Yu Ying-shih share the Kluge prize.
-
Hitchens Reviews Clive James
London would have been far less amusing without Clive James’s willingness to take chances.
-
The Phenomenology of Smell
Visual clues are more reliable than olfactory ones for a two-legged fallen human.
-
Scott McLemee Reviews New Thomas Pynchon
To discuss the book adequately would demand a seminar lasting four months.
-
Pope’s Secretary Declares Pope-jokes Not OK
‘Satire is fine. But these things do not have any intellectual quality and offend men of the church. They are not acceptable.’
-
New Think Tank to Promote Thinking
Brainchild of Paul Kurtz will lobby for science-based decision making and against religion in government.
-
Declaration in Defense of Science and Secularism
Cultivation of critical thinking essential not only for science but also for an educated citizenry.
-
Another untrue Scot
And more again.
Consider the typical skirmish between secular and religious protagonists (AC Grayling provides a good case in point with his blog). They lead, at best, up a cul-de-sac because their arguments only go round and round in circles. They are, at worst, dangerous because in forcing people to take sides, they nurture extremes – whether religious or secular. This rides roughshod over the ground that is genuinely fascinating, humanly enriching, and socially essential: the places where science and religion reach the respective limits of their understanding and meet. The militant atheist and the fundamentalist believer alike try to rubbish such engagement because it offends their faith that science or religion can and should say it all.
One, I would say Theo Hobson provides a much better case in point, and that in any case it’s hard to see why Grayling provides a good case in point of both protagonists of that skirmish. Two, what places are there where science and religion reach the respective limits of their understanding and meet? And what’s so fascinating and enriching about them? Unless he just means subjects on which everyone’s understanding is incomplete so everyone can have a good indeterminate discussion? (But then how do discussions of that kind differ from arguments that ‘only go round and round in circles’? Don’t they have a good deal in common? But if so, that’s not particularly a place where science and religion meet, it’s just a place where humans don’t know much. You can meet anyone there. Lepidopterists, mountaineers, anyone.) And three (loud sigh) very few even militant atheists believe (let alone have ‘faith’) that science can and should say it all. I’ve never spoken to or read a single scientist who thinks science can and should say it all – I’d like to challenge all these enemies of militant atheism to cite one who does, with illustrative quotations. Meanwhile I’ll think that’s a canard, a straw man, a red herring, a magenta halibut. As is (loud sigh) the faith accusation. I wish Gordon Brown would make that illegal, if only on grounds of deep boredom.
For example, a typical atheistic line of attack is to accuse religious people of being inherently intolerant because they believe in a monotheistic God. The supposition here is that God is a divine monarch who admits no diversity of views and who legitimates a quasi-totalitarian approach to social and political issues. What the atheist misses is that monotheism, properly understood, makes everything that the believer tries to say of God provisional, since a monotheistic God is transcendent.
Ha! Another ‘no true Scotsman’ move. Monotheism properly understood – which, funnily enough, it so very seldom is. But since monotheism improperly understood is ubiquitous and noisy and demanding, why are atheists debarred from disputing it merely because it’s improperly understood? Since monotheism properly understood is vanishingly rare, especially in the public realm, what is the relevance of the properly understood kind? And who decides how it is properly understood anyway?
To be fair, Vernon goes on to say as much. But he had to get in the inaccurate shots at atheists along the way – atheists improperly understood, I would say.
-
Frank Kermode on Haffenden on Empson
He just thought that people who took what he regarded as ‘disgusting’ views should be corrected.
-
Pakistan Votes to Amend Rape Laws
A woman is raped every two hours and gang-raped every eight hours in Pakistan, according to HRC.
-
Africans React to Gay Marriage Bill
In Uganda, Faridah Kenyini said South Africa had set a good example for rest of continent.
-
Press Releases from HRC of Pakistan
Lots of news there.
-
Mutual Contempt is a Sacred Liberty
Brown should not be seen to promote, by force of law, some dubious concept of a ‘mainstream.’
-
More from Humpty Dumpty
More of the old let’s redefine atheism so that we can declare it illegitimate ploy. This one just runs and runs and runs.
In practice, it is possible to reject religion with a reforming, missionary zeal. This of course is [Grayling’s] position, and that of Dawkins. There is indeed a faith dimension to their non-belief. By contrast it is possible to reject religious belief in a less ardent way: this is known as agnosticism. What distinguishes the atheist from the agnostic is his belief that religion ought to be eliminated, that the world would be radically better off without it. Atheism entails a certain narrative about historical progress: we can move to a new and better age once we have dispensed with superstition. The prospect of a future without religion is good news. The atheist is an evangelist, a communicator of the true cause that will set humanity free. By contrast the agnostic is reluctant to condemn religion as intrinsically bad; he sees it as too complex and contradictory to generalize about.
Yes, certainly. And cucumbers are heavy orange rectangular things that are useful for building walls or heaving through atheists’ windows, and sailboats are fiercely hot little green things you can put in beans or stew or atheists’ eyes, and winter is that very stocky bald guy in the red jumpsuit over there who might be an atheist by the looks of him. In other words, what a ridiculous display of free-association. All those things fit the description of some atheists and agnostics, no doubt, but they’re certainly not part of the meanings of the words. Back to argument school for Theo Hobson.
-
Fears for Lesbian Facing Deportation to Uganda
She is being deported tonight, despite facing persecution and a jail sentence of up to seven years.