Should Muslim Women Wear Veils?
To see or not to see: the threat within our society?
© Ben Hughes
Nov 13, 2006
The wearing of veils by Muslim women is a controversial issue and also raises questions about tolerating often misunderstood religious symbols.
Leader of the House of Commons and former British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, sparked controversy in Britain recently by appearing to criticise Muslim women for wearing veils over their faces. Believing that this is a barrier to community cohesion, he suggested the women should remove their veils to allow face-to-face communityrelations. But whether this amounts to religious intolerance is controversial, even among Muslims.
While the Islamic Human Rights Commission said the comment amounted to discrimination, the Muslim Council of Britain said it understood Mr Straw's point of view. A protest was held by Muslims during the MP’s surgery in his home constituency of Blackburn, England, but other Muslims, including a Muslim MP in Birmingham, supported Straw.
But before condemning or condoning, we need to be very careful about what was actually said. Jack Straw wasn’t demanding that Muslim women remove their veils, but that “wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult” and he asked them to remove their veils so that they could engage in “face-to-face” conversations and he could “see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say.” Is this really asking more than requesting teenagers to remove their hoodies or motorcyclists to take off their crash helmets?
Following Muslims’ involvement in terrorist attacks, too many people associate Islam with extremism and don’t understand the true meaning of the religion. Islam is based on peace, submission and devotion, but Islamaphobia has now become synonymous with being forthright, just as Adolf Hitler represents all Germans and all disaffected high school pupils commit college murders.
Wearing a veil, or niqab, is not taught in the Qur’an but is rather a hadith (example) set by Muslims after the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him). It isn’t taught explicitly in the Holy Book but is a tradition among some Muslims. It represents a sign of respect before Allah and is a protection against lustful males, who can get to know the woman for who she is and not what she looks like.
As one verse states: “O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them when they go out or are among men.”
But, in our fragile world, under what circumstances should we accept people whose faces we can’t see? Religious intolerance is the current focus of society mainly because of what we don’t understand about religions. Islam teaches as much about terrorism as Catholicism does about priests committing abuse.
The choice here isn’t about whether Jack Straw was right or wrong in his comments. It isn’t even about whether veils should be worn or not. Rather it's about equality in and threats to our society and whether we view people who are different as people who are also dangerous.
Beliefs and opinions are one thing but whether we view them as a personal attack or treat people differently because of our ignorance of them is another.
The copyright of the article
Should Muslim Women Wear Veils? in
Religious Intolerance is owned by
Ben Hughes. Permission to republish
Should Muslim Women Wear Veils? must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Nov 21, 2006 8:50 AM
Ben Hughes
:
Personal communication is about seeing someone's face rather than just a bit of it. It's about being able to communicate openly and honestly with other people. In a world which is now so caught up with threats of terror, everyone should understand the importance of open communication and for this reason, shouldn't all headgear and head coverings, whether religious or not, be banned?
Dec 11, 2006 10:32 PM
Bethina Abrahams
:
By banning headgear and head coverings, you would be doing nothing but giving in to people's fear, ignorance, and racism. I find it very strange how society openly accepts the racism and discrimination against Muslims that would not be tolerated for any other group. When a nun wears a habit, which looks very much like a hijab, she is treated with dignity and respect. However, when a Muslim woman wears much the same outfit, she is forced to defend herself. As for banning all headgear and headcoverings, I am assuming that would go for baseball caps, berets, cowboy hats, pageboy caps, etc. Or would that just be for more "ethnic" head coverings?
Dec 12, 2006 12:32 PM
Ben Hughes
:
Hoodies are alreday banned in some shopping centres and crash helmets are banned in places like banks. I think what people like is some face-to-face communication rather than just being able to see someone's eyes and this is the issue with the hijab that isn't the same with something like a nun's habit or most other headgear.
Are you saying that there should be a blanket ban on all headgear or none at all?
I do agree that ignorance and bigotry come into it but surely you can't be saying that the hijab is the same as a beret.
Apr 22, 2007 12:31 PM
Sandra Williams
:
Ben, it certainly would be easier to talk to someone if you could see their face. However, this is something many feel strongly about. They're raised with certain cultural beliefs and if they forgo their veils for us, they risk being ostracized from their own peers.
Apr 23, 2007 11:12 PM
Ben Hughes
:
I know cultural beliefs are important but whose culture should take priority? Does it really matter if we can't see someone's face or should they forgo their cultural identity depending which country they are in? If western women go to Islamic countries, they are told to cover up, but I'm just wondering at what point, if any, cultural identity should be overriden for security reasons, community relations or anything else.
May 13, 2007 9:37 AM
Smorg
:
I'd vote for <i>when in Rome, do as the Romans</i> kind of practice. The host culture gets to make the call... and if the host country thinks that tourist money or other incentive is more vital to them than upholding their cultural 'standard' and decides to waive the requirement, that is their call, too, in my book. :o)
There was a case a while back regarding the female US military personels who didn't want to wear a veil while serving in Egypt (I think... or one of its Arab neighbors). Culturally I think the polite thing to do is to cover up. But if it would also mean a security risk to the military compound to let veiled people in without being able to weapon-screen them, then that gets more complicated. I'd like to say that the US can say we won't deploy our troops there to keep your interest safe (if that's the purpose of the deployment) if we can't check the compound visitors' veil, and we will pull out. And then the host country can decide what to mandate when their citizens want to visit the US compound. However, I still would say even in such case, the female US personnel should wear veil when they leave the compound and go to town, tho.
American laws/rights apply in America.... not in other sovereign countries. I had no sympathy whatsoever for that American boy who went and vandalized a car in Singapore back in the 90's and then tried to avoid being punished by the Singaporean laws (slashing, I think) by claiming his American rights.
May 17, 2007 10:38 AM
Ben Hughes
:
Thanks for your comments.
I think I have to agree. We need to be aware of other people's opinions and not deliberately set out to offend them, but at the same time we should live by the laws of the country we're in.
I'm just not sure what would happen in somewhere like Iraq at the moment, which is apparently on the verge of collapse. Does the same rule apply to countries who are breaking up or setting up new governments with the help of Western "friends"? Who has the right to set the laws - the indiginous population? But I think the Western governments have too much of an influence and there will be one homogenous way of living if certain people get their way. I'm going off the point I know, but it leads to thinking where the laws come from, who makes them and for what purpose. Too much of one influence and we'll all be living in Rome.
May 23, 2007 7:01 PM
Smorg
:
"<i>Does the same rule apply to countries who are breaking up or setting up new governments with the help of Western "friends"? Who has the right to set the laws - the indiginous population?</i>"
Argghh. Tough question there, mate. My take on that is... the people who will have to live under the code of law get to be the one to write it... If I use Iraq today as the example, then the Iraqi have to come up with the set of laws that most of their people can live with... And that may have (at least) initially very bloody consequences, since there are 3 or more major factions in that country and they don't get on very well.
I think laws are set of social agreements made so that a large group of humans can co-exist in relative peace. I don't think there is anything sacred or divine about them. There are common ones that most cultures agree on, I think... Murder is wrong in most cultures, but different cultures provide different <i>exceptions</i> for each offense.
I think different cultures are formed and shaped by different native environment, so I don't think that imposing the cultural laws of one far away country onto the populace of another country of different culture is a good or wise idea. :o)
May 24, 2007 2:05 PM
Ben Hughes
:
I like your thinking (and feel that we think along the same lines).
A controversial question:
"the people who will have to live under the code of law get to be the one to write it..."
Does this mean that Saddam Hussain was right all along? If the majority of the population agreed with him, should he have been deposed? (If you don't want to answer, just have a good think)
And if we are working on laws as social agreements, as I also think they are, does this mean that moral absolutism (like the 10 Commandments) are secondary to social agreement or do we start off with absolute moral laws and then adapt them to ourselves?
As a Christian I feel that absolute moral laws are the way forward as a starting point at least but we do need to recognise that things change over time and can be adapted slightly. I think this is where the social agreement comes in and as you say, there are common laws that most cultures agree on.
May 28, 2007 11:41 PM
Smorg
:
Hiya Ben,
Very interesting articles you've been putting up and there's another interesting question, too! :o)
<i>Was Saddam Hussain right all along?</i>
Heh... I don't know if he was right in his ideas of what to do with the power he had as a dictator. But it seems he did know better than we did (maybe I shouldn't use past tense there... I think many still haven't learnt the lessons) about what actually worked in that country... And how to get things done best in that culture.
In my idealic youth, I wouldn't believe it... but then I discovered Russian literature and non-fiction books... And it seems some cultures are just more inclined toward monarchy or dictatorship than others. Maybe the Hussein dictatorship was really the least bloody way to keep that place together and somewhat working... until the people there can find a way to revolutionize out of it from within.
I think even before 2003, there were plenty of history to tell us that a country can't be revolutionalized into a more enlightened one by a foreign power... and also that one mustn't mistake the will of the intelligentsia class for the will of the people in a 3rd world country. Democracy depends a lot on the public being very aware and educated... and most of the public in those places just aren't. And so the Bushies here kept citing the few Iraqi intelligentsia in exile's opinion as if that was the sentiment prevailing in Iraq, but they were wrong. They failed to think of what American people would do if some other world power decided to come and liberate us from our own dictator... Even the most 'liberal' among us would shoot the liberators and not our own army.
<i>Does this mean that moral absolutism are secondary to social agreement?</i>
I tend to think so, mate. Survival comes first before principles... when it comes down to it. That's another thing we in developed countries tend to forget when we look at 3rd world ones. When basic needs aren't met, to heck with the laws or principles. I think that's why it often takes a strong (and bloody) leader to jump start a new country, but then that leader would have to give way (voluntarily or not) once the country is on its feet...
Also... even the most common moral laws aren't immuned to exceptions. Murder is wrong... unless it is in self defense? unless it is to safe guard a perceived honor (some societies have that)? unless it is to protect other innocent life?...
I guess what I advocate is for the people to ack
