Ban the Burkha and Bin our Freedoms

international | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis

Thursday June 25, 2009 02:57

by Nick Folley - none

Is banning the burkha really about liberating women?

So Sarkozy – and others in the UK – cry ‘Ban the burkha!’

What do they have against it? I picked up a copy of the Daily Express (Wednesday 24th June 2009) which carried the loud headline “Ban the Burkha here in Britain” (all in capitals in the original, of course) with my morning coffee, hoping to shed some light on the answer.

What I found was a curious mix of anti-religion and anti-pluralism dressed up as feminism. Sarkozy had demanded that Muslim women ‘be freed from being prisoners behind a screen’ as the Daily Express quoted him. Islamic experts were quoted on the Koran to debunk the idea that the burkha is a religious necessity. We were presented instead with the idea that conservative and chauvanistic Muslim men had misused religion and dreamed up the burkha as a means of dominating women. There was a token nod to the fact that the burkha originated in a place and time when it was a practical garment, a protection against the sands of the desert, but that was no longer a practical necessity.

It was amusing to read the comments of the few – Western – women who were asked their views. They found the burka ‘really scary…intimidating…a sign of oppression’. The first interviewee admitted she rarely if ever saw burkhas in her native Germany. That might partially help to explain why she found them ‘scary’ – lack of familiarity, maybe. An alternative – if rather obvious - solution here would be to help these women understand their own views might in fact be prejudiced by the culture in which they were raised. And if ‘scariness’ and ‘intimidating’ are criteria to be used in banning items of clothing, where does that leave body-piercings, tattoos, mohicans, skinheads and so on? There are plenty of people who – rightly or wrongly - find all of these things either repulsive or downright scary. Maybe we should all be obliged to wear a simple green, non-threatening boiler suit like Chinese communists of old. Don’t laugh… it might not be as far off or impossible as you think!

As for ‘oppressive’, surely that depends on your perspective too? For women used to wearing what they want and uncovering almost as much of their bodies as they want, the burkha might seem monotonous or excessive. But another way of looking at this is to consider for a moment the oppressivness of Western fashions that cause eating-disorders and mental health issues in many Western women trying to live up to its dictates. How often have we heard a female colleague / partner / friend complain about the trend to Size Zero, the dread of ‘having to’ uncover in the warmer summer months with all the attendant anxiety of “am I too fat / hairy / cellulite-ridden?” and so on. Those of us who think Western fashion is ‘liberating’ for women might do well to read John Berger’s book “Ways of Seeing”. Women in burkhas are, at least, liberated from such immediate worries. But is it a price worth paying? We can only know that by asking the burkha-wearers and there was little about this aspect in the pages of the Daily Express. A second consideration is that wearing a mask of some sort might be liberating in itself. If you’re used to wearing one, I can think of all kinds of situations when a mask would be highly useful – such as hiding a yawn during a boring buisness meeting, covering up our sense of irony as an acquaintance brags yet again about their weekend and so on. I remember reading somewhere – I don’t have the reference to hand – of one Muslim burkha-wearer making just such a point. She also commented on how wearing a burkha released her from the usual worry of most women of having to fret over make up and not looking their best in the morning while rushing to work. That's not to say there isn't a middle road either - not having to go to either extreme, but simply to try and put ourselves in the mindset of someone who perhaps actually wants to wear a burkha.

It is instructive in this context to consider a historical precedent – and a European one at that – where having your face covered was considered quite normal. We are all familiar to some extent with the Venice carnival and the strange masks worn during that period of the year. But there was a time in Venice’s history when masks were worn by almost everyone for a greater part of the time. The typical mask was called a Volto or Larva – a kind of white mask covering half the face leaving the mouth free for speaking and eating. This was topped up by a kind of cloak or hood, the whole being known as the Bautta. Venetians found this disguise tremendously liberating, blurring as it did, the class distinctions of the time and allowing everyone a degree of anonymity we can only dream of in this CCTV-riddled era. If I may quote a line from Marion Kaminski’s excellent book 'Art & Architecture – Venice': “The Venetian fashion of wearing masks brought with it many advantages and freedoms which must have seemed close to paradise for many foreigners”

Thirdly, taking another quote from the Daily Express on the ‘opression theme’ – “There is no more promient sign of female oppression by men than the burkha” according to one businesswoman interviewed. I beg to differ. Again, there is another way of looking at this. Could it be instead that the Western commercialisation and objectification of the female form is the surest sign of the true oppression of the woman in Western society? Women’s bodies are exposed and used to sell just about everything manufacturers and advertisers can dream up. They are more directly exploited in forms such as pornography and lap-dancing. Surely it makes sense that in a society dominated by men and their ‘wants’ that the tendency is to de-clothe women and towards nakedness? Is it really a ‘freedom’ to be able to reduce your body to an object for sale? And further, to be convinced that this is actually what you wish to do yourself? In the Screwtape Letters, C.S Lewis argued that the most potent form of social control is to persuade people that what you want them to do is actually what they want to do for themselves. I have always thought the argument that religions were invented by male chauvinists to control women rather odd. Yes, it is true that many of the precepts in some religions seem like a list of ‘Dos’ and ‘Don’ts’ for women. But I have long thought that if men were to sit down and invent a religion to subordinate women they would probably include a rule that claimed God (or the Gods) demanded that all women parade around in bikins, whatever the weather! In fact a few of the fake Christian cults with a male-guru type figure and that sprang up in the 1960s and 1970s treated women in this way.

Conspicuously absent were the views of the Muslim women who wear the burkhas. The paper did cleverly attempt to suggest it had tried to portray their viewpoint, but without success and entirely through no fault of its own: “groups of Muslim women dressed in the restrictive robes refused to comment…most refused to be seen engaging with a non-Muslim man in public” (the journalist was a man). One might argue that the newspaper – if genuinely interested in seeking their views – could have displayed more cultural sensitivity and sent a woman, at least, to interview the burkha-wearers. Instead, by choosing to send a man – and surely conscious of the unease this would create among the very women whose opinion they wished to obtain – they can cleverly guarantee the exclusion of those voices while simultaneously framing the situation in a way that favours the Western cultural perspective: that these women are supposedly afraid of their own chauvanistic menfolk and unwilling to speak to strange men on the street.

A more subtle factor is the use of qualifying adjectives such as ‘the restrictve robes’. This is of course a very subjective opinion. What is ‘restrictive’ about these robes? It is possible to argue they restrict movement – it can’t be easy to run in them, for example. Apart from saying it limits the kinds of jobs a woman can do the paper doesn’t elaborate so we can let our imaginations run away with us and end up regarding these ‘robes’ as a synonm for a set of convict’s chains. But let us take a much-prized item of western clothing: the business suit. One could easily argue this is ‘restrictive clothing’. What could be more restrictive than a dull, conservative three-piece that echoes Henry Ford’s dictum ‘you can have any colour you like as long as it’s black”? A set of clothes designed to supresses our individuality, to reduce us to drones in the corporate anthill? There is even symbolism to be found in a shirt and tie – a dog’s collar and lead, perhaps? Has anyone ever tried climbing a tree in a business suit, or doing tricks on a skateboard?

But frivolity aside, it wasn’t too difficult to discern the real concerns behind the burkha: cultural assimilation. As one woman was quoted “whenever I see these women hiding themselves away my blood reaches boiling point and I just want to scream at them”… “Leeds has a fast-growing Muslim population… an increase in the number of women choosing to wear the burkha, much to the anger of many of the city’s inhabitants’ (!)

In what seems to amount to an admission that the Great Experiment of Pluralism has failed, the emphasis is now again on conformity. I would not be the first person to suggest this of course. In ‘The Totalitarian Temptation’ Jean Francois Revel argued that true pluralism is only ever a temporary state or condition. There always arises at some point in any society a group or paradigm that is able to force itself on all others as the only acceptable paradigm. I see an increasing trend towards this in Western society today, for all its lip-service to liberal pluralism. What is at issue here is not the burkha, or even women’s ‘freedom’ (it’s an odd form of ‘freedom’ that prohibits women from wearing a garment even if they wish to) but the fact that in certain Western countries there are large ethnic groups who do not seem to have ‘converted’ to the societal model that has been traditional in those countries. They dress differently, they perhaps speak differently, eat different foods, may have different religions and so on. Above all, they are present in numbers too large to be a novelty or ignore, and so they move to presenting a ‘threat’. I use the word in inverted commas as the ‘threat’ may be real or imagined. I believe it operates on two levels: the native inhabitants of the country (be it France or the UK) have created an identity for themselves that they are comfortable and familiar with. Thus we have the stereotypes that for example, British people like cricket, bangers and mash, the Queen (generally!), have a certain sense of humour and whose social life mainly revolves around the pub and so on. Obviously this is a stereotype and a very superficial one at that, but it is simply to illustrate the point that a people can hold an idea of what it means to belong to their ‘country’ or geographic boundaries. A certain degree of tolerance for difference of skin colour or custom is allowed as long as these ‘aliens’ agree to buy into the main apects of the local culture and values. Now what we see happening is a challenge to that: here are a very large group of people who DON’T fit neatly into that model and instead seem to keep apart from it. This has two effects: one one level it can create unease in some people as they begin to wonder (perhaps subconsciously) if a two parallel societies will develop in the same geographic area. Thus their ‘country’ will effectively shrink. A second effect is the worry that their familiar concepts of what it means to be ‘British’ or ‘French’ may be superseded, that they may find themselves effectively strangers in their own land. At best, they may be forced to re-evaluate what being British means, and re-evaluating and updating our cherished assumptions is generally a discomforting thing. At worst, they may find themselves a minority in the future, living under cultural paradigms and even laws alien to them – especially as it has become fashionable to have smaller families in the West and birthrates have fallen. Thus, faced with these unknowns, there is a defensive tendency to want to force adaptation on the ‘alien’ aspects of the ‘other’ culture in their midst. After centuries of imposing their own cultural norms on civilisations around the world (both France and Britain were once large colonial powers) now everyone will be forced to become a kind of ‘standard Briton’ if they want to live in the UK, or a ‘standard French person’ if they want to live in France. Holland has already gone down this route, obliging immigrants to pass exams of sorts on Dutch culture and langauge. Again, it would not be the first time in history – many European cities in the middle ages imposed all kinds of restrictions on non-natives to limit their numbers and influence, while medieval Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand went as far as expelling all Jews and Muslims for much the same reasons.

But apart from the ‘siege mentality’ of countries now experiencing a distinct, large and different group in their midst, there is another possible factor discernable here: anti-religionism. Part of the problem seems to stem from the fact that the burkha – along with the niquab (headscarf worn by Muslim women) – announce one’s allegiance to a religion, a set of beliefs. It is interesting that the same paper carries a story on p. 19 of Nurse Helen Slater who felt compelled to quit her job on account of being forbidden by her employers from wearing a small crucifix on a neckchain. Among the rather spurious reasons given by the NHS bosses were that the crucifix represented a possible hygiene hazard (in which case so would wedding rings, or even more so shoes and clothes in general with their far greater surface area) or as a weapon which could be used by a patient. This last reason beggars belief. What is a pateient going to do with a three-quarter inch blunt crucifix that they could not far more easily achieve with readily available hypodermic syringes?

In short, the move to ‘ban the burkha’ can be seen as a wider drive to ban all reference to religion from the public sphere. The reason for this is often given as an attempt to promote tolerance and respect for ‘other religions’ Once again, it’s a strange kind of ‘respect’ that tries to add a dimension of suppression to religious expression. The reason can far more easily be found in the modern secular states desire to have the undivided allegiance of its citizens. Religion presents a challenge – most of the world’s principal religions hold allegiance to a higher, non-wordly Power (call it God if you will) whose demands and expectations may – and often do – clash with the ‘wants’ of the secular state. A simple way to understand this is to consider Penal times in Ireland when Catholics were suspect as their loyalties were believed – rightly or wrongly – to lie with an overseas Pope rather than with the British Crown. A large number of highly restrictive laws came into force to disable Catholics from public life, and these laws were only eased when the loyalty in main –whether through desire or force – could be assured. (For more on this see Joseph McVeigh “A Wounded Church”) Modern parallels can be found in atheistic and communist China where all religions are frowned upon unless explicitly vetted and approved by the Communist Party and authorities for their assured loyalty. Thus there is an officially-approved form of Catholicism permitted in China, but Falun Gong is widely described as being akin to terrorism because it does not owe its ultimate obedience to the State. Soviet Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia both suppressed religion and tried to indoctrinate those not already born into a Church because of the desire that the secular State alone should be the ultimate authority, and have the ultimate claim on the loyalty of its citizens. The ideal for the secular state would be to ban religion completely, and this did indeed happen in Pol Pot’s Cambodia and to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union. But where that’s not (yet) possible, a satisfactory step is to curtail the public expression of religion and to reduce its influence on public life as far as possible. Thus religion – in an argument I’m sure familiar to many reading this article – becomes something ‘for behind closed doors in the privacy of your own home’ – and where it can’t get in the way of the ‘wants’ of the secular state. The Daily Express even gives an example - “Turkey, a secular Muslim country, has banned headscarves in schools, universities and public offices” I wonder if ‘secular Muslim’ is not something of an oxymoron?

I haven’t mentioned the so-called ‘security aspect’ of the burkha, and maybe I should. The Daily Express presented the view that wearing a burkha presents a security problem as it could hide terrorist intentions. I believe these ‘security reasons’ are – as often - suspect if not downright spurious. If I am correct, there is no prohibition on another woman seeing a veiled face – the veil is there to block the unwanted gaze of men – so a female security officer could easily check identities if required. Nor will a veil block the x-rays of scanning machines or we’d all have to go naked at the airport. Dark sunglasses also hide the eyes – and thus, to an extent, the immediate intentions of the wearer, one reason they are favoured by ‘security services’. Perhaps they too should be banned.

Finally, I should point out that I am neither for nor against the burkha. I believe it should be a matter of choice. If a woman wants to wear a burkha, that’s up to her. If she feels it’s a religious obligation, surely she should not be forced to act against her conscience? If it’s not and is being abused by men to subjugate women– as is argued by the Daily Express – then this is a matter for the religious instructors to sort out. But I AM against thinly-veiled attempts to socially engineer us into being obedient citizens, with the secular State as our sole God, especially when it’s dressed up and sold to us as ‘freedom’.

save preference

Comments (43 of 43)

yeah I agree, FF have totally lost it

by WahabbiDessert

Mon Jul 27, 2009 02:33

Glad to see we largely agree on the blasphemy thing. Alas, we can't blame this one on Europe. It's totally home grown nonsense.

So your God can deal with me in the next life then. I'm perfectly happy with that state of affairs. He/she/it will have to get in line though. Apparently all the other gods will be wanting a piece of me too. I'm particularly worried about Thor. He looks like he's got a lousy temper and a REALLY big hammer!! ;-)

And nick, I do hope you are equally worried about the spaghetti monster and his dreaded noodly appendage! Might be messy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

Societal rather than religious laws

by Nick Folley

Mon Jul 27, 2009 02:10

I don't really want to start a thread on religion, but you said something interesting there that I'd like to reply to, namely

"People should be allowed to say anything they like. If it really bothers god then since he is such a powerful white dude like in the pictures (or african american jewish HIV+ dwarf crippled woman, whatever!), then I'm pretty sure he can sort them out himself. To believe otherwise and to think that we have to do it for him seems a bit presumptuous and maybe even blasphemous!"

As far as I understand it, the Christian belief is that God will sort them out - but in the next life, or, more accurately people sort themselves out by choosing during their lives where they wish to go afterwards.

But in this life we have free will which God will not tamper with even if we use it to offend him, as to do so would be to break one his own 'rules'

Anyway, I'm not saying you have to believe all that; only that from the Christian religious point of view the blasphemy laws are indeed unnecessary as you say (I hope I am getting that right and will not find myself contradicted by a theologian / catechisist). The legislation seems to be more about laws designed to 'get' people for blasphemy in the here and now for societal rather than spiritual reasons.

What constitutes blasphemy?

Mon Jul 27, 2009 01:44

Incidentally, in relation to the hypothesis you mention above about pasta gods and other gods, I'm not sure what you describe actually qualifies as blasphemy. Sure, if you have two religions each claiming to have the one true God, one of them must either be false, or both, or they could be describing the same God in different ways because they've has different revelations.

But I always thought blasphemy meant setting out to create offence. For example, it might not be considered blasphemy to say 'God does not exist' but if you were to say 'God is a drunken...etc.,' and illustrated this with a picture and set out to create offence, then that might qualify as blasphemy.

In the New Testament we read that the Jews regarded it as blasphemy when Jesus claimed to have come from God and to be his Son. So perhaps in this sense you have a point, because Jesus appeared to be claiming something that contradicted the religion (but Christians would then argue that was because the prophecies of the Old Testament hadn't been fully and properly understood).

I guess the new law will be directed more at people like the cartoonists who did those cartoons of Mohammed (which did seem done to cause annoyance) rather than people who say God does not exist. Atheists can probably rest easy as long as they do not present their case mockingly.

But anyway I am against such a law in principle.

OOPs!

Mon Jul 27, 2009 01:34

Ooops! I just wondered if the word 'hell' in the context above qualifies as blasphemy? I hope not!

Blasphemy laws

Mon Jul 27, 2009 01:32

Hi WahaabiDessert, I'm glad to see someone's still keeping an eye on this thread... thought no one had read it since my second last post! ;-))

It may come as a surprise to you, but actually I'm not AT ALL in favour of the new blasphemy law! I don't know what the hell the FFers think they are doing by rushing it through, but then there's some mighty strange legislation coming out of Dail Eireann these days. Maybe they're hoping that along with the new criminal (in)justice bill they'll finally get a handle on those gangsters! Soon as one of those self-made drug barons utters another religious expletive the Guards can just rush in and nail him! No doubt he'll utter a few more profanities as they bundle him off down to the Bridewell, so by the time he appears in court there won't be any need for CAB with all the fines imposed!

I think a E100,000 fine is as ridiculous as the new law itself. I don't know what's got into the government these days, they just seem to love passing draconian laws and filling the jails - or state coffers.

I think the best way to deal with blasphemy would be to educate people to be a bit more sensitive to the feelings of those around them and let common decency do the rest. For example when my work colleagues say "J***** this" and "J***** that" I know they do it unthinkingly and not to offend me. It does grate on my ears but I try and tip them off very very gently so they get the point. Usually they try not to then, and if they do, they know it upsets. Being decent people they don't go out of their way to upset with whatever they know upsets!!

I wonder if the government are responding to some EU directive, as usually when we saw bizarre new laws being passed the trail of thinking seems to end up in Brussels or Strasbourg.

It's a slippery slope Nick......

Mon Jul 27, 2009 01:07

"If more Mulims got involved in such threads and challenged the blasphemy and pointed out how offensive and narrow minded it is, there might be less of it to deal with"

I take it you are somewhat in favour of the new blasphemy law Nick? What do you think of the 100,000 euro fine? If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster and you believe in jaweh, only one of us is correct (assuming we are not both wrong!!) and hence to one of us the other's religion could in a sense be considered blasphemous. After all, it does essentially say the others deity does not exist and there is a tacit implication that the tenets of their faith and their holy book must contain at least some untruths or lies. That seems mighty blasphemous.

People should be allowed to say anything they like. If it really bothers god then since he is such a powerful white dude like in the pictures (or african american jewish HIV+ dwarf crippled woman, whatever!), then I'm pretty sure he can sort them out himself. To believe otherwise and to think that we have to do it for him seems a bit presumptuous and maybe even blasphemous!

The cold fact is we are all unbelievers to a whole plethoras of gods. Atheists just go one god further.

If believing in a fictitious entity gives you comfort in this seemingly bleak cruel and meaningless existence then I think I can understand that, but thats really between you and your invisible friend, so please keep it out of the legislature and do not use it as a lever to try to blackmail and manipulate people and to stymie their ability to speak freely on whatever topics they choose to in the public discourse.

(BTW, the "you"above is not directed specifically at you nick, but at all religious evangelists who would do these things)

Nice pic! :-)

Obama & Sarkozy

Mon Jul 27, 2009 00:26

Hmmm. No wonder Sarkozy is not in favour of burkhas! Wouldn't be able to do much of this, then!

Sarkozy admires a woman not in a burkha

Solutions are not only in the West, of course!

Wed Jul 08, 2009 17:17

Sevinch, I think if you look back, you'll see it was WaahaabiDessert who wrote "Please do not sell me short because I have a penis thanks" so I'm not sure where your comment "I have little interest in which poster have penis and which have vagina ... at this stage of the the debate" is coming from. I'll just assume it's your way of saying it doesn't matter to you if I am a man or a woman. Ok. But then you go on to harshly criticize MarNoe for making the comments she did - on the basis of her being a woman. You argue she is internalizing 'male-repression'. So it seems we just can't escape our gender and simply argue as humans!

I can understand your point about many Muslim contributors being reluctant to participate in forums where Islam is attacked blasphemously. As you may have guessed, I am coming from a Christian background, and am often saddend by the way in which Christianity is gratuitously attacked in such forums. But as long as there is a good percentage of the posters willing to debate the topic fairly and without recourse to gratuitous blasphemy, I am wiling to go on as long as I have time and there is sufficient interest. If more Mulims got involved in such threads and challenged the blasphemy and pointed out how offensive and narrow minded it is, there might be less of it to deal with (though I know to some people that can simply act as an invitation!)

"I do take an issue however with your suggestion of "training " "an army of Islamic missionaries whose job it would be to challenge the extremist Imams on their own grounds", do you see the problem in this suggestion? Why in the West?"

You seem to be under the impression that I am suffering from the delusion of The White Man's Burden, that it is the task of the 'civilized and enlightened West' to govern and guide more 'backward' societies. No, in fact I am more inclined to quote Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization and he replied "I think it would be a good idea" (i.e if the West was civilized by someone).

My argument was this - that if Western countries WANTED to do something useful in that line, that instead of cheap shots like banning the burkha in the UK or France (which is going to do nothing for women in Sudan etc., anyway) they could use some of their considerable financial resources to fund schools to promote a more humane (and still true) version of the Koran preached. A second advantage here would be that such schools would be less likely to be burned down by say, the Taliban. That is not to detract from work already being done in Islamic countries, nor to suggest that it can only be done in, and by, the West.

I also find a slight contradiction in your statement: "Tent", "Cows", "Slaves" has undertones which suggest to the section of women who are covering by choice or out of faith a tyranny of "modernity" whereby measure of freedom is the visible your body parts" and your criticism of MarNoe, who to me seems to be making much the same point.

That is, that many Western girls - under huge pressure from a commercial fashion industry whose principal aim is to make profit, pop stars who try and make up for a deficit of talent with a surfeit of flesh, fashion magazines in cahoots with the fashion industry etc., - seem to feel the only way they can be valued is to follow the dictates of that fashion and put all the focus on their flesh, rather than their personal achievements, personal goals, personality (i.e 'cheapen' themselves, as MarNoe said).

The extent to which many girls are debilitated and enslaved to this merciless 'appearances-are-all' regime can be gauged by how many of them end up seriously ill with eating disorders, succumb to bullying and / or try and kill themselves in the belief that they are not beautiful enough, and wear whatever they think will attract boys - and thus signify their 'successfulness' as females. Ok, by no means the majority of girls fall into these categories, but such a significant number do as to make it a matter of concern. I know I am not alone in thinking this, as it has been debated in newspapers, there has been the anti-size Zero fashion movement and so on.

A final thought - I hear much about 'male-repression' meaning the way in which men attempt to control and influence women through various means (State institutions, religion etc.,) This is a traditional kind of argument that says power in society is held by men alone.

I wonder if you are familiar with the writings of Michel Foucault? He argued that power is not a straight bi-polar symmetry, where A has power over B, but that in any apparent relationship of power, B employs numerous strategies to exercise less obvious power over A, that power is not simply a one-way relationship. He conducted most of his research in prisons and other institutions but his findings can be applied in other kinds of relationships as well.

A simple example is the way in which men in most societies are expected to be 'the provider'. In many countries the labour market has changed and the qualities of most use in the office (for example) are likely to be patience, multi-tasking etc., rather than brute physical power (as in more traditional 'male' jobs like steel mills and so on). As industrial processes move to countries where labour is cheaper and the West becomes more 'services' oreintated, many men have found themselves out of work and out on a limb. Yet there is still a subtle societal pressure on them to be the provider, and their sense of worth as a man is often based on this. You catch it in semi-joking remarks about a man being 'a kept man' if his wife works and he doesn't, the expectation from women that men will be the bread-winner even if they work themselves, the subtle pressure from many girlfriends and wives for men to 'go after that promotion' or 'get a better job' and so on. Talk to any man - and see what he says about it!

On a semi-joking note, I wonder if being pressured into a shirt and tie by your wife is any worse than being pressured into a burkha by your husband! ;-))

Thanks for the tip on Tariq Ramadan, must check him out.

On the assumption all practices are orthodox and "backward" in Islam

by Sevinch - WSm-Personal capacity

Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevism

Alevism, a "contreversial" reformed and reformist sect of Islam, practised mostly by sections of the Northern Muslims (Turkey, South and North Kurdistan, North West Iran and parts of the Balkans) may provide some answers to the holders of the assumption Muslim world has no opening for reform, radicalism, equality etc. Suprisingly, it did not come from "West" whose followers were not "trained" in the West, neither they had been initially influenced by the West. Alevi communities refrain from gender segregation, poligamy and attempts to curtail oppression of women. But there is a cynical effort to oppress this sect and councious effort not to represent their views and way of life as it would not serve to the campaign against Muslims and the fear and lies powers of the Western world so desire to spread about Muslims. This effort justifies among many motivations, the wars against Muslim countries from which tremendous profits to be made. Arms industry today, by far, is the biggest and most profitable industry of the Western powers, they do not need to or desire to change anything in the Muslim world, they only need to maintain these wars. Attack on cover is a mere spin they put on the dirty game they are in.

Also read on Fatima al-Fihri , founder of one of the earliest if not first university in North Africa (Morocco today), Fatima Mernissi, Sufism, Bektashi (or Baktasi) and Kadiri (or Qadiri) order, Rumi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj and consept of " I am God (justice)".

and for laugh and good times on You Tube; try search terms "Allah Made Me Funny" and their website of the same name with .com extension.

Sevinch....

Sun Jul 05, 2009 09:34

Good post Seve. IMHO much more persuasive, honest and less dismissive with even a touch of humour thrown in. FWIW I think you are making more friends here now.

I agree that you never claimed anywhere that anarchist meetings were a place free from the need to have persuasive skills. However I only mentioned the anarchist meetings as an example to highlight the need for such skills even in the most enlightened of political circles ;-) I thought, given your chosen political affiliation, this example would have more resonance with your own personal experiences. However having read your last post, perhaps it IS fair to say that I am not giving credit where credit is due and being somewhat disingenuous to somebody whom I am in agreement with. So I humbly accept your tu tu! :-) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballet_tutu )

Not mentioning Nawal El Saadawi's critiques of Western feminism is purely down to ignorance on my part. I'll have a look.

BTW I think Irshad Manji is the name of the canadian lesbian woman you mentioned to nick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji
here is a link about her book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Islam_Today

Back to the discussion. I don't think the koran explicitly told women to wear burkhas. I think It suggested they dress modestly. The koran was MUCH more explicit on what to do with unbelievers and that is one reason why I strongly object to it. I believe it fundamentally enshrines violence in it's tenets. For example, you only have to look at some of the passages quoted in "fitna" to see this.

I think the general feeling is definitely one of second class citizenship for women in the koran though. And it does advocate among other things, giving your wife a good beating. In this it is more explicit. So I do think a particular attitude towards women is explicitly enshrined in the koran and it is not unreasonable to expect that if a society as a whole embraces and takes up this religion then that attitude towards women will also be taken up with it. Especially since it is oh so very convenient for men to have an infallible argument whenever they behave badly towards women. "God told me to"

Religions as such tend to place some sort of value on NOT questioning things. This is where the real danger lies. Especially when it comes to things like human rights and freedoms. I personally believe everything should be open to question. As such to me religions are intolerable blockages to progress towards equal rights for everyone including women and act as hiding places for oppressors and abusers. Our own religious history in Ireland certainly bears this point out

The burkha is a diversion from the real debates we are not having as you so rightly point out Seve. And IMHO Islam and the koran itself are fundamentally part of the problem (as are other holy books)

I am sure the debate was going to divert back one day...

by Sevinch - WSm-Personal Capacity

Sun Jul 05, 2009 01:28

Wahabi,
Disingenuous I reject, impatient yes, but you are entitled to your opinion. Do I need to build a consensus? Yes. Do I have the patience or necessary energy? Unfortunately, not. Do I need to educate interested parties, not in my case, I only have a responsibility to persuade people to educate themselves, at which I must admit I am doing a bad job.

"Perhaps you could ask yourself honestly If I had called myself mary or ayeesha and discussed the topic in the same way, would you have felt exactly the same about the manner of my contributions?". Honestly, I don't know. I am not going to claim immunity to prejudice, especially to the gender one. But I am working, we should all work, that is how it is going to change. So, you are right, I should be more patient and less dismissive and I do take your reasons on board as to why you take part in this debate after your clarification.

However, "hostility to male poster" in this particular case had little to do with whether I was interested in who was male and who was female. The only post angered me to the bones here in this context was written by a woman and a mother. Not benign to the "male" and "class" idea and with all the usual insults against women internalized, MarNoe states " However, as a mother of 2 teenage sons who attend a public school in Spain I´m often sad at how "cheap" our beautiful girls make themselves with their lack of dress code. Maybe we have a lot to learn from our Muslim neighbors?". She then goes on to say, disingenuously
"By the way,who´s making these rulings?I suppose mainly men!!!Little do they know how women world-wide identify with each other!". Allah burn me in hell if I identify with a woman who goes on to pass another male view of women (young girls in this case), while informing us she is proud mother of two boys as if it has any relevance apart from maybe poor boys "suffering" from "over exposure" to female body in not so fashionable clothing. I hope I am making some sense.

So why am I here? I am assuming you mean the debate (not native speaker, so bare with me on this one, it is not sarcasm). If you mean why I am in Ireland, well, I am not going to give a personal history in a public debate anyway. Let me see how many of my reasons I can fit without giving an false impression that I assume to be doing a good job at any of them;(no particular order)
- I can't stop myself from jumping into any debate about cover and women and Islam etc..
-I am so angry with all attempts with banning the cover.
-I am so angry with all which/who force women to cover.
-That I wear this Muslim identity with mixed and unresolved feelings and ideas, like many of my counterparts.
-That I am aware of and uncomfortable with the position of privilege I am in, I am looking for browny points with my my troubled conscious.
-That it is my responsibility. I am the member of the gang who feel that our place is between rock and hard in this debate. I should take advantage of every platform as the less known and heard party to the debate.
-Rub Mollas face into the fact that there is no unified "World of Islam" and "Nation of Islam" and not all esteemed Muslim women freely choose to be oppressed (oxymoron again!).
-That I was invited by at least twice above.
-Your reasons as to why you engage in Internet debates are my reasons as well. I borrow them as you articulated them so well.

Finally , it is interesting that you make a reference to Jo Freeman's article but none to any of Nawal El Saadawi's critiques of Western feminism for argument's sake.(See http://www.nawalsaadawi.net/oldsite/articlesby/racialdi...n.htm ). So, where have I suggested or claimed structurelessness in Anarchist movement that you use Freeman's article as a counter argument to my political position as an anarchist? I could not agree more with Freeman and with you. And for reasons escape me, you seem to suggest that I think anarchist meetings or organizations are immune from "skills of persuasion" or any of the ills of the societies we live in .

You start your post as saying I am disingenuous to posters who are with me and you go on to take the same position with this last one with me Wahhabi, tu, tu, tu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick
I have little interest in which poster have penis and which have vagina or which have neither or both at this stage of the the debate, I am more interested in the messenger of the "male ideology". But I do have assumptions, some wrongly as much as anybody else. Wahabi asks similar questions and I tried to answer above.

And thank you, I do not hold my words so highly either, I rather think, to the disadvantage of the ideas I am trying to voice, they are rather chaotic and dry. So, no, I do not agree that my statement is a word craft ,especially because it is winning me very few new friends.

I would not like you think my criticism on language learning is directed at you personally. There are gazillions of translated material , unfortunately I have to do most of my learning about what is going on outside Turkey in English as well.

It is as frustrating for me too, to see there are no contributions from other views. However, my criticisms above are directed to the manner of the platform as much as to ideas. The manner of platforms where these debates take place have their fair share in putting off holders of other views. I am as guilty of it as anybody else. Some of the practicing Muslims will refrain from a debate where Islam and Muslims are "blasphemously" criticized to put it lightly. Some, see no point in seeking a platform in the West and feel it is a battle for us to fight where oppression takes place. Demeaning language used by some of the posters angers me so much sometimes I fail to take part in other debates myself. "Tent", "Cows", "Slaves" has undertones which suggest to the section of women who are covering by choice or out of faith a tyranny of "modernity" whereby measure of freedom is the visible your body parts. They do not want to justify a way of life, it is not just a cover for them, you seem to understand well as a non atheist. For hardliners like me, it is what I expressed in my “crafty” statement. Do these make sense?

Reexamination of Koran, critique of the hadith (words of the prophet), Islam as regime etc. all are being debated all over Muslim countries and some in English that I know of. Islam has an inherent tradition if Fiqh, interpretation, "mujahid" does not mean a blood thirsty warrior as it is erroneously known both by Muslims and non-Muslims, but an "interpreter". Here I can recommend Tariq Ramadan, a reformist scholar of Islam and all his works and references to kick start yourself. Turkey hosts the most heated debates in this area. The process is indeed too slow for my liking, or yours, but way faster then it is assumed in the West.

I do take an issue however with your suggestion of "training " "an army of Islamic missionaries whose job it would be to challenge the extremist Imams on their own grounds", do you see the problem in this suggestion? Why in the West? Does West hold some kind of universal "correct"set of values against which Islam can be "corrected"? Where does this suggestion place us Muslim women who have been fighting it on the ground and who have not been "educated" by the West or do not want to be? The following sentence is not addressed to your person: This idea needs to get some correction itself as it implies a "we know better"ness to say the least, it needs to get a life so to speak, so it does not sound so arrrrrrrrggghhly patronizing to Muslims.

You see Nick, the issue I take with your argument is the assumption that cover have no place in Koran or other holly books, but they have. What if some women are covering pricesly because it is in Koran, just like those bizarre robes which married Orthodox Jewish Women wear to bed with wholes in three places. I will suggest www.nawalsaadawi.net ,the website of the Muslim feminist of the same name and a book published in Canada, "Problem with Islam" for you to start with, unfortunately name of its author escapes me, she is a well known Muslim-Lesbian Feminist and a broadcaster in Canada .

Fine, don't leave it all to men, then!

Sat Jul 04, 2009 18:38

Well Sevinch, my first question is of course, how do you know that all the posters here are male?I obviously am, as I have posted with my actual name as opposed to a psuedonym. Perhaps WaahaabiDessert and Atheist are female? It seems to me you have a few assumptions of your own. If I had posted with a female name - e.g Nicolette - would you have interpreted what I wrote in the same light?

You talk about 'intellectual olympics' - that's very flattering, I don't think so highly of my posts (I can only speak for myself) but what is "I only want to cover from the rain of male politics in male language in a male media, in a male platform of politics who are practicing their word craft and half baked ideas over my body" if not 'wordcraft'?

Yes, I wish I did have fluency in languages other than English (I do have some competency in Italian, but for this particular debate apparently that means little) - it would open up a further world to me, no doubt, and this is my failing.

But am I supposed to take it then that I cannot even formulate thoughts about the topic because I do not speak Turkish, or Sudanese or even Arabic or because I'm not a woman? I'm sure Iraqis are able to discuss the merits of the Bush regime without having fluent English. The proposed ban is being promoted for the country next door to where I live, and it seems our politicians are unable to have an original thought without copying what our neighbours do (for accuracy's sake I must exclude the bank bailout). So it seems only a matter of time before the same agenda is being pursued here.

I'm all for more women - especially Muslim women - contributing here or starting their own thread. I'm sure your own secular viewpoint isn't the only one held by Muslim women - you admit as much yourself when you wrote, " There are as much diversity of the reasons why Muslim women cover as the diversity of this world of Muslim" And my worldview is of circumstance limited by my own culture, so it would be enlightening to have other contributions. If you know any women who'd like to join, tell them they're welcome to do so.

But don't leave it all to us men then accuse of us of 'hogging the debate'.

My concern with the burkha debate is not only about women's rights - I think I made that clear in my original post. It goes further and concerns the kind of society developing in the West. That DOES concern me, I live in it and am affected by its rulings - whether I wear a burkha or not. I think the burkha ban is about much more than the burkha. Don't get me wrong - some posters here seem to think I'm all for the burkha and want to keep women repressed. No, no, no, no, no, no, I don't. But I don't want knee-jerk legislation like all-out bans being used to hide deeper agendas - in this case, anti-pluralist and anti-religion. Is the crucifix a symbol of repression'? There's a big effort to ban all sign of that as well, and banning other symbols associated with religion - hijabs, burhkas, skullcaps - are part of that drive. I have no wish to live under a Taliban (Sword and sharia) but no appetite either for secular atheistic tyranny.

Aren't there any other avenues that can be explored, such as getting through to the Imams who proscribe these laws, to force a re-examination of the Koran and see that there is a basis within Islam for undoing the burkha custom? It would be a slower but surer process, in my opinion.
Instead of just banning the burkha in a few 'Western' countries (and let's include Turkey, for what it's worth). Is that going to help or will it be held up as an example 'of the infidel West' - "Look! We told you so! The decadent societies are banning the burkha as we would expect them to! They want you all to become prostitutes like in America!" How is that going to help a woman in Afghanistan? Or Sudan?

Just a thought: Why not set up schools in the West to train an army of Islamic missionaries whose job it would be to challenge the extremist Imams on their own grounds, in their own countries? Then lift the requirement to wear burkhas, or weed out one by one the other customs that hold women in thrall and have no place in the Koran. Like I said I am less familiar with Islam so any thoughts and contributions here would be more than welcome.

seve.....

Sat Jul 04, 2009 18:14

I think you are somewhat disingenuous to people who are essentially on your side seve. I think you need to try and build consensus on the issue. I appreciate your points and I largely agree with them and personally I'm always more than happy to be educated but there is more than one way to "educate" those who need it. Might I recommend a slightly less dismissive approach.

Perhaps you could ask yourself honestly If I had called myself mary or ayeesha and discussed the topic in the same way, would you have felt exactly the same about the manner of my contributions?

Is not undermining the excuses used for oppression (in this case, religion) one reasonable approach in the unmasking of oppressors and their true motives?

And whether we like it or not, currently western society uses adversarial arguments as a means of swaying public opinion. How can you learn to argue strongly for a particular position without practice and having a line of argument that you know is reasonably robust. There is value in doing this and it is not all as you disingenuously imply about winning the intellectual olympiad. It is about learning the tools needed to persuade and building robust arguments on topics you wish to persuade on. Personally I couldn't give a shit if I "win" an argument in an internet forum. Its not really the point at all. You learn and grow no matter who "wins"

Logic gets you from premise to conclusion but tells you nothing about how unethical your premises are. Only having a "good" moral centre and empathy with your fellow earth travellers gets you "good" premises (ironically this process is somewhat an act of faith and conviction! based on arbitrarily chosen premises :-). But once you have what you believe to be good premises such as "women are oppressed by capitalism and the class system" then you need certain skills and relevant information to defend those positions.For me Personally THAT is ONE of the main reasons why I engage in internet debates. (and obviously to learn is the other one) Please do not sell me short because I have a penis thanks.

So tell me, why are YOU here?

By the way, I have attended anarchist meetings and these skills of persuasion are still part and parcel of "the tyranny of structurelessness". If we had a baseline of equal wisdom and intelligence across humanity then there would be less need for the techniques of persuasion but this is not the case in practice. We are often left with having to hope those who do master the tools of persuasion are benign. But you can never be sure so it makes sense to learn the tools of persuasion yourself just in case.

regards
WD

Female Slavery.

by Pete.

Sat Jul 04, 2009 15:11

The Americans have a saying:

"IFYou Talk the Talk..........Walk the Walk."

If you defend the Burkha.......wear one for a week.
.

.

I refer to..

by Sevinch - WSM Personal Capacity

Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:59

Nick
I refer to both politicians, academics and the posters here. It is all good you debate religion here, and use this platform to display who read what, run an intellectualism olympics, where would a woman from any side of the debate feel that this debate is a debate about the issue in hand then? None of the posters above want to bother any further then beating around the bush, if you think this is unique to this thread that is not so . Why bother to understand or learn what women have to say aye, where one can show off her/his intellectual medallions. This olymics is between you, serves little to the debate on cover.
Terms such as tent, prison and so on are demeaning if not humiliating. It is another layer to the oppression criticized here, serves nothing to the plight of women who have to wear it without choice. We don't need self serving intellectuals here or in our countries to liberate and make informed and concious choices whether we want to wear it or not. OUR PRIORITY IS NOT THE COVER. It is your token and Sharia's spin.
Nobody in this threadhas yet come up with how this oppression is able to remain intact in a system women have little or none economic power , education or basic health to fight this off. In the words of an illitirate Sudanise women who was given platform in a documentary about genital mutiliation "This will not go away untill you leave our vaginas alone, stop looking at my problems through my vagina or my veil which blinds you as much as it belinds us" . This is when I started to listen and search in where it happens rather then these sterile and detached world of "analysis" made in languages other then mine.

Who is practising their wordcraft?

Fri Jul 03, 2009 18:05

Sevinch -

"I only want to cover from the rain of male politics in male language in a male media, in a male platform of politics who are practicing their word craft and half baked ideas over my body"

To whom are you referring? Do you mean politicians who are debating this ban, or posters here on Indymedia posting on the topic on this thread?

Mobile Prison.

by Total and Utter Genius

Fri Jul 03, 2009 13:31

A female reporter in Paris said on BBC Radio 4 the other day that she had never seen a Burkha in France !

She had seen Veils all right, but not the Burkha.
Some of her friends had seen it but they are rare in France.

Sarkozy up to his usual trickery I suppose..stirring 'em up about peripheral matters.

Mind you my OWN definition of the Burkha is this:

"A mobile prison with flexible walls. Female Inmate in Solitary Confinement for Life.."

I agree with Sarkozy on this point:

The Burkha is a horrible garment to force anybody to wear.

.

nick....

Thu Jul 02, 2009 18:20

"WahaabiDesert, what kind of 'real basis' are you thinking of?"

that's DESSERT!. Supposed to be humourous play on words. lightening the tone a bit etc. :-)

By basis I mean something intellectually consistent and reasonable to build on. In essence I'm saying that if the koran or bible is shown to contain absurdities, contradictions and inconsistencies often enough then you are left with nothing but the leap of faith itself. I want people to concede that the books and stories are really just a bit daft and the only reason they choose to believe in what they say is because they WANT to,believe in nonsense that doesn't hang together and not because it is in any way necessary, rational or consistent with our current understanding of the universe and it's workings. At that point there no longer is a discussion just a clear choice between trying to be rational and in keeping with scientific facts or just deciding to believe in comforting arbitrary nonsense. Then the discussion can move on to more important questions like "well why not believe in lots of wacky norse gods or the flying sphagetti monster while you are at it?"

"And yes, I have read it. I am literate, and read a lot of the spare time I have....! (I shouldn't have thought it'd be necessary to state that, but anyway...)

I never said you weren't. And I'm very happy for you. Erm..Where did that come out of?

"you'll need a bittorrent program to get it"

"Fine, if you have one. If not, it's a bit like a book you have to buy / obtain first, according to your own criteria. "

Not quite. I was talking about an economic barrier.
If somebody is reading this, it is fair to say they have access to an internet connection and a computer. Nobody really uses dialup anymore and the program I linked to itself is completely free to download as opposed to the 15 euro or more it costs to buy a book. So very likely it costs no more than the person is already paying to download and view the files I linked to. There is a barrier but not an extra economic one. Just a small technical one requiring a few working brain cells at most. Downloading a torrent is really very simple these days. The TED talks are even easier to download. just click on a link. (well worth checking them out )

As for quoting the book reviews from amazon, oh please! Thats just selective advertising to entice potential readers.

I did find this interview between dawkins and mcgrath on google video though
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-66096716810983...20091
you might like to have a look at it..

Your objection is that Dawkins creates a straw man. Ok, back that statement up and we can try to have a more concrete discussion. However the onus is really on you to provide evidence for this belief not on me to prove a negative!!

Meanwhile, I'm now becoming quite conscious that we are hijacking a discussion on the burkha and womens rights in that way we men do. Apologies. I do think it is somewhat relevant but Perhaps you are correct and we really should just stop discussing this here and let it get back on track. .

Repeat

by Sevinc - WSM-Personal Capacity

Thu Jul 02, 2009 15:25

I only want to cover from the rain of male politics in male language in a male media, in a male platform of politics who are practicing their word craft and half baked ideas over my body.

The Selfish Gene

by Atheist.

Thu Jul 02, 2009 08:18

If you wish to read it,the following is a link to the book by Dawkins that was supposedly "rebuffed".

The God Delusion:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=god+delusio...nc8_b

Well worth a read.

Also a link to his most famous book "The Selfish Gene".

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selfish-Gene-30th-Anniversary/d...=8-10

The Selfish Gene is MAINSTREAM science..it describes the very basis of modern genetics.
.
Another good book,"God is Not Great":

http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everythi...m_b_3

Those books...........may shake your delusions to the core.
.

what is this forum, an example of applied persuasive fallacious rhetoric?....oh...wait

Thu Jul 02, 2009 05:38

Nick, I'm curious to hear what you think about thefirst part of the video "zeitgeist" and it's suggestions as to the true origins of the tenets of the christian faith. It's relevant because if the faith itself has no real basis then why worry about a dress code for it.

In fact if we can discredit the major religions as much as possible by pointing out their huge flaws over and over at every possible opportunity then they lose their potency as a powerful lever to control women and poor minorities. Then the real motives of those who would use religion to those ends would become more apparent, they would become somewhat unmasked as they could no longer hide behind this particular thing. Of course they would soon find other excuses to continue to repress women and other poor minorities and get their power and money and sex. Because thats whats really going on. Just standard hierarchical monkey politics as usual dressed up in bizarre ritual and nonsense

By the way Nick, saying somebody was "soundly rebuffed" in a book (which people will probably never get around to reading) is "proof by authority" and a nice creative variation of your own which I would label something like "evasion of argument by economic inertia." (you have to buy the book before you can authoritavely continue to argue the point)

Well, anyone can drop the name of a book that you probably haven't read too and tell you it wins the argument. But thats just evasion really isn't it nick? :-)

If the book itself argues anything like it's cheerleader, using such underhand and fallacious methods in a blatant attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes then I doubt if it is quite as good as you are saying, but I'll certainly take a look at it if I come across it.

IMHO I think mister Dawkins makes a reasonable argument M'self. But thats merely a recommendation. All I'm really saying is that I think he writes well and makes a good argument and that people should check it out for themselves and not be put off by character assassinations which is mostly what mister Dawkins detractors seem to offer. Mostly he just fleshes out darwins theory and makes it clearer. And Darwins theory is better than anything else we have at the moment.

Certainly works better for me than invisible men living in the sky telling us how to dress our women and when to beat them, stone them to death or burn them and what they can and can't read, or even if they can read at all!!

What are we, a bunch of idiot children in drugs?? We can make more of an effort than that to understand things surely, meekly deferring to daft fictitious entities who, despite their omnipotence, have suspiciously very obtuse ways of communicating their will. Otherwise I see little hope for the human race if we set our thresholds of rationality and efforts to comprehend at such a low level. I do think we are a pretty dumbass species and I'm definitely not its biggest fan but even I think the human race has more potential than that.

Yes, perhaps one of the the worst things about religious types is the supremely low esteem in which they hold the human species.

Balancing secular and religious needs

Wed Jul 01, 2009 16:27

Severinch, I 'skirted around the edge of the true Gospel issue' mainly in response to what Atheist wrote about Christianity and religion. I am obviously far less familiar with Islam.

I see and understand what you wrote about Turkey, that it needs this supression of religious expression in order to maintain its secular nature. The fear seems to be that the balance is so delicate that religious conservatism could easily gain the upper hand there. But did you know that women were required in Catholicism (and Christianity generally) to cover their heads while men were required to uncover theirs, as a mark of respect inside churches and at mass? That has disappeared since Vatican II, you certainly no longer see it in churches, though men still don't wear hats. The way there lay with religious leaders who changed the 'code' so to speak. I have worn a skullcap more than once while visiting Jewish synagogues, again, as a mark of respect.

But what are we to do in the secular state with people whose religion requires them to wear certain items? Are we to ban Jewish skullcaps as well? And if a person feels their religion obliges them to take a particular stand on an issue, are they simply to be banned from all public life?

I understand your argument that banning the burkha is a step forward in creating parity of esteem for women in Islam. But it might have the opposite effect - drive already conservative religionists even deeper into what is probably more a cultural than religious expression (since we both know that it is possible to be a Muslim woman and not wear a burkha). Is banning the burkha actually going to change anything for these women, or will their partners and male relatives - the ones who seem to be insisting on obliging them to wear it, not simply find other methods of repression? You are talking about a cultural change here, more than a religious one. I afraid we simply have to agree to differ that religion is there to control women. Somebody on this thread has already pointed out there is no requirement in the Koran for women to wear a burkha, simply to dress modestly. There are similar requirements in the Bible, though many nominal Christians choose to ignore it.

Atheist "These are all examples of long dead fads....North Korea is a bit of a "hold-out" though"

Not only North Korea. Communist China is still an a state which actively supresses religion, except as I mentioned, those which have been vetted for loyalty to the regime.

As for being long-dead fads, so is burning people at the stake. If you are going to judge religion by its past sins, you'll have to permit a similar comparison with atheistic states, which killed far more people and let far more blood even over a shorter period.

Your argument is that atheism is all-new and free of that baggage now. I doubt it, its attempts to drive religion out of the public sphere still smack of the same old intolerant totalitarianism of yore. It may also come as a surprise to you to know that a new kind of Christian church is beginning to emerge, one with far more lay involvement.

As for Dawkins, I've read a few interviews with him and parts of his books. His main problem is that he is attacking a 'straw man' - basically a very imperfect concept of religion, esp. Christianity, he has picked up along the way and never really developed to maturity. The God he demolishes is one of his own making, so no great feat there. He has also been fairly soundly rebutted in Alister McGrath's "Dawkins' God - genes, memes, and the meaning of life" (pub. Blackwell Publishing) While McGrath acknowledges like every sensible person that the existence or otherwise of God cannot be proved by scientific empirical means, he is able to demolish Dawkins' methodology and line of argument.

But if you wish to go on discussing religion in itself, it may be better to start a different thread.

CERN

by Atheist

Wed Jul 01, 2009 13:02

"I know of no examples of anarchistic atheistic societies, but if you think getting rid of religion would produce any better results in human nature, perhaps you'd care to think again of Stalinist Russia, communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia - all attempts to create Godless."

These are all examples of long dead fads....North Korea is a bit of a "hold-out" though.

Only lately I've found out that some people still believe in the long dead fad of "Anarchism."

How quaint that ANYBODY still believes in the wishful think of Bakunin,one of Anarchism's "saints".
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

The future world is being shaped...not by such unscientific 19th century political fantasies....but by the brilliant people in places like CERN:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=CERN&um=1&i...6129#

.

here's a relevant and interesting video on female oppression under islam

Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:33

Here's a link to a torrent for the short film "submission" by theo van gogh
it seems kinda relevant to the discussion

http://www.mininova.org/get/269872

wikipedia info on the film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(film)

you'll need a bittorrent program to get it. Here's a link to the best one (mutorrent) in case you need it
http://www.filehippo.com/download_utorrent/

my 2c worth
Islam and all other religions are expressions of human ignorance and superstition. They are just one of many structures used to oppress people, both men and women alike. Sarkozy couldn't give a shit about the rights of women. taking the traditional sackcloth off these women will change little as regards their current oppression under patriarchally biased islamic law except now they will also be easier prey to our subtle western forms of oppression as well.

Incidentally, the koran did not tell women to wear a tent with holes. AFAIK, it just suggested that a woman should be modest in her dress. That could mean anything really. Humans just twist stuff to suit their own aims. In patriarchal wahaabi saudi arabia, that means a tent with eyeholes. In a university in a modern city, it's a rather tasteful scarf. The real problem is how to safely break away from the oppressive social norms of your immediate family and also your country, not your clothing. And this is not a problem unique to islamic states.Not an easy one either. Looks like the internet is helping though.Judging by the volumes of farsi tweets.and blogs

oh, and for those of you who like to see all sides of the religious debate, (even non politically correct ones) then make your own mind up, there is a copy of "fitna" available on that same torrent site too. for obvious reasons I won't provide a link.I will say It has really nice music :-) Of course do remember that here is yet another politician trying to get elected. The quotes shown are genuine though and need to be discussed in any debate about Islam. Since this is an equal opportunities "I dislike all religions equally" post, it would not be complete without providing something which deals with all major religions in a more even handed way, not just islam

Richard dawkins documentary "the root of all evil"
http://www.mininova.org/get/2677520

Although I must say richard is in more scintillating form in this TED talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_at....html

the first 15 minutes of zeitgeist present an interesting perspective on the christian faith too. worth a look, food for thought.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197

this was the funniest!

back to Burka and Turkey

by Sevinch Karaca - WSM-Personal Capacity

Wed Jul 01, 2009 01:07

I would like to bring the debate back to its original topic and reply to your second post.

I was being somewhat sarcastic about the oxymoron of Muslim Secular State, however you do draw a clear picture of where this oxymoron stands in Western capitalist dogma and I agree with most of it . Without (hopefully) positioning myself in defense of the Turkish state, the concept/oxymoron of secular Muslim country/state/society has a lot more complex and unique place in debates and discourses of cultural harmony in Turkey. It is not necessarily perceived as a "white men" dogma fed to us in all sections of the the society, probably a handful of Kurds and Turks would agree with this view. The oxymoron has its roots in Ottoman Empire's State Establishment and the development of the idea of "religious and cultural freedom of the subjects of the empire" according to the modern official Turkish his-story. The Empire, for reasons too complex to discuss here, had promoted or pretended not to interfere with this so called "granted" freedom. Citizens of Turkey today has this sense that we have a unique ability to co-exist -religious and non-religious, Muslim and Jew (Jew only, for another thread). Therefore, we place ourselves in this self created unique cocoon where we are OK with this oxymoron and we try to sell it as one of our strengths; the mosaic, the tolerance, the Jewish as the proud nationalist Turk, the loyal Kurd happy to serve in Turkish Army ...all boil in this pot of absurdity . Additionally and absurdly, a considerable section of Turks do not place themselves in a position that is "other" to "white men", on the contrary, they feel that we are a "white" country with a "white" society.

I am also aware of the implication of such label as serving to the idea of good and right kind of Muslim State, unfortunately that is the desire and the historical inferiority complex of Turks which lay beneath the State policy and in the hearths of Turks, whether I agree with it it or not, it needed to be represented and represented with sarcasm on its behalf.

In a complex and unresolved backdrop such as this, Turkey bans almost all forms of cover in a large sections of public sphere from schools to state services to official forms, marginalizing further a section of society who has little else left to hold on to then religion. Its global implication is the PR service to the ban in France today, something else tomorrow.

Your argument is still moving around the discourse of gospel/true gospel/remaining true to gospel and so on, diverting the debate from the darker and harder picture of global oppression with little regard to class/gender perspective. I don't give a damn if Sarkozy himself goes around in a Burka -which he would if the tide turns that way-. No disrespect to what you are trying to do; trying to voice other reasons and opinions why women cover or girls 11 years of age choose to obey their parents' wish as to whom to marry, but reality on the ground is very different, very very cruel, violent and bloodthirsty for any women who dare to "think" otherwise let alone act on it and rebel. Such minimalist arguments serve better to the oppressive Sharia regimes as free spin then winning any space for Muslim women in this debate. Islam now has friends on platforms like this at the expense of women who dare. Your argument has quotes from good few non Muslim men but non from a Muslim woman, that alone speaks volumes about what our struggle has to deal with just to overcome one of the first obstacles; visibility .

I will happily draw back to the "simplistic view" and insist that religion is a chauvinistic control of women by men. I would only differ with this view that it is one of religion's manifestations among its many faces of oppression. I will also repeat that religion, as in all forms of power domination and monopoly, is oppressive and corrupt, by the very fact that it vests power to one group or another, its texts suggest and order violence, particularly against women and serves a societal idea that certain people are to be obeyed to. I do not buy any of it. Equality must be the basic principle of the human society as we envisige as anarchists.

Social control

by Eugene

Tue Jun 30, 2009 23:29

The comparison is too true between medieval witch hunts and twentieth century Stalin's purges and show trials, Pol Pot's mass deportations to the countryside and the public denunciations of bourgeois deviationists and thought crime malefactors in Mao's China . After the enlightenment and the scientific revolution populations of educated intelligent people were still not free of hysteria and the fear of the unknown. Witch hunting was/is a manifestation of mass anxiety and a strong desire for social conformity. The individual eccentric was /is perceived as a threat to the larger group. Therefore the nonconformist was/is hunted out, forced to confess and repent, and then sent for 'rehabilitation'. Failure to confess resulted/results in isolation, banishment or death. Even in contemporary China they publicly preach social "harmony" (a confucian term) and use the forces of public order to curtail signs of dissent.

Human beings have benefited from the slow rise of widespread literacy and second and third level education around the world during the past century, but old psychologies prevail.

Where God Weeps

Tue Jun 30, 2009 19:41

Atheist, I think you missed the bit where I wrote "no true Christian...genuinely trying to follow the message of the gospel.." etc.,

So now my question is, were the witch-hunts the result of people genuinely trying to follow the Gospel or something ELSE? Some interesting facts! -

1) First of all, "the Church" (i.e The Catholic church) is not simply a collection of clerics / clergy but includes every lay member as well (i.e the 'ordinary people') - some of those burned as witches were themselves Church members.

2) The populace at large - Christian and non-Christian alike - had a very real fear of witches, which they supposed lived among them largely unseen until caught and exposed. To give an idea of how this operated at a societal level we can think of the modern parallel of fear of terrorists and paedophiles lurking everywhere.

Once a person was accused of such things it was very difficult according to the norms of the time for them to defend themselves. If they did not succumb to mob 'justice' they might get a trial, the result usually being the same in the end though with official sanction. While no doubt most people killed for being witches were indeed innocent, a very small number probably believed they were witches or tried consciously 'to be in league with Satan' to use the parlance of the time. If this sounds incredible, remember there were many reasons why a person might do this: for personal gain, for power, for riches, for love and all the other improbable promises of witchcraft. The same reasons why people beak any kind of rules of the society in which they live. For a place and time which largely believed in such things, why would it be any more crazy to suggest that someone believed there was benefit to be had from 'truck with the devil' than to believe in God etc.,?

3) The Church Inquisition was more concerned with religious heresy (and in Spain against Islam and Judaism) than with witches, though they had some hand in that too. Witches were as often tried by civil courts whose methods were identical (torture etc.,) to the ecclesiastical courts. For more see "The History of Punishment" by Lewis Lyons (pub. The Lyons Press, Guilford, UK)

4) The various Protestant churches burned far more witches than the Catholic church - Switzerland and Scotland topped the leagues for a while, I believe. The last witch was burned in Scotland in the early 18th century.

But these are details in a sense. I do not agree with the witch-hunts that took place, and accept that a huge injustice was done to many people, to put it very mildly.

But we must return to my original and critical question - were the persecutors of witches actually acting in genuine accordance with the Gospels? Some may have believed they were, yet if they - or indeed yourself - were to go back and examine the Gospels more closely, I believe they might find it difficult to sustain that argument.

There were many reasons why a person might find themselves accused of witchcraft, and many had little to do with religious belief. For example there were political reasons (a smear campaign, a way to rid oneself of political opponents or obtain an execution); there were personal gain reasons (Matthew Hopkins witchfinder general, made a tidy living out of 'finding' witches under many spurious guises); it was a way for the avaricious and unscrupulous to grab their neighbours lands or goods; a way for jilted lovers to revenge themselves on their partners etc., etc.,

Now, which one of these motives do you think Christ Ok'd in the Gospels?

I know of no examples of anarchistic atheistic societies, but if you think getting rid of religion would produce any better results in human nature, perhaps you'd care to think again of Stalinist Russia, communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia - all attempts to create Godless, atheistic societies where the State' (or its 'charismatic leader') replaced God and religion was surpressed as being ignorant superstition (and because its demands often clashed with those of the State as I mentioned above). If hundreds of thousands of witches were burned during the late middle ages, we can compare them to the millions (20 million in China alone) who perished in forced collectivization, gulags, as vague 'enemies of the People' (i.e 'witches'), or as the result of other official policies; plus thousands upon thousands of clergy, priests and nuns murdered, tortured or exiled under those regimes.

For further reading see "Where God Weeps" by Werenfried Van Straaten (which is also very informative on less-well known aspects of how Europe recovered after WW2) and also "Talking About God is Dangerous" by Tatiana Goricheva (by a Russian woman persecuted by the KGB for her religious beliefs)

Plus -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

Sorry to all about the slight departure from the burkha topic, but those points made by Atheist had to be addressed.

Witch Hunts.

Tue Jun 30, 2009 16:12

"A similar accusation is sometimes made of Christianity, but the fact is, and NO true Christian man who was genuinely trying to follow the message of the Gospel would ever try and maltreat any woman. It would be a most un-Chrsitian (as in Christ-like) thing to do."

Oh really?

The history of Christianity,and the other mad-cap superstitions, is a red river of blood and gore.

Witch-Hunts for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

Quote:

"The classical period of witch-hunts in Europe falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1700, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in hundreds of thousands of executions."

Plenty of reading here as well:

http://history.hanover.edu/early/wh.html

.

Correction

Mon Jun 29, 2009 22:24

"and true Christian man who was genuinely trying to follow the message of the Gospel would ever try and maltreat any woman"

that should be

"and NO true Christian man who was genuinely trying to follow the message of the Gospel would ever try and maltreat any woman"

Despite all my efforts, one or two typos got through.

Hiding behind the skirts of women's issues

Mon Jun 29, 2009 22:18

Dear Sevinch, thanks for your contribution.

May I make a few observations / replies?

You write: "another oxymoron from this Turk" Maybe I'm wrong, but do I detect a note of sarcasm / anger here in response to what I wrote "a secular Muslim country, if that is not an oxymoron?" Perhaps I should explain further:
As long as I can remember I have been interested in where ideas and words and slogans come from. Especially when I began to realize they often didn't appear like natural phenomenon, but came about at specific times for specific purposes. Examples include 'white man's burden' 'development theory' and the whole notion of there being a 'first' 'second' and 'third' world. Such ideas get repeated like mantras until we no longer remember where they came from or even exactly what they mean. They often also get overlaid with new meanings. Hence I wonder what is meant by 'a secular Muslim state'. One might as well say 'a secular Christian state' or simply 'a secular religious state'. But what does it mean? It seems to imply a state is both secular and religious, but that doesn't say much as almost all societies and states have had elements of both since time immemorial. Have you ever heard Britain, say, being described as ' a secular Christian state'? As a basis for state building 'secular' and 'religious' seem in some opposition, as the latter holds us accountable to a higher moral authority while the former holds us accountable to ourselves alone.

Thus it seems that the apparently contradictory term 'a secular Muslim state' must have some other meaning, and may I go out on a limb here and suggest it is often used to imply the 'good' or 'right' kind of Muslim state which follows the Western secular model more closely in debarring religion from public life and decision making. It is "a Muslim state evolving towards the more modern Western model in which religion will be consigned to the dustbin of superstition, as apparently it has in the civilized and advanced West" I say this not as my opinion, but of the paradigm presented at times in anti-religious sections of the media. That's why i ask if you've ever heard of Britain or France being described as a 'secular Christian State'? If it were, it would have to be described as a ' SECULAR christian' State, and if I could make the font any smaller when writing Christian, I would.

I agree that not all Muslim women would even want to defend wearing the burkha, that was not my point, nor even to defend it as such. I simply wanted to point out there may be other reasons that had not crossed the Daily Express' mind as to why women might wear it, other than the usual 'chauvinism' argument.

I also think we agree that many politicians hide behind the skirt of 'women's rights issues' either to deflect attention from other areas; but also because they may have deeper agendas buried within those issues. That is why I wanted to explore the whole notion of what 'freedom' means in the West. Sometimes it seems 'freedom' means 'freedom to be exploited', not much of a freedom really.

My point about he bikins was facetious, I admit (then and now) but again, I wanted to point out that the "religion = chauvanistic control of women by men" argument is simplistic. I'm sorry if you felt I demeaned the debate. The point you made about not all bikini-clad bodies being acceptable did of course cross my mind, but I felt I had made my point sufficiently and did not want to cross further into a realm where I felt I WOULD be demeaning the debate.

On the whole issue of covering up, a relative of mine did point out to me the hypocrisy of Carla Bruni losing no time in covering up once she became Sarkozy's First Lady. Seems there is a bit of the burkha in even the most liberal French politician! See the link below (and scroll down) to see images of Carla's erstwhile alter-ego, which I can only suppose Sarkozy was familiar with when he met her (as she was generally famous for this aspect).

The examples of being free from worry of hairdo etc., were again simply to be Devil's Advocate and point to other possibilities, and that apparent 'freedom' sometimes simply brings new chains. I remember once a debate I chaired where we the topic was arranged marriage. The usual western attendees views was that it was 'medieval' barbaric, oppressive of women etc., (echoes of social Darwinism?) There was a Muslim girl from Bangladesh there who said "yes, but you guys get some computer dating agency to do the job instead or spend countless hours being rejected or picking up all kinds of undesireable losers in pubs, whereas we simply prefer to trust our parents' sounder judgement, and in any case are not usually obliged to choose the first man our parents introduce us to" (though she did admit it might appear a bit offensive to the man's family, so she'd have to have good reasons)

I agree that many aspects of Islam - and not only Islam - can be oppressive for women, or perhaps that should be Islam as it is interpreted by some people, as I hear all kinds of differing opinions over this. A similar accusation is sometimes made of Christianity, but the fact is, and true Christian man who was genuinely trying to follow the message of the Gospel would ever try and maltreat any woman. It would be a most un-Chrsitian (as in Christ-like) thing to do.
Social religion - which is more of a cultural than true religious expression, may reduce us to drones in a religious anthill as you put it. But that is what you find at Sunday mass when people stand round the back of the church to chat about the GAA match - which could be better and more appropriately done down at the pub - with no apparent real idea of why they're there.

Muslim Anarchist Feminist in anti patriarchy dress, does my mouth look big in this?

Mon Jun 29, 2009 16:17

Here, Nick and some involved in this debate, another oxymoron from this Turk to kick off the debate from non-burka wearing anti-patriarch anti cover-of-all-kinds corner.
I am going to start with an answer to the question/comment boiled my blood the most;
“What woman,except the most brainwashed,would wish to live every day of her life dressed like that?” OPPRESSED WOMEN may wish to do just that, ones who are institutionalized and internalized their oppression, ones whose very existence depends on the cover. The ones who do not give a damn.
I apologize in advance that I will not be able to write coherently, I will try to make some main fundamental points and reply and comment on some what had been said above.
A couple of facts to start with.
Not all Muslim women are covered or are coarsed into covering. It is required by law where Islam is the law. Although a considerable majority, not all Muslim women are covered nor are we willing to cover or defend it.
I only want to cover from the rain of male politics in male language in a male media, in a male platform of politics who are practicing their word craft and half baked ideas over my body.
Not all Muslim men want women covered either, there is tremendous struggle against it in unity with men.
Not all Muslim women put the cover on top of their agenda of real life issues. It is usually the one of the top token issues for spineless politicians everywhere from Afghanistan to France who need safe bets to take minds away from recession, oppression of workers, corruption and so on. Quoting from a comment I made last year against Labor's statement of the same, for likes of Sarkozy or Laborites “...there is always Muslim women's hijab, such a small group whose spineless self declared representatives are good for nothing but doing politics over women and women's cover, because they have little else to say about real issues of Muslims in this country such as high levels of female unemployment (Allah only knows why?), general unemployment, discrimination, isolation, domestic and sexual violence, legitimized sexual abuse of female children, poverty, homophobia, racism, sexism, misogyny and so on. Taking only the defensive positions, because the only offensive position they are able to take is against Muslim women and not against the status quo” I will add some of the “representations” made on behalf of Muslim women in all media including this.
There are some views and comments above with which I agree then I do not. However there are some appealling or uninformed and assumptious views expressed as well, I will try to reply in no particular order.
There are as much diversity of the reasons why Muslim women cover as the diversity of this world of Muslims. Most commentators would like to portray otherwise, explicitly or implicitly. For a Muslim women like me (a lot of us out there) it is that place between rock (our identity) and hard (our perception) is what occupies the public sphere, not the fact that we are the poor, exploited, abused, brutalized and unhealthy and so on. It then requires recognition of the fact that our oppression does not come from one direction or source, if we were to hit the priorities of “Muslim” women, we would have to admit oppression of Muslim women comes from abundant sources of capitalism, it is not hugely unique to Islam and it has more to do with patriarchy and capitalism then Islam alone.
Women in India, Central America, Papua New Guina are oppressed and exploited, treated as slaves and commodities, to give a few random examples. Not once I read a comment blaming Christianity or Hinduism for it. Capitalism and patriarchy are my culprits, the delivering arms of oppression may be religion today, it is likely to come up with something else in the future.
Is Islam oppressive? Yes, it is in my experience, by the sheer fact that we were made read Koran in Arabic but not allowed to have the ducation to learn Arabic to understand what it was saying.So is the society I live in, which is not Muslim or religious in particular. Degrees of this oppression with which we console ourselves does not change the fact or how I have to organize my life.
I am not interested in the historical and theological argument of text versus practice, what Koran says about women etc. I am interested in what fellow Muslims, men and women, do to me in the name of Islam today and now.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours." .---General Napier” . This example made me feel sick to the bones. I think it is a pretty misplaced example in an argument in defense of Muslim women ( if that is the case ). So bloody kind coming from the General of an empire who sucked bloods of millions whose very presence in India caused more lives. And how nice you share this with us Pete, yeah men, let's burn hang 'em. This is not Stormfront.
And Jim, how insighfull and helpful your view that “No woman would willingly wear the burka.
Women who wear the burka are imprisoned by barbaric evil that tells them that they must be ashamed.”
“Conspicuously absent were the views of the Muslim women who wear the burkhas”. Conspicuously and continuously absent ARE the views of the Muslim women in all public platforms who wear the burkhas. Just because very few bother to learn the languages and read the material on this debate between Muslim women and Muslims in general, views may appear to be absent to the visually impaired monkey. There is also the issue of reluctance to give platform in our own terms which was stated. And there is the issue of which platform? I would not give a damn about a platform like Daily Express personally if I can avoid it. One alleged interviewee states “whenever I see these women hiding themselves away my blood reaches boiling point and I just want to scream at them”, how do you answer to that? Thanks for hating me?
It is also worth being aware that every word we utter against practices of religious oppression receives a life endangering backlash, this struggle of ours, is growing under horrendous circumstances, not always with legislations rushing through our parliaments to enable us to play golf in male only golf clubs, nor in open public platforms such as this ffo robvious reasons.
Why the measure of my freedom is the amount of flesh I reveal, not my achievements, abilities, my ideas, my knowledge which I draw from this community women in which I am forced to live, what I am able to do under the cover? These questions need immediate answers by every party involved.
Another very unfortunate comment was. “But I have long thought that if men were to sit down and invent a religion to subordinate women they would probably include a rule that claimed God (or the Gods) demanded that all women parade around in bikinis, whatever the weather!” Eh heh heh, are we honest or wa? No men actually view women as objects of some sort, once gained possession of, no men treat women as the possession to be guarded from other men? No men is resonsible for forcing a control and monıopoly of free domestic labor and sexual pleasure just for himself? No men will have issues with women in bikinis who do not have bikini model bodies, there will be no ban on that? Nick may not have the intention to dilute and demean the debate with this, but he does.
Is oppression a perception in this context? It would be very naive to think so in my opinion. Political correctness of certain left seem to be avoiding the view of the big white elephant sitting in the middle of the room while we try to to view each other, no? Just as the nativity of the idea that Muslim women are not effected by body images and fashion issues or Burka protects them from this immediate worry. In an article in the No. 2 of the anarchist feminist magazine RAG has a great article on this and a picture taken in Uganda which advertise “bum enhancements” by Marianne Farrelly. Images of women from the Emirates in glossy shopping malls in Dubai, women who had a land slide win in the elections in Kuwait recently and educated rebelling Iranian women tell otherwise. It is a class issue as much as other complex issues surround it and should consist -if not analysis- at least questions of class. Such as the assumption Muslim women do not face exploitation in forms of pornography, prostitution, some form of dance or pleasure practice for the benefit of women. There is more prostitution in Iraq now then ever before and Islam does not seem to be saving these women. Nick's statement that “Surely it makes sense that in a society dominated by men and their ‘wants’ that the tendency is to de-clothe women and towards nakedness?” resonates some kind of twisted self sense a man as an oppressive gender and half baked idea of what makes sense in political “opinion and analysis”.
There is no “majority” of burka wearing women who feel free, free in the same sense as in your example case where she feels she is free from ..the usual worry of one thing or another. Yes you are free from the worry of your hairdo, and it is probably the only freedom you have in your lifetime, that is surely enough, is it not?
I do agree however that there is a visible amount of the the curious mix of anti-religion and anti-pluralism dressed up as feminism in the mainstream liberal feminism, in the LGBT movement and in certain sections of the left, not only on the right. However, there is also a lot of intentional or misplaced defense of oppressive practices of Islam at the expense of women.
I think best example for the wrong reason was the quote from Revel, “ There always arises at some point in any society a group or paradigm that is able to force itself on all others as the only acceptable paradigm”. How right for the case of Muslim women who has to live with this oppression.
May I also steal Nick's sentence for the corporate suit and adopt it it as follows “A set of clothes designed to suppresses our individuality, to reduce us to drones in the religion's anthill?
Solution is not one and requires a global movement of change, end of oppression, exploitation of all women, not isolated changes of attitude of a group of men or women. If that was the solution, as Nick rightly puts it in examples above, there would be no exploitation of women in the West, right?
We need total control of production and means of production not by a handful but by all equally. We urgently need an end to entities like WTP, IMF etc. These are the entities enable cpitalism to exploit women's and children's labor for the half price of the male worker, and sometimes for free. We need an urgent end to arms production, environmental exploitation, super states, and so on. Only engaging actively with and organizing through these struggles that feminism may just be able to get on the right track in Muslim countries.

Re: Mike

by Jim

Mon Jun 29, 2009 09:48

You are terrified of a return to 1930's totalitarianism if it is illegal for women to be forced by Islam to wear a tent that covers them up and reinforces their status as cattle in Muslim communities?

Talk about turning black into white and white into black.

First they came for the Burkahs

by Mike - Judean Peoples Popular Front

Sat Jun 27, 2009 16:00

"I picked up a copy of the Daily Express"
Not sure why you would have wanted to do such a bizzare thing but I hope you washed your hands afterwards !!!!

Re the banning the Burkah in the event of it being banned I reckon a campaign of mass civil disobedience would be a good idea. And one wouldnt necessairly have to be Muslim (or even female) to join in.

After all If they get away with banning the Burkah how long will it be before they come for other items of clothing and soon everyone ends up wearing the same thing ? It wouldnt really be such a new idea either I remember seeing it in an old film from the 1930's

Except I found it hard to follow because they were talking German !

Left or Right?

by Old School Socialist.

Fri Jun 26, 2009 19:01

Has the Left Wing become the Right Wing???

In the old days we Socialists would have advocated sending armies to liberate the people of the Middle East from the Taliban or Mujaheedeen and the slavery of religious superstition.

As well as liberating women from the slavery of having to wear the Burkha.

Nowadays the Left seem to support the Barbarians.
While heartily opposing the the Americans and British who are slogging it out against them.

Who exactly are...... "The Left" ???

Who exactly are......."The Right" ???

.

One-Way -Tolerance.

Fri Jun 26, 2009 08:04

Ever notice how Western Europeans and North Americans are asked to bend over backwards to accommodate practices which we find repellant.

What Next ?

Western taxpayers subsidising Female Genital Mutilation perhaps?

Women in Saudia Arabia are not just SLAVES and CHATTELS.

Women are regarded as inferior beings in every respect, by the law of the land.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_...rabia
.

ask women !

by Mar-Noe

Thu Jun 25, 2009 22:34

Ask us women!It seems we´re once more being used for ends (political or other) to make an issue.However,as a mother of 2 teenage sons who attend a public school in Spain I´m often sad at how "cheap" our beautiful girls make themselves with their lack of dress code.Maybe we have a lot to learn from our Muslim neighbours?
Spain had always been a cultural cross-roads in Europe,which education curriculums now recognise as "cultural richness".Perhaps other xenophobic Europeans could take a leaf out of that book?Any woman who wishes to wear a burka or headscarf ,religious symbol or otherwise should be free to do so.By the way,who´s making these rulings?I suppose mainly men!!!Little do they know how women world-wide identify with each other!
P.S.
Sephardim have always been "native" here and still use Spanish as first language in exile around the world.

Motives for banning the burkha

Thu Jun 25, 2009 19:40

"MAVERICK replies: and why do Muslim countries ban crosses, crucifixes & bibles. are they "scary" for Muslims? or is this an oppression of Christians, recalling Dhimmitude?"

I think you're rather proving my point here. I am against banning these things anywhere over some subjective 'scariness' whereas you seem to be saying 'we have a right to ban Muslim things in our countries because they ban our stuff in their countries' I take it you are not in favour of Muslim oppression of Christians when and where it occurs. Why then do we have to imitate these examples of worst practice? If we are simply going to try and out-do each other in repression we won't be creating much of a world to live in.

Regarding the Venice masks, Wikipedia is only as good as its authors and though generally quite good, is not the last word in everything. For a period from the middle ages to the end of the Venetian Republic in 1797 masks were worn almost year-round. By masks I mean principally the Bautta, which I mentioned above. There were other costumes, such as those based on the Commedia dell-Arte that were worn more around the carnival period. It is relevant to note here that it was Napoleon, having invaded Venice, who finally extinguished the wearing of masks and the carnival precisely because he feared the freedom they conferred on Venice's citizens.

Jim - you wrote that no woman would willingly wear the burkha. I think what you mean is that no woman who holds the values you expect them to hold would willingly wear one. The women who actually wear them might have reasons for doing so besides the ones we commonly ascribe to them from our western viewpoint - i.e fear, chauvanism etc., That is the point I was trying to explore.
You also wrote that women who are addicted to drugs, prostitution, eating disorders etc, are there because of men who abuse them. You have a point up to an extent, but I believe it is insufficient to simply point to a handful of bad men who cause all these wrongs. We need to look at the framework of the society they live in and the messages it sends to them about their place and function within it. A typical example would be advertising and fashion as I mentioned above. To quote John Berger "advertising steals a woman's love of herself and sells it back to her for the price of the product"

My point is that there are many aspects of Western culture that are just as oppressive, restrictive and damaging to women as is claimed about the burkha, and some of them are things we commonly take to be 'liberating' for women. Perhaps we rarely notice them because we grow up in this environment - as the man says 'what does a fish know of the water in which it swims?' Who decides why and if skirts should be shorter, hips narrower, bodies thinner? Why are so many (and I doubt anyone can seriously argue otherwise) women enslaved to these dictates? Is a pair of 4" high-heels any crueller than a burkha? Or just more familiar and acceptable to us? I sometimes wonder how women must feel when they pass the newspaper stand and see magazines portraying their fellow-women's semi-naked bodies as a commodity - which some argue is a 'right' or a 'freedom'. Becoming entertainment for the other sex seems pretty much like a form of slavery to me, also. If we were to seriously examine these questions we might be forced to consider why we give so much attention to the burkha - is it because it is about liberating women or is it because it is associated with particular forms of a particular religion?

Bear in mind I said I am not for or against it. But I am very sceptical about the motives of many of those who claim to be interested in it on 'behalf' of women.

I do accept the point about suttee - though it was a bit hypocritcal of the British, considering how they blew mutineers to pieces over cannon after the 1857 Mutiny and massacred peaceful demonstrators at Amritsar. Yet it is a valid point that suttee - to my mind anyway, does not seem like a desireable custom. If General Napier acted from altruism, I admire him. If his aim was to break down native culture any good that came from his words and deeds was accidental. A much longer argument is whether the British culture that imposed itself on India was in many ways less repressive?

Ex-leftie - I think you missed my point (maybe?) - in my opinion the threat of being forced into green boiler suits does not come from outside the West but rather from our dear own increasingly totalitarian leaders who seem to have lost the run of themselves.

BAN THE BURKA

by maverick

Thu Jun 25, 2009 17:10

Nick Folley said: .....And if ‘scariness’ and ‘intimidating’ are criteria to be used in banning items of clothing, where does that leave body-piercings, tattoos, mohicans, skinheads and so on? There are plenty of people who – rightly or wrongly - find all of these things either repulsive or downright scary.

MAVERICK replies: and why do Muslim countries ban crosses, crucifixes & bibles. are they "scary" for Muslims? or is this an oppression of Christians, recalling Dhimmitude?

sources: http://www.dhimmitude.org/

Nick Folley said: ....We are all familiar to some extent with the Venice carnival and the strange masks worn during that period of the year. But there was a time in Venice’s history when masks were worn by almost everyone for a greater part of the time.

MAVERICK replies: you are stretching the point very thinly by stating that Venetians wore masks for "a greater part of the time". the wearing of masks in daily life was severely restricted. By the 18th century, it was limited only to about three months. now it is down to a one week festival.

sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_mask

finally, i agree on at least one or two points made by Nick Folley. let's hear from _Muslim_ indymedia women of all persuasions....that is, if any of them read (or are let read?) the Indymedia website....

We Know.

by Ex-Leftie.

Thu Jun 25, 2009 15:40

"Maybe we should all be obliged to wear a simple green, non-threatening boiler suit like Chinese communists of old. Don’t laugh… it might not be as far off or impossible as you think!"

We know.

That is why the Democratic Free Western World is armed to the teeth.
.

No woman would willingly wear the burka

Thu Jun 25, 2009 13:37

No woman would willingly wear the burka.
Women who wear the burka are imprisoned by barbaric evil that tells them that they must be ashamed.

A woman who starves herself to death, cuts herself, is abusing drugs, is working as prostitute, is addicted to cosmetic surgery, is living in an abusive relationship is not doing so willingly but is doing so because her life circumstances have destroyed often by men.

Islamic fundamentalism tells women they are not nothing less than cattle, baby machines who produce an heir for the patriarch, timid unquesting domestic servants without a brain, without opinions, without a personality and without a voice and will be beaten or killed at the whim of their male slave masters.

The burka is the symbol of oppression, a symbol of fear and terror, of abuse and silencing of the voice of women.

It turns women into a nothing.

If we believe in the enlightenment, equality, the dignity of the women and individual freedom we must have contempt for the burka, contempt for fundamentalist Islam and we must seek the freedom of women who are enslaved by this barbaric ideology.

Widow Burning.

Thu Jun 25, 2009 13:08

When the British invaded India they were astonished when they came across the Hundu practice of "Suttee".

When a man died his living wife was thrown on the funeral pyre with him:

http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/roy/page12.htm

When the British objected to this barbarous practice Hundu MEN said that this was Hindu custom and that it was no business of Imperialist invaders to criticise their customs..

This was the famous British reply:

" You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours." .---General Napier

.

Brainwashed.

Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:41

Arguments in favour of the Burka could just as easily be made in favour of the old Chinese custom of "Foot Binding" (Which crippled women), or Female Genital Mutilation.

What sane person would call the woman in this picture anything but an imprisoned slave:

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/Afghanistan/East/...9.htm

What woman,except the most brainwashed,would wish to live every day of her life dressed like that?

.

secular hypocracy

by Stiofan

Thu Jun 25, 2009 09:36

Germany

Nick Folley in "Ban the Burkha and Bin our Freedoms" makes a number of very interesting observations on the falseness displayed by many of our European leaders, policy makers and media in their pursuit of so-called respect, tolerance and acceptance in a multicultural Europe.

Among the most hypocritical in my opinion is one on hand holding Turkey up as a role model for promoting secular values in a Muslim-majority country (“Turkey ... has banned headscarves in schools, universities and public offices” reports the Daily Express) while on the other declaring Turkey's "Muslimness" as the very reason to refuse to negotiate that country's accession into the EU ("Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" as French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin so disingenuously asked in September 2004).

It is saddening to see so much ignorance and fear framing inter-cultural and inter-faith dialogue in the 21st century. It is scandalous when it is our very leaders, policy makers and media who are responsible for spreading such ignorance and fear, rather than exercising their influence and fulfilling their mandate to shape a better world based on accepting and respecting our differences as well as our similarities.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Ban the Burkha and Bin our Freedoms

Comments (43 of 43)