In fact I hate masks even to the extent that clothed should be used to cover us against cold.Originally Posted by Mr Endon
In fact I hate masks even to the extent that clothed should be used to cover us against cold.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
Hello Qim
Nice to see you here on the Burqa thread and read your views. Those are quite reasonable which I appreciate. In order to avoid repetition, I am pleased to post here a link to another ongoing discussion at an other forum where I have also posted some comments previously. I hope the posters here will find them useful.
http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.c...nd-preference/
===============-
When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones.
-(:===============
I think the burka should be banned. I don't think religious symbols should generally be banned. I'm all for equalty and playing nice but I do think that we should be able to be proud of our culture. The same does go for the muslims but to me there is a difference between wearing a cross and mummery.
I wouldn't wear a cross if I happened to live in an Eastern country. I would keep it, I dare say, but I wouldn't flaunt it. I would try to fit in and also try to understand the people, learn the language and such.
I think, wearing a burqua and such is just the opposite of trying to fit in. To me it's foreign and a bit frightening; and I'm afraid I could not trust a woman wearing a burqua in court, a hospital or a school to be able to understand western culture and do our law justice.
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”- Robert McCloskey
are you trying to stress the old saying, When in Rome do as the Romans do?
Well, unless you happen to live in an eastern country you won't realize the difference.
Entering a nudist colony all dressed up would certainly astound all bare around there, won't it?
Burqa or even a small piece of hanky which is called a scarf seems to astound the West!! Not amazing!
===============
When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones.
-(:===============
You all know as well as I do that covering up your women in public settings in any form is just a way of keeping other men from hitting on them, and as such is a expession of Machissmo, which is itself a manifestation of insecurity. It robs women of one their pleasures in life which is comparing theirselves in fashion, taste, and beauty to other women.
Men of this sort feel they must rule women, 'cause they can't trust them, (they're just so inferior you know)
Last edited by Steven Hunley; 09-04-2009 at 12:19 PM. Reason: misspell
Really wish you hadn't said that...
Mazhur> The non-Muslim women who go to Muslim countries are expected to cover their heads even if just for the sake of appearance. Why cannot non-muslim countries ask Muslim women not to cover their heads when they are in the West?
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
I was under the similar assumption that men like to compare their members. O, why must society burden me with these fabrics!
"Do you mind if I reel in this fish?" - Dale Harris
"For sale: baby shoes, never worn." - Ernest Hemingway
Blog
A very intelligent question put by Scheherzade which I sincerely appreciate.
In most of the Muslim countries including Pakistan ( excluding monarchies which have their own rules) I never saw a foreign woman clad in a burqa or anything of that sort. I also remember Western women moving around the city and busy market places in their usual western dresses. I also remember my fellow Muslim and western female classmates attending school in school uniform which consisted of shirt and skirt. But this was until mid 80's only . thereafter the situation changed critically so much so that now no Western woman , even if she is a Muslim, can expect to roam about the city without hiding behind a veil or a burqa. This does not seem to have a purely cultural or religious reason; infact this change has much to do with international politics and mainly due to unpopular foreign policies of the West, especially the Americans, towards the Muslim countries. People ask where are the WMD's?? Where is Osama, the terrorist? Why is US bent on invading other Muslim countries? What is war on terror? The US is waging war against an abstract enemy on the pretext of 'war on terror'! Given all this the Muslim world is wary of the West and it thinks the West, including America, is trying to exploit, bully and harm them. This sentiment has been embedded so strongly in the hearts of Muslims in Muslim countries such as Pakistan that a Western/ American woman (and even a man) would be playing with death going out in the city without some sort of security or 'disguise' . So, you can see how a change in minds of the Muslims as well as the West has provided reason for all this chaos and turmoil.
As regards remarks by Hunley I may say that even a woman clad in a burqa is a woman and she enjoys the pleasures of life like all other women. It's only bad when a woman is forced to wear it.
===============
When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones.
-(:===============
Thank you for your detailed reply (let's not get into current politics, though
What you are suggesting is that because of the recent American/Western policies there is an anti-Western sentiment which results in the intolerance/resentment towards anyone who does not wear Islamic clothings or follow an Islamic way of life. Is that?
What if we turn the coin, then? Can we not say that because of this intolerant (and very aggressive) attitude (in the East) towards the West and anything non-Muslim that the West is is wary of the Islam and does not want the consistent reminder of their fundementalist attitudes towards themselves in the form of burkas and other religious displays?
I think Islam has enjoyed an everlasting freedom in the West. I cannot imagine any chruches or synanogues in Muslim countries having anti-Islamic meetings and broadcasting anti-Islamic propaganda only to get away with it on the grounds of equality or human rights. However, these things happen here in the UK almost daily.
I am not suggesting that Muslims who live in the West should not practise their religion but when they demand these freedoms, they should also do a little soul searching to see whether they actually offer the same kind of understanding towards others who do not share their own point of views.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
In truth, Franz Fannon wrote a famous essay on the subject, in which he equates the veil as a) an act of shame from a colonial perspective, and b) an act of pride in order to hinder the colonial perspective (this is in talking about Algeria).
The irony, I would argue, is that the dialectic is all off - yes, it is a counter to a colonial perspective, but merely enforces other binaries that are perhaps more important - I'm not wanting to get banned here, but keep in mind, women with big feet in China for a while were considered undesirable - it was said that once someone saw an unbound foot their appreciation for a foot's beauty would be lost forever - on what grounds then, can we justify a burka as anything other than a bound foot? We think of it somehow better because of political correctness, but I'm of the mind that if women still bound their feet, we would still have the need to criticize such an act - so where do we draw the line?
OK, I can't think of anyone defending female genital cutting - that would probably be the most deplorable cultural act that is still prevelent in this world (it is estimated that the % of women in Egypt for the women, who have undergone a clitoridechtomy is in the 90%s, with high figures throughout the region, and more serious cutting in certain areas) but that is a traditional practice, is it politically correct to say that it is acceptable? On moral grounds these days, I think we can safely say it is.
By extension, I don't think anybody today would make any case for a barbaric practice like foot binding - we all know that that clearly was a barbaric cultural practice that was allowed to flourish.
But somehow, when it comes to iconography, rather than physical body motification, we cannot say anything - what then is acceptable and what is not? We already have proof that some cultural practices are, by our standards, inhumane. When does it become islamophobic, or in general, bigoted to comment, and when is it justified? Would someone, for instance, like me, commenting on female genital cutting be labeled culturally bigoted? Am I to be taken for a racist, for denouncing the practice, or for a rational person?
By that token, we now have a problem - what is the line between morality and cultural sensitivity? We must also keep in mind, that some of the greatest protesters to the unbinding of women's feet were women - how does that factor into the equation? Can we take them as rational? Are we supposed, on a major scale, to accept that, and let it continue? What is the line between justified to comment, important to take a stand, and bigotry?
For instance, in certain world conflicts people like to take stands (I am deliberately being vague as to avoid current politics in keeping with the site's rules). I for instance, could go to such and such rally, could sign such and such petition, and wouldn't be considered adequately informed or a functional part of society if I did not take stands on issues - but how can someone from Canada make a comment on another country's foreign policy? Is that right, or is that merely failing to understand the cultural differences?
What is the line between criticism and bigotry? Is criticism now only reserved for people within the system? Can I not say that the indoctrination into a set of values is immoral if I think it is, or does that just make me a bigot? But who knows - I'm sure if I was to try and remove a veil, the woman wearing it would scream the loudest.
As far as I am concerned, the only way to defeat such a system - the same way footbinding was defeated - is to implement a law, forbidding it - there will always be countries complaining, but, as far as I am concerned, if they do not wish to play by the rules, they might as well not come to a new country - everyone is entitled, in my eyes to a chance at a new life and a successful future, but that does not come without some sort of cultural responsibility to the host country.
Take the issue of, for instance, women wearing headscarves not being allowed to play soccer in certain leagues in Canada. It was deemed that, in terms of safety, wearing them would prove too much of a liability. Despite the protests, and the fighting, the ruling was upheld - if you can't play by the rules, don't play. That's how I see the whole issue - if you can't accept your new home as your home, than don't bother coming - multiculturalism is one thing, directly allowing things deemed immoral to continue because someone happens to hold them in high regard is another. It's not the west's responsibility to cater to the demands of people wishing to be accepted by it - it is the job of the society to ensure equality between all citizens - likewise, equality comes with the responsibility of respecting, and sacrificing for the sake of others - the Burka does not, and cannot function compatibly with the values of the host society, and, if it is too big a sacrifice to not wear it, people need not come as far as I am concerned.
I'd note - I am equally as critical of similar "modesty" practices amongst other communities, such as Orthodox Judaism - this isn't a nitpick of mine.
Last edited by JBI; 09-07-2009 at 08:25 AM.
Thank you for your detailed reply (let's not get into current politics, though
What you are suggesting is that because of the recent American/Western policies there is an anti-Western sentiment which results in the intolerance/resentment towards anyone who does not wear Islamic clothings or follow an Islamic way of life. Is that?
What if we turn the coin, then? Can we not say that because of this intolerant (and very aggressive) attitude (in the East) towards the West and anything non-Muslim that the West is is wary of the Islam and does not want the consistent reminder of their fundementalist attitudes towards themselves in the form of burkas and other religious displays?
I think Islam has enjoyed an everlasting freedom in the West. I cannot imagine any chruches or synanogues in Muslim countries having anti-Islamic meetings and broadcasting anti-Islamic propaganda only to get away with it on the grounds of equality or human rights.
I am not suggesting that Muslims who happen to live in the West should not practise their religion but when they demand these freedoms, they should also do a little soul searching to see whether they actually offer the same kind of understanding towards others who do not share their own point of views.
No, it's not like that. The anti-Western sentiment has nothing to do with dress. Most of the people here prefer to wear Western dress, in fact even I rarely wear local costume. This attitude is obvious in many other spheres of life. People here like many aspects of Western/American culture and are not prejudiced against the Western/American people. It's the policies of their leaders they hate.
If an American woman moves around the city here in her usual dress she would at once be noticed as a foreigner notwithstanding whether she is a Muslim or Non-Muslim. It would be the same with an American man due to his features and color. Therefore to escape from the 'wrath' of a 'dissident' who may try to harm her/him, it would be advisable for them not to go about in public, not even under a different garb as he may be found out from language etc. When the general trend is against something it's better not to display it. You will recall one burqa-clad woman been killed by a fanatic in France recently? There are fanatics everywhere....Pakistan not being an exception.
Non-Muslims enjoy full liberty and infact some privileges over resident Muslims in some matters. For example, in government services they enjoy an age relaxation of 3 years! Every Non-Muslim is as free as a Muslim here and enjoys the same benefits as us. However, the problem arises when some non_muslim mischievous elements try to incite anger among the Muslims by publicly mocking, abusing and disparaging their elders and peers or committing hateful atrocities against their prophet or the Hoy Quran through instigational means and measures. however, such incidences are occasional and obviously incite anger among Muslims. Other wise we, Muslims eat and drink in the same bowl as the non Muslims. No differentiation at socio-economic level except some restrictions imposed by the Constitution on their election to the premier post.
Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality
Naomi Wolfe
August 30, 2008
Advertisement
A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts. She passes under immense billboards on which other women swoon in sexual ecstasy, cavort in lingerie or simply stretch out languorously, almost fully naked. Could this image be any more iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam, and vice versa?
keep on reading....
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/b...e#contentSwap1
===============
When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones.
-(:===============
As far as I know, Naomi Wolf isn't without intense criticism - even from within the Muslim community. You would note, that the loudest voices coming against the Burka tend to come from Muslim Women - Ms. Wolf's opinions are hardly a general consensus - in truth, academic feminists, from my understanding, absolutely loathe her and don't take her seriously.
'foot binding' is mainly restricted to China where it is a customary adoption.
'Circumcision of women' is restricted to some parts of the world-again this is customary.
'Veiling' is NOT restricted to any particular region-it is a universal 'phenomena' with those women opting to wear it. 'Veiling' is not a custom or part of any culture, it is also has socio-religious implications. Muslim women are commanded by their faith to 'cover up their bosoms' and to 'avoid showing their meat' and displaying their 'feminine ornamentation' to public. To do this any type of garb is okay, not necessarily the burqa.
Why should one have objection to it when Sikh men are allowed to wear turbans in the West? That would be sheer discrimination against women.
you loathe her because she doesn't suit your 'taste', ha!
Let's set aside our prejudices and let no one 'loathe' anyone for his/her point of view!
===============
When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones.
-(:===============
Urm...I don't think anyone is covering up because they think they are 'disgusting'!
I remember once at school my Religious Studies teacher remarked then men aren't going to go wild if they a strip of a women's hair.
But she missed the point.
More than anything it is a sign of obedience/submission to God, a willingness to listen to him. It is no different in concept to what nun's wear as a sign of - not just modesty, but piety.
There is the concern that criminals may abuse it but I find this concept far-stretched - that a bank robber, a rapist, is going to go to all the trouble of wearing one to carry out his crime, if anything it will hinder his performance!
There is of course the opposite angle no? That many women are saved from e.g sexual harassment. I had a self-defence class for women and the policewomen who presented it wasn't a Muslim but she picked out a Muslim women dressed in full burka/hijab and said if you're going out late night this is the way to go. There is nothing least tempting about you, in fact apparently stalkers/rapists will be put off because they want someone 'easy' and you're not worth the hassle and the final thing she mentioned was that underneath this burka this women has lovely jewelery on - but no one else would know or be any wiser, its a complete protection from the perverts in our society.
Every society/culture has some form of cultural pressure - take for example the pressure to lose your virginity at a young age. This is no different
edit: I've just remember Yvonne Ridley. Countless western women, the epitome of the free no? have embraced Islam and wear the Burka - what pressure did they have? I'm not ruling it out but you can't generalise either that women wear this out of cultural pressure.
Bottom line: we tolerate pink hair and tattoo, piercings left right and centre which I personally find distasteful, youth gang in hoodies, practically nude twelve year olds....and we're up in arms about the burka? Where is tolerance here? Young girls parading half naked, no one bats an eye, two women walking down the road in a burka - oh no! panic button.
If we sacrifice one religion's idiosyncrasies than prepare to sacrifice yours too. That's fairness and equality and democracy which so so many people have died for. Don't let it be in vain.
Last edited by optimisticnad; 09-07-2009 at 11:00 AM.
We can never know what to want, because living only one life we can neither compare it with our previous lives, nor perfect it in our lives to come'
Milan Kundera,The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Parce que c'est toi, parce que c'est moi
You can't justify a practice just because it is widely practiced - that is a false argument - abuse against women, for instance, is a universal issue, ingrained in many cultures; are we to say that it is alright now, because it is culturally significant, or widespread? I think the fact that it is so widespread is cause enough to comment more, don't you think?
A seak man bundling his hair into a turban is one thing; someone being denied the freedom, through either coercion, or indoctrination from a young age, to be essentially seen in public is a completely other thing. The Burka has only one effect - it denies a woman an identity outside of the realm of daughter, wife, and mother.
Naomi Wolf cannot justify it, nor was she trying to - she was talking, as you would note, about headscarves and Hijab, a completely different issue. Covering one's hair to show modesty is another - denying any part of the body exposure to the outside world, and then telling one's daughter that if she is seen by a man, she will be impure, and be a sinner in the face of God (a double, for causing, gasp, a man to think her beautiful that isn't her husband) is a completely different issue. Justify it however you want, like I said before, you cannot justify a practice because it is widespread, and you cannot justify it anymore because of its cultural relevence, the same you cannot justify female genital cutting, which, by extension, has seen world wide distribution as well, by immigrants foregoing shunning their cultural identities, and taking the liberty of brutally sexually assaulting their daughters, and either preforming the procedure themselves, or shipping their daughters back to the mother country for a quicky, before marital age.
All these arguments for simply are arguments that consider the subversion of identity to be somehow beneficial for society - if a girl is in a burka, she can't be any less desirable, or whatever, so it is a good thing, because it is reducing their chance of being raped. That isn't an argument for a Burka, it is an argument for increasing in awareness and prevention of sexual assault. You said it yourself - the Burka specifically makes her less desirable - it denies her that right, by reducing the sexuality of the woman to something reserved for, and only for, a husband - but of course, you guys argue that is a good thing - of course, if we look in retrospect, we can see counter examples.
For instance, if I was to tie a giant ball and chain to a girl's ankle, I hypothetically could do the same thing, by denying mobility - hell, I could do better - within a few weeks, the girl wouldn't even want to leave, and I could remove the ball and chain, such is the way the human mind adapts to survive - the caged animal after some time, will be more reluctant to leave its cage, especially if its "benefactor" keeps hammering in how they will be a sinner in the eyes of god if they do.
Quite frankly, if denying a woman an identity is an obedience to god, than perhaps the practices as a foundation need to be rethought. There is no shame in modesty, but as you put it, the Burka is taking things passed the level a nun (I assume you meant Catholic nun) would go, and even now, the bulk of Catholic nuns seem to have modernized their garb to a partial head covering, and do not wear something that denies even the right to have one's eyes looked into.
As I have stated before, the biggest protests against the stopping of a) female genital cutting, b) footbinding were generally coming from the practitioners themselves - it took a widespread law, making it drastically illegal to bind one's feet to stop the procedure - likewise, the Burka gathers tons of support from the women who wear them - but, to what extent is someone caught up in the issue conscious of anything but what they are brought up with? For instance, a woman brought up to believe that something is right, and that God will punish her for doing otherwise, is likely not going to break the habit - there are other factors too - for instance, some women are told people who don't practice certain things are disgusting - the very act of the Burka speaks about this.
Take for instance, the religious rational behind it. By basic extension, the teaching is also addressing not wearing the Burka - if anything, it is conditioning a sort of self-superiority, and a disdain for the non-practitioner, as they are reduced to a somehow impure, somehow dirty, unfilial state, by the exact rational that causes the wearing of the Burka - if someone who is not wearing it is looked at by a man, they, according to the logic, must be taken as being a sinner (a double, since they may have been thought of as beautiful). Does that condition women to view other women differently? Isn't that a disrespect of my cultural beliefs, to have a system which decrees that my sister is somehow impure, because she isn't "modest". It equates, does it not, the Unveiled woman as essentially whore.
Thereby, in order for that justification to work, you must admit, that the rational for it, can also, by extension, be used to reduce those who don't practice it - someone brought up with that notion from a young age, for instance, isn't easily going to be able to give up the practice, and assume the role as whore - others relish the experience, it gives a sort of "cultural superiority" through Burka identity by equating oneself with the "clean" side.
Last edited by JBI; 09-07-2009 at 04:19 PM.
Posting Permissions
