‘My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling’

Karen Armstrong (3)“I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled – not in a Muslim niqab but in a nun’s habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional attire.

“When my order was founded in the 1840s, not long after Catholic emancipation, people were so enraged to see nuns brazenly wearing their habits in the streets that they pelted them with rotten fruit and horse dung. Nuns had been banned from Britain since the Reformation; their return seemed to herald the resurgence of barbarism. Two hundred and fifty years after the gunpowder plot, Catholicism was still feared as unassimilable, irredeemably alien to the British ethos, fanatically opposed to democracy and freedom, and a fifth column allied to dangerous enemies abroad.

“Today the veiled Muslim woman appears to symbolise the perceived Islamic threat, as nuns once epitomised the evils of popery.”

Karen Armstrong in the Guardian, 26 October 2006

‘Fury as BA says it would allow Muslim veil but not cross’

“British Airways has been accused of appalling double standards after admitting Muslim staff may be allowed to wear veils – just weeks after it sent a Christian home for wearing a cross. Check-in worker Nadia Eweida has been on unpaid leave for a month after the airline banned her from wearing her tiny cross on a necklace over her uniform…. She demanded to know why she had to hide her faith from the public when Muslims and Sikhs can openly display theirs by wearing hijabs, turbans, and possibly a full-face veil.”

Daily Mail, 26 October 2006

Of course, the answer is that Muslim women who wear the hijab or Sikh men who wear a turban do so because they believe it is a requirement of their faith. So far as I know, no Christian denomination requires its adherents to display a cross.

Nevertheless, BA’s stupidity in denying Nadia Eweida the right to do so has simply opened the door for racists in the right-wing press to take up the refrain about favours being granted to minority ethno-religious groups that are supposedly denied to the white Christian majority.

Rowan Williams capitulates to Islamist reaction, Leo McKinstry claims

“The Church of England used to be known as the Tory Party at prayer. Today it is the liberal establishment on its knees. Terrified of giving offence to any minority cause, obsessed with Marxist notions about race and wealth, its leadership has all but given up as a serious force for Christianity.

“Rather than standing up for the faith that built this country, Anglican leaders prattle on about Islamophobia and multiculturalism in a spirit of hand-wringing self-abasement, always demanding that our national traditions be subverted or abandoned in order to accommodate other religions, especially Islam…. Despite the threat of Muslim terrorism since 9/11, which is primarily directed against Judaeo-Christian civilisation, Dr Williams has consistently refused to attack Islamic fundamentalism….”

Leo McKinstry has a go at the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Daily Express, 25 October 2006

McKinstry adds: “The veil is a mark of oppression against women, a reflection of misogynistic determination to keep them isolated from the mainstream of society, as senior Labour figures like Jack Straw and Harriet Harman have pointed out, showing far more moral bravery than Dr Williams has ever done.”

Unite against Islamophobia in Glasgow

Glasgow demoAround 300 people rallied in Glasgow’s George Square last Saturday to unite against Islamophobia and protest at the wave of racist attacks on Muslims since Jack Straw’s comments about the veil earlier this month.

Glasgow Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain organised the protest at short notice following a brutal assault on an imam at a Glasgow mosque.

It attracted a broad turnout, including many young Muslim women and families. Syma Ismail and her friend Nailah Din are students at Dundee University who had travelled down for the protest. “We’re standing against Islamophobia,” said Nailah. “Jack Straw started this. We’re supposed to have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If Muslim women want to wear the veil, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?”

Many non-Muslims were also at the rally to show solidarity. “The issue is racism,” said Barrie Levine from Scottish Jews for a Just Peace. “It is important that Muslims and non-Muslims stand shoulder to shoulder against Islamophobia.”

Socialist Worker, 28 October 2006

Yet another ‘Ban the Veil’ headline in the Express

Schools Told Ban the VeilA city with one of the country’s largest Muslim populations is to ask schools to ban veils in the classroom.

Education leaders yesterday confirmed that they are drawing up guidelines stating that both teachers and pupils must not wear them during lessons. The school chiefs claim that veils – called niqabs – could stop teachers identifying troublesome children.

They also fear that they could even lead to health and safety problems in Bradford, where around 15 per cent of the 470,000 population are Muslim. Spokesman Anthony Mugan said: “We would advise against the wearing of veils in schools because of reasons which will be listed in new guidelines.

“These will include the problems they could cause in identifying pupils, possible problems with communication and health and safety issues. However, it is up to individual schools to make the final decision as it is with the schools’ uniform policies.”

The new guidelines are being hammered out between Bradford City Council and a private contractor, Education Bradford, which runs the West Yorkshire city’s schools.

Bradford is the neighbouring local authority to Kirklees, where teaching assistant Aishah Azmi was suspended from a school in Dewsbury for refusing to remove her veil in class.

The move comes after a Daily Express telephone poll in which more than 99 per cent of readers supported the call for Britain to follow the lead of many Muslim countries, including Turkey and Egypt, and ban the veil.

Continue reading

Sun backs Trevor Phillips

“Prejudice is a worm that thrives in the dark and shrivels in the daylight. So says Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality.

“What he’s rightly saying is that the only solution to the tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims – and the bloody riots he predicts may come – is an open debate. A debate unfettered by the political correctness that stops people on either side speaking boldly about our differences – how to resolve them or live with them.

“He has a point: A poll reveals nearly three-quarters of Britons won’t speak their minds over veils in case they cause offence. Which is mainly because many Muslims over-react to the slightest criticism of their religion. Such hypersensitivity impedes progress.”

Editorial in the Sun, 23 October 2006

Veil debate ‘has fuelled far right’

Veil debate ‘has fuelled far right’

By Louise Nousratpour

Morning Star, 23 October 2006

Anti-racism campaigners welcomed Labour deputy leadership candidate Jon Cruddas’s warning on Sunday that the debate around the Muslim veil has “emboldened the far right.”

The Dagenham MP said that friends of his who live in the Muslim community felt “hunted” and that hysteria over the issue had reinforced a sense of isolation and insecurity. “I think it has had a terrible effect. It will embolden the far right, no doubt about it, and I know that for a fact locally,” Mr Cruddas warned in an interview with GMTV.

He stressed that the government must go about dealing with community segregation in a “much more systematic way” in terms of public policy about the labour market, housing and health inequalities.

“They should be the terms of debate, rather than a really dangerous bidding war about who can be so muscular around issues of minorities, asylum and immigration, because that just feeds the far right and the centre of gravity just moves off that way,” Mr Cruddas insisted.

A debate about Muslim women wearing full-face veils erupted after Cabinet Minister Jack Straw said that he asked women to remove them when they came to see him in his constituency. The Prime Minister has also branded the veils a “mark of separation.”

In contrast to Mr Cruddas’s comments, Commission for Racial Equality chairman Trevor Phillips defended Mr Straw’s right to air his views about the veil and attacked the Muslim community for turning “the most neutral of comments into yet another act of persecution.”

Continue reading

Authoritarian currents swirl in debate on veil

 

Authoritarian currents swirl in debate on veil

By Haroon Siddiqui

Toronto Star, 22 October 2006

The controversy over women’s veils is the latest example of Muslim religious/cultural practices being held up to disproportionate scrutiny.

This is a reflection of the fear-driven paranoia about Muslim terrorism and, mistakenly, all Muslims. Or, it is part of a political strategy to divert attention away from the catastrophic failure of the “war on terrorism” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Israeli Occupied Territories.

It’s easier to blame a minority than confronting our complicity in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians abroad and, second, our gnawing panic that rather than curbing terrorism, we are fanning it.

It’s also hard to accept that the niqab — the garment that covers the woman’s body, including the face — is not a Muslim issue alone but rather one central to democracy.

That a majority of Muslim women do not wear the niqab, or even the hijab, the head scarf, does not nullify the right of those who do.

Otherwise, a democracy ends up emulating either tyrants (Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, or the late Shah of Iran and the late Kemal Ataturk of Turkey) who persecute hijabis, or unforgiving clerics (the Taliban, the mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia) who persecute non-hijabis.

The only sound democratic approach is to leave the decision to the sovereignty of the individual woman.

Those who argue that Muslim women may be under male pressure to conform are being as patronizing as the men who assume women are incapable of independent judgment even in free and democratic societies.

Some Muslim women might face social and religious pressures but we can’t know that they are subjected to any more of it than women in other religious communities. They may face less, given the lack of a central authority in Islam.

Continue reading

Ignorance behind veil uproar: Ridley

Yvonne RidleyAward-winning British reporter Yvonne Ridley has blamed the ignorance of Western politicians and media for the ongoing debate about the face-veil and other misconceptions about the status of women in Islam.

“Having been on both sides of the veil, I can tell you that most Western male politicians and journalists who lament the oppression of women in the Islamic world have no idea what they are talking about,” Ridley, who reverted to Islam two years after a brief detention by Taliban, wrote in the Washington Post Sunday, October 22.

“It is with disgust and dismay that I watch here in Britain … Straw describes the Muslim niqab as an unwelcome barrier to integration,” said a mocking Ridley. “Even British government ministers Gordon Brown and John Reid have made disparaging remarks about the niqab – and they hail from across the Scottish border, where men wear skirts.”

IslamOnline, 22 October 2006

Hmm … given that George Galloway is reportedly considering standing for Respect in Scotland, I’m not sure he’ll regard that as an entirely helpful comment.

See also Washington Post, 22 October 2006

Veiled prejudice

Veiled prejudice

By Jamil Hussain

Morning Star, 23 October 2006

LET’S face it, Muslim-bashing is newsworthy. Politicians now feel that it’s a sure-fire way of getting noticed

In the last month, MPs have pumped out timely and much-publicised polemics about Muslims, packaged as a “new and honest debate” about multiculturalism.

Jack Straw kicked off the latest furore with his veil comments, the timing and subject of which seemed opportune.

He could have talked of other pressing issues, such as the report by the equal opportunities commission which found that Muslim girls have fewer job opportunities, despite overtaking white boys at GCSE level.

Instead, Straw picked on the minuscule number of Muslim women wearing the veil, attacking an iconic Islamic image to gain maximum exposure.

He has reason to distance himself from Muslim opinion, especially if he wants to become the new deputy Labour leader.

Four weeks after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to his Blackburn constituency, which was overshadowed by protests by Muslims against the US Secretary of State, Straw was dismissed as foreign secretary. Rumours suggest that President Bush put pressure on Tony Blair because of Straw’s perceived reliance on Muslim opinion and votes.

Straw’s comments were also backed by other Cabinet colleagues, including Harriet Harman, another candidate vying for the deputy leadership role.

As a feminist, Harman would, presumably, abhor Muslim men dictating what women should wear, but she saw no irony in backing a non-Muslim man doing the same. Had Straw asked a woman to cover up, would Harman have given him the same support?

She voiced regret that women “whose mothers fought against the veil now see their daughters taking it up as a symbol of commitment to their religion.”

Continue reading