im Muslim and in my experience, the women I meet who wear niqab, do so out of strictly a religious, usually a neo-"Salafi" conviction. Family rarely plays a part. In fact, most people who comment on the veil do not understand the complexities and the nuances of these issues. For example, a man with a full beard in living a Muslim country or a woman with a niqab is usually looked at as a fringe political entity, and with suspicion. My point is, women with niqabs, agree with their choice or not, very rarely fit the "subjugated" stereotype. Some of the proudest champions of the face-veils, for example, are recent women converts, especially in the African American community.
You can throw in some white ladies who marry Muslim, too, which is more the case here in Toronto and Montreal from what I've seen.
To add to those nuances and complexities, each country has its own expectations and even then, the line of can shift week to week (Iran comes to mind).
Does accepting one's own suppression makes one less subjugated?
im Muslim and in my experience, the women I meet who wear niqab, do so out of strictly a religious, usually a neo-"Salafi" conviction. Family rarely plays a part. In fact, most people who comment on the veil do not understand the complexities and the nuances of these issues. For example, a man with a full beard in living a Muslim country or a woman with a niqab is usually looked at as a fringe political entity, and with suspicion. My point is, women with niqabs, agree with their choice or not, very rarely fit the "subjugated" stereotype. Some of the proudest champions of the face-veils, for example, are recent women converts, especially in the African American community.
You can throw in some white ladies who marry Muslim, too, which is more the case here in Toronto and Montreal from what I've seen.
To add to those nuances and complexities, each country has its own expectations and even then, the line of can shift week to week (Iran comes to mind).
Does accepting one's own suppression makes one less subjugated?
in which sense are you using "suppression" and "subjugation"? While the niqab certainly "suppresses" something - a display of one's face, no Muslim woman would leap from one term to the next that easily... And once again, for some reason your last sentence implies an outside agent imposing something, which i can say is simply not true with most niqab cases.. at least from my experience.
Is this really true? While I have no doubt most wear for their own reasons, let's not deny family pressures. Even here in Canada many children (Many women) deal with honour type violence. I mean, I can only go from my own personal experiences from family and friends. But I remember my first experience when I was in Grade 10 having a close friend locked up in her room for 4 days because she didn't want to wear the burka and being slapped by her father in front of everyone when he caught her playing basketball with us after school.
We just had this Father and brother sentenced on this incident.
A question of violence in the name of honor is a different discussion all together, and many communities, inlcuding the Hindus or the Sikhs deal with these issues. Its not an exclusively Muslim phenomenon. In this case, were discussing the face-veil. Within the Muslim community the discourse of the hijab (head covering) is a completely different world from one of niqab. I would still say most Muslim fathers would NOT like their daughters to wear the niqab, and most mothers would NOT like their sons to have long beards.
Does accepting one's own suppression makes one less subjugated?
in which sense are you using "suppression" and "subjugation"? While the niqab certainly "suppresses" something - a display of one's face, no Muslim woman would leap from one term to the next that easily... And once again, for some reason your last sentence implies an outside agent imposing something, which i can say is simply not true with most niqab cases.. at least from my experience.
To say all the niqab suppresses is one's face is simplistic at best.
I beg to differ and say I believe many Muslim women would make that ???leap??? and some would even equate the two. Because some do not, it doesn???t mean none do.
Having said that, I understand why you are questioning those words; I asked not only in relation to this, but also in a broader, thinking-outloud context. I think it is worth asking.
Neither the niqab nor the choice to wear one exists in a vacuum. (The) Choice is not paramount. The demands of the ideology that support the niqab are.
I was born in a Muslim country and was raised in a Muslim house. I am aware of the broad spectrum of possibilities for Muslim women. And to be clear, I am not in any way negating the self-determination, intelligence or strength of women who wear the niqab, moreso the control and limitations placed on these qualities.
I don???t mean to cop out, but the interview I posted on the first page articulates how I see this. I defer to it.
Niqab ban in Syrian schools ???is aimed at Islamists???
Phil Sands, The National
July 15. 2010
DAMASCUS // The recent ban on fully veiled women from teaching in Syria is the latest move that may signal the authorities are trying to reign in hardline Islamic sentiments.
Full-face veils, or niqabs, symbolise a conservatism that, many moderate Muslims and minority groups here say, is not in keeping with local tradition.
Most of Syria???s Muslim women wear open-faced headscarves ??? frequently white ??? a stark contrast from the all-enveloping black niqab. But the niqab has become increasingly common, particularly in the northern city of Aleppo, fuelling concerns that ultra-conservative interpretations of Islam are spreading.
The first clear sign of renewed government action against hardline sentiments came at the end of 2008, when tight new regulations were imposed on private Islamic schools. Those measures were introduced after a deadly bombing in Damascus was traced to a private Islamic institute in the city, one described by a former student as a haven of extremist doctrine.
Another scare for Syria???s moderates, minorities and secular groups came last year, in the form of a draft personal status law. It proposed reversing a number of women???s and children???s rights and paved the way for bringing non-Muslims under Sunni Sharia rulings.
Civil society organisations and liberal religious groups, Christian and Islamic alike, were outraged and united against the draft, saying it would ???Talibanise??? the country. The proposed legislation was scrapped following intervention by the president, Bashar Assad.
The contents of that draft law, civil society activists say, surprised and alarmed the authorities, underlining that ultra-conservative Islam had grown in strength and wielded significant power within the Syrian establishment.
Moves were made to reinforce moderate religious sentiments. In January, Mahmoud Abul Huda al Husseini, was appointed to head the office for religious endowment in Aleppo. One of the wealthiest and most powerful Islamic organisations in the country, it has long had a reputation as a bastion of ultra-conservative Islam.
Mr al Husseini, a genial moderniser with degrees in medicine, Islamic law and history, was given a reforming mandate and said his task was to ???clean the environment that fosters radicalism???.
Since taking over the post, he has incurred the wrath of some in Syria???s religious hierarchy by stopping dozens of reactionary imams from preaching publicly, on the grounds they had failed to understand Islam???s inherent tolerance and needed to learn the Quran properly.
There have been other signals that the space given to hardline Islamic sentiment inside Syria is being newly restricted.
Last year, a leaked document revealed the Baath Party, widely assumed to be jealously secular, had approved the opening of a group expounding an ultra-conservative brand of Islam. Run by Sheikh Abdul Hadi al Bani, the organisation contended that television was against Quranic teachings and that women should not be allowed to work outside their home.
According to the memo, the al Bani group was not to be considered a ???negative influence??? on society if it limited its work to religion and did not dabble in politics.
That decision was greeted with dismay by moderates, who said it was proof a blind eye was being turned towards dangerous grass-roots atavism.
This year, however, the party reversed its decision on al Bani, saying that, as a secular political organisation, it was opposed to such groups having licence to operate.
Then, without public announcement, came the ministry of education???s disputed ban on niqab-wearing teachers, a move the government justified as necessary to defend ???secularism???. The minister of education, Ali Saad, hinted that other public sector departments would follow suit.
Religion is a sensitive topic in Syria, in part because the regime is by background Allawite, a minority sect of Shia Islam, but by instinct secular. It governs over a Sunni Muslim majority population.
In the 1980s, radical Sunnis from the Muslim Brotherhood led a violent uprising against the ruling Arab nationalist Baath Party. The rebellion was crushed and, subsequently, the authorities have taken a hard stance against anything they perceive as domestic extremism.
Regular Sunday sessions at the Supreme State Security Court, convened under controversial emergency laws, continue to jail defendants in cases related to radicalism and illegal political movements.
And yet, Damascus has been a major supporter of groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah. The logic behind these alliances is simple: while differing in ideology, they are joined by opposition to Israeli occupation and believe a united front aids their collective cause.
Similarly, when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and threatened Syria with regime change, Damascus had little incentive to stop guerillas wanting to wage jihad on US troops. Those same militants would, under different circumstances, be Syria???s sworn enemies.
As a result, Damascus has for years walked a tightrope of contradiction, siding with Islamic radicals on some foreign policy issues while trying to constrain those same forces domestically. Although there is no question of Syria ending its partnerships with Hamas and Hizbollah while still at war with Israeli, it appears the Syrian authorities may now feel that conservative Islam has been given too free a reign at home and should be hauled back in.
This is really about a widespread fear of Muslim subversion of European culture, not women's rights.
Thou should not speaketh, of what thou not knoweth.
So if its not based in FEAR, what is this based in?
Its more complex than FEAR?
-integration
-harmony
-respect
-equity
-balancing one's traditional values and cultures with those of the country one has chosen to move to
-balancing society's traditional values and cultures with those of new immigrants that have been allowed to move to one's country and who are necessary to one's economy
-wanting some control over one's life within situations where one feels increasingly that they have no control - due to financial constraints, language contraints, culture clashes
-wanting some control over one's society within situations where one feels increasingly that they have no control - due to past bad decisions that can no longer be ignored
-individual good vs greater good
-wanting to have one's cake and to eat it too
This is really about a widespread fear of Muslim subversion of European culture, not women's rights.
Thou should not speaketh, of what thou not knoweth.
So if its not based in FEAR, what is this based in?
Its more complex than FEAR?
-integration
-harmony
-respect
-equity
-balancing one's traditional values and cultures with those of the country one has chosen to move to
-balancing society's traditional values and cultures with those of new immigrants that have been allowed to move to one's country and who are necessary to one's economy
-wanting some control over one's life within situations where one feels increasingly that they have no control - due to financial constraints, language contraints, culture clashes
-wanting some control over one's society within situations where one feels increasingly that they have no control - due to past bad decisions that can no longer be ignored
-individual good vs greater good
-wanting to have one's cake and to eat it too
In a perfect world, yes - but do you really think the French government had all of these in mind when pushing for this legislation?
This is really about a widespread fear of Muslim subversion of European culture, not women's rights.
Thou should not speaketh, of what thou not knoweth.
So if its not based in FEAR, what is this based in?
Its more complex than FEAR?
-integration
-harmony
-respect
-equity
-balancing one's traditional values and cultures with those of the country one has chosen to move to
-balancing society's traditional values and cultures with those of new immigrants that have been allowed to move to one's country and who are necessary to one's economy
-wanting some control over one's life within situations where one feels increasingly that they have no control - due to financial constraints, language contraints, culture clashes
-wanting some control over one's society within situations where one feels increasingly that they have no control - due to past bad decisions that can no longer be ignored
-individual good vs greater good
-wanting to have one's cake and to eat it too
In a perfect world, yes - but do you really think the French government had all of these in mind when pushing for this legislation?
Maybe I'm just cynical.
I honestly don't think that is one of those laws that was imposed from high above to deflect attention from low ratings or pander to the populist vote. It's been a long time in the making and is the result of a nationwide debate. There's been a groundswell of opinion here in France for this law based on many of the issues implicitly or explicitly expressed that Bassie listed above. I really think that it is simply a case of politics reflecting wider opinion. If it wasn't there'd be a greater polemic surrounding it than there currently is. Afterall the French love supporting the underdog (they're markedly pro arab with regards the arab israeli conflict) and are the kings of public protest and demonstration. The slightest provocation and they're out in the streets. No sign of that so far...
Comments
You can throw in some white ladies who marry Muslim, too, which is more the case here in Toronto and Montreal from what I've seen.
To add to those nuances and complexities, each country has its own expectations and even then, the line of can shift week to week (Iran comes to mind).
Does accepting one's own suppression makes one less subjugated?
in which sense are you using "suppression" and "subjugation"? While the niqab certainly "suppresses" something - a display of one's face, no Muslim woman would leap from one term to the next that easily... And once again, for some reason your last sentence implies an outside agent imposing something, which i can say is simply not true with most niqab cases.. at least from my experience.
Is this really true? While I have no doubt most wear for their own reasons, let's not deny family pressures. Even here in Canada many children (Many women) deal with honour type violence. I mean, I can only go from my own personal experiences from family and friends. But I remember my first experience when I was in Grade 10 having a close friend locked up in her room for 4 days because she didn't want to wear the burka and being slapped by her father in front of everyone when he caught her playing basketball with us after school.
We just had this Father and brother sentenced on this incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqsa_Parvez
A question of violence in the name of honor is a different discussion all together, and many communities, inlcuding the Hindus or the Sikhs deal with these issues. Its not an exclusively Muslim phenomenon. In this case, were discussing the face-veil. Within the Muslim community the discourse of the hijab (head covering) is a completely different world from one of niqab. I would still say most Muslim fathers would NOT like their daughters to wear the niqab, and most mothers would NOT like their sons to have long beards.
If she knows what's good for her.
To say all the niqab suppresses is one's face is simplistic at best.
I beg to differ and say I believe many Muslim women would make that ???leap??? and some would even equate the two. Because some do not, it doesn???t mean none do.
Having said that, I understand why you are questioning those words; I asked not only in relation to this, but also in a broader, thinking-outloud context. I think it is worth asking.
Neither the niqab nor the choice to wear one exists in a vacuum. (The) Choice is not paramount. The demands of the ideology that support the niqab are.
I was born in a Muslim country and was raised in a Muslim house. I am aware of the broad spectrum of possibilities for Muslim women. And to be clear, I am not in any way negating the self-determination, intelligence or strength of women who wear the niqab, moreso the control and limitations placed on these qualities.
I don???t mean to cop out, but the interview I posted on the first page articulates how I see this. I defer to it.
Yes.
Phil Sands, The National
July 15. 2010
DAMASCUS // The recent ban on fully veiled women from teaching in Syria is the latest move that may signal the authorities are trying to reign in hardline Islamic sentiments.
Full-face veils, or niqabs, symbolise a conservatism that, many moderate Muslims and minority groups here say, is not in keeping with local tradition.
Most of Syria???s Muslim women wear open-faced headscarves ??? frequently white ??? a stark contrast from the all-enveloping black niqab. But the niqab has become increasingly common, particularly in the northern city of Aleppo, fuelling concerns that ultra-conservative interpretations of Islam are spreading.
The first clear sign of renewed government action against hardline sentiments came at the end of 2008, when tight new regulations were imposed on private Islamic schools. Those measures were introduced after a deadly bombing in Damascus was traced to a private Islamic institute in the city, one described by a former student as a haven of extremist doctrine.
Another scare for Syria???s moderates, minorities and secular groups came last year, in the form of a draft personal status law. It proposed reversing a number of women???s and children???s rights and paved the way for bringing non-Muslims under Sunni Sharia rulings.
Civil society organisations and liberal religious groups, Christian and Islamic alike, were outraged and united against the draft, saying it would ???Talibanise??? the country. The proposed legislation was scrapped following intervention by the president, Bashar Assad.
The contents of that draft law, civil society activists say, surprised and alarmed the authorities, underlining that ultra-conservative Islam had grown in strength and wielded significant power within the Syrian establishment.
Moves were made to reinforce moderate religious sentiments. In January, Mahmoud Abul Huda al Husseini, was appointed to head the office for religious endowment in Aleppo. One of the wealthiest and most powerful Islamic organisations in the country, it has long had a reputation as a bastion of ultra-conservative Islam.
Mr al Husseini, a genial moderniser with degrees in medicine, Islamic law and history, was given a reforming mandate and said his task was to ???clean the environment that fosters radicalism???.
Since taking over the post, he has incurred the wrath of some in Syria???s religious hierarchy by stopping dozens of reactionary imams from preaching publicly, on the grounds they had failed to understand Islam???s inherent tolerance and needed to learn the Quran properly.
There have been other signals that the space given to hardline Islamic sentiment inside Syria is being newly restricted.
Last year, a leaked document revealed the Baath Party, widely assumed to be jealously secular, had approved the opening of a group expounding an ultra-conservative brand of Islam. Run by Sheikh Abdul Hadi al Bani, the organisation contended that television was against Quranic teachings and that women should not be allowed to work outside their home.
According to the memo, the al Bani group was not to be considered a ???negative influence??? on society if it limited its work to religion and did not dabble in politics.
That decision was greeted with dismay by moderates, who said it was proof a blind eye was being turned towards dangerous grass-roots atavism.
This year, however, the party reversed its decision on al Bani, saying that, as a secular political organisation, it was opposed to such groups having licence to operate.
Then, without public announcement, came the ministry of education???s disputed ban on niqab-wearing teachers, a move the government justified as necessary to defend ???secularism???. The minister of education, Ali Saad, hinted that other public sector departments would follow suit.
Religion is a sensitive topic in Syria, in part because the regime is by background Allawite, a minority sect of Shia Islam, but by instinct secular. It governs over a Sunni Muslim majority population.
In the 1980s, radical Sunnis from the Muslim Brotherhood led a violent uprising against the ruling Arab nationalist Baath Party. The rebellion was crushed and, subsequently, the authorities have taken a hard stance against anything they perceive as domestic extremism.
Regular Sunday sessions at the Supreme State Security Court, convened under controversial emergency laws, continue to jail defendants in cases related to radicalism and illegal political movements.
And yet, Damascus has been a major supporter of groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah. The logic behind these alliances is simple: while differing in ideology, they are joined by opposition to Israeli occupation and believe a united front aids their collective cause.
Similarly, when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and threatened Syria with regime change, Damascus had little incentive to stop guerillas wanting to wage jihad on US troops. Those same militants would, under different circumstances, be Syria???s sworn enemies.
As a result, Damascus has for years walked a tightrope of contradiction, siding with Islamic radicals on some foreign policy issues while trying to constrain those same forces domestically. Although there is no question of Syria ending its partnerships with Hamas and Hizbollah while still at war with Israeli, it appears the Syrian authorities may now feel that conservative Islam has been given too free a reign at home and should be hauled back in.
So if its not based in FEAR, what is this based in?
Its more complex than FEAR?
In fact, the only place for religion in a civilised country in 2010 is in a museum display case.
IMHO, natch.
-integration
-harmony
-respect
-equity
-balancing one's traditional values and cultures with those of the country one has chosen to move to
-balancing society's traditional values and cultures with those of new immigrants that have been allowed to move to one's country and who are necessary to one's economy
-wanting some control over one's life within situations where one feels increasingly that they have no control - due to financial constraints, language contraints, culture clashes
-wanting some control over one's society within situations where one feels increasingly that they have no control - due to past bad decisions that can no longer be ignored
-individual good vs greater good
-wanting to have one's cake and to eat it too
In a perfect world, yes - but do you really think the French government had all of these in mind when pushing for this legislation?
Maybe I'm just cynical.
I honestly don't think that is one of those laws that was imposed from high above to deflect attention from low ratings or pander to the populist vote. It's been a long time in the making and is the result of a nationwide debate. There's been a groundswell of opinion here in France for this law based on many of the issues implicitly or explicitly expressed that Bassie listed above. I really think that it is simply a case of politics reflecting wider opinion. If it wasn't there'd be a greater polemic surrounding it than there currently is. Afterall the French love supporting the underdog (they're markedly pro arab with regards the arab israeli conflict) and are the kings of public protest and demonstration. The slightest provocation and they're out in the streets. No sign of that so far...
more like "neo-wahhabi" conviction, my brah.
lol - let me know if you guys resolve this one.