Burqa/Niqab

[Impenitent]

The presiding officers of the Australian Parliament (ie those responsible for making decisions about security) have just decided that persons with facial coverings (ie muslim women wearing a burqa or niqab) entering the galleries of the House of Reps or Senate will be seated in the enclosed galleries.

The response to this by those opposing the decision is that Muslim women will be relegated to that area reserved for rowdy school children; and that this is a disgraceful and shameful decision.

There has been much debate about the clothing of Muslim women recently, not just in Australia, and I'm sure you've seen it.

The Australian PM Tony Abbott (alas that this is so!) yesterday admitted that he finds the burqa "confronting" and personally wishes that it were not worn, though he was quick to qualify this by saying that it is a matter of personal choice.

I'm going to go out on a limb and admit that I also find it confronting to be approached by a woman in a niqab or burqa. This may be simply because I'm not accustomed to it, but I suspect it is more than that for me. Part of it is that I cannot see the face or (in the case of a burqa) even the eyes, while she can see mine. It makes me feel exposed that my facial expression and body language can be read while she hides hers, preventing me from engaging in that aspect of dialogue.

More than that, though, I feel I am being judged - as if she is saying, "my choice demonstrates my personal and moral modesty, while you choose to display your physicality to all passing men". This is purely my personal response, my problem, and I want to be clear that I'm not claiming that she (the woman under the burqa) is actually judging me, but that is how I feel. I know this personal response (weakness?) should not enter the equation, but in honesty I wanted to admit it openly because I'm pretty sure that subliminal response colours my opinion, no matter how objective I think I am being in this discussion.

I find the burqa and niqab repellent, to be honest. I think it is a tool for female suppression, a method of keeping women out of the public sphere.

The idea that women must cover themselves for the sake of "modesty" (ie to keep the lustful male eyes from them, and to prevent male thoughts from turning to things of the flesh) is not reserved to Islam, of course. Orthodox Jewish women have similar restrictions on covering (hiding - sometimes even shaving) their hair (because this is an adornment), as well as their arms and shoulders and legs below the knee, and shunning formfitting clothes. Same reason: so as not to distract the menfolk/blaming women for the behaviour (and possible behaviour) of men.

There has been an even more ludicrous development amongst some of the more extreme Jewish fundamentalists, where the women have added a cone on the tops of their heads before throwing a black coverall over it, and in this way obliterating even the shape of the head - rendering them not just 'unfemale' but also inhuman. http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-lo ... 2dkd1.html (see photo halfway down the page).

There are Christian groups that also have an inordinate emphasis on female "modesty" that seems unhealthy to me, with an obsession on hemlines - I need not elaborate.

The point is, it's not just Islam, but Islam is the flavour of the day, due to the contagious fear engendered by Islamic extremist/terrorist groups over the last few decades and now brought to an apotheosis by the group calling itself ISIL.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that there is a movement throughout the Islamic world towards increasing...observance? I can't hit on the correct word. Perhaps it's more of a swing away from whatever is happening in the west, rather than a swing towards ...anything. Islamic countries such as Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia etc which had developed over the last 50-100 years a greater openness and tolerance for non-Islamic ideas - had even demonstrated progressive sensibilities - have swung the other way. In many of these countries, there is increasing insistence on outward Islamic observance which is most graphically demonstrated in the change in women's dress on the street.

This is now observed in many non-Muslim countries also, as the warfare in the middle east and North Africa has forced refugees into the west, so places such as the UK and France and Australia and the US now see burqas in the street as an integral part of the landscape. Nor does it surprise me, with the fear in the air, that there has been a backlash.

This backlash against increasing Islamisation is not limited to the West. France, as you know, has banned the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public primary and secondary schools. Did you know that Turkey, Tunisia, and Tajikistan, Muslim-majority countries, also have laws prohibiting the wearing of hijab in government buildings, schools, and universities?

In Tunisia, women were banned from wearing hijab in state offices in 1981 and in the 1980s and 1990s more restrictions were put in place. The Turkish government recently attempted to lift a ban on Muslim headscarves at universities, but were overturned by the country's Constitutional Court.

I've been meandering all over the place and have not yet made a point - because I don't really have a point, actually.

I guess I'm curious about your feelings about the wearing of these garments in our western societies. Not so much the hijab, but those items of clothing (burqa, niqab, chador) which seek to (in my view) hide or obliterate the woman.

IMO it's not enough to say that it is a religious choice. There are religions which uphold polygamy, yet we don't allow it. There are religions which prohibit blood transfusions, yet medical authorities override those religious mores. If a religion dictated nudity, I doubt very much that civil laws would allow it in the public sphere.

And I guess that's the point, isn't it. The public sphere - in which the personal religious beliefs of one cannot be imposed upon others.

What do you think? I'm very curious about this, but have been reluctant to post about it because so many of my posts miss the mark and subsequently make me feel quite stupid, but I'll be brave and adamant about this discussion because I want to hear your views.

In case you don't know the difference between burqa, niqab, hijab, chador etc http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24118241

[Túrin Turambar]

My view is that wearing a burqa or niqab should be prohibited where other facial coverings, like motorcycle helmets, are prohibited, and permitted where they are permitted. I doubt that there is any realistic prospect of trying to ban them – unlike the French those of us in le monde Anglo-Saxon tend to favour individual liberty over religious and secular unity.

I sometimes see ultra-orthodox Jewish men in the St Kilda and Caulfield areas of Melbourne out and about in the middle of summer in frock coats and felt hats, which I think makes no more sense than wearing a niqab. But there is something about actually covering your face that takes it further. I think that women who chose to wear these garments must be aware that, in western societies, speaking openly face-to-face is valued and going around with your face covered is seen as a potentially sinister or even hostile act.

And like the Prime Minister, I do find the burqa actually confronting. I don’t recall ever seeing one worn in Australia (they might be worn in Western Sydney, which has a larger Arab Muslim community), but the grille over the face always reminds me of prison bars, and the fact that you cannot see the woman’s eyes makes her look not even human. I can’t help but ask the question – if you want to wear that, why live here in a western country and not Saudi Arabia or Iran? It seems to me to a pretty solid repudiation of western liberal secular values, far moreso than the hijab or the yarmulke or the traditional African and Asian dress that I see worn around Footscray quite often.

I think Impenitent is correct that there is currently a reformation underway in the Islamic world, towards an Islam that is more political, more austere, and (I think this is very interesting and often overlooked) more Arab. Fifty years ago you would struggle to find a Malaysian, Pakistani, Indonesian or Somali woman in a niqab. Now it is not uncommon, at least among Islamic communities in western countries.

[Impenitent]

I sometimes see ultra-orthodox Jewish men in the St Kilda and Caulfield areas of Melbourne out and about in the middle of summer in frock coats and felt hats, which I think makes no more sense than wearing a niqab.

I very much agree! And it is effectively a rejection of modern secular values. The difference, I think, is that even the most haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) communities accept wholeheartedly that the law of the land is the law. (An aside: I am not sure this is so for extreme Islam. Perhaps it has something to do with Islam being a proselytising religion - as is Christianity - while Judaism traditionally does not seek to convert.)

While religion requires a head covering (a yamulke of any kind will do), the clothing style o the haredi is not prescribed by religious consideration but rather is an indicator that they are stuck culturally in 18th century Poland, the time of the rabbi who originated the sect. It really is simply a symbol of "we belong to this sect". Interesting that the haredi women do not effect the corresponding garb (but they do shave their heads on the eve of marriage and then cover them with a sheytl/wig )

It seems to me to a pretty solid repudiation of western liberal secular values, far moreso than the hijab or the yarmulke or the traditional African and Asian dress that I see worn around Footscray quite often.

That set off a lightbulb for me. Yes, it is a tangible and unavoidable symbol of separation.

[Pearly Di]

Thanks for this thread, Impy. I share your deep unease regarding the niqab/burqa, but at the same time I feel unease about it being banned.

I'm going to go out on a limb and admit that I also find it confronting to be approached by a woman in a niqab or burqa. This may be simply because I'm not accustomed to it, but I suspect it is more than that for me. Part of it is that I cannot see the face or (in the case of a burqa) even the eyes, while she can see mine. It makes me feel exposed that my facial expression and body language can be read while she hides hers, preventing me from engaging in that aspect of dialogue.

More than that, though, I feel I am being judged - as if she is saying, "my choice demonstrates my personal and moral modesty, while you choose to display your physicality to all passing men". This is purely my personal response, my problem, and I want to be clear that I'm not claiming that she (the woman under the burqa) is actually judging me, but that is how I feel. I know this personal response (weakness?) should not enter the equation, but in honesty I wanted to admit it openly because I'm pretty sure that subliminal response colours my opinion, no matter how objective I think I am being in this discussion.

Yes. And I don't think your reaction is a personal weakness, because of THIS:

I find the burqa and niqab repellent, to be honest. I think it is a tool for female suppression, a method of keeping women out of the public sphere.

There is a massive difference, IMO, between the head-coverings worn by devout Muslim, Orthodox Jewish and fundamentalist Christian women, and the burqa. A massive difference. When you can't actually see someone's face, the effect is very alienating. I am very unlikely to wear a head-covering for religious reasons, but from a purely aesthetic POV it's an attractive look.

IMO it's not enough to say that it is a religious choice. There are religions which uphold polygamy, yet we don't allow it. There are religions which prohibit blood transfusions, yet medical authorities override those religious mores. If a religion dictated nudity, I doubt very much that civil laws would allow it in the public sphere.

And I guess that's the point, isn't it. The public sphere - in which the personal religious beliefs of one cannot be imposed upon others.

It's tricky.

Some months ago there was a heated debate on UK TV between a crowd of observant Muslim women, all defending the wearing of the niqab/burqa, and Professor Mona Siddiqui, a well-known academic and feminist, and herself a practising Muslim, who is an outspoken critic of Islamic fundamentalism. It turned into a futile shouting match. It did occur to me that in banning the niqab/burqa, as France has done, an unnecessary war is being waged and heat is being turned up in an unhelpful way. I dislike the burqa but I don't think that Muslim women wearing it should be criminalised. Not with, you know, real criminals around. Perhaps the French example is an example of secularisation, in this particular instance, not being tolerant or liberal. Or neutral. I dislike the burqa, but banning it is not a neutral decision. (Is anything neutral, really?)

I take your point about laws regarding nudity but what else will we start banning just because we don't like it?

(As for polgyamy ... I think it's sexist and I'm glad we don't allow it in the West, but OTOH I'd be very hard pressed to argue that it was immoral or harmful.)

[Alatar]

<osgiliation>

(As for polgyamy ... I think it's sexist and I'm glad we don't allow it in the West, but OTOH I'd be very hard pressed to argue that it was immoral or harmful.)

Why sexist? Is it because you're assuming one man, multiple wives? What about the reverse, or multiple guys, multiple gals?

</osgiliation>

[JewelSong]

<osgiliation>

(As for polgyamy ... I think it's sexist and I'm glad we don't allow it in the West, but OTOH I'd be very hard pressed to argue that it was immoral or harmful.)

Why sexist? Is it because you're assuming one man, multiple wives? What about the reverse, or multiple guys, multiple gals?

I think that most - if not all - cultures that practice polygamy practice it in the "one man, multiple wives" configuration. This is usually so that the man can have more offspring. Historically (going way back to Biblical times) the more offspring a man had, the better. Obviously a man can impregnate many women in a very short period of time and thus ensure the survival of his line.

"One woman, multiple men" wouldn't be much use from a cultural viewpoint. Although if you take pregnancy out of the picture, it is kinda fun to contemplate...

I think there are (or have been) some cultures that practice polyamory (a bunch of guys/a bunch of gals living in a communal intimate relationship) but I do not think these are common practices.

[Túrin Turambar]

[OT as well]Following on from Jewel's post, I looked up Polyandry on Wikipedia. It is obviously quite rare, and in the reverse of the situation she described, often practiced in societies with limited land where there is a need to closely control and limit population growth and inheritance. For example, in the Himalayas (where brothers would have a wife in common) or Polynesia. It makes sense.

[Pearly Di]

<osgiliation>
Why sexist? Is it because you're assuming one man, multiple wives? What about the reverse, or multiple guys, multiple gals?

</osgiliation>

Jewel said it. Simply because traditionally polygamy has been part of a patriarchal society.

Although if women in another culture are happy with that set-up and enter a polygamous marriage out of their own free will, well, that's their call and none of my business.

[Dave_LF]

In simple economic terms, overall, traditional polygamy is far better for women than for men (though it's best of all for a small number of individual men). The reason in simple: when a man imagines living in a polygamous society, he pictures himself with a bunch of subservient wives. And when that guy's one actual wife imagines the same thing, she pictures having to share her moron husband with other women. In reality, that guy probably wouldn't have any wives at all, and that woman wouldn't be sharing a beer-swilling underachiever; she'd be sharing a CEO, or a movie star, or a high-ranking politician. The whole thing is very much a one-percentization of the family. When you think about it, "one man, one woman" is really a form of rationing; a thoroughly socialist idea. But don't try telling that to the people walking around with it on signs.

It is an interesting social question how polygamy/polygyny would play out in the absence of coercive/arranged marriage. i.e. if everyone could choose among: not marrying at all, marrying one average person, being one of several spouses of an above-average person, or trying to get multiple spouses themselves; what sort of equilibrium would be reached?

[Primula Baggins]

Many of the polygamous cults in the United States settle the mismatch by allowing only older men with power in the community to marry at all. At some point most of the teenage boys are literally forced out of the community.

[Frelga]

<osgiliation>
Why sexist? Is it because you're assuming one man, multiple wives? What about the reverse, or multiple guys, multiple gals?

</osgiliation>

Jewel said it. Simply because traditionally polygamy has been part of a patriarchal society.

To be fair, so was traditional monogamy.