The Veil Must be Opposed

Tonight TPQ features a speech from guest writer Mayam Namazie. It appeared on her blog on 19th June 2012.

Bahar a young woman living in Germany wrote:

When you see me on the street I am veiled but do not think I am a Muslim. I have been forced to veil by my father and brothers; they will kill me if I don’t. Before I felt alone, but now I know I am not. 

This is a message she sent to Mina Ahadi, founder of the central council of ex-Muslims in Germany.

Of course, Bahar is not alone. There are innumerable women and girls in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa to right here in the heart of Europe who know from personal experience what it means to be female under Islam – hidden from view, bound, gagged, mutilated, murdered, without rights, and threatened and intimidated day in and day out for transgressing Islamic mores.

The veil, more than anything else, symbolises this bleak reality.

In my opinion, it is therefore impossible to address the status of women under Islamic laws and defend women’s rights without addressing and denouncing the veil.

And this is why the veil is the first thing that Islamists impose when they have any access to power.

And also why improper veiling, its removal and its burning at demonstrations and gatherings – as often seen in Iran for example – or its removal when one leaves the home – in places where it is not the law of the land but that of self-appointed imams and family members – has become a symbol of resistance.

I know our opponents often argue that there are many more pressing matters with regards to women’s status. Why all the fuss they ask?

To me, it is like asking what all the fuss was about racial apartheid – or segregation of the races – in apartheid South Africa. After all there were so many pressing issues faced by Blacks in that country. I suppose that is why the then South African government kept asserting that separate does not mean unequal (which incidentally is an argument Islamists make all the time). We know otherwise.

And we know – at least in hindsight – why the physical act of segregation was crucial and symbolic of what it meant to be Black under apartheid.

Similarly, the veil is a symbol of sexual apartheid and the segregation of the sexes. In countries where Islam rules, like in Iran, the separate entrances for women in certain government offices; separate areas for women’s seating on buses for example; the banning of women from certain public arenas like sport stadiums; a curtain dividing the Caspian sea for segregated swimming and so on is what it means in practice to be a female under Islam. That people transgress these rules daily is a testimony to their humanity and not the laws or state that imposes it by force.

When we talk about the situation in Iran, some of these apologists will concede that compulsory veiling must be opposed (though I have yet to hear them oppose it other than in their argument’s in defence of the veil) but if it is a choice ‘freely’ made than one must defend the ‘right’ to veil.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Adult women may have the ‘right’ to veil though that right is in no way absolute as many rights aren’t and a completely different matter for children – which I will come to later. But having the right to do something is very different from defending the ‘freely chosen’ veil or the ‘right to veil’. There may be women who ‘freely choose’ to genitally mutilate their daughters or immolate themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre but that does not mean that we must then defend the right of women to do so or defend the practice of Suttee or FGM. The defence of rights is not about making everyone agree as you will always find people who will defend and commit the indefensible – and that is what religion is in my opinion. It is about protecting human beings sometimes even from themselves.

The usage of the term choice in this context is extremely deceptive. First off in many places like Iran it is the law of the land. You are fined, arrested, beaten, imprisoned and even killed for transgressing the veil and Islamic mores.

In others where it is not the law, it is effectively so because of pressure and intimidation from the parasitical self-appointed so-called community and Islamic leaders, and family members.

One example of this is the joint statement about the veil from ‘Muslim groups, scholars and leaders’ in Britain which has stated that the veil ‘is not open to debate’. The statement goes so far as to ‘advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution in this issue since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief’ and to urge them to ‘keep this debate within the realm of scholarly discussion amongst the people of knowledge and authority in the Muslim community.’

A Channel 4 Dispatches programme recorded a mullah in Green Lane mosque in Birmingham saying ‘Allah has created the woman deficient’ and a satellite broadcast from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, beamed into the mosque suggesting that children should be hit if they don’t pray and if they don’t wear the hijab.

You’ve also all heard Australia’s senior Islamic cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali comparing unveiled women to ‘uncovered meat’ implying that they invite rape and sexual assault.

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside … without cover, and the cats come to eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.

Whilst misogynist sermons are the norm in mosques across the world, and across religions, these are a few examples of how a climate of intimidation and fear makes many a woman ‘choose’ the veil even in places where veiling is not compulsory.

Remove these, and I would even go so far as to say, that there will be few who will ‘choose’ to live in a mobile prison – other than those who want to show their allegiance to the rising political Islamic movement.

Also, a ‘woman’s right to choose’ must be preceded at the very least by legal and social equality. This is not the case for most. So if you consider the veil on a social scale, it represents neither a right nor a choice and it is a lie to say otherwise.

Of course, women wearing mini-skirts and Jimmy Choos may be under pressure from the fashion industry’s impossible ideals – as we often hear argued in defence of the veil – but it is as ridiculous to compare mini-skirts with the veil, as it is to compare Jimmy Choos with foot binding, which aims at preventing women from ‘wandering’.

The veil is not a piece of cloth or clothing, though it is often compared to miniskirts or other ‘lewd’ forms of clothing the rest of us unveiled women seem to wear. Just as the straight jacket or body bag are not pieces of clothing. Just as the chastity belt was not a piece of clothing. Just as the Star of David pinned on Jews during the holocaust was not just a bit of cloth.

This of course does not mean that only women under Islam or veiled women are oppressed. But it is important to oppose the veil in its own right.

And this has nothing to do with being hate-filled or promoting an attack on Muslims or veiled women though Islamists portray it as such. Interesting coming from a reactionary right wing movement that has turned murder and mayhem into an art form, but as I have said before, opposing FGM does not mean you are attacking those who are mutilated; opposing foot binding or Suttee likewise. In fact, it is an essential to a principled defence of women’s rights.

And this is why the chador, burqa and neqab must be banned – to defend women’s rights. Not because they affects interaction, communication and so on. These are side effects. And certainly not because they may make people like Jack Straw uncomfortable. It has to be banned because sexual apartheid is as unacceptable as racial apartheid. Because it is unacceptable for women to be segregated in the 21 century; and for women to walk around in a mobile prison or body bag because religion deems that they be kept invisible.

Any mention of a ban, though, quickly raises cries of authoritarianism. As an aside, it is interesting how much religion can get away with and that its decree for example that women be veiled is not considered authoritarian. But more importantly, a ban is not necessarily bad. Society bans many things in order to safeguard and protect the people living in it, often due to left and progressive social movements demanding it. For example, child labour is banned, so is FGM, child pornography, rape and so on. A ban in such situations is a good thing; it helps to stop abuses from taking place. The argument that banning will only increase the burqa or neqab is ridiculous when used in other examples pertaining to defending people’s rights but is somehow considered proper discourse when it comes to the veil.

Also calling for a ban does not necessarily mean you want to or will criminalise a segment of the population. For example, there is a rule to wear a helmet when driving a motorbike but I don’t think there are hundreds of Sikhs languishing in British jails for not doing so. Or for that matter people who smoke in non-smoking areas, and size zero models…

Islamists and their apologists demand that we respect people’s religious expressions and beliefs. As I have said many a time, we are duty bound to respect human beings but not every belief or religious expression. Having the right to a belief and religion is not the same as it being a no go area to do as it pleases free of any criticism or condemnation.

Also they say that it is racist to criticise Islam, the veil and political Islam. What rubbish. You cannot be racist against an idea or belief or ideology or its expression. Racism is distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin (albeit constructed) of individuals – of human beings – not their beliefs. Saying it is so is just another attempt at silencing all opposition and criticism.

A ban on the burqa, chador, neqab and its likes is important but it is no where enough. The hijab or any conspicuous religious symbol must be banned from the state and education and relegated to the private sphere. This helps to ensure that government offices and officials from judges, to clerks, to doctors and nurses are not promoting their religious beliefs and are instead doing their jobs. In the same way that a teacher can’t teach creationism instead of evolution and science in the classroom; a pharmacist can’t refuse contraceptive pills to a women because of her beliefs; a male doctor can’t refuse to treat a woman patient or vice versa.

Finally, child veiling must be banned full stop. This is a children’s rights issue. While adults may ‘choose’ veiling or a religion, children by their very nature cannot make such choices; what they do is really what their parents tell them to do. Again the use of the term choice here is deceptive. Children must be protected even if they ‘choose’ to stay with abusive parents, to work to support poor families or to stop attending school.

Children have the absolute right to be children – nothing must be allowed to segregate them or restrict them from accessing information, advances in society and rights, playing, swimming and in general doing things children must do. Whatever their beliefs, parents do not have the right to impose their beliefs, including veiling on children just because they are their own children, just as they can’t deny their children medical assistance or beat and neglect them or marry them off at 9 because it’s part of their beliefs or religion. Child veiling is a form of child abuse and has to be stopped.

Throughout history, progress and change have come about not by appeasing, apologizing or excusing reaction, but by standing up to it firmly and unequivocally. This is what has to be against Islam, political Islam and the veil.

We have to state loud and clear that sexual apartheid has no place in the 21st century; enough is enough.

The above is Maryam Namazie’s speech at a March 8 2007 seminar on Women’s Rights, the Veil and Islamic and religious laws in London.

19 comments:

  1. Another case of someone,s opinion ruining peoples lives, veils ,burkas and the rest unless worn by consent or a fashion statement(I know I know but theres no accounting for taste)all religion for far to long has dominated and ruined the lives of so many for so long now,its well past the time that these throwbacks to the time of a flat earth and burning bushes were left behind,it seems to me that both "christianity and muslim sect" are building up another head of steam to slaughter each other all over again and all in the name of god or allah or some other dickhead!

    ReplyDelete
  2. In this modern society The Women of this world should have equal rights, but, If women of the Muslim faith are told to wear the veil, then they have right to refuse, A lot of young Muslim women are dressing in modern clothing all over Europe. The mullahs and Jihad clerics need to get a grip on themselves , spouting crap , ffs has no one told these people who live in the 1st century , ITS THE 21st CENTURY. Our own catholic church used to be the same, Women could not enter the chapel without there head being covered, Time to get on in life. I say, support those Muslim women who do not wish to wear the veil.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The cultural/religious pressure to wear these things is clearly immense but it is a side of the debate the veilers often want to be hidden in the hope that veining will be seen as a voluntary act. The element of coercion should always be brought out into the open.

    At the same time the liberal in me balks at the notion of saying to women you cannot wear them. As a general rule people should be allowed to wear what they want. The right to wear a Ku Klux Klan hood should be no stronger or weaker than the right to wear a veil.

    Should people be allowed to cover up in public? This is more tricky but I don't feel that in general they should be. If someone is allowed to veil up in public then the same right to mask/hood up should avail. I know that I would not permit my children to be taught in school by a masked man or woman.

    I accept the premises of Maryam’s argument but I withhold assent on the conclusions she draws. She is a great public speaker by the way. I was enthralled by her at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin last year. I have cooperated with her on and off over the past six years and find her a remarkable activist

    ReplyDelete
  4. Would you include" that masked man" the lone ranger in your list of personae non gratae in the teaching of your chilblains a cara,but I agree with your points,other than a dodgy fashion statement women and men should have the freedom to wear or not anything they chose rather than have such garments imposed upon them,hinduism and its caste system is worthy of mention as well here,people by nature of their birth are marked as "unclean" ffs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Every error is an exaggeration of a truth. Islam is closer to the truth than most today, but goes too far.

    Here is the justification of moderate veiling.

    "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
    "For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels....If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." (1 Corinthians 11:3-10,16)

    At the very least, a woman should have her head covered at Mass. To refuse to do this is to reject Christian tradition for the sterile barrenness of feminism.

    http://www.catholicplanet.com/women/headcovering.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. John,

    it's not his head the altarboy needs to cover!

    ReplyDelete
  7. JJ that sounds a bit like ;Girl for a boy,boy for a man and a goat for pleasure ...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marty,
    Women's status in these countries is a much more determining factor than religion.
    Women being burned on the funeral pires in India is arguably tied in with certain religious codes but the predominant factors are secular.
    Women are burned because they are considered worthless if they are without a man.
    The majority of these practices pre-date religion, although the holy men were only too happy to avail of the 'God made man in his own image'
    I remember reading about how the Brits claimed to help quash some of these 'out-dated practices in India'
    Which is like saying it's ok to punch kick or beat a woman to death in our partially, secular, civilised Western society just stop the infidels from doing like-wise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re Bahar writing in – the poor wee girl... what a living hell has been put on her & with no exit in sight... That is what enrages & sickens me to the gut... That being birthed into this wretched madness of an oppressive religion the escape route is nearly nil... Even in women’s refuges (i have worked in one) you know that some will return to this hell because the family blood ties are so strong... They go back knowing brutality, denigration and possibly death awaits them if they step out of line again. Even accessing help will be punished severely...

    Re ‘The veil, more than anything else, symbolises this bleak reality.’
    I never thought of it like that but yes it does send out the message loud and clear I am subjugated or dedicated by or to religion and must obey the dictates of how I dress/live. Conversely though for some who wear it they do so willingly. One cannot generalise – make such a sweeping overview statement as it may not be true for all.

    Re: ‘You’ve also all heard Australia’s senior Islamic cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali comparing unveiled women to ‘uncovered meat’ implying that they invite rape and sexual assault.’
    Yes that walking talking lump of a human being is revered by young men who are being brainwashed with heinous notions of what women are. Makes it easy then to enforce rules and regulations on women. Also makes rape of the girl or woman – always the females fault. It is all a misogynistic self serving agenda plotted carefully on females from the womb to the tomb.

    Re: ‘We have to state loud and clear that sexual apartheid has no place in the 21st century; enough is enough.’
    I agree the veiling of children is abuse of rights of the child as it is grooming them to subjugation – normalising subjugation – ensuring no resistance forms although it always will. But by the time the resistance occurs the fear is cemented in there of repercussions. Confusion between the right to religious freedom versus universal rights of all human beings to live as they choose as pointed out.

    I am not so sure however one can demand a ban on adults wearing the garb. It is their right if they are convicted to do so to wear this just like a monk wears robes, a sexworker wears next to nothing, a businessman wears a suit and on it goes. I personally feel sad seeing women believing that wearing this garb is a spiritual act of devotion rather than a brainwash number but then i feel sad seeing young women hawking their forks in bondage gear on the streets of cities. It is all denigration and subjugation of the female.

    Some Muslim woman are happy with wearing burqa and some sexworkers (mind u not many) state happiness with their lifestyle....

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ marty There is only one pertinent use of the burqa & niqab for me where it would be fairly useful – feeling fugly? fat, pimply, mad and bloated. Just throw the garb on and head into town knowing people can only see yer eyes glowing with rage lookin out. A kickarse infidel on the move You could always put a message on the burqa – like a billboard. The chador is quite nifty too A great cover up with just your face looming out at the world.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ JJ you are quoting scriptures that were written at a particular time in history where veiling and so on was commonplace & not hooked into an agenda of oppression on women like it is now. It is not relevant whether one wears a mantilla or a sombrero when worshipping God. That is just externals. Last time i checked Christian scriptures God was solely interested in what is in a persons heart, mind, spirit. I note the quote you gave is from catholicplanet.com Well my information is from FirefortheVatican.com Donations to saint?maryhedgehog Only substantial monetary donations are accepted Cash preferred. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Fionnuala Vrindavan aka the City of Widows (India) as it is commonly known is a dumping ground for unwanted female sector of humanity – widowed women No-one wants them. It is just horrendous.... They eke out an existence together.... Anytime i get self pity on me i only got to think of women all over the world who suffer so profoundly... makes our lives look so beautiful in comparison...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nuala didnt they burn women alive here a while back! in India at least the waited untill they were dead, I,m getting burnt when I fall off my perch in keeping with republican tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mayam,
    This is a brilliant article, but I don't know how far I would go with the argument that these vile practices are essentially religious.
    Suttee or the pyre as I said pre-dates religion. Many of the vile practices which still prevail in Africa pre-date the Christian /Islam religions in that country, althought one of the worst female gential mutiliation is almost totally religion driven.
    Widows in Africa actually endure a somewhat worse fate than the pyre as once the hubby goes their lives are made a living hell.
    Scold's bridle, stoning and all the other women hating practices were carried out in equal measure amongst the secular as the religious.
    Foot binding in China is more of a cultural-status tradition as was their one child policy with preference to male children.

    I just believe the duration of oppression against women is a testimony to its acceptability into all cultures and creeds irrespective of culture or creed.
    Religion may have reinforced its acceptability and gave it the holy seal, but I believe it would have florished totally unabated with or without the help of the holy men and women.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Marty,
    In India they were burnt alive!
    According to Indan custom a widow has not any real value after her husband is gone, therefore her place should be beside him on the funeral pyre.
    While it is argued that a lot of these deaths were voluntary, in most instances the women were drugged and tied beside their husbands corpse.

    The Brits did eventually ban this practice in the early 20th century, however much to their shame they over-turned former bans and allowed it to take place under-regulation.

    Recently a friend told me she had watched a documentary about a women being stoned in Afghanistan.
    Apparently, and rightly so, the British target audience was appallled by the horror of the women's fate which they said was direct result of Taliban law.
    Stoning and stoning women in Afghanistan has been a custom for centuries. It does not have any particular legal or religious jurisdication.
    What I find so incredible is the fact that in our so-called civilised west, women are just as likely to endure the same fate and the light sentences handed down to the abuser i.e. murderer guarantee its acceptance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here Nuala this burning alive of the wife ..er.... is it compulsory that the hubbie has to be brown bread first?.kinda taken to that idea..as for being stoned ..well hon let me tell you about the 60,s....Marie left a note on the tellie for me ......its not working I,m off....plugged it in turned it on ,f##kin nothing wrong with it...daft woman...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Marty,
    Yes! you have to go first, otherwise Marie cannot atone for your sins that's the religious aspect, the secular and customary one being her life is worthless if you are no longer living.

    Ironically it would prove beneficial for the mistresses, they would just have to show up on the day with the insurance policies.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ha Nuala got ya.thats why coffins have six handles,one down all down,its a democratic way to go,

    ReplyDelete
  19. John,

    ‘Here is the justification of moderate veiling “ ... For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil ... “

    Religious bunkum. Why would any woman listen to such Corinthians crap?

    ‘At the very least, a woman should have her head covered at Mass.’

    And we should have the morality police in the pews to beat her with sticks just in case she doesn’t perform.

    ‘this is to reject Christian tradition for the sterile barrenness of feminism.’

    And?

    ReplyDelete