It sends a shiver down the spine. France's lower house has passed a law banning the wearing of the full Islamic veil – covering the face – in public places. The hope has to be that this extraordinary decision never actually reaches the statute book given that France's highest constitutional body, the council of state, warned some months ago that a ban would infringe constitutional rights and the measure could be challenged in the European court of human rights. Belgium and Spain are also considering bans on the veil. What makes the decision in France so disturbing is that it fits into a pattern emerging across Europe of a particular paranoia, as an open letter published today on Comment is Free and signed by more than 30 academics and commentators warns.
The veil debate is making it entirely legitimate to pillory, mock and ridicule a tiny number of women on the basis of what they wear. French politicians described the full veil as a "walking coffin"; on comment threads online there is contempt and sneers for the full veil and those who wear it – "hiding under a blanket", "going round with a paper bag over your head". In France it is estimated there are only 2,000 women who cover their faces with the burqa or the niqab out of a Muslim population of five million. The response is out of all proportion.
Let's be clear: the niqab and burqa are extreme interpretations of the Islamic requirement for modest dress; few Islamic scholars advocate their use, and many – including Tariq Ramadan – have urged women not to use them. They are as alien to many Muslim cultures as they are to the west. And yes, there are instances of patriarchy where some women might be encouraged or even forced to wear a full veil by their husbands or fathers. But generalisations don't fit. Increasingly, young women are choosing to wear the full veil, seeing it as a powerful statement of identity.
Invoking the full weight of the state to police dress codes in public is an extraordinary extension of state powers over an aspect of citizen behaviour which is largely regarded as your own business. Provided you are wearing some clothing, western public space is a free-for-all, and across every capital in Europe that is strikingly self-evident.
Women wearing the skimpiest of mini-skirts sit down on buses next to other women in saris, business suits, salwar kameez. None of these cultural codes expressed in dress are regarded as the business of the state. Nor should they be. Public space in the west has been crucial to the generation of a civic culture of tolerance; this is where strangers rub shoulders, sometimes sharing nothing but geographical space for a period of time – five minutes in a bus queue. We have negotiated and tolerated differences – of class, culture, nationality and race – in our streets and squares, and the lapses from that crucial ambition have been shaming.
It is not difficult to see the racism which permeates this debate. It is about assertion of identity – under the soubriquet of protecting "our way of life" – and crucial to that is forcing a choice: do you subscribe or don't you? Sign up or get out. But such choices are notoriously slippery. Who gets to decide what our way of life is exactly?
The Tory backbench MP Philip Hollobone, who is proposing a private members' bill to ban the veil in the UK, said that part of the British way of life is "walking down the street, smiling at people and saying hello". How many UK streets ever matched up to his rosy nostalgia? It exposes the absurdity of politicians trying to legislate some idealised past back into existence.
The irony is that these bans reveal a fixation on identity and the face at a time when more people spend more time than ever interacting online with complete anonymity. We can remodel our faces through cosmetic surgery or adopt an entirely new image for our virtual life. Most people navigating urban public spaces studiously avoid each other's eye. Yet many of those advocating bans have insisted that exposure of the face is crucial to interaction.
It is not too hard to understand that some women – a small minority – might find the pervasive sexualisation of western culture deeply offensive, and might want to signal by their clothing their disengagement and alienation. They don't want their face surveyed by that western glance which sizes up and categorises – to be dismissed or desired. Yet this is a choice which largely male politicians in France have chosen to remove (less than 20% of the French lower house are women).
French politicians insisted on Tuesday that women need to be liberated from the full veil. Forcing people to be free has a long and undistinguished history – well described by many, including George Orwell – yet too many times an age is blinded by its own prejudices and forgets that liberation can never be imposed.
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
They are worried, that by looking at the modest Muslim girls, the french women are learning to be modest, and therefore their own women are being lost to Islam... which they fear...
I thought their current crisis of their economic state would have been their first priority. I guess I was wrong, the Nigab must be really important to them huh?
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one.." [Bukhaari].
One of my room-mates was French. She told us that instead of forcing the Muslim women in France to start unveiling, these idiotic rules have just forced practicing Muslim ladies to stay in their homes. As much as they can.
But I forget. This is liberation.
sarkozy is in trouble with the corruption allegations and they needed something to distract the french people from the real issue....
This law is bigotry, plain and simple. You don't liberate by not allowing someone to do as they wish, especially when that action hurts nobody. It is the other way around.
So yes, it looks like a pathetic attempt to distract the people from important issues by playing to their base fears and making it look like the government is actually accomplishing something.
screw france
And any other country that has laws that discriminate based on religion.
One of my room-mates was French. She told us that instead of forcing the Muslim women in France to start unveiling, these idiotic rules have just forced practicing Muslim ladies to stay in their homes. As much as they can.
But I forget. This is liberation.
I guess they don't care about that, they probably already knew it and want these muslim women forced into their homes than be outside in a veil
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
The veil debate is making it entirely legitimate to pillory, mock and ridicule a tiny number of women on the basis of what they wear. French politicians described the full veil as a "walking coffin"; on comment threads online there is contempt and sneers for the full veil and those who wear it – "hiding under a blanket", "going round with a paper bag over your head". In France it is estimated there are only 2,000 women who cover their faces with the burqa or the niqab out of a Muslim population of five million. The response is out of all proportion.
I have to agree. The ban on the islamic veil is motivated by a strong prejudice and distrust towards muslims. It is blatantly obvious because they are singling this out instead of addressing the basic idea of covering your face, for which there are legitimate security concerns. But anywhere I am allowed to wear a ski mask a muslim woman should be allowed to wear a full face veil. This is just one example of the PR problem islam has in the west, extending from 9/11 and continuing on today.
I have to agree. The ban on the islamic veil is motivated by a strong prejudice and distrust towards muslims. It is blatantly obvious because they are singling this out instead of addressing the basic idea of covering your face, for which there are legitimate security concerns. But anywhere I am allowed to wear a ski mask a muslim woman should be allowed to wear a full face veil. This is just one example of the PR problem islam has in the west, extending from 9/11 and continuing on today.
prejudice against Islam was there way before 9/11. Its odd how some people cannot think of Islam beyond 9/11.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
prejudice against Islam was there way before 9/11. Its odd how some people cannot think of Islam beyond 9/11.
Correct, it goes back centuries, but the most recent manifestation has been since the 1970s, (Islamic revolution in Iran is one example)
And much of the so called 'PR problem' is actually promoted by western media/intellectual classes for various reasons, commercial (big bad Muslims coming to get you, lets make some bucks), ideological (Muslims dont bow down easily to western norms, hence tantrums), political (eg. control of Middle east resources).
I have to agree. The ban on the islamic veil is motivated by a strong prejudice and distrust towards muslims. It is blatantly obvious because they are singling this out instead of addressing the basic idea of covering your face, for which there are legitimate security concerns. But anywhere I am allowed to wear a ski mask a muslim woman should be allowed to wear a full face veil. This is just one example of the PR problem islam has in the west, extending from 9/11 and continuing on today.
You may be right but you also may be wrong. One would hardly wear a ski mask when you are shopping would you and nowhere are there spiritual injunctions about it. Why is it impossible to see that the ban might be motivated by ideas about freedom and liberation or 101 other reasions? One might be more disposed to see the Islamic view if one could find Muslims demanding that women say in Saudi Arabia could have a choice in the matter. The idea that it is racism I find very odd and I have said this elsewhere, if its racism to ban the burka its also racism to ban genital mutilation or other so called religious practices since these might be seen as religious injunctions.
The point perhaps is that wearing the veil or head covering is a decision not a choice. For my part I don't care what they do as long as they allow the same freedom for others though the whole idea of a complete covering as a mark of piety is an absurdity to me.
....
The point perhaps is that wearing the veil or head covering is a decision not a choice. For my part I don't care what they do as long as they allow the same freedom for others though the whole idea of a complete covering as a mark of piety is an absurdity to me.
Doesn't matter if you think it is absurd or not. It's not about popularity contests, it's a personal decision. Plus, it's not like they are wearing gimp suits, or prostituting themselves or getting slashed out of their mind and so on.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
prejudice against Islam was there way before 9/11. Its odd how some people cannot think of Islam beyond 9/11.
Most of us in the west thought very little about islam (good or bad) prior to 9/11. It wasn't praised or scolded. It was seen as irrelevant to most of us. The hard truth is that 9/11 put Islam on the map for many of us. Islam suddenly became a major issue in our media. It was mostly ignored before and nobody I know really cared one way or the other about it. I certainly had no interest in it (no more than I have in Jainism or Confucionism today).
Today, after 9/11, and the US invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan and the ongoing Israel/Palestine issue (and reports of suicide bombers etc) constantly flooding the airways, everybody I know has an opinion about Islam, some are sympathetic to muslims being demonized, others are interested (some convert), others are concerned and feel threatened, and others (especially far right evangelical christians I know) demonize muslims to the point that its truly sickening. I saw none of that ten years ago. Like it or not, Islam's PR problem has grown tenfold in the past decade, and the bigotry and bans on veils etc are a symptoms of that.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 07-20-2010 at 08:09 PM.
Wrong as mentioned earlier that it has been going on for some time.
One obvious example is the Iranian revolution, read the papers back then, for the secular ideologues it was a real trauma.
I think the demonisation has more to do with control of the middle east resources more than anything else, Nasser and his secular nationalism was the main enemy till its failure in 1970s, to be replaced with the Islamic revival which became the new bogeyman.
Books of interest.
"The theme is the way in which intellectual traditions are created and trans-mitted... Orientalism is the example Mr. Said uses, and by it he means something precise. The scholar who studies the Orient (and specifically the Muslim Orient), the imaginitive writer who takes it as his subject, and the institutions which have been concerned with teaching it, settling it, ruling it, all have a certain representation or idea of the Orient defined as being other than the Occident, mysterious, unchanging and ultimately inferior." --Albert Hourani, New York Review of Books
This was prinited in 1979
Professor Said is adept at holding a mirror up to American attitudes toward Islam.... [He] skillfully traces the origins of American misinformation about Islam to the way that Orientalist scholarship is financed and organized in this country. And finally he pleads eloquently for the instrumentality of all historical knowledge and the needs of all scholars to be aware of their objectives in order to acquire that knowledge usefully. This plea amounts to a prescription for cultural self-awareness that will be wasted on none of us. -- The New York Times Book Review, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt
This was printed in 1981
Countless other examples could be given (Arabs in American films anyone? Delta Force?).
So no the 'bad PR' in its most recent form has gone back decades.
Wrong as mentioned earlier that it has been going on for some time. One obvious example is the Iranian revolution, read the papers back then, for the secular ideologues it was a real trauma. I think the demonisation has more to do with control of the middle east resources more than anything else, Nasser and his secular nationalism was the main enemy till its failure in 1970s, to be replaced with the Islamic revival which became the new bogeyman.
Professor Said is adept at holding a mirror up to American attitudes toward Islam.... [He] skillfully traces the origins of American misinformation about Islam to the way that Orientalist scholarship is financed and organized in this country. And finally he pleads eloquently for the instrumentality of all historical knowledge and the needs of all scholars to be aware of their objectives in order to acquire that knowledge usefully. This plea amounts to a prescription for cultural self-awareness that will be wasted on none of us. -- The New York Times Book Review, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt
Of course there is despicable stereo typing but often it goes both ways. I have read Said's book and for quite a while it was held in high esteem in Universities but perhaps you ought to also read "Defending the West - A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalist" (ISBN 9781 59102 484 2 published 2007) and I have rarely read a more devastating critique of any author and Said is shown to fall short in almost every scholarly way and his work is now discredited.
What is perhaps a bit odd here is that Albert Hourani (died in 1993) who you mention, a noted and highly regard historian and Orientalist strongly criticised Said's work.
Thats your view Hugo and judging by your record Ill take what you say with a pinch of salt . I mean what do you expect? Naturally orientalists will try and defend their work and rubbish Edwards work.
Thats your view Hugo and judging by your record Ill take what you say with a pinch of salt . I mean what do you expect? Naturally orientalists will try and defend their work and rubbish Edwards work.
An immense work, well worth reading.
But anyway getting back on topic. . . .
Yes all critiques by orientalists are 'devastating' according to him, of course he never actually articulates those devastating blows because one of two things will happen
1- you'll discover that he hasn't actually read the book (happened before and we busted him on it)
2- if he read it the argument will crumble with a few concise statement even from the youngest member of this forum..
you are absolutely right not to waste your time on him and here is to hoping that the mods will take into consideration popular opinion and ban this troll!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Thats your view Hugo and judging by your record Ill take what you say with a pinch of salt . I mean what do you expect? Naturally orientalists will try and defend their work and rubbish Edwards work. An immense work, well worth reading.
Yes it was my opinion but I also gave you the sources so you could check it out yourself and it was you that brought a quote from Albert Horanni but only the bit that propped up you view. The people who spoke against Said's work were not nobodies, they are or were internationally recognised scholars from the best Universities in the world, they are not men who speak without knowledge. But yes, lets get back on topic
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
. I mean what do you expect? Naturally orientalists will try and defend their work and rubbish Edwards work.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks