I used to think Tarek had some juice back in the day, but now he’s being inconsistent and boring. He has the right to be a condescending shithead, but cant force his views on others.

Very articulate. linky-looing it

Philosophically, its a difficult problem because of its inconsistency. But, would we not want the state to oppose the public expression of radicalism, given how virulently it seems to spread once it estbalishes itself as the only legitimate way to be Muslim? If they were one among many and did not assert themselves as the only Islam and were backed up with millions in oil money, sure, let them alone. But, they do not leave others alone, so I wouldn’t vote for or against a law such as that, but I would not greive or complain if it was passed, either.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

No. The cure for bad speech is more speech. The truth will out. Why does everyone think that it will be their idea of what the center should be that will be preserved when the state steps in? Even if it were, why would anyone think their idea of the center is appropriate for everyone else?

A well-written and articulate arguement. In American neighborhoods I have seen Indian women in saris, Muslim women in hijab, Sikhs in Turbans and beards, Jews wearing skullcaps, Orthodox Jews wearing black hats and coats, prayer shawls underneath their suits, Catholic nuns wearing habits, Priests wearing black with white collars, and no one cares or stares. I love the freedom of religious expression, and want the state to keep their legislative noses out of it. The European nonesense of conformity to a white-centric, Christian-dominated civil society is self-defeating for any country that calls itself a democracy. As long as no one spouts hatred for the country they are in, in the name of their religion, then they can say what they want. That’s freedom.

I don’t know what the deal is in Canads, but I think you hit the nail on the head.

Ya Haqq!

Danke Leila!  (^: 

______________________________

Deja Fu is the feeling that you have been kicked in the head this way before. —Terry Pratchett

>>Why does everyone think that it will be their idea of what the center should be that will be preserved when the state steps in?

Hmmm, sorry. I forgot just how much government has a tendency to screw up even the most straightforward things. Ah, I had hoped to sit back, relax and let the gub’ment do it for me. Back to the drawing board…

>>The truth will out.

I don’t see it that way. Its more like, “The best marketing will out.”

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

The rationale of free speech advocated by Laury to leave veiling alone is a point well taken. I wonder if she considers the implication of condoning veiling to the women in the East; some women are ‘forced’ to veil. I have an uneasy feeling that an enforcer of virtue there would be telling a congregation that:...“there in heathen lands…women veil because they are ‘women of virtue’ and that their men are ‘ men of honor’”. Hint, hint push ‘m back, way back.
The free speech debate ignores the fact that many in the East look up to the Muslim practices in the West as models to be emulated, including wearing/not wearing of the face cover.

The whole debate re; Niqaab (and hijab) is stupid. People should do what they want in this regard; if she wants to wear a burqa so her eyes won’t even be visible, her call. Shewants to wear a thong bikini to the beach, also her call. It’s a total non-issue to me. It’s like worrying about cleaning the leaves out of gutters of a house out while the house is on fire.

Laury’s argument is consistent. One cannot argue for freedom of religion
through a strict separation of church and state and then ask the state to
intervene in order to selectively enforce acceptable forms of religious
expression. But I see no rational reason to accept the seemingly unquestioned assumption that the niqab is not a mask given its capacity
to conceal the identity of the person wearing it. In that case it would be possibleto argue that the primacy of individual rights needs to be balanced with the protection of social rights. I would be interested in learning more
about what constitutes the legal definition of a mask.

On the political front, however, I recognize Fatah’s anxiety and agree with
Omar that it is the marketing that frequently outs. The truth does have
a way of eventually coming out but often after terrible harm has been
done.. It would be politically naive to assume that we all speak as equal
subjects in the public sphere given the concentration of power and the
control of media. I am with Omar on this one. Tarek may be described
as a secular fundamentalist driven by ideology but he is also aware of the
reactionary/authoritarian forces we are all up against and the myriad ways
in which individual rights cann be used to promote selective agendas not
just in the United states but in Muslim majority countries.

Take the recent call by Cair, for instance, to stop the government in
Tunis from removing the veil by force. they argued that the state shouldn’t
violate the religious freedom of individual women. One might have expected
Cair to take on the Saudi government and the Iranian regime for the practice
of enforced veiling in the name of the same principle. Such blatant omissions
reaffirm the anxiety held by many that there is insufficient commitment to
democratic ideals and that certain sectors within the Muslim community advocate individual freedom in order to promote selective practices such as
veiling but consistently fail to take on enforced veiling as a violation of the
universal human right to freedom of conscience. So Laury is right this calls
for intra-communal critique. We have to be wary and watchful.

the hypocrisy of individuals or organizations such as cair does not weaken the point I make. The American situation is exceptional. As far as I am aware there is no other place in the world as uncomfortable with limiting rights as we have shown ourselves to be. This has changed horribly since the war on drugs, and now the war on terror. Even though we ourselves are the objects of the limitations of these rights, muslims still think limiting rights is a good thing.

Here is the catch. They want the rights limited that they want and not the rights limited that they don’t want. Who gets to decide? You want to talk about who has power and who controls speech and expression? The only possible way to preserve these rights is to actually preserve them, not limit them such that they serve our individual purposes.

Again, my main problem with all these discussions is that everyone always thinks they are right. They know the way people should properly think and act. They do not worry about restrictions on civil rights because, of coruse, the government is going to do exactly what in their head they have imagined.

If we are to protect our own rights, we must protect the rights of others. Everyone in all circumstances.

Laury, in general I agree that limiting rights is a bad thing; I’ve largely conceeded that point to your wightier arguments. But, I am not so comfortable with your assertions of “who gets to decide.” At some point we have to decide that it is not right for women to be forced to wear niqab or other acts of compulsion that are affecte against Muslim men and women by others. This is not to say that the issue is about forcing it to be worn, no, I do understand that the issue is about making it illegal. I wonder how many of the women wear it because they want to or how many would welcome a law becuase it would forbid the men from enforcing it? (Yes, I do know that many niqabis choose it voluntarily, while others feel compelled to wear it to look righteous while others are outright forced to.)

But, if we don’t stand for something or stand for everything, people will not know what we stand for, which weakens our own marketing, as it were.

So, should we not advocate something as “right”? Is not protecting everyone’s rights an ideology in itself? So, I want to reserve the right to say that I think something is right vs. wrong.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

..and another thing and I’m earnestly looking for an answer: where do we draw the line and allow the state to enforce the law, even when people hate the law because it infringes on thier right…ther right to steal, thier right to drive drunk, thier right to force people to pray and so on. What is the criterion for saying that one law can infringe on the rights of thieves but not on niqabis, for instance. I could see the argument being made that theft harms others or violates our cultural construct of private property. But, people can counter argue in a surreal post-modern sense and say that niqab infringes on thier right to not be offended by the enemy, or that it violates our cultural construct of seeing people’s faces in public.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Omar, The major difference is that the many bad things you mentioned are crimes. No one has a right to steal, etc.

The niqab is not a crime. It infringes on no one’s rights except the niqabi if one considers driving and going through airports a “right” rather than a privilege.

I am not saying anything about religious norms as muslims decide them within their own interpretive communities, I am saying the American gov’t should not get to have a say in it. It is not a crime. I am only talking about it within the American context.

‘If we are to protect our own rights, we must protect the rights of others. Everyone in all circumstances.‘Laury

I think there is no disagreement that rights of others must be protected…as a matter of principle.

The disagreement is over ‘face covering’. Things mean different things to different peoples. ...this is the rub! Think of voting. Voting in Algeria was used to advance the agenda of a certain party that would not honor voting once it gets into power. In this situation don’t you think something must be done to protect the ‘right to vote’ by denying these groups the chance to abuse a democratic principle? Covering of the face is not different from voting in the sense that it would be used and abused by some with political programs. Personally, I have no problem leaving’ covering of the face’ alone if and only if all parties to the debate look at it as a speech issue.

i seriously doubt that the ‘covering of the face’ is a speech issue in the US; it is a social and a political issue much like the voting in Algeria that was used as a tool to get to the top . Soon enough, voting would have been outlawed as ‘haram’ since voting could ‘ yo hillo ma harram allah’. It is very likely that those with a social/political agenda would jump on the band wagon of ‘covering of the face’ as ‘free speech’ simply because it gives credence to the use of the veil. The devil is in the details of the agenda: a woman is Awrah, including the face, the voice etc.)

Salaams Laury,

I think you are on the right track in most of this analysis — it is a really bad idea for any government to get involved in trying to decide whether a given act is according to a particular religion or not, whether it is necessary or recommended, etc. In that manner, I would not have the US government or any other, trying to decide whether niqab is required, recommended, discouraged, etc, in Islam, nor would I want them to enforce or ban it upon that basis.

But I do think that religious freedom is not absolute, and that the needs of the society at times outweigh the right to religious freedom. For instance, to take an extreme example, if a religion taught human sacfrifice, pretty much everyone would agree that the government would be justified in outlawing that practice. Note: I’m not saying that the government would try to determine if human sacrifice were actually part of that religion, if it were required or recommended or even frowned upon, but that the government would have a legtimate reason for saying, we are not going to allow you the freedom of religion to murder people in the name of your religion. Not many religions are practicing human sacrifice any more, but in this case I think the government should suspend freedom of religion in the name of a greater right — that of life.

The government has tkaen this stance — that public good outweighs religious teachings — in a variety of cases, polygamy being the one that jumps to mind immediately.

The question then becomes, should the need of the society to be able to identify individuals supercede religions rights? You’ve said that in certain circumstances, yes. And I agree, the question is, under which circumstances? I would say not just when getting aboard an airplane, but on any public transport, or when entering public venues like sporting arenas or theaters. What about of a teacher whose students may rely on facial clues for complete comprehension. I have too many friends who rely on lip reading to supplement their hearing to feel comfortable with a teacher covering her face, especially as hearing loss is often not diagnosed in children.

I dont support a ban on burqas, but I do think that regulating them is not necessarily a matter of religious freedom but of common good— maslaha, if you would. :)

Perhaps more importantly, if we have no problem with Muslims who promote niqab publishing booklets, articles, poetry, songs arguing their point of view, then we should not complain when people who oppose the burqa present their point of view. Why, when proponents are arguing vociferously for niqab, would be criticize someone who is laying out arguments (some better and some worse) against it?

We can’t stop the people who are promoting it; I don’t think we should be trying to curtail those who don’t support it.

Pamela

Realistically, I think the issue we face is: either Muslim communities engage in vigorous internal critique and take a second look at all these practices, like niqab, which emphasize the difference between us and “others,” or face often clumsy attempts by said “others” to regulate us.
That is, if it isn’t already too late.

Frankly, from where I’m sitting, freedom of religion for Muslims in North America doesn’t really exist any more. We might as well face that and act accordingly if we want to survive at all. If we want to defend the idea of freedom of religion, we should try defending a worthwhile practice, not something which is motivated by the degrading belief that the entire being of a woman is an “awrah.”

Center, I am not talking about any other circumstance except in the US. In the US only seven states check voting records with photo ID, other states accept your birth certificate, your voter registration card, etc., a utility bill. There does seem to be a trend toward greater security. In this context, the needs of the state will be more compelling than a niqabi’s religious needs if a compropmise is reached such as: take the photo id, leave it in her wallet, and request that only women check her identification when she needs to have it done.
Pamela, as with my critique of Omar G’s post above, you mention (human sacrifice) is already a crime. You cannot sacrifice human beings and call it religion in this country. So yes, the rights are already limited to some degree. I never said otherwise. In fact, I have stated that quite clearly. Wearing niqab is not equivalent to human sacrifice although it may make you nearly that angry.

MH, Freedom of religion doesn’t exist for Muslims anymore in the US? Who keeps you from the mosque? It is the men, the filthy women’s section, the attitude, not the State.

For God’s sake, we can even sacrifice animals for the eid outside a slaughterhouse if we follow local health requirements. You know who helped us with that right? Santeria. Supreme Court 1993. Animal cruelty laws applied to the Santeria were unconstitutional. They had the right to sacrifice their chickens for religious purposes.

Is there a civil rights problem with respect to due process and related matters? Yes. There we are in serious trouble. So is everyone else. Because when people agreed to let it slide to catch “us” they endangered their own rights as well. Everything being done to us, can now be legally applied to them when whoever they are is the unpopular group.

Rights are preserved by defending all practices (within the boundaries of criminal law, etc), not just the ones we like.

I argue that if we are consistent about it legally, then we should be consistent about it socially as well. Doesn’t mean I have to like it. Doesn’t mean I cannot produce a strong critique against it. But it does mean that I will protect it the right to do it, even as I argue against the whole awrah business. Protecting the right to a practice does not preclude criticizing a practice, but both must be held up at the same time.

Allright, you sold me. But it still seems we are at a disadvantage in the power imbalance. I suppose instead of government inteference, we need some rich patrons with some real pull!

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Due process? What due process? What, aren’t we guilty til proven innocent? Whatever the written law might say, it isn’t realistic to go around acting as though this isn’t the case.

We’re well on our way to a situation in which merely being a Muslim—or being of Muslim descent—is seen as in and of itself a red flag, a reasonable cause for suspicion. And for that, we have not only right-wing racists to thank, but the extremely inward-looking behaviour of a small but highly visible section of the Muslim community.

MH, I wrote, “Is there a civil rights problem with respect to due process and related matters? Yes. There we are in serious trouble. So is everyone else. Because when people agreed to let it slide to catch “us” they endangered their own rights as well. Everything being done to us, can now be legally applied to them when whoever they are is the unpopular group.”

I am not glossing over anything. I am talking about the serious risks and losses of civil rights. I am saying that further restricting civil rights to suit some is not a resolution.

Omar G has it. How do we work this then?

>>Omar G has it. How do we work this then?

I’m willing to make the sacrifice and marry a rich woman for the sake of the cause. :-)

But, seriously then I’m trying to look at it in terms of what should be the principles of this American Fiqh (I know people’s time is limited, but the issue has come to head now, and delay will cost us all dearly). So, freedom of practice, no government interference in personal rights should be one of the methodological principles of this American Fiqh? I think so, but it needs to be justified and we need to determine if this fiqh will be destroyed by ideological rigidity of total freedom or will allow exceptions and why, how, what issues.

Well, let me go get my copy of the Federalist Papers; has some dust on it, though. So, for this Fiqh, we will need two kinds of commentaries: Commentaries on the Constitution / Bill of Rights and Commentaries on the Quran. (I’m trademarking that comment, too)

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Laury, I think the entire discourse on niqab we are engaging in nowadays is set up on wrong-headed premises.

I don’t agree with those who want to use the power of the state to impose particular visions of Islam on people, whether this be conservative or progressive Islam. I see the article you quote by Tarek Fatah as one more example of how immigrant Muslims here tend to try to bring in the state against their (Muslim immigrant) opponents in inter-community squabbles. We see this sort of thing also when mosques get taken over by one group or another; relations between different factions deteriorate, and the new owners call the police and charge dissidents with trespassing. It’s just childish, and does nothing to help the community grow.

But at the same time, I think that niqab is a harmful practice which Muslims should be able to critique, instead of defending it because non-Muslims are attacking it.

In all this, I doubt that we disagree. But I think it’s time for Muslims to take a critical second look at all this emphasis on engaging in practices which make us look different, as if that is supposed to be the essence of Islam (for some people it is, unfortunately). Whatever guarantees exist on paper about freedom of religion, I don’t think this is an issue we should use to put them to the test.

‘But at the same time, I think that niqab is a harmful practice which Muslims should be able to critique, instead of defending it because non-Muslims are attacking it.
‘MH.

Well said.

‘But at the same time, I think that niqab is a harmful practice which Muslims should be able to critique, instead of defending it because non-Muslims are attacking it.
‘MH.

Well said.

MH and Center,

Yes I agree for the most part.

But that critique must be consistent, religiously, historically, and politically sensitive. We cannot talk to niqabis about our difficulties with the practice unless we sincerely respect them and their choices first. To approach them as if they are without agency, are dangerous, and must be controlled by the state is insulting to their human dignity. They too are free to engage us on issues with the same respect for our dignity. Assuming equality in dignity is the first step to a constructive discussion. To assume equality in dignity also means that we have to go into the discussion willing to learn and perhaps be wrong on some or all levels.

Laury, what do you mean by “politically sensitive”?

We all know how the right-wing is using issues like niqab to demonize Muslims and render them “other.” One would have to live under a rock not to notice that.

But we also know how conservative Islamists love to use accusations of “Islamophobia” against anyone who criticizes practices like niqab. And it is dangerously naive to overlook the fact that niqab is part of a larger package of “Islamic” customs which discriminate against and marginalize women.

In this polarized climate, we are silenced. The challenge becomes how to find a voice anyway.

That is exactly what I mean by politically sensitive: nuanced, thoughtful approaches….

‘We cannot talk to niqabis about our difficulties with the practice unless we sincerely respect them and their choices first.‘Laury

Laury, the question is not whether we should respect ‘nigabis’or not, of course I do. The question is that I still do not understand is : why are you defending the ‘use’ of face covering since you know it is oppressive in principle and to a large degree in practice as well as being an impediment to wholesome communication between people of a community.

Use of covering of the face is a symbol affirming and reaffirming that women are a Awrah. Hanbali school declares that the face of the woman is not a awrah…...the school rejects the dark side.

And it is dangerously naive to overlook the fact that niqab is part of a larger package of “Islamic” customs which discriminate against and marginalize women.MH

MH: the statement above is worth repeating.

Laury:

Let me clarify. I am not advocating that the state limit religious freedom
nor do I think we should be comfortable with the erosion of civil liberaties.
Muslims- like everybody else- need to worry such matters. But at the
same time there are good historical and political reasons for being wary
about how such practices do endanger the freedom of others. I have few
illusions in that regard.

we can respect their right to make a choice but not grant every choice automatic respect, a matter that cannot be enforced in any case. agency
can also be problematized given the imbalance of power and social pressure
as Omar points out. someone can choose to cling to his/her/own chains.
doesn’t mean one is compelled to respect it as a choice. I find the notion
that a woman’s body is awra and in need of shrouding an insult to women’s
dignity and a pretty degrading way to live and relate to one’s body.

There is a misunderstanding of what I mean by respect. Legal respect and respect of agency vs. personal respect for a particular practice.

I respect the legal rights and agency of all people within the boundaries of the law. This does not mean that I “like” what some people do or that I do not actively critique them.

Let me make an analogy that would take an example from the alternative and less conservative types in society: I am disgusted by genital piercing. I think it psychologically and physiologically damaging. But, for instance, I legally respect the right of adult males to get Prince Alberts should they choose. I respect their legal agency in choosing.

Mr. Albert may only get it done because he was abused as a child, etc. and the procedure is symptomatic of his ptsd, but unless he is so incapacitated from his ptsd that he is not legally responsible for himself or seeks protection himself, it is not my legal business.

If I do not want Mr. Albert and his friends to continue in their practices then I should address them with respect for their legal rights, their intellectual and personal agency, etc.

So much communication gets accomplished by rushing in screaming with all the paternalism one can muster, “shame,” “oppression,” and “false consciousness.” (Not)

I think we need to differentiate between addressing individuals with respect regardless of what one thinks of their choices, and addressing the institutions/community leaders who advocate particular conservative practices. It’s the latter who should be taken to task, because having put themselves in leadership positions, they should have the good sense to advocate practices which will benefit individuals and the community as a whole, now and in future.

Practices which result in the ghettoization of Muslims and the marginalization of women aren’t beneficial to either individuals or to the community. And, it’s highly irresponsible to encourage people to engage in such practices when the community doesn’t even have the resources to take care of them when things go bad.

Case in point: there are niqabi teenagers who end up being “homeschooled” because they had too many difficulties attending mainstream highschools. Are those who encouraged them to wear niqab going to pay their bills when they are old?

[I’ve nothing against homeschooling per se, but in such instances, the sort of education received doesn’t tend to fit anyone for the labour force. The attitude is often that women’s education should mainly prepare them for marriage and child-bearing. It isn’t often asked what will happen to divorcees or widows, much less to their children.]

I understand the distinction. that is why I differentiate between their
legal right to choose and one’s personal evaluation of that choice. It
is far more patronizing and intellectually dishonest to pretend that
one doesn’t find the practice of niqab highly highly problematic and
frequently oppressive when it is in fact the view one holds in the name
of’‘ communication’‘. A woman with agency who chooses to wear the
niqab can surely handle an honest debate and argue her point of
view.

Needless to say, I can address the individual with respect without having
respect for the position held. Let me give you an example. Last night we
were at some friends house. They were telling us about a friend’s daughter
who ended up at one of these schools in the mosque that sounds a lot like
what MH is describing. She ended up marrying this sheikh with a beard
wearing the niqab and defying her parents who are going nuts. Her position
is that her husband wants her to and she has a religious obligation to obey
him. That is part of her belief system and I find it revolting. It is part of a larger package of Islamic customs which discriminate against and marginalize women’‘ as MH so eloquently put it.

It’s not the first time I hear faith being linked to obedience.

HM- I find your take on holding leaders of the community accountable
for such practices a perfect example of problematizing agency.

‘It’s not the first time I hear faith being linked to obedience’.Gina

Gina,
Here is how obedience is popularly linked to faith. It says: atyo allah, wa ar[rasool wa uli alamr . There isno problem obeying Allah and the Rashool or Uli al amr; the rub comes when talking about “minkum’. Traditionalists (tribalists) interpret /minkum/ to mean obey/submit to those in charge. Tradition has it: the male is the head of the house hold; his word is sacred.

The above equates minkum to mean alykum

The other interpretation of /minkum/ specified “the persons that you have chosen from amongst you” to be your leader. This kind of person is the true Uli al Amr you have chosen.

The above (second) interpretation equates minkum to mean social consent to have someone take charge of a group. There is a big difference between the two.

Accepting the authority of a leader is not in dispute; what is, however, is whether authoirty is delegated or usurped by tradition, or by the strongest. The traditionalist, i.e., tribalist interpretation requires obedience and submission to whoever is in charge, often times any one sanctioned by tradition. The second interpretation respects an individual and group responsibility for their choices and makes obedience contingent on the agreement of those to be led.

Salam Laury, I hope you can appreciate how difficult a marketer has it when they try to communicate such a complex stance as you are. It IS complex: we oppose niqab and its associated ramifications, but we also oppose legal limits on it. Thus, you have placed more of a primacy on limiting the state rather than obstructing practices you dislike. ...not an easy thing to convey to people despite how deceptively simple I can describe it here.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

I am still on the PMU listserve. I asked Tarek Fatah directly if he supports
state intervention. He told me emphatically that he doesn’t support the
state interfering in people’s dresscode nor has he called for a ban on the
burqa. It may be, then, that his call for women to abandon the burqa is
an instance of intra-communal critique and that the countervailing forece
that would balance social rights or common good – maslaha- comes from
within the community itself rather than the state. Perhaps we can invite him
to clarify his own position or write a response.

Ginan

Salaams all,

Laury, actually niqab doesn’t make me angry at all. It makes me sad, sad for opportunities women will never have, experiences they will never get, and difficulties thrown in their way. It makes me sad that some people perceive face veiling as a higher form of piety, since I perceive it as a form of self-negation.

I have a lot of friends in the writing community who wear niqab. I don’t hate them for their choice, nor would I have any government tell them they cannot wear it (or must wear it) in public, but I will discuss with them respectfully why I disagree, or raise issues of concern about niqab with them. (In fact, we’ve been having a parallel discussion on one list about the very topic.)

I think we agree about the state’s need to be able to identify people at certain places, and about the fact that bans are not acceptable, but that certain regulation — such as a law which say a police officer or a judge or a voting official (where required by law) has the right to demand to see the face of an individual, or whatever.

I do think, though, it is problematic to say the state can only make laws with regards things that are already illegal. I think the should be able to regulate, say, halal chicken farms and insist on certain animal safety standards, whether or not those regulations are currently on the book. Like the niqab issue, this is an area where there is intersection between public good and personal religious expression/performance.

And I repeat, what is the problem with discussing the economic impact of niqab, or the social one. It’s proponents discuss its benefits all the time. We should be able to try and convince people that, hey, maybe this isn’t the best thing. Not by name calling, or denying their agency, but by engaging their reason.

salaam Pamela:

Well the issue of niqab makes me sad as well as angry, terribly angry
because I don’t confine myself to thinking about it in an American context
and think of places like Saudia Arabia ( a long time American ally) where
it is enforced by the state and social custom- at least for Saudi women –
and I think of other Muslim majority countries where it is being exported
and is impacting other women negatively, women who don’t often have
the privilege of their freedom of choice the way women in the west do.

Let me clarify what I mean by how the niqab impacts other women. the
niqab- if you consider that it is part of a symbolic order that impacts
what other symbols mean within a given order is making the meaning
of modesty all the more stringent and indirectly limiting what an unveiled
woman ( safira) can wear and can in fact stigmitize the safira in some
instances. The term is now employed with negative connotations. I have
been in public bathrooms in Egypt where I have overheard unveiled woman being referred to either as a safira in a tone of disapproval or a Copt. A friend of mine told me about a young woman trying to get paper work done in
the notorious Egyptian bureaucracy and was being sabotaged at every
turn. A kindly male employee took her to the side and told her in all honesty
that she was being sabotaged because she was unveiled i.e a safira.

Now it is downright dangerous to wear even short sleeves
in the streets of Cairo because the meaning of modesty has
shifted so drastically! These are some of the social ramifications
one has witnessed. Another social ramification is that very often
women are mobilized to enforce codes of modesty upon other women
This doesn’t necessarily occur in the legal sphere but is enforced
on the level of daily practice. They are in effect policing other women
and are ultimately playing a crucial role in upholding practices and
beliefs that prove beneficial and highly agreeable to patriarchial
power structures.

Salam alaikum,

I think we need to distinguish between defending a legal right and defending a religious practice.  As a lawyer, my greatest fear is the creeping tendency to apply a different standard of law to Muslims.  You suggest that this has already happened.  I certainly agree that many of our rights have eroded since 9/11.  That doesn't mean that we should run up the white flag.  Instead, we need to criticize, simultaneously, the de facto shadow legal system that is being applied to Muslims, and practices such as niqab which, as you say, emerge from a type of religiosity that I'm sure many of us oppose.  The problem is that it is impossible to critique such practices without the political freedom to engage in acts that would otherwise, i.e. but for the fact that it is Muslims who do it, be deemed perfectly innocent.  Moreover, it takes time for such criticism to be effective and for people to learn that it is possible to be a good Muslim regardless of dress, or even the commission of major sins.  None of this is possible, however, if we lack civil rights because Muslims will feel that such critiques are part and parcel of a generally oppressive system.  In the context of a democracy, moreover, the feelings of oppression are much more destructive than in a totalitarian dictatorship because the targets of the oppression feel that it is not only the state which is targeting them, but also their neighbors . . . 

So, to conclude, I do believe it is possible, so to speak, to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.  It is possible to critique legislative initiatives to ban the niqab as hypocritical and intended to increase fear of Muslims while also criticizing the religious discourse that tells women that the best way they can draw near to God is by withdrawing from society and hiding their body.

Was-salam,

Mohammad Fadel

Safira = kafira

The ideology of exclusion is on the rise. It should not be condoned.

Re: Hijab; Have I said this here?

bay-pardha nazar aa’een kal joe chundh bibiyaan
Akbar zameeN main ghairath-e-qaumee say gaRh gayaa

poochha joe mainay aap ka parda woe kyaa huwa
kehnay lageen ka aql pay mardhon kee par gaya

[un-veiled, some ladies, I saw yesterday
Akbar, of shame for his nation, wished the earth
would swallow him

Asked I, your veil, what became of it?
Said she it sits, now, on the minds of menfolk]

Akbar Elahabadi (Akbar of Elahabad), who I think is vastly unappreciated as a poet relevant to our time..and much else.

or the old Bollywood/Urdu song:

“chehraa ch-hoopaa liyaa hai kisee nay niqaab main
“Jee chaahatha hai aag lagaa dhoon hijaab main…”
[“someone has hidden their face in a veil”
“...my heart yearns to set fire to the hijaab, (the whole scheme of modesty)!”]

I’ll post a whole entry on this some time…

http://iFaqeer.blogspot.com