Wearing The Veil Has Never Been A Matter Of Choice

by Dawkins Fan Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:05

Children are programmed to be information sponges.
Our primitive ancestors would have been taught "don't eat those red berries because they are poisonous" or "don't swim in the river because you will be eaten by a crocodile" but they would also have been taught useless information such as "sacrifice a goat on the full moon and the rains will come. If you don't sacrifice the goat the rains will not come."
When that child reaches adulthood he/she will instruct the next generation not to eat the berries or swim in the crocodile infested river AND to sacrifice the goat on the full moon so that rain will fall.
If this becomes a tradition passed down from generation to generation, an accumulated store of knowledge full of preposterous nonsense about love potions, solar worship, spiritual power, angry god of thunder and lightening or that women must wear the veil cannot be challenged by an enlightened individual who saw through the nonense without physical danger.
Religion is a meme, a sort of virus quite like a computer virus that replicates from computer to computer.
A computer is hardwire to obey blindly.
Parts of our human brain are programme at an early age to absorb information indiscriminately.
We learn how to work to get food, to look after our well being, the same way lions teach the cubs how to hunt.
We also learn claptrap about worshipping a sky-fairy.

by other side of the coin Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:17

The argument begun by an Iraq hawk and colluder in war does not wash.

Some women wear the veil as a method of concealment and protection,
its about choice.It is not always about religion and foisting a set
of western values on a people who wear a veil to avoid rape/beating/
attack in lawless zones is corrupt.

The change necessarily coming for women in relation to their
religion and culture should be self-determined. dirty ol' straw is a man
white/privleged/ corrupt who wants to unveil a woman.
Male legislators do not know what it is like to be female-and I, for one
am disgusted at the attempt to force the issue.

Let the woman take off her own veil when she is ready.
It is patronising bullshit.
And what will she replace it with - look at the objects of desire that grace the
Straw era- face lifting, colonic irrigation, commodification and harvesting of
women's bodies. Muscular christianity and a dominant male system.

I am thinking of wearing a veil-fuck them.

by the other side of the coin Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:38

We cannot all be patriarchs.

We cannot all tell the girls what to do.
The veil is about honour and choice- at least it would be if it wasn't imposed
by a dominant male-educated system of translation of the good-books.

Is that why women get shot if they empower?

The whole idea of God is that humans are fallible and the bibles have many
many levels of meaning to many , many people.

If a woman feels safer in a veil-then let her wear it.
Like I said I am thinking of wearing one to cover me golden hair, in case
it enflames a man and then I too would be considered. 'immodest'

One generation ago, Irish women would not go to church without a mantilla or a hat.

My mother wore a mantilla.

remember that.

Cherie Blair regularly veils up and simpers.

by pat c Mon Oct 09, 2006 13:01

well Houzan is not a boy. she comes from an islamic background. give her arguments some heed. here are some contact details for Iraqi and Iranian feminists.

http://houzanmahmoud.blogspot.com/

Manifesto of the Third Camp against US Militarism and Islamic Terrorism
http://www.thirdcamp.com/indexe.php

The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI)
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm

Maryam Namazie is actively involved in promoting the Third Camp against US militarism and Islamic terrorism, a producer of TV International English and Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations Committee.
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/

by t'other side of the coin Mon Oct 09, 2006 13:49

As a girl, I was taking issue with one of the proponents of the Iraq war
asking women to de-veil.

Some women may not be yet ready to do that.
In fact some women may feel the need of its protection.

I know the arguments for and against the veil.
I also know that some women wear it to protect themselves against rape,
and other violations caused by war in the now lawless society 'freed' by the
US/UK hegemony (in order to open an oil corridor)

It is about women choosing to agigtate, educate and empower themselves
not a dirty scummy little politico dictating his 'socialist' principles on
how a woman should choose to live.

Straw would be more believable as a man and politicain if he stood up , like Cook
and condemned the war, if he worked on grassroots Labour movements with the
unions and the working class- he is a privleged white man and a political
absurdity.

Let a muslim woman MP ask for it, not a greasy little chancer.
is there a muslim woman MP in Britain?

by pat c Mon Oct 09, 2006 13:53

Well. Houzan does oppose the US/UK occupation of Iraq as well as opposing Islamic fundamentalists who want to treat women like animals. The article here is by Houzan. She has had a meeting of minds, temporarily, with Straw on a subject. In her article she explains why.

by t'other side of the coin Mon Oct 09, 2006 14:07

With the axis of evil-

Her words will be twisted and used to further the new-Labour third way.

Very, very, very dangerous.

I'll re-read , but I say it again. No Muslim woman need, in the search for
personal and political empowerment ,refer to Jack Straw.
It is another form of patriarchy.

He works for a man whose 'blood oath' with Bush has destroyed our planet.

Elect Muslim women MP's let them speak for themselves.
Feck New Labour.

by gerri Mon Oct 09, 2006 23:21

I live close to one of the Dublin mosque's and regularly see women in various states of Muslim garb. Some wear the just the hijab and some wear the niqab, which is what Jack Straw is objecting to. It has to be said, the sight of someone covered in head to toe in black without any portion of their face showing seems unpleasant to many people.

There can be little doubt that Mr Straw's primary motivation in stating his opposition to the niqab at this time is political expediency. It is extremely doubtful that concern for women wearing the niqab is high on his agenda.

I personally find the niqab to be a distasteful expression of Islam - women appearing in public not showing even their face seems dehumanizing.

There are probably multiple reasons as to why women wear the hijab in Ireland and the UK - some will definitely do it out of choice or religious observance, some will do it to express their defiance of what they see as Western imperialism against their culture, some wear it as their communities would ostracize them or worse if they didn't.

However, to provoke and demonize people as Jack Straw has done is to segregate them further, driving them for cover under their niqabs, making them more likely to advocate Sharia law. It seems difficult to balance the pressing need to protect women's rights and the necessity of not ostracizing Muslims, perhaps impossible.

by not long ago Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:58

If you didn't have a pair of shoes on your feet, you wouldn't get served most places, what about the poor who couldnt afford shoes, well too bad for them, what about the people who did not believe in shoes, too bad for them too. Put shoes on your feet and the world is open to you. Same for shirts. Women fight for the right to go topless but no, to be accepted in most places, they must wear a shirt. Same for men, most times. You want to get served, at a restaurant, a library, a shop, a politicans office, you need your shirt on and your feet shod. A new requirement is that your face must be visible. Not too much to ask, no? We don't like ski masks, or stockings, or even hoods pulled over a face when demanding service, it's a bit intimidating, so a woman whose eyes are only visible, she is in effect in disguise, and do not people have the right to say, if you want me to help you, I would like to be able to see you, and identify you, and know who I am talking to? How do you recognise a pair of eyes?

by the other side of the coin. Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:03

Some women feel the need of the veil.

This is about choice.

You cannot throw away lifetime's habits and beliefs because a man in a suit who
represents a culture of patriarchial interference in private lives says so.

The US/UK sanction on and aiding of the repression of a people to suit their oil needs,
their illegal wars have not the right to further disempower a people.

I am sure many would like to return to their own countries and fight for their own rights
but the dictatorships and lawlessness of both the Iraqi and Afghanistan regime
were aided by money and arms from those same administrations that illegally invaded.

change comes from within not from cultural imposition.

The sanctions against Iraq led to the culling of generations through poverty
and disease, it has suited American foreign policy to allow for the rise
of dictators, they could easily attack a people disempowered and shat upon by their
own leaders.

Women and Children have been the main victims of both the repressive regimes
and the wars.

They wear the veil for safety.

Now the colonisers want to remove it. The eyes, btw , of a woman beneath a veil
are what she communicates with. She alone decides what is right for her.
Not Jack Straw the war-monger and proponent of anti-muslim feeling in England.

by Flynn - agrescon@agrescon.nl Tue Oct 10, 2006 15:36

We all heard so much by Jack Straw on this veil story, that its becoming staged managed, the Musili eating , bearded, sandle wearing left are permanently veiled to the auguments, rightly so as they are only the women. Jack Straw would have a better folowing on the matter had he not been Jewish, and as a jewish foreign secretary, presumably for his local Cabalistic followers in the Tory Party, should have made his comments when he was in Tehran in Iran. If he would have made his comments, concerning the Klu Kluk Klan, there would,nt have been a problem, this smaks, of Zionistic opportunism, leave their culture alone,or ask Ruth Kelly to remove her Barbed Wire Underwear as you,ve already been circumcised once! Flynn O Flynn

by D'other side of the coin Tue Oct 10, 2006 15:59

fought for a muslim school girls right to keep her veil and won.

The irony of it is that Cherie wears a mantilla.

Wonder how she feels about New Labour's re-franchising of
liberte, egalite, fraternite.

it's a franchise, an expedient which is a facsimile of democracy caused by
the US/UK war machine and their adventures in western hegemony.

real liberty, equality and fraternity would seek empowerment of a people
the dismantling of the sanctions and the liberation of women from beneath
military rule- has one of these objectives been achieved through beligerence,
sanction and war?

tens of thousands have died, dictators have been variously supported and beaten down
lawlessness is rife.
Beligerents based on masculinist cultural domination has been supported and
left unchecked.

by Cathy Young Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:07

BRITAIN HAS been in turmoil over veils in recent days, after a school in Yorkshire suspended a Muslim teacher's assistant for wearing ``niqab" -- a form of the traditional veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes. Further stoking the flames, House of Commons leader Jack Straw revealed that in meetings with constituents, he had asked niqab-wearing women to remove their veils for better face-to-face interaction.

The niqab controversy has focused on thorny questions of cultural integration and religious tolerance in Europe. However, it is also a debate about women and Islam...

Meanwhile, using the language of tolerance to justify oppressive practices is a grotesque perversion of liberalism. The veiling debate is a case in point. No amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that the full-face veil makes women, literally, faceless. Some Muslim women in the West may choose this garb (which is not mandated in the Koran), but their explanations often reveal an internalized misogynistic view of women as creatures whose very existence is a sexual provocation to men. What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice.

Full story at link.

by Asra Q. Nomani Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:15 asranomani at muslimsforpeace dot net

When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost."

Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book "Woman in the Shade of Islam" by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation.

The notion of using physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," as Sheha suggests, especially for "controlling or mastering women" or others who "enjoy being beaten," is common throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha's work at my Morgantown mosque, where a Muslim student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.

Full story at link.

by Burke A Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:35

Underlying the debate on the veil is a misunderstanding of 'liberal democracy'.

Liberal democracy does not mean infinite tolerance, or 'anything goes'. LD is merely a code word for a set of values common to what is known as the 'western world'. These values are founded partly on the Judeo-Christian tradition, but more so on the ideas of the enlightenment and western philosophical thought.

LD puts a high value on freedom of expression and personal autonmy for women - particularly in personal and sexual behaviour. There is also, pervading all of this, the idea of social consensus on which the 'democracy' in LD depends.

The veil brings some of these LD values into conflict - freedom of expression and personal autonmy. There is also the issue of a conflict between social consensus and 'multiculturalism' - the notion that self-referencing societies can exist within, but apart from, the social consensus, and can dine 'a la carte' on LD.

Actually, the conflict is an illusion, and 'multiculturalism' is the problem. The reality of 'multiculturalism' is not to give genuine choice and autonmy but to stifle it. 'Multiculturalism' delivers the women in certain, largely migrant, communities into the power of the grim and regressive mullas whose motives are to deny the personal autonmy of women which is now a fundamental signifier of LD societies. In recognizing 'multiculturalism as a valid and equal social arrangement we are in fact delivering a generation of youn moslem women into the control of the very men who make the lives of women in the moslem world a misery.

We must insist on OUR values for all children of our society. If these male authority-figures want to put 'their' women in veils, submit them to FGM, bride-burning and arranged-marriages etc. they should be told to go elsewhere.

by Tune Fri Oct 27, 2006 23:49

I really can't see why it should be head over heals to ask a girl in a classroom simply to remove her veil. The same as I'd ask a Girl wearing a cap to remove it in the classroom. I wouldn't be in favour of a different rule for a muslim girl than for a native Irish girl. Equality afterall ! There seems to be a distorted idea which some people are creating here that, by asking one to remove their veil somehow amounts to racism. But would it not be racist to allow a muslim girl to wear her veil in the classroom while any of the Irish Schoolgirls would have to remove their coats, caps jewelley etc.?

by Gramsci - Partito Comunista Rifondazione Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:22

Italy is to put forward draft new legislation to ban the Islamic veil that covers the face. Vice-premier Francesco Rutelli says current laws are insufficient.

The niqab and the burka have aroused concerns, not least because Italy has a law - intended to foil terrorism - against wearing masks in public. Mr Rutelli has now entered the debate, calling for a change in Italian law which would make the wearing of the niqab an offence.

by Joe Black Wed Nov 08, 2006 13:11

Worth pointing out that christanity puts forward similar views, in particular Paul

1 Corinthians 11

3: 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. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5: but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6: 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. 7: 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. 8: (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9: Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10: That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 11: (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12: for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)

1 Corinthians 14*

33: ...As in all the churches of the saints, 34: the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35: If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

by Gramsci Wed Nov 08, 2006 14:12

Indeed Christianity does. But its not enforced. Nor do any but a handful of the bewildered hold to these teachings.

Is there any Christian Country which requires women to wear the veil or Hijab? Nope! Nor is there any Christian Country which stones womwn and gays to to death. We spent long enough fighting our own Catholic Mullahs. Lets not bow down before Islam now.

No Gods!
No Masters!

by Makhno Mon Dec 04, 2006 14:38

Its not just Islamic Women who suffer attacks and threats from Islamic Fundamentalists.

Followers of Moqtada al-Sadr have issued a fatwa1 concerning school girls, according to an Assyrian priest in Baghdad. The fatwa requires all girls to wear the veil while attending school. In an unusual twist of logic, the fatwa implies that failure to wear the veil would be tantamount on the girls' part to complicity in the death of the Imam Husayn ibn Ali (killed in 680 A.D. in Karbala in a battle with the army of the Caliphate.)

The priest indicated the fatwa was at least for the New Baghdad neighborhood, where many Christians live, and that he feared for the safety of the Christian girls in the area.

The fatwa appears to be an attempt by Sadr and his followers to establish a Taliban style Islamic theocracy in Iraq.

More at url.

by Makhno Wed Jan 03, 2007 13:12

Women in high-heeled shoes and plenty of make-up strut down the catwalk amid clouds of artificial smoke. It is the first time live models have been allowed to appear in a fashion show in post-revolutionary Iran.

"Arab styles" failed to impress some in the fashion show audience
The only unusual aspect is they're draped from head to toe in the all enveloping chador that hides everything except the face.

It's part of a new drive to give women more attractive choices of Islamic dress that allow them to express their individuality, while remaining within the letter of the law.

Not everyone in the all female audience was happy.

"I don't think ordinary people will like this show because everything comes from Arab culture," complains Faranak who says she wants something more Iranian and indigenous.

Her friend agrees: "Here we didn't see anything interesting - in terms of colours and designs we have much better stuff; just look on the streets of Tehran they're wearing much better clothes".

According to the law, a woman who does not cover her hair and body in public can be fined or imprisoned for up to two months.

by Gramsci Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:33

Islam does not require women to wear veils, Queen Rania al-Abdullah of Jordan has said in an interview, calling on Muslim moderates to "make their voices be heard."

"Islam neither requires one to be practising, nor to dress in one way or another," the stylish 36-year-old queen told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera during a visit to Rome on Friday.

"So imposing the veil on a woman is contrary to the principles of Islam," said Queen Rania, who is in Rome for the launch of a Group of Seven (G7) programme to develop vaccines against diseases that are endemic in poor countries.

by Marlboro man Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:56

The 'veil' is not an aspect of Islam but more a traditional regional attire that has morphed into a pseudo-endemic part of what is perceived as Islam. Like 'catholic guilt' without the oppressive undertones.

It has become a symbol of oppression in that it has been viciously imposed on women through law without their consent under a Machiavellian misreading of the Koran.

The difficulty is that a lot of Muslim woman do choose to wear it for a host of reasons that are not immediately apparent to westerners but are not oppressive at all.

It is the fact that the right to choose has been made illegal that is the issue.

by Pushkin - Feline Anti Defamation League Tue Feb 13, 2007 13:30

Its not just in Islamic countries that women lose the right to choose whether or not to wear the veil or hijab. In the West, girls have it forced on them. I think theres a case for banning veils, hijabs, crucifixs etc from schools. Then when people become adults they can make their own choice.

Persian Cat.

by R. Isible Tue Feb 13, 2007 13:51

Iran police move into fashion business
And the US propaganda machine moves into overdrive to soften up the public for attacking Iran.

I think there's a strong case to be made that clothes are something that we should all have a choice to wear or not in public and that the public indecency laws should be done away with. Anyone chosing to concentrate on one strand of interpretation of accepted Islamic attire that isn't also posting morning, noon and night about the forcing of clothing upon adults and children in our society is either an unthinking regurgitator of US state dept spin, or else maliciously focusing on a group under attack for their own psychological pleasure.

by Makhno Tue Feb 13, 2007 14:16

I fear that your caffeine intake has been a bit high this morning. Yes, I oppose the Axis of Weasels of the US/UK/Israel and post about them but not as Makhno.

The thing is though its not just fashion, its about women and girls being forced to wear certain clothhes. Cloths which hammer home the message that females are second class citizens.

I have better things to do with my time then oppose consumerism or the pressure that western fashion companies exert. The important thing is though, they cant force women to wear the cloths. There is no Fashion Police. In Iran there are Religious Police who physically assault women who are not properly attired.

If you think this is not the time to raise the question of womens rights, then when is the time? Will there ever be a right time?

The Worker-communist Party of Iran think its the right time to raise these issues. They are part of the internal opposition to the Mullahs. If you think they are wrong then contact them here:

m.namazie@ukonline.co.uk
http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm

Some other Iranian opposition info:

Maryam Namazie is currently a producer for TV International English, a member of the Central Council of the Organisation for Women's Liberation and Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations Committee. She is also co-editor of WPI Briefing and the Worker-communist Review.
http://www.maryamnamazie.com/

The Third Camp against US Militarism and Islamic Terrorism
http://www.thirdcamp.com/indexe.php

International Campaign in Defense of Women’s Rights in Iran
http://www.irandwr.org/english/index.htm

International Labour Solidarity Page of the Worker-communist Party of Iran
http://www.kargaran.org/_main-eng.htm

by R. Isible Tue Feb 13, 2007 14:59

In Iran there are Religious Police who physically assault women who are not properly attired.

If you think that women have the same rights to undress in our society as men do then you've been ignoring the reactions that women in "skimpy" clothing get in any "western" society, how their interactions with other people (both men and women) are negatively affected in the workplace due to "slutty" clothing (or the lack of it). The whole thing is (as you say) about men's control over women. Iran has a more obvious situation, but I think you'll find that walking topless down O'Connell street will result in more negative feedback to a woman than a man. The police may even be involved (along with the implicit threat of force ... and if you watch the videos of the feminist protests in Iran you'll see a very similar interaction to that of any protestors interacting with police, e.g. the protestors get beaten because it's the job of the police to use violence on behalf of the state).

I think that you have an undoubted point that some forms of Islam and some societies that enact those variants oppress women, but it cannot have escaped your notice that there's an obvious pattern of bemoaning "human rights" issues in other countries before we bomb the crap out of them.

You might also consider that the repressive values are so internalised in our own culture that a lot of people wouldn't even think about walking topless, let alone naked, down O'Connell st (even if it were a nice warm day) and that it would only be deemed acceptable if they were getting paid for it (or some other recognition from our capitalist patriarchy).

If I remember my grandmother or any of her peers from as late as the 1970s, they'd never have been caught dead going out of the house without a headscarf. Men's compulsory "respectable" head gear ended a bit earlier (especially if you weren't a "decent" person). Luckily no one needed it as an excuse to bomb us into modernity.

I'm aware of the links that you've posted (they're all over this site) and they don't change the fundamental problem with your post one bit: it's an uncritical one-sided presentation of a very serious problem with the Iranian state. It completely fails to mention that this information will be used as an excuse to attack the country thus killing some of the people that it professes sympathy with. It also neglects to mention that some of the most devoted adherents of the hijab etc are women who feel very uncomfortable without it. I think they're deluded, but that's their decision, not mine.

by Makhno Tue Feb 13, 2007 15:14

" It completely fails to mention that this information will be used as an excuse to attack the country thus killing some of the people that it professes sympathy with." I

That is utter nonsense. Going on that sort of "logic" then the WPI should surrender to the Mullahs.

The WPI want this sort of information spread far and wide. They also oppose US Imperialism. They oppose any US attack. But they are not going to pretend that Iran is a normal society. I cannot understand how you could make the above statement if you had bothered to visit any of the websites.

You shouldnt just post your views here: you should contact the WPI and tell them they are wrong to spread bad news about Iran. I dont post these articles here for a laugh. I do so in support of the Iranian Opposition.

Taking your "logic" to its conclusion then we should all support the Iraqi Resistance. Surely by criticising it we are doing the work of US Imperialism? I suggest you contact the WSM, AWI & SP and tell them that all criticism of the glorious Iraqi Resistance must cease.

"also neglects to mention that some of the most devoted adherents of the hijab etc are women who feel very uncomfortable without it. I think they're deluded, but that's their decision, not mine.""

Going on that "logic" any pro choice article should mention that some women are the greatest opponents of abortion.

by Makhno Tue Feb 13, 2007 15:22

"and if you watch the videos of the feminist protests in Iran you'll see a very similar interaction to that of any protestors interacting with police, e.g. the protestors get beaten because it's the job of the police to use violence on behalf of the state)."

There are no religious police in Ireland. Women are not forced to wear the veil. The above is just sophistry (and weak at that).

"I think that you have an undoubted point that some forms of Islam and some societies that enact those variants oppress women, but it cannot have escaped your notice that there's an obvious pattern of "bemoaning "human rights" issues in other countries before we bomb the crap out of them."

Should we ignore the Secular Socialist Opposition which are raising these issues? They want human rights but they oppose the bombing. Are you telling them to be quiet?

"You might also consider that the repressive values are so internalised in our own culture that a lot of people wouldn't even think about walking topless, let alone naked, down O'Connell st (even if it were a nice warm day) and that it would only be deemed acceptable if they were getting paid for it (or some other recognition from our capitalist patriarchy). "

That is yet more weak sophistry. Must I cause a sociological revolution in Ireland before I can support womens rights in Iran?

"If I remember my grandmother or any of her peers from as late as the 1970s, they'd never have been caught dead going out of the house without a headscarf. "

That was there choice. There was no law or religious police forcing them to do so.

"Men's compulsory "respectable" head gear ended a bit earlier (especially if you weren't a "decent" person). "

Some would say fashions are cyclical.

"Luckily no one needed it as an excuse to bomb us into modernity."

A truly silly comment which is unworthy of you.

by Emma Tue Feb 13, 2007 17:17

It is a woman's choice if she wants to wear the Hijab/Burqa but it is never right to be forced the comment by a previous poster is ridiculious there is never a good reason for banning the hijab are we banning crosses from around peoples necks? It is so fucking patronising to think just because your a muslim women you are oppressed it is typical of west leftie attitudes towards muslims and it is a racist attitude to have a ban on the hijab. Letfies should actually educate themselves on Islam. Islam is not a mullah's warped interpetation of it actually go back into the history of it rather than spout rubbish you know nothing about.

by Makhno Tue Feb 13, 2007 17:39

Socialist Feminist Women who live in Islamic societies such as Iran and Iraq would disagree with you. They come from Islamic backgrounds and they see the hijab as just an instrument of oppression. Visit some of the websites above. If you think these women are spouting western crap, then tell them so. But at least read what they have to say about the hijab.

Heres a picture of Yanar Mohammed, Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq , burning a hijab. Shes an Iraqi Socialist Feminist and shes showing what she thinks of this insttrument of oppression.

Yanar Mohammed Burns The hijab

by Pushkin Tue Feb 13, 2007 17:44

' I think theres a case for banning veils, hijabs, crucifixs etc from schools. Then when people become adults they can make their own choice. '

Emma that what was written. How could it be racist to say that all religious items be banned from school? Your problem is that you are fixated with Islam, no one is allowed to criticise it. If you had to live under Sharia law you mightnt be so gungo ho about Islam.

by Emma Wed Feb 14, 2007 14:15

Makhno first I am an anarchist feminist and I have read many books/articles and talked to women of Afghani, Pakistani, Indian etc backround that are muslim some who wear the hijab and my family who are muslim and others who do are progressive and liberal and would not like their choice to wear the hijab denied. I understand both sides of the story and I have read books on Islam talked to friends of mine who are muslim and got their opinion on the hijab.

In Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries were women are forced into wearing the hijab of course that is wrong and goes against women's rights but a woman who is forced and denied her right to wear it is wrong. As for western crap you misunderstood where I was coming from I meant lefties as in lefties from a western backround telling a woman from a different culture/backround that she is wrong and must be oppressed if she wears the hijab is fucked up and patronising and Islam is not confined to Asia or the middle east there are millions of muslims in the west and Islam is not a people it is a religion and in said countries it is a fundamental point of view and there are so many different strands of Islam that it cannot be all painted with the same brush.

Pushkin

Of course it is racist it is against someones cultural beliefs and practices and you are dening them the right to practice it and that fact you both call yourself libertarian and are both completely single minded that is the trouble with the left now you alienate apart of a community if you are working class or muslim it is hard to relate to the people involved imagine being both! and I am not fixated on Islam and I do criticise it but the attitude is patronising.

Sharia law does not come from the Koran or Islam and originally was after the prophet and was about being seperate from a state and about people decided on what was fair and on equality but a different perspective was put on sharia and it depended on what interpetation it was coming from. I do not agree with sharia law and have met women who have had there body burned with acid, nearly stoned to death and other awful stuff happen to them but they still wear the hijab and practice Islam and me you or nobody has a right to tell them not to practice or wear the hijab again if it is forced it is wrong but out of choice how can that be wrong.

by Pushkin Wed Feb 14, 2007 14:52

"Of course it is racist it is against someones cultural beliefs and practices and you are dening them the right to practice "

Being opposed to a religious practice cannot be racist. Religion is not race. Muslims are black, white, brown, yellow. Is it also racist to call for a ban on crucifixs?

But I still dont think you read what was written. It was a call for banning all religious items from schools. You might have read about the idea of seperating church and state, its a central tenet of Libertarian beliefs.

"I ... have met women who have had there body burned with acid, nearly stoned to death ... but they still wear the hijab and practice Islam and me you or nobody has a right to tell them not to practice or wear the hijab again if it is forced it is wrong but out of choice how can that be wrong. "

Emma scroll to the top of this article. It is written by an Iraqi Socialist Feminist, she thinks that wearing the veil s never truly a voluntary act. Why not contact her and tell her that she is wrong?

by Pushkin Wed Feb 14, 2007 17:26

Not all Anarchists would share your soft attitude towards Islam or indeed religion in general. Here are some extracts from WSM articles regarding Islam:

However we should also be clear that religious ideas, like any others, are fair game for critique, criticism and attack. In Ireland we have fought and are still fighting against the religious right for basic freedoms such as divorce, birth control, the acceptance of homosexuality and the provision of abortion. These are things we demand, and it doesn’t matter whether or not they conflict with anyone’s religious beliefs.
http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/693

Islam in general believes that no "division between matters social, political and religious should exist." The idea of Islamic government and Islamic law is not something confined to what is called 'Islamic fundamentalism' but is an expected belief of all Muslims. Under Shari'a (Islamic) law the penalty for Apostasy (Muslims who reject Islam, for instance they "might state that the universe has always existed from eternity"), is execution for men and life imprisonment for women. So, if anything, Islam today attempts to maintain a much tighter control of the thoughts in people's heads than Christianity has done since the time of Galileo.
http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/1792

In Iraq there are many groups - workers’ unions, women’s groups and others who promote civil liberties and democracy that are opposed to the occupation and opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. Rather than accepting the binary choice of Bush and Bin Laden, we choose to support these forces, to offer them whatever assistance we can in their fight against the occupation and against the fundamentalists.
http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/1207

Unlike some of the left, we see no need to take sides between the racist Israeli state and Islamic religious authoritarians. Neither is any friend of working people and liberty. As Alan MacSimoin of the WSM said at an earlier protest against the visit to Dublin of the British HMS Ocean warship, “Let us also begin taking concrete initiatives to assist the progressive, secular and trade union forces who oppose both the occupation and the terrorism of the anti-woman and anti-freedom religious bigots”.
http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/1208

I hope this selection helps you to appreciate that the views you express would in conflict with those of many Anarchists. Imho the WSM certainly would not regard an attack on Islam as racist.

NO gods
NO masters

by Emma Thu Feb 15, 2007 16:08

Pushkin I know who the article was wrote by and it is one opinion and does not represent everybody and that is her opinion which she is entitled to and who would I be to tell she is wrong but it is also wrong for you to say it is for another woman to wear it and from my friends who are muslim and do wear the hijab it is a voluntary act for them and it is wrong for you to say it is not. Racism is not just about colour it is a broad topic and cannot just be defined to colour

Thanks Pushkin as a former member of the WSM I have read the articles and position papers and can do some quotes myself if you like so no need to copy and paste and I am aware not all anarchists share my views and just because I was a member of WSM does not mean I agreed with everything and I feel anarchism/anarchists can be singled minded for instance a great friend of mine is muslim but considers that they are an anarchist and the attitude expressed by anarchists can alienate people that I know would be a benefit to the WSM and other groups if we want to have an anarchist society I feel we are going to have to broaden our ideas and attitudes towards people.

I never said it was an attack on Islam but an attack on the idea of a woman deciding from her own free will to wear the hijab also I assume you are a WSM member and speak for yourself not the organisation and I consider myself and atheist and yeah I agree in an ideal world no gods no masters but it is not ideal and we have to consider other peoples point of view.

by WSM-bot Thu Feb 15, 2007 16:13

Pushkin is not a member of the WSM. He speaks for himself alone.

by Pushkin Thu Feb 15, 2007 16:20

I never claimed to be a member of the WSM. I merely pointed to articles by the WSM which stick the boot into Islam. Emmas views would appear to be in conflict with the positions held by the WSM. The WSM site even has an article written by the dread Worker-communist Party.

by Pushkin Thu Feb 15, 2007 16:39

"Pushkin I know who the article was wrote by and it is one opinion and does not represent everybody and that is her opinion which she is entitled to and who would I be to tell she is wrong"

But you would also say that its ok for women to wear the hijab. I wouldnt ban it but I think Anarchists and Socialists in general should argue that it is a symbol of oppression.

I think though if students unions organised to make schools a religion free zone then that would be ok. All symbols of all superstitions could be excluded from schools.

"but it is also wrong for you to say it is for another woman to wear it and from my friends who are muslim and do wear the hijab it is a voluntary act for them and it is wrong for you to say it is not."

I would say that they are deluded. That is my right, I oppose all religion.

"Racism is not just about colour it is a broad topic and cannot just be defined to colour"

Come off it. You cannot just make a word mean what you want it to mean. Thats what Humpty-Dumpty did. Criticising religion or culture is not racist. Especially if those religions or cultures are reactionary.

As a materialist I believe all religions should be mocked.

"Thanks Pushkin as a former member of the WSM I have read the articles and position papers and can do some quotes myself if you like so no need to copy and paste and I am aware not all anarchists share my views and just because I was a member of WSM does not mean I agreed with everything and I feel anarchism/anarchists can be singled minded "

Well I believe that an Anarchist should challenge superstition. I quoted them not just for your benefit but for other readers to show that your views were not typical of Anarchists.

"for instance a great friend of mine is muslim but considers that they are an anarchist "

Fine for them as long as they oppose all the reactionary aspects of Islam.

"and the attitude expressed by anarchists can alienate people that I know would be a benefit to the WSM and other groups if we want to have an anarchist society I feel we are going to have to broaden our ideas and attitudes towards people."

So you think Anarchists should bow down before religion? What principles do you think anarchists should surrender to win over Muslims?

"I never said it was an attack on Islam but an attack on the idea of a woman deciding from her own free will to wear the hijab"

If you think that wearing the hijab is such a good idea then why dont you wear it yourself?

"also I assume you are a WSM member and speak for yourself not the organisation"

I am not a WSM member nor did I suggest I was.

"and I consider myself and atheist "

I'm only an Agnostic. What makes you so sure? ;)

"and yeah I agree in an ideal world no gods no masters but it is not ideal and we have to consider other peoples point of view."

Not if it means surrendering to superstition or compromising in any way on womens or gay rights.

Seperation of church and state is a basic demand not just of anarchists and socialists, its a basic bourgeois liberal demand.

by Pushkin Thu Feb 15, 2007 17:56

This is an extract from the Charter on the De-religionisation of society adopted at the Worker-communist Party of Iran's 4th Congress. The full Charter is available at the link.

De-religionisation of society

A free society is a society free from religion, superstition, and the domination of traditional morality and values on human beings' freethinking. Inherently, religion is socially and intellectually discriminatory, superstitious, and contrary to human freedom and prosperity. Even as a private matter, religion is an obstacle in the path of human liberation and advancement.

Iran is not an Islamic society; the government is Islamic. Islam is a reactionary and imposed phenomenon in Iran that has only remained in power via oppression, killing, torture and stoning. It is over two decades that they seek to forcefully Islamicise the society and have failed. Islam is incompatible with society. The Islamisation of society is part of the inhuman jihad of the political Islamic movement and Islamic government against all sections of society.

by Pushkin Thu Feb 15, 2007 17:59

Ooops. Forgot the link.

by Gramsci Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:41

TEHRAN: Iranian police arrested 170 women who were deemed to be dressed inappropriately. A crackdown was aimed primarily at women with tight coats, short trousers or loose headscarves. Police said they would also single out men with tight clothes or extravagant hairstyles

Well at least the boys are getting some hassle as well.

by Gramsci Fri Apr 27, 2007 14:05

Iran: 150,000 women detained for breaking dress code
Thu. 26 Apr 2007
Adnkronos International

Tehran, 26 April (AKI) - Some 150,000 women have been detained in Iran for violating strict new Islamic dress code rules, the country's top police officer has announced. "During the first four days [since the code came into effect] we have picked up 150,000 women who were not properly veiled, but many of them were released after they signed an admission of guilt and a formal apology," General Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam told journalists. An unspecified number of the women taken into custody were also forced to undergo psychological counseling, Moghaddam said.

“Only 13 of these women are still being held and they will have to stand trial," he explained

by Absalom Fri May 11, 2007 13:23

All schoolgirls in the Nigerian state of Kano are now required to wear an Islamic veil. The new state policy, which went into effect May 5, applies even to Christian girls studying in private schools.

Kano is one of 12 states in the more populous northern part of Nigeria which on June 23, 2000, introduced Islamic shari'a law. Since then, conflicts between Christians and Muslims have led to the death of a 1,000 people in the region.

by European Fri May 18, 2007 01:59

Having very recently cast off the shackles of one very mad religion in Ireland, we must do everything in our power to ensure that Islam, an even madder religion, never gains a foothold here. Living under Sharia law would make the depressing reign of Archbishop Mc Quaid and his lackeys seem like an era of tolerance and gaiety.

by NicoleMaryam Sun Oct 28, 2007 05:23

I think that the hijab in some countries is used as a way of oppressing and controlling things, but when a woman makes the choice to wear it herself (as I do), I find it to be the opposite of oppression, in fact, I find it very liberating, as do many Muslim women and girls I know. I completely agree though that it is oppression if women are forced to wear it, just like it would be oppression if women are not allowed to wear it.

by aristotle Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:22

Well Absolom, I agree that it is a sad thing that any woman would be subjected to Sharia law against her will, and while Nigerian provences and other foreign jurisdictions are perfectly entitled to adopt whatever practices they wish, we here in Ireland are perfectly entitled to pass laws to ensure that obnoxious foreign practices such as the forced veiling of girls and women, FGM, table-top circumscisions, bride-burning, honour-killings, and caste-systems are not imported here.

Luckily you in Nigeria, unlike the citizens of many uniformly Moslem countries, can at least move freely to a provence within Nigeria where Christians are in a majority and where there is no enforcement of Sharia law.

by Aristotle Mon Oct 29, 2007 09:58

Well, Watcher, what's your point?

If I were a Christian living in the North of Nigeria I would move, lock, stock, and barrell to the South of Nigeria where none of this Sharia nonsense prevails.

by M Thu Jun 12, 2008 23:18

This is not a tradition in the Islanmic faith but one of choice. Once again Western countries are being asked to support a religious item not accepted within their own faith. If you wear Catholic symbols you are being controlling and abusing. What is it in Western minds that allows people to be accepting of the same behaviours, just because they are a self described minority.