Quote of the day

The language of a captive community acquires certain durable habits; whole zones of reality cease to exist simply because they have no name

Syndicate content

Columns

Paul Rogers

Global security


Li Datong

China from the inside


Fred Halliday

Global politics


Mary Kaldor

Human security


Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitan democracy

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:


Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz


Follow oD on Twitter:


Join our Facebook group:
Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

Demotix witness*upload*share

Recent comments

Navigation


View 9 comments

Veiling the issues: a distractive debate

Tina Beattie, 24 - 10 - 2006
The face-veil worn by a small minority of Muslim women in Britain has become the site of fierce political controversy. The problem is that it is the wrong discussion, says Tina Beattie.

A Muslim woman wearing a face-veil (niq­ab) and sitting in the surgery of her male member of parliament is a complex and interesting phenomenon. Some might argue that she represents the best of pluralist democracy. She is a participating citizen who is in direct contact with her MP on matters that concern her, and she is a Muslim who has the confidence to dress as she wants to, even at the risk of public disapproval. But that is not how Jack Straw, the British government minister and MP for the northern English town of Blackburn, sees it.

Straw intentionally provoked a public debate when he wrote on 5 October 2006 in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph that the full veil was a hindrance to community relationships, and admitted that he asked "ladies" if they would consider showing their faces when they came to his surgery. He said that he felt "uncomfortable" when he could not see the face of the person he was talking to.

Tony Blair entered the fray on 17 October when he supported a school's decision to suspend Aishah Azmi, a teaching assistant who refused to remove her veil when teaching children. Blair described the veil as "a mark of separation". The debate continues to make the news and there are widely divergent opinions among both Muslim and non-Muslim contributors as to the value of raising this issue.

Straw is an astute politician with a large number of Muslims in his Blackburn constituency, and he claims to have thought carefully before speaking out. Yet there are a number of puzzling questions about his decision to go public in this way. Although Straw's main concern seems to be the issue of social segregation, there is also the implication - made explicit by some commentators since - that the veil is a symbol of oppression and male domination. But if that were the case, then a veiled woman is highly unlikely to visit her male MP even with her husband, let alone by herself.

There is the question of probability too. Given that only a small percentage of Britain's Muslim women wear face-veils, and given that a significant number of such women might regard it as taboo to be alone with a man who was not part of their family grouping, one wonders just how many people we are talking about. Is this an issue that Straw confronts regularly, or is it more likely that the very few women he encounters in this situation are articulate, educated women for whom the veil is a matter of identity politics?

His article seems to suggest that this might be the case, and if so, it raises a number of questions about the ways in which the assertion of Muslim identity has become a political as much as a religious issue. But in this situation, Straw's request that a woman removes her veil seems provocative, for it invites a confrontation on the basis of power - is her right to assert herself greater or lesser than his right to feel comfortable in her presence?

Tina Beattie is reader in Christian studies, Roehampton University, England. Among her books are God's Mother, Eve's Advocate (Allen & Unwin, 2002) and New Catholic Feminism: Theology and Theory (Routledge 2005)

Also by Tina Beattie in openDemocracy:

"Pope Benedict XVI and jihad: beyond words" (18 September 2006)

Layers of meaning

The veil has become a multi-faceted symbol which resists generalisation. One has to know a great deal about the context in which it is worn, in order to decipher its possible meanings. In situations where it is a sign of oppression, it is more a symptom than a cause of that oppression, and it can distract us from asking what really oppresses women. When George W Bush wanted to bomb Afghanistan, he suddenly became an ardent campaigner for the rights of Afghan women, and those burqa-clad figures have long preoccupied western feminists who may show little concern for the actual living conditions of Muslim women worldwide.

Since the publication of Edward Said's groundbreaking book, Orientalism (1978), scholars at least have become aware of the extent to which the veiled woman is part of the "otherness" which the so-called western man of reason projects onto his eastern counterparts, by depicting the Arab-Islamic world as feminised and irrational. This oriental figure, the subject of many works of literature and art, represents seduction and threat, mystery and challenge, so that it is very difficult to see her humanity clearly through the west's own cultural veils.

In this respect, it is interesting that the BBC recently called its excellent short series on Iran Uncovering Iran, with publicity frequently referring to the country as "she", a deeply mysterious feminised "other", simultaneously (perhaps) inviting and resisting conquest.

Them and us

Scholarly interpretations vary as to what, if any, veiling is required by the Qur'an. There are many Muslim women scholars working on such issues and seeking to change their tradition from within. It is through education and awareness-raising that lasting change will come about, but that process also requires respect for the religious values of the Muslim community, and such respect is lacking in British society today.

Muslims are tolerated providing they demonstrate that they are "moderate", but the communication of values is all one way: there is a suggestion that "we" have nothing to learn from "them", but "they" still have much to learn about "our" British values. But Britain is a multicultural society, and notwithstanding citizenship tests and much rhetoric about the meaning of Britishness, the multiple identities of those who inhabit this small island renders the term "British values" almost meaningless, unless in itself it signifies a capacity for diversity and non-uniformity.

In any case, the failure to recognise that religious traditions, including Islam, are custodians of values from which secular society might learn, is a product of a post-Enlightenment world view, in which a progressive concept of history leads to the belief that the rationalised, secularised west is more advanced than its religious and non-western counterparts. It is for "them" to catch up, rather than slowing "us" down with their different values and priorities.

This persistent theme implicitly informs much public debate about Islam, even if it has been debunked by postmodernists, whose conversation tends to fall on deaf ears outside their own esoteric intellectual and cultural milieus. However, we should listen to what they are telling us, because they caution us against the progressive and triumphalist view of history that has gripped western consciousness for the last two centuries at least, and which is closely associated with western imperialism and global conquest.

There are Muslim scholars who argue that Islam stands in need of a reformation, and some insist that such a reformation is indeed quietly under way, even as Islamist extremism tends to occupy the headlines. But it is also true that many young men in particular are ripe for recruitment to the cause of radical Islam and, as with the veil, we need to understand some of the reasons for this.

In the world today, Muslims are victims of some of the most intractable and violent conflicts, be they Palestinian, Iraqi, Afghan or Chechen, even if in Afghanistan and Iraq it is now Muslims who are the perpetrators as well as the victims of that violence. On our nightly news broadcasts, images of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq sit side by side with debates about the veil, and it is ingenuous of politicians to try to separate them.

Until Tony Blair's government is willing to acknowledge the extent of its failure in Iraq, and until it makes finding a solution to the Palestinian situation a top priority, debate about the veil is likely to be seen as a distraction which in itself veils much more important questions about justice and the survival of Muslim people and Islamic values in the modern world.

A new relationship

I work in a university with a high proportion of Muslim students. They are a rich and diverse part of campus life, and they make an important contribution to our university's intellectual and cultural environment. Teaching as I do in the area of theology and religious studies, the Muslims I encounter have chosen to enter an academic environment in which all beliefs are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and analysis, and it is often their desire to understand their own religious identities and their place in politics and society that has made them choose this area of study.

They share the problems of all young people, and there are situations in which their religious values undeniably create painful struggles when they come to university. Young women students are sometimes allowed little freedom relative to their non-Muslim counterparts, and relationships can come under intense pressure if they are not in keeping with their families' sometimes rigorous rules of conduct. But there is also a profound integrity about the way many young Muslims reconcile the demands of their religion and their cultural milieu, even if this can be a costly and challenging process.

For example, in a culture in which binge-drinking has become a major social problem, it is easy to overlook the extent to which Muslims must daily overcome their own distaste with regard to alcohol, in order to be integrated into society. We have had debates among our students as to whether or not we should serve wine at student parties, and it is our Muslim students who have insisted that we should, and who have then attended the parties despite the fact that for some, even being in a room where alcohol is being served is problematic.

Instead of always seeing Islam as the problem, perhaps we should also be asking what we might learn from our Muslim neighbours about decency, integrity and self-respect.

Are veiled Muslim women really a more potent sign of oppression than the drunken teenage girls lurching at night around our city-streets and even our campuses, half-naked and vulnerable? It is not only Muslims who see western attitudes towards sexuality and the female body as degenerate and degrading. Many feminists would argue that the commodification of the female body and the sexual exploitation of women is a growing problem in our society. It is not hard to understand why, for some Muslims, the veil is a solution to that problem.

Moreover, Islam is hardly unique among the world's religions in its suspicion of female sexuality. Christianity has a long history of insisting that women should be silenced, subordinated and covered up because they are a sexual threat and, if we in the west have been liberated from such taboos, we have yet to discover what it would truly mean to be female bodies not conditioned in one form or another to clothe ourselves according to the expectations, demands and desires of men.

The relationship between Islam and secular democracy need not be one of conflict and confrontation, and Muslims cannot simply be divided between moderates and extremists. The woman with a veiled face represents something too complex to be deciphered simply on appearances alone.

We have to understand who she is, what she believes and values, how she positions herself in the world; and simply removing her veil will not tell us any of those things. Indeed, her bare face may mask interesting and significant differences which, paradoxically, her veil reveals.

We need to listen and learn, to struggle to understand one another in the recognition that threats to our common humanity are growing. The most obvious are war, violence and environmental catastrophe. A less visible but equally corrosive one is the closure of minds and hearts to the experience, thinking and values of those regarded - even for the way they choose to dress - as alien.

Average rating
(3 votes)

Please support openDemocracy's "Needed: more democracy!" campaign.

We need more of our readers to support the work of helping spread democratic understanding and influence.

If you read openDemocracy and value it please DONATE:

Donate from the UK with Gift Aid

Donate from any other country

Donate via PayPal

read on

Asma Barlas, "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an (University of Texas Press, 2002)
US, UK

Jytte Klausen, The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe (Oxford University Press, 2005) US, UK

 
This article is published by Tina Beattie, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.
NewsCredit This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

Comments


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

cityoflight said:



Sun, 2007-05-20 12:21
Tina Beattie's description of the niqab as a veil disguising issues of greater urgency is a fantastic one. The language of Islam (particularly Sufism) uses the metaphor of veils for what causes a person to misunderstand (or flatly ignore) something which is of immense importance. Sadly, most people who get hot under the collar about niqabs or hijabs or whatever it might be are only demonstrating their own discomfort at being confronted by a different way of doing things, and therefore a challenge to their intellectual status quo.

However, Beattie mentions that "Islam is hardly unique among the world's religions in its suspicion of female sexuality". Suspicion of female sexuality is certainly part of Muslim cultures (as it is pretty much everywhere), but it's not something that's rooted in Islam. I am an Anglo-American Muslim born and bred and my experience is that covering up the body from the public gaze actually improves one's sexuality.

This might sound odd, but think about it: if you don't have to keep your knees together when you're sitting in a short skirt, or covering your cleavage when you bend down, you actually feel more comfortable in your movements. You're able to swing your hips as much as you like when you walk without feeling like you're drawing attention to yourself. The body becomes something precious which is protected from the hustle and bustle of public life; you wouldn't see a Monet hanging from a streetlamp. I've seen women wearing niqabs who walk so sexy and womanly it's downright attractive � one of the unexpected pitfalls of wearing a veil.

Incidentally, I agree with Isaac Leung (above) in that I can't see the justification for niqab in the Qur'an or sunnah; in fact the Quran instructs women to be modest and cover themselves EXCEPT for their face and hands. I think niqab is an innovation espoused by the very same people who reject bid'a (innovation) in religion � a very strange set of double standards.

Cole's comment (above) also requires a response: to be a Muslim does NOT mean rejecting the West and its values, though some might take it to mean that. Jeremy Henzell-Thomas wrote in Emel magazine in March that many values which Dr. Reid has described as 'core British values' are ones which Muslims would see as core Islamic values: "respect for the law, moderation, tolerance of others, freedom from oppression, fairness responsibility for others" etc.

As with anything, the only way you can really understand what Islam is about is to spend lots of time with Muslims of varying opinions instead of trying to work it out from news articles, which ultimately only present what a scandal-hungry audience wants to read.

Cole_2233 said:



Mon, 2007-01-29 02:25
I agree with Isaac,

The Westernized Islamic woman selects portions of the free society which she chooses to adhere to.

Where as, in Saudi Arabia, veiled women have no freedom to drive a car, meet with a man who is not her husband and or relative or to enter a bank (on her own or at all).

The Western Islamic woman who chooses to wear the veil - selects from the same freedoms that Western women fought for and won, even on her behave.

To be Muslim today, is to reject the West and its values, but in Western society a Muslim woman veiled or not, has more freedom than any women in any Islamic country in the world.

Normally, women would choose to wear colours such as pastels or floral patterns and other attractive designs, but under the new Islam, the Islamic woman must only wear black and is not even free to put a flower in her hair, for the sake of pleasing the God and helping the men to control their urges around her (beauty???).

While in an Islamic country; I was told that women need to wear these clothes (not necessarily the veil), because the women are incapable of controlling themselves (around men).

So the veil can also be seen as a magical tool, for controlling women's minds !!

Pink Cloud of Death said:



Mon, 2007-01-08 05:42
I was encouraged to read this article. The comments, particularly the previous one, led me to ask a few questions, partly about me. Am I more free because I don't wear the veil? Is my friend less free because she does? Is freedom so easily attained or lost? Among the many questions that sprang up in my mind was whether Jack Straw considered whether the Muslim woman in his surgery would feel uncomfortable about taking her nikab off. The issue about who has more power in this surgery isn't relevant here; the issue is whether Straw even considered her feelings. If I were sitting in his surgery I might've been bold enough to ask if I were a different woman, wearing a bikini and hat pants showing my assets in full public glory, would he consider asking me to cover up because he feels uncomfortable at my abundent femininity? What is it about Western cultures that puts so much emphasis on wanting to know the face or the bodily form? No doubt Mr Straw wouldn't ask me to cover up because this would be considered an infringement of British values of tolerance? I wholeheartedly agree that there something called British values but too often these are denied to social groups that we don't really understand or have much contact with. As a child growing up in London, then a teenager and now a women in her 30s, surrounded by equal doze of Western and Asian influences, I still don't understand why the veil captures the imagination of westerners so passionately? We seem preoccupied with images of the East either as the Karma Sutra or the veiled hordes. Extremes. There is never any obsession with the millions of Muslims that do not invite attention but go about their lives as an average Briton. The most hostile groups I have heard against the veil (excluding the obvious people who just don't want foreigners in their country) are western feminists, usually aged 40 plus, who set about demonstrating for women's rights in the 70s. They take the issue of the veil as an affront to everything they fought for in their prime. They had to fight for the right to go to university but were not allowed. They had to choose whether to have a family or a career but they couldn't do both. They were made to feel like misfits if they didn't have children, chose a career, but then didn't climb the corporate latter. Anyway, the point about this caricature is to illustrate that there are still lots of people in the UK who believe that women's equality/equity is an unfinished project and concentrate on the veil as a space to play out their institutional struggles and fears. But my advice is that we should let our Muslim feminist sisters deal with Muslim issues, because we do deal with these issues, often with threats of violence and fear of being a bugger misfit in out society than you can ever imagine. Those of us who still want to protect women's rights, well, best keep their attention focused on the harder battle at hand - equal pay. Now, that's a battle worth fighting for all concerned about rights in this country - it's easy to bang on about the veil, but much harder, it turns out, to negotiate for equal pay at work. Whether a woman chooses to cover her face has been a historical practice also common to more elite social groups and isn't simply a big enough deal for me. I am still waiting for someone to explain why it excites the imagination so much - like with all obsessions, there is often a more interesting story behind the obsession than meets the eye.

dpavett said:



Sat, 2006-10-28 21:35
It is not clear that Tina Beattie actually Read Jack Straw's article dealing with the veil question. She says that when Staw asks a constuent visiting his surgery if she would mind removing her veil for purpose of the interview he is confronting her on the basis of power. She asks "is her right to assert herself greater or lesser than his right to feel comfortable in her presence?". Where did all that come from? She only has to say "I would rather keep it on if you don't mind". Presenting this as a power confrontation is making the wheels of social analysis do overtime to no good purpose.

TB has also decided that the veil can't be a symbol of oppression because if it was the women wearing it wouldn't go to his surgery. Here the wheels of analysis seem to have stopped altogether. It is worth pointing out that many Muslim women see the veil as rather less benign than TB.

Edward Said is held up as an example to follow. It is time that the myth of Said's deep scholarship was laid to rest. In fact it has been laid to rest by Robert Irwin in his recent study of orientalism (For Lust of Knowing). Those who have got their information on orientalism from Said would do well to read Irwin.

I wonder how many of those who, like TB, would have it that post enlightenment progress is an ideological fiction, would be prepared to give up the advantages with which that "fictional" progress provides them with: the shorter working hours, the cheap books, the higher living standards, the democratic instituions, the time to entertain theories that claim that having such time is not progress.

The article suggests that discussion of the veil can only be a distraction until the Blair Government make Palestine its top priority. And what if it did so? Could we discuss it then? And exactly who would the terms of the debate differ from having the debate now? This sounds like evasion: "It's not so much what you say that I object to it is why your are saying it and the context you are saying it in". This is hardly a useful approach for a forum like Open Democracy. We have no better way forward than to listen to what people say, give it the most generous interpretation possible, and then answer what we think they have said. All the rest is just avoidance, even if sprinkled with post-modernist allusions, it's still avoidance.

johanvanloon1 said:



Thu, 2006-10-26 12:09
"Straw's request that a woman removes her veil seems provocative, for it invites a confrontation on the basis of power - is her right to assert herself greater or lesser than his right to feel comfortable in her presence?"

Do we need to understand that intrinsic moral questions (right or wrong) are to be replaced by a more practical ethic (opportune or inopportune) ?

Which consequences would ensue ?

johanvanloon1 said:



Thu, 2006-10-26 12:04
"Britain is a multicultural society, and notwithstanding citizenship tests and much rhetoric about the meaning of Britishness, the multiple identities of those who inhabit this small island renders the term "British values" almost meaningless"

You do not argue the meaninglessness of British values, you just present this as a given. Need I go any further to demonstrate this as a false assumption ? The fact that you choose not to argue about this is proove in itself you are fully aware of the disputed status of your remark.

KVB Tharoor said:



Wed, 2006-10-25 10:42
Yes, the issue has much less to do with Islam as a "tradition" or "religion" than it does with Islam as a contemporary social phenomenon.

In today's (and inevitably tomorrow's) discussions of Muslim-European relations, we need to acknowledge the inescapable newness of European Islam. Islam, as it is articulated by immigrant minorities, is a product of local circumstances and conditions - not simply the remains of foreign, alien "traditions"

annebaring said:



Wed, 2006-10-25 07:34
I thought the article on the deeper implications of the veil an excellent analysis of the issues which lie at the root of tensions in our society. It also begs the question: why do young men and women drink so much and why is their behaviour so unconsciously self-destructive? Anne Baring

Michael Francis... said:



Wed, 2006-10-25 09:19
The author acknowledges that a debate exists within Islam over the veil. However, to my mind, Qasim Amin, the Egyptian intellectual, showed that the veil had no foundation in Islam in his 1899 work Tahrir al-mar'a (_Women and the Veil_).

I have been carrying around the American University in Cairo press edition with me in my filofax for over three years. The practice of the veil reflects merely the mores, values and suspicions that have concentrated in Muslim society.

The claim that the veil is Islamic should be discarded immediately by both Muslims and non-Muslims as there is nothing in Islam to support it. Muslims and non-Muslims alike must recognise that Islam does not recognise the veil.

Whatever debates must be had, must be had. If a British Muslim wants to meet her MP or the leader of the House of Commons face to face, she is clearly not following the _customary_ practices in any case of traditional society in any case.

A woman who meets the former foreign secretary in his offices and who is wearing the veil is clearly electing to pick and choose from the non-Islamic elements of Muslim society's customary traditions in a way which reflects her freedom to choose from them as she sees fit.

In the meantime, an educated assessment, not one merely based on custom, shows that the veil has nothing to do with Islam and debate on the veil has nothing to do with religion in the doctrinal sense.

This is an enormously helpful starting point and we should be grateful to luminaries of the early 20thc. Egyptian scene such as Qasim Amin.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options

Demotix

Democracy Support

The openDemocracy / International IDEA debate

Read Democracy on the ground by Keith Brown

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance