Amazon.com Widgets

 

Tags: islam, freedom of religion, freedom, burqa

Comments: 7

Josef Seifert

Defending the Freedom of wearing Veils and Burqas

Jun. 23, 2009, at 12:54am

I think that not even the most literal interpretation of the Koran’s dressing codes for women, wearing burqas, ought to be outlawed in the West, let alone Muslim women covering of heads by normal veils (which are equally outlawed in many Western countries). It seems to me that any observance of a religious tradition that is not in any way in itself evil, or criminal, or offensive, ought to be permitted by the law and never be banished or outlawed, which does not exclude to persecute domestic crimes even if justified in the shariah.
Not only is there a sacred right to the freedom of religion and to the freedom of conscience to obey one’s positive religious mandates as long as they do not entail crimes or oppression bordering on crime (which wearing the nice burqa that underlines the mystery of the woman’s body, certainly does not). One may remind oneself that also Saint Paul demanded that women cover their heads in Church as sign of their submission to their husbands and of their respect for the angels. Should it be outlawed that women wear veils in our Churches (which is still being done in some places)?
The comparison with religious habits of nuns is not that far-fetched. There is a Catholic nun’s order of the “slaves of Christ” in Spain, and some other Eucharistic feminine orders, who wear almost the same veils that completely cover their faces. Should this be outlawed?
Moreover, in general the outlawing of any dresses that do not offend public morality is an assault against freedom, even if these dresses have nothing to do with religion.
Besides, to want to forbid pious Muslim or Hindu women (in the name of fighting oppression!) to wear veils or other dresses that correspond to their beliefs, while we do nothing to solve first our problems with women’s dresses, as an extremely witty Muslim Professor remarked when called to speak out in the veil-processes in England, seems doubly wrong.
There is another reason against this. It seems in general quite wrong to support any kind of pressure (as in Mexico for decades in regard to the Catholic priests and nuns and now increasingly in the West) that demands that nobody may wear in public places or private schools symbols of their religion.
Moreover, it is ludicrous, grotesque and utterly hypocritical that in Germany, France, England, or the USA, Muslim women should be forced to take off their veils against their conscience, while our women may wear the most offensive and unbelievably impure dresses in public, indulge in the most shocking public seduction, for example as naked prostitutes on TV commercials giving their phone numbers and “prices,” pose in offensive nakedness in Playboy and other magazines, without being outlawed!
Finally, a country that forbids burqas but “legalizes” the murder of one’s own children is in my opinion absolutely cynical and grotesque!

comments (7) closed

Katie van Schaijik • Jun 23, 2009 - 9:28 am

I should have made clear when I raised the question that I was not speaking of head coverings (perhaps burqa is not the correct term) but rather of the full, face-covering garment mandated by religious authorities in some Islamic societies and sects.

Would you agree that those are an instrument of oppression?

If women wear them not out of religious devotion, but out of fear of punishment by the men in whose hands and at whose mercy they live their lives, is not the question more complicated than you indicate here?

Finally, I deny that there is any genuine respect for the mystery of the feminine body in those portable prisons.

Josef Seifert • Jun 23, 2009 - 12:12 pm

I understood what you meant by burqas since you had pictures of them. These are those feminine dresses that most literally correspond to the dress code of the Koran; there are two other forms, one that is more a veil for the head (which they forbade the Muslim schoolteacher in Germany to wear for school), another “middle one” leaves part of the face free.
Now, as I am not a Moslem, I do not think that God ordered women to dress this way through the prophet neither do I think that the Koran (in spite of the beautiful praise of Mary as the virgin mother of Jesus, Sura Maria, 19?, on which one of my Muslim students wrote a beautiful poem) implies a similarly deep appreciation of the dignity of women as the Jewish and most of all the Christian religion. Nevertheless I think that calling these dresses “a means of oppression” is incorrect and sounds Marxist or wildly feminist. They are similar to the beautiful Hindu dresses and almost identical to those of the Catholic order of the “slaves of Christ”. It seems to me that you are full of negative and generalizing judgments (about the Islam, Islamic men, the reasons why women wear certain dresses), for the truth of which there is no evidence and which contradict many experiences. Quite apart from the profound respect for the unborn, which made respresentatives of Islamic countries the best allies to the Vatican and to some of our pro life students in Cairo, there is also a lot of other values that are upheld more in Islamic countries than in the US or Europe. Attributing to the Islam quite generally an utterly negative and oppressive sort of slaveholder-attitude towards women is wrong. There are very different Muslims, good and evil ones (I have rarely seen a more respectful attitude towards women than in my young male Moslem friend and assistant in Liechtenstein).
Moreover, your analysis of the reasons why women wear the burqas seems quite apodictic and judgmental, and in this general form quite certainly incorrect (even though no doubt applicable in some, possibly in many, cases). How do you want to know whether many women do not wear these dresses out of a sense of religious devotion but only “out of fear of punishment…” from their husbands?  The German teachers whose veils the Bavarians outlawed were not even married. How do you know that in Islamic families there is more “domestic violence” than in an average of other families in the secular US, where countless women and children are mistreated?
Finally, I find in general both the Hindu dresses and the Muslim dresses of women - at least if we prescind from a totally veiled face and take the two other kinds of more “normal” Muslim dresses, but even if we include the burqas - aesthetically much more beautiful and feminine, not only as the countless indecent dresses of Western women, but also as the barbarian blue jeans and other ways in which women dress in the West. Just read Christopher Dawson on blue jeans and you will understand what I mean.
Therefore I cannot agree with your claim that there is not “any genuine respect for the mystery of the feminine body” in these dresses, which you like to call “portable prisons”  (which seems to be a disrespectful and insulting name for the traditional dresses prescribed by another religion and for which, I dare say, you ought to apologize to Islamic readers of your Linde-homepage).
Kind regards,

JS

Katie van Schaijik • Jun 23, 2009 - 12:39 pm

Josef, I do not speak of every individual or communal case.  That would be impossible.  (Note that I made my point conditional: “IF women wear them not out of devotion but out of fear…”)  But I have read many books of by women whose experience corresponds to what I say and who testify not just for themselves but for whole societies.  For instance, “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” “The Caged Virgin,” “The Torn Veil,” “Infidel,” “Not Without My Daughter,” “Inside the Kingdom,” and others. 

I see no similarity with the Hindu dress, which adorns rather than hides the feminine figure and which draws attention to the face and individuality of each woman. Nor is it comparable to a religious habit, inasmuch as it is required for all women because they are women, not freely chosen as a particular vocation.  (I don’t here assert that no women choose it freely, but rather that as a matter of fact in some Islamic societies and among certain Islamic sects, it is imposed by religious and political and domestic authorities, regardless of a woman’s desire and on pain of beatings and even death if she refuses to conform.)

As for aesthetics, I agree with you when it comes to the traditional Hindu dress, which I find particularly lovely and the dress of western women (me included!) comparatively wretched—unbeautiful, unfeminine, undignified.

But I cannot find black tent-like robes that hide the face and form of a woman aesthetically pleasing and I’m surprised that you can.  To me, it is ugly—especially because I can’t help associating with all the wrong to women I perceive in Islam. 

I want to add, though, to balance the harshness of my judgments a little, that the Iranian movie “Colors of Paradise” is an enviably beautiful depiction of what is good in Muslim societies.  I understood much better after I saw it how they must experience the aggressions of western cultural invasions.  The modesty of two little girls and the feminine strength of a grandmother are especially moving and admirable.  I’d be hard pressed to find examples of feminine moral beauty to compare in contemporary American movies.

Bill Drennen • Jun 23, 2009 - 3:00 pm

I have 2 points, one in favor of Katie and one scored in Josef’s column (I’m keeping score).

1. I think Katie has a valid criticism regarding the inherent value or lack thereof of a religious requirement for women to cover their faces. This does seem to be an obvious violation of the dignity of the person and also suffers from a severe lacking of the enlightened Christian view of female beauty ect. Now if a religious group wants to hide their face and women voluntarily join then we can not judge and should defend their right to do so but what about being forced?

2. I agree with Josef that freedom of religious expression must be protected and the state can not infringe upon it.

What about the difficult question of children being forced to wear them at home or in church? We would not allow a more serious violation of human rights in church what about this one? Perhaps you can say that an adult woman has a choice in this country to join or enter that church. More difficult question is regarding the youth at home. Here I guess we need to balance the limit of the state to interfere with parental authority vs. the interest of the state to protect against abuse. Can this be similar to the gray area of spanking? The parent has some leeway to judge and the child less rights until they become an adult. While I defend a parent�s right for the appropriate use of corporal punishment and detest the interference of the state, I detest even more the abuse of that parental authority and applaud the state stepping in at some point. I would not want the state to interfere with me if I imposed a requirement on my daughters to wear head coverings at home but what if I required them to cover their faces?

Katie and Josef, what do you think? I’m not sure.

Katie van Schaijik • Jun 23, 2009 - 3:46 pm

That one seems less challenging to me.  Minors living at home are under their parents’ authority.  Nor have I heard of Muslim girls being required to cover their faces at home.  I WOULD, however, favor laws against such practices as the genital mutilation of girls; underage marriage, and forced marriages, not to mention “honor killings”.

Josef Seifert • Jun 24, 2009 - 2:04 am

My goodness - burqas
Goodness gracious! What did I get myself into with what I thought to be a defense of Muslim women and families against state interference! Now I appear to promote their oppression and to discuss for the rest of my few more years on earth their dress. One can’t be careful enough discussing women’s clothing,
Well, there is no way out any more. Be it then:

First I apologize to Katie that I sloppily overread her “if” and misrepresented her as if she claimed that all Muslim women veil their faces out of fear not to be physically mistreated and beaten up. Sorry! I should have known better and a priori - knowing your fine mind! This “if” refutes three quarters of what I wrote.

As to the aesthetic comparison between Hindu and Muslim women clothing, I must admit that I too find it much more beautiful to see the almost always beautiful faces of the Hindu women together with their beautiful colorful dresses than to see their faces completely covered.
Now as to the inherent aesthetic aspects of burqas and the question whether they per se entail acts of oppression:
I must admit that I find also the burqas beautiful and mysterious and in some sense poetic like the Arabian nights stories (the most beautiful and least indecent ones of which also show a very profound appreciation of women, of their femininity and high dignity - almost worshipped by men - and of the love between man and woman in Islamic culture). I recommend you to see the Bollywood movie “Ver and Sarah”?, which gives a wonderful portrait of two Moslem women and shows the kind of recognition of their dignity and courage which I think characterizes many Islamic families (wherefore I would be a bit careful with some of the autobiographies you have been reading).
Moreover, only very few Islamic countries seem to have a lot of the burqas, maybe Jemen? I traveled in Marocco, Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia and saw only approximately one out of a hundred women wear a burqa. And the other more traditionally clad women looked very decent and aesthetically attractive to me.
While I decry with you any of the countless acts of humiliating women and failing to recognize their dignity (a unique dignity which I passionately defended in several works), I personally find it exaggerated to speak of burqas as “portable prisons” and saw many young men behave extremely respectful to their completely covered wives, more expressing a spirit of guarding them as a thing of great value and “sacredness” from the irreverent looks of men, analogously to how we used to veil the Blessed Sacrament in order not to expose it to disrespectful looks, than in a spirit of enslavement.
I do neither deny nor belittle acts of aggression against Islamic women, but do not regard the wearing of burqas as such an act of oppression even if it can be one and often reflects a deplorable lack of recognizing the equal dignity of women.
I do perhaps react so strongly because I have many dear and noble Muslim friends and among them are beautifully and decently dressed Muslim girls (that do not veil their faces), and I felt unjustifiedly (largely because I overlooked your “if”) that you insulted them as a group.
Most important of all my points is: many of those who want to force Moslem women to take off their veils do so out of an idolization of Western pseudo-civilization and forget the horrors of our own libertarian and degenerate society. Compared with the acts of “legalized” crime and oppression (that alone the abortions here and the increasing threat to the freedom of conscience constitute), I find wearing burqas (even if I wish women replace them by other decent robes) not only completely harmless but in no way intrinsically wrong, and certainly nothing that our states should hypocritically forbid (in contrast to some of the other practices you mention: forced marriages, honor killings as well as schariah laws such as to kill one’s own child if he or she become Christian etc.), where of course the state has to interfere against crimes and grave oppressions of religious freedom of this nature.
I think we agree on most points now and politely ask to be released from the heavy burden of the burqa debate.
Josef

Katie van Schaijik • Jun 24, 2009 - 9:14 am

No, no dear Josef, you shall not get off so easily with jokes about women’s clothes and flattery about my “fine mind”!  We have hardly BEGUN to discuss this question!  I still have LOTS to say to protest and to urge! 
But I jest (partly).  You, as always, are perfectly free to disengage the question. I am glad you’ve said as much as you have, and now qualified it, which helps very much in drawing the discussion out where others may take it up if they choose.  It’s the way of the Linde.

Reading circles

Lectures

Latest comments

  • Re: A short thought about suffering
  • By: Samwise

  • Gollum too, is a fitting example of addiction.

    His 'precious' literally annihilates his personhood--splitting his personality into 2:  such that he can no longer say 'me' but only 'we'.

    In other words, he is not free to exercise an "I-Thou" relationship of persons, but pitifully, "we-it"

     I argue that addiction does precisely this: objectifies the personal dimension of reality, such that everything to the addict can only be viewed in relation to the object, "it".  Persons themselves are merely means to the end of possessing "it".  It is nothing short of slavery to the "precious" 

    May. 20 at 4:10pm | See in context

  • Re: A short thought about suffering
  • By: Samwise

  • The man with the lizard on his shoulder in Lewis' Great Divorce, captures addiction best in my view. 

    Of the handful of NA groups that I've sat in on, the addicts describe "stinkin' thinkin'" as a kind of rationalizing voice in their heads that convinces them to sabotage their sobreity.  Particularly in times of family reunions or very stressful situations, the voice seems irresistible to them.  They lose the ability to be responsible, and sabotage all for the sake of "getting a fix".

    In Lewis' book, the man defeats the lizard with much difficulty--and promptly transforms into a much greater version of himself.  This is the case too with the few instances of addicts I've seen who "kicked the habit", and were able to gain employment/independence/accountability for staying sober.  They literally improve their posture/thought patterns/speech/etc.  From vice to virtue--a very difficult road w/ drug use--and a desperate need for God's unmistakable grace.

    May. 20 at 3:56pm | See in context

  • Re: A short thought about suffering
  • By: Marie Meaney

  • I find therefore the approch of Hagiotherapy and of an Italian sister (I think her name is Elvira) interesting; trying to heal the problem primarily on a spiritual level. I could imagine, however, that with some (or perhaps many) that might still not be enough, since the addiction also takes place on a physiological level, but hagiotheraphy addresses something about the root of addiction which, I assume, the average rehab doesn't. 

    May. 20 at 12:04pm | See in context

  • Re: A short thought about suffering
  • By: Katie van Schaijik

  • I've noticed Pope Benedict and Pope Francis both mentioning the problem of addiction as a serious threat to persons in the modern world.  And I agree with you, Marie.  The problem is much wider than we usually think.

    May. 20 at 8:38am | See in context

  • Re: A short thought about suffering
  • By: Marie Meaney

  • On a side-note: I haven't read much about addiction, but I've always thought that its treatment requires an awareness of man's supernatural vocation. I'd be tempted to say that we are all addicts, so to speak, that we all try to fill the void in ourselves (which St. Augustine captured so well in saying that our hearts are restless until they rest in God); Pascal delineates with great psychological finesse the ways in which we throw ourselves into pleasures, the pursuit of glory, the bustle of work in order to fill that void. This, it seems to me (not being a professional pscyhologist, I don't know the medical definition of addiction), is addictive behavior; for some it gets out of hand and becomes more apparent to the world, especially when linked to drugs or alcohol which are addictive on a physiological level and destroy the person in a very visible way. Hence battling those addictions or idols means for all of us accepting the emptiness in oneself; the experience of the desert or of a dark night therefore seems essential in the spiritual life and necessary for God's descent, to use S. Weil's terminology (who was very influenced by Pascal).

    May. 20 at 3:12am | See in context

  • Re: My Personalist Mother
  • By: Devra Torres

  • Well...I think it must have been somebody else.  It sounds like a different style than my mother's.  Also, my mother read the piece and thanked me for "making up all those nice virtues" for her.  It is true that my father would make pizza every Sunday night, so she didn't actually make a home-cooked meal every single day for fifty years, but the pizza had starch, vegetables and meat on it, so I figure that falls under poetic license.  

    She did respect us all as persons in a way I gradually realized was very unusual.  I had friends whose parents let them express their freedom any way they wanted, because (in some ways) that was simpler for the grownups. I had other friends whose parents believed in objective right and wrong but micromanaged their lives and tastes down to the last detail.  I'm sure my mother would disagree, but I think she managed a good balancing act.

    May. 15 at 7:22pm | See in context

  • Re: My Personalist Mother
  • By: Katie van Schaijik

  • What a beautiful tribute!

    I read an article many years ago by your mother, I think. (I mean I think it was by her.) It has stayed with me.  She described sitting at a restaurant table with two worldly-minded women (was it her mother and sister?), and feeling a little frumpy and awkward and out of place.  The other women were admiring each other's jewelry.  The author blurted out, "I too have many precious gems. My children."

    May. 13 at 5:31pm | See in context

  • Re: Does God Have Favorites?
  • By: Marie Meaney

  • even if we have greater or lesser degrees of "space" that we've created for God through love on Earth. There will be no sense of incompleteness, no lack, no frustration; there will only be complete union. God will be giving Himself completely to everyone of us (as I've also explained in my interpretation of the late-hour workers) - there will be no difference in this way. I agree with your (and St Therese's) understanding of sanctity, of completely depending on God, on complete trust; hence Our Lady is our model, she is full of grace - no sin is there to prevent God's grace from fully inhabiting her. We don't tend to have this complete dependence; some of us - like St Therese manage to have it to an extraordinary degree - and there are probably a lot more than we know, and yes sanctity is accessible to everyone of us. But that there are differences in how much we let God inhabit us and that this will be reflected in Heaven seems to make a lot of sense and is in line with the tradition of the Church. I hope this sheds some light on this discussion.

    May. 11 at 2:49pm | See in context

  • Re: Does God Have Favorites?
  • By: Marie Meaney

  • I completely agree with many of the points you make, Patrick, which are very good. But I think you are working with the wrong notion of hierarchy, or rather are assuming that this notion of hierarchy is underyling what I'm trying to get at. I'd say that there is no contradiction between the hierarchy in Heaven I'm trying to capture here and St. Therese's little way, her understanding of sanctity etc. Perhaps you have in mind some of the paintings we know so well with the different layers of saints, closer or further away from God, and thus are using as a metaphor a ladder, or something of the kind. A metaphor only works in some respects and in others it is wrong. To think that we will be kept at a distance by God or that we achieve sanctity by climbing up the mountain would indeed be wrong. Perhaps the metaphor of pots works better (if I remember correctly, it was also used by St Therese): pots of different sizes are still completely full even if the quantity of water in them is of a different amount. Similarly our union with God will be complete;  

    May. 11 at 2:43pm | See in context

  • Re: Overcoming Practical Pessimism
  • By: Devra Torres

  • Richard, I'm very sorry, and have added an attribution within the post.  I've checked out more of your photos at the address you link to--here--and was very struck by the beauty and variety of your work.  

    May. 11 at 11:19am | See in context

Latest active posts