Is the Islamic Veil a Mark of Separation?
October 24th 2006 02:45
Is the veil the mark of separation? That’s what Tony Blair called it. A week before Jack Straw, former foreign secretary of Britain, came under fire for suggesting that wearing full-bodied veil called naqib was confronting. Muslim groups predictably reacted with anger and warnings of dire consequences.
I know the veil issue is perennial and keeps coming back. But, there was a sense that this has become a much more heated debate than usual if you looked at the British media in the last two weeks. From being a marginal symbol of assimilation issues, the veil has come to the very core of issue of identity.
One can say that freedom of religion also means freedom to dress as you wish, on your property. When you are in a public thoroughfare I think the debate is entirely natural.
The issue is going beyond the veil though. There were reports that Muslim cabbies were refusing service to gay people, transvestites or handicapped persons with guide dogs because they are unclean or something. This last, I think, is really low.
Would you call it racism if white cabbies refused service to colored people? How is the above any different? Why should the worst of religious prejudices be imposed on people who are not part of your religion?
I am sure there is no easy answer. But it has been noticed that the resurgence in wearing a veil is something that didn’t used to happen some years ago. Many Muslim women have gone on the record that wearing a veil is not a necessity in Islam and their generation never used to. It is the young people born and bred in Britain who are taking to veil in increasingly large numbers. This shows that the veil has stopped being a religious symbol and has become a mark of group identity politics, like a Ku Klux Klan cap.
Given this fact, Tony Blair might be very prescient in saying that the Islamic veil for women has become “a mark of separation.”
I know the veil issue is perennial and keeps coming back. But, there was a sense that this has become a much more heated debate than usual if you looked at the British media in the last two weeks. From being a marginal symbol of assimilation issues, the veil has come to the very core of issue of identity.
One can say that freedom of religion also means freedom to dress as you wish, on your property. When you are in a public thoroughfare I think the debate is entirely natural.
The issue is going beyond the veil though. There were reports that Muslim cabbies were refusing service to gay people, transvestites or handicapped persons with guide dogs because they are unclean or something. This last, I think, is really low.
Would you call it racism if white cabbies refused service to colored people? How is the above any different? Why should the worst of religious prejudices be imposed on people who are not part of your religion?
I am sure there is no easy answer. But it has been noticed that the resurgence in wearing a veil is something that didn’t used to happen some years ago. Many Muslim women have gone on the record that wearing a veil is not a necessity in Islam and their generation never used to. It is the young people born and bred in Britain who are taking to veil in increasingly large numbers. This shows that the veil has stopped being a religious symbol and has become a mark of group identity politics, like a Ku Klux Klan cap.
Given this fact, Tony Blair might be very prescient in saying that the Islamic veil for women has become “a mark of separation.”
| 73 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I'm going to bight the bullet here and say no, you ahve to wear a veil in islam, if you are a woman, its obligatory on you, not that your not seen as a muslim if you don't wear one, but your not seen as a very dedicated one.
But anyway, if they remove the right of peple to dress as they please (provided it isn't breaking any sort of decency code, if such a thing exists), then they remove peoples rights. The government already does a lot of that, who knows if it will only be a matter of time before then... persumably they'll force people to shave too then...
Comment by ChrisM
but you cannot impose liberation on someone, wearing the veil is quite often a gesture of freedom, belonging and identity. yes britain has seperation of church and state, and thus should actively prevent theocratic leanings in politics. but in regards to personal life and individual expression, i dont believe anyone should be inhibited as long as it doesnt violate the rights of anyone else.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
WHY NOT JUST LET THEM MAKE UP THEIR OWN BLOODY MINDS!?
SOrry, went off on a tangent there.
Anyway, the five pillars are infinitely more important than anything else.