Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
I'm going to reply in a new thread (Ed.: the earlier thread is here) because I need more than 200 words to make this point. Judith wrote:
| Judith Levy: If I'm not mistaken, the Koran does not explicitly instruct women to cover their faces. It says their head coverings should be long enough to drape over their breasts, and that their clothing should cover them in such a way that their bodies are modestly concealed but that their faces can be recognized. That's what I see here all the time: Arab women with scarves wrapped smoothly around their faces. Their necks, shoulders and chests are covered, but their faces are completely visible. (I often see this worn together with painted-on jeans and high heels, but that's another matter.) The full burqa appears to be more of a tool by which men enforce their control over women than a divinely-instructed means by which women express their devotion to God. I guess I'm in the ban-the-burqa camp, even though the thought of legislating what people are allowed to wear makes me break out in hives. Still -- demanding the right to completely cover yourself, on dubious religious grounds and in the age of terrorism, is a little too much to ask if you also expect to participate fully in the culture you live in. · Jul 18 at 4:11am |
Actually, you can make a serious and persuasive case that the Koran does not even insist upon women covering their heads; and there's no support whatsoever in the Koran for covering the face.
The key passages are these:
24-30 Say to the believers that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them; verily, God is well aware of what they do.
24-31 And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts, and display not their ornaments, except those which are outside; and let them pull their kerchiefs over their bosoms and not display their ornaments save to their husbands and fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or their male attendants who are incapable, or to children who do not note women’s nakedness; and that they beat not with their feet that their hidden ornaments may be known.
and
"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed..." (Qur'an 33:59)
Noteworthy is the emphasis on male modesty, mentioned even before female modesty. Keeping in mind, of course, that the Koran is supposed to be untranslatable, there is much debate among Islamic scholars about the meaning of the word "zīna," which is translated here as "ornaments," but can also mean "jewels" or even "clothes." Some argue the proper interpretation is in fact "jewels." The Koran, in this interpretation, would be demanding that women be modest about their wealth--a completely plausible interpretation in view of similar demands in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Then there is this passage:
"Ayesha (R) reported that Asmaa the daughter of Abu Bakr (R) came to the Messenger of Allah (S) while wearing thin clothing. He approached her and said: 'O Asmaa! When a girl reaches the menstrual age, it is not proper that anything should remain exposed except this and this. He pointed to the face and hands." (Abu Dawood)
But this is hadith, not Koran, and this distinction is critical: The Koran is generally held to be infallible, but the hadiths, or commentary, not so much. The diyanet--Turkey's official religious affairs directorate--has made impressive reforms to the hadiths on the grounds that they promote unpleasantness toward women and therefore must be mistaken. (How does a secular country have an official religious affairs directorate? Excellent question! I told you the Turkish Constitution doesn't make much sense.)
All of this said, it's irrelevant. Millions of Moslems interpret these passages to mean that God wants women to cover their heads, at the very least. Some interpret them as meaning, cover everything. Do we really want the state to be in the business of Koranic exegesis? The last thing I want is a government that believes itself qualified to decide what God really has in mind and legislate accordingly. The idea is ridiculous.
It doesn't make sense to ban the burqa on the grounds that the Koran doesn't demand it. Even if it does, so what. The grounds for banning it must be secular.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Things get a lot simpler if we remove the requirement to go all Talmudic on the Koran. The threat of suicide bombing has been introduced into secular culture. Full body covering therefore poses a threat to the body politic. Ban it.
May '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Cross-posted from the original thread because Claire changed lanes without using her intellectual turn signals:
This opens a whole new vein, the aesthetics of the burqa and our reaction to it... If it is meant to de-sexualize a woman, it works. A burqa'd woman is a cross between a ninja warrior and the Angel of Freaking Death.
But it doesn't take all of that to de-sexualize a woman. Even Kelly McGillis did not spur an annual calendar of hot Amish women.
Which brings me to our reaction to it. At its core we realize the burqa is more about de-humanizing a woman. It reduces her way beyond 2nd class citizenship. It is the mark of slavery. She is reduced to nothing more than a housekeeper and a breeding animal who can be slaughtered once she is no longer useful.
Because we cannot change Islamic culture, we see the ban as something that we can do and we use security as a public rationalization.
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Au contraire, EJHill, you were tailgating. But just to keep things in order ...
Yes, that's exactly right. And I wonder if it's not a reasonable hypocrisy. It may be impossible to form a legal position on this issue that reconciles all of our moral intuitions. Banning it on "security" grounds--even if we all know deep down that's not the issue--may be the best way of expressing our entirely legitimate revulsion without, as Devin Cole phrases it, setting a dangerous precedent of legislating against a targeted religious group.
But, you know, I'm not in love with this solution, either.
Edited on Jul 18, 2010 at 5:55amRe: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
But no one is going to hide a bomb underneath his face-covering (well, actually, if there were a way to do it, I suppose they'd figure it out first in your part of the world.) To make sense, this would have to be a ban on all loose clothing, on suitcases, on capacious handbags, on beer bellies and on shoes, as Richard Reid made clear.
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
So "we all know deep down" that security is not the issue? Says who? I don't raise security as a smokescreen to cloak my real desire to talk about the degradation of women. I raise it as a legitimate issue that factors into the debate -- albeit one that won't ultimately answer the question, because as you say, Claire, a burqa is hardly the only thing you can wear to conceal a bomb.
The first issue is certainly that the burqa appears to represent the desire of a fearful Islamic patriarchy to erase women from the culture. As you say, EJHill, it denies them their humanity while keeping them around for chores and procreation. The second is that it's a convenient means of targeting local civilians, should you happen to be of that frame of mind. No one's going to get anywhere attempting to legislate against it on the first grounds. That may be maddening, it may be wrong, but it's also a fact. There's a slim chance of getting somewhere on the second. That's better than nothing.
Jun '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
You can actually prevent bombings by looking at the faces of people entering a train station, for example. Facial recognigion technology (digitizing an observed face and comparing it to a database of known faces) is getting better and faster all the time. For example, if the CIA obtained a cache of photos that terrorists were using to create fake IDs, those photos could go into the database, and the facial recognition computer would be looking for a match to one of those faces (along with others) in real time.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_recognition_system
May '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Back at the ranch (i.e., the original thread) I posed the question if you thought three liberal women on the Court would be reliable votes to uphold the Constitutionality of such a ban in the United States in the name of feminist solidarity, pray on the altar of multi-culturalism and endorse a separate Sharia law for Muslims or channel their inner-Scalia?
Is preserving our culture a compelling state interest?
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
I'll punt that one to Mr. Yoo and Mr. Epstein.
I'm no closer to holding a position I can defend wholeheartedly than I was when we began this discussion. I'll save for another conversation some thoughts about what it feels like to live in a country where in many social contexts there's an expectation that women be invisible, whether or not they're covered in a Hefty bag.
May '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Claire, at least if Turkey falls to the Islamo-fascists you have a place to go. (Sans cats.) As Europe descends into its Eurabian future others may not be so fortunate.
As for America, I am afraid the burqa is destined to be seen as just another "lifestyle" choice. There are no laws that prevent a man from leading a woman around on a collar and a leash if that is her choice. I am pretty sure that happens frequently in the SF Bay area.
Jul '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Ms Berlinski: I don't think you are correct in your reference to the Koran and head covering. In my Arabic class the passage in question was read as "Women, cover your chests" or "breasts", depending on the translation. Nothing whatsoever about the length of the hijab, much less the burka. Both my Egyptian teacher and a hijab wearing female classmate admitted that this is was it. The whole enchilada.
Jul '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Note that many jurisdictions in the U.S. already have laws against the wearing of face-concealing masks in public. These laws are especially common in the South, where they were originally enacted as anti-Klan measures.
Still, the outright ban of religious clothing directed specifically at one religion? No way it passes Constitutional muster, nor should it. The government that can tell people not to wear burqas can tell people not to eat hot dogs in public cause it scares the Vegans.
Also, a point of confusion: when I lived in Saudi Arabia the black full-body-eye-slit dress for women was called the "abaya". Did the terminology change, or is the "burqa" a different thing? Can't tell your dehumanizing religious garb without a scorecard!
Jul '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Theodore Dalrymple tells the story of a group of medical students. One day, all the women students turned up in black bags. Much confusion among the admin. Then someone found an old law from back in the 1800s, saying you can't cover your face whilst dealing with patients. Problem solved. Later, the women quietly admitted that they had covered themselves because of threats from their 'fellow' male students. The new ruling freed them from the thugs and also allowed their family to continue to go to school.
Jul '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
sorry, "allowed their families to let them continue to go to school."
The burqa is not a simple question of 'religious liberty'. It is about a dynamic and aggressive culture attempting to destroy MY culture. And my culture, with its outrageous wealth, is quite a prize. After some 50 years of peace and eating our 'seed corn', we are in fact, weak, in the eyes of the Tribes in the Hills.
Sorry to go all primitive, but as Gildas back in the 600s understood, we are never far from the primitive, and although 'wars never solve anything', well, losing a war definitely CHANGES everything for the losers.
Jun '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
1) Both the civil liberties and the public safety arguments provide constitutional justification for a burqa ban. The civil liberties argument - the strongest of all, IMO - is that it is any American citizen's right not to be forced to dress a certain way if it may be reasonably concluded that the dress is highly socially stigmatizing. Example: can a child's parents force that child to wear an enormous dunce cap -- literally, a large conical hat with the capital letters D-U-N-C-E written down the middle, everywhere he goes? Can they force their adult daughters - through credible threat of "honor murder" - to do the same? How about making them wear the mask of a pig -- all the time, everywhere?
Of course not.
The obvious retort, of course, is that outlawing an action is a blunt remedy to a rather fine problem. But the alternative - taking the girls at their word when they say they're not being forced to wear the burqa - only guarantees that most of these girls civil rights will be trampled upon, because most of them, in fact, will be wearing them only because they are being forced to. [out of words ;-) ]
Jun '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Continuing from previous comment (sorry for violating the 200-word limit. will endeavor to remedy such logorrhea in future comments), I ask all females: if you were a teenage Muslim girl, born and bred in the States and with American friends all around you, and if you were forced to wear the burqa to school and anywhere else in public, and if the Courts decided that a burqa ban was unconstitutional - so that you were effectively doomed to the burqa for your entire life - would you personally feel let down by said Courts?
In other words, it is clearly a clash between two civil rights: the right to wear what you want versus the right not to be forced to dress in a way you - and the great majority of American society - feel to be humiliating and demeaning. Because many girls would be cowed by their families into falsely stating that they wear the burqa willingly, not to ban it guarantees that the right not to be forced to wear it would be violated. A judicial decision that the violation of this right is the greater of the two violations would be a typical, mainstream judgment call.
May '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
I'm wondering how much longer Claire will be allowed to go to the co-ed gym in Istanbul.
I still think you have to be able to take a photograph of the face for ID cards (driver licenses, passports), and for security reasons where there are reasonable probabilities of risks, you inspect privately "in camera" just as a female does body searches on females. if you ever wonder whi I didn't choose to be a cop....
The societal pressure to cover the head in non-Saudi countries didn't really exist until the 1979 revolution.
Jun '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Claire, you might be interested in this: http://bigpeace.com/dreaboi/2010/07/18/michael-rubin-turkey-beyond-the-brink/
Regards
Cas Balicki
Jul '10
Re: Banning the Burqa, Part III, a Reply to Judith
Syria has some sort of ban on the burqua