It's interesting the things you learn on the BBC. There was a debate today over whether the veil that is worn by some Muslim women to cover their faces is a barrier to integration. The four panelists were all Muslim, but two were for, and two were against the proposal.
I personally have no problem with someone wearing the veil, the hijab, the burqa, whatever you want to wear. You could walk around wearing a cardboard box, for all I care. Though if you did decide to wear a cardboard box for a night on the town, it's only fair that I warn you - I'd probably call you a vagrant.
Although relatively uncommon in Trinidad, there are times when a woman would walk past you, covered from head to toe in black, with only a narrow slit at her eyes to allow her to navigate her path. I admit feeling a bit disconcerted on seeing covered women, but mainly because I want to stare. I do. It's not a common sight, and when people are faced with the uncommon, no matter how unspectacular the sight, we want to stare. But staring is rude. And I'd rather not get caught doing it.
Apart from that, I couldn't give a shit.
But then some Muslim women take it to the extreme, and insist that they wear the niqab (face veil) when they are getting their I.D.s taken. And they refuse to reveal their faces even when faced with the threat of a fine or imprisonment. What the fuck? Like some comedian once said...
"We want to identify you as a member of 21st century America... not as a starship trooper in the Empire Strikes Back."
And here's a newsflash, lady. If you go to jail, for security reasons, you definitely can't wear your niqab, and you'll have to bathe naked with a whole lot of strange women staring at you. All that just because you don't want to show one I.D. photographer your face for a picture that you're gonna hide in your wallet 99% of your life? Take off the fucking veil.
It boggles the mind why supposedly logical people would insist on doing these things. Are we supposed to explain to these women the purpose of an Identification card? Because, I don't know... the name of the card seems like a dead give away to me. How the hell can we identify you if we can only see your eyes? Do you know how many underaged teens will get into nightclubs? I mean, I'm Black. I could probably take the I.D. card of a niqab covered American Indian woman and get into the Teepee Lounge at a Casino. It's stupid, people. Grow a brain.
But situations like these call into question the purpose behind these veils in the first place. Okay. I get that they are religious, but why does your religion require you to wear one?
It is the answer to those questions that are more disturbing, at least to me, than the veil itself.
If you ask most Muslims the purpose behind the niqab, the hijab and other such articles of clothing, they will more or less indicate that women are to dress modestly. When not among her close relatives, she is to dress in a manner that does not bring sexual attention to herself. Muslims invariably differ on what manner of dress and behaviour is therefore appropriate, but those general terms - "dress in a manner that does not bring sexual attention to herself" is agreed by the vast majority.
This is why when I now see women covered from head to fucking toe, with their hands in gloves, and socks on their feet in addition to sandals or shoes, not a fucking inch of them showing, save just enough of their eyes for them to not fall into a fucking hole... I feel disturbed. Is this the length that women are encouraged to go to only to ensure that men do not view them sexually?
Goodness knows men are perverted. They think about sex all the time. When a woman wears a low cut top, or a high cut skirt, they will stare. Even if a woman is fully covered, but her clothes are tight, men will stare at her figure. So then, if I don't want them to view me sexually, must the onus be on me to dress up like a hockey goalie? Why must I bear the full brunt of the responsibility to avert sexual connotations? Why can it not, instead, be also the responsibility of the men, to be educated that women are not mere sexual objects, and to behave themselves even if they see a little skin.
To put this in perspective, I will put up the example of the pre-school teacher. She taught 5 year olds, and she was fighting for the right to don her niqab every time a male visitor entered the class room. Let us not talk about the subtle lessons she is giving her 5 year old students about female and male sexuality. And she would teach them this when her students note how she reacts when male visitors arrive to class as opposed to young male, and female visitors. Let's not even talk about the niqab itself. Let's just talk about the purpose.
It is as if this teacher is saying that every strange male she comes into contact with has the potential to view her sexually, therefore she must cover herself. This, to me, is an extreme reaction to basic human behaviour. It's almost backward. Encouraging such behaviour seems to indicate that were such customs removed, men and women would not be able to interact effectively without sexual matters arising.
Like I said before, though I shall say it a bit more diplomatically or subtly now, men are inherently prone to sexual desires. I am not saying that women should encourage this or even condone it, especially if they do not want to. What I am saying is why must we push out to society a constant reminder that women are potential sexual objects unless protected by the constant wearing of these clothes? Why must we push out the constant reminder that men are so immature that they cannot appropriately interact with a strange woman unless she is covered? It seems silly to me.
Is seeing a woman's exposed ankle as she walks through the market place encouraging sexuality? How about seeing her face?
What is considered as sexual is purely a matter of culture. This is why African tribes and Amazonian tribes walk around stark naked, ding-dongs a-flingin, titties a-flappin, making me want to go out and buy a new bra. And it's normal for them. There is absolutely nothing sexual about it. To them. Because that is their culture.
So there is nothing inherently sexual about a woman's exposed skin. It is how culture perceives her exposed skin that is the issue. And apparently, in Muslim culture, a woman's exposed skin is sexual. But in modern society, should this continue to be? Western culture has proven that women can progress to the highest realms of political, economic and social power, having intellectual discussions and debates with men, interacting with men on a daily basis, wearing clothes considered "normal" in Western culture, in the process. "Normal" being, their arms are exposed, their faces are exposed (and often well made-up), their legs are exposed, their hair is exposed, and even their cleavage.
Although this does not prove that the men they surely had to constantly interact with did not think of them in a sexual manner, even if the men never indicated that they were. But this does prove that whatever thoughts the men may have had, and for the immature men, the comments they may have made, any sexual connotation to their interaction did not impede their non-sexual objectives. In other words, in a civilised society, both genders can interact quite well without women having to dress up like bee keepers!
I made a personal observation that whenever this topic comes up, Muslims are quick to say, that wearing of the niqab is never forced upon the woman. It is her personal choice.
To that, I can only say that although it is not mandatory, not actively encouraged, it is looked favourably upon as a symbol of a woman's devotion to her faith. So of course, if she does not mind making the sacrifice of maneuverability, and she is particularly devout, she would wear it. And that is without mentioning all the Islamic-run countries where at the very least, the head-covering (not the face) is mandatory under law.
And then to add to it all is the fact that the Koran never explicitly defined what constituted a woman being modest, although it did get a bit more specific when referring to the wives of the Prophet, who apparently had to receive double the punishment of women, as well as double the blessings. And, now, to end:
"The veiling of the face by women was not originally an Islamic custom. It was prevalent in many cities of the East before the coming of Islam, but not in the cities of Arabia. The purdah system, as it now exists in India, was quite undreamt of by the Muslims in the early centuries, who had adopted the face-veil and some other fashions for their women when they entered the cities of Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia and Egypt. It was once a concession to the prevailing custom and was a protection to their women from misunderstanding by peoples accustomed to associate unveiled faces with loose character. Later on it was adopted even in the cities of Arabia as a mark of [tamaddun] a word generally translated as 'civilization', but which in Arabic still retains a stronger flavour of its root meaning 'townsmanship' that is carried by the English word. It has never been a universal custom for Muslim women, the great majority of whom have never used it, since the majority of the Muslim women in the world are peasants who work with their husbands and brothers in the fields. For them the face-veil would be an absurd encumbrance. The head-veil, on the other hand, is universal.
Thus the Purdah system is neither of Islamic nor Arabian origin. It is of Zoroastrian Persian, and Christian Byzantine origin. It has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, and, for practical reasons, it has never been adopted by the great majority of Muslim women....The Purdah system is not a part of the Islamic law. It is a custom of the court introduced after the Khilafat had degenerated from the true Islamic standard and, under Persian and Byzantine influences, had become mere Oriental despotism. It comes from the source of weakness to Islam not from the source of strength."
- Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall