| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
26 Oct 2006 02:59:48 AM |
| Object: |
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1931544,00.html
If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where
the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it
Karen Armstrong
Thursday October 26, 2006
The Guardian
I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim
niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large
rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a
small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely
shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly
through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but
nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional
attire.
Karen Armstrong
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a1045b103dc7064e
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
28 Oct 2006 06:40:14 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2006 00:59:48 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1931544,00.html
If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where
the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it
Karen Armstrong
Thursday October 26, 2006
The Guardian
I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim
niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large
rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a
small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely
shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly
through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but
nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional
attire.
When my order was founded in the 1840s, not long after Catholic
emancipation, people were so enraged to see nuns brazenly wearing their
habits in the streets that they pelted them with rotten fruit and horse
dung. Nuns had been banned from Britain since the Reformation; their
return seemed to herald the resurgence of barbarism. Two hundred and
fifty years after the gunpowder plot, Catholicism was still feared as
unassimilable, irredeemably alien to the British ethos, fanatically
opposed to democracy and freedom, and a fifth column allied to dangerous
enemies abroad.
Today the veiled Muslim woman appears to symbolise the perceived Islamic
threat, as nuns once epitomised the evils of popery. She seems a
barbaric affront to hard-won values that are essential to our cultural
identity: gender equality, freedom, transparency and openness. But in
the Muslim world the veil has also acquired a new symbolism. If
government ministers really want to debate the issue fruitfully, they
must become familiar with the bitterly ironic history of veiling during
the last hundred years.
Until the late 19th century, veiling was neither a central nor a
universal practice in the Islamic world. The Qur'an does not command all
women to cover their heads; the full hijab was traditionally worn only
by aristocratic women, as a mark of status. In Egypt, under Muhammad
Ali's leadership (1805-48), the lot of women improved dramatically, and
many were abandoning the veil and moving more freely in society.
But after the British occupied Egypt in 1882, the consul general, Lord
Cromer, ignored this development. He argued that veiling was the "fatal
obstacle" that prevented Egyptians from participating fully in western
civilisation. Until it was abolished, Egypt would need the benevolent
supervision of the colonialists. But Cromer had cynically exploited
feminist ideas to advance the colonial project. Egyptian women lost many
of their new educational and professional opportunities under the
British, and Cromer was co-founder in London of the Anti-Women's
Suffrage League.
When Egyptian pundits sycophantically supported Cromer, veiling became a
hot issue. In 1899 Qassim Amin published Tahrir al-Mara - The Liberation
of Women - which obsequiously praised the nobility of European culture,
arguing that the veil symbolised everything that was wrong with Islam
and Egypt. It was no feminist tract: Egyptian women, according to Amin,
were dirty, ignorant and hopelessly inadequate parents. The book created
a furore, and the ensuing debate made the veil a symbol of resistance to
colonialism.
The problem was compounded in other parts of the Muslim world by
reformers who wanted their countries to look modern, even though most of
the population had no real understanding of secular institutions. When
Ataturk secularised Turkey, men and women were forced into European
costumes that felt like fancy dress. In Iran, the shahs' soldiers used
to march through the streets with their bayonets at the ready, tearing
off the women's veils and ripping them to pieces. In 1935, Shah Reza
Pahlavi ordered the army to shoot at unarmed demonstrators who were
protesting against obligatory western dress. Hundreds of Iranians died
that day.
Many women, whose mothers had happily discarded the veil, adopted the
hijab in order to dissociate themselves from aggressively secular
regimes. This happened in Egypt under President Anwar Sadat and it
continues under Hosni Mubarak. When the shah banned the chador, during
the Iranian revolution, women wore it as a matter of principle - even
those who usually wore western clothes. Today in the US, more and more
Muslim women are wearing the hijab to distance themselves from the
foreign policy of the Bush administration; something similar may well be
happening in Britain.
In the patriarchal society of Victorian Britain, nuns offended by
tacitly proclaiming that they had no need of men. I found my habit
liberating: for seven years I never had to give a thought to my clothes,
makeup and hair - all the rubbish that clutters the minds of the most
liberated women. In the same way, Muslim women feel that the veil frees
them from the constraints of some uncongenial aspects of western
modernity.
They argue that you do not have to look western to be modern. The veiled
woman defies the sexual mores of the west, with its strange compulsion
to "reveal all". Where western men and women display their expensive
clothes and flaunt their finely honed bodies as a mark of privilege, the
uniformity of traditional Muslim dress stresses the egalitarian and
communal ethos of Islam.
Muslims feel embattled at present, and at such times the bodies of women
often symbolise the beleaguered community. Because of its complex
history, Jack Straw and his supporters must realise that many Muslims
now suspect such western interventions about the veil as having a hidden
agenda. Instead of improving relations, they usually make matters worse.
Lord Cromer made the originally marginal practice of veiling problematic
in the first place. When women are forbidden to wear the veil, they
hasten in ever greater numbers to put it on.
In Victorian Britain, nuns believed that until they could appear in
public fully veiled, Catholics would never be accepted in this country.
But Britain got over its visceral dread of popery. In the late 1960s,
shortly before I left my order, we decided to give up the full habit.
This decision expressed, among other things, our new confidence, but had
it been forced upon us, our deeply ingrained fears of persecution would
have revived.
But Muslims today do not feel similarly empowered. The unfolding tragedy
of the Middle East has convinced some that the west is bent on the
destruction of Islam. The demand that they abandon the veil will
exacerbate these fears, and make some women cling more fiercely to the
garment that now symbolises their resistance to oppression.
· Karen Armstrong is the author of Muhammad: Prophet for Our Time
comment@guardian.co.uk
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
29 Oct 2006 07:00:49 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:ceq7k259idikl13kv9jdo3a5gkq9puh37m
I found my habit
liberating: for seven years I never had to give a thought to my clothes,
makeup and hair - all the rubbish that clutters the minds of the most
liberated women.
-- And instead, Karen, you were free to obsess maniacally about all the
sub-rational rubbish that inevitably clutters the minds of nuns and ex-nuns.
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
Jack Straw and his supporters must realise that many Muslims
now suspect such western interventions about the veil as having a hidden
agenda.
Why don't *any* of you people *ever* have the courage to acknowldge the FACT
that *EACH AND EVERY WOMAN* whom Jack Straw encouraged or invited to remove
her veil *ACTUALLY DID SO*...??? Hmmm....??? Are you all really so allergic
to the truth...??
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
30 Oct 2006 08:03:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:00:49 GMT, "Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:ceq7k259idikl13kv9jdo3a5gkq9puh37m
I found my habit
liberating: for seven years I never had to give a thought to my clothes,
makeup and hair - all the rubbish that clutters the minds of the most
liberated women.
-- And instead, Karen, you were free to obsess maniacally about all the
sub-rational rubbish that inevitably clutters the minds of nuns and ex-nuns.
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
Jack Straw and his supporters must realise that many Muslims
now suspect such western interventions about the veil as having a hidden
agenda.
Why don't *any* of you people *ever* have the courage to acknowldge the FACT
that *EACH AND EVERY WOMAN* whom Jack Straw encouraged or invited to remove
her veil *ACTUALLY DID SO*...??? Hmmm....??? Are you all really so allergic
to the truth...??
What was the reaction storm about?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "humble life" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
26 Oct 2006 02:41:03 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1931544,00.html
If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where
the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it
Karen Armstrong
Thursday October 26, 2006
The Guardian
I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim
niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large
rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a
small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely
shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly
through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but
nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional
attire.
Karen Armstrong
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a1045b103dc7064e
a strong point
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
28 Oct 2006 07:34:23 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1931544,00.html
If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where
the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it
Karen Armstrong
Thursday October 26, 2006
The Guardian
I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim
niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large
rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a
small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely
shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly
through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but
nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional
attire.
Karen Armstrong
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a1045b103dc7064e
The point that's being missed here is that while nuns choose to adopt
their dress, muslim women do not necessarily choose likewise. There's
a huge difference in *permitting* people to veil or not as they choose
and in *forcing* women to cover themselves - and to be subjugated in
many other respects - whether they want to or not.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
29 Oct 2006 04:58:36 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
maff wrote:
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1931544,00.html
If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where
the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it
Karen Armstrong
Thursday October 26, 2006
The Guardian
I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim
niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large
rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a
small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely
shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly
through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but
nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional
attire.
Karen Armstrong
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a1045b103dc7064e
The point that's being missed here is that while nuns choose to adopt
their dress, muslim women do not necessarily choose likewise. There's
a huge difference in *permitting* people to veil or not as they choose
and in *forcing* women to cover themselves - and to be subjugated in
many other respects - whether they want to or not.
But the point is that those women choose to wear them. Their mothers'
never wore veils.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
29 Oct 2006 02:01:17 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
maff wrote:
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1931544,00.html
If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where
the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it
Karen Armstrong
Thursday October 26, 2006
The Guardian
I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim
niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large
rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a
small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely
shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly
through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but
nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional
attire.
Karen Armstrong
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a1045b103dc7064e
The point that's being missed here is that while nuns choose to adopt
their dress, muslim women do not necessarily choose likewise. There's
a huge difference in *permitting* people to veil or not as they choose
and in *forcing* women to cover themselves - and to be subjugated in
many other respects - whether they want to or not.
But the point is that those women choose to wear them. Their mothers'
never wore veils.
I'm not sure who you're identifying as "those women". Yes, many do
choose to wear them, but there are also very many now, in Iraq, for
example, who wear them out of fear, not out of choice.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
30 Oct 2006 04:18:17 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
maff wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
maff wrote:
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1931544,00.html
If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where
the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it
Karen Armstrong
Thursday October 26, 2006
The Guardian
I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim
niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large
rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a
small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely
shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly
through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but
nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional
attire.
Karen Armstrong
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a1045b103dc7064e
The point that's being missed here is that while nuns choose to adopt
their dress, muslim women do not necessarily choose likewise. There's
a huge difference in *permitting* people to veil or not as they choose
and in *forcing* women to cover themselves - and to be subjugated in
many other respects - whether they want to or not.
But the point is that those women choose to wear them. Their mothers'
never wore veils.
I'm not sure who you're identifying as "those women". Yes, many do
choose to wear them, but there are also very many now, in Iraq, for
example, who wear them out of fear, not out of choice.
But we aren't talking about Iraq. We're talking about US and Europe.
Who created the mess in Iraq in the first place?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling |
01 Nov 2006 06:00:33 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
maff wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
maff wrote:
My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1931544,00.html
If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where
the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it
Karen Armstrong
Thursday October 26, 2006
The Guardian
I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim
niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large
rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a
small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely
shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly
through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but
nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional
attire.
Karen Armstrong
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a1045b103dc7064e
The point that's being missed here is that while nuns choose to adopt
their dress, muslim women do not necessarily choose likewise. There's
a huge difference in *permitting* people to veil or not as they choose
and in *forcing* women to cover themselves - and to be subjugated in
many other respects - whether they want to or not.
But the point is that those women choose to wear them. Their mothers'
never wore veils.
I'm not sure who you're identifying as "those women". Yes, many do
choose to wear them, but there are also very many now, in Iraq, for
example, who wear them out of fear, not out of choice.
But we aren't talking about Iraq. We're talking about US and Europe.
I wasn't!
Who created the mess in Iraq in the first place?
The current mess can be laid squarely at the ham-fisted hands of George
W. Bush, whose party is about to be handed congress and the senate back
on a platter because of the ham-fisted mouth of John Kerry.
Budikka
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
