World Hijab Day founder asks The Sisterhood to support gender discrimination

Addenda - 3 Feb 2013
Meanwhile in now liberated Mali - "Inside, the floor is littered with documents, including a ring-binder with details of women flogged for not wearing the veil. Family members were made to put a thumbprint to show they acknowledged the punishment and would supervise the accused in future." The Guardian 

"I figured the only way to end discrimination if we ask our fellow sisters to experience hijab themselves”

World Hijab day founderNazma KhanIn fact what Khan is asking is for all women to participate in an event that promotes arguments that legitimise the sexual discrimination of women by Islam. It is a call to demonstrate for "tolerance" unlike any other and it smacks of stark contradiction. What is discrimination if we support that woman should be separated and concealed due to their gender? What is tolerance if we must mimic and embrace such conduct in order to show tolerance of what is arguably intolerance of and by gender? The World Hijab Day website claims "Better Awareness. Greater Understanding. Peaceful world." It is "fun and challenging" to ask someone who doesn't wear a hijab to jump on board for the good of tolerance and world peace. I do not think world peace rides on one aspect of the Muslim dress code for women but the world would be a better place if religions like Islam were better aware of and understood the meaning of women's equality and human rights generally.There is no "World Nun's Habit Day" or "World Tibetan Monk Attire Day" or "World long-sleeves Orthodox Jew Day" no "Men Wear a Burqua for the Day"…day! Any similar calls from other religious groups and or the unlikely call for men to wear "veiled" garments would be just as inappropriate as our subject. World Hijab Day (as with any of these other suggestions) flies in the face of reason and the facts. Why? Because these garments have a very specific meaning and symbolism. It is "just about modesty" as a wearer assures. And, so what of women who do not wear it? Are they therefore immodest and how far do we go to establish this desirable status of modesty? A Christian Nun takes a vow of celibacy, is effectively married to God, and wears a Habit to establish this fact before the world. She becomes a handmaiden to God and renounces sex. In contrast a Muslim woman's veil represents her status sexually and that she is sexual property unavailable to anyone other than the man to whom she is married or intended to marry. The practical and symbolic purpose of the veil is to conceal and send a message. Islam demands that female followers conceal themselves in public and in some countries this must be performed completely as with the Burqua. A woman may as well wear a placard warning that she is a woman and is the sexual property of a man. The veil ensures her status as sexual property is advertised. A participant of World Hijab Day Jess Rhodes (she is non-Muslim) explains in her view the Hijab is a "choice" and that she will "wear it from time to time…I'm saying to the world, my beauty is for my family and my partner. Any woman can wear this."Rhodes should understand this is not fun and games dress ups to be followed at a whim or by choice. A practicing Muslim women cannot view the Burqua as something to throw on or decline to wear when and where she may decide. Her particular Islamic upbringing and community decide whether she wears the Hijab or Burqua. Rhodes gets one aspect correct in her statement, the attire is to conceal her "beauty", as she puts it. From whom does she mean though and why would she need to do so? 

Islam too accepts the "veil", the "hijab", the "burqua", are to conceal a womans "beauty". This beauty is to be concealed not from other women nor other people generally, the concealment is of her sexuality specifically from the observation of men. There is the by-product character endorsement of the woman for wearing the correct veil through her community's approval. She is good because she demonstrates she is "modest". The opinion of one's community of an individual is important to some and it determines one's good standing within it. So by complying with the requirement for public concealment, due to her sex, by upholding her religious community's standards she will enhance her status by conforming to what is the standard for a female in Islam. How this translates into a form of choice and act of free will for Muslim women is obscure. 

Muslim women in 2010 protesting against calls to ban the Burqua with a slightly skewed additional message - The placard on the left reads "You Burn 'Quran'…You Burn in Hell! United in Islam we Stand!!!" - Very colourful and on message. (my caption)
Pictures: Amos Aikman Source: The Australian

The World Hijab Day organiser Nazma Khan asks that we normalise the wearing of the hijab, its intended purpose, and its symbolism. Whatever our faith or lack of faith she asks all women to wear it in protest against intolerance. She fails to see her own contradiction. It is intolerance that requires any woman must wear additional concealing garments because she is female and must keep her "beauty" hidden for the eyes of her male partner and family alone. What ever the style of "veiling" of a women, from the hijab to the burqua, it means that women are the sexual property of a man and not to wear it demonstrates "immodesty". With this logic it is no leap of faith to conclude Islam prefers all women comply with its codes of dress and conduct for women. 

If Helen Szoke, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner had her way we would not speak of such things at all. Because raising the issue "threatened the safety of Muslim women". Well that's that then, we mustn't discuss it, acknowledge it, critique it or we are risking the lives of Muslim women. She does allow that everyone is entitled their "opinion"…I think she means ideas…but that they just must not voice it. Szoke determines opposition to veiling of women to be opinion. It is a fact that women are required in Islamic communities to wear a form of "veil" that they have little choice in the matter and not to do so separates them from the community and labels them immodest. It is not my opinion that this is the opposite of tolerance and freedom of choice. As a commissioner of equal opportunity and human rights Szoke makes a good apologist of discrimination against women.
Islam does not view women as equal, individual, and with the freedom to go about their lives independently. Even at a protest rally demanding respect and tolerance for the way Islam handles matters regarding women and how they should dress in public this is demonstrated. 

Muslim men enthusiastically support / supervise Muslim women protesting against calls to ban the Burqua in 2010 - (my caption) 

Pictures: Amos Aikman Source: The Australian

Source of protest images - http://www.news.com.au/national-old/muslim-women-protest-against-push-to-ban-burka-in-australia/story-e6frfkvr-1225926494355

Bite your tongue and trade in your freedom

Freedom II

Three months ago in Jerusalem, Pediatrician Dr Channa Maayan "bit her tongue" when told a male colleague would have to accept for her an award for her publication and work advancing knowledge on hereditary diseases common to Jews. The acting Israeli Health Minister decreed the event would be conducted under strict ultra orthodox conditions. Women and men in the audience, male and female guests were segregated, no women were allowed on stage. 

For a secular democracy such an occurrence lead by a member of parliament is a disaster. The New York Times article goes on to state many have not kept quiet (Dr Maayan would have been unprepared all she could have done is leave) and the backlash internally within Israel is building momentum but will it be able to resist what is a strong and increasingly belligerent religious orthodoxy? Recently in January 2012 at a conference on “Innovations in Gynecology/Obstetrics and Halacha [Jewish law]” all women were banned from speaking and the audience segregated on gender. In addition there are "rules for playing Kosher Music" and a "black list of non-Kosher music" controlled by a religious committee.

These very public examples of ultra orthodox interference in Israeli public and political life demonstrate Israel is a secular democracy under stress from internal religious fundamentalism.

Concessions have been made by successive Israeli governments to either, at worst, simply win votes from this growing community sector or, at best, to demonstrate an altruistic tolerance. Which is not an exclusive Israeli mistake as even in Williamsburg, Brooklyn Hasidic leaders complaining women who ride bikes represent a "safety and religious hazard" were appeased. If mostly as an attempt to be inclusive and tolerant it seems it, appeasement and concession  isn't a success particularly as the examples above demonstrate it requires that  the human rights of others are detrimentally affected. In Israel not only is this ultra-orthodox section of the community becoming more intolerant of its internal neighbors it is doing so whilst ignoring the external equally intolerant religious forces attempting to annihilate them and their fellow countrymen and women. As a community within Israel they are purportedly an overrepresented drain on the social welfare system. Though the women generally do work, amongst males there is high unemployment as they are permitted by their community and their state to focus upon study of the Torah rather than gainful employment, joining the army, learning other skills or pursuing education other than for advancing their religion and knowledge of it. The only productivity of note from the community it seems is it's high birth rate, which, if nothing else changes will only increase the stress on the already stretched social sector a worrisome fact for the future of Israel. 

It begs the question what is wrong with religions where it is the case that for it to be practiced human dignity, freedom and advancement, must be subsumed and suffer reversals? Separation of religion and state is the cornerstone of successful secular democracy. Without it we would be required to weigh all matters in the context of all religious edicts/laws/conventions.

Orthodox Judaism and Islam particularly have problems operating within a secular democratic context, one that separates the Church and State. Each it seems desire or demand they have access to their own religious courts. Each particularly are at pains to control female believers (and those who simply cannot escape) by strictly regulating their conduct within the community confines and outside it. Female believers are 'confined'; in dress, education, work, social connections, marriage, sexual activity and procreation functions, behavior and social position all aspects are controlled and monitored with zeal. It is a zeal supported by the religious texts which focus upon the female as a sexual possession, a commodity as a wife, booty in war or acquisition to trade family reputation or wealth upon(1). Whether we reside by fortune in a secular democracy or not this is profoundly illegitimate to be continued and considered acceptable 'cultural' or religious practice. It is a denial of an individual's right to free-expression, free-association and self-determination. These are human rights abuses so we do not bite our tongues, as these abuses should never be tolerated within any secular democracy.

If freedom is the first casualty of religious rule then soon to follow is dignity, then imagination and finally concept of mind in the Platonic sense. Human nature embraces spirituality in our thoughts, concepts and metaphors (imagination) and we use reason with which to find structure and meaning within our physical world and attempt to understand the unknown. This is what religious law rejects. 

Crazy religious zealots bent on the implementation of religious law have little regard for human advancement and are destroyers of human dignity, just ask the 8 year old Israeli girl harassed and spat upon by Ultra Orthodox male Jews because they found her child's attire religiously offensive. Other women had reported similar treatment for a few years now but the child's report produced the overdue community outcry.

So, perhaps the paragraph above should begin …"If female freedom is the first casualty of religious rule…". 

As the referenced articles demonstrate Ultra Orthodox Jews ban women from public participation, denounce them publicly for religious transgression, and further to this enforce segregation within and without the synagogue. It is the imposition of Halacha or Halakha, Jewish law, upon a society built around secular democratic principles.  Similarly Islam is intent upon its own religious laws taking precedence with a push to introduce Sharia Law into UK family courts. Equitable pluralist secular rule of law, where all rights regardless of gender are weighed, is viewed as inferior if not blasphemous. Males have greater worth than females is what this religious message very loudly declares. 

Remaining silent for fear of backlash or causing offence isn't an option, biting your tongue to demonstrate tolerance of another way when it impinges upon your own rights and freedoms isn't an option. 

Women and men who enjoy freedom and human dignity with equal justice must be outspoken in defense of it, as they are free to do so. 

Notes:

1. Torah (Old Testament) Deuteronomy: 20.10-18; 21.10-13; 25.5-10; 31.17-18…

    Koran: The Merciful 55.46-58, 44.54-56; The Cow 2.223, 2.228; The Believers 23.1-3; The Confederate Tribes

33.49-51

Article Link Sources:

www.theglobeandmail.com

www.nytimes.com

www.bbc.co.uk

http://open.salon.com/blog/judy_mandelbaum

http://news.bbc.co.uk

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com