Sunday, February 19, 2012


Food for thought:

Surely that's rather simplistic? It is essentially as stereotyping as the attitudes it assumes. It ignores any consideration of choice. And it misrepresents concerns by depicting a woman in hijab when it's identity-concealing garments like the niqab that are regarded as particularly problematic. How objective is the source?
It's just a thing floating around the internet.
I am mainly discussing hidžab, NOT to be confused with nikab. There is a difference. I am presuming some level of choice.
I am sure you realize that nikab CAN be a choice. I am sure you realize hidžab (the wearing of a scarf) CAN be a choice.
I am sure you also realize that less clothing can be a choice, or it CAN be FORCED.
Niqab can be a choice and it can also be enforced. But also niqab can be divisive and anti-social, not least when used by a London Underground bomber to make their getaway. That's why references to terrorism in relation to garments can be legitimate.

If you live somewhere like East London where wearing the niqab is reasonably common you will be aware that the refusal of the basic premise of free mutual identification has a negative impact on the social environment.

The poster is deliberately misleading. The person who devised it knew very well that it is the niqab which provokes hostile reactions rather than the hijab (at least in my experience in the UK) and chose not to complicate their message by not depicting it.
Here in the US nikab has always been rare. It is much more common for Muslim women to be harassed over hidžab.

In the US social enforcement is much more likely to be about hidžab as a result. Nikab is not even a requirement!

It's worth noting that nikab doesn't even have it's origins in Islam. The origins of Nikab are actually much older.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter