Banning the Burqa

The wearing of a burqa is an issue which evokes extreme reactions across a spectrum. In democracies that pride themselves on a variety of freedoms, one might think that choice of clothing should not be a problem. On the other hand, many people find the burqa offensive. India Knight wrote an interesting piece in the Times a couple of weeks ago. She was discussing a potential law in France that would fine women wearing the burqa or niqab in public. According to her, the French government considers wearing a burqa to be an in-your-face action by extremists, rather than a religious prescription. Her response is that

"I find this whole subject uncomfortable because I don’t really know what I think; I change my mind constantly. I start off, as most people would, from the point of view that everyone should be allowed to wear what they like, regardless of how peculiar it might strike others as being, without being dictated to."

That seems pretty clear to me. What I may think the custom says about the lives of the people who observe it, e.g., oppression of women, is my opinion, but surely not any basis for enacting its prohibition. On the other hand, as Knight also says

"The bottom line, I guess, is that you have to fall into line with the country you’re living in. I was in Marrakesh a couple of months ago and, as ever, was treated to the sight of idiot tourists wandering around the souks half-naked, complaining loudly about unwelcome attention and taking photographs of the picturesque natives without asking first. So you could argue that banning the burqa is a variant on the same thing: stopping people offending the social mores of the country they find themselves in."

The thing is, I find it hard to be offended by an item of clothing. It's not like it is a yellow star or a pink triangle. On the other hand, I would rather be able to see people's faces if I am to interact with them. I have not had much interaction with burqaed women, though. Anyway, I'm afraid that this all has a lot more to do with the Western response to those terrorists who claim to be acting according to Islamic teachings. Of course it is important to try and stay safe. Laws governing clothing, however, aren't the way to go.

India Knight's article is here

a step towards a liberal islam?

the telegraph reports today:

"A female professor has become the first woman to lead a mixed congregation in Islamic prayer in Britain.
By Chris Irvine
Professor Amina Wadud gave the sermon at a centre in Oxford in what is being called a "leap forward" for equality in Islam.
The sermon was controversial as tradition holds that Muslim religious leaders, called Imams, must always be men when there are services with both sexes. Some Muslims also believe it is against Islam for a woman to conduct such services. Prof Wadud took the service, known as a khutbah, to mark the start of a conference on Islam and feminism at Wolfson College, Oxford.
"There's nothing in the Koran that prohibits it," she said. "My own theological research into the essence of Islam indicates the necessity for us to be able to move away from the tradition that restricted women from the practice of leading prayer."

The move has angered many Muslims and a small group gathered outside the college to voice their opposition. Aishah Samah, from Oxford, said: "We're here to uphold the traditions and the values of Islam and uphold the ways of the prophet - peace be upon him." Fellow protester Maryan Ramzy said: "We have no objections to women being heads of state, or organisation leaders. "Women are highly-respected in Islam. But in Islamic law, women cannot lead prayer."

Chairman of the Muslim Education Centre Oxford Dr Taj Hargey, said earlier this week he was undeterred by the possible protests, arguing the prayer service is a step in the right direction. "We believe Islam is a gender-equal religion," he said. "There is a record that the Prophet Mohammed allowed a woman to lead a mixed-gender congregation, but this precedent has been ignored. "Women have led prayers in South Africa, Canada and the US and this is a first time here – it is a celebration." Dr Hargey added: "People thought it was a bad idea to give women the vote. "When Emmeline Pankhurst chained herself to the railings in protest there was uproar, but things move on. "This is about theological self-empowerment - women as well as men have the right to determine their own theological destiny." Prof Wadud has attracted controversy before - in 2005 she led a service in New York City, which had to be held in an Anglican church after mosques refused to host the event."

more about amina wadud.

moslem 'trembling before god'

as a member of the jewish community, i am pretty much in the loop when it comes to information about what relationship its different streams have with the g/l/b/t/q community in its midst. however, i know nothing about the g/l/b/t/q community in the moslem world. i was thus extremely interested to see a story today about a documentary examining an aspect of that very subject. a gay indian filmmaker named parvez sharma has made a film called 'jihad for love', which was premiered this week at the toronto film festival.

"The film ... focuses on a few dozen men and women who seek to reconcile their sexuality with life as Muslims. The title defines jihad as personal struggle, rather than as holy war ... One of those shown in the movie is South African Muhsin Hendricks, a gay Imam who "came out" to a storm of protest and angry phone-ins to local radio stations, including callers calling for his death. In the film, he argues that censure of homosexuals from Islamic texts is a censure of forced male rape, rather than of loving relations between two men, and he's had discussion sessions with a local Islamic welfare council."

the yahoo report in full (by janet guttsman) may be found here.
from the grauniad
sharma's blog on the film

The Jewish school where half the pupils are Muslim

Just found this article in today's Independent newspaper. King David is a parochial school, and all the students learn Hebrew and say the Shema every day. The food is kosher and the educational standards are high, and Muslim parents are moving into the catchment area to give their children a chance of attending. The article ends with a quote from a local rabbi:

""King David School is amazing," says Rabbi Tann. "The reason I think it works well is that racism is engendered entirely by adults. Children don't have it within themselves. Their natural mode is to play happily with everyone. It's only when adults say, 'Don't play with him, he's black, or don't have anything to do with him, he's Muslim, that troubles begin.'

"We never have any racial or inter-faith problems at all. Not ever. In 20 years here, it's simply never happened in any significant way. We teach that if you don't like someone, you avoid them. Don't play with them. Go to the other side of the playground. I believe that if more people followed the lead of King David School, we'd have a much more peaceful world.""

Is it so simplistic to think that this kind of thing may be part of the answer?

the worst of times

what issue brings together jews and muslims? according to the times today it is homophobia:

"Jews and Muslims unite against homosexuals

By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 2:24am GMT 07/11/2006

Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem have found common ground in their fierce opposition to a gay rights rally due to be held in the city this week.

Ultra-orthodox Jews burn rubbish yesterday during a protest against the rally in Jerusalem in support of homosexuals’ rights
Leaders from both faiths have united to denounce the parade, which has prompted nights of street protest by ultra-orthodox Jews, who regard homosexuality as an "abomination", and death threats against those taking part.

After Israeli police found and defused a bomb bearing the message "sodomites out", orders were given for 12,000 officers to deploy across Jerusalem during the march, which is planned for Friday. Last night, lawyers from both sides were wrangling at the High Court over whether the parade should be allowed to take place and, if so, where. With the court expected to convene another hearing today, it appeared that the parade would take place but at a new location near the parliament, a safe distance from orthodox neighbourhoods.

The issue of the parade is generating more media coverage than the Israeli military incursion into Gaza, which has left more than 50 Palestinians dead.

The city's Islamic leadership is opposed to the parade, with Tayseer Tamimi, the head of the Palestinian supreme council of Sharia litigation, leading Muslim opposition. "This march tries to destroy the moral and spiritual values for youths," he said. "All religions discredit gays because it is against the decent human nature created by God."

Ultra-orthodox Jews have protested for three nights, setting up burning barricades and throwing rocks at police. Thirty protesters were arrested and six policemen hurt as water cannon was deployed to put out fires and disperse crowds.

"This isn't the gay pride parade but the disgrace parade," said Yaakov Cohen, an MP from the United Torah Judaism party. Ben Yizri, an MP for the ultra-orthodox Shas party, part of Israel's ruling coalition, said: "We believe God will be very upset."

Homosexuality was legalised in Israel 18 years ago, but gay rights campaigners said many homosexuals were intimidated by Jerusalem's strongly homophobic atmosphere. Noa Satath, of Open House, the group planning the parade, said it marked an important step in bringing homosexuality "out of the closet" in Jerusalem."

kol hakavod to those who will march, and prayers for their safety. to find out more about the jerusalem open house, click here.

english from arabic

sorting through mounds of paper in the masses of boxes that travel with me from job to job, i came upon an informational handout from the council on islamic education. some arabic words that are the origin of familiar english ones:

al-jabr
amir al-rahl
zirafah
naranj
sifr
trafiq
&
banana.

o, of course, excuse me:

algebra
admiral
giraffe
orange
zero
traffic
&
banana.

treppenwitz today

a snippet of a long expression of his beliefs and feelings:

"The world is making a horrible mistake by imposing a cease-fire on Israel in its war on Hezbollah. This shameful document grants a terrorist organization legal status and standing in the international arena and fails to punish the states who sponsor it (Syria and Iran)... or hold accountable the country (Lebanon) that allows it to dominate its political life and government.

This cease fire denies Israel (and every other civilized country) the right to defend internationally recognized borders, and in fact calls into question the very concept of internationally recognized borders!!! Quite simply, this cease fire resolution codifies in black and white that aggression is the new diplomacy and everything is ultimately negotiable."

is asking 'how can we be safe and not kill anyone to stay safe?' such a naive question?

there are no rockets coursing through the sky on a trajectory that will bring them near or to my home - it is easy for me to cry out for peace. have no doubt about it, that is what i wish for. please, however, show me the alternative to standing firm at the last line drawn after line after line has been stepped over.

the other day, i went to buy munchies before getting on the train to penn station. there was a handwritten sign on the counter saying 'back in a few minutes'. as i went back out of the waiting room i looked to my left, and saw the guy behind the counter on his knees on a prayer mat. i admired him for his devotion. i don't hate him, and presume he does not hate me. i figure he is just like my father, coming to the usa to make a better life and to live in religious freedom.

meanwhile, i need to buy a transatlantic plane ticket, and am excrement-scared of being blown up in the air. d. says she won't be surprised if suicide bombers start on restaurants and other public places in nyc like they do in tel aviv, etc. is this the price a liberal must pay for believing peace is possible? is it better to die than fight back? i just don't know ...

liberal islam?

just read andy apostolou's review of "the caged virgin" by ayaan hirsi ali. i don't know much about liberal islam ... until i met irshad manji in toronto a few years ago i did not even know there was any such thing. i am sympathetic to a lot of what she says, but suspect that not too many people who need to listen will pay attention to the words of a woman and a lesbian, noch. in the wake of recent events in canada, she wrote in the globe and mail:

"How can we muslims allow our leaders to continue blaming the world for what we're doing to ourselves? ... above all, non-muslims in canada should ask themselves a basic question: what makes so many of us afraid to ask about what's happening in the muslim community? the easy answer is multiculturalism, according to which all cultures and religions are equal and off-limits to scrutiny.

but multiculturalism, like any belief system, becomes a stale orthodoxy if taken literally. by definition, orthodoxies anesthetize our brains, deny our consciences, suppress our voices and compel us to abandon the critical spirit that keeps any open society open. this past weekend, canadians received a wake-up call. let us all re-discover our spines - and our minds."

not just multiculturalism, methinks, but being bloody scared as well :-(

the telephone game

don't i just love it when a fundamentalist xian starts quoting the bible to me in english. if i can get away with it in a gentle way, i will ask the person if s/he speaks hebrew. if so - great! usually, though, it is not so. thus the question becomes - the most original version that exists is in hebrew, which was translated into greek, and the greek into latin, and the latin into english. how can you take all the english words literally? imagine the game of telephone (broken telephone?). in england it is called 'chinese whispers'. sit in a circle and whisper something to your neighbour. each passes the message on to the next neighbour. the final person in the circle repeats the message out loud - it is rarely the same as the original.

a new york daily yesterday had a front page with the photo of the dead zarqawi and a speech bubble coming out of his dead mouth saying 'warm up the virgins". via the dry bones blog, i came across the following: here please read about the rewards the quran says that martyrs will receive. a quote:

"The Koran is beautifully written, but often obscure. One reason is that the Arabic language was born as a written language with the Koran, and there's growing evidence that many of the words were Syriac or Aramaic.

For example, the Koran says martyrs going to heaven will get hur, and the word was taken by early commentators to mean "virgins," hence those 72 consorts. But in Aramaic, hur meant "white" and was commonly used to mean "white grapes."

Some martyrs arriving in paradise may regard a bunch of grapes as a letdown. But the scholar who pioneered this pathbreaking research, using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for security reasons, noted in an e-mail interview that grapes made more sense in context because the Koran compares them to crystal and pearls, and because contemporary accounts have paradise abounding with fruit, especially white grapes."

this leads me to vaguely recall a piece in the satirical publication 'the onion' i think it was about a suicide bomber waking up in heaven surrounded by thomas jefferson and james madison and 70 other virginians.