EngL1401W - Fall 2006: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

First of all, I found this article really interesting to read and it brought up some very good counterpoints to the veil. I always thought of the veil as limiting Muslim women's right to wear what they want. However, this showed the other side, that some women wear it on their own choice and that it's not required in the Qu'ran.

One reason Cromer might think of the veil as an obstacle to the Egyptian men's rise to the level as that of the white men is his background. He opposed women suffrage and thus, anything that he sees as limiting women's right would be immoral and an obstacle to achieve the state of civilization as the white men. He thought of he veil as a "sign of the backwardness of Islamic moral development and civilization altogether" (193). He only base it from his own opinions which are formed from the white men's judgement.

Tony Blair's might have said his comment because he sees the veil as separating the Muslim from everyone. Since it's so visible, it clearly distincts them from everyone else and shows that they are from a different race, culture, and community. I don't think his statement is true, that it makes people outside the Muslim community uncomfortable. Maybe it's just him who's uncomfortable with it.

It's interesting how he points out that the veil can also be an act of embracing modernity and feminism instead of the other way around. Another interesting thing he said was about the skits he saw during the ISNA conventions. The skit was about one girl who had to take hours just to find what to wear while the one who wore the veil just dressed like she always does and doesn't have to worry about what her appearance looks like. Like he said, the one who wore the veil "wasn't driven by sexist assumptions and dress-requirements of our society" and didn't have to try to look sexy or attractive. I found this very true because most of the time I don't dress how I like but to fit the standards of society. Another thing he said was that the white men considered them morally correct but yet they still required women to wear the corset in the 1800's. So they were just as "bad" as the Muslims. Even today, I think women are still controlled by men. Everywhere you look, you see advertisements, music videos, and etc of women wearing barely anything. I see this as a way of degrading women. Sure, it says that we women don't have to be dominated by manners and we can be free to show our body. But I also think that today, men dictates what makes a woman sexy and hot, that they have to show their bodies so publicly and showing too much.

It is quite confusing to figure out why such a public figure as Cromer would have a stance like this. It can't be good for his career, so the only reasoning I have derived is that it is his personal belief. Also, his background, as Chao pointed out, could be huge in determining why he would think and say such things. It is noted in the piece that Cromer was president of the Society of Opposed to Women's Suffrage (p.192). Cromer views the veil as a tool to show "the backwardness of Islamic moral development and civilization altogether." (192). It seems that he is the one being backwards by raising the age-old issue of "superior" and "inferior" distinctions between people. I understand that this is what he believed, but what I don't understand is how a person in a position like that can "get away" with saying things like this.

This whole veil debate, and especially the part that addresses the views of Cromer, definitely relates to the current situation with Tony Blair and Jack Straw. I just find it ironic and surprising that supposed "leaders" of the "Free World" are always so worried about people's differences in appearance and in their choices. In response to what Tony Blair is saying, I think that he has lost touch with the many different "uses" and reasons of the veil that are discussed in the Leila Ahmed piece. It is impossible for Blair to pinpoint that veils are any more of a mark of separation than me wearing a Manchester United hat. If a person who has researched and interviewed Muslims about the veil and cannot fully understand its reasoning and significance, then Tony Blair and his colleagues have no right to insinuate what the veil means and what it is doing to their "superior" culture.

Adding onto this, I am glad to hear that veil sales have gone up since these remarks were made by Straw. Seeing as how no one seems sure as to why Muslims wear veils in the West, on a large scale, the increase in the sales may be attributed to a very simple thing: the Muslim population sticking it to the government and saying that they will choose what they want to wear and why they want to wear it. For some reason, the West is still so uptight about recognizing lifestyle choices made my "minorities." Why is this? Or does anyone disagree? What does it say about Britain that they have governmental discussions about the implications of wearing a veil?

I guess the only connection I currently see between this piece and the film is that it is a tale of two sides, of different cultures and backgrounds, both wanting something.

First I would like to comment about a point brought to my attention by reading this piece - that the veil can be a sign of strength and independence. It is mentioned how after 9/11 many women continued to wear the hijab despite the extreme fear and negativity expressed toward them. I can imagine it took a lot of courage to do this, to so visibly show your beliefs. Ahmad says it very well on page 66, "To dress in this way at such a moment in this society is to silently and yet insistantly refuse the imputed meaning of the inferior Muslim Other." It's a subtle yet unmistakeable expression of freedom and strength. I can see now how wearing the veil can be considered "an act of courageous defiance in the face of prejudice" if worn with one's own free will.

Blair mentions that wearing the veil separates society. I think this point is weak. He gives the example of not recognizing someone on the street because she is wearing a veil. I have two things I would tell him in response. One, not all women wear a veil that covers everything but her eyes. Is he against any sort of veil? Two, I seriously doubt whether he would even acknowledge this women or any other random person he had talked to if he saw them in the street. He brings this up, but it is not even relavnat to him. As for others, I feel that if you converse with someone worth remembering, you will be looking them in the eye during the conversation and will recognize them. I recognize people bundled up in hats and scarves during the winter time. Should we not be allowed to wear those either? I think whether or not a person wears a veil should be, above all, a personal choice. Neither the rest of society or the government should have any say in the matter. And I certainly don't agree with Straw asking women to remove their veils. It's a personal choice and he just needs to deal with it.

I think this reading brought up a lot of good points concerning the significance of a veil. I think that many reasons why women wear the veil are somewhat looked over by the public. Many times the first thing that I associate a veil to is religion. However, Leila Ahmed shows how this is only one of the reasons why women choose to wear it. She expresses how the veil integrates issues of ethnic, religious, and gender justice.

“…in effect performatively enacting their rejection of both the patriarchal and the colonial narrative of the veil… Quoting, borrowing from, reiterating the symbols and narratives of the past, they are also reinventing them.” (167) This quote is significant because it shows how the veil doesn’t just represent something from the past, but a new formation of what the veil means and how it has taken on a new and revised meaning in modern day society.

Kelsey brings up some very strong arguments in opposition to Blair’s comments that I completely agree with. Especially in the U.S., women are given the right to choose whatever they want to wear. Everyone has different reasons why they choose their attire, and this still holds true to women who choose to wear the veil. Some argue that wearing the veil enforces women’s inferiority, however, as the skit pointed out (Chao mentioned earlier), this could also be said about how others dress in our society too.

So, I found this to be a very interesting article. All those who have commented above me have great thoughts on the article. Andrew made a good pt about the supposed “leaders” of the “free world”- I think they’re just crazy bored people...It’s interesting how the veil has its own meanings in different places—whether it represents male dominance, sign of conformity, identifies an individual as a member of a certain group, etc… Kelsey made a good pt about how the veil is a sign of strength and independence.

Ahmed states that the “veil is only different”…and that “for over a hundred years now it has served as perhaps the quintessential SYMBOL & FLAG of civilizational clash…and of struggles between the powers of empire and those resisting imperial powers…and of the struggle between the haves and have-nots within a society” (164-165). …which I believe is true. She makes plenty of good pts to the veil debate in this article, some which are repetitive, but still are good to consider.

Just to respond to Andrew's comments about Lord Cromer's career--his stance on the veil was approved of by his superiors, and he had a very, very long tenure in Egypt: from 1883 (when Britain crushed Orabi's nationalist movement) through 1907.

He was not, as you might expect, terribly well-liked by most Egyptians.

The article has many points in it that showed the reasons behind why women wear a veil. For religion, and even because of the look. To me, I think that some people could feel uncomfortable with the idea of the veil because it is an unknown idea to most "western" societys. Many times it is looked at a negative thing, and unless these naive people do research, they will only know the negative associations with the veil. It leads them to have a false interpertations about the veil. If they were to understand the different significances that the veil has in the eyes of people who wear it, it may be better understood. Unknown things, can be very frighting to people, and usually when something is strange to them they automatically look at it as negative. I think all there needs to be is a better understanding of the culuters who want to wear the veil, and the different meanings behind why they wear it. Totally understanding things, can change someones mind on the subject completely.

The veil is definitely a sign of courage, especially in a society where the practice of wearing the veil is not exercised. As Kelsey mentioned it does have an affect if one does it by his own free will. As Leila Ahmad mentions it is sufficient enough to only have one person realize the importance of the veil. It is just like saying it is worth the price. It’s worth wearing the veil and having only one person realizing its importance.

One other thing that I would like to point out about the veil which was also shown in the book Persepolis by Marjane was that she portrayed two groups of women, one were the fundamentalist and the other were the modern women. The fundamentalist were the ones that veiled and kept asking for the “veil”, yet the modern women were asking for “freedom” (5). It looks as if veil prevents women form having freedom or maybe is saying that women can not have freedom if they are wearing the veil. I really do not see any reason for saying freedom because veil definitely does not stop a women from being freed if she is doing by her own will. In this case that veiling was required women should have said justice or free rights or democracy. The fact that they are saying freedom makes the reader think as if the veil stopped women from having that type of freedom where as women who are veiling are as free as any other women and can do or go anywhere that they want. Veil is a sign of respect and modesty; it’s not a sign of women being poisoned and not to be able to have their own free rights.

After reading the article and judging from what he had to say, I agree with Tony Blair about the veils being a “mark of separation.” It’s like the type of clothing you wear, sets you apart from other people. What you wear on your body or around it puts you into groups and separates you from others. It’s like wearing punk or goth, someone who don’t wear those type of clothing would feel uncomfortable around you because they don’t know why your wearing those type of clothing. For all they know you could be some psycho path ready to exploded. The rest of the article I have to disagree on because women wearing the veil shouldn’t have to take it off if they don’t want to. It’s their right to express themselves and if it’s part of their religion then so be it. What’s up with people always wanting things there way just because they feel uncomfortable with what’s going on. People have to learn to adapt and change to new things and live life the way everyone else is living it. Straw shouldn’t have the right to ask someone to take off their veil. It’s like asking them to take off there clothes, is that right? He defending people who wear head scarf yet against those that wear the veil. What’s the difference? I can see how it would be awkward talking to someone who has there face cover so you don’t see them but still. It’s rude to tell that person to take it off just because it’ll make you feel better.

Cromer thinks that the veil was “the fatal obstacle” because it could have been back then. Women who wore the veil didn’t have a choice on whether they wanted to or not because it was force upon them to wear it. It reduce there freedom to express themselves and subject them to male control which I find true. There was this cartoon I saw once when I was a kid. It was a Muslim woman who was told to cover her face with her veil because she was showing too much skin even though only her face was showing. You could guess what happen next because she couldn’t see after covering her face. Walked right out the window and her husband just sat there and laughed. Even though this was just a cartoon, there was a message behind it about the veil. I still think that the wearing the veil is a choice that someone makes and shouldn’t have to be told to take it of.

Often i think people see wearing the veil as a strictly religious act. Although i do not doubt the religion i do feel it takes a lot of courage for these women to still wear the veil. I think Kelsey summed it up pretty nicely in her blog. I cant imagine what some of these women went through after 9/11. It must have been very hard for them yet they still had strength. Although i dont think what blair says is correct i do see what he means maybe right after 9/11. All over the world muslims were displayed as terrorists so maybe that made people uncomfortable at first. And even now maybe it makes people uncomfortable but isnt that the first step to getting over a fear? Maybe people are uncomfortable now but the more they are exposed to it, the better it will become and the more accepting people will be.

I can understand that each person has their own reasons for wearing the veil. If it a religious declaration or "a statement of idenity, of communal affiliation, national or international, (or) a political statement" (Ahmed 165). I believe all of these reasons are perfectly acceptable.
Cromer's comment about the veil being a "'fatal obstacle'" standing in the way of Egyptian men's 'attainment of that elevation of thought and character which should accompany the introduction of Western civilization" (Ahmed 155) seems to say how it prevented the Egyptian men from becoming Westernized. I think that the veil may have prevented the Egyptian men from the "elevation of thought" of Western Civilization, but this is a good thing. Egypt and other countries in the middle east need to attain their culture and religion. Egyptian westernizing would only be conforming to the United States' standards.

I disagree with Blair and Straw when they say that the veil is stopping muslim people from assimilating into society. Like Andrew said yesterday in class, assimilation needs to happen on both sides. If a country has their borders open to immigration, then the government and the people need to accept that these people are going to keep many of their traditions. In my opinion, if a women wants to wear a veil in court or class or whatever, I think that that is her right. If wearing the veil doesn't hinder her from doing what needs to get done, then what does it really matter? Also, would we ever tell a Christian women to stop wearing a cross around her neck? I don't think so.

I was sad to read that article in the BBC. First of all, I do agree that veils could be interpreted as a "mark of separation," however, there are so many marks of separation today, that a veil seems minor. What about someone who is black or gay? Arguably there are times that an African person or gay person could make someone feel uncomfortable, but do we ask them to change the color of their skin or sexuality? Isn't it just who they are? I don’t think they can really change that. Also, I think that veils are so deeply ingrained in the culture of Muslims that it is just plain rude to ask them to take them off, regardless of how much of their face they choose to show.

As far as making people feel uncomfortable, I believe that it is always the insecure people who feel that way. It was sad to hear that if a veiled woman bumped into Jack Straw in the street and said hi, that he could not say hi back to her! I think in order to grow as a community and society, people need to embrace differences instead of calling negative attention to them.

And I'm sure the uptick in veil sales was simply to piss of Straw and Blair.

I agree with Ororpa's comments about the veil being a "mark of separation". The veil makes a woman stand out. However, in no way does this mean they should not be able to wear it. Like everyone mentioned earlier, punk, race, and skimpy clothes all make a person stand out, and that's not necessarily a bad thing either. I think of it as freedom of speech; they are expressing their religious and political beliefs and there is nothing wrong with that unless they are posing an immediate threat to society, which they are not.

As for the increase of veil sales after Blair's comments, I'm sure the women felt they had to defend themselves and show people that they can wear whatever they want.

The main thing about this article that surprised me was the fact that most women seem to wear the veil for other reasons than religion. I understand all of these reasons and why they choose to wear the veil, but I just never knew that it was anything more than a religious thing.

I do not understand how people think the veil limits a woman’s freedom, when in reality in was actually Islam that first gave women true liberation. Before Islam came, women were just considered beings with no rights, showing them as merely sex objects. Then Islam came to give women equal status with men almost 1400 years ago.

I remembered a story that I heard from a speaker, Dr. Lisa Killinger, who gave a speech at the U last year. She called it the story of the “black velvet.” She once visited a Muslim household before her embracement of Islam and upon seeing the all-dressed-in-black veiled Muslim women, she questioned them about whether they feel oppressed, as I assume anybody would question had they not known better. The Muslim women then pulled back the curtain of the nearby window that faced a billboard featuring a Caucasian woman with her blonde hair flowing atop black velvet cloth advertising for a whisky company. The Muslim women pointed to this billboard and said, “That’s what we call oppression.” This clearly shows that women who are covered are not the ones who are oppressed, but rather the women who objectify their body in order to please the public.

Speaking of covering, an interesting analogy stated by the famous boxer, Muhammad Ali, came to my mind. One day, Muhammad Ali was conversing with his daughter and he told her that precious things are covered and hard to get, after his daughter came to him dressed in a mini-skirt and a sleeveless shirt. “Where do you find pearls?” he asked, “In oyster shells all the way down in the bottom of the sea,” he continued. “How about gold? You must dig deep in the ground to find gold in the mines. It is not easy to reach. You must work hard to get to it and not everyone reaches it – only those who are truly compassionate about reaching their goal after they put in enough effort will actually get to the end. And the same holds true for your body. It is even more precious and valuable than gold and pearls and therefore, it should also be covered and not left for every man to stare at.”

Last but not least, I do not think it should affect people how a Muslim woman dresses. It’s her personal opinion. If I want to wear something that I like, why would you care if you like it or not since I’m not wearing it in order to please you?

I agree with what Oropa had to say about Tony Blair’s statement that veils are a “mark of separation” and “make people from outside the community feel uncomfortable.” I do somewhat agree with this statement because veils are a mark of separation, but many things can separate someone from others, like Oropa mentioned. I do want to add that I find this whole thing ironic. I know when I was growing up I was always taught that I should be myself and not to give in to what others say you should be like. However, when people do follow this many end up being negatively judged by society. So, then, was this message I was told really only supposed to mean “be yourself as long as it fits into this sort of image”? I would also hardly say that telling someone they can’t wear a veil is the “freedom” that our country promotes. I could see telling someone they can’t wear it if it is causing harm, but these people aren’t harming anyone by simply wearing it. This article also made me realize just how hypocritical some people are.

I would agree that Tony Blair's statement is realated to this article because Leila Ahmed stated that one of the reasons Muslim women are wearing the veils is to be different. They want to be seperate from the majority. Some wear the hijab to face prejudice head on. Though I know the meaning behind the hijab has changed to mean many different things to current Islam, I still find it interesting that Muslim women want to wear the hijab that had been a symbol of male dominance. I would think that they would want to free themselves of that symbol, but maybe that is what they tried to do by "modernizing" the hijab.

I agree with Nancy and Andrew that it doesn't make sense why we want everyone who is different to assimilate to society. A country that opens up immigration should be accepting of the diversity they receive because wasn't diversity one of the main reasons for allowing immigration? As for Straw's comment and how Muslim women should remove their veils, I think it is weird because a lot of places in our society see diversity as a good thing. Places like colleges and jobs are usually looked at more favorably if they have diversity. But what would diversity be if we wanted everyone to look the same?

I think that it is ridiculous that Jack Straw does not allow veils in his office. I guess he does have the right to ask someone not to wear their veil, but that woman also has the right to decline and continue to wear her veil. I do not think that wearing a veil would really cause any serious impact on the meeting. Jack Straw should be able to see past the veil and listen to the words that the person is saying.

The Veil Debate created an interesting debate during class. Everyone brought up very truthful and specific points that were worthy of good discussion. Depending on the significance of the veil, I believe it is up to the woman to decide if she wears the veil or not. For a public school teacher who wears a veil, the opportunity to learn about differences between others would be present and very fitting. Yes, there would be parents and maybe children who disagree with having the teacher's face covered, but once again, it should be the womans choice. I do agree that if the veil fully covered the face, it would be difficult to connect as well with the teacher since the mouth and facial expressions would be hidden. If this situation were present, everyone would just need to put forth more effort to really connect with the teacher. Both sides of the argument provide very strong, arguable supporting information. Since we are in america and it is a free country, it should be the womans choice.

The veil has become sort of a communal tradition now. Religion is often based off of wanting familial approval. For instance, I first learned the rosary so I could recite it with my grandma while she was in the hospital. Later it became a religious experience, but at first it was simply a way to make my grandma happy. In this, I believe, young Muslim women are cleaving together out of solidarity, later leading to a religious revival.

I believe that the veil in America is voluntary, more or less, because there are recourses for women to defy their families and wear or not wear whatever they want. Every American teen rebels in some way, and if you were ever going to stop a tradition what better time is there than when you imigrate to a new country?

I am also for the veil, as much as an outsider can be, because there is a lot of personality in how women wear it. They are not simply doing as they are told. If you pay attention to the girls on campus, there are a lot of varieties in how the hijab is done. For instance, some girls wear ankle length skirts, some wear jeans, some wear high heels. There is almost always some complementing touch of jewelery or a dash of color. No attire this personalized could be construed as sexist or limiting.

I also think the need to conform argument is incredibly weak. Who's to say what conformity is?

One last thing: Heba's argument is wonderfully written, as always, and you ought to read it.

I wanted to point out that the veil is not just a piece of clothing that we wear. It is part of our identity, I define myself by the veil because it means many things that I believe in. Therefore, for someone to tell me to take it off just like that, it is like telling me to get rid of who I am. I think that it is definitely a type of discrimination for Jack Straw to tell women to take off their veils if they want to talk to him. It's like telling someone to wear color contacts because he doesn't like their eye color. Everything in this world is a "mark of separation", that is why we were created with different fingerprints. There aren't a single pair of people who have the same fingerprint.

As for not recognizing women who wear the veil on the street, I can personally recognize people on the streets even if they are wearing the veil from their nose down and even if I only glimpsed them from before. I don't know if that's always true, but it has been so far.

And like Heba said, Islam came to free women from being sex objects. I was there for Lisa Killinger's speech, and one thing she said was that Islam gave more rights to women 1400 years ago than what the "West" gave them a little over a 100 years ago. The only situation where freedom can cease to exist is if the woman is forced to wear the veil, and I don't think many of the women who go to Jack Straw are in that situation.

I feel that the veil is part of the religion just as the cross is part of the Christian religion. I think that people should be allowed to ask although it would be somewhat looked down upon, but they should have the right to say no and not have any consequences. I don't think they should have to take the veil off because it makes them different from others because we teach people to be an individual and be themselves. If wearing the veil is so important to someone, than there shouldn't be any repricussions from not wanting to take it off.
As for teachers wearing the veil while teaching, I think that should be okay. There should be nothing wrong with a teacher wearing a veil. It teaches diversity and different cultures from the beginning. I don't think it is the children that ave problems with it but more or less the parents trying to shelter their children from something that is different.

I agree with Breanna that children are not the problem but past generation that try to shelter the new generation without any good reason.
I believe that wearing the veil is optional. I am muslim and i choose not the wear the veil. Its not forced its an option. I don't think any diffrent of the girls that do wear. Muslim women who do and who don't are in no way oppressed they are as free as they choose to be. Like Rawan said that the veil defines her and that if someone asks her to just take it off its like telling her to get rid of her self. i think its the same way with me If soemone facred me to wear it i wouldnt be my self it would feel very strange to me. just as it would feel strange for veil wearing girls to take it off.

I certainly agree that people should have the option to wear the veil or not. And I also think that it shouldn't be an issue in school or in businsess. In school, if it is distracting to a student, they can either learn from it or just switch to a different class. I think businessmen should be educated enough not to be judgemental based on what other people wear.