WHEN THINKINGabout the war against radical Islam, the veils worn by some Muslim women probably are not the first thing to come to mind. After all, why should we Americans, whose political thought has been focused on individual rights from the beginning, be concerned with the clothing women want to wear? In a cultural context, however, the veil is much more serious than the average fashion choice. In fact, the battle over the veil is one of the key issues that will determine the future of Islam and the West. Banning the veil is not an attack on religious freedom; it is an affirmation of fundamental human rights.
To understand the seriousness of the veil, look across the Atlantic and see what is happening in Europe. For several years the continent has been struggling with its large, poor, and often barely assimilated populations of Muslim immigrants. In 2004, France prohibited students from wearing headscarves and veils in public school and was widely criticized for not being tolerant and multicultural.
Ironically, the same countries that once criticized France are now emulating it. Four German states have banned public school teachers from wearing headscarves. On Oct. 5, former British foreign minister Jack Straw spoke critically of the veil in a BBC interview. He mentioned the difficulty of conversing face-to-face with women whose faces were covered, and warned of the veil's "implications for community relations." According to the BBC, Prime Minister Tony Blair has agreed that veils are a "mark of separation." Even more surprisingly, in the famously tolerant Netherlands, Immigration and Interior Minister Rita Verdonk has submitted a bill banning the public wearing of clothes that cover the face.
Americans are usually opposed to restrictions on religious expression, and at first glance that is what banning the veil seems to be. However, it is not an attack on Islam; it is an attack on regressive social values. The Koran, while exhorting women to be modest, does not specifically require veils. According to the Weekly Standard, many Muslim thinkers have confirmed this, from Soad Saleh, Islamic law professor at Al-Azhar University, to Gamal al-Banna, brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Fundamentalists in the Islamic world have taken their medieval interpretation of the Koran and proclaimed veils as a religious duty.
People who argue that wearing the veil is a choice that should be left to women show their ignorance, for there are few places where the veil is a free choice. In many places where the veil is not mandated by the government, religious fanatics threaten and attack women who disobey.
In Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to a 2004 article by Cheryl Benard of RAND, hundreds of women have been blinded after fanatics threw acid on their unveiled faces. In March 2002, 15 Saudi girls were prevented from escaping a burning building by religious police because their heads were uncovered. They all burned to death. Even in France, according to the Weekly Standard, a May 2003 survey found that of girls who wore headscarves, 77 percent did so "because of physical threats from Islamist groups." The veil, then, is not so much a symbol of religious freedom as it is one of religious oppression.
The veil is a sign of sexual inequality. Forcing women to cover their faces through laws or unofficial coercion, while allowing men to wear whatever they choose, sends a message. It instills in society the idea that only women are responsible for lust and adultery. Instead of telling men to avoid sexual temptations, women are forced to cover their bodies so that men do not have to deal with lust.
This inequality leads to even worse incidents in some countries. According to Amnesty Magazine, the U.N. Population Fund has estimated that more than 5,000 women, mostly in Muslim countries, die annually in "honor killings." These are killings of women suspected of adultery, usually by male family members.
In some countries, including Jordan, it is legal to kill wives or even other female relatives who commit adultery. In other countries honor killings are officially illegal, but in practice usually go unpunished. Veils are not as bad as honor killings, of course, but they are symptoms of the same social injustice.
Our government should take reasonable steps to prevent the formation of a subculture of gender inequality and religious oppression. Obviously a full-scale ban on the veil would be an invasion of privacy, but the French model is a good one. Veils should be banned in public schools and government buildings, where dress codes are well-established.
Only by ending the practice of veiling can Muslims be fully integrated into Western society. Far from being analogous to yarmulkes or crosses, the veil is closer to the yellow stars that Nazis forced the Jews to wear. It dehumanizes its wearer and sets her apart from the rest of society. It sends the message that the woman is inferior, that she must shroud her body so that men do not have to deal with lust.
Religious oppression, sexual inequality: These are basic violations of liberal values and human rights. Westerners should understand that the veil is fundamentally incompatible with all that we hold dear.
Stephen Parsley's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sparsley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 8 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
