Readers react to Abdullah Saeed’s letter in September’s Connexion defending the burqa and warning against a ban
What about the other way round?
I could accommodate Mr. Saeed’s thoughts if he can verify that Western women in certain Middle East and Gulf nations are guaranteed the same freedoms. Sadly I fear that is anything but a totally unlikely possibility.
James Munro, Haute-Pyrenees
It’s not part of Western culture
Abdullah Saeed refers to the wearing of the burqa as a religious commandment and as an instruction from God. He then totally contradicts himself by saying wearing a hijab is a woman's decision and is a personal and private matter. It's one or the other but it can't be both.
Either way it's not part of Western culture. I might as well claim that appearing in public wearing a balaclava should be allowed because it's part of my culture.
He uses burqa and hijab as though they were the same thing but they are not. The burqa is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of cloaking the entire body. The hijab is a type of head covering traditionally worn by Muslim women.
I'm not French, I'm English but I live in France. When I came to live in France I accepted it as an absolute obligation to live by the laws of France. I suggest Abdullah Saeed and his ilk do the same.
Name and address supplied
Burqa is political, not religious
How very typical that a letter defending the burqa should be written by a Muslim man and not a woman. Mr Saeed must realise that, had the latter been the case, it would have carried much more weight and been more convincing. Coming from a man, it merely reinforces the belief that this is something imposed on Muslim women by Muslim men.
For a long time, Indian women in England have worn saris or long trousers with long shift tops and this has always been accepted and tolerated. The burqa, on the other hand, is too extreme for western culture, which is why it is not. It implies that even a woman’s nose and mouth are ‘sexual objects’ that need to be covered up. The last time I looked, men had noses and mouths too.
There is no way that a comparison can be drawn between the Christian and Jewish custom of covering one’s head with either a veil or a hat when entering a church or synagogue and covering one’s whole body all the time as soon as you leave your house. It is not the same thing at all.
Mr Saeed says that it is ‘disingenuous and absolutely absurd to think of a piece of fabric as a sign of oppression’ but when it covers you from head to foot and completely removes any trace of who you are as a person, what else is it? And does it really reflect the woman’s desire not to expose her hair and body to men, or does it more truly reflect the desire of the men in her family, father, brothers or husband, that she should not do so? If that is the case, how can it be viewed as anything else but enforced oppression?
Neither is the wearing of the burqa a ‘religious commandment’ - it is a complete distortion of Muhammad’s words in the Koran. Nowhere in the Koran, my Muslim friends tell me, does it actually state that a woman should cover herself from head to foot. The burqa is not an illustration of the rights of Muslim women to ‘express themselves’ but more an illustration of the fact that they cannot.
The burqa is not a manifestation of a faith - it is a political issue. Practising your faith, which is what Mr Saeed naively states the burqa represents, has less to do with what you wear and more to do with attending church/the mosque, prayer, serving others, caring for the poor. No one is preventing Muslim women from doing any of these things in France.
As for a ban on the burqa preventing Muslims from being integrated in France, I would suggest quite the opposite. The way things stand, Muslim women’s very appearance, when cloaked from head to foot in black, alienates and excludes them from the rest of the French community. In a country where it is not part of the culture and where the rest of the women are walking around dressed ‘normally’, it is actually intimidating and even frightening, especially to children.
There is no ‘harmony and social unity’ between myself and the Muslim women who may cross my path clothed in a burqa. They are not allowed to talk to me and are usually following silently, head bowed, in their husband’s footsteps. They would be much more easily integrated if they dressed like the rest of us. As a woman in a free country with no dress laws, I also resent what seems to be a blatant criticism of me and the way I dress when I am confronted by a woman in a burqa.
And what Mr Saeed also fails to mention when he speaks of the ‘liberty’ that is a fundamental principle of France’s foundation, is that ‘égalité’ is also a crucial part of the Republic. In no way can Muslim women be thought to have this equality if rules for dress are so different for men and women. It is wrong that women are ‘stigmatised’ for their bodies and forced to live under a TENT whilst Muslim men walk free and unencumbered.
For all these reasons, the burqa should not be allowed in France and I admire President Sarkozy for the stance he is taking on this matter. If he does not ban the burqa, on the contrary, he will be leading France down the treacherous path of allowing religious extremism in all its worst forms.
S. Rushton, Gard
Saeed argument is illogical
Western societies owe an enormous debt to Middle Eastern civilisations – in mathematics, philosophy, medicine, science, in the development of trade and the preservation of knowledge.
It is very disappointing then to read the letter from Abdullah Saeed on the burqa ban - it is specious nonsense masquerading as logic.
It's central argument is that women should be free to do as they are told.
It should not be necessary to point out that this is hardly liberty.
It also denigrates men who, apparently, cannot control themselves unless women are totally covered.
Does this mean that muslim women wear a burqa in paradise?
Name and address supplied
