Jack Straw: "Take Off The Veil"

Interestingly (or not), wearing a veil is NOT a requisite of Islam. The Koran says something along the lines of women should 'cover their charms' and wear modest clothing. I believe that 'charms' always included the head, hence Christian women always covering their heads up to a relatively short while ago, even if it was reduced to a mantilla for Mass in Spain, a scarf elsewhere, etc.

During the piety pissing contests between the opponents of the Saudi Royal family and supporters, it was hilarious to see the men wearing shorter and shorter thaubs (kaftan-like white garments), since the Koran instructs men not to let their garments drag upon the ground. This wasn't a Health & Safety warning - it was considered that the very vain would wear longer clothes, which their servants could wash, while the shorter versions (supposed to be on the ankle) showed humility. By the time I left in 1992, the things were mid-calf, while the beards were nearly meeting them in length! At the same time, women who had been previously content to merely cover their hair took to wearing three layers of veiling, plus black gloves and black socks under their sandals.

So one might say it is nothing to do with showing that you are happily Muslim, but that you're trying to be more Muslim than was ever required. An inverted pride, in other words, and the antithesis of 'modest' clothing, since it is extreme. There was no injunction towards wearing only black for women, either. Muslim Indonesian ladies wear a variety of pretty colours, and tribes in Oman and the far South West of Saudi Arabia don't wear any overtly 'Islamic' garb - they wear colourful 'peasant' type clothing and straw hats!
 
Just for the record on this: there are a number of letters published in the Arab News online on this subject. One of interest is (an abbreviated version) from a Mr. Rashid M. Al Homaid, currently living in Tucson:

Re veiling: generally credited to Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian empire, who asked his women to cover themselves as a 'protection'. First, veiling was only for royal or aristocratic women, but gradually it was adopted by lower-class women to create the impression that they were from high-born families.

Mr. Al Homaid makes the sensible points that since Tunisia just recently refused schools admission to covered women, and that neither Egypt or Turkey permit them in their Parliaments, Islam should correct itself before criticizing others. He asserts that the veil is a cultural, not a religious, construct, and that in North Africa, for example, some tribes (Touareg) have males covering their faces, while their women do not. He opines that those who 'pretend that the veil protects women from sin are naive'.

There are a couple of letters from Muslims saying that in these days of heightened suspicion, fully-covered figures may not be women at all, but men disguised thus for any nefarious purpose. (That's not without precedent in a minor way, since some Saudi men have found it effective in managing illicit love trysts, as well as some robbers and burglars finding the veil jolly handy in going about their business!)
 
As above - it's a cultural thang. The wimminfolk aren't forced to wear it if they don't want to, but religious fundie fanatics like the Taleban and the Wahhabi in Saudi would probably lock them away if they didn't. In that respect, yes, it's sometimes (yet another) tool of the male repression of women (something far from exclusive to just Islam, as you know), but nothing that the Koran ever stipulated.
 
motorcyclist's have to take their helmets off at petrol stations, what about folk who were veil's??

i also heard somewhere this weekend that a schoolteacher has been suspended for wearing a crucifix on her necklace. this religion saga is getting way out of hand.
 
Originally posted by jft2005@Oct 15 2006, 08:05 PM
i also heard somewhere this weekend that a schoolteacher has been suspended for wearing a crucifix on her necklace. this religion saga is getting way out of hand.
Click to expand...
I really find that hard to believe.
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid+Oct 15 2006, 10:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Desert Orchid @ Oct 15 2006, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jft2005@Oct 15 2006, 08:05 PM
i also heard somewhere this weekend that a schoolteacher has been suspended for wearing a crucifix on her necklace. this religion saga is getting way out of hand.
Click to expand...
I really find that hard to believe. [/b][/quote]
I think its a British Airways employee isn't it, and has something to do with the idea that she could reasonably conceal it under her uniform?

I also seem to remember some case in France a few years back when a veiled woman was refused access through customs as she didn't look too much like her passport photograph. Incredibly she sued and won.

Mind you it cuts both ways. I can assure you that Patricia Hewitt isn't adverse to throwing the occasional sahree on if she things she can dupe a few people in Leicester West into voting for her. So she's quite prepared to embrace cultural/ quasi religious garb when its expedient in the name of electioneering
 
Yes, I read about the British Airway check in lady who was suspended for wearing a cross around her neck, yet evidently, religious bangles can be worn and turbans, depending on your faith.

I am seriously considering leaving the UK ( cue the loud cheering) as I cannot stand the way this country is rapidly turning into a Nanny State. My OH and I have talked about it but are yet to agree on which country we would emigrate to.
 
If you join a company which has a dress code or even a uniform, then you know you're signing up to conform to that. If the dress code includes a caveat against wearing overt religious symbols, or other identifiers such as a BNP pin, while at work, then again you know you're expected to keep those for your private life, not your employed hours. To wilfully insist on going against a policy - wearing a veil, a crucifix, a Sikh dagger, a turban, etc. sometimes has safety ramifications for certain jobs (for example, a Sikh fireman trying to insist on not wearing a fireman's helmet is plain dumb), and sometimes it's just so that they're not distractions to the job in hand. It's also so that the company represented does not appear to be partisan. An atheist traveller could be offended by overt religious symbolism, as a possible example, and say s/he had the right to travel without the implication that the airline was fostering Christianity. (I know it sounds barmy, but that's the way some things are now.)

If you're flying aboard Thai, Korean, Japanese or other NATIONAL airlines, most of them wear a form of national dress which doesn't compromise their ability to do their job safely. You won't know whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, or whatever - that's just not relevant to their work. And that, gentle reader, is how I think it should be. Save showing off your religious or political affiliations for your own time. Britain is a secular country, and BRITISH Airways, as the NATIONAL carrier, should reflect that in its employees' preferences.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 16 2006, 10:49 AM
Britain is a secular country, and BRITISH Airways, as the NATIONAL carrier, should reflect that in its employees' preferences.
Click to expand...
It's been privatised so it is no longer the "National" carrier any more than British Midland is the "Regional" carrier for those from the Black Country.
 

as a possible example, and say s/he had the right to travel without the implication that the airline was fostering Christianity. (I know it sounds barmy, but that's the way some things are now.)
Click to expand...

dosnt the same person who has the right to travel without the implication the airline is fostering christianity have the same right to believe the airline is not fostering islam when greeted by the veil

also is the Christain lady not correct in her belief that the veil has never been part of official ba uniform or indeed is it part of a teachers uniform or any other uniform in this country as far as i can make out

and wouldnt the same lady be correct in her belief the greater majority of her clients (passengers) would be at least born christian if not practising or at least members of religons that dont find other religons symbols offensive at least when that religon is in the majority and in the country of their birth

and also in her defense most of the blouses they(Ba Staff) wear now days dont have the top button done up so the wearer would either have to have a very long chain or sit with their hand permenantly over the symbol
 
Point of information: The UK is not a secular country, far from it. It has its own state religion, of which the monarch of the day is head.
 
This has been blown up by certain sections of the media into something it never was. I had a friend who was a BA stewardess. The airline had rules then, as it dos now, that staff may wear jewellery such as necklaces or pendants if it is covered by theur uniform. It should have been irrelevant that the article at the centre of this controversy is a cross. It could just as easily have been, say, a pearl drop - but that, of course, would not have had the "one rule for them and another for us" news value.
 
I know this is possibly a silly question, BUT (it's me so I'll ask it anyway) if a BA Stewardess wore tiny stud earrings in the shape of crosses, would she have to remove these too or is there a rule about only certain earrings being allowed... ie pearl or gold studs or possibly no earrings at all ?
 
Brian, were you ever very close to your BA lady friend's ears at any stage as you may well know the answer if you were. :)
 
PR: I've never flown on a Middle Eastern or 'Muslim' airline (including Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, Saudi, Bahraini, Egyptian carriers) where any member of staff was wearing a veil! I'm talking about company uniforms, not what the passengers may choose to wear. Otherwise, I might strongly object to sitting next to someone with fat hairy legs and wearing shorts on my next flight to Australia! :unsure:
 
Back
Top