Al-Azhar face-veil ban questioned

Submitted by axolotl on Mon, 2009-10-12 11:14

Story here. Excerpt:

'Shaikh Ali Abu al-Hasan, the former head of the Fatwa Council at the Islamic Studies Institute (ISI) in Cairo, said although it was not required by Islam for women to cover their faces, Al-Azhar University should allow women to chose what they want to wear.

"No official has the right to order a young lady to remove a form of dress that was sanctioned by none other than Umar ibn al-Khattab, except for the purposes of identification for security reasons," he said.'

...

'On Saturday, scores of female university students protested outside al-Azhar university dormitory calling for the repeal of the decision banning fully veiled women from entering. There were similar demonstrations at Cairo University.'

So...how come we're led to believe that Islamic women everywhere are forced to wear these things?

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

manonthestreet

axolotl the reason you believe that 'Islamic women everywhere are forced to wear these things' is for the obvious reason that most of what you are told is untrue. You are not told things to inform you but to have an idea put in your head that someone else wants there.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by trotter on Mon, 2009-10-12 15:47

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=201753

Re: Where Is The Outrage Over Saudi Gender Apartheid? Anne Applebaum, Dec. 26.

Anne Applebaum wants a campaign on behalf of Saudi women, something comparable to the campaign against South African apartheid of some years ago. She misses, of course, a major difference between the Saudi treatment of women and the segregation of blacks in South Africa. The segregation of blacks was done in order to keep black and white lives apart. By contrast, women and men are ultimately not kept apart in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, they invariably share the same homes, the same families, the same bedrooms and even the same beds. It is not, in other words, a matter of segregation of women but a matter of segregating non-relatives, of either sex. This is not oppression, unless you consider unrestricted sex a fundamental human right.

Ms. Applebaum oddly misses another important point. It was fairly clear that blacks in South Africa were not happy with the situation under apartheid. It is not so clear that Saudi women would prefer to live like Westerners. Perhaps feminists ought to allow them the dignity of asking them first? Furthermore, she laments that Saudi women still cannot vote. True enough. But she omits the important fact that Saudi men cannot vote either. Don't men count? Also, she claims Saudi women cannot leave the house without a male relative. This is false: they cannot travel cross-country alone, but they are free to go out and about doing their shopping and visiting. The law, however ill-conceived, is intended for their safety.

Ms. Applebaum is correct, at least, that Saudi women are not allowed to drive. But to be fair, she should also have noted that Saudi women have rights not accorded to Saudi men -- like the legal right to be supported by their nearest male relative, for example.

As it happens, I live in the Saudi 'hood. I have experienced personally some of the "discrimination" against women here. Whenever there is a lineup for a service, for example, women are served before men. Most attractions have special days on which men cannot attend unless accompanied by a woman -- women are free to go any time. Most parks are designated "for women and children only"; no dogs or men allowed.

On the buses, the men must sit in the back; women sit where they like. Men must surrender their seats to women.

If anything, I have to tell you, it looks and feels a whole lot like discrimination against men.

Stephen Roney, Department of Language Studies and Academics, College of the North Atlantic, Doha, Qatar.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Marc A. on Mon, 2009-10-12 19:26

so basically, it's not that different from here.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by dudejo on Mon, 2009-10-12 23:05