Matthew Parris penned a piece in yesterday's edition of The Times raising the issue of women wearing full hijab (face covering) in Britain, ‘Please uncover your face. It's our custom’, and questions whether such a practice ought to be permitted in the UK.

He writes:

Funny to return from Lebanon, Syria and Turkey - where women go unveiled - and return to Britain, the land of the full hijab. I see more women with their faces covered in Tower Hamlets than I did in Damascus.'

In the Damascus streets, women in all-women groups, and women with men, chat and laugh; and I saw to be true (what some Muslims have already told me) that the full hijab cannot be considered a religious duty, but is simply a cultural feature of some societies that are Muslim, but not others.

If so, how far should we tolerate it? Spitting is a cultural feature in China but we discourage it here. In Syria I took my shoes off to enter mosques, though that is not in my culture; and wouldn't have worn clothing like skimpy shorts or vests, or drunk alcohol in the streets: practices offensive not to me but to the mainstream culture where I was.

Knowingly to disturb people's feelings is to be offensive…

Would it be wrong to try to convey to communities in Britain who adopt the full hijab that, though it is a woman's legal right to dress as she chooses, she should recognise that she's in a country where many people will find a masked face disturbing, and that (without meaning to) she is acting in a culturally inappropriate manner, which may offend? Do the masked women I see in the street in Whitechapel actually know this?'

There are lots of questions that are thrown up by the article:

1.    When the vast majority of Muslims are British citizens, who decides the content of the common culture? The dominant white British majority, or all citizens together, and does the ‘majority principle’ apply? Muslims, being only 3% of the population, would always find themselves on the losing side if the majority’s preferences were consistently applied. Isn’t this ‘tyranny of the majority’ and aren’t liberal democracies, emphasis on liberal, meant to protect against this tyranny?

2.    If the veil is discarded, will we later see demands for the discarding of the headcovering because that too, though perhaps less offensive, is also not a ‘British custom’?

3.    Parris argues that he removes his shoes when visiting mosques in Muslim majority countries in keeping with the required observances. But then, Muslims visiting churches in Spain or Italy similarly observe courtesies in terms of dress codes (Muslim women have an advantage here, since their dress often corresponds to the rules for visiting churches). If Parris’ point is one of reciprocity, then can observing codes that convey respect for religious buildings be conflated with respect for religious practices themselves? Aren’t the two different, though perhaps related, debates?

4.    Parris writes of the paradox of women veiling more in the UK than those in Muslim majority countries. Might we infer that Muslims feel more comfortable in expressing their religion in a liberal democracy than in the more repressive environments that prevail in many of the Muslim countries? And should British Muslim culture mirror that of cultures in Muslim majority countries? If so, which country in particular, there are so many?

5.    Are we disposed to taking offence more readily than we are willing to offer respect for difference?

What are your thoughts?

Comments

Add New Search

naushad  - what tomorrow?   |2009-05-31 19:15:04 tomorrow matthew will demand that i strip on the beach because that is the custom here... no, that is not the custom but his belief britain is a law abiding civil society and it has laws. it also has many customs, not one considered more important than the other. do u eat burger or pizza with fork and knife anymore? do u were hats anymore? do u offer ur seat to a woman anymore? and there are many such examples... customs change. some for good, some for worse. however, society is considered civil as long as it tolerates diversified customs. but, there should be no tolerance for breaking a law. otherwise, there would be no order or peace in the society. and that law needs to be just. not the whim of a man or society... if whims are passed as laws then there will be tyranny, torture, resentment and conflict.

turBo  - The Muslim Fascination     |2009-05-31 20:07:47 Matthew Parris got it wrong -well i think so, because its not a cultural practice to take off your shoes at mosques and it doesn't only happen in muslim countries - its a religious obligation, based on purity, humility and humbleness - also since when was a hijaab or face veil a cultural thing? women in Britain 'back in the days' covered their heads and wore long skirts - he should ask his great granny! what is it with this muslim fascination - the negativeness - am getting bored of it now! it seems as though people are just nit picking - they must have alot of time on their hands! ps mr parris - im a homegrown born n bred brummie - but u aint gonna see me eating egg n bacon for breaky - u can keep that custon to yourself mate (and the swine flu!)

Terminator  - Richard Seymour responds...   |2009-06-01 02:52:00 Richard Seymour at Lenin's Tomb has posted a good riposte to Matthew Parris over at his blog: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/05/you-aint-from-round-here.html

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."