Whose burden is the burqa?

Those who object to the “moving prison” say nothing about men displaying the physical assets of trophy wives in a consumerist paradise.

If anyone is benefiting from the Islamist idea, specifically the veil, then it is the western elite or the westernised liberals among Muslims. I might have been a part of the latter given my mode of dress, speech and general deportment. I choose, instead, to play devil’s advocate. The reason is that the debate over whether a woman has the right to cover her face and body has become a western discourse. Its validity is reduced partly due to its being co-opted by an alien yardstick and partly because, ironically, it uses the religious paradigm to justify the ban on the veil.

The Quran does not prescribe it, the Prophet did not enjoin it and so on go the arguments. That is not the point anymore, and incidentally men too follow certain dress codes. It is beyond religion and one must understand that the Muslim world, and even the Arab world, is not of one kind. Therefore, discussing anything in such uniform terms reveals paucity of insight. I’d like one single commentator to discuss this issue without bringing in Islam and then let us watch the fun.

Contemporary society has many areas of darkness and every religion is rediscovering its roots. The rediscovery probably has nothing to do with the essence of the faith. The Pat Robertsons often go well with TV dinners for those rushed for time and prayer. Patriarchal paranoia too would be justified if it also took into account how non-Muslim societies choose to treat their women where they are subtly left out of mainstream political and social opinions. Why is the West obsessed only with Islam?

This is an extension of the old xenophobia. Some are upfront and brand others as terrorists or suspects; the others go the other way and play patronising angels who understand the ‘pain’ of the Muslim woman. In France, where the veil was banned on April 11, a very small percentage of its Muslim population wears the veil. Why is the rest of the female population not considered in the arguments put forth? Does the fact that some women defied the ban not reveal that they cannot be herded into an ignorant, backward stereotype?

When the Bill was first being considered Andre Gerin, a Communist Party legislator, had said, “Today, we are confronted by certain Muslim women wearing the burqa, which covers and fully envelops the body and the head like a moving prison”. His 57 colleagues had signed a document that stated it amounted “to a breach of individual freedoms on our national territory”.

Whose individual freedom is it? I may personally not wear the veil but I do not think any woman doing so is infringing on my freedom. If the religion of France is secularism, then it does not as a matter of course mean that no religious choices can be made. Secularism is not atheism. If the issue is regarding security risks, then the government must make it clear that certain checks will be mandatory, but to sneak in ethical arguments is vile.

It is also extremely offensive to question veiled women who believe they feel empowered. Like grand vigilantes, the anti-veil group thinks it is important to probe the basis of such a choice. As a stand-alone poser it is legitimate, but then how many women have access to equal opportunities in the workplace or rights even at home? Those who object to the “moving prison” and contend that male insecurity puts a wife or sister behind the burqa say nothing about men who feel secure having trophy wives and displaying them for their physical assets in a consumerist paradise.

There is a belief that the veil defines a woman completely. It does not, just as a skirt or a lipstick does not. Whether they choose to wear loose ‘tents’ or scarves with tight clothes is only one of the choices they make in life, as much as others do things to please their partners, peer groups or societal trends. The people who can ensure that no one is forced to wear what she does not want to are those who understand the construct and not imposers who come with their own moral values garbed as liberalism. A true liberal is not offended by others and most certainly not afraid that she cannot bond with a face behind a niqab. With botox and cosmetics, not to speak of public facades, what about the masks we wear?

(c) Farzana Versey


The images are posited to emphasise the exaggerated positions and draw home the point that there are several layers between the two aspects.

Published in Countercurrents, April 25, 2011

Travel Advisory for Darul Uloom

"Go take a walk."

And before I am branded as not Muslim enough, if at all, then let me assure you I am closely acquainted with Muslims who practise their faith religiously.

I understand that by quoting the Darul Uloom Deoband I am furthering their cause, but if newspapers continue to publish their latest fatwa, as though it is the newest trend, we will have to speak up. The seminary purports to represent the faith and the Quran; it also ends its fatwas with “Allah knows best”. Therefore, I wonder why people ask them questions at all.


Here is the query on travel:

“Is a married woman permitted to travel to another country with her female sibling?”

The Darul Uloom reply:

“She cannot travel without a ‘mehram’. It’s mentioned in the Hadees that a woman should not travel for more than 48 miles except in the company of a ‘mehram’ relative.”

A 'mehram' is an immediate relative, with whom having sex would amount to incest, or the husband.

I would like to know whether implicit in the reply is that women travel for sex or that there is always the possibility of them being sexually exploited. The latter does pose a danger, but wasn’t it the Deoband that issued a fatwa on a raped woman who was asked to marry her father-in-law, the rapist? Where was she travelling to?

There are several aspects in religion that had validity at one point in time; it is important to seek the essence and not the superficals. And I am not sure about the verity of the Deoband pronouncements. In respect of removal of hair in private parts, for example, it talks about tweezers for women. Were there tweezers in the Prophet’s time? Or depilatory creams? Anyhow, all these were for reasons of hygiene and not because it interfered with people’s belief in god.

Now back to their travel advice. Quite a few of my relatives are religious and the women travel alone and are professionally qualified. Some also wear the hijaab and drive the fastest and take holidays without their male relatives.

The Deoband's extreme position will work against itself. A woman asking the query obviously wishes to or needs to travel. She may not know how far her destination exactly is in miles or kilometres. She might need to use transport and the driver need not be a woman. Then what? Okay, she will be in full hijaab and all that. Then? What if she takes a break every 48 miles and then resumes for another 48 – will that be halal?

In the same state of Uttar Pradesh some miles away from the Deoband in Lucknow women in Varanasi are running madrassas. They have had regular education and are inculcating these values in their students. They are showing the community, the country and the world that madrassas are not only about religious teachings. It is not to justify the existence of such madrassas or to whitewash a bad image, but to fight ignorance and empower themselves.

I should hope they travel far, beyond the 48 miles, because in their minds they have already traversed way ahead of the clerics.

The Pope and the Prophet

Two bits of religious news and let us see the reactions…

A Scottish art exhibition invited visitors to deface a copy of the Bible. The exhibit, Untitled 2009, is part of the ‘Made In Gods Image’ exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow and was thought up by local artist Anthony Schrag. The intention was for gays and transsexuals who felt left out of religion to write their way back in to the holy book. But visitors offered pens by gallery staff had other ideas, and have scrawled a series of obscene remarks.

Is art beyond the realm of social discourse? Would one consider it as a political commentary that seeks to exclude certain segments of people because of their other beliefs and actions? Have we not heard about incidents of homosexuality within the Church?

The flip side is this: Why does the gay community wish to belong to a faith system that is mainstream when they are not? Does writing obscene remarks lessen their feeling of being left out?

Apparently, after the Pope’s objection, the Bible has been placed in a locked case and visitors can write their comments on blank sheets of paper. They may as well have a meeting or seminar. Incidentally, copies of the Bible, as I am sure other scriptures, are distributed freely. At least, I got several copies from back in my school days to a couple of years ago. How would anyone know whether or not I would treat it with any respect? Do those with evangelical fervour think for a moment that what they deem holy could mean nothing to another and that itself is a sort of defilement?

I don’t find such art particularly interesting or enlightening or even a potent commentary. However, the Church could just have taken up the issue for what it is. Instead, this is what a report states:

The adviser to the head of the Catholic Church said the project was disgusting and offensive. They would not think of doing it to the Koran, he added.

Who are the ‘they’? Who flushed the Koran down the toilet? Who published those Danish cartoons? If people did react, they were immediately termed Islamists, jihadis and intolerant. Some of us who took a view that a religion for its believers must be large enough to withstand such onslaughts were also called jihadis!

So, let us deal with an issue closer to home.

The Prophet’s picture has found its way in a Hindi book chapter in Uttar Pradesh on different religious figures who have contributed to humanity (Manav Uthaan ke Liye Vibhinn Dharmo ka Yogdaan). Islam does not permit publication of the pictures of the Prophet, according to a report. A clarification. There are no pictures available or even ancient artistic impressions. And, yes, the religion does not allow such depictions because it does not believe in iconography. That is the reason I have often mentioned tombs being unIslamic.

Yuvraj Dutt, the writer, said the Prophet’s picture was available on the internet and was downloaded from there. Incidentally, the picture was added in the third edition of the book in 2009.

It begs the question: why now? Obviously, they knew it was not exactly the done thing. What is the motive? Why this desperate urge to give a face to the Prophet? Because politics needs something.

Ex-state minister and SP leader Ujjawal Raman Singh threatened that the party would take to the streets and also raise the issue in the assembly if the photograph was not removed.

Please note the name of this gentleman. He is not a Muslim protecting his faith. Just as the first person to call for a ban on Satanic Verses was Khushwant Singh, a Sikh.

And this is my beef. I may well say that it is no big deal, but once it is made an issue of then do not expect silence. The Pope makes a noise; the maulvis will too. And the saffron guys do it as well when their god images, which are used artistically often, are distorted in any manner.

Oh, we speak about madrassas and how only religion is taught there. Here are students in a Mumbai school praying to the snake god:

Now, a fatwa to vote!

Can I vote for a drunkard? No, that's not my query. I'd be happy to recommend at least a nice after dinner liquer to erase the taste of kebabs from the palate.

This important question, among others regarding how to cast your vote that won't go against the Shariah, was apparently asked by some Muslims. I do not know how true it must be for one has never heard of such a thing before. But the Darul ul Uloom got its opportunity to issue one more fatwa.

This time it is to vote and for democracy. Which is such a dictatorial thing to do. Getting that ink dot is "as important as a testimony or a witness is in Islam", they said.

Then, the faithful are told that they cannot judge Indian democracy according to Quranic or Hadith principles.

Now, this is wonderful except that by issuing this edict and other past ones they are, and have been, going against their own sage advice.

It has got them brownie points and people will go, "Oh, this is the much-needed reform Muslim society needs." The Darul ul Uloom fellows will be seen as 'leaders'. One more joke.

Who knows this fatwa must have been prompted by some candidate who likes to wash down his rogan josh with Scotch?

I'd say lage raho miyan bhai, but please leave the ordinary Muslim alone to decide whether they want a drunkard, a womaniser or a Sufi high on hash.

Islam and the eunuch

I cannot decide whether the news item about Indonesia’s transvestites getting into an Islamic school is good news or bad news.

Let me reproduce excerpts from the report and respond to the points:

Heavyset and wearing the pink Islamic headscarf and matching flowing clothes of a pious Indonesian housewife, 48-year-old Maryani says her penis is a gift from God. Born as a boy and raised as a Catholic, Maryani spent years of drinking and selling sex on the streets as part of this city’s transgendered community before discovering Islam.

If the penis is a gift from god, then why play the role of a woman? She was born with it, so isn’t this the gift of her Christian god? Where does Islam come into the picture? I am beginning to think that people are just getting onto the Islamic bandwagon because it is convenient.

You might wonder how it is possible when people are suffering because of it. Indonesia is a Muslim-majority country. Besides, the convert always has great value.

Maryani’s house has been turned into Indonesia’s first Islamic school set up specifically for waria, the transgendered people. Twice a week, around 20 waria in tight jeans, skirts, straightened hair and fastidiously applied makeup come in—many bleary eyed from a long night of drinking and searching for clients—to study the Koran and get better acquainted with their religion. “Waria are people too, we want to be religious. We have a right to heaven and we have a right to hell. Because we’ve been given life we have to remember god,” Maryani says.

This sounds like chicken soup for the soul or, more appropriately, some lime juice after a hangover. Drinking and soliciting clients is not a part of Islam. I am not being judgmental about the profession these people follow because there are few avenues for them, and most earn barely $ 1.86. As one of them said, “If you ask me going out at night is not good, but this is the only way we can meet our everyday needs. My principle is that I’ll stay like this in the future, when I’m old I’ll still be like this.”

Isn’t it unfortunate? Is learning the Koran helping them in any way, if they are so fatalistic? Belief in god and prayer can be essential for them, and for a believer heaven and hell are there whether they pray or not. If they have been doing their kind of work for years, I suspect they will be put on a guilt trip. What happens then?

The teachers teach skills such as baking and beauty therapy to get the waria off the streets, but their main focus remains religious guidance.

How many transgendered people get employed in such professions? What is the religious guidance being given to them that will help them in their daily lives? Do they need to go to school for this? The only advantage as I see it is that it could be a way of getting them to bond.

Said one, “We have hopes like other women. We hope to live with someone beside us, hope for a son. To live like regular people.”

No religion can give them that. Such hopes can be realised only through scientific methods and that too in certain cases.

Heaven and hell are situations we encounter on earth. And we have the benefit and the bruises from both to show and learn from.

- - -

Image: Maryani at her home-school

Why are Indian Islamic scholars getting all hot and bothered?

In the email sent out on September 13 minutes before bombs exploded through New Delhi, the Indian Mujahideen quoted two verses from the Quran. The verses, say Islamic scholars, had been pulled out of context and misinterpreted.

As though these maulanas follow the verses when they issue fatwas on women raped by their fathers-in-law or make stupid pronouncements. They too are interpreting it to suit their immediate ‘concerns’, which are none of their business, anyway.

Here go the two quotes used by the IM group:

“(O you who believe) when you encounter (in fight) those who disbelieve, strike their necks first, till when you have completely massacred and wounded many of them, then bind them firmly (taking them as captives). Thereafter is the time, either for generosity or a ransom until the war lays down its burden. (Qur’an 47:4).’’

The mullahs say:

“Muslims were boycotted for three years by non-Muslims in Mecca. No one would trade with them, there was no permission for namaz, they were beaten up, harassed and humiliated. So there was an order to leave Mecca. But even after reaching Madinah, the non-Muslims continued troubling the Muslims and attacking them. It was during this period that this verse was revealed. This verse instructed Muslims to fight with those who came to attack them.’’

Okay, so the IM group has mentioned how Muslims are harassed, beaten up etc and etc. There has been nasty demagogue talk about asking Mossies to leave. Hey, it happened right here on this humble blog to this humble writer, who is not even Mossie enough.

The other verse refers to the IM use of “Allah is the best of those who plot a plan”. According to Maulana speak, this is in reference to Allah planning an easy passage for the Prophet whose house was under surveillance and the enemies of Islam were plotting his downfall.

So, the IM outfit believes many Muslim houses are under surveillance and there are groups of people plotting their downfall.

The Indian Mujahideen is seeking some literary inspiration. They could have quoted from Shakespeare or Kafka. These mullahs will use and twist the Quran when they feel like it. So just chill and stop screaming about this misinterpretation nonsense.

If you want to sound secular and nice, just go for iftaar to the house of a certain famous person (who will be mouthing the same clichés as you do)…oops, does she have a house?