Egypt's most powerful Muslim cleric, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, has announced an impending religious edict against the wearing of full, face-covering, headscarves, or niqab. He apparently announced that full-face veiling was a custom independent from Islam, and seeks to ban it from schools of Al Azhar University.
From AP:
A security official also told The Associated Press that police have standing verbal orders to bar girls covered from head to toe from entering al-Azhar's institutions, including middle and high schools, as well as the dormitories of several universities in Cairo.
Saturday, a handful of women protested the ban outside the university, and despite such backlash, it appears Tantawi will not be "dismissed."
Unfortunately, his announcement came after he visited a local school, witnessed schoolgirls wearing the niqab, requested that one girl take hers off, and was surprised when she didn't, saying "Niqab has nothing to do with Islam...I know about religion better than you and your parents." Inappropriate!
The challenge now facing Egypt is that of deciding next steps. Some doubt the ban will be enforced, like a ban on full-face veils for nurses declared but not implemented last year. Just last month, Egypt's Mufti encouraged women to wear pants. Additionally, judicial precedence in Egypt does not favor a ban on the niqab:
A researcher wearing the niqab prevented from using the library at the American University in Cairo in 2001 took her case to the Egypt's supreme court and eventually won. The court ruled a total ban on the niqab to be unconstitutional.
Additionally, these young women students will be denied government-subsidized housing and food as a result of their classification as "extremists." The Egyptian government seems to be demonstrating a blatant disregard for recruitment and retention of women students, creating one more social obstacle for women in their journey to education. Thanks for making it that much harder for women to stay in school.
(BBC has this helpful guide on the types of head-covering scarves for Muslim women.)
Related:
Sarkozy Supports Burqa Ban
Muslim Women Can Keep Veils On
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Egyptian Cleric bars veiled women from school.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16446
"Just last month, Egypt allowed women to wear pants, but the result of that has yet to be seen."
That sentence is very misleading, if not flat-out wrong. In the very article you linked to, it says the cleric "DEFENDED" Egyptian women's right to wear pants! Neither he nor Egypt were giving them a new freedom they didn't already have!
There is no "result" to be "seen". Women in Egypt wear pants all the time, especially in cities.
this is a frustrating example of someone "liberating" women by telling them what to do.
If the universities are run by the state, and the state is officially separated from church (religion), then universities may impose a dress code that is free from religious association. Turkey and Tunisia, for example, prohibit women from wearing veils at university.
Would you be ok with a US university that mandated that women attend class topless? Why should institutions be able to dictate that women wear less clothes at all? Especially if it interferes with their individual religious beliefs?
I'm usually not one for cultural relativism, but Turkey and Egypt have held, and have had reason to hold, far more proactive views of secularism which are incompatible with American views on individualism.
The US isn't one of the few moderate states surrounded by radicalism on all sides. To view this solely as an issue of modesty and personal choice in clothing misses how the this is viewed by many of the moderates who view this not solely about what women wear but the extent that their nation can remain moderate and continue the process of modernization.
There's no educational justification for forcing women to come to class topless.
There IS an educational justification for wanting women to show at least their eyes, if not their entire face, in class. As other posters have mentioned, this is really key to the teacher-student relationship, class discussion, etc.
I'm not saying women should be forced to show their faces... just saying those examples aren't parallel at all.
If the state funds the university and the state is officially lay - as in the church and state are separate - then the state may say that religious symbols are banned from university. To my knowledge, there is no religion whose symbol is topless women, rendering this hypothetical situation irrelevant.
If the university is lay, *why* is it a cleric who is making the new rule barring niqabi women?
Clearly it's because he believes in the separation of Church and State. Religious symbols of all kinds have no place in government or government-funded institutions. Even a cleric sees that!
The university isn't lay, its officially a Sunni university, which in many ways makes it much easier to justify its position. The university is asserting its view of religious doctrine.
That it is so adamant about its religious view that the niqab/hijab are not part of Islam is completely understandable considering Egypts own tenuous hold over the more radical conservatives in its country.
This cleric denounced Islamic terrorists as heretics to Islam. It isn't exactly surprising that he is taking other steps to marginalize their views and attempt to make them less acceptable in public.
But there are religious traditions (if not actually texts) that require women to wear shirts. Which would be the genuinely analogous situation.
(And the idea that "Religious symbols of all kinds have no place in government or government-funded institutions" is ridiculous. Public school students shouldn't be allowed to wear cross necklaces? A juror or defendant can't wear a Star of David to court? I'm calling bullshit.)
This reminds me of when the shah of Iran "unveiled" Iranian woman. Some of them were happy, but a good number of them wanted to wear their hijabs and refused to leave their homes without them. Telling women that they can't wear something is not the way to liberate them, even if the item symbolizes their oppression.
I recently read a book called "The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf." In it the author defends the hijab and what it means to Muslim women. I understand that the hijab is very different than a burka or niqab, but if a woman would feel violated to not have it than what good does taking it away do?
If he honestly wants to help women (I'm not sure if this is a feminist thing or a true Islam thing) this is not the way to do it. The first step is to help educate them and their families on why the niqab is not necessary rather than demand that they remove it.
On the one hand I want to say they're free to choose whatever they want to wear, but on the other hand, it can be really frustrating not to be able to see a student's face while you're trying to teach a class. It honestly does impact the teaching and learning in a way that covering your hair and arms really doesn't. Based on the picture in this post, it would be difficult to communicate with a student wearing a Niqab, and even more difficult with one wearing a Burka. Teachers rely on facial expressions to see if the students are understanding, or confused, or questioning something.
This is a fair point, but even though I'm atheist it's really hard for me to say "they shouldn't wear that" if it's a part of their religion. For me, it's the same thing as a girl wearing a chastity ring. I personally think that they're both damaging, but it's not my place (or anyone else's) to regulate a person's religion.
Mind explaining how a chastity ring is "damaging"?
It perpetuates the idea that a woman's greatest gift is her virginity.
I don't think that it does. Growing up, it actually helped ward off men that were only after me for my body. But that aside...
A woman's greatest gift isn't her virginity, no, since all women are different, but I personally considered it precious to be precious to me, and I don't think wearing one is damaging in any way.
I don't see how saying that you'll wait until marriage due to religious or non-religious reasons is damaging.
Men wear those too, so it isn't just women.
You should read The Purity Myth, by Jessica.
That's all I'll say.
I'll pick up the Purity Myth, since I've been hearing about it here. I know that America's obsession with virginity IS hurting young women, and I'm not being a virgin for reasons like "saving myself" or because it's what God wants, but because it's what -I- want.
Even though I'm Christian, I'm not going to have sex because I'm not ready for it. I think feminism is about supporting anyone's choice, whether it's having casual sex, abstaining, or having sex when in a committed relationship. :D
"I don't see how saying that you'll wait until marriage due to religious or non-religious reasons is damaging."
Except that's not what I said. I'm not talking about abstinence (which is fine so long as it's your choice and not forced upon you). I'm talking about religions encouraging women to do things that are not as greatly expected for men. You pointed out that men wear them as well, and I feel for them too. No one should be told to wait until marriage because that's what God wants. I admire people who fully abstain (I'm talking about not just vaginal but anal and oral too) in order to protect themselves from STIs and pregnancy. But when you do it because you fear the wrath of an omniscient being that's something else entirely.
I knew three people in high school who wore chastity rings, and none of them were virgins. Two of them flat-out had intercourse and still wore their rings, and one of them did everything under the sun but vaginal. And they all felt they needed to keep their rings on and insist to their parents that they were still virgins, because they didn't know what would happen if they told the truth. That to me is damaging. When I lost my virginity my mother was a huge asset to any questions I had, so I feel for people who don't have that.
The difference is a chastity ring doesn't block your face from the teacher's view.
For a hypothetical, what if there was some religion that insisted on wearing some sort of visor, similar to the shape of a baseball cap, at all times? As a teacher, I know that a baseball cap pulled a little low means you can't see the students eyes so you can't tell if they are copying off the person next to them during a quiz. So then the question becomes which is more important? The religious preference, or getting in the way of the normal running of a classroom?
I don't generally care what students wear. I have a lot of students with head scarves but since I know they're not being forced to wear it I don't care one way or the other. I also have students with sparkly tank tops. Who cares. But none of those things get in the way of me teaching. When it changes from fashion that can be ignored to things that actively get in the way of teaching, like covering your face or wearing something that makes noise or lets you cheat, then its a different story.
Anyway, I'm not sure that banning them is the right solution, although I definitely understand the impulse. But I might try to institute a series of talks about the effects of the burka on being able to teach and learn in a classroom, and whether or not its really worth it for the girls and women wearing it to miss out on so much of the interactions that go into learning.
I agree that it probably makes the learning and teaching process harder. That being said, I'd rather have veiled women in my classroom than their empty seats.
Yeah-- that's why I said I wouldn't *force* them to take off the burka. But I wouldn't encourage it, either. And if we're talking about a country where its generally ok to not be veiled (say, the US or France where they've also had issues with this, not sure about Egypt), then I would probably want to organize some discussions on the subject, etc. Get the women to think about what they're losing, and if it really is something they want. If it really really is what they want, then fine, but I admit its hard for me to believe that.
Side note-- most of the girls I see around campus here with headscarves have fashionable and tight clothing (with long sleeves and long pants) and coordinated colorful head scarves. They could easily be shopping at abercrombie and fitch and adding a head scarf. To me, it seems like it defeats the purpose of modesty a bit, but I guess it doesn't for them. I think I've seen one girl in a niqab, but not in any of my classes, so I don't know how it is handled. I saw her chatting with a group of other girls in their tight and sparkly head scarves, and she did look more out of place-- and although she had no accent, she seemed to be having more trouble communicating with the rest of the group. Jokes weren't quite working, etc. (They were "studying" at a table near me for awhile). Its hard to communicate when everyone else has expressions and you don't. We all know how easy it is to misunderstand a joke on the internet, for example. Some of us know how hard it is to be the person who doesn't like their glasses but then misses out on non-verbal cues.
I don't necessarily advocate the government forcing women to uncover their face, but I really don't like that anyone feels required to have their face covered at all times, and I think it cases practical problems in a way that a head scarf doesn't.
Its not just school, either. Would it be discriminatory not to want to hire a receptionist who wears a burka? I guess it is. But how much of the job of a receptionist involves smiling and making eye contact?
Would you want someone teaching an elementary school classroom (in the states, for example) in a burka? How much would it affect how well your child could understand the teacher? Can you imagine trying to teach 30 7 year olds without being able to make eye contact with them or smile at them or frown at them when they misbehave?
I just don't see how covering your face is worth it, at all.
Get the women to think about what they're losing, and if it really is something they want.
Gee, how nice of you not to *force* them to change their clothing. You're just going to make them feel extra scrutinized and let them know you disapprove of what they're wearing, because it's totally impossible they've already thought about their own clothing choices as they relate to their own religion and culture, and it's totally your place as someone with power over them to make them justify their personal decisions. Your straw-students will be so lucky to have had a Nice Non-Muslim Lady come to their rescue!
I go to a university with a fairly large Muslim population. I've had many, many classmates who wear hijab, and a few who veil with a niqab. I don't think it's ever been a problem for any of our professors. In one instance, a classmate of mine got married and started wearing a niqab mid-semester--one week we could see her whole face, the next only her eyes. It didn't make it harder to communicate with her, and it didn't seem to phase the professor. She was still totally able to participate in class (the only problem was it was harder to hear her for a week or so while she adjusted to modulating the volume of her voice to project through the niqab), and if she didn't understand something she was perfectly able to ask the professor to clarify just like the rest of us could. She did extremely well in the class.
She told me at one point that veiling had been a personal religious choice for her, not something her husband demanded. Her mother didn't cover her face, but my friend felt it was something she was called to do personally. On the other hand, I had another niqab-wearing classmate who said she might prefer not to cover herself so much but that her husband wanted her to. I'd guess you'd consider the former mindset misguided, and the latter situation oppressive (and you might be right). But do you really think you'd help either student by criticizing them? I can say pretty confidently from getting to know both of those women that if they felt overly scrutinized and judged by a professor for their niqab, they wouldn't have torn their veils off and rejoiced at their freedom. They would have dropped the class. If it happened enough, they might have left school altogether. So how does that help anyone, besides letting you feel smug and superior and keeping you from having to adjust your teaching methods to accommodate veiled students?
I think if a girl showed up in my classroom in a burka, I wouldn't really know what to do. Absent any university policy on it, I would probably just let her be-- but I would really feel like she's missing out. With other students if they have a confused look on their face I ask them if they understand something, or I make sure to call on them later when I have a moment. With a burka it would just be this big blank... And sure, she could speak up, but a lot of people aren't comfortable speaking up in class at all, let alone when they already stand out as much as that. Even if she did ask a question, I wouldn't be able to see her expression, or tell if she was listening to my answer or just daydreaming... A college teacher doesn't have the same responsibility to force the students to pay attention as a high school teacher does, but still. She'd be missing out. And there's no religion that would ask a man to miss out in that way.
In the end, I wouldn't try to force her to take it off if it was her choice. But it would be a major loss for her learning experience, my teaching experience, and quite possibly not fair to the other students who would automatically get different types of attention than her.
I'm not really concerned with the effects it has in the classroom, I'm concerned with a person's rights. I don't agree with the act of wearing a niqab, but I would never say that someone couldn't wear it.
I'm presently in college and I wear hats to class all the time. And sometimes sunglasses if I've had a rough night. And personally I hate it when professors call on me because they think I'm confused even though I don't have a question. Yet I'm dean's list. I don't know how my professors might feel about my attire, but since it doesn't affect my performance and I don't disrupt class it's really none of their business.
Yes, it is none of their business if it doesn't disrupt class, like I said. But if you have something covering your face during a test, it DOES disrupt class, because the teacher has to watch you and wonder if you're reading the person's quiz next to you and make a note of who you're sitting by, etc. Its a pain, and its not fair to the rest of the class. It makes more sense to ask someone to move their hat or sunglasses up to the top of their head during a test. And if you have something covering your face during a discussion that you're expected to participate in as part of your grade, then that also forces the professor to either pay more attention to you or ignore you and note that you didn't participate.
Also, it sounds like you're talking about a big lecture hall, where the professor lectures and everyone passively listens. I'm talking about discussion classes where everyone is supposed to participate as part of their grade. If you have something over your face and you're daydreaming, you're not getting your participation credit, not to mention the learning that comes from that, so its your loss in the end. And I don't like the idea of women just taking that loss when men are never expected to, but like I said, if they choose to they can.
It makes more sense to ask someone to move their hat or sunglasses up to the top of their head during a test.
I have to wear polarized sunglasses in most of my classrooms because fluorescent lights give me seizures and/or migraines. There are plenty of other disabilites that might cause a person to have to wear dark glasses indoors.
If I am about to take a test, and am thus understandably stressed, the last thing I should have to do is defend myself to the professor. People do not always, um, react well to other people with epilepsy; I am not talking about you in particular or even other profs, but rather classmates who might overhear. Furthermore, having to defend myself is extra stress for me, it's a somewhat emotional topic in the first place, and it takes test time away from the class.
So in other words: no, it doesn't make sense.
Sorry for the derail. Gut-jerk reaction.
Obviously that's a medical exception that you should mention to the teacher before the day of the test. And I can't imagine anyone would ask you to remove them after that explanation. But, depending on how close together all the desks are, it probably does make it more difficult to see if you are looking at your neighbor's paper-- so I could see the teacher asking you to scoot your desk to the side, or watching your more closely, or making a point of checking your test more closely later. You have a medical exception that you can't change-- the question is whether arbitrary personal preference with no physical basis is worth the same level of consideration.
If someone is physically capable of taking notes but just doesn't want to, should they be entitled to the school paying for a note-taker, as the school does for a blind student or a student with two broken arms?
To make my point more clearly-- obviously, you have a (minor? dunno what terminology you like) physical/medical disability, and thus an exception should be made for you. (If it bothers you to have to explain this on the day of the test, the obvious answer, and probably the one required by the university anyway, is to explain it ahead of time, and maybe bring some sort of documentation so there's no issues. The professor asking everyone else to remove their hats should not be a problem for you, so this case really doesn't invalidate that general practice at all).
So then the real question is, does religion count as a disability? We make all sorts of exceptions for people who are physically incapable of doing something, because its not like they can change their mind and just start doing it. You can't tell someone in a wheelchair that they're being selfish by insisting on an elevator and they should take the stairs like everyone else, because they honestly do not have that choice.
I'm of the opinion that religion IS a choice, and that we shouldn't necessarily be obligated to treat religious restrictions the same way we'd treat a physical disability that the person has no choice about. Not to mention that there are tons of different interpretations of each religion to choose from, so it is not only a choice to be Muslim but also a choice to adhere to the type of Islam that insists that you wear a burka even in countries that do not require or encourage it.
I think there are still other reasons to debate whether or not its a good idea to tell women not to wear a burka (would it just keep them out of school completely, etc), but I don't think that comparing it to a physical disability is a fair analogy.
"Also, it sounds like you're talking about a big lecture hall, where the professor lectures and everyone passively listens."
No, actually since I'm in upper-levels now most of my classes have less than 20 people.
Regardless of all of this, we're still talking about someone's religion, and Muslim women who were raised veiled will feel naked without it, and this will make them perform badly anyway. The cleric is handling the situation all wrong.
I'd also say that if I can't see someone's face, I have to specifically ask them if they understand, which calls more attention to them. Or I have to ignore them, and if they're lost, too bad.
In a normal situation, I don't necessarily call on someone who looks confused, but if a few people look confused, I explain something again, or I pause and ask for questions. It sounds like you'd prefer your teacher to ignore you and act like a videotape, but that's not how teaching works, and you're not getting as much out of the class as you should if that's your attitude*. If you want the material presented to you with zero human interaction, you can read the textbook by yourself and not show up to class.
*Unfortunately in the largest lecture halls it does turn into video tape lecturing, but even in those classes there is usually a discussion section or office hours where students can participate-- and if the teacher can't see them, a lot is getting lost.
I had a blind teacher. Somehow, she managed to teach with seeing facial expressions. She had a little vision left, but it was just shapes.
I don't know how I feel about comparing this with a physical disability that you can't control. I have to think about it a little more-- it does seem like somewhat of a valid argument. But I'm not sure if I completely agree with it.
For instance, obviously Stephen Hawking can no longer make eye contact or speak directly to anyone. And he's still working in theoretical physics. But its very difficult for him, and he's got a full time staff just basically trying to figure out what his research is supposed to be. People do it because he's so brilliant. But would they do the same for someone who was capable of speaking and everything but just insisted on sitting in a wheelchair with a blanket over their head and only communicating by slow typing? Should they? I don't really know the answer, but its an interesting idea....
What I'm pointing out, is that it's not impossible to teach people you can see.
I doubt the student would be concentrating if she feels naked and embarrassed without her covering.
How far do religious rights go before the law can't budge anymore for them?
There's a reason why these women wear veils, its because either their faces are seen as some kind of dirty or evil, or because they can't "lead" males into sin.
And, so what if some women want to wear them, does that make the reasoning behind them right? Wasn't there an image a while back posted on here that said that 90% of women in Jordan believe its their husbands right to beat them?
And how far SHOULD religious allowances go in general? Its a really tough question. There are certain things we're used to thinking of as related to religion and we're used to thinking about making exceptions for that. But if you start replacing it with other things it really starts to seem weird. What if I have a religion that says I need to be connected to the world at all times and therefore I should be entitled to have my iPhone with me, connected to the cell network, all the time, even when I'm on a plane or in class or serving jury duty? What if my religion says I can't speak in front of groups, or can't get more than 20 feet above solid ground (away from mother earth?). Am I entitled to have all my classes on the first two floors and be excused from group projects? Am I entitled to a job where I'm not asked to disobey any of these rules? If I honestly believe in these things, does that mean people have to accommodate them and refrain from saying they make no sense?
I'm not a fan of the government forcing people to do certain things in their personal lives, even in most of the above examples. But I don't think that means we have to always accommodate arbitrary beliefs, or act like they are logical.
I love how you assume the reasons women wear niqab. I'd be willing to bet my life you've never actually asked a niqabi about it. Some other reasons I've heard--"it makes me feel more observant"; "it makes men leave me alone". Just look at the cleric who started this--he thought he was entitled to see a girl's face, and then berated her when she refused. If I lived among men like that, I might want to wear a niqab too.
No, not why the women themselves wear it, but why the extremist Muslim sects force them to/indoctrinate them into wear it.
My thing is that forcing them to unveil isn't helping them. It's not educating them, it's not giving them equality. This situation is being handled all wrong.
I must say, for all my arguments about how a burka in a (for example, high school) classroom could be a problem, I can't believe they're barring people from entering the DORMS wearing them. Are they going to police what people wear inside their own bedrooms? Very strange. Unless they use their dorms for different purposes there, but I don't usually think of the dorms as a place of business or organized academics, but more as a place to hang out and sleep.
Dorms are shared housing, and I certainly would never consent to live in a shared housing situation with people who cover their faces. It has nothing to do with lack of tolerance and everything to do with safety. I want to know who that person is walking towards me in the hallway at 2 AM.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
From Canadian CTV News
"Muslim group urges gov't to ban burkas, niqabs in public"
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091007/muslim_ban_091007/20091007?hub=Canada
By: The Canadian Press
Date: Wednesday Oct. 7, 2009 10:44 PM ET
TORONTO — Middle Eastern garments designed to cover a woman's face are "medieval" and "misogynist" symbols of extremism with no basis in Islam, a Canadian Muslim lobby group said Wednesday as it urged Ottawa to ban the burka and the niqab.
The thing is, it does have a basis in Islam. It's debatable, and depends on which hadiths (recorded sayings of the Prophet not in the Quran) one regards as legit or not. There are many schools of interpretation in Islam, just like in Christianity or Judaism.
Ah, religious interpretations... I wouldn't be surprised if, one of these days, the right-wing Christians started demanding that women should start covering their heads in public again. After all, it IS in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:4-16!
Some of them do. Some Amish and Mennonite sects, for instance.
Um, Catholics do cover their heads. Nuns wear a full habit, revealing only their faces and until a few decades ago, women were not allowed to attended church without a hat on their heads. Male Jews cover their heads, too, btw.
Ah, religious interpretations... I wouldn't be surprised if, one of these days, the right-wing Christians started demanding that women should start covering their heads in public again. After all, it IS in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:4-16!
The veil, niqab, and burka are three different pieces of clothing.
There is nothing wrong with a veil. In fact, the use of it among most young (er) women is laughable: a veil on their head, but tight, form-fitting and cleavage bearing clothing. This makes me wonder whether or not these women actually have the choice to wear it or not. If they are clearly not conforming to religious views of modesty and humility through their clothing, why wear a veil at all?
If a woman chooses to wear a veil, for the right reasons, I see it as no different from a man wearing a kippa or a sheik wearing his turban or an Indian woman wearing her sari. Or a nun wearing her habit.
A niqab or burka, however, is very different. These clothings are generally imposed on them, in extremely conservative religious zealots that have taken political power in dictatorships. They impose and oblige women to suffer the consequences of men's behaviour. In fact, the theory is that men cannot control their sexual impulses and therefore men are able to be more productive in society and not think about sex or try to control their urges if women are dressed in such a way that their shapes and curves are indistinguishable. Solve a man's problem by punishing the woman - gosh, we never saw that before!
P.S. Many other middle-eastern countries have banned any visible religious symbols from state-funded universities : Turkey and Tunisia are two examples. Women are not allowed to wear a veil in those universities. These are Muslim, though lay (as in, church and state are separate) countries. If it works there, why not Egypt?
If they are clearly not conforming to religious views of modesty and humility through their clothing, why wear a veil at all?
I presume by veil you mean hijab.
The wearing of hijab is seen by many young Muslim women of an affirmation of their Islamic identity; it is a political statement. Though hijab (and the other types of coverings) have a historical basis in ideas of modesty, such that wearing it whislt also wearing 'non-modest' clothing can seem laughable, that is not the context for which it is beaing worn.
Many other middle-eastern countries have banned any visible religious symbols from state-funded universities : Turkey and Tunisia are two examples. Women are not allowed to wear a veil in those universities...If it works there, why not Egypt?
It may work in Turkey and Tunisia, but it's not uncontroversial. There are women that protest the ban, and many more that don't, simply acquiescing to the law whilst on campus and donning hijab when off-campus.
Actually, veil != hijab. Hijab is the word for many forms of modest dress. In Arabic, the veil is called a khimar.
Seems to me like the best tactic would be to use the Socratic method and get them to question WHY they wear the niqab, WHY the burka is important to them.
Education is better than regulation.
Egypt doesn't always have the luxury of taking the best approach. Good enough sometimes has to do.
This is not a good thing. You and every other person who judges a muslim woman for her choices (whether they were influenced by her husband, father, brother, etc or not) need to realize something. They too have the right to practice their religion as they see fit, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (I don't want an argument over whether the burqa and the niqab are hurtful to them or not, that is not for you to decide, its for the individual woman.) No one has the right to tell these women how to dress. Think about it this way. Every person on here would be outraged if he insisted on them WEARING one, why can't the same thing be applied to him banning it? I like the comments above asking if women in American universities should be required to come to class topless. Its the same concept, different item of clothing. Muslim women should have the right to choose how they want to dress and should not be told that the way they dress is wrong. It is their decision, not yours, not their government, etc. Leave these women alone and let them practice their religion in peace
AMEN!
How can it be 'her choice' if she is influenced by her husband, father, brother? The burka is not a mandated by religion. It is IMPOSED by a STATE. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan are all examples of STATES that REQUIRE women to dress a certain way.
I am not at all outraged to see a cleric banning a religious symbol. No religion that I know of has a symbol along the lines of women being topless. Therefore, I believe that argument is not pertinent to this discussion.
Whoawhat, Egypt is not one of such countries that mandates that women wear hijab. I would hope that you at least recognize the argument that any legislation/declaration/hard line requirement of women (by men!) to dress/act/believe a certain way, is at least somewhat anti-feminist, including BOTH the mandatory veil in come countries, and the ban in Egypt. That's what's happening here.
The problem is if the university wants to take a stand on this and lets people choose, those who side with the university could face attacks for their decision. If the university simply pronounces that this is the way things will be within its walls, then it is taking the stand and it will be the lightning rod, not the students, and since the university holds to my understanding a major role in Arabic academia, it could have a better prospect of doing so then the students are able to.
You and every other person who judges a muslim woman for her choices
I judged a woman for her choices? I challenge you to find a place where I did that. I asserted that Egypt followed this as a way of fighting back against extremists who would intimidate women into wearing the niqab and the hijab, who would take over Egypt and turn it into the bread of radicalism seen in Saudi Arabia or other countries in the middle east. That they are somewhat heavy handed in their approach is understandable considering their situation and more acceptable than some of the alternatives
Something about this article I didn't notice at first was that the person supporting this whole banning the face-covering thing was a Muslim cleric...
"Unfortunately, his announcement came after he visited a local school, witnessed schoolgirls wearing the niqab, requested that one girl take hers off, and was surprised when she didn't, saying "Niqab has nothing to do with Islam...I know about religion better than you and your parents." Inappropriate!"
Now I don't know much about Islam, but isn't a head cleric like the pope or something? Don't they carry some kind of religious authority?