Opinion
Legality of hijab vital to security
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Daniel Tenenbaum:
- Sudanese victims need real support (September 19, 2006)
- SSFC squanders student funding (October 17, 2006)
- Bias necessary to promote diverse college learning experience (November 1, 2006)
- New hope for Israel as Hamas falters (November 15, 2006)
- Legality of hijab vital to security (November 28, 2006)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
I shouldn't be writing this column. Look at my byline. Read my last name and note how it ends with a resounding "baum." Or take a glance at my picture and note my misshapen nose. I'm a Jew through and through. And that's not all: I'm a Jewish-American male studying at the University of Wisconsin. The closest I've been to the Middle East was a brief 48-hour jaunt through Slovenia, a wonderful little country sadly mired in existential crisis ever since Slovakia came and crashed the party. Despite my complete social disconnect from issues pertaining to Islamic women's headwear, I refuse to refrain from throwing in my two cents, which is a fairly accurate measure of the value of my opinion. The latest European trend, calling for dress codes that ban the hijab in various public venues, is a major fashion faux pas. It is important to note that a significant number of Muslim women choose not to cover their heads, as the hijab is far from being a pillar of the Islamic faith. Those who do partake can indulge in an unlimited number of colors, fabrics and sizes. Some even sport the niqab: A mega-hijab covering the entire head except for a little slit for viewing purposes. Really pious Muslim women who are also blind sometimes go as far as to sew the eye slit closed and then get super mad props from Allah. No I'm just kidding. And being offensive. Most women wear the hijab for religious observation just like Jews who wear yarmulkes and Sikhs who wrap their hair. Other women cover their heads to make a feminist statement against Western pop culture products like the Pussycat Dolls and Paris Hilton, America's No. 1 and No. 2 exports, respectively. Some are trying to avoid unwanted attention and catcalls, particularly in areas where harassment from men is common. Covering your head and face is a crummy and ineffective way to avoid abuse, but it is altogether unimportant whether or not I approve of the aforementioned reasons. Do I really need to explain why women living in liberal democracies should be able to choose what they wear? Europe is shooting itself in the foot by enacting anti-headscarf legislation and making the hijab a public policy concern. In 2004, France removed the headscarf from public schools, and British government officials have come out saying women shouldn't wear the niqab in public. Just last week the Netherlands — always looking to go above and beyond — voted to ban the hijab altogether. All three of these countries have Muslim populations exceeding one million, and all three governments have more than proved their ineptitude at suppressing their regressive xenophobia. Unimaginative pundits claim that Islamic headwear is a security issue, and in a roundabout way they are completely right. Such tactless political posturing, besides being incompatible with the Western notion of freedom of expression, ultimately creates security threats by picking at scabs of ethnic divisions that need time to heal. The hijab is a relatively insignificant aspect of Islamic tradition, and attacking it makes it a cause that invigorates religious extremism and gives power to those who rule through fear and hatred. As a non-Muslim male I will never claim to truly understand the choice to wear the hijab. Without any legal training I am not convinced that a ban on the hijab is beyond our judiciary, and if the mid-term elections taught me anything it was that our legislatures are not stalwart defenders of personal freedoms. If there is an issue that resonates with both urban and rural America it is national security. To follow the lead of England, France, and the Netherlands and threaten the legality of a simple headscarf is to threaten the security of our country. Daniel Tenenbaum (drtenenbaum@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science, international studies and history.
16 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
“As a non-Muslim male I will never claim to truly understand the choice to wear the hijab.”
Danny, have you ever heard of a bad hair day?
But then yarmulkes and turbans don’t completely disguise people. How do you prove your identity through a little slit? I guess it is good as an indicator of who might be the victim of an “honor” killing if they get friendly with an infidel , puts them off-limits so to speak. Declares them as property, no trespassing, etc.
But it’s not all bad news:
The Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar, the oldest and most highly respected institution in Sunni Islam; and the Grand Mufti of Egypt have released an official fatwa declaring the practice of female circumcision (also called female genital mutilation or female genital cutting) un-Islamic. The decision was made at a conference hosted in Egypt and attended by Muslim clergy from around the world.
Organized religions and their foolishness continue to foul the world. Jeesh! To think that people still cowtow to the rubbish! Yuck!
The whole issue is so silly.
We make women cover their breasts here. I’m sure there are plenty of cultures that would view that legal requirement as creating divisions between the sexes and unnecessarily impinging on a woman’s freedom. Somehow it’s acceptable, sacrosanct even, for us to impose our arbitrary religious morality on women (going so far as to make it law), but when Muslims do it it’s an absolute travesty of justice and mysoginistic abomination.
Kinda like it’s absolutely unacceptable to burn the flag, but freedom of speech demands sacriligous cartoons about Mohammad be printed, even by publishers who don’t want to.
Why can’t these people just admit that they have an irrational prejudice against muslims and fess up to their double-standards.
“Kinda like it’s absolutely unacceptable to burn the flag, but freedom of speech demands sacriligous cartoons about Mohammad be printed,”
BS! I’m unaware of anybody being killed over flag-burning. There’s also been a notable lack of riot and arson over flag burning.
“an irrational prejudice against muslims”
It’s completely rational to object to being forced to submit to an imaginary being. Submit or die, there’s no third way as far as the muslim is concerned.
“… irrational prejudice against muslims and fess up to their double-standards.”
Auto-response: Blah, blah, blah honor killing. Blah, blah 9/11. Blah, blah, blah Caliphate.
www.MichelleMalkin/SheThinksForMe.com
“there’s no third way as far as the muslim is concerned”
Maybe if you had the balls to study “the muslim” in his natural state your prejudice would be a little more reasonable, as it would be based on experience instead of TV. It would still be stupid and irrational, but you’d be getting closer to the real world.
I mean, seriously, “the muslim” you couldn’t sound more like a sheltered, ignorant, country-ass talk radio zombie if you tried.
“BS! I’m unaware of anybody being killed over flag-burning. There’s also been a notable lack of riot and arson over flag burning.”
Do you even know what you’re calling BS on? Flag burning and Mohammed cartoons are both free expression. Why do conservatives attack one while claiming the other is acceptable, going so far as to even encourage the cartoons? Try to answer that instead of launching into idiot talking points.
But you don’t even seem to be capable of making a coherent argument on that point. You’re saying that flag burning doesn’t cause riots and arson, so it should be illegal and free speech ignored. Mohammed cartoons do cause riots and arson, but free speech demands that they be allowed. Reconcile that for me Einstien.
Christ, are you seriously in college? The more tuition goes up the stupider the kids seem to get.
“Auto-response: Blah, blah, blah honor killing. Blah, blah 9/11. Blah, blah, blah Caliphate.”
You’d have been right at home in 1938. Blah, blah, blah Mein Kampf. Blah, blah Kristallnacht. Blah, blah, blah Sudetenland.
I’m not worried - the muslims are killing each other in far greater numbers than they are killing infidels, at least in Iraq.
i agree that people have irrational criticisms against other cultures when their own ones are just the same, people just don’t realize it. people dont understand that many muslims do it as their own choice, though there may be a lot of pressure from society on them. Shaving, make-up and high heels are all really inconvenient and uncomfortable and disguise your true look. You can choose not to do them or wear them, but a majority of women do at least the first two. I don’t see how that’s any different.
makeup, cha-ching! it can distort a face more decievingly than a niqab, and yet its worn by nearly all women.
I don’t give a rat’s hairy arse over flag burning OR Mohammed cartoons - what I object to is that flag burning is given a free pass while the MSM is all atwiter over the nasty Mohammed cartoons. Can’t print them since it might offend the muslims - oh my!
I guess they figure US flag burning is OK since nobody gets burned alive over it.
Try burning a koran in a muslim county, much less a flag with Mohammed’s picture on it. You’ll find out what intolerance is all about then, at least for the short rest of your life you will.
I am told that more people are murdered in the US by illegal aliens than are killed US soldiers in Iraq.
When Southern Baptism is criticized, the critic is invited to dinner and prayer. When Islam is criticized, we have Fatwas calling for the murder of the critic, protests in the streets, and riots in the cities. Until the Islamic equivalent of the Reformation, it is an indisputable fact that Islam is a violent religion which does not tolerate other beliefs. Time for a taste of its own medicine.