Burn The Burqa

By Anonymous -
Taslima Nasrin, the Bangladeshi writer, who currently lives in exile in Calcutta, India, calls for Muslim women to Burn the Burqa, and to do away with all other forms of purdah. Perhaps the Muslim women of Leicester could take a lead in bringing about this modernising and liberating reform.

The article was published in Outlook India on 22 January. Taslima writes (page 2 of article):

Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women's oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive. Women are told to wear them so that they cannot exist with their self-respect, honour, confidence, separate identity, own opinion and ideals intact.


When I first moved to Leicester seven years ago the sight of women covered from head to foot in black, even covering their faces, seemed shocking and incomprehensible to me. I have now become accustomed to it, seeing it every day, but still see it as a way of effacing these people from view, as if they are of no account. It's not even as if it was an aesthetic custom, why does it always have to be the most depressing black?

Comments

  1. Bob Churchill20 January 2007 at 12:23:00 GMT

    Only a full on burqa is always in black, there are plenty of other veils and head coverings which actually are made out of nice and colourful materials. The community I live in is like this -- the women are generally all very colourfully dressed.

    Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't a lingering meaning associated with the covering of the head.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11 February 2007 at 14:06:00 GMT

    Quote from the article posted by "Anonymous":

    "All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true."

    It seems to me this is the way a lot of religious people thin. They pick a quote from their holy book that supports their case, and ignore the quotes that say the opposite.

    "On the basis of the Golden Rule—the equality of human beings—we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam."

    P. John Langford writes that there is an Islamic version of the Golden Rule. He cites page 3 of the ’Humanist Dipper’, pulished by the BHA: "None of you ’truly’ believe, until he wishes for his brothers what he wishes for himself". A saying of Prophet Muhammad recorded by accepted narrators al-Bukari and Muslim - 7th century CE.

    Another view of Ilamic religion and politics is: "The roots of terror: Islam or islamism" by Meghnad Desai:

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/islamism_4326.jsp

    It still seems to me that it is going to be difficult to get a "reformation" going in Islam. It is difficult to separate the political side from the religious.

    Another interesting article that includes the attitude of Islam to Science is this one by Steven Weinberg:

    http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2552017.html

    "Alas, Islam turned against science in the twelfth century. The most influential figure was the philosopher Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali, who argued in The Incoherence of the Philosophers against the very idea of laws of nature, on the ground that any such laws would put God's hands in chains. According to al-Ghazzali, a piece of cotton placed in a flame does not darken and smoulder because of the heat, but because God wants it to darken and smoulder. After al-Ghazzali, there was no more science worth mentioning in Islamic countries."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ann Atkins at it again

By Anonymous -
Below is an email our member Frank Friedmann sent to the BBC, concerning Ann Atkins' latest "Thought for the Day", and their response. ====== -- To BBC -- Dear Sir, Ann Atkins used the programme on 9 May 2006 today to launch an attack on Rationalists. That she can do so shows up the lack of natural justice in the policy of denying atheists access to the programme - they can be collectively slandered and misrepresented but have no right of reply. I notice that speakers on the programme do not use it as a platform from which to condemn the adherents of other religions - I don’t know if this is out of respect or because they are constrained by editorial rules, but it does emphasise the injustice in the censorship of atheism. Were you to change the policy, might I put forward my wife, Eleanor Davidson, as a candidate? She has just become the country’s first Humanist member of a hospital chaplaincy team (See First Person article in Leicester Mercury 29 April 2006). [See also
Read more

Hindu Council UK objects to talk on "Hinduism: A Wretched, Immoral Compass"

By -
Image
The Society hosted a talk on the caste system on 3rd December 2023. Before the talk on 19th November the Secretary of the Society received the following email - We write to express our deep concern and offense regarding the title of an event scheduled to take place at your venue, titled "Hinduism: Wretched Immoral Compass." It has come to our attention that such a choice of words is not only derogatory but also appears to be anti-Hinduism.   Hinduism, a faith with a rich history spanning thousands of years and followed by over one billion people worldwide, deserves respect and understanding. Using such inflammatory language seems designed to appeal and incite hatred towards Hindus, who are one of the largest and most peaceful communities globally. As a secular society, we believe it is your responsibility to avoid language that may be offensive or disrespectful towards any faith.   We urge you to consider the implications of this event title and whether it aligns with t
Read more

Statement about recent violent incidents in the City.

By -
Leicester Secular Society condemns the recent violence promoted by religious extremists. We condemn those of any religion who seek to divide society, advocate for the domination of their religion and use violence against those with different beliefs. We believe that a truly secular city and county is the only way to guarantee equality to the many different religions and communities we have. We believe that the continued existence and further creation of faith schools in Leicester can only drive communities apart and encourage the growth of intolerance. We do not want to see any more segregation in Leicester. Belfast demonstrates the danger of a failure to promote inter community friendships. We don't ever want to see "peace walls" appearing in our city. Since 1851, the Leicester Secular Society has opposed religious discrimination and stands for an inclusive and plural society.
Read more