Mirror.co.uk – News – VEILS SUCK SAYS SALMAN RUSHDIE — I wonder what would happen if a religion cropped up requiring everyone to walk around nude.
SALMAN Rushdie yesterday risked provoking Muslim fury again by saying that face veils for women “suck”.
The writer, once issued with a fatwa death sentence by Ayatollah Khomeini over his book The Satanic Verses, said it was a way of removing power from women.
He backed Jack Straw’s call for Muslim women to abandon the veil because it was a “visible statement of separation”.
Rushdie, on Radio 4’s Today programme, said: “He was expressing an important opinion which is that veils suck – which they do.
“Speaking as somebody with a very largely female Muslim family, there is not a woman I know who would have accepted the wearing of a veil.
“It has been a long and continuing battle against the limitation of women so, in that sense, I am completely on his side.”
Inayat Bunglawala, of The Muslim Council of Britain, said he was not surprised by 59-year-old Rushdie’s comments. He said: “The same freedom that allowed him to have a book published blaspheming the Prophet is the same freedom women who choose to wear it are invoking.
“Providing women are wearing the niqab out of their own choice it is really nobody’s business, including that of Salman Rushdie.”
People clearly have a right to wear what ever they want, we live in a free society here in the UK.
but
If the site of an un-veiled Muslim woman is so dangerously erotic maybe Muslim men who can’t control their urges should instead wear blindfolds.
Why should the women have to wear the tents?
#1 +1
“People clearly have a right to wear what ever they want, we live in a free society here in the UK.
For now.
“The same freedom that allowed him to have a book published blaspheming the Prophet is the same freedom women who choose to wear it are invoking”.
What freedom? He had a fatwa declared on him by a muslim leader, forcing him to go into hiding. Khomeini didn’t want him to have any freedom at all.
Funny how he forgot to mention this, that and the fact that in some muslim countries they are forced to wear the niqab when in public.
Hiding women in clothes or harems precedes Islam. In fact it was very common in Russian nobility before the 19th century. It’s meant to demean women.
Let that culture dictate its own rules for clothing. How would you like Indians invading America and saying we can’t kill cows. If you don’t like the majority culture then leave.
If the women of Arab countries leave the places they dislike then the Arabs cannot procreate. Thus changing the culture.
It’s not necessarily easy to “leave” the places you dislike. Ask anyone who visits Saudi Arabia about that, especially American women who marry Saudis and move there.
5. I don’t think it’s primarily meant to demean women. I believe it’s part of an age-old understanding that women are property. These coverings are meant to protect that property. In the West, most men do not like it when other men make advances on their wives. In Arabia, where up to four wives are permitted, and where privacy is paramount, covering them hides women such that “out of sight, out of mind.”
There may also be some connection between the abaya/burka simply hiding women so as not to offend men – like they segregate women in restaurants in places like Saudi Arabia.
6. For the most part, I believe the women do like to be covered from head to foot. And probably would vote for it if they could. But I think this stems from the state-of-mind that is created by up-bringing, tradition, repetition, group pressure, etc. So it is an interesting problem. If one culture persists in carrying out behavior that clearly is detrimental – by our standards – say, female circumcision or female honor killings (in the extreme to make a point), should we in the West interfere with these age-old customs and beliefs?
Of course, there is no longer the tradition of slavery in the Indian/First Nations, nor does it exist any longer (since the ’60s) in Saudi Arabia.
So who in the West doubts, if Arabic women could similarly be “enlightened like we are,” they would chuck their coverings imposed by male-oriented traditions in a minute?
RBG
I definitely would buy into a religion that requires everyone to wear a ninja costume.
There is a reason they require their women to dress that way:
They’re butt ugly.
I think the idea of cloaking women is a good one because men get distracted from their physical looks. It is not demeaning, on the contrary it is giving them high honor so that the prettiest girl in a group does not have the advantage of all the guys wanting her. Veils and burqas LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD for females. It means men have only access to a woman’s soul. Look at American society. Have you spoken to a woman lately? Do you know the turmoil that she is going through to compete with the all-American girl type. Look at all the boob jobs being performed and the multi-billion dollar diet and skin care industries. You THINK American women are FREER? Are you out of your f*cking mind?!? Women in America ARE PRISONERS to an IMAGE that 99% cannot achieve. Paris Hilton is one of the 1% who live the Ideal. Women in America suffer that no man will love them because they are ugly and not physically fit. As a man you think this is nonsense. But if you ever put yourself into a woman’s mind you will see that their minds are full of garbage thoughts. American women suffer from much LOWER SELF-ESTEEM than muslim women. Talk to your girlfriends to know what I am saying is true. They know it is. Go ahead ask them.
11. Interesting theory but all BS since Muslm women will wear the very latest of fahions under the abaya and – as I understand it – remove the outer cloak when in the presence of all-women groups. Further, in places like Saudi Arabia you can’t even be in the presence of a woman who is not your wife without her being charged with prostitution. Arranged marriages really level the playing field because you don’t even get a piece of their soul.
RBG
Does this statement coming from Salman Rushdie make any difference than it coming from John C. Dvorak. I mean, he is as Muslim as John is.
#8…RBG….I’m still shaking my head and trying to get that first sentance out of my mind. ***I don’t think it’s primarily meant to demean woman. I think it’s part of an age old understanding that woman are property*****
WTF………………….would you like to take a poll among woman to see if they think it’s demeaning to be considered property????
But your right…..one of the primary reasons for covering woman up is because Islamic men DO think they are property.
All this crap about Muslim woman having a choice about what they wear is just that…..crap!!!! Even in non-Muslim countries the men still rule the family and THEY make that decision, not the woman.
As to if Muslim woman would wear all the covering if they could choose otherwise, well, I would be willing to bet that a majority of them sure as hell wouldn’t be running around looking like rag piles. Of course there would be some who choose to wear head to toe covering, just as there are woman in this country who choose to wear dresses to their ankles and up to their necks.
I find it interesting how many Muslim woman foresake head coverings, and veils, and burquas when given a chance in Western countries. And also how many are killed by their fathers, uncles and brothers when they rebel against the men’s teachings at home….those would be your ***age old custums and beliefs****** RBG….called….HONOR KILLINGS!!!!
15. Oh for crying out loud… Of course I’m referring to the Arab men. Though even that is certainly a crass generalization, however true it may be.
I’m not talking about how the West feels about it. I’m not talking about how women think about it. I’m not talking about how I feel about it. I’m talking about where I believe it originates. You even state as such yourself. So maybe a misunderstanding here.
I don’t see how you can mistake my next point, however. You think those Muslim women are just itching to throw off their coverings? All they need is a liberating army or something? Or a few more episodes of Charlie’s Angels? That is very naive. I once tried to shake the hand of a Palestinian friend’s mother. I was told she wouldn’t. You seem unable to understand my point about the cultural indoctrination involved. Or even recognize its existence.
You make me laugh because our positions are actually not so far off – just maybe the approach and timings. I’m stating what I believe to be facts and you somehow think these are my attitudes. I rhetorically refer to “honor killings” and slavery as proof that we in the West have an obvious obligation to interfere while walking a fine line, without completely imposing our values on a civilization a thousand or more years old. For the most part they’re going to have to get there on their own.
If I were to take your words at face value, you would do an Iraq on Saudi Arabia tomorrow, separate the women from the men and they would immediately divorce their husbands and buy Calvin Klein jeans and everyone would live happily after. Oh, and no problem with the religion, the culture, history and everything else that created the country and people. You show your naivety and insensitivity by essentially referring to the women as “rag piles.” They would disagree.
So please, spare me the histrionics when you really don’t understand what you are talking about.
RBG
Maybe we could strike some compromise like, maybe, Saudi women could stop wearing veils in downtown London if British women would stop wearing bikinis in downtown Ryad.
Well, veils could be to keep guys from finding their old girlfreinds, who are being held in some foreign land now as love slaves. If only she didn’t have a veil, she could be found.
New tech allows some of our troops in Iraq to tell the locals,”Veils suck”:
http://tinyurl.com/y73qvs