Religious Obligation Or Security Risk
Today in the Western world there is a dilemma that has broad reaching impact. Moslem women are applying for driver's licenses, obtaining identity credentials with photos & refusing to allow their full face to be photographed as it is against their fundamentalist Islamic religious teachings. This is yet another form of civil disobedience.
In this day & age when terrorists abound, are more than a little active & most come from the Islamic world it is not something that civil authorities can tolerate. Religion must be put aside in the greater interest of security. Unfortunately Islam has not kept up with the times. It is a religion that is based upon a cultural norm that no longer exists from a period of history that is long past. Modern Islamic nations such as Turkey, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, etc. have no problem with the issuance of driver's licenses, identity documents & other forms of ID's with full face photos upon them. It is only the fundamentalists of Islam who object to this practice.
Wearing a niqab along with a birqa or an hijab is allowable as far as social activities is concerned but it is not acceptable when it comes to such things as entering governmental buildings, boarding planes, cashing checks, etc. The time has come to stop giving into this act of civil disobedience and begin to make these women follow the laws, rules & customs of the nation sin which they live, travel or visit. The ld adage "When in Rome...." comes to mind & makes sense in this instance.
Paul Cruikshank, a fellow at the Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law spelled this out in arecent publication of his entitled, "Covered Faces, Open Rebellion" that can be found in the archives of the New York Times. He wrote "The niqab sets these young women off not just from most passers-by, but even from Muslim women who choose to wear the simple headscarf, or hijab, which covers only the hair and neck. And it is causing discomfort even in multi-cultural Britain. When Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, declared earlier this month that the niqab made positive relations between Muslims and non-Muslims more difficult because it was "such a visible statement of separation and difference," he struck a chord with many British voters, only 22 percent of whom think that Muslims have done enough to fit into mainstream society."
That pretty much sum sit up in nut shell. This sentiment seems to be echoed all over the Western world. In Germany some 17% of Germans think that Moslems have not done enough to fit into the German society, in the Netherlands they feel that only 20% have done so, in Belgium the number is 19%, in Canada the number is slightly over 24% while in the USA it is seen at less that 22%. When our troops went to Saudi Arabia & Kuwait to stop the Iraqi aggression against the Kuwaiti people, the female members of the armed forces were forced to wear clothing that was not of their culture & to follow social customs not of their liking. This should be the same for the Moslem women whom come to the Western nations.
In transcultural integration one of the things most stressed is the ability to fit into another culture & still maintain one's own cultural identity. The single most difficult area to bridge in this work is that of the niqab & the birqa of the fundamentalist Moslem world. What can be done? Nothing as long as the inability to accept change & to make changes in one's personal outlook is not modified to follow sensible & lawful actions & behaviors. Should Moslem women be forced to discard their customs for the sake of security? What do you think?
© Donald R. Houston, PhD, 2006
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
We came to earth from God's realm for the physical experience. That experience was meant to bring us all to the realization that we are God's children, one and all, and thus related and also supposed to be our brothers keeper ... based upon Love, not Fear. With true love we could all be trusted to be helpful to each other and thus society as a whole ... we would not then need laws and threats of sentencing ... we would just all use our common sense and do the right thing by each other.
Religions were developed purportedly to teach us just that. But they seem to have restricted their views to only members of their particular creed. Thus we now have differing major religions conflicting with each other sucking others into the conflicts.
It is now becoming a clash of cultures due to fears of each other ... that is NOT what religion is supposed to be all about.
With the state of religions now, their power to gather like thinkers towards their causes as evidenced lately in politics and terrorism, they have become less of a blessing and more of a curse to society.
I think that it is high time to question their self proclaimed 'superiority', maybe take away their often violated 'non profit' Tax exemption that they often use to build Mega Churches and religious institutions that work for their own so-called good, but at the expense of society as a whole when they involve themselves as organized power into the political scene where laws are concocted that apply to each and all.
It is often the religious fear of evil others that bind many of them together, that being one of the major teachings to 'fight' evil ... evil being defined by them based upon the tenets of their doctrines of faith as dogma and creed.
What good common sense reason is there for a woman to hide her face when in society except for fear based concerns. Why do we need licences except for fear based concerns. Why do we fight and war except for fear based concerns. Why is power, control, and greed so important for some except for fear based concerns (usually that there may not be enough to go around and they want theirs for what ever reason) ... !?!?!
Our world has turned into a very scary place for those that have not the spirit of a God of Love ... if religions cannot supply that Love that displaces fear, then they are not of much use for folks that seek true love towards each and all ... I say take away their special status because it is beginning to get in the way of higher truths that are available to each and all on an internal personal level ... undistorted by religions that base values on the outer while falsely claiming the inner.
All of these 'outer' priorities around religious concepts and special favors meant not to 'violate' such shallowness should be done away with in favor of the inner more personal contract that we can each and all have with a God of Love, not Fear !
To just trust our intuition that comes from our higher (inner) Self would solve so many of the world problems that our religions are now just compounding with their self proclaimed righteousness ... that seems to be headed for much conflict with each other ... in their versions of gods and God.
Time to begin to re-evaluate all of this folks !!!
I understand the concerns about veils and find it to be very oppresive. Personally I find it ridiculous. However, I also know what it feels like to be a member of a religious minority in this country. It's incredible how these same people speak out against bigotry and yet don't recognize it within themselves. I assume it's the fear speaking. I don't know why you can't make your point without making statements that are basically just plain bigotry.
We apparently can't tolerate anything that doesn't conform to western culture. That is what this country has been reduced to and I basically agree with the argument that you shouldn't be wearing a veil in a security photo and you should have to show your face for identification purposes.
Normally, I am tolerant of other cultures and their practices. Our nation is a multicultural melting pot, and I think people should be able to practice any religion, any cultural rituals they wish. Unless they conflict with US laws. We have freedom of religion, but that freedom does not include the right to override our laws.
So, I would say to the Muslim woman who wears a burqa and wants a driver's license, "Our law requires a full-face ID picture on a driver's license. We will not force you to take off your burqa, but you cannot force us break our law and give you a driver's license."
Member of Parliament given Police protection over Muslim VEIL comment. the 24th.
just because freedom is not practiced in certain countries what does that have to do with the values of the west?
I do believe that two wrongs do not make a right and to do something just because someone else does, is an insult to our civil and moral integrity.
It is always difficult to defend freedom in countries where freedom is rampant. Freedom is everywhere you look in my neighborhood. How about yours?
A chompawnzee Minky!
But the last time I had a photo taken of me I saw a strange blue light drift straight on up out of sight.
That wasn't my soul was it?
p.s. No Rx Limbaugh jokes, I don't take viagra
And how about partiot Day? In 13 states it meant April 19th, the day the minutement stood against the redcoats. 80 men who dared to stand against dragoons and regulars of the finest army on earth at the time.
Now by the stroke of a pen, the day was moved from citizens standing up for their rights, to a day people at the copy machine and water cooler perished from the collapse of their office buildings. I know most people don't think W is smart enough or crafty enough to try that newspeak trick; moving a concept from standing against tryranny, to a concept of waging a war wherever the executive branch decides for us is in our interest. But, as Yogi Berra said "It's too coincidental to be a coincidence."
Public safety and everybody's right to know who we are dealing with demands that the veils be cast aside when Muslim women enter the public arena.
I'm all for protecting individual's religious rights, but that clearly does not include breaking the law. Last week I took friends from Ukraine to visit sites in Philadelphia and NYC. We took our shoes off (and Viktor's belt as well) for the Liberty Bell and again for Independence Hall, and again the next day for the Cirlce Line ferry that circumnavgates Manhattan and for the Statue of Liberty. You heard no complaints in all the klong, crowded lines. We all know it is because we have to protect ourselves from terrorists. Even foreign visitors get it.
I like the suggestion that Muslim women be told that they can hav a licence as long as they agree to a full face licence photo *and* not to wear any covering that interferes with vision while driving.
I know, however, that there are strong feelings about such things in Saudi Arabia. I've been teaching English to interntional adults for decades. Long ago a man was telling me how homesick he was for his wife and children. I listened and encouraged him to talk about them, then asked if he wanted to show me his family pictures. He had none, explaining that Islam forbids it. I have visited Saudi women in their Philadelphia homes; they are delighted to know a woman they can invite for tea because most are terribly lonely here. There are no family pictures around the house--in stark contrast with people of all other cultures who are delighted to display and shjw off famly photos.
I may sympathize with a desire to obey religion, but not at the expense of security.
And oh, yes, female suicide bombers have already debuted--not long ago in Israel. We are fools if w do not look for them here.
Fatima, you can choose, drive under our laws or stick to your customs and forego driving.
Ronnie...........not according to the fundamentalist Muslims...! ~~
According to Marmaduke Pickthall (world's foremost authority on Islam during the 1930s/40) morality is to measured by the standards of the society in which Islam finds itself. While society is generally tolerant of the face veil {niqab}, if it chooses to regard it as a potential source of peril, then the Islamic adherent is obligated to recognize society's standard.
I am in accord with society's general acceptance of the niqab. However, I recognize that it may be perilous to society such as when a Muslima is driving an automobile. On that basis I would agree that she must find an alternative to the niqab in order to avoid any hazard to the public or to the adherent (dark glasses would be a suitable alternative).