Remembering the Veterans of "The War to End All Wars"

Last year around this time, I posted an entry called Remembering the WWI Vets Who Are Still Alive, which focused on an article, The Race to Remember, which brought attention to the few surviving British veterans of the First World War. Yesterday, while listening to NPR (Yes, them again!) I happened to hear a story about the fourteen surviving American veterans of the so-called "War to End All Wars" which I found to be quite fascinating. For the past couple of years, The WWI Living History Project has been making an effort to interview all of the surviving American veterans of World War One—including two who actually served in the infamous trenches. You can listen to NPR's program about Recording the Living History of WWI Veterans by clicking here—and the entire two hour program is scheduled to air today on selected radio stations.

I admit that I was a little surprised that so many veterans of World War I were still alive, since if they were born in 1900—which would have made them seventeen when America entered the war—they'd be at least 106 years old today. As it turns out, the youngest of these men is only 105 years old, since he lied about his age in order to join the U.S. Army at sixteen. What I really find staggering is trying to fathom the amount of change these men witnessed during their relatively long lives—lives which have spanned the most technically dynamic era in human history. Consider that these men were born just prior to the invention of the airplane and lived to see not only the advent of nuclear weapons and the Internet, but man going to the moon. Amazing!

In spite of all this technological change, I think the societal changes that these former soldiers and sailors witnessed probably were more challenging, disturbing and unexpected. Consider that these young men were born during the final years of the rather overly optimistic, idealistic and innocent Victorian Era, but now they're sharing our post-Cold War planet with Generation X and the so-called New Silent Generation. Not only that, but they managed to survive one of the most bloody and ghastly wars in human history—a war in which over eight million human beings lost their lives.

Since the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is now upon us, I wanted to take this opportunity to draw attention to the sacrifice and suffering of veterans of the now almost forgotten Great War of 1914-1918. In the United States, this public holiday is called Veterans Day, although prior to the end of the Second World War it was simply known as Armistice Day—in commemoration of the end of the First World War. It's known as Remembrance Day in the United Kingdom, Canada and other Commonwealth countries, all of who made great sacrifices in human lives during this conflict. Names like the Somme, Verdun, Vimy Ridge and Gallipoli were well-known to all British, French, Canadian and Australian youths of previous generations—although I doubt many of today's young people (especially the Americans!) would recognize any of these names. So to assist any of our readers who might not be too familiar with these great slaughter grounds of The Great War, I'm filling this post full of links so that you can take the time to educate yourself. I couldn't think of a more appropriate thing to do on this day in which, 88 years ago, the so-called "War to End All Wars" came to an end.

Please note that at least one Canadian Muslim took the time to remember the veterans today, since Abdiel has a nice posting called A Remembrance Day Prayer—in which he mentions the uncle he lost in World War Two. No posting about Canadians who served in the Second World War would be complete without taking the opportunity to mention the sacrifices made during the debacle at Dieppe or on the beaches at Normandy (and watch Saving Private Ryan if you want a small taste of what went on there), in which Canadian troops played a significant role. I'll also take the opportunity to mention that my great uncle (i.e. my maternal grandmother's brother) was killed during World War Two as well. Although I have quite a few older relatives who served during this war, he was the only one that was killed—while leading a counterattack against advancing Wehrmacht forces during the initial stages of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. I clearly recall learning about him when I was a young boy and always remember missing not having him around to be the great uncle that I'm sure he would have been—since not only was he into working out, captain of his college boxing team (at the same all-male, at least back when we attended, military college that I graduated from), but a genuine war hero as well.

I also want to point out the fact that Muslims were quite involved in this great conflict, not only because the Ottoman Empire fought on the side of the Central Powers, but many troops from then colonized Muslim countries served with great distinction in the armies of Britain and France as well. In one of many books I read about the First World War while a young military officer, I recall learning about how the Germans really feared the French Colonial troops from Senegal and other West African countries...so let's not forget their sacrifice. If you're interested in learning more about the unbelievable ferocity of the war in the trenches, I have an Amazon Listmania! list called Great Books on The Great War which includes the best books that I know of on the subject. Ever since reading The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 about twenty years ago, with the mind-boggling number of casualties that it presents, and seeing some before and after photographs depicting the horrific impact that artillery fire had on the area around the village of Paschendale, I've been fascinated by the First World War.

On a more contemporary note, even though I'm a former officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, I have to say that I disagree with some of the remarks President Bush made yesterday at the dedication of the National Museum of the Marine Corps. During his speech, he said: "And years from now, when America looks out on a democratic Middle East growing in freedom and prosperity, Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima." Without really addressing the fact that if the Middle East ever ends up being "democratic" and enjoying "freedom and prosperity" it'll be in spite of George W. Bush, not because of him—I will say that I don't accept the parallels he drew between the battles of Fallujah [1, 2] and the battles of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. I sincerely hope that in years to come, when the smoke of battle, fog of propaganda and haze of disinformation has cleared, Americans will be able to clearly see what distinguishes these battles. Suffice it to say that Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima were fought during a war that was not only both legally and morally justified, but took place between the armed combatants of two standing armies. This is in clear contradistinction to the attack on Fallujah, which was the domestic residence of thousands of Iraqis whose homeland had been illegally invaded based upon trumped-up charges. This offensive action, which was characterized by the overwhelming use of U.S. firepower, was dishonestly portrayed not only as a battle against "terrorists", in spite of the fact that attacking the military forces of an invading army isn't considered "terrorism" by any recognized definition of the word, but was also widely considered within the U.S. military as an (unofficial) act of revenge for the (un-Islamic) killing and mutilation of four American private military contractors (i.e. well-armed mercenaries). So instead of going into Fallujah with a justified rallying cry that was akin to the "Remember Pearl Harbor!", of World War Two, many U.S. Marines entered the fray will propaganda-filled heads that were convinced that not only were Iraqis somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks, but laboring under an outlook in which Iraqi civilians had been dehumanized and anyone carrying a weapon was deemed a "terrorist". This is why such things as the cold-blooded execution of a wounded Iraqi insurgent were brushed-off and even justified by many Americans, both civilian and military (and we only know about it because it was caught on videotape by an NBC reporter—otherwise, more than likely, it would have never come to the public's attention).

Indeed, without this state-of-mind, which was reinforced, if not encouraged, by the generally hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric found not only in the mainstream media at that time, but which was issuing forth from key members of the Bush Administration as well, I think such incidents would have drastically reduced. Indeed, without such a twisted and self-righteous moral environment, how could a military investigation determine "that the Marine was acting in self-defense" when he shot a wounded man who had taken refuge in a mosque? I'll take this opportunity to request that all of the hypocrites out there ask themselves how they would have reacted had the situation been reversed? Had an enemy soldier done such a thing to an American soldier, especially one wo had taken refuge in a church, at no time in our history would most Americans accept it as "acting in self-defense." Which just goes to show you that it's not only some Muslim extremists out there that are not only ethically and morally confused—since this obviously goes up to the highest levels of the U.S. government—but plenty of Americans are wallowing deep in a sewer of double-standards as well.

All of this brings to mind what was for me one of the most memorable images of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This occurred when a reporter briefly spoke with a young U.S. Marine—who was decked out in his kevlar helmet and expensive flak jacket—who exclaimed, regarding the trapped "terrorists" his unit was then engaged with: "I wish they'd come out and fight like men!" Well, I thought, if you'd ask the two M1A1 tanks, which were busily blasting away at the building, to withdraw along with the attack helicopters and F/A-18 fighters that were also pounding the place, maybe the Iraqis would come out and "fight like men." I also couldn't help but thinking that such misguided and delusional sentiments were probably shared by the British redcoats back in 1775, when they were engaged in fighting American "rebels" who practiced the then-considered-cowardly tactics of hit-and-run attacks and shooting from behind walls and trees. Ironically enough, one of the first things British troops reported from the battles of Lexington and Concord, was that American colonial militiamen had a knack for mutilating the bodies of dead British soldiers. I'm sure that'll be a tough pill for many bigoted pro-Bush Americans to swallow...but I hope they manage to force down this piece of the painful truth (which I'll summarize as: Human beings are human beings, so please treat all of their lives—regardless of race, creed, nationality or religion—with equal sanctity).

On that note, I'll remind my readers that "terrorism" is generally understood to be "violence committed against civilians," thus the U.S. forces that forcibly entered Fallujah are much more deserving of that ominous label than any of the civilians, both combatant and non-combatants, who were in the city—regardless of the grotesque crimes that a few of them may have been guilty of. Thus I'll call on President George W. Bush to refrain from comparing the attack on Fallujah with any battle in which U.S. soldiers fought honorably and tenaciously against the well-trained and determined soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army. Those who are too lazy or uninterested to read about this in book form, can head to theatres to watch the film Flags of Our Fathers, which was recently released, or pick up a copy of the already mentioned Saving Private Ryan. However, for the bibliophiles out there, I'd recommend Guadalcanal: Starvation Island and Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle (which includes Japanese accounts), if you want to read about a battle in which isolated and outnumbered U.S. Marines handily defeated a numerically superior enemy force in fighting that involved plenty of hand-to-hand combat in harsh jungle conditions.

On a final note, since the title of this post almost forces one to think about it, I'll recommend A Peace to End All Peace to all those who want to learn more about the lasting impact that the First World War had on the contemporary Middle East...so please read it.

Semper Fi and Deen On...

The Face Veil...Let's Be Honest

This morning I posted the lengthy rant below to a thread on DeenPort.com—which I consider to be the virtual hangout of choice for all respectable mainstream Muslims—entitled Lifting the Veil... While I didn't read all of the postings in this rather contentious thread, one lengthy posting did catch my eye. This was the one entitled "MCC appeals to Muslim Women: Reject the Niqab", although it's still not clear to me whether this was a re-posting of an official statement by the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) or simply a statement by an individual who merely supports the MCC's public stance on this matter. Regardless, here's what I had to say (slightly edited):

---

As-salamu 'alaykum,

Those who are familiar with my weblog and much-neglected website should know that I'm certainly no fan of the Wahabis (to put it rather mildly), but I feel obligated to call the MCC's bluff and say that the following statement is factually incorrect: "Tying religiosity and piety to face coverings is a twentieth-century phenomenon created by the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia." This is simply not true, since the face veil has not only been around since the beginning of Islam (it was obligatory for the wives of the Prophet—sala Allahu 'alayhi wa salam), but it has long been seen as a symbol (not to be confused with a guarantee) of piety as well. Thus trying to stigmatize it as nothing more than "tribal garb", as one author recently did, could (and should) be seen as both disrespectful to our religious heritage and contrary to the facts. Even if face veils have become, at least in the minds of some, a characteristic of certain extremist sects, well that's no justification for divorcing them from their established place in our Deen—even in an age when many Muslims do indeed suffer from an unfortunate "tribal" mentality and often don't know where culture stops and authentic religion begins.

It needs to be understood that in Islam, while some outward acts are indeed tied to "religiosity and piety," it is inward intentions that ultimately validate or invalidate the value of such acts…thus outward acts only count for so much. Realize that if a man grows a long beard or a woman wears a niqab primarily to look "religious" and "pious" in front of others, then this is quite the opposite of being "religious" and "pious" in the true Islamic sense of these words. Here, one would do well to consider that what we're often faced with today is clinging to the happy median, as the Sunnah calls us to do, between two competing extremes. On the one hand we have Muslim modernists, New Age Sufis and other religious liberals trying to convince us that "faith is in the heart"—by which they mean to say that outward actions don't really matter. On the other hand, we have sects of Islamic neo-Pharisees who place undo emphasis on outward acts and appearances...ergo the conundrum that many Muslims find themselves in.

Indeed, the outward laws of the shari'ah, when divorced from the rich and subtle spiritual tradition of Islam, can present a minefield of egotistical dangers to the unwary believer. This is because one can easily fall into the trap of not only judging others by outward appearances, but far worse than this is to start feeling that one is superior and more pious than others based on these same outward appearances…which in the absence of pure intentions really mean next to nothing. This, in a nutshell, is one of the many traps that the Wahabis have fallen into. They've made Islam into just a simplistic and spiritually shallow set of rules to be followed—in short, a "boy scout religion" complete with merit badges like the niqab, long beard, short white thawb and black 'abaya. Which is not to say that these things aren't welcomed in this Deen, but only to point out that a misplaced emphasis upon the outward and a near complete neglect of the inward—at least as traditionally understood—is the error that needs to be pointed out. If that's what the Muslim Canadian Congress, or one of their advocates, was trying to say in their statement, well it wasn't very well put.

Suffice it to say, from an Islamic point-of-view, a woman who wears the full-face veil (niqab) is not automatically and inherently more pious than a woman who doesn't, any more than a man who grows a full beard is necessarily better than all those who have shorter ones…so let's put such facile thinking aside. However, there's no doubt, like it or not, that the face veil is not only a well-known symbol of Muslim piety, but it has a well-established place within classical Islamic jurisprudence as well. To the fair-minded and informed, it should be undeniable that pious Muslim women in the past have donned the veil out of a commendable sense of God-consciousness (taqwa) and modesty (haya')...and many of those who did so were mainstream Sufis and strict adherents to the four Sunni madhhabs (i.e. not extremists or "Wahabis").

As far as what Muslim Queens did once upon a time, well the right response to that seems to be: "Who cares?"—especially if we're considering them based on something that Fatema Mernissi said. Like the mixed-bag of male Muslim rulers that Muslim history presents us with, we judge their actions by the Sunnah, not the Sunnah by their actions. Thus in the end, they deserve to be held up as examples of right action and piety only in so far as they exemplified the Sunnah in their lives.

Also, let's all recognize that no one scholar speaks for all scholars…even when he claims to. Thus when Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi states that "it is not obligatory for Muslim women to wear the niqab (full face veil)," then that only represents his scholarly opinion—meaning it should be given the weight it deserves (Now there's a question!), but it doesn't discount the views of other scholars who are equally (if not more) qualified. This is especially true of his claim that the "majority of Muslim scholars and I do not support the niqab in which women cover their faces," since many other scholars, past and present, have strongly encouraged the face veil for women and even considered it obligatory.

If you doubt this, take a quick look at Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller's Reliance of the Traveller which, far from being a "Wahabi" book, is actually an eloquent and detailed exposé of many of their errors. On page 512 (Section m2.3), this supremely traditional Islamic text states: "A majority of scholars (n: with the exception of some Hanafis, as at m2.8 below) have been recorded as holding that it is unlawful for women to leave the house with face unveiled, whether or not there is likelihood of temptation. Where there is likelihood of temptation, scholars unanimously concur that it is unlawful..." In my view this statement should prove two things: 1) The niqab, whether as a symbol or actual phenomenon, is not just a recent Wahabi practice, since here we have a non-Wahabi presenting support for it from a translation of a classical text which pre-dates the Wahabis; and 2) one should be somewhat hesitant in thoughtlessly accepting statements which claim to speak for the "majority" of Muslim scholars, since here we have a case, taking both Dr. al-Qaradawi's and Shaykh Nuh's statements into consideration, where the purported "majority" have been claimed to be on both sides of this argument. If this realization is disconcerting to some, well the good news is that there's a cure readily available: acquiring knowledge and doing some honest research. As a mere Muslim, I'll even go so far as to say that knowing which of the scholars in question has been influenced by modernist and reformist Muslim thought and which one is a strong and unflinching advocate of traditional and classical Muslim thought is conducive to determining which one is most likely telling the truth in this case…but please don't take my word for it.

Also, I think that statements like: "The Wahabbis are operating in defiance of what Muslims have known, taught and believed for hundreds of years," while no doubt true, are seemingly employed to make people think that wearing the face veil (niqab) is a "defiance of what Muslims have known, taught and believed for hundreds of years"—even though we've already demonstrated that this is hardly the case. Then there's this statement, which was supposed to serve as a meaningful piece of evidence: "Sociologist Mohammad A. Qadeer, professor emeritus at Queen's University, recently wrote in the Globe and Mail, 'Concealment of the face is neither religiously necessary nor socially desirable'"—but since when do we take our fiqh opinions from a modern sociologist? The mere fact that someone expects us to put some weight on this only serves to discredit their arguments rather than support them, at least in the mind of anyone who knows how to think straight.

And then comes the claim that "From the times of the early Arab Ummayads and Abbasides to the Persian Safavids, the Indian Moghuls and the Turkish Ottomans, never have Muslim women been forced by decree to cover their faces as an act of religiosity and piety"—but how are we supposed to believe this, now that we know that they've been a bit loose with the truth in their other claims? Even if this statement were true (and I've got a feeling that it's not), the first question to ask would be: "Well how many things that were known to be obligatory were 'forced by decree' in the Muslim lands the statement mentions?" Were the headscarf (hijab), making wudu' before praying, growing a beard and eating only halal meat also "forced by decree" during classical Islamic times? Maybe, but maybe not—the inconclusiveness of the argument only serving to demonstrate that their entire statement is just another weak assertion in a string of poorly fabricated arguments.

In conclusion, let me clarify that what I'm calling for here is not the wearing of the niqab in the West, but rather for honesty in the debate surrounding it. Personally, I think wearing full-face veils in the West is unwise for a whole host of reasons—some of which have been mentioned on the MCC website and elsewhere. However, just because one strongly disagrees with a certain view (especially one with some Islamic rationale and scholarly support), that doesn't justify arguing against it in an underhanded, if not intellectually dishonest, fashion. Even in an age when far too many Muslims seem to be ethically and morally challenged, hopefully we can all agree on that. When you get right down to it, what really disturbs me is not the differences of opinion about what's most wise and Islamically appropriate for Muslim women to do, both in the West and in Muslim lands, but rather the misleading information that's put forward by some Muslims who want to convince others that their view, and only their view, is the right one. I put such misguided efforts, like suicide bombings, into the category of actions which: "Violate Islam in order to save it"—which certainly doesn't make much sense. Additionally, the fact that some people out there are willing to misrepresent the views of our scholarly tradition in order to give weight to their own opinions should not only concern us deeply, but make us all a little more leery about what we accept as fact...so be careful out there.

Deen On...

NPR, the Full Face-Veil and Double-Standards

I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) quite frequently, often tuning into Morning Edition, All Things Considered and some of their other shows during my commute to and from the office. Without stretching the truth, you could actually call me a real fan of NPR-up to and including shows like A Prairie Home Companion. Just yesterday afternoon I happened to be listening to All Things Considered when they read a couple of letters they'd received in response to their recent show on "Muslim women who wear full veils". I'm happy to admit that I'm glad about missing that particular show, which was unsurprisingly complete with the token representative of "liberated" Muslim women-Asra Nomani, since just the letters that the show prompted were more than enough for me.

The first letter, from an Iranian living in New York, said: "There is no education on the subject in most Muslim societies and the women are not given a choice. The hijab has been exploited by patriarchal societies to a cruel and inhumane degree". These are interesting claims for a number of reasons, but probably first and foremost we should recognize the sad fact that NPR seemingly believes that comments from an obviously secularized Middle Easterner add some inherent value to this discussion and that their audience will place some value on them as well. No doubt it's assumed that the average listener will think that since this guy's from Iran, well then he must be a Muslim, thus he must know what he's talking about. Yes, folks, there's no need for not-so-subtle distinctions here, such as the fact that not only are many secularized Iranians rabidly anti-Islamic (thus they often put forward distorted, if not wildly outlandish, opinions), but many are quite ignorant of anything other than the religion's most basic tenets. My guess is that in choosing to air the comments of this Iranian expatriate, who they more than likely just assumed to be a Muslim, the editor's of NPR's All Things Considered felt they were offering balanced listener feedback on the topic. While their intentions might have been good on a certain level (i.e. an ill-conceived attempt to let the "other" share their point-of-view), to mainstream Muslims, it's rather clear that NPR has fallen into the trap of selecting people to represent Muslims who are rather unrepresentative of Muslims. In short, NPR selects to propagate the opinions of Muslims who adhere to their pre-conceived notions of what Muslims should be like. Thus instead of being disinterested and benevolent promoters of truth and understanding, they just make another contribution to the heap of misunderstandings and misrepresentations being piled upon Muslims today.

To analyze this in more detail, the editors at NPR seemed to have missed the fact that their very own show was specifically supposed to be about Muslim women with "their faces covered", not just the "hijab" (i.e. headscarf) which is all that the letter in question mentioned. If the editors were astute-and they're certainly not when it comes to Islam-they would know that the full face veil (i.e. niqab) is pretty much a practice of Sunni, not Shi'a, Muslims, thus one doesn't see it too often in Iran. Needless to say, I found it frustrating, but not surprising, that NPR allowed the discussion to get sidetracked before barely reaching the second sentence of the first letter...especially in light of the fact that they no doubt chose to read the letters which they thought were most thoughtful and informed. In spite of the fact that stories which are related to Islam, justifiably or not, are in the news on an almost daily basis, I find it rather troubling that otherwise intelligent people in the West-even well-meaning and sincere ones-continue to be so painfully misinformed about a religion embraced by a full one-fifth of humanity. It doesn't make me feel any better when I find media outlets—ones that are generally known for making an effort at showing both sides of a story, if not for being outright liberals—continuing to stumble and bumble their way through any attempt at not only representing Islam in a fair manner, but analyzing it in an intelligent manner.

Anyway, the real shortcomings of the letter in question were its outlandish claims, such as saying there's "no education on the subject in most Muslim societies". Since "no education", even from the perspective of the letter's author, is clearly an exaggeration (i.e. maybe "not enough" or "very little" would do, but I'm sure there's at least some and not none), one has to wonder what he meant by "education". Since the rest of his statement makes it quite clear that he's a run-of-the-mill secularist with a bone to pick with Islam, by "education" he most probably meant convincing Muslim women that the veil, however defined, is nothing but a societal practice fabricated by misogynistic male Muslim clerics that has nothing to do with "true Islam" (i.e. the pick-and-choose pseudo-religion to which cultivated secularists like him nominally adhere). Once one realized that the views of modernist Muslims are based on a mixture of irreligion and dishonest textual interpretation, it should be no surprise to learn that what they mean by "education" in regards to the hijab are efforts aimed at duping Muslim women into adopting their own shoddy opinions.

Likewise, to say "the women are not given a choice" is at best a half-truth, especially in the context of a radio show that attempts, however feebly, to show that some (if not most) Muslim women in the West, not to mention the Muslim World, wear the veil out of strong religious conviction...but that's not something they really want you to know. This is not to say that the treatment of women in some Muslim countries is ideal, since in some cases it's certainly far less than that (if not abysmally un-Islamic). However, readers should also be aware that there's also the phenomenon of God-fearing Muslim women being forced not to wear the veil in such countries as France, Tunisia and Turkey, where wearing the hijab in schools, government offices and other areas is banned by law. Additionally, many Muslim women who want to wear the hijab out of religious conviction often times find they are pressured not to if they belong to families that adhere to a staunchly secularist and nationalistic ethos. This counter-phenomenon is almost always conveniently overlooked by the media, since what bothers people in the West is any type of religiously-based standard or command which tells believers to reign in on their personal whims...especially if it's alien to their own culture. However, when it comes to secularists forcing their godless standards on religious people, or the pressures brought on by keeping up with the latest fashion trends and the obsessive desire to look good, suffice it to say that they're not seen as "cruel and inhumane".

Which brings us to the last statement of the first letter in question, which claimed that "The hijab has been exploited by patriarchal societies to a cruel and inhumane degree"—a statement which could be understood as confirming that there is indeed an Islamic requirement called "hijab" (which many Westernized and secularized Muslims deny), but that this requirement has simply been "exploited by patriarchal societies." If that's what the author meant by these words, then I have no real problem with them...but I seriously doubt that's what he was trying to say. While the real question should be, at least to believing Muslims and those who value freedom of religion, is what the teachings of Islam actually dictate in terms of women's clothing, not the fact that some Muslims have misused Islamic Law in a misguided attempt to control women. However, instead of this we get a sound-byte from a person who may have only desired to find a way to use "hijab", "patriarchal" and "cruel and inhumane" in the same sentence. Mission duly accomplished, this slanted view of things fell on the ears of NPR listeners who may now be well on their way to believing that the hijab is just a cultural aberration and method of exploitation that should be banned for the benefit of women. Indeed, there's no doubt that the subversive efforts of "liberal" and "progressive" Muslims, who are disproportionately sought out by the media to act as Muslim mouthpieces, are starting to bear fruit. I wonder how many people in lands where "freedom" is advertised as the highest value will eventually be mislead by such misinformation and end up supporting efforts aimed at forcibly stopping Muslim women from wearing "the veil"? The fact that such a trampling of freedom of religion, which is considered a basic human right by many, would be "cruel and inhumane" is seemingly lost on people who already feel that way. We should find it disturbing that principles that some people claim to so deeply value, such as "freedom of religion" and "tolerance", are discarded as soon as they come under the influence of a facile presentation in the media that relates to Muslims. Some people seem to have the attitude that, as long as they consider themselves the good guys and their values have been deemed to be universal, it's okay to force these values on other people...but I thought it was only Islam that (allegedly) spread by force!

The next letter that they read on All Things Considered, which happened to be from another listener in New York, was noteworthy because it's attempt at exposing a double-standard in regards to the veil simply showed that its author had some double-standards of his own. The letter's claim that there is a "double-standard here that seems to have been ignored. Western women in Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, are expected to conform to the local dress code. Why should a Muslim woman be offended by being asked to do the same?" is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it's unethical (not to mention idiotic) to blame women who want to wear a full-face veil (i.e. niqab) in Western countries for the policies in some so-called "Islamic" countries. Such a view seems to come from an intellectual fallacy that we see a lot of today, and that's the already mentioned error of treating Muslims as a monolithic force in which all Muslims are held accountable for the actions of a few...the issue of whether such standards of dress are, or are not, required by the teachings of Islam being irrelevant to this particular point.

Anyway, to get to the point, the short answer to why a Muslim would be offended is this: because it violates her religious beliefs. If he really wanted an honest answer, you'd think that the letter's author would be smart enough to direct such a question to a believing Muslim woman instead an uninformed third-party like NPR...but I guess not. Yes, indeed, asking (or forcing) a Muslim woman to expose herself by removing her veil or headscarf would violate her deeply held and (what she believes to be) God-given religious teachings related to modesty and chastity-virtues which the West used to value greatly until the so-called Enlightenment swept them aside. Yes, that's the same Enlightenment that the current Pope abhors for what it did to undermine Christian faith and values in Europe, although he seemingly adores it for what it could do to Islam (i.e. get it in the same mess that his religion is currently in). Anyway, in spite of how some may try to spin it, the hijab and the veil are not merely easily discarded outward religious symbols, methods of post-colonial political protest or cards to play in the big game of "identity politics", but they are ethical requirements based on religious guidance.

Likewise, to more directly address the alleged "double-standard", I sincerely doubt that there are religious teachings or ideologies that are violated by someone putting on more, rather than less, clothes, but there are some that are violated by women (and men!) dressing down too much. It wasn't too long ago that most people in America and other Western countries understood this obvious fact. Still in the United States and Europe, believe it or not, there are standards (not a "dress code") which require that people wear at least a certain amount of clothing. Due to this, I'm quite sure that even if someone were to claim that going nude in public was part of their religious beliefs or cultural practices (whether a bushman of the Kalahari, someone from deep in the Amazon, or a New Age nudist), they would be forced to adhere to minimal acceptable clothing standards while in public-like it or not. It seems that some people in America, most especially a couple of guys in New York, need to put that in their purportedly freedom-loving, secular-humanist pipes and smoke it.

Understanding that minimal acceptable clothing standard, and not a "dress code", is the more accurate operative phrase for describing how most societies, including America and Europe, dictate how people dress exposes the real flaws in the thinking that spawned this second letter. Indeed, in his effort to taint Muslim women who want to wear the veil in the West with having a "double-standard", the author not only got his facts wrong, but undermined the values that his country claims to stand for as well. It is rather odd that someone would claim that the U.S. or the U.K. has a "dress code", since what they have in reality is a minimal acceptable standard of dress. When non-Muslim women travel to countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, they are expected to adhere to the minimal standard of dress. Likewise, women visiting America must do the same. If you doubt this, just think what would happen if they removed all of their clothing and then tried to proceed through the line at U.S. Customs! Ah yes, there is indeed a minimum standard of dress here, although there is no "dress code" (i.e. you can dress pretty much any way you want as long as you meet the minimum acceptable standard).

Once one understands this, it should become clear that it's not a matter of Muslims enforcing a "dress code" in their countries while hypocritically ignoring the "dress code" in non-Muslim countries. Rather, it's a matter of both sets of countries having minimal standards, but some Muslim countries simply maintain a standard of dress that sets the minimum higher (or more conservatively) than countries in the West. Thus to claim that Muslim women are adhering to some sort of "double-standard" in wanting to maintain what they believe is religiously mandated modesty, especially in a country that claims to be "free", is to see the situation with a complete lack of clarity...but God knows best.

Some food for thought, insha'llah. Deen On...