The heated debate in Europe about the higab (“Beyond the Veil,” Nov. 27) is a mere fig leaf hiding broader fear about Islam, immigration and European cultural identity. These fears are largely unfounded and reflect only our own insecurities as we go through fast-paced social change in the 21st century. On its own, the higab should be a non-issue since the number of Muslim women wearing it are still a tiny minority, although by all accounts a growing one. Moreover, mature and liberal Western societies must be expected to accept the higab as much as they accept any other form of nonmainstream attire as part of the freedom of individual choice that forms the bedrock of our liberty. But those who wear the higab in the West must be honest enough to admit they are making a political or social statement instead of pretending they are somehow following a nonnegotiable edict of Islam, because they are not. God does not care about the length of a woman’s dress; people do.
“In the best Voltairean spirit,” Fareena Alam declaims that she will “fight and defend the right of Muslim women to wear what they want to wear.” I just wonder if she is as willing to defend their right not to wear what they do not want to wear. For from what I gather, the main problem for European Muslim women is not being forbidden to wear the veil but being forced to wear the veil–forced by their fathers, uncles and husbands. What about raising a voice about this issue?
The distinguishing factor between the East and the West is the idea that Westerners live in a democratic society. Western leaders contend that war continues to rage in the Middle East in order to promote this ideal. Why then are we (the enforcers of democracy) becoming dictator nations? As was pointed out in your article, Tony Blair described the higab as “a mark of separation.” Surely, in a multicultural, multiracial, free and democratic society such signs of individuality cannot be banned. If we ban higabs, what will we ban next? If we are to stop Muslims from wearing the higab, shouldn’t we also stop Christians from wearing crosses around their necks or make nuns wear more appropriate Western clothing in public? Banning the higab is not a way of creating a more peaceful society, but more a way of oppressing followers of a religion that conflict with certain government agendas.
Among the four women who wrote about the veil, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (“Setting Themselves Apart”) was the most provocative. The question remains: what does Islam really teach? Since Ali is presumably a Muslim, then we must ask if her own interpretation of Islam’s teaching on the veil squares with the body of Islamic teaching on this issue. Carla Power and Rebecca Hall wrote: “The Qur’an does not mandate veiling for women” (“Seeing Clearly”). This is a superficial reading. The most authoritative Muslim commentators along with most of the weighty authorities on Muslims throughout history interpret the key relevant verses in the Qur’an as stipulating that a Muslim woman cover all of her body except for her face and hands. While admittedly the word “veil” is not mentioned specifically in these verses, the scholars insist that this is what is intended, and back their position with well-known Hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad that leave no room for liberal interpretations. The two main authorities in Islam are the Qur’an and the Sunna (words, actions as reported in the Hadith literature) of the Prophet Muhammad. Hirsi Ali and a lot of other Muslim women may not like this, but this is what their religion teaches.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali eloquently and convincingly countered the contribution of Fareena Alam. However, there are statements of Alam that are fuzzy or outright wrong. If the veil measures only 20 square centimeters (less than 2 inches by 2 inches), as she wants us to believe, there would hardly be any controversy. More serious is her assertion that Islam, and for that matter any religion, has a powerful message that is relevant to modern Europe. What else but sectarian strife, ethnic divisions and outright war have these great storytellers brought to us? Does modern Europe really want to be dragged back into the Dark Ages?
Apropos your Oct. 2 report on Afghanistan (“The Rise of Jihadistan”), American arms and money created the mujahedin fighters, in the mid-1980s. Trained in and sent from Pakistan, they created a “Jihadistan” to fight and oust the godless Soviet invaders from their country. The present-day Taliban are fired by the same spirit, but not all of them belong to the “lunatic fringe,” since many of them feel deprived of their rightful share in the government of their country. Almost all the Taliban are Pakhtoons who comprise more than 50 percent of the population of Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai continues to walk on the stilts of the Northern Alliance that brought him to power with the strength of American arms but has deprived the Pakhtoon majority of proper representation in the Kabul government. Money works wonders in Afghanistan. If the average Taliban fighter gets a miserable pittance of $5 a day, why not buy some of them with dollars instead of bringing in more troops and wasting more British and American lives?
I read your business report “Our Cell Phone Future” (Oct. 2) with much interest because I had not realized how advanced Japanese-made cell phones are now. To people from the older generation like me, a cell phone is useful enough if it simply provides wireless communication, especially in an emergency. Since the turn of the century, we have been saturated with ultramodern electronic gadgets. The young are usually the victims of predators who market such devices with attractive added values in the cell phone like your report enumerated. However, the more versatile the cell phone is, the more it may spoil its users. Today’s young users are addicts who cannot survive without their gadgets. More and more, information is accumulated in the tiny gadget, and their users are totally controlled by it. I prefer to keep my old cell phone just to avoid being swamped with unnecessary information.
The Philippines, with a population of about 88 million, has one of the highest population-growth rates in the world (Wagging the Buffalo," Sept. 25). Overpopulation, in the worst cases, makes nature incapable of sustaining the exponential growth in the number of people. This, in turn, causes shortages. Lack of resources causes poverty and diseases. Little by little, as we push nature to its limits in order to sustain new life, we destroy it. I shudder to think of the time when we have nothing to turn to but barren lands and salty water for survival. The increasing population also makes it hard for knowledge to reach everyone, especially when 60 students are jampacked into a room with broken chairs and few books. An unstable economy, a high unemployment rate, scarcity of resources, food shortage and pollution–all of which we are currently experiencing–are the natural consequences of overpopulation. If we don’t solve these problems today, tomorrow might be too late. Growth in population does not necessarily imply economic growth. We’re already beyond the limits.
