In a week in which the government decided that Muslim women wearing what the Prime Minister described as a “confronting” form of attire should be instructed to sit in a glass enclosure with the noisy schoolchildren (and I was certainly looking forward to reading the outraged letters from parents whose offspring were forced to sit next to the scary terrorist lady), it’s pedantic to get uptight over issues of terminology.
But other people have been getting pedantic over the “correct” words for burqa/niqab/chador, etc, and their pedantry has let my pedant off the leash. Various Muslim writers (hello, Waleed Aly) have written op-eds explaining that “it’s not a burqa, it’s a niqab, a burqa is that blue Afghan thingy”, while “know your veil” explain-o-grams are blossoming throughout the media. Even Richard Roxburgh gave a little sermon on the correct term during an episode of Rake, in which he defended a face-veiled client:
Greene: Your Honour, what sort of madness is this that here and now, in the twenty-first century, in this palazzo of justice we call court 11 C, we three men are debating the right of a woman to choose her own clothes? The tyranny of misogyny, Your Honour, must be consigned to the wastebasket —
Judge: Mr Green, are you daring to suggest that wearing a burqa is somehow an expression of your client’s feminism?
Greene: With due respect Your Honour, my client doesn’t wear a burqa. She wears a niqab.
Judge: The difference being?
Greene: The former to all intents and purposes is a body bag, the latter a simple veil.
Judge: Be that as it may, Mr Green, the jury and the court both have a right to be able to scrutinise the disposition of any witness.
However, I managed to restrain myself until I saw that even Crikey has taken to putting the word “burqa” in inverted commas in acknowledgement of the term’s presumed misuse.
Actually, whether or not it’s a burqa (or a niqab or a chador or whatever) very much depends on which part of the Muslim world you are in (#Arabethnocentrism, Waleed). The style of burqa that gained international headlines when the Taliban attempted to mandate its use is often referred to in Pakistan as the “shuttlecock burqa” — a label that aptly describes its appearance and signals that there are multiple garments that go by that name. A random trawl of the south Asian media brings up many articles to illustrate this point. This one from Pakistan about the transition from “blue to black burqas” (the black burqa being what recent Australian op-eds would describe as a niqab) is a good example.
I try to avoid the issue by using the term “face-veiling”, but I’ll use the word burqa or niqab as well, if that’s the term being used in the story under discussion. That’s because I, too, believe that language matters — and that it’s therefore important not to propagate the myth that there is a global Muslim community who share a common vocabulary (let alone opinion) with regard to women’s dress — or anything else, for that matter.
Is it unreasonable to question whether an “academic’ expert should expend so much effort on pedantic [in its pejorative sense] discussion of clothing, when for most Australians the major issues should be reducing fear among Australians and reducing the likelihood of alienation among the various groupings in Australian Society?
More time should be spent on describing how this style of clothing came to be associated with a religion. It seems that the worthy concept of dressing modestly has been taken by a bunch of misogynists over hundreds of years and turned into a symbol of oppression.
Any facial covering apart from those worn for medical reasons is an affront to the social norms of most societies.
It doesn’t matter what it is called, it shouldn’t be allowed. This has nothing to do with personal or religious freedoms, it has everything to do with a minority being allowed to peddle their cultural beliefs unchallenged in a secular society.
There is no Jewish / Christian / Muslim God, the stories they are based on are just that, stories. They can be interpreted to mean anything you want, but that doesn’t mean you need to kill everyone who disagrees with you, or make half the population cover themselves in strange garments and be forced into domestic slavery. It is time for everyone who needs a faith to grow up and for the rest of us to stop giving you tax breaks to subsidise your churches and schools.
P.S. If you must believe, I recommend the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Everyone loves noodles.
The article overstates its final proposition: ‘. . . the myth that there is a global Muslim community who share a common vocabulary (let alone opinion) with regard to women’s dress — or anything else, for that matter’.
First, as a matter of analysis, the ‘Muslim community’ must have some characteristic in common to be identified as a community.
But surely all Muslims agree that Muhammad is God’s prophet and that the Qur’an is God’s revelation.
Just call it shrouding, at least that is plain & simple language, understood by all.
Why even bother with various ferangi words – Arabic, Fazir, Urdu – in a discussion in English?