I just read that Syria has banned Islamic veils at universities.
In the article, a woman states that wearing the niqab—a veil that covers all but the eyes—”reflects my freedom.”
Which made me think that some of us, and by us I mean the woman in the article, are not clear on the concept of freedom.
Freedom is a dangerous, frightening concept that puts you in full control over your own destiny. It unshackles you from everything. Pure freedom is a risky, unsafe, anarchical proposition.
On the polar opposite end of the spectrum from freedom is total safety.
Though, ironically, safety does still technically free you from certain things.
Safety frees you from responsibility. It frees you thought. It frees you from the risk that comes with making choices.
Safety provides rules to follow, and prescribes consequences for those who do not follow.
Safety frees you from freedom.
So when I read that a woman interprets her niqab as a symbol of freedom, I certainly understand how that statement can be technically correct. She is being freed from something.
She is being freed from freedom.
In a land where women can enjoy warm California days in Daisy Dukes and bikinis on top if they want, we understand the ironic price of freedom. We understand that with freedom comes with debate, disagreement, and an ever-evolving definition of “where the line is.”
So, in a way, freedom does mean damning you to a life of constantly being hit with ideas you don’t like.
Meanwhile, freeing yourself from all that mess—say, by embracing a subservient role in society and abdicating responsibility for your life to another person, or to a hard line institution that protects you by putting severe limits on your ability to engage as a full member of society?
It may look like freedom, but it’s not.
Jason Seiden is Co-founder and CEO of Ajax Social Media, a training company that shows professionals how use social media to work more effectively.
I'm the CEO of Ajax Social Media. We're helping 1 million people shine by making their online stories better. 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Your post comes at an interesting time, as I’ve just finished a short course on Islam (purely out of historic interest). I’m going to have to side with the Syrian woman here. First, taking away her right to wear that veil takes away her freedom to choose whether to wear a veil or not. Second, wearing a veil means a lot of different things in Islamic cultures. It can certainly mean freedom from men undressing you with their eyes, as the ladies with the Daisy Dukes and bikini tops know all about (though not much imagination is required there!). Believe it or not, not all women want to be looked at.
You wrote, “Freedom is a dangerous, frightening concept that puts you in full control over your own destiny.” It could be argued that this woman wears a veil as a way to take control of her own destiny. There are plenty of modern Muslim women who grew up in families without veils but chose it as adults, for whatever reason. And there are many reasons: religious, political, historical, financial–I just found out that Mohammed’s wives wore veils because that’s how the upper-class women distinguished themselves in that time. It was a status symbol!
So, while I understand the spirit of your post, I think you picked a poor example. I don’t expect this reply to see the light of day, as it’s not entirely germane to your point, but I thought you should have a bit more background on the whole veil thing.
Heath,
Great response, and thank you.
One does need to be respectful of other cultures when judging from afar.
That said, I think there is a difference here between an enlightened view of religion (any religion) and the reality of how those religions are practiced.
And the reality is, women do not have a fair shake in this land, largely because the major western religions subjugate their roles.
In Orthodox Judaism, women are kept separate from men at services and holidays. Call it what you will, slap whatever rationale on it you want, when my mother was not allowed to attend her own father’s funeral simply because of her gender, that’s not right.
So while I can appreciate, intellectually, the circular reasoning behind the definitions of freedom, and the importance of allowing women to choose even if they choose the veil, in practice, that argument does not pass the smell test.
On a practical level, it leads to outcomes that are simply not right.
Theory here does not hold up in practice, as the enlightened interpretations of the few are unfortunately drowned out by the more base and hurtful interpretations of the other 99.98% of the population.
Women should be ordained.
Women should not be hidden behind veils.
Women should be able to attend their parents’ funerals.
If a woman on her own wants to wear a veil? Great, have at it. If a woman chooses not to attend the funeral, or decides not to go into the clergy? Great and great. But that’s not what’s going on. These are institutionalized practices. They’re acculturated. And to that extent, they’re wrong.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jason. I really didn’t expect that. I just wanted to share some knowledge, but I get your points and, as a woman, certainly agree.”the enlightened interpretations of the few are unfortunately drowned out by the more base and hurtful interpretations of the other 99.98% of the population.” Yep.