religious garb

I attended a wonderful talk last week by Professor Ibrahim Farajaje at Starr King School of the Ministry, member of the GTU in Berkeley.  His topic was how Muslims, Christians, Jews and Hindus have lived side by side for centuries, for the most part in peace.  Indeed, for the far better part of time in peace, learning from one another, sharing culture and tradition.  The most well-known example of that in the West is al-Andalus in Spain, a culture that influenced European medieval and renaissance culture immeasurably in so many ways.

In his travels in India, Farajaje observed the same thing in India, as have I, especially in Kerala where Muslims, Christians and Hindus live and work together with wonderful color and style.  Yes, there has been sectarian violence among these groups in India, but as far as I can see, no nation has been immune to that, even our own - mark our Civil War, and more recently our fight for unions and the civil-rights struggles of the twentieth century.  We fight our own too.

Anyway, I loved the talk, I loved the Arabic chanting of verses from the Koran, and the beautifully spiritual take on Islam that Farajaje espouses - something very far away from the politicized extremism we identify with the 'Islalmicist radicals.'  My own area of interest in all this is the intersection or influence of Spanish/Moorish Islam with certain spiritual movements in Europe that offered alternatives to conventional, institutional forms of Christian religiosity.  It's hinted at here and there, but I haven't been able to find anything that specifically addresses the subject.  Please direct me, if you have a lead.

I also enjoyed the presence of Islamic religious garb, and even more, the fact that not everyone was wearing it.  I 'enjoy' seeing religious garb largely because it is optional.  I would not at all wish to be mandated to wear a particular religious or cultural garb, and in fact, in the presence of some of the women who were wearing head-scarves, I felt a sense of oppression.  I've conversed with one of these women, and she told me that basically she wears it to fend off the approach of interested males.  So, she's wearing it out of fear.  I also don't want to be approached by males, especially when I was younger.  I found that putting on a few pounds took care of that problem, and now even in my hoary old age, having lost weight, I get that same head-snap reaction.  Mind your own business!  I want to say.  I'm not here for you to gawk at.  Who the hell do  you think you are?  And who am I?  The same person I was when I was fat.  So I just look away or look down.  It is annoying.  So, I feel very sympathetic with these young women.  But I don't wish to be mandated to be muffled up all the time either.

Another one of the young women, very young and very white, gave me the impression of wearing the head-scarf in order to 'belong.'  Believe me, I know about this 'wanting to belong' to something into which you don't automatically 'fit.'  When I joined the spiritual group from India, of which I am still an active part, I wore Indian clothes, took an Indian name, and I will still on occasion wear a sari for a special event.  But no one says I have to, and there are plenty of female regulars in our group who always wear jeans and shirts or even sweatshirts to our services and events.  That's one of the things I particularly like about our group, there is no message coming from the top about conforming.  Individuals within the community may or may not want people to conform in matters of dress, but if that is the case, in our group it isn't very apparent.  And anyway, adopting religious garb isn't just about 'belonging' either, it's also about wanting to change your values and needing outward tangible signs to convince yourself and remind yourself that you are doing so.  And I respect that.  The problem is getting trapped in something that you can't change later, if you want to.

Maybe part of the reason why thwomen's head-scarves bothered me so much is that I grew up around women who wore a kind of head-scarf all the time.  We called them 'babushkas,' and they were square pieces of silk, cotton, linen or nylon, folded in half to make a triangle, and then placed over the head with the point facing down the back, and then tied under the chin.  I thought it was an Eastern European thing - and it was.  Little did I know how Muslim Eastern Europe has been.  And as Farajaje said, the Muslim and Christian communities in eastern europe influenced one another culturally.  I think these head-scarves/babushkas are a good example of it.  Maybe it's the fact that these women were so dominated by the males in their families that made it seem like the head-scarves represented their self-muffling constriction, their fear, their abject humility and assumption of second-class status.  It was de rigeur among the eastern europeans, but plenty of the irish and italian women wore them too.  Yes, they can be quite pretty, and very flattering to a woman's face.  I don't deny it.  I just want to be able to choose to wear one or not.  Freedom of choice of headgear.  It seems a simple thing.

Comments

[David Harmon]

Sectarian conflicts are never really about individual belief; the belief issue is always a proxy for something. Sometimes there are genuine resource shortages at the base, but usually the ambitions of their leaders are the important part.

Even with shortages, there usually could have been a peaceful solution -- but it would have involved some local leaders losing power in some form. (Including emigration of their subjects!) In contrast, war or atrocity can easily be used to retrench their power and destroy the competition (including the advocates of peaceful solutions).

[David Harmon]

PS: It's a pity that Ghandi never figured out this point -- in the Indian partition, he was trying to lead the people to peace, but he was ultimately only a single voice. There were just too many other, more parochial, leaders operating between him and the populace.

[kasturi]

i hear you about gandhi, david. yes, he did so much, but was not able to accomplish all that he hoped for. the ideal of democracy is aimed at saving the people from the excesses of single individual leaders, and yet it seems we remain liable to individuals and their power trips.

i only wish people, as groups, would not 'buy into' the rhetoric so readily, and turn against each other. we need so much to better understand the politics of 'projection.'