I’m also a member of several mailing lists dedicated to veiling matters.

Sahil, that link was interesting.

http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2005/01/sufi-muslim-takes-on-wahhabism.htm

Obviously as the birthplace of the Prophet (pbuh) Saudi Arabia has held a prominent place in Islam. Naturally, there is a huge amount of Islamic scholarship and learnedness that comes from that region. To turn around and link that to petro-dollars is at best an oversimplification and at worst a gigantic twisting of perception as to how the Islamic world actually works. Arabia/the Middle East is the birthplace of Islam. Is it not obvious that the traditions there will be adhered to more strictly??? What the hell does oil and the imaginary wahabbism that you refer to have to do with that???

But then again, obtuse theories can come from (a) ignoring historical context (b) commenting from outsided an entire culture/community/religion (c) trying to make a bite-sized representation of something that has been evolving for the last 1400 years.

One question though, you say “Whereas previously there was a wide variety of dress (and colours), now it is dominated by the same old niqab/khimar/jilbab combo, usually in black”

What are your timeframes in reference to that comment? What does ‘previously’ mean?

If you look at veiling practices at the turn of the century and then now, in various countries, the spread of Saudi-style dress is blindingly obvious – for example, Somalia, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and so on. Whereas previously there was a wide variety of dress (and colours), now it is dominated by the same old niqab/khimar/jilbab combo, usually in black.

Its not so much generalising as pointing out the bleeding obvious (I believe something like 80% of the Imans in the US, for example, are Saudi-funded) the role of Saudi petrodollars in spreading its self-declared “true Islam” across the globe, almost always to the detriment of local varieties of Islam and local cultures – the most obvious sign of which is veiling, the second form being the sudden “I’m more Arab than thou” manifestation in Saudi-exposed converts.

I just get highly suspiscious when generalisations like that are bandied about.

soru @ 103 – Vanilla and egg sandwich, I like that.

Or when your pizza arrives cold at Pizza Hut and you don’t complain about it to the waiter or send it back; you just frown and eat it anyway. And give the waiter a tip at the end like the sucker you are.

Or……you get the idea.

All very un-American.

But there is nothing more British than an argument over grammar!

Oh yes there is. It’s when you’re waiting on a packed platform at Liverpool Street station as the tube arrives, the guy right in front of you hesitates to get on the Central Line, hovers, then suddenly moves backwards and steps on your foot, and YOU mumble “Sorry”.

I shall never make another grammar intervention again, unless it is to tick off a troll. Now I have nothing to do.

No, no and thrice no, Hyder (#100).

The Niqab is completely a Saudi/Wahabbist tool. One can track the flow of Saudi oil money quite closely by examining the uptake of the niqab in a particular geographic locale.

Traditionally in India/Pakistan veiling took two main forms: either casual sari-type scarves adjusted to loosely cover the lower part of the face or else the chadri/burqa style covering the whole body.

And besides, Sunny or anyone else can critise the Niqab and/or Islamic Law just as he/she can criticise Ronald McDonald. Its called Free Speech, innit?