Welcome to the Islamic freak show! Where women can be bought in bulk, wear one-eyed veils to avert temptation, and brides come with gift receipts!
In a sensationalist news article, the BBC covers the unfortunate story of an Arab ambassador that decides to have his marriage annulled upon seeing that his new wife was “cross-eyed and had facial hair.” The article’s terrible title reads: “Dubai court annuls marriage to ‘bearded lady.’” Yikes.
Growing up, whenever I heard women in my community of Middle Eastern immigrants discussing young women for marriage, I would ask them if they were speaking about women or produce at the super market. The obsession with external appearance was something that really troubled me, so I had a hard time sympathizing with the protagonist of this article.
But I found many problems with the way in which this article was written. It made it seem as though this concept of annulling a marriage over such a superficial quality is something foreign to the Western world. In the United States in particular, we are bombarded with stories about drunken marriages and annulments in Las Vegas. While the existence of the parallel does not justify it, the coverage of such topics should not treat them as exotic occurrences, when it is really more of an important discussion point about the role of superficial qualities in our society.
Furthermore, the BBC article made a spectacle out of the “foreign-ness” of the Middle East. This highlighted by the related links, which included links to articles about one-eyed veils, Saudi men arrested for flirting, and men marrying six wives.
While I think it is really important to challenge the superficiality that comes with marriage, courtship, and the spectacle of ceremonies, I felt as though I was reading about an exotic and foreign species, rather than a community that is very much influenced by Western values.
“But I found many problems with the way in which this article was written. It made it seem as though this concept of annulling a marriage over such a superficial quality is something foreign to the Western world.”
I read the article too and it didn’t seem like that to me – but more that they’re surprised that he didn’t see her face beforehand, which is a foreign concept to Westerners and to many Muslims all over the world.
The article was playing on the circumstance that not seeing what the girl looked like before marriage (which some people do) was a huge factor in his subsequent decision. I found it slightly strange he didnt ask to see her face beforehand
I found the BBC article really offensive. Growing up in the White Man’s land, I have heard comments from ignorant white Christian men who suggested some Muslimahs wear the niqab because they’re so damned ugly, their daddies (or husbands) forced them to cover up.
“Growing up, whenever I heard women in my community of Middle Eastern immigrants discussing young women for marriage, I would ask them if they were speaking about women or produce at the super market. The obsession with external appearance was something that really troubled me, so I had a hard time sympathizing with the protagonist of this article.”
I am not a Muslim, but I lived in Iraq when I was a child.
I have always heard that one benefit of veiling was that it removed women from the ‘meat market’ mentality that is so common in the West. You seem to be saying that that is not true, that ‘meat market’ mentality is prevalent in the important area of marriage. If that is the case, why veil?
Reason 12018219 for wanting to ban niqab. Ergh.
yes, and he was apparently so surrendered to the arrangement, meaning he is obviously a very conservative type of person that he would go along with what his ‘superiors’ thought best for him, all the way to the actual marriage, then, you’d think his compliance would have made him think, well, maybe we can have a good marriage and she will become more beautiful to my eyes, blah-blah. But he completely balked at the idea. Means he doesn’t believe in the rules of his culture, whatever they are.
I agree with DIMA I think this article was written with a malicious intent to ridicule the notion of hijab by implying that Muslim women who cover are all “hags” underneath because they don’t need to “beautify” themselves.