I'm going to go ahead and assume that I'm not the only one who has observed something like this:
Sitting in Footlocker on 34th Street near Herald Square waiting for a friend to pick out some shoes for his younger sister, I noticed a group of four girls is doing some shopping. This would not be out of the ordinary, but one of these young women was dressed in a full length Burqa. Her friends were all dressed in jeans and t-shirts, but there she was, covered from head to toe in a black cloak (in Manhattan in 90 degree weather, mind you).
(An aside: Not that I don't believe in modesty; I believe that many Americans could benefit from a little more bodily coverage.)
So she wears a traditional garment that identifies her with a religious community. No problem. We all need to belong sometimes. But in a Lady Footlocker? Really? Does the Qur'an contain any rules about shopping in chain shoe stores?
I think to myself, "Well, let's be fair... maybe she's just here while her friends look around and she actually has utter disdain for this commercial outlet." Not so. In fact, she is the first one to look around and try on some shoes.
It is at this point that I notice the Gucci handbag hanging from her shoulder. Again, the twelfth-century desert garb did not seem to match terribly well. Also, Gucci is anything but representative of modesty, as is the burqa.
In the end, this young woman simply appeared anachronistic and, in a word, silly. I had trouble deciding which is worse, an ancient and serious religious garment being wrapped up in brand-name selection and expensive handbags, or a symbol of faith-based misogyny trying to cram its way into a modern, progressive setting. (I would say the latter, but that is not necessarily right). What I am about to say is not politically correct, nor is it terribly open minded, so if this kind of this offends you, avert your eyes and get back to prayer, but if a person wishes to lead a pre-medieval lifestyle, why does he or she have to do it in New York City? This is a modern city where there are dozens of different traditions and even more languages, but why do symbols of old fear and unfounded hatred have to be a part of it? Is there no way to abandon the bad aspects of one's hereditary identity and save that which is good?
This bizarre mixing of the modern and the anachronistically traditional does not only apply to those who follow the Islamic faith, but to another abrahamic religion: Ultra Orthodox (or Haredi) Judaism.
(Interestingly, Haredi or Chareidi is derived from the Hebrew "charada", meaning fear or anxiety, used in this context to mean, "one who trembles in awe of God." Isn't wikipedia great?)
Isn't it strange to see a man walking down the street in near ceremonial garb, talking into a cell phone? Funnier than that, what about seeing someone with peyos talking on a blue-tooth? Is there anything in Talmudic law that dictates whether the blue-tooth must be worn on or under the peyos?
A fairer person than I might say, "Well, obviously it is impractical to shut the world out completely. Besides, they only use their cell-phones for work. They need them as tools..."
I'll tell you what's impractical: A woman shaving her head after her wedding day and replacing it with a wig that looks exactly the same as her former hair. Wearing thick coats and large, fur lined hats in the middle of summer. These human-made laws governing every waking hour of existence from birth to death. These are hilariously impractical, yet they still accept the convenience of a mobile phone?
In the end, it does not matter to me how other people spend their lives. I just hope that the young woman in Footlocker realizes how ludicrous and, frankly, out of place she really is.
Sitting in Footlocker on 34th Street near Herald Square waiting for a friend to pick out some shoes for his younger sister, I noticed a group of four girls is doing some shopping. This would not be out of the ordinary, but one of these young women was dressed in a full length Burqa. Her friends were all dressed in jeans and t-shirts, but there she was, covered from head to toe in a black cloak (in Manhattan in 90 degree weather, mind you).
(An aside: Not that I don't believe in modesty; I believe that many Americans could benefit from a little more bodily coverage.)
So she wears a traditional garment that identifies her with a religious community. No problem. We all need to belong sometimes. But in a Lady Footlocker? Really? Does the Qur'an contain any rules about shopping in chain shoe stores?
I think to myself, "Well, let's be fair... maybe she's just here while her friends look around and she actually has utter disdain for this commercial outlet." Not so. In fact, she is the first one to look around and try on some shoes.
It is at this point that I notice the Gucci handbag hanging from her shoulder. Again, the twelfth-century desert garb did not seem to match terribly well. Also, Gucci is anything but representative of modesty, as is the burqa.
In the end, this young woman simply appeared anachronistic and, in a word, silly. I had trouble deciding which is worse, an ancient and serious religious garment being wrapped up in brand-name selection and expensive handbags, or a symbol of faith-based misogyny trying to cram its way into a modern, progressive setting. (I would say the latter, but that is not necessarily right). What I am about to say is not politically correct, nor is it terribly open minded, so if this kind of this offends you, avert your eyes and get back to prayer, but if a person wishes to lead a pre-medieval lifestyle, why does he or she have to do it in New York City? This is a modern city where there are dozens of different traditions and even more languages, but why do symbols of old fear and unfounded hatred have to be a part of it? Is there no way to abandon the bad aspects of one's hereditary identity and save that which is good?
This bizarre mixing of the modern and the anachronistically traditional does not only apply to those who follow the Islamic faith, but to another abrahamic religion: Ultra Orthodox (or Haredi) Judaism.
(Interestingly, Haredi or Chareidi is derived from the Hebrew "charada", meaning fear or anxiety, used in this context to mean, "one who trembles in awe of God." Isn't wikipedia great?)
Isn't it strange to see a man walking down the street in near ceremonial garb, talking into a cell phone? Funnier than that, what about seeing someone with peyos talking on a blue-tooth? Is there anything in Talmudic law that dictates whether the blue-tooth must be worn on or under the peyos?
A fairer person than I might say, "Well, obviously it is impractical to shut the world out completely. Besides, they only use their cell-phones for work. They need them as tools..."
I'll tell you what's impractical: A woman shaving her head after her wedding day and replacing it with a wig that looks exactly the same as her former hair. Wearing thick coats and large, fur lined hats in the middle of summer. These human-made laws governing every waking hour of existence from birth to death. These are hilariously impractical, yet they still accept the convenience of a mobile phone?
In the end, it does not matter to me how other people spend their lives. I just hope that the young woman in Footlocker realizes how ludicrous and, frankly, out of place she really is.
Why should you really be concerned? People are allowed to do whatever they want, ESPECIALLY in New York City. The woman may be anachronistic, but there is nothing wrong with separating your religion from your day trips with the girlfriends.
ReplyDeleteIt's not impractical, by the way, to shave your head and wear a wig, if you are doing it for what you consider to be a practical purpose. There is meaning to all these things you consider stupid and wrong, simply because you probably don't identify yourself with any religious practices yourself.
I agree it's weird taking in some things we see mixing together in modern times, but does one's religious practices make one not allowed to lead a normal, 21st century life?