Recent attacks by France’s President Nikolas Sarkozy have brought new attention to traditional Muslim dress. Sarkozy is quoted as saying, to Parliament:
The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly,” he said. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.
This is after they have already banned the Hijab in the public sphere, such as schools and government offices:
“The protesters condemned last week’s announcement by the mayor of Nogent-sur-Marne, a Paris suburb, that he would refuse to marry any woman arriving for a civil wedding in a headscarf.”
As usual, the atheistic secular humanists are not satisfied with such statements, for on the face of it, they could be easily be taken as bigoted. So now they reach towards ‘science’ to justify oppressive words and practices. And haven’t we all have agreed that ‘science’ is impartial?
What all this means is if you’re a typical woman from the Middle East, one of the worst things to do, in terms of health, is to don a burka every time you step foot outside.
It is true Vitamin D deficiency is found in many countries around the globe, north and south.
The Middle East, however, has been noted in a number of scientific studies over the years as a particularly problematic area in this regard. Many of these same studies have singled out the garments worn by many women there, like the burka and niqab, as significant factors in reducing exposure to sunlight.
Schneidereit doesn’t hide his bias, stating that “That said, let me be clear that I agree with the thrust of what Sarkozy stated”.
At the same time he believes that since it’s scientifically “unhealthy”, there is no need to engage with the “political, cultural or religious aspects” of this debate. In other words, why actually talk about this? Why seek to understand the burka, what it represents and how complex of an issue this really is? It’s unhealthy!
The article is missing a whole lot of science and is instead filled with a whole lot of uncited opinions. One actual scientific study conducted on Arab women in Michigan came to interesting conclusions directly about the veil and the relationship to Vitamin D:
“RESULTS: Eighty-seven women participated. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were uniformly low“
In other words, unveiled Arab women are also deeply deficient in Vitamin D. While the currently advertised ‘optimum level’ is 35–55 ng/mL, the breakdown of the women with the highest levels was as follows:
Unveiled – Combination Supplemented and Unsupplemented:
8.5 ng/mL [5.75-13.5 ng/mL])
Veiled & Taking Vitamin Supplements:
7 ng/mL [4-11.5 ng/mL]
Veiled, Unsupplemented:
4 ng/mL [2-6.8 ng/mL]
Note the range, some veiled, unsupplemented women actually had higher levels of Vitamin D than the some completely unveiled women.
Unveiled Arab women seem to already have a natural ‘deficiency’ according to the standards outlined by the medical community today. The unveiled women were only getting 25% of the daily recommended value, the unveiled women with supplements 20%, and the unveiled women without supplements – 11%.
When there is a gap of 75% deviation from recommended values even in the unveiled women, this indicates other issues such as genetics, diet, and environment have a bigger influence on the ‘problem’ than simply blaming the veil.
In fact, the study states that its variable considerations (which primarily focused on the veil and supplements) were insufficient to explain the Vitamin D deficiency:
Our participants had exceedingly low concentrations of
25-hydroxyvitamin D (<10 ng/mL), with the concentrations
decreasing as the groups progressed from unveiled
to veiled with supplements and to veiled without supplements.
Clearly, our variables are insufficient to explain
the entire deficit in 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
Armed with actual facts, we now take a look at the motivations behind articles such as Schneidereit’s. To base an opinion about the extermination of cultural or religious expression based on narrow-minded and selective ‘science’ is reminiscent of eugenics. Eugenics is defined:
“”the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).”
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics
By considering the burka as proven ‘scientifically’ inferior, Schneidereit believes enough justification is present to ignore the deep context surrounding this mode of dress and simply close the book on the burka forever. This is not far from those who considered Jews worthy of extermination based on slipshod science which justified their opinions about the quality of their race. We’ve entered the era of mainstream cultural eugenics.
Not only has Schneidereit ignored actual studies which demonstrate the minimal aspect to the veil, but by ignoring social context he has left aside important facts.
Why is it not relevant that veiled women do not wear veils in their comfort and privacy of their own homes and gardens? When determining an overall position on the veil, why is it not scientific to consider that incidence of skin cancer is dramatically lower in the sun-blazing Middle East and its relationship to the veil?
Moreover, why is it socially acceptable to promote near nudity in tanning and sunbathing as a valid cultural expression when its only debatable benefit is cosmetic and results in dramatic rise in incidence of skin cancer?
Gai Eaton addresses this problem of non-specialists deriving social policy based on inaccurate scientific notions:
What matters, from this point of view, is not the pure form of a particular theory but the form in which it has been popularized, processed through the educational machine and assimilated by the masses. Religious (or metaphysical) ideas, when they penetrate whole populations within a traditional environment, may adopt simplified and what might be described as “picturesque” forms without thereby sacrificing either integrity or effectiveness, but secular and scientific notions soon become slipshod and inaccurate when they are popularized.
-Gai Eaton, “Knowledge and its Counterfeits”
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
This is a good analysis. The studies quoted only refer to Arab women, this might be due to genetic reasons only applicable to them. What about African women (Somalian women) that cover or Indian Subcontinent women? There is another reason that is also overlooked when considering this, and that is many women in the Middle East and Indian Subcontinent don’t venture out in the sun for fear of becoming dark due to the cultural stigma associated with marrying darker people, especially women. Most men want to marry fair skinned women, it is not all down to the Burka! The comments above stem more from a hatred of the burka than real scientific facts.
Essentially the issue comes down to freedom – the freedom to wear what you like.
Bismillahir Rahmaanir Rahiim
Asalaamu alaikum.
The study done in Michigan (my state) was specific to Arab women, and i’m not sure if it was even specific to Muslim Arab women. Therefore, it’s results are applicable to Arab women but not to others per se. As you say, that means that there are definitely other genetic factors that may be involved. The sad thing is that the media portrayed it as proof against the hijab and played that up, despite the fact that the very authors of the study and report tried to say the hijab was not the factor they were concerned about. Nevermind either that the amount of sunlight needed to get adequate Vitamin D can certainly be gotten merely by having one’s face and hands uncovered for as little as 10 minutes. So it doesn’t make an argument against the headscarf AT ALL. As far as face veiling goes, women can certainly choose private ways to get a little sun each day. When i researched and wrote about this matter for Crescent Times, i discovered that i take significantly more in daily supplements (just through a multi-vitamin and extra calcium that includes Vitamin D) than what is even recommended. Even allowing that i am probably not absorbing all that i take in supplement form, it is reasonable to assume that there are plenty of ways we can get the necessary Vitamin D that do not require us to leave off hijab. And in fact, it is true that those with darker skin are not able to absorb as much Vitamin D just from the sun alone, so what difference does it make for them to leave off their hijab? They would need supplements anyway!
Really, it is junk science, and it’s more about the way people manipulate the studies and hide what the authors truly found and reported to meet some other needs, whether it is political, social, or whatever. Hatred of spirituality is the root of it. It’s most certainly not that Sarkozy or others are genuinely concerned about the health and well being of Muslim women. So when people, whether Muslim or non, look at what he and others have to say on this matter, they should consider a) is he even telling the truth, and b) what is his real intent and purpose in making these claims?
PS – My article can be read here:
Bottom of page 6 – http://crescenttimes.com.au/doc/P6_fEB09.pdf
Continues on the bottom of page 10 – http://crescenttimes.com.au/doc/P10_fEB09.pdf
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
Not all African women who wear niqab are Somali. Face-covering has been common among the women in Swahili-speaking parts of east Africa, particularly Lamu and Zanzibar, much longer than it has been in Somalia. (They wear bui-bui, which is a head-cover which they wrap around their face – that is actually closer to the way the Sahabiyyat did it than the niqab is.)
Also, women don’t cover their faces altogether (they leave their eyes uncovered), they will go out to hang washing etc., and the sunlight does get into their houses.
It costs very little to get a 25(OH)D test done to check vitamin d status
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/d-action
Grassrootshealth D Action do them at cost price as part of a trail
Effective strength 5000iu/cholecalciferol supplements are cheap enough.
But it’s true that women who are covered have lower vitamin d status and this affects the amount of pain they feel. The lower the Vitamin d status the higher the pain levels experienced.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16712731
The impact of clothing style on bone mineral density among post menopausal women in Morocco:
Skin is the human body’s biggest organ and it seems somewhat perverse to prevent it operating in the manner it evolved to function.
Bismillahir Rahmaanir Rahiim
Asalaamu alaikum.
“But it’s true that women who are covered have lower vitamin d status”
One should be careful of stating something as fact when it is not a fact. The recent studies done did NOT prove that clothing style effected Vitamin D status. And as someone who has avoided direct sunlight for 25+ years, worn hijab for 12 years, and niqab for the majority of that time, how do you explain that my Vitamin D levels are perfectly fine??? There are other factors that come into play leading to low Vitamin D and putting it all upon clothing is simply ridiculous. Even the so-called “impact of clothing style on bone mineral density among post menopausal women in Morocco” is misleading because there are normal risks to bone mineral density after menopause and there are appropriate ways to address it that are certainly not limited to clothing matters nor do they necessitate undressing. Also, i’d say it makes little sense to say “wear less clothing to ensure you’re getting enough Vitamin D!” when less clothing and more sun exposure has the added effect of significantly higher rates of cancer and other skin conditions.
i am assuming, Ted, that you are a non-Muslim, forgive me if i am mistaken. But if you are a non-Muslim, then it is understandable that you would be unaware of, and in disagreement with, Allah’s injunctions upon us. Muslims believe that there is wisdom in Allah’s injunctions, whether we are able to scientifically prove that wisdom or not. In this case, the reality of science actually does prove and hold up that there are more benefits in covering than not. Now the issue is in us addressing the very real causes of Vitamin D deficiency and low bone mineral density. We are blessed to live in a time when we know the solutions to these problems, and we know that uncovering is not the solution. Those who insist that our manner of dress is the problem invariably have other motives than genuine concern for our health.