HW 32: Responding to Riverbend

After reading Riverbend's posts from September 19 to October 5, 2003 of "Baghdad Burning", I had a much better understanding of burqas, habibs, and veils. On Wednesday October 1, Riverbend further explained the commentary on "Iraq Family Ties Complicate American Efforts for Change", written by John Tierney that was posted in The New York Times. Stanley Kurtz stated that the vieling is used to prevent others who are not of the same religion from competing with another woman's cousins for marriage. Riverbend argued that cousins have whatsoever nothing to do with the purpose of wearing a viel, and his explanation of it can only be interpreted as an insult. "I have a question: why is Dr. Kurtz using the word "viel" in relation to Iraq? Very, very few females wore veils or burqas prior to the occupation" (Riverbend 92). From this Riverbend argues Kurtz's explanation and sums up that his words wore an assumption more than fact. A viel, the English version of the word, is a piece of cloth that covers the entire face and head. Known in Iraq as the burqa or khimar covers predominately the hole face, sometimes with the exception of the eyes. The hijab is a headscarf that comes in various colors that can be worn many different ways. Muslim females wear veil's for religious values, not because of the Stanley Kurtz's assumption that their cousins make them wear it. The headscarf's that they wear provide comfort and security to themselves and their religion. Riverbend summed up the explanation of the veil, burqas, and habibs, as the same as a Christian revealing and presenting the cross, or a Jew wearing a yarmulke.