Whether it is an obligation on Muslim women to wear the niqab or not is a matter of juridical difference. Scholars (new and old) have offered different views; some saying it is indeed an obligation while others have said it is not. Personally, I prefer the view which argues that although the wearing of the niqab is not an obligation, it nevertheless does have a basis in Islamic sources and thus should be a matter of choice for Muslim women. However the niqab and niqab wearing women have been receiving some very negative press in recent years. The most recent attack comes from Conservative MP Philip Holloborn.
The MP for Kettering told the Commons “This is Britain. We are not a Muslim Country. Covering your face in public is strange, and to many people intimidating and offensive.” According to Holloborn it was not until he took his children to a park and saw a woman wearing one that it “came home how inappropriate and, frankly, offensive, it is for people to wear this apparel in the 21st century.”
The last I checked Britain does not have an official uniform for her citizens! We are, no matter how offended a politician is, still able to wear what we choose and be British. Muslims are told time and again not to be so easily offended. That it’s part and parcel of living in enlightened Europe to have an individual’s beliefs criticised and attacked. Muslims, we are told, have to accept being offended as the freedom of speech and movement is a cherished characteristic of Great Britain as is the freedom to live ones life as one chooses! This goes both ways doesn’t it Mr Holloborn?
It is Mr Holloborn’s view that “a ban on wearing the burka in public should be considered”, why? because according to him the wearing of the niqab is “oppressive and regressive” to the advancement of women in society. Such a generalised and unqualified statement is inaccurate, conflating patriarchal culture with religion. I’m not sure how many niqab wearing Muslim women (if any) he has spoken to in order to come to such an absurd conclusion. I do know he is Westminster’s cheapest MP – While the average MP claims £135,600 a year in expenses, Mr Holloborn claims £44,551! A commendable act, but saving money is not an excuse for spewing unfounded words which will inevitably draw support from racists and Islamophobes of the BNP/ELD ilk.
Perhaps Muslim women, whether niqab wearing or not, should inform Mr Holloborn of their views on this very topical issue. Is wearing the niqab oppressive and repressive? Will banning the niqab help the cause of women’s freedom? Do you agree that by wearing a niqab women are effectively saying ‘they did not want any normal human dialogue or interaction with anyone else’, and ‘effectively saying our society is so objectionable?’.
Mr Holloborn says, “If we all went around wearing burkas our country would be a very sad place”. Do you agree? Have your say!
Women in islam are not oppressed, in islam women are seen as precious as gold and diomond, if you had pure gold with you, you will not go around displaying your gold to everyone will you? because people will come and want to touch it, and find ways to snatch it away from you, Likewise women are seen more precious and pure than gold in islam, so they have been blessed with the hijab, they are wrapped so no one can see thier beuty only thier husbands and parents of course. And the niqab is just that one step better, althogh no one forces the owmen to wear niqab, out of her own modesty she decides to wear the niqab. how any lunatic can find that offensive, they must be mentally deranged
Excellent blog..well said.
Oh dear, Mr Holloborn talks about burka and niqab being oppressive and regressive and then his view is ‘banning the burka in public should be considered’ is that not a bit oppressive? Last I checked we had the right to choose whether we came out in public with head and face covered or not. Why force an action on law abiding citizens who happen to cover, just because Mr Holloborn cannot move on with the times and recognise that Britain is made up of all races, religions and cultures.
It is not like we are asking Mr Holloborn to start walking out in a niqab!
I dont start filing for action when I see some women walking past me with clothes that look like they ran out of material half way through the making of it! Funny how that is not offensive, but people choosing to cover up is.
ps: as a hijaab and burka wearer I can confidently say I’m NOT OPPRESSED OR REGRESSED! Much the opposite, wearing the hijaab empowers women.
Big up to the ‘oppressed burka/hijaabi/niqabis!’ lol
- Many sectors of British society dress in ways others find strange, offensive and even repugnant. We have all sorts of fashion styles and attires that perhaps don’t always meet the ‘mainstream’ standard; Goths, orthodox jews, homosexuals, jamaican/reggae, ’scruffy’, leather, rock n roll, and so on. Not every one dresses like the model at Marks and Spencers, and everyone puts up with all types of clothing despite finding them ‘offensive’ or ‘distasteful’. So unless we treat all types of non-’mainstream’ clothing to the same standard as we are treating niqab in this debate, then the hypocrisy will only shame the hypocrite.
-the security concern issue is an weak and oft-repeated claim. For one, scholars have advised and niqabi sisters comply with the removal of the niqab for security requirements such as for ID and at the airport etc. As for in ‘public’ like on the tube etc. then this is an absurd claim which is not supported by facts. If the security services were to find niqabi wearers a real threat – that enough crimes were being committed under the disguise of the face veil – and that therefore preventing the face veil may be a suggestion, then perhaps one could make that point even if it is also debatable. But to simply without proof claim the niqab should not be worn for our safety is totally baseless.
Likewise, the argument that men with balaclavas would not be allowed on trains etc and hence niqabis should not be either is a dodgy ‘qiyaas’. People would feel unsafe from balaclava clad men because the balaclava is a classic crime kit and the fact a man is wearing it – someone who has more potential for hamr and is statistically proven to be the more common crime perpetrator out of the two sexes. But the niqabi cannot be said to have the same effect. In fact, a more suitable example would be to compare a niqabi on a train to say a woman who happened to have her face covered with her neck scarf on a cold day. Does Philip Holborne feel threatened by such women? Perhaps this is what it all boils down to…
-one claim holborne makes is that niqabis are refusing to engage in society, that someone would find it hard to say hello to them or whatever. The truth is that anyone – niqabi or not – has the right to keep to themselves if they want and not talk to no one (not to say niqabis do this)). There is nothin wrong with this and it is no grounds at all to call for a condemnation let alone a ban!
The hilarious thing about Holborne’s claim (that these women are making themselves voiceless and disengaged) is that he refuses to listen to these very women when they speak! Here is a very well articulated article by a niqabi sister :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6721729.ece
An essential read in articulating the correct Muslim argument in this field…
7. Banning the niqab will free those Muslim women who are coerced into wearing it.
The majority of niqab-wearing women in Europe, wear it out of personal choice, so if, for the sake of a suspected minority, the niqab was to be banned, this would be clear discrimination against the majority. If we want to empower women from any community who are oppressed or abused, effective public services where such abuse can be reported need to be made more available and accessible to the women involved.
^ In my opinion, this is the point that’s pertinent. From what I’ve heard (and I’m only concerning myself with the views of rational thinking people and not the irrational Islamophobes), many people object to the niqab because they’ve heard various people tell them that women who wear them are oppressed and are being forced to wear them, and so, because these Muslim women are scared and oppressed, they aren’t able to speak out against it. Due to this, these people find it hard to believe that these ’silent oppressed Muslims’ are a minority and that Muslims who wear it out of choice, are the majority!
To be honest, I think we need some way of ensuring that more and more Niqabis’ voices are heard. But then again, maybe niqabis/hijabis ARE speaking out but the media isn’t giving it the sufficient exposure? Take this above article for example, it’s the first time I’ve even seen it!
This is a very interesting blog on this matter in CIF
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/10/religion-islam
The Danish government thought to ask how many people such a ban would affect: the answer was something between 100 and 200.
An article on the interesting Swedish site islamologi.se picks the story up:In France, where there is an inflamed debate on the matter right now, the first investigation carried out by the police last year found that there were 367 women in France who wore burka or Niqab – 0.015% of the population. This was so low that the secret service was told to count again, and came up with a figure of 2,000; in Holland there seem to be about 400, and in Sweden a respectable guess suggests 100.
Hmmm interesting, but I don’t agree. I think the niqab debate IS about religious obligation, i.e. it’s about society’s intolerance for people who wish to practise what they feel are their religious obligations. The fact that some religious obligations also act as a ‘rejection to the surrounding society’ is an understandable by-product because if the religion is concerned with being moral, decent and pure then it’s going to distance itself from the things in society that lead to immorality, indecency, etc.
“I think this makes it entirely clear that in modern Europe the burka is not an atavistic hangover, but a very modern gesture of disaffection from and rejection of society, which appeals to a certain kind of extreme temperament”
^ No I think the burka/niqab is a modern gesture of a modern person just wanting to follow their religion. Yes they’re extreme, but ONLY in the sense that they’re pushing themselves to be the person/Muslim they think is best and most righteous. And that’s all it is.
There are some stirring statistics in this article. Really sad to see such low percentage minorities being picked on – a fine example of bullying and oppression.
I think (as far as I’m aware), there are 3 types of responses towards Niqabis:
1. People who feel a bit freaked out or scared by Niqabis.
They’re not used to people choosing to cover their faces, they’re a little unsettled by it and they don’t understand why anyone would do it. Interestingly, these people do not usually have a problem with the hijab/head covering, they just find the niqab extreme.
2. People who feel sympathy and worry for Niqabis.
They have heard of cases where women are forced to wear them so they assume or wonder if this is the case with the individual in front of them. They think it must be oppression because of the things they’ve heard and also because they cannot fathom why anyone would actually choose to wear a niqab.
3. People who feel offended by the sight of Niqabis.
They’re offended because it’s not to their liking, they’re not interested in anyone else’s point of view, they’re intolerant, irrational and very egoistical.
Now in my opinion, type 1&2 are understandable because people’s thoughts are moulded by the life they’ve had and the experiences/stories they’ve come across, so in regards to these two types of people, the solution lies in educating them to be open minded, and to expose them to the majority of clearly non-oppressed niqabis. However, with type 3, (and Holloborn falls under this category), I wouldn’t bother waste much time on them, it’s sufficient just to say “I’ve got the right to wear what I want, so just…
..suck it up!”
I’m always wondering why men do not have to wear the niqab/burka. And how do you know that every woman wearing these does that out of free will?
A niqab is very impractical, you can’t drive a car very well, nor cycle.
Anyway, if “Night Man” considers his wife to be gold/diamond and she should wear the niqab/hijab out of protection, it is very obvious that he is the one that decides she should wear it. She might think completely different.
@Maleiha
I think the best thing you can do to clear that conception is to do a survey, please come to ELM ask some of the sisters why they wear the Niqab/Burka then we can make assumptions whether men are forcing their wives/sisters/children to wear the Niqab/Burka.
I wait to see the outcome.
rubbish maleiha. i observe niqab because i consider myself ‘private property’. unlike many women who don’t, most of them are public property. i.e. enjoyed by everyone.
infact, my husband never began practicing his religion, i did. i discovered islam late and understood how god values women, their chastity, their honour.
Slms Maleiha,
Islam defines some actions that are required for Men and some that are required for Women. For example, I wonder why women do not have to pay a dowry/mahr/wedding as the men who are *obligated* the amounts often do so without free will…! Do you see where that could lead us to?
I am seventy years old,have served around the world in the Army including two years in South Yemen and Oman. Where ever I was posted I respected local customs. If you choose to live in my country don’t try to force me to accept your customs. If you want me to respect your customs then respect mine and don’t try to change my country to suit you. If it is the custom for muslim women to cover their faces in public okay,as long you understand it is our custom to expect the face to be uncovered.I would not converse with anyone whose face is hidden.
I read that Night Man claims in islam a woman is more precious than gold. That depends if you have the gold to provide a dowry when the girl child comes of age to marry.When I was in Aden I saw girl children with no eyes begging on street corners.I asked how could this be allowed, the answere was”It is the will of allah”. Because the parents could not afford the dowry for the girls they took out the girls eyes to get the sympathy of passersby to get more money. In my previous comment I stated I would not converse with a person whose face was covered,this does not mean I am mentally deranged I just want that person to show me they respect the customs of my country.
the west is trianna make ppl biliv dat dey have freedom to wear watever dey like, den wats wrong wit a woman wearing niqab or burqa??