Logically speaking, can a person be both against the burqa [face veil] and against its opponents? I find myself in this position, despite the apparent contradiction, because I believe that the niqab, burqa and chador, and any other garment that covers a woman's entire body, are a form of oppression, nay, blasphemy against the noblest of human values and relationships. This old and undeviating position of mine (I am also opposed to the headscarf but that is not the issue today) is being tested or tried as I follow the campaign against the niqab and the burqa in Europe these days. In truth, I do not separate this campaign from the wider campaign against Islam and Muslims, where the opposition to the face veil has become an exposed excuse provided by Muslim zealots to the enemies of their religion. In Belgium where the people speaks two languages and where Belgium disappears in the north and becomes Flanders, the government is crumbling and yet, the legislators in Belgium found the time to pass a law outlawing the burqa in public places. And in France, the government of Nicolas Sarkozy convinced the parliament this month to approve a draft law to prohibit the burqa, which will become effective in nearly 6 months. However, I become suspicious, even though I am against the burqa to begin with, when I read that the number of women who wear the burqa in Belgium does not exceed two hundred, while they are about two thousand in France, or ten percent of two million Muslim women in France. These figures confirm that the burqa is not an important issue in both counties. However, other more important issues are ignored, including that of the global financial crisis, the decline in the government's popularity, or the fact that the government is entirely collapsed. And yet, they find the time to focus on the burqa. In the Italian town of Novara, the police arrested a Tunisian woman on her way to the mosque for Friday prayers, and some say to the post office, and was fined 500 Euros for wearing the burqa and violating a municipal law that bans it. Where is the freedom of expression, which allows for nudity and atheism, but which nonetheless does not allow the burqa? I am not the only one objecting to this. Amnesty International objected, in turn. to the Belgian law banning the burqa, while human rights organizations all over Europe and the United States condemned the ban on the burqa as an attack on personal freedom. I am opposed to the burqa for my own reasons, and they oppose it for theirs. For instance, the President of [the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) Group in] the French National Assembly Jean-François Copé, wrote an article in the New York Times justifying the forthcoming law outlawing the burqa, basing his arguments on the French values of liberty and fraternity, and the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution. He did not forget to remind the readers that an armed burglar in a Paris suburb used the burqa in a robbery. Another burglar had also used the burqa in a similar robbery in Birmingham, providing an opportune excuse for the hypocritical opponents of the burqa, although the use of masks in robberies is as old as thievery itself. The burqa is an excuse for people like the American evangelist Franklin Graham, whom the pentagon decided not to invite to the National Prayer Day, because of his constant attacks on Islam. He called Islam an evil and wicked religion, but he nonetheless says that he loves Muslims and that his charity is active in Muslim countries. There is also the philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, who wrote an article entitled “Why I Support a Ban on Burqas”. He said what I also say about the harm that the burqa does; however, I do not respect this philosopher and recalling his frequent stances against Arabs and Muslims, I link his opposition [to the burqa] to these stances. In the electronic newspaper Elaph, Ghassan Mefleh wrote an excellent article, which I recommend to the readers, about the bikini, the veil and hair wigs for women. (The reference to hair wigs means those used by Jewish women, but today there is also a controversy in Yemen regarding hair extensions fixed at the back of the head, used by veiled women to make it seem as though they have thick hair – and hence it is nicknamed there ‘Abu Nafkha' [puffy]). If the Holy Quran said “[...] and to draw their veils over their faces” the matter would have been settled there and then, and no controversy would have ensued. However, the scripture says “[...] and to draw their veils over their bosoms” (24:31) and also “[...] to draw their cloaks close round them” (33:59). Al-Zamakhshari interprets this verse in al-Kashaf thusly: the openings in their garments were wide and showed their bosoms and chests, and drawing the cloaks is to cover the chest, and similarly to draw their veils over their bosoms. As for the verse “[...] when ye ask of them anything, ask it of them from behind a (hijab) curtain”, the word hijab here means a curtain. There is also the verse “[...] even though their beauty pleased thee” (33:52). This means that the Prophet was able to see the women in his time, and hence, they could not have been veiled. All peoples across history had a form of veil or scarf, including the Persians before Islam, Arab Christians, and Western Jews and Christians. In fact, all the icons of Christian woman saints show them, almost without exception, wearing a headscarf. The niqab, the burqa or the chador is an excuse used by the enemies against Islam and Muslims, and an excuse for Muslim zealots to oppress women. I object to both sides and demand for women to have the full freedom in choosing what they want or do not want. [email protected]
