These days there is no talk louder than talk about the ban of the Niqab in European countries. The international media is filled with topics and reports on the Muslim women wearing the Niqab and the danger of manipulating the Niqab. In the Arab countries, the media writes without monitoring the opinions and the European concern, which is based on security [nonsense] reasons, while some writers come up with ideas, of which some lack accuracy and understanding of the European mentality. The Niqab is still the target of an intensive European campaign to ban it in public places, after the French Parliament issued a decree that prevents wearing the Niqab in public places. This prompted the Spanish Senate to follow in its footsteps as well, and the Italian ministry of Interior to recommend this as well, while for security reasons, the Belgian Parliament proposed a draft law that bans the Niqab. However, it is yet to be ratified by the Senate. In return, the discussion over the ban of the Niqab was not restricted to the European Parliaments or media polls. Rather, it extended to Arab and Islamic communities living in these countries. Some of these communities abide with the laws of these countries, while others reject them and level accusations in all directions in countries that give them passports and identity cards and where they make their living. Daily commentaries on the Niqab and the reasons behind its ban are on the rise on the websites of Arab and Western newspapers. Some of these commentaries are ironic while others are full of hatred and some others lack any informative value. But eventually, it is a mere commentary that expresses the mentality of that person, whether he has a sound or an empty mind. For example, someone offended Saudi Arabia and said that it is working on promoting its Bedouin constituents in order to reach out to globalization through the “time zone,” noting that “the Mecca time zone” was mentioned in different media outlets. This represents a manipulation of the Islamic value of Mecca for the purpose of cultural achievements through promoting its Wahhabi confession and its Bedouin people's jurisprudence. The commentary of this person involves clear contradiction and malice. After all, did Saudi Arabia ask the media outlets to show the time zone of Riyadh or Mecca or are these media outlets seeking profits and financial interests and trying to benefit from “dynamic” Saudi people who are unfortunately neither tired nor bored from contacting both the reputable and the silly television channels? Another person ironically said: “The veiled women will wear the Niqab only at home!” Another supports him by saying: “Where is the problem here? The veiled shall sit at home and avoid contact with men and going out.” Another person said that “all veiled women shall be shipped to (the country of veiled women) and leave the countries of the atheists to them and whoever accepts to live there.” Some people fear that the ban of the Niqab in European countries might ignite a new conflict between the Islamic and Western worlds, blatantly overlooking the fact that Islam, just like other religions, includes various sects and confessions which disagree on how to worship God. In addition, some Islamic confessions welcome the ban of the Niqab and consider it to be a habit, not a duty. But is the ban of the Niqab considered to be anti-liberalism and against women's rights? Will the ban of the Niqab in countries that maintain absolute sovereignty on their lands ignite an internal conflict between the citizens of these countries and the Muslim communities living there and create feminine movements that are against the idea? Perhaps the answer is yes, but we have to remember that Amnesty International and the majority of Westerners working for it did not hesitate to condemn the decision to ban the Niqab in public places, considering it to be a violation of the freedom of expression and religion. Some might ask the following question: Why, when a Western woman visits Saudi Arabia or Iran for example, she has to wear the abaya and cover her head? Does this fall in the context of respecting the country's culture and particularity? Why do we try to force European countries to respect our culture and particularity, while some of us refuse the culture of their people and violate their laws when we visit? We should not forget that Europe suffered many times at the security level at the hands of extremist Muslims for whom it provided a haven, embraced their families, and protected them from homelessness. But some of them wore women clothes and hid themselves to carry out terrorist activities. Today, it is trying to protect its people and its countries' possessions by law, although Europe is still receiving and naturalizing thousands of citizens every year and is providing them with a decent life. For example, despite the ban of the Niqab in France, it received hundreds of thousands of Gulf, Arab, and Muslim tourists in July. Wearing the Niqab is not a religious duty. There are Arab and Islamic countries like Egypt and Syria and Turkey that ban the female students wearing the Niqab from entering the universities, so why are we holding the European world accountable then? The issue of the Niqab has been controversial in Islam even before the European parliaments agreed on it. Europe did not ban the head scarf, only the Niqab, and there is a difference between the Niqab and the head scarf. The woman's face is her identity, and with the increasing challenges and security difficulties, Europe is entitled to take precautionary steps, enact security measures and “legalize” laws that prevent the infiltration of thieves and terrorists and insurgents into its airplanes, trains, markets and public life, in order to protect its land and people.
