Banning the Burqa - a question of freedom

It's very rare for me not to have an opinion on something, especially when that something involves religion and freedom of choice. So picture this, I'm sat in a restaurant in New York having dinner with three good friends, Nathan, Hal and George. I don't remember who brought it up, probably me, but I asked for their opinions regarding France banning the Burqa, as at the time I felt unsure as to what my opinion was.

For those who might not know, France has already banned all face coverings in schools as part of a law banning the ḥijāb (arabic for 'covering' - not necessarily a face covering -see pic, ḥijāb usually refers to head-scarves, although according to Islamic scholarship, ḥijāb in the Qur'an is given the wider meaning of modesty, privacy and morality; the word for a headscarf or veil used in the Qur'an is khimār) and other conspicuous religious symbols. This would include large crosses, jewish headscarves and other visible signs of faith. Personally I can't see the point in this. The whole point of education for me is to provide children with the ability to question, challenge and understand. When it comes to questions of faith what better way of having them discover other religions than to have them asking the person stood at the front of their class why they cover their hair, or why they have a star or cross hanging from their neck, for example. But I digress.

Currently on the cards in France, actually approved by the French cabinet and awaiting parliamentary approval, is a new law aimed at banning the wearing of clothes in public designed to hide the face.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10129324.stm

The measure notably creates a new offense, "inciting to hide the face," and anyone convicted of forcing a woman to wear such a veil risks a year in prison and a €15,000 ($18,555) fine, according to a copy of the text which says that "France's founding tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity, values that guarantee the "social pact" are at stake"

I'll come back to this point in a moment, but first let's look at the religious perspective.

There are a lot of articles flying around the web suggesting that the Qur'an doesn't actually say that women need to cover their bodies, so I wanted to add what I have read in the Qur'an regarding this (I have an app with the whole thing on my iPhone - I figure before you criticise something you should know it inside and out). 

Firstly the mention of ḥijāb in reference to women comes in directives on how the Prophet's followers should speak to his (the Prophet's) wives - "through a ḥijāb", Arabic for a covering or veil - this suggests that something akin to a sheet be hung separating the two groups to protect the women's modesty - it also dictates that doing so is the responsibility of the men. Qur'an 33:53 

Scholars believe that at the time there were a large crowd living in the vicinity near to where the Prophet lived, there to see and listen to the Prophet and as such this ḥijāb would allow him to maintain a sense or separateness between his followers and his wives.

Secondly, nowhere else in the Qur'an does it suggest ḥijāb in relation to women's dress, in fact it only mentions it in this way relating to the Prophet's wives explicitly. However there are several passages that refer to a woman clothing herself to protect her modesty even going so far as to specify that she cloak herself when in public and that she cover her chest and neckline specifically. Qur'an 33:59, 24:31, 

So despite no specific reference to a garment, or indeed to how far the ḥijāb should go (there is mention of the Prophet specifying hands and face are exempt from covering in the Hadith - a collection of the sayings of the Prophet, but not in the Qur'an - the writings of the Prophet himself),  it would appear that there is enough evidence to suggest that according to the Qur'an traditional head-scarves would be a requirement of practicing Muslim women, if only to cover the neckline. Of course, just like Christianity there are various ideas of what the relevant 'holy texts' mean. And anyway in France's case, the law seeks to eradicate facial coverings like the Burqa or Chadri not other forms of ḥijāb.

So as I said at the beginning, I asked around for people's opinions including my three friends at dinner.

Hal suggested that this was one step away from banning the Jewish headscarf and infringing on the liberties of other religious groups and he quoted Martin Niemöller's statement from WWII:

First, they came for the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up

Hal made a valid point, but my cousin when asked was able to put another popular side to the debate - when a western woman visits a Muslim country, out of respect for the customs and culture of that country she covers her shoulders, wears a long(er) skirt and in certain countries like Saudi Arabia for example, will go out in public accompanied by a man she knows. It only stands to reason that when visiting a secular country, a Muslim woman should expect to show her face... 
While this statement definitely reflects the French sentiment that wearing a Burqa goes against French values, it's hard to see how expressing your faith by concealing your face damages the tenets upon which French society was constructed. Indeed banning the right for a woman to wear what she chooses would seem to do greater damage to the tenets of liberty and equality to say the least. 


The most important argument for me surrounds the oppression of women and the role the state plays in protecting its citizens. While at Selfridge's I worked with an amazing young woman Sameera. 

She was from a very liberal Muslim family and had chosen to wear the ḥijāb as an expression of her own personal faith. Neither her Mother or sister did and her Father had frowned upon the idea initially. I had many conversations with Sameera about Islam, her faith, my sexuality, my being raised Catholic and she was confident, self assured, articulate and more than able to demonstrate her personal beliefs as exactly that, her own. I am sure that were she in Paris she would have been with the demonstrating Muslim women last week (above right). One woman was quoted in the press as saying she had covered her face with a veil for 10 years and that because she is divorced and raising her children alone no one "can say this is imposed on me."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_forbidding_the_veil
I guess my argument boils down to this: What we're really talking about is a fear of 'them'. Them being different to us. This is clear when people feel comfortable saying, 'I don't trust them because I can't see their face', they're frightened that what lies beneath the Burqa is different to what lies beneath their own skin.We can't admit this however, and so we talk about women's rights instead. 
I agree that some Muslim women may well be coerced into wearing the veil, but should we deny other women the right to chose that for themselves, just to make us feel that little bit safer about what lies beneath the veil? If greater integration and participation in society is our aim for the Muslims among us, is it going to be achieved by ostracising them and making a martyr of their faith? Surely education, inclusion and tolerance are the way forward?


Johan Hari wrote an as usual, enlightened article last week looking at among other things the effect of demonstrating values of tolerance, freedom and justice in the independent last week, "To give one example of many, Majid Nawaz was in prison for being part of a hardcore Islamist plot to try to topple the governments of Egypt and Pakistan and seize its nukes – but when Amnesty International campaigned to protect him from torture, he realised the "Infidel" were rescuing him, because we have strong moral principles of our own. Now he is one of the most articulate campaigning enemies of Islamism".
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-islamists-their-victims-and-hypocrisy-1977424.html
Surely demonstrating these principles would be a far more effective way of encouraging integration. While we're at it we might learn a little about ourselves and how we live those values while we do it.