Menu
create account
about
faq
searchPermalink Burqa Madness and ProgressivismBy mohammadfadel Promoted to the frontpage by Ali Eteraz In a move that will no doubt ease the integration of the Netherlands’ 1 million Muslims, the Dutch government – a few days prior to a general parliamentary election – took the courageous decision of announcing its intention . I’m certain that once this proposal is adopted as law, we can expect that Dutch Muslims will become well-integrated citizens and begin the long, but steady climb of social advancement. Can any reasonable person doubt that the niqab is a significant impediment to Muslims’ integration and works as a “mark of separation,” to use Tony Blair’s expression? I’m sure Muslims living in other European jurisdictions are waiting with baited breath for the promulgation of a Europe-wide ban on the niqab and other progressive measures to rescue them from their self-imposed and irrational social isolation. Europeans may be congratulating themselves as to their newfound determination to address the Muslim “problem,” but I’m afraid the Muslim “problem” is not one of face veils. Even though a miniscule fraction of Muslim women living in Western democracies wear a niqab, it has come to symbolize – in a post-religious age – the stubborn adherence of Muslims to religious form and habits that, to put it bluntly, is simply in bad taste and not in keeping with what Europeans have come to believe constitutes civilized behavior. Women who wear the niqab are a very easy target of this anti-religious sentiment, if only because covering the face is such a marginal practice even among observant Muslims. I take it as a sign of growing political maturity however, that Dutch Muslim groups have stood up for this group of women rather than run away from them screaming non-sequitors like, “The Quran does not require full face-veils!” Why should a Muslim say that what the Quran says about covering the face is a non-sequitor? Because Muslims who are citizens of liberal democracies should understand that their rights are not derivative of scriptural interpretation. Yes, what the Quran says is obviously relevant for a believing woman, and whether or not she chooses to wear a full face veil, cover her hair, or go out in the nude, for that matter. These are personal questions, however, and whether they should be regulated by the state has nothing to do with whether their interpretation of the Quran is proper, and is therefore irrelevant to whether regulating the niqab is legal, and if so, whether it is desirable.
One is most definitely not a progressive Muslim if one tells a munaqqaba (a woman wearing a niqab) “I don’t respect your right to wear a niqab because you don’t understand the Quran correctly,” while thinking secretly to himself (or herself) “I’m so goddamn embarrassed by your appearance! Can’t you at least try to look normal?” It is progressive to defend her right to wear the niqab while engaging her in a dialogue as to whether the niqab is really a divine ordinance, or a cultural artifact. What did Islamic law say, historically, about the niqab? The long and short of it is that some jurists believed the niqab was obligatory for all adult women, while others rejected that position. This difference, however, is irrelevant to the fact that a believing Muslim woman could reasonably believe that she is obliged by God to cover her face. Interestingly, Islamic law also required women who covered their face to remove their veils so that they may be accurately identified in connection with certain public acts, e.g. notarization of legal documents or testifying before a court, but only for so long as was necessary to identify her. States such as the Netherlands could conceivably have a legitimate justification for forcing munaqqabat to remove their veils to identify themselves, but I am hard pressed to understand how the justifications given by the Dutch authorities – public security – can be taken seriously. There have been no reports of persons dressed in niqab engaging in any activities that would even justify a traffic stop, much less a threat to public security. For this reason, it appears the real reason for the proposed ban is a bad one: fear or loathing, or both. Muslim women who cover their face generally do so based on strong religious belief. I learned long ago that when one is confronted with genuine religious conviction, it must be respected, even if it is mistaken, indeed, especially if it is mistaken. Any person who is engaged in an idiosyncratic practice – unless coerced – has usually given the matter serious thought, especially something as idiosyncratics as wearing the niqab in a Western society (and even most Muslim societies). To not take that choice seriously is more insulting to that person than to declare to her why you think that choice is mistaken. In a post-religious world, we have to fight the temptation to believe that all religious observance is at best silly, or that religiously motivated decisions cannot be thoughtful or considered, or simply are a relic from an immigrant’s “original” culture, or that the oddities of religious practices will soon be shed as an immigrant becomes assimilated. The fact is that there are women who cover their face and have lived their entire life in Western democracies. Some women who cover their faces, it turns out, are even . So, what to do about the Muslim “problem”? It depends which “problem” you are talking about: if you are genuinely concerned about social backwardness and segregation, then social policies such as improved educational and employment opportunities are critical, as is empowering minorities with legal remedies to combat religious and racial discrimination. Prohibitions of face veils will not get you very far along if that is your goal. If what you are concerned about is a level of religiosity that makes you uncomfortable, however, by all means get rid of religious freedom. The ban on face veils is certainly effective in that regard. One of the prices of religious freedom is that some believers will engage in practices that will make most of us uncomfortable. The fact that a practice makes us uncomfortable, or even repels us, is not sufficient to restrict another person’s religious freedom in a liberal state. That is what religious freedom means. So, I hope the Dutch return to their senses, continue to respect Muslims’ religious freedoms, and instead focus their efforts on the kind of political and social reforms necessary to allow Muslims to flourish in the Netherlands as full and equal citizens.
|
| |
Tags: niqab, Islamic law, Muslim women, European Muslims, Awsome Article! (all tags) Burqa Madness and Progressivism | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden) Burqa Madness and Progressivism | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden) | ||