An anti-burqa law to renew Islam in Europe
When
the veil is discussed, many raise the issue of religious traditions and freedom.
According to Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the dean of Al-Azhar University, the most
famous institution of higher learning in the Muslim world, the burqa and the
niqab are not Islamic. Both are a sign of tribal affiliation. For this reason,
he had the full-face veil banned from hundreds of buildings that come under
al-Azhar’s jurisdiction. Elsewhere, the two articles of clothing have been
banned on grounds that they belong to another culture (i.e.
Arabia).
Gamal al-Banna, brother of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim
Brotherhood, wrote a book and signed several articles in which he argued that
the Qur‘an does not require Muslim women to wear the veil. -- Samir Khalil Samir
By Samir Khalil Samir
Wearing
the all-enveloping outer garment is not a religious requirement, but a cultural
tradition from Saudi Arabia. It is the symbol of an attack by extremist Islam on
Europe, and this has generated contempt for a certain retrograde form of Islam.
A law is needed against wearing full-face veil in public spaces, but what is
even more needed is a broad dialogue between East and West that would allow
Islam to be modernised and integrated into European culture, and thus have an
opportunity to contribute to world civilisation.
Beirut
(AsiaNews) – The practice of wearing the veil has spread across the Islamic
world in recent years. Hundreds of articles have been written about it in the
Arab-Muslim world. Among Muslims, the practice has been met by a number of
reactions and points of view. In some cases, it has been totally or partially
banned (especially the full-face version); in others, women have been encouraged
to wear it, in some cases at all times. This shows that the Ummah’s is far from
being unanimous (ijmâ‘) over the “Islamic nature” of this type of garment, or
about the attitudes towards it. In any event, the veil is an issue around the
Muslim world. The full-faced veil is indeed a major
problem.
The
burqa and the niqab raise fear . . . for good reason. They scare Muslims and
non-Muslim alike. When this practice is associated with Islam, when it is made
into one of its essential elements, this fear is not only about Muslims, but
also about Islam itself. The term phobia in “Islamophobia” in fact stands for
“fear”.
Indeed,
many Westerners do “fear” Islam. The more Muslims try to advance their demands
in the name of Islam, the more Islamophobia will grow. Westerners will ask why
should are they so different and special that they would want to come to live in
a social, cultural, political, economic, vestimentary and culinary milieu that
is not theirs, one that existed long before their arrival.
The
feeling that Islam pervades every aspects of daily life, that it demands a
certain type of behaviour, has created a sense of “invasion”. And this raises
fears. Many begin to wonder: If I give in on this issue, which one will be the
next? Will there ever be an end? Some ask themselves whether Islam can ever be
integrated in Europe”.[1]
Is the
veil compulsory?
When the
veil is discussed, many raise the issue of religious traditions and freedom.
According to Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the dean of Al-Azhar University, the most
famous institution of higher learning in the Muslim world, the burqa and the
niqab are not Islamic. Both are a sign of tribal affiliation. For this reason,
he had the full-face veil banned from hundreds of buildings that come under
al-Azhar’s jurisdiction. Elsewhere, the two articles of clothing have been
banned on grounds that they belong to another culture (i.e.
Arabia).
Gamal
al-Banna, brother of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote a
book and signed several articles in which he argued that the Qur‘an does not
require Muslim women to wear the veil.
A’ïchah,
Umm al-Mu’minin, is known to have reacted negatively when she saw one of her
slave girls (amah) go out wearing a veil. She slapped her, saying: “How dare
you? You are but a servant!” [2] In fact, the veil symbolised the dignity of
upper-class women (especially the wives of the Prophet). Equally, it is hard to
imagine a woman working in the fields with an all-enveloping outer piece of
clothing, even more so, if it includes a full-face veil.
In Egypt
on 16 November 2006, Culture Minister Faruq Hosni (later a candidate for the
post of UNESCO director general) in a telephone interview complained about the
growing acceptance of the veil. “There was a time,” he said, “when our mothers
went to university and work without a veil. We grew up in that spirit. Why
should we go back now?”
The
stranglehold of the Muslim Brotherhood on parliament is such that the
organisation called for his resignation . . ., which did not occur because
Egypt’s First Lady, Suzanne Mubarak, intervened on his behalf. Often women are
more courageous in our Arab countries . . . because they have nothing to
lose.
Would
banning the veil be against freedom?
Some say
that a law banning the veil would be an attack on freedom. That is true, but
there is a reason for it. Are not all laws attempts against freedom? Freedom has
limits defined by common sense and shared values, which also have the right to
be protected. Hence, in France (and elsewhere in Europe), walking naked in
public spaces is banned (except in designated places). Hence, where is freedom
then?
As Paul,
who hailed from Tarsus, an important centre of Stoic philosophy, put it, “[Y]ou
were called for freedom (eleutheria), brothers. But do not use this freedom as
an opportunity for the flesh” (Gal, 5:13). By flesh, Paul meant passions and all
that is opposed to the spirit.[3] In this sense, law frees us from bad
dispositions.
Why a
law?
The
women who wear a full-face garment (niqab or burqa) do not do so out of respect
for tradition. They are usually young Muslim women, born and bred in France
(where the debate over the veil is the most heated), or French women who
converted to Islam. If the two pieces of clothing were part of a tradition, no
one could object to see women wear them. For example, many old women in Sicily
wear black from head to toe, even when they carry heavy loads on their head.
This might come as a surprise to some, but no one has criticised them because
they respect a traditional practice of their country.
In
France, the issue is very different. Women who wear the burqa or the niqab do so
for ideological reasons, to challenge Western society, which they consider
corrupt. Whether they are conscious of it or not, they are advancing a dangerous
political project, which is dangerous not because it is political, but because
it is not out in the open but is rather presented as something religious. The
fact remains that the full-face veil is not required by either the Qur‘an or the
Sunnah.
The
experience of other countries makes this even clearer; that of Egypt for
instance, the largest country in the Arab. The ordinary headscarf was an oddity
in 1975; now it is the rule. The full-face veil, which used to be rare in 1995,
now is becoming commonplace![4] Following the fall of ideologies and in the
absence of democracy, justice or equality, religion has become the only
certainty in the Muslim world. Such a trend, observable across the Middle East
and North Africa, shows that if we allow things to continue the way they are,
covering the head can only become more widespread.
The
reasons behind the full-face veil
In the
West, the practice of covering comes as a cultural shock. It cannot be justified
in the name of religion because nothing requires it. Tradition cannot be used as
justification because those who wear it now are doing it for the first time, and
the countries where they live are opposed to it. Why adopt it
then?
At best,
I think it is a defensive reaction to a certain laxity in Western morals and
behaviour. Even though morality may be loose in the West, should people respond
to one extreme with another? Or even do something
shocking?
Modesty
is the ideal for every person in his or her right mind. However, modesty does
not require this kind of clothing. In fact, the notion of modesty varies across
time and space, in the West as well as in the Arab and Muslim world. Modesty is
a virtue that applies to all humans, men as well as women. If the full-face veil
(or even just then ordinary veil) were the best way to practice modesty, or
should it become the rule, why are men not wearing it? That is because it is not
part of the tradition.
Collective or national customs define, here and now, how modesty is
expressed. In France (and Europe), French (European) customs and rules decide
what is right. Above all, clearly no religious obligation exists. The fact that
even Muslims are far from any consensus with regards to this garment means that
it is not compulsory for Muslims. By contrast, ALL MUSLIMS agree that the five
daily prayers (and more generally the five pillars of Islam) are compulsory for
every Muslim, even though many do not perform them. Undeniably, there is no
agreement on the veil.
Impact
on Western reactions
It is
clear that the full-face veil is contrary to French customs and way of seeing
things. It is especially in contradiction with the fundamental notion of gender
equality and the idea that religious or philosophical beliefs should not be
expressed too ostentatiously. Like all customs, these notions are not laid out
in a law or included in the constitution, but are the result of a national
consensus that accurately reflects an aspect of the France’s “national
identity”, an issue that is much discussed at present.
Since
the veil is viewed in many countries (most notably in France) as a symbol of
cultural regression, the 2,000 French women (who might not even be French
citizens but might simply be residents in the country) who want to wear the
full-face veil are, in my opinion, hurting Islam, all Muslims and
Arabs.
Unwittingly, they are creating an image of Islam that is reinforcing
Western stereotypes in which Islam is seen as a religion that trailing behind
the rest of humanity, one that will inevitably pull the West backward. Sadly,
all expert opinions, by Arab scholars and others, have highlighted this
backwardness, supported by data. Is it wise then to add some religious element
every day to prove that Islam is the cause of our backwardness? For this reason
alone, opposing the full-face veil is worthwhile.
What is
the solution? Should the state legislate on the matter?
Who must
“fight” the full-face veil? Should the state adopt a law? If the latter were the
case, it would be very sad. On the one hand, we may ask whether it is necessary
for a state to legislate in a matter that affects only 2,000 people out of a
population 62,500,000 people (0.003 per cent). Our answer is in a Latin
expression: De minimis non curat praetor (the government does not concern itself
with trifles). On the other hand, if the law says nothing and Salafist pressures
continue—something that is very likely because they are for a cause that seeks
victory, one that will be followed by others—, then the issue will not be dealt
with. Some short gap solutions might be found, with some general guidelines laid
to give local communities or institutions the power to
decide.
Unfortunately, the “de Creil” affair[5] of 18 September 1989 suggests
that conflicts of this nature are not healed by the passage of time alone. The
French government had to set up the Stasi Commission and pass a law (on the
separation of state and religion and ostentatious religious symbols) on 15 March
2004 to reduce tensions. Yet, the letter that Ernest Chénière, headmaster at the
Collège Gabriel Havez in Creil, wrote to the parents of Fatima (13) and Leila
(14) Achahboun and those of Samira Saidani was reasonable for it said, “Our goal
is to limit the excessive showing of all religious or cultural affiliation.
Please, have them [the daughters] respect the secular character of our
school.”
Can
Muslims find a solution?
The most
reasonable solution can only come from within. Muslims must solve the problem
themselves. It would be great if we had a group of “sages” who could explain the
actual nature of the issue, and go into the reasons that limited in past its
appeal in most Muslim countries, whilst favouring its recent sudden appearance
in the Muslim world as well as Europe.
Sadly,
that is crux of the matter. A certain kind of solidarity based on clan or
ancestral affiliation is preventing us from conducting self-criticism,
especially of things that appears to be religious in nature. For some reason, we
are paralysed. The overwhelming majority of Western Muslims are against the
full-face veil. Yet no one has the courage to take the issue to the streets to
demonstrate against it or put pressure on fellow Muslims, much less on
imams.
We
should explain publicly why such a garment is ethically contrary to French (and
Western) culture and why it is deemed degrading to women. Islam must more than
ever rethink itself. Practicing Muslims must help their co-religionists separate
Islam from certain outdated cultural practices; they must also help them
understand where the line runs between religion and politics within Islam . . .
in other words, they must help them build a modern Islam, based on its beliefs,
one that can make a spiritual contribution to world
civilisation.
Conclusion
What is
the way out? In spite of inevitable reactions among Muslims and some
non-Muslims, a law would lay down limits of a ban, in schools and universities,
government offices and in places people have to show their
identity.
At the
same time, Muslims must go through their own tanwîr (enlightenment) in order to
create an enlightened Islam, undertake their own Aufklärung. This must be done
using the internet (on sites like www.oumma.com), in forums, in radio and TV
discussions, in every media. Indeed, we should do this in conferences,
round-tables and in mosques, emphasising the positive aspect of this goal,
namely how to rethink Islam in today’s Europe.
For my
part, as an Arab Christian, of Islamic and Christian culture, I am certain that
Islam (like other religious traditions) has a cultural and spiritual role to
play in world civilisation. We must identify what is best in Western and Islamic
civilisations and what is less so. This process is best done together because
confrontation serves no purpose, except to poison the atmosphere and increase
tensions. As such, it will not be easy. It would nevertheless be beneficial to
Islam and Christianity as well as to the Arab and the Western
worlds.
For the
indigenous population, the large number of Muslims in Europe is seen as a threat
. . . . Sadly, it is so at present. Both sides are responsible for the
situation, but the presence of so many Muslims can also be a source for
reflection and balance for either tradition. Such work of understanding must be
done jointly, in a cultural, ethical and spiritual dialogue that includes
everyone (agnostics and non-believers as well, since ethics and spirituality are
not a preserve of believers alone).
As a
believer, I think that the presence of a large number of Muslims in Europe can
be seen as something providential, an act of divine Providence (al-‘inâyah
al-ilâhiyyah) . . . for them as well as for the Europeans because both can renew
themselves in justice and equity, acknowledging each other as legitimately
different and yet complementary. W-Allâhu samî‘un ‘alîmun! (َاللهُ
سَمِيعٌ
عَلِيمٌ! ),
Allah is Hearing, Knowing.[6]
[1] I am
thinking about Prof Giovanni Sartori, a sociologist and political scientist who
is well known in Italy and the United States who recently wrote an editorial
article on the issue that was published in Italy’s Corriere delle Sera
newspaper, on 20 December 2009.
[2]
Quote from the Life of the Prophet (Sirah Nabawiyyah).
[3]
Here, flesh refers to nafs in the Qur‘an, as in the expression (إنَّ
النَّفْسَ
لأَمَّارَةٌ
بِالسُّوءِ . . .
most surely (man's) self is wont to command (him to do) evil (Shura Yusuf,
12:53).
[4] All
we need to do is compare photos taken at Cairo University in the 1970s with
today’s reality to see how far the veil has come!
[5] In
Creil, three female Muslim students were suspended for refusing to remove their
veil in school.
[6]
Qur‘an, 2:224,256 ; 3:34,121; 9:98,103; 24:21,50.
Source: The Asian Age, New Delhi
9:20 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment