Louisa Butt writes that there are dangers to defending the niqab from the perspective of “freedom”.
I’m sure you’ve all heard some of the arguments posed by Muslim women who wear the niqab defending themselves against the recent attacks by politicians and the media – “the niqab is my choice”, “I use my freedom to dress modestly, you use yours to undress”, “niqab is the right decision for me”, “it liberates me” etc.
Then there have been the odd few who have defended their niqab by simply turning around and saying “I wear it because I believe it is an order from God.”
Now, I’m not going to delve into the theological or juristic discussion about whether the niqab is optional or fard (obligatory) as it’s completely irrelevant to the current debate. The former classes wearing the veil as highly rewardable and brings one closer to God, the latter classes the act as an order from God where there is no leniency. Either way, both come from the same intention – to please Allah (swt) – “freedom” and “choice” does not play a part.
Freedom of choice
This is not the same as when one is referring to the freedom to practise their religion in this society as a whole – one does not have a choice regarding the rules of Islam but has the choice in society to practise their religion. In theory, one should be able to do this without it leading to a national debate.
It is important that Muslims defend themselves and their faith, especially as it’s under constant attack. Sometimes, it becomes the first course of defence to use the “freedom of choice” argument as British citizens who living under a democracy that apparently gives you the “liberty” to do whatever you please…unless you’re Muslim of course!
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
However, it can be dangerous to argue from the perspective of freedom as compared to the perspective of religiosity. When I see Muslims getting caught up in this debate, desperately clutching to statements derived from this angle, I can’t help but think – are they missing the wider political narrative here?
Surely, I could not have been the only one who sighed “here we go again” and mentally switched off with boredom at yet ANOTHER attack against Muslims, dressed up in fancy words such as “social cohesion”, “perversion of freedom”, “male domination” and (my favourite) “oppression”, to make it look all pretty and full of concern.
The media and government’s demonisation of Islam has been ongoing since 9/11 and we have witnessed a global rise in Islamophobia as a result. There are too many examples to name but let’s just simply take the results of a survey, recently undertaken by BBC Radio One Newsbeat, which revealed that more than a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds do not trust Muslims and 60% of the 1,000 youngsters that were questioned thought the British public had a negative image of Muslims.
This negative image did not stem overnight or by itself for that matter. So how are Muslims supposed to believe that the call to ban the niqab is due to concerns of “social cohesion” or “security” and not another addition to the political agenda against Islam?
Social Cohesion
Take, for instance, the government’s concern of the niqab having a negative effect on community cohesion. After Birmingham Metropolitan College decided overturned its decision to ban the niqab, Tory MP Sarah Wollaston expressed her views against the decision, saying that it makes women “invisible”. If only that was the problem!
What the niqab does is quite the opposite (and the hijab and abaya). It identifies a Muslim woman as someone who has abandoned secularism and has chosen not to give up in the struggle of practising her religion against the constant pressure towards Muslims to abandon it. The government’s problem is not that the niqab makes Muslim women “invisible” within society – their problem is that it makes her stand out.
This is not to say that she does this intentionally to avoid integration with her fellow non-Muslim citizens. Several times, I have come across the argument that hijab and niqab are being worn increasingly post-9/11 as compared to pre-9/11 in order to intentionally “make a statement” and that it was not as common back then as it is today.
Those who argue this are going back in time and are comparing today’s generation of Muslims to some of our parents’ generation of apologetic Muslims who compromised their deen and moulded into the West’s secular way of living in society, something they felt they needed to do to fit in.
Some Muslim “community leaders” are from that same generation, and have expressed this compromise by refusing to talk about politics, in fear of the “extremist” label. Several “prominent” Muslim figures (who the media and government parade around as representatives of Muslims) are guilty of making similar compromises and in retrospect cause more damage to the image of Islam.
9/11 gave birth to a generation of comprehensive Muslims who have gained an in-depth study of the deen after the horrific world-changing event raised curiosity about Islam and has simultaneously brought about an increase in converts (an estimated 75% are white Caucasian women in Europe) who also realised the moral decadence of liberal secular society. Therefore, I highly doubt that the increased numbers of niqabis and Muslim men with beards have chosen to look that way just to make a “statement”; rather they have a better understanding of their religion.
I’m not smart enough to answer the million-dollar question about how to form social cohesion between Muslims and the rest of society. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the encouragement of Islamophobia through government legislation and the media’s intentional misrepresentation of Muslims is only adding fuel to the fire. Do they really care about social cohesion when they are the ones hindering it?
Security
What crisis has the veil caused that is so dangerous for it to lead to a national debate? How many niqab-wearing professionals are there in this country? How can such a small number threaten Britain’s security? Why now, when Islamophobia is on the rise and not before? Such a minor issue is being so heavily debated; there are more pressing issues that are in dire need of attention for the protection of this country.
The judge asked the Muslim woman to remove her veil because it was “essential” for jurors to be able to see the defendant’s face. Call me crazy but, frankly, I think it is more dangerous that the basis of a jury’s crucial decision about a person’s life is facial expressions over hard evidence than a niqabis refusing to take off her veil! This minor issue turned the niqab into a national debate, despite it not holding enough weight.
Overall, my point is that we shouldn’t get caught up in these debates to the extent where we are distracted from the government’s real agenda. This is what’s become of Muslims living in the West and sadly, I doubt this is going to change anytime soon.
Instead, study the reality of the situation and look deeper into why it is happening. In any debate regarding Islam, it is not so wise to argue from the perspective of freedom as compared to “this is what my religion orders” because it can make you lose sight of the wider political narrative and therefore increase the danger of falling into the trap of compromising your religion.
Muslims need to show the accusers that their constant blaming of Islam will never result in changing Islam so by debating about religion from an aspect of “freedom” that the government has created will only make it easier for them to mould how you practise Islam.
Louisa Butt is the editor of Manchester based newspaper, The Speaker and a contributor for 5Pillarz.
@LouisaButt
