Islamic teachings on whether women have to cover their faces date back to the seventh century. The niqab is not specifically mentioned in the Koran. There are, however, verses that refer to a woman’s obligation to cover herself with the khimar, a type of headscarf, and the jilbab, an outer garment, when in the presence of men who are not relatives. The majority view is that it is acceptable to display faces and hands. The number of women in Britain who wear the niqab, has rocketed over the past 20 years and is now “in the tens of thousands”. It is younger women, many of them British-Muslim converts, who are driving the trend.
The revival is partly linked to the rise in Wahhabism, the branch of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, and other traditionally conservative branches of Islam, but is mainly down to Muslim communities clinging to a vibrant faith as Britain becomes increasingly irreligious. “There has been a resurgence in Muslim identity and many of the religious authorities in Britain are advocating covering one’s face. The idea is that the more covered you are, the holier you are.” Hasan believes few women in Britain are coerced into wearing the niqab. In fact, he says, many of the younger generation are the first in their families to do so: “Rather than understanding the faith in a more nuanced way, as often their parents did, for whom faith is about the quality of your character, your heart and your outlook on life, they seize on literal interpretations. If you lack that depth of understanding of Islam it’s easy to hold on to outward symbols – for men, it’s growing a beard and for young women it’s covering up.”
Some moderate Muslims feel more strongly about it. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown argued in The Independent recently that fully veiled women “hinder progressive Islam”. She wrote: “We Muslims are already unfairly thought of as the enemy within. Niqabs make us appear more alien, more dangerous and suspicious. If it is a provocation for the Ku Klux Klan to cover up so they can’t be recognised, it is for Muslims too.” (Adapted from an article by Usama Hasan of the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation).
Epicurus believed in living while you are alive. He advocated pleasure, on the basis that this is the only life you have, and why be miserable? He didn’t advocate excess, but the enjoyment of friends, of nature, of wine (in moderation), and good food( also in moderation). None of this chimes with ascetic Islamism where you can’t even see through your niqab properly, or see obstructions on the sidewalk. If you want to return to the Middle Ages, do so in the Empty Quarter, complete with camel.
66% of the public would support a ban on women wearing the niqab, while 24% would oppose it. 25% would back a ban on the hijab (a headscarf covering the hair) while 65% would oppose it. YouGov/The Sunday Times
The discussion over the niqab is becoming heated – and I think justifiably so. In Western culture masking the face has, for centuries, implied menace. How, as a society with equal participation of all individuals – male or female – we could operate with some choosing to cover their faces I do not understand. Going completely clad in black may avoid the sexual objectification that our society imposes on women, but covering one’s face is quite another step. I cannot imagine a situation where a doctor, nurse, lawyer, teacher, prison officer, social worker or any other professional dealing with the general public could possibly operate effectively with their faces covered. It is a preposterous way to behave and carries an implication that demeans women and imputes attitudes to men which are deeply insulting.
(Letter to The Independent from Angela Peyton, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, UK)
From carmengrayson@gmail.com:
If there were no lawyers roaming the Earth’s crust, we could find a solution to the face-covering issue. What’s worn south of the face can seldom be effectively addressed by parliamentary governments and even when they try, the difference between some garment and no garment gets dicey. Basically, what we wear is heavily influenced by our social peer group, the people we care about and what they think about acceptable color schemes, white gloves, and pointy-toed shoes. Social pressure, not political directives are what matter more.
Now, the face. The face is a different issue because faces are the sine qua non of socialization of all human beings. The significance is, of course, that a face houses artifacts like brain, eyes, ears, mouth, and nose. Those charged with keeping order in any group of people, be it a state, a village, a neighborhood-watch, or a tribe– whoever they may be, they must rely on faces as the prime means of identification and authorization of Social Security checks. In other words, the only reason for a government to outlaw a face-covering garment is that facial visibility is the first and basic form of identification for everything.
That leaves the lawyers rich pickings because the first missteps by a constable will mean: LAWYER! Describe the parameters of acceptable face covering. For example, how big can the holes be? Is half the face enough visibility? What about the penultimate photo below? the veil eye-patch?
Remember: It is a truth universally acknowledged that a veil is a complex garment in want of a lawyer.
This quotation is from a blog:
My mother, who was a young woman in the 1930s and 40s said that a nose veil on a hat made a woman feel so alluring.”