Myths and facts about wearing the hijab and other body-covering clothing
I find
myself forced to again visit this issue of Muslim women wearing certain forms
of clothing whenever they go out into the public. In this article, I will try
to explain the differences between the myths and the facts.
Myth
The hijab is clothing worn by
Muslim women that covers their entire bodies with the exception of their eyes.
Fact
The hijab does not cover the
woman’s entire body. The garment that covers a woman’s entire body except her
eyes is called a Burqa or niqab
Myth
The burqa and niqab must be black.
Fact
That is not so. Burqas and niqabs can be of any colour although most of
them ae black.
Myth
Only the eyes of the Muslim woman
wearing a burqa or a niqab can be seen.
Fact
Not so. The eyes are in many instances, covered over with a cloth mesh.
What is a Khimar?
It is a general term for a woman's head and/or
face veil. This word is sometimes used to describe a particular style of scarf
that drapes over the entire top half of a woman's body to her waist.
What is an Abaya?
What is a Chador?
It is an all-encompassing cloak worn by Muslim women, from
the top of the head to her shoes. It is usually worn in Iran without a face
veil. Unlike the Abaya, the Chador is not always fastened in the front.
What is a niqab?
The niqab is a veil for the face that leaves the area around
the eyes clear. However, it may be worn with a separate eye veil. It is worn
with an accompanying headscarf.
A niqab is different from a hijab. The latter covers mainly the hair and the
sides of the face whereas the niqab is the term used to refer to the piece of
cloth which covers the face other than the eyes and women who wear it usually
cover their hands also. It is worn by many Muslim women across Saudi Arabia and
the Indian subcontinent and is worn by many women in the West.
Is the niqab worn because the Qur’an
demands it?
I have studied a report from the British Broadcasting Corporation which
answers this question extremely well. It begins with explaining a part of the
Qur’an.
The
Qur’an in hadith (verse) 33.69 says; “O Prophet, tell your wives and your
daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their
outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be
abused.”
One verse on the Qur’an that is
used as evidence for this is:
Narrated
by ‘Aisha’ (wife of the Prophet Muhammad): The Messenger of God, may the peace
and blessings of God be upon him, used to offer the Fajr prayer and some
believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr
prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized.
This verse of the Qur’an has been dated sometime after verse
33:59 was revealed. Proponents of the niqab say that this verse shows that some
women during the time of the Prophet were not recognisable and hence they must
have worn a niqab.
However, other scholars have argued that the women’s faces
were unrecognisable because it was dark, not because they were covered up. It
is interesting to note that Aisha says ‘some' women’, and not all the women who
were present. Furthermore she refers to
the early-morning prayer and not to any other. It would certainly make it more
difficult to anyone to see who the individuals were if they were dressed in dark
cloaks before sunrise even if their faces were uncovered.
In addition, scholars have argued that the edict
‘cast their outer garments over their persons’ has been misunderstood. They say
that the word “face” has not been indicated in the Arabic translation and it
would therefore be wrong to extend the meaning to include a woman’s face.
The wives of the Prophet were indeed required
to wear the niqab by this Qur'anic verse. This is because the special status
they had with the Prophet meant they had to be kept clear from all gossip and
slander. Scholars say that if the wives of the Prophet, who were considered as
the best of women, were required to wear the niqab, then the ruling falls on
all women. However, earlier on in the same chapter, the Qur'an also very
clearly states that the Prophet's wives were not the same as other women. The following
verse is proof of that.
Verse 33:32 says, “Wives of the Prophet! You are not like
any of the other women.” unquote This could mean that the order of wearing of the niqab
applied only to the Prophet’s wives and no other women.
Most scholars are in agreement that the verse about the
screen, or concealing of the face, is only obligatory on the wives of the
Prophet. They say the verses are a clear indication that the wives of the
Prophet are much more restricted in their movement due to their political
position, and that their code of conduct does not constitute a code of conduct
for Muslim women in general.
Another scholar, Shaykh Kutty, a senior lecturer and an
Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada suggests
that because God asks both men and women to lower their gaze, it suggests that their
faces are visible, otherwise there would be no sense in believing that Muslim
women are obligated to cover their faces.
Scholars holding this view also state that it is well accepted
by all scholars that the Prophet categorically forbade people from covering
their faces or hands during hajj—the pilgrimage to Mecca. If it was necessary
that the hands and face be covered at all times, he would not have stated its
impermissibility during one of the most sacred points of a person's life. It is
also generally held by the majority of scholars, including those that believe
niqab is obligatory, that covering the face during the five daily prayers is
also prohibited.
Based upon the foregoing, it follows that women wearing a
burqa or a niqab is not compulsory for religious reasons. Although the majority
of Muslim scholars agree that wearing a hijab is obligatory, only a minority of
them say that the niqab is. The scholars who do say it is obligatory are
further divided by exactly what they believe needs to be covered. Some say that
the eyes may be left unconcealed, while others say that everything must be
concealed. The most authentic ruling according to the majority of scholars is
that it is not necessary and, unlike the hijab, there is no sin if the niqab is
not worn. Some of these scholars state that wearing the niqab is an act of
extra piety, and provided they do not believe it is an obligation; they will be
rewarded in heaven. The covering of the face is only mentioned in three verses
in the Qur’an and that is was never by the command of the Prophet Muhammad.
In war-torn Afghanistan, the burqa remains a common sight
years after the invasion by United States-led armed forces in 2001. Some women
continue to wear the burqa because women and children are common kidnapping
targets, including foreign women who are frequently sold to the Taliban. Since
the burqa conceals both age and appearance, some women feel safer wearing one.
Many women appreciate the anonymity of wearing a burqa when they are forced to
conduct activities such as begging or cleaning other people's homes.
Then
why do some Muslim women in Western countries wear the burqas and niqabs that
cover their faces? They do it because some
still believe that it is an edict from the Qur’an. It is not.
If not wearing a niqab in public isn’t a sin, then why do so
many women wear it when they are outside their homes? Some women feel pressured to wear these two
forms of garments. That is because the menfolk in their households don’t want
their women’s bodies and faces to be seen by other men. These unfortunate women
really don’t have to wear those two forms of outer garments outside their homes
for religious reasons, As far as I am concerned, menfolk in homes who force
their women in their homes to wear a burqa or a niqab outside their homes is a
form of oppression against women in general. These kinds of male oppressors no
doubt have contempt for any woman whose face, arms and legs are bare. I guess I am safe in saying that these
unfortunate Muslim women never get the chance to enjoy the thrills of swimming
at a beach or in a public pool.
Many Western countries, particularly in Western Europe, have
moved to ban the wearing of headscarves and other symbols of religion,
including burqas and niqabs. In France especially, which has a large Muslim
population, controversy rages over whether the burqa and niqab is a symbol of
oppression for women. One reason cited
for banning the wearing of burqas or niqabs has nothing to do with religion or
female oppression, but rather with security. One of the suspects of the failed
attempts to bomb London in 2005 wore a niqab covering his whole face except the
eyes, as a disguise. In 2006, a university dean banned the wearing of burqas on
campus, stating that males could wear them as disguises to sneak into female
dormitories. A bank robber could conceal himself in the same manner.
Shaykh Nuh Keller, a Jordanian Shafi'i scholar
and translator of Reliance of
the Traveler, has put forward a similar argument for women in the
West. He says that Muslim women should not wear the niqab in the Western
countries because it can lead to harassment and act as a barrier to inviting
people to join Islam. I am not convinced with that theory,
Modesty rules are open to a wide range of interpretations.
Some Muslim women wear full-body garments that only expose their eyes. Some cover
every part of the body except their face and hands. Some believe only their
hair or their cleavage is compulsory to hide, and others do not observe any
special dress rules at all.
The current Canadian Prime Minister
Harper while speaking in the Canadian House of Commons said recently, “Almost all
Canadians oppose the wearing of veils during a citizenship ceremony.” He called
the practice offensive and contrary to Canadian values. Harper called the
wearing of a niqab a practice “rooted in a culture that is anti-women.” Further, the woman he was speaking about actually wore a
hijab which didn’t cover her face.
This
prime minister is the dimmest light bulb of all the light bulbs in the House of
Commons. Doesn’t this dimwit know that the Qur’an dictates that all Muslim
women must cover their hair when they are in public and that is why they wear a
hijab when outside their homes? That is what a Muslim woman wore when she attended the citizenship ceremony and
was admonished by a stupid citizenship judge in Quebec who presided over the
ceremony.
The
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
states in section 2 (a) that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms; freedom of conscience and religion. Since the Qur’an states that a
Muslim woman must cover her hair when she is in public, not only is that dimwit
prime minister wrong, so is that stupid judge who refused to award citizenship
to the Muslim woman in Quebec because she wore a hijab that covered her hair
only during the citizenship ceremony.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had also decided to appeal a recent federal court ruling that would
allow Muslim women to cover their faces while taking the oath of citizenship.
Ms. Zunera Ishaq is a Pakistani national and a devout Sunni Muslim
who voluntarily follows the Hanafi school of thought. When she is in public,
she said that her religious beliefs obligate her to wear a niqab, a veil that covers her
face other than her eyes. She also says that she will unveil herself to a
stranger only if it is absolutely necessary to prove her identity or for
purposes of security, and even then only privately in front of other women. She
then applied to the Canadian Federal Court to challenge a government policy
that she claims will deny citizenship to her.
I must say at this juncture of my article that this woman
has misspoken when she says that her
religious beliefs obligate her to wear a niqab. I don’t doubt her claim that
it is her belief but her belief is in error. She is under no religious
obligation to wear the niqab in public because it is the hijab that she must
wear in public.
She was scheduled for such a citizenship ceremony
on January 14, 2014, at the office of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in
Scarborough, Ontario. Prior to this ceremony, she had taken her citizenship
test on November 22, 2013, whereas she had removed her niqab for purposes of identification in
accordance with section 13.2 of CIC’s policy manual, CP 15: Guide to Citizenship
Ceremonies
The citizenship rules state that candidates for citizenship wearing a full or
partial face covering must be identified. When dealing with these female candidates,
it is the responsibility of a citizenship official to confirm the candidate’s
identity. This should be done in private, by a female citizenship official. The
candidate must be asked to reveal her face to allow the CIC official to confirm
the identity against the documents already on file. The candidates must be
advised at this time that, they will need to remove their face covering during
the taking of the oath. Failure to do so will result in the candidates not
receiving their Canadian citizenship on that day. This is wrong.
However, the Applicant had no objection to this
requirement and she unveiled herself so that the female official could confirm
her identity before taking the citizenship test.
She was worried, however, that she would be forced
to unveil her face in public at the citizenship ceremony she was required to
attend. Her fear was real because the Policy
provides that citizenship candidates wearing face coverings are required to remove
their face coverings for the oath taking portion of the ceremony. If
they do not, they will not receive their citizenship certificates and will have
to attend a another ceremony. If they again do not comply, then their
application for citizenship will be ended.
The judge agreed to postpone the citizenship
ceremony for the Applicant and subsequently offered to seat her in either the
front or back row and next to a woman at the ceremony, so that other
participants could not easily see her face if she removed her veil. The
Applicant refused this arrangement since the citizenship judge and officers
could still be male, and there could potentially be photographers in the room.
In order to solve that problem for Muslim women
who cover their faces in public, a female citizenship judge should be able to administer
the oath in private.
The Woman’s lawyer, Lorne Waldman argued that the
Policy infringes paragraph 2(a) of the Charter,
which requires her to prove two things: (1) wearing the niqab is a religious practice in which she
sincerely believes; and (2) the Policy interferes with that practice in a
manner that is trivial and insubstantial. He admitted that both requirements were
satisfied here. The Applicant states that, even though some sects of Islam do
not consider it mandatory to wear a niqab,
there is no need to show widespread agreement before finding a violation of her Charter rights. Rather, the Applicant says it
is enough that her belief is sincere and has a nexus to religion that his
client contends she has proven by her affidavit and
corresponding cross-examination.
As an example pertaining to her religious belief,
suppose Ms. Ishaq was a Christian and she still
honestly believed that she had to cover her face when she is in public, would
her erroneous religious belief disqualify her from her claim that her Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated? I think not. Every person who is religious to
some degree has their own interpretation of religious teachings and right or
wrong, we can’t deny their Charter
rights simply because others don’t accept their interpretations. The fact that Ms. Ishaq’s
interpretation of the Qur’an was in error doesn’t mean that she can’t benefit
from the edicts of the Charter. For
the purpose of public policy, a religious belief is not what a mullah, a rabbi,
a priest or a Protestant minister dictates. It is what a person who is
religious sincerely believes.
Tony Clement, the Treasury Board chairman
announced recently that Muslim women who are civil servants may wear the niqab
and yet, it would appear that no Muslim woman who wears one at a Citizenship
ceremony can become a citizen of Canada.
The judge in the federal court said, “I disagree with the Applicant on this point. The CMA cannot be interpreted so broadly that
any government policy must be invalidated if it in any way might derogate from
the objectives of section 3(2) of the
Charter. On the contrary, when it comes to specifically implementing the
policies set out in the CMA subsection 6(1) that says that “ministers of
the Crown, other than the Minister, shall, in the execution of their respective
mandates, take such measures as they consider appropriate to implement the
multiculturalism policy of Canada”. In this case, the Minister did not
consider allowing women to wear niqabs while taking the oath of citizenship
to be an appropriate way to implement multiculturalism policy. In my view, that
[decision] does not infringe the CMA.
Nevertheless, the judge said; “The Applicant’s
application is allowed. To the extent that the CMA Policy interferes with a
citizenship judge’s duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest
possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation
of the oath, it is unlawful. Accordingly,
this Court hereby declares that: Sections 6.5.1 to 6.5.3 of the Policy, as well
as the second paragraph of section 13.2 of the Manual and the reference to “those wearing
a full or partial face covering that now is the time to remove it” in section 16.7 of the Manual, are
unlawful. If the Policy has been updated from the Manual being assessed in this
application, this order shall extend to any similar directives in the most
up-to-date version of the Manual.”
Prime Minister Harper was not pleased with that
decision and has ordered that an appeal be made. This man wants to harperize
our rights but I strongly believe that he will not succeed.
Think about this for a moment. Suppose an applicant for
citizenship has been approved and soon after, his face is severely burned. He wants to be with his family at the same
time they are also going to attend the citizenship ceremony to swear the oath
of allegiance. Should he have to remove the bandages for the ceremony before he
swears the oath of allegiance?
What difference at that point of his application for
citizenship would it matter whether anyone attending that ceremony can see or
not see his face? He has already been
approved. I attended the citizenship ceremony when my Japanese-born wife swore
her oath of allegiance. The only person
in the room that any interest in what expression was on her face when she swore
the oath was me.
To give you some idea of just how stupid it is to order
Muslim women wearing a niqab or a hijab while attending a citizenship ceremony
to remove their niqab or hijab, ask yourself this rhetorical question. Should
the judge also order a male Jew to remove the skull cap from the top of his
head? Of course not. What about male
Sikhs who wear turbans? Sikhism has a code of conduct that all Sikhs are meant to follow.
A Sikh is expected to keep all hair intact and the head covered. The rule of
dress for every Sikh man is to wear a turban. Does a citizenship judge have the
authority to order a male Sikh to remove his turban when he is swearing the
oath of allegiance? Definitely not. Should Muslim
women be treated differently than male Jews and male Sikhs? I think not
Mr. Martin, the MP for Winnipeg said that he doesn’t care if
someone going to work wears a paper bag over his head. That could even happen
if a person who is attending the citizenship ceremony is in the Witness
Protection Program and is wearing a paper bag over his head so that he can’t be
identified by someone who is out to kill him.
It is time to protect Muslim women and others from silly
decisions which offends the public’s sense of fair play and decency. We can
begin by making sure that we don’t vote into office prime ministers who are
dimwits.
UPDATE: June 20, 2015: The Canadian government introduced new legislation that will forbid anyone attending the citizenship ceremony from wearing any clothing that will cover their face.
UPDATE: June 20, 2015: The Canadian government introduced new legislation that will forbid anyone attending the citizenship ceremony from wearing any clothing that will cover their face.
No comments:
Post a Comment