CAIRO: There was a debate not too long ago in the southern part of the United States over whether a Muslim woman wearing the full-face covering, or Niqab, would be forced to remove the veil for a police officer. The case went to court and was eventually decided that if a male police officer needed to check the person's identity they would call in a female officer to do the checking. Makes sense. It is one of the few times that the US has done something “tolerant” when it comes to Islam in the country. So, when the French government banned the niqab, burka or whatever one wants to call the full-face covering that a tiny fraction of Muslim women across the world adorn themselves in, it is shocking that they would continue to argue it is a security risk. It simply is not. Whether we want to see women cover themselves in what liberal Islamic scholar Gamal al-Banna told me recently is an “archaic representation of a time before Islam” is another question, but when France argues the security card, they should be called out for their stupidity. Talking with a leading editor based in Paris earlier this year, around the same time Belgium banned the burka, he told me that less than 1,000 women in France wear the niqab. So, why all the fuss then? The reason is that France wants to believe that what they are doing is upholding French values and French societal norms. What they forget is that in today's changing world, upholding so-called Western “open and tolerant” values means allowing women of all walks of life to wear the clothes they want to, no matter what had been normalcy. But when French politicians argue that it is a security matter and this is their justification for the xenophobic and anti-Islamic sentiments, we must truly question their intentions. It is obvious to any half-knowledgeable onlooker that France does not like Muslims. If they truly wanted to make Muslims of all persuasions – including that small number of burka-clad women – comfortable, they would have taken a more tolerant perspective, and instead of banning the niqab, they would have hired female police officers who, when called upon, would be able to ensure identification of any woman who chose to cover their face in public. Sure, there was a lot of support for the ban, from as strange of places as Muslim feminists, who argued that the ban would give women more freedom in their daily lives. It is almost hypocritical that anyone who professes to support human rights and the right to choose one's own lifestyle to argue this, but it happened and continues today. Someone who upholds human rights and people's right to choose, must accept that not everyone will choose “their way.” We must continue to argue against the niqab – as al-Banna says, “it is not an Islamic idea and has been incorporated by those who bastardize the faith” – but without being preachy. This is where the so-called feminists failed. When France argues security and has the support of popular and well-respected Muslim feminists, such as Mona al-Tahawy, it is difficult to truly engage the tiny segment of Muslim women who wear the veil. They will undoubtedly see the threat as a personal attack on their religion and their beliefs and will become more steadfast in their views that the veil is “the right thing to do.” The world needs less radical rhetoric. The niqab debate in Europe has shown that there is no right radical perspective. It alienates and does little to compromise on solutions that were, and are, readily available. We should all lower our heads in silence today as the world witnesses another attack on compromise and understanding. BM
