Thread: speaking out against the niqab

Below is an editorial from today's "Daily Times": I thought it ver interesting and think you may enjoy reading it, it is certainly thought provoking - Is over Ought, all choices articulated are between bad and worse. Ira had alluded to what may come and I had responded that Europeans may have learned from their recent past


Daily Times - Site Edition Tuesday, October 17, 2006


EDITORIAL: Muslims must weigh the veil carefully

The British press has quoted Phil Woolas, the Race and Faith minister, as demanding that Aishah Azmi, a Muslim Teaching Assistant, be fired for refusing to remove her veil at work and “in the presence of fellow men workers”. This remark is bound to pour more oil on the fire of the debate over the rights of Muslim women to wear face-veils in Britain. The opposition Conservatives have also joined the Labour minister, with one of the party’s top officials accusing Muslim leaders of encouraging a “voluntary apartheid” that could help spawn “home-grown terrorism”.

Most Muslim organisations in the UK are outraged. They believe that the powers-that-be are exploiting Muslim support for the rights of a lone woman to wear the veil as pretext for conducting intrusive inquiries into Muslim lifestyles. Normally, it wouldn’t have much mattered if a Muslim woman had been asked to change the way she looked at a school, but in today’s charged political environment the question has become extremely sensitive. It no longer matters if Muslim women walk in the streets in England wearing their hijab while a whole lot of other Muslim women don’t; what apparently matters is the right of a Muslim woman to freely practise her religion and choose to dress according to her perception of what her religion ordains.

As if this isn’t a big enough crisis for British Muslims, the news from Tunisia, a Muslim country, is that the Tunisian government is actually taking action against women walking around wearing the veil in public. What Tunisia is trying to do is what the British are not thinking of doing, although if the present alienation of the expatriate Muslim community continues in Europe, that day may arrive too. Tunisia is not democratic and doesn’t care for human rights, but the British do. However, it would be a sad day if and when cultural policies in Europe depart from their past tolerant multiculturalism. But there is another side to this “multiculturalism” which warrants attention.

Should the expatriate Muslim community take note of the new tendency among the host countries and adjust itself accordingly, or should it continue in the groove of multiculturalism that has effectively separated and ghettoised them? In Pakistan, those who dislike the treatment meted out to Ms Azmi should take a good look at the edict of hijab before asking the Pakistanis — who form a majority of the Muslims of the United Kingdom — to be aggressive and defy the bipartisan consensus forming in the host country’s parliament about passing new cultural laws in tandem with the rest of the European Union.

We have always had the burqa in Pakistan. It is still around, as if “marking” our movement towards a more liberal and “liberating” society. There is tolerance of the burqa here and of the other forms of hijab that have cropped up in recent years. Indeed, from the shuttlecock to the two-piece burqa, we have all of them without people thinking much about it. But when the ladies of the Jama’at-e Islami appear on TV in their burqa with only the light shining from their eyes we know this doesn’t point to our evolution to a progressive historical stage but to our possible future in the opposite direction. We know that if and when the clerical alliance of the MMA comes to power it will enforce the hijab and deprive our women of the freedom of choice they have today.

Tunisia may be reacting to developments of the recent past in the Islamic world. In 1994, the Islamists of Turkey, after winning the municipal elections in the cities of Ankara and Istanbul, tried to use force on the streets to impose the Islamic veil on Turkish women. Then we saw the Islamic warrior Juma Namangani beating up women in the Ferghana Valley in Uzbekistan for not wearing the shuttle-**** burqa, and we saw Mulla Umar beating up women in Kabul for walking alone even when wearing a burqa. We also know that Mr Namangani’s Islamist ally, Tahir Yuldashev, is somewhere in Waziristan today, and if he and his friends in Pakistan had their way, Pakistan would also go the way of Afghanistan.

Two developments have taken place in the last two years that are significant. The expatriate Muslim community in the UK and Europe has shunned local culture and gone into its cocoon. Before that for many years it was slowly changing its dress code and taking up religious pieties defensively against the process of multiculturalism leading to ghettoisation which allowed and enabled the expatriates to live separately and do whatever they wanted to do without asking for equal opportunity. Then 9/11 happened, changing perceptions of Islam abroad. This was followed more lethally by October 7, 2005, and the Heathrow plot this year. Meanwhile, the British police have taken action but not always fairly and cleanly, and innocent Muslims have suffered as a result. This has exacerbated the situation

The Muslims of the US were best integrated, followed by those of the UK, but both communities are now under pressure from the new laws. Britain wants to increase its coordination with EU in respect of the culture policy to be followed vis-à-vis the Muslims in the future. France has an anti-veil policy and applies it not only to teachers but pupils as well. Thus while democracies in Europe may embolden the expatriate Muslim to seek remedy under law, the Muslim must remember that new legislation can change all that; and legislation is the result of politics and how the host white majority feels.

Expatriate Muslims in the UK must therefore think of ways of assimilating local culture and being at par with the other non-Muslim religious communities who have integrated well and face fewer problems. The question of the veil is emblematic of what might come. It should not be treated simply as a matter of freedom of choice in a civilised world.

Perfectly valid.

'Even other Muslims turn and look at me'

Muslim journalist Zaiba Malik had never worn the niqab. But with everyone from Jack Straw to Tessa Jowell weighing in with their views on the veil, she decided to put one on for the day. She was shocked by how it made her feel - and how strongly strangers reacted to it

Tuesday October 17, 2006
The Guardian


'Idon't wear the niqab because I don't think it's necessary," says the woman behind the counter in the Islamic dress shop in east London. "We do sell quite a few of them, though." She shows me how to wear the full veil. I would have thought that one size fits all but it turns out I'm a size 54. I pay my £39 and leave with three pieces of black cloth folded inside a bag.

The next morning I put these three pieces on as I've been shown. First the black robe, or jilbab, which zips up at the front. Then the long rectangular hijab that wraps around my head and is secured with safety pins. Finally the niqab, which is a square of synthetic material with adjustable straps, a slit of about five inches for my eyes and a tiny heart-shaped bit of netting, which I assume is to let some air in.

I look at myself in my full-length mirror. I'm horrified. I have disappeared and somebody I don't recognise is looking back at me. I cannot tell how old she is, how much she weighs, whether she has a kind or a sad face, whether she has long or short hair, whether she has any distinctive facial features at all. I've seen this person in black on the television and in newspapers, in the mountains of Afghanistan and the cities of Saudi Arabia, but she doesn't look right here, in my bedroom in a terraced house in west London. I do what little I can to personalise my appearance. I put on my oversized man's watch and make sure the bottoms of my jeans are visible. I'm so taken aback by how dissociated I feel from my own reflection that it takes me over an hour to pluck up the courage to leave the house.

I've never worn the niqab, the hijab or the jilbab before. Growing up in a Muslim household in Bradford in the 1970s and 80s, my Islamic dress code consisted of a school uniform worn with trousers underneath. At home I wore the salwar kameez, the long tunic and baggy trousers, and a scarf around my shoulders. My parents only instructed me to cover my hair when I was in the presence of the imam, reading the Qur'an, or during the call to prayer. Today I see Muslim girls 10, 20 years younger than me shrouding themselves in fabric. They talk about identity, self-assurance and faith. Am I missing out on something?

On the street it takes just seconds for me to discover that there are different categories of stare. Elderly people stop dead in their tracks and glare; women tend to wait until you have passed and then turn round when they think you can't see; men just look out of the corners of their eyes. And young children - well, they just stare, point and laugh.

I have coffee with a friend on the high street. She greets my new appearance with laughter and then with honesty. "Even though I can't see your face, I can tell you're nervous. I can hear it in your voice and you keep tugging at the veil."

The reality is, I'm finding it hard to breathe. There is no real inlet for air and I can feel the heat of every breath I exhale, so my face just gets hotter and hotter. The slit for my eyes keeps slipping down to my nose, so I can barely see a thing. Throughout the day I trip up more times than I care to remember. As for peripheral vision, it's as if I'm stuck in a car buried in black snow. I can't fathom a way to drink my cappuccino and when I become aware that everybody in the coffee shop is wondering the same thing, I give up and just gaze at it.

At the supermarket a baby no more than two years old takes one look at me and bursts into tears. I move towards him. "It's OK," I murmur. "I'm not a monster. I'm a real person." I show him the only part of me that is visible - my hands - but it's too late. His mother has whisked him away. I don't blame her. Every time I catch a glimpse of myself in the mirrored refrigerators, I scare myself. For a ridiculous few moments I stand there practicing a happy and approachable look using just my eyes. But I'm stuck looking aloof and inhospitable, and am not surprised that my day lacks the civilities I normally receive, the hellos, thank-yous and goodbyes.

After a few hours I get used to the gawping and the s******ing, am unsurprised when passengers on a bus prefer to stand up rather than sit next to me. What does surprise me is what happens when I get off the bus. I've arranged to meet a friend at the National Portrait Gallery. In the 15-minute walk from the bus stop to the gallery, two things happen. A man in his 30s, who I think might be Dutch, stops in front of me and asks: "Can I see your face?"

"Why do you want to see my face?"

"Because I want to see if you are pretty. Are you pretty?"

Before I can reply, he walks away and shouts: "You ****ing tease!"

Then I hear the loud and impatient beeping of a horn. A middle-aged man is leering at me from behind the wheel of a white van. "Watch where you're going, you stupid ****!" he screams. This time I'm a bit faster.

"How do you know I'm Pakistani?" I shout. He responds by driving so close that when he yells, "Terrorist!" I can feel his breath on my veil.

Things don't get much better at the National Portrait Gallery. I suppose I was half expecting the cultured crowd to be too polite to stare. But I might as well be one of the exhibits. As I float from room to room, like some apparition, I ask myself if wearing orthodox garments forces me to adopt more orthodox views. I look at paintings of Queen Anne and Mary II. They are in extravagant ermines and taffetas and their ample bosoms are on display. I look at David Hockney's famous painting of Celia Birtwell, who is modestly dressed from head to toe. And all I can think is that if all women wore the niqab how sad and strange this place would be. I cannot even bear to look at my own shadow. Vain as it may sound, I miss seeing my own face, my own shape. I miss myself. Yet at the same time I feel completely naked.

The women I have met who have taken to wearing the niqab tell me that it gives them confidence. I find that it saps mine. Nobody has forced me to wear it but I feel like I have oppressed and isolated myself.

Maybe I will feel more comfortable among women who dress in a similar fashion, so over 24 hours I visit various parts of London with a large number of Muslims - Edgware Road (known to some Londoners as "Arab Street"), Whitechapel Road (predominantly Bangladeshi) and Southall (Pakistani and Indian). Not one woman is wearing the niqab. I see many with their hair covered, but I can see their faces. Even in these areas I feel a minority within a minority. Even in these areas other Muslims turn and look at me. I head to the Central Mosque in Regent's Park. After three failed attempts to hail a black cab, I decide to walk.

A middle-aged American tourist stops me. "Do you mind if I take a photograph of you?" I think for a second. I suppose in strict terms I should say no but she is about the first person who has smiled at me all day, so I oblige. She fires questions at me. "Could I try it on?" No. "Is it uncomfortable?" Yes. "Do you sleep in it?" No. Then she says: "Oh, you must be very, very religious." I'm not sure how to respond to that, so I just walk away.

At the mosque, hundreds of women sit on the floor surrounded by samosas, onion bhajis, dates and Black Forest gateaux, about to break their fast. I look up and down every line of worshippers. I can't believe it - I am the only person wearing the niqab. I ask a Scottish convert next to me why this is.

"It is seen as something quite extreme. There is no real reason why you should wear it. Allah gave us faces and we should not hide our faces. We should celebrate our beauty."

I'm reassured. I think deep down my anxiety about having to wear the niqab, even for a day, was based on guilt - that I am not a true Muslim unless I cover myself from head to toe. But the Qur'an says: "Allah has given you clothes to cover your shameful parts, and garments pleasing to the eye: but the finest of all these is the robe of piety."

I don't understand the need to wear something as severe as the niqab, but I respect those who bear this endurance test - the staring, the swearing, the discomfort, the loss of identity. I wear my robes to meet a friend in Notting Hill for dinner that night. "It's not you really, is it?" she asks.

No, it's not. I prefer not to wear my religion on my sleeve ... or on my face.

The reality is, I'm finding it hard to breathe. There is no real inlet for air and I can feel the heat of every breath I exhale, so my face just gets hotter and hotter.

I felt the same when I had the NBC (Warfare) suit on.

NBC = Nuclear, Biological and Chemical.

It was so suffocating and alien that I was ready to have been radiated or sick with bio agents or be gassed by chemicals!

Originally Posted by Ray

I felt the same when I had the NBC (Warfare) suit on.

NBC = Nuclear, Biological and Chemical.

It was so suffocating and alien that I was ready to have been radiated or sick with bio agents or be gassed by chemicals!

Our 'Noddy Suits' were much the same, but flying whilst wearing one and the S6 respirator was something else! However, the Warsaw pact military used to wear those frightful rubber suits. Must have been a terrific ordeal to do so in mid-summer.

Ours must have been a copy of the Warsaw Pact stuff!

I would rather be veiled even though I am a man, but those NBC stuff was horrid.

They have the right to wear the nigab and any public place or government institution has the right to deny them access as a result. It is not the west's responsibility to become an Islamic society for them, it is their responsibility to assimilate. If they want to live under Islamic law and Islamic traditions, it would be best for them to live in an Islamic Country.

Originally Posted by Ray

Ours must have been a copy of the Warsaw Pact stuff!

No, Sir, everybody pretty well had the same condomes on. You put them on and watch everybody's googles slowly filled up with perspiration.

The niquab maybe a better proposition.

Ms Azmi has lost her case against the council for religious discrimination.

The council are criticised for the way they handled the affair - and have been ordered to pay a small amount for victimisation but essentially, they have won.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm

An Australian Muslims view on the hijab

Senior Muslim cleric's sexist comments spark outrage
PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
AM - Thursday, 26 October , 2006 08:16:00
Reporter: Josie Taylor
TONY EASTLEY: One of Australia's most senior Muslim clerics is being accused of saying that some women, by the way they dress and their actions, are attracting sexual assault.

Sheikh Taj El Din Al Hilali made the comments in a sermon to worshippers in Sydney last month.

He's quoted as saying that women who don't wear the hijab or headdress are like uncovered meat.

The Australian newspaper translated a copy of the cleric's sermon.

A spokesman for Sheikh Hilali says the Sheikh was talking about abstinence and fidelity for both sexes and not rape.

Muslim leaders are appalled by the reported comments, but say they don't have the power to make Sheikh Al Hilali stand down.

Josie Taylor reports.

JOSIE TAYLOR: The Australian newspaper claims it translated the address by Sheikh Taj Din Al Hilali and found the Mufti alluded to rape victims being at fault because of the way they dressed.

Keysar Trad is an associate of the nation's most senior cleric. He says he's spoken to the mufti who explained his comments.

KEYSAR TRAD: He wasn't talking about standard norms of dress in Australia or in any country, he wasn't talking about the hijab, he was talking about people who engage in extra-marital sex.

He's always encouraged fidelity and abstinence until people get married and he's talking about those people who prey on others, whether men or women who seek to engage in sexual conduct outside of marriage and do so through alluring types of attire.

JOSIE TAYLOR: He is quoted as saying that women were weapons used by Satan to control men. Did he say that?

KEYSAR TRAD: I haven't canvassed that particular line with him and I know that I've heard some clerics refer about how Satan uses sexuality to entrap people in general, not specifically one gender in preference to the other.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Did he say though, that… referring to women who don't wear a hijab as uncovered meat and saying that they are the problem?

KEYSAR TRAD: From my discussions with him, the issue was not whether they wear a hijab or don't wear a hijab. The issue is that every society has a certain dress code, a normal dress code that people go by.

So if somebody goes beyond that dress code, if men or women get to the stage where they dress in a manner that is provocative, then these people are doing something wrong. But if the dress code in a society is such that it's a short skirt and a tank top, well, that's the dress code, that's the norm.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Is it fair to say that women who go outside the norm in their dress codes are then fair game for rapists?

KEYSAR TRAD: No, well, see the issue is not about rape. The issue is about extra-marital sexual activity. He was not talking about rape.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Shereen Hassan is an executive committee member of the Islamic Council of Victoria.

She's yet to confirm the newspaper's translation of the Mufti's address, but says if it's accurate, she's appalled.

SHEREEN HASSAN: His comments are absolutely repulsive and offensive to me as a woman. I mean, I'm a Muslim woman, I wear a hijab but I certainly don't wear the hijab to avoid sexual harassment. I wear it to show my love and devotion to God, full stop. Not for any other reasons.

JOSIE TAYLOR: Would you be calling for him to stand down?

SHEREEN HASSAN: I will definitely... I will definitely be speaking to him and condemning these comments to his face and we will be… we don't have the power to make him stand down, but we will… I will definitely be having a word to him and pointing out how incredibly offensive these comments are and I will be urging him to retract his statement.

LOL, he doesn't know what he's doing, taking on Aussie sheilas

Addendum: He's just claimed he was misquoted: what he actually said was that they looked like prostitutes

Expect a good old fashioned lynching to follow

He's quoted as saying that women who don't wear the hijab or headdress are like uncovered meat.

Parihaka,

His comment on 'exposed meat' has made him 'dead meat'?

Originally Posted by Ray

Parihaka,

His comment on 'exposed meat' has made him 'dead meat'?

LOL, yep, that was funny

From a Moslem ady from Bangladesh.

http://www.humanists.net/alisina/hijab.htm

Ambiguity of Dress Code in Islam: Burkha or Hijab (?)



By Khurshed Alam Chowdhury

Maryland, USA.

As we all agree, that there are tremendous controversies in the women dress code in Islam. Even two Islamic scholars do not agree in the same dress code for women. In the same Muslim Country, dresses worn by Muslim women are not the same at all. It varies even in the same family. Therefore, let us discuss this important subject with a view: (a) to determine exactly what type of veil (pardha) should be observed by Muslim women prescribed by Quran & Sunnah, (b) how to implement them and, (c) to determine if this Islamic dress code is, of course, feasible or not, for Twentieth or Twenty first Century’s modern/civilized working/business women ?

Background and brief History of Veils: veiling (pardha) women was an aged old practice among the aristocrats and it was practiced thousands of years before the arrival of Islam. Hindu, Bhudda, Christians, Jews etc were also practicing veiling among their prestigious women. As far I can discover from various references, this method was adopted mainly as a sign to distinguish the FREE WOMEN FROM THE SLAVE WOMEN, so that none should molest her thinking her to be a slave girl (please read Qur’anic Ayat 33:59 below).

Veiling amongst aristocrat women was always to cover her Face & body completely (when goes outside home) and with the advent of Islam veiling was made obligatory for all believing women from the age of nine (9) and not the ambiguous age of 7-15 as some authors consider. Most of all, veiling in Islam (as per Qur’an & Sunnah) was always to COVER ENTIRE BODY EXCEPT FEET AND WRIST,i.e. Burkha was the proper veiling system rigidly obeyed by all Muslim women until early 20th Century. Begum Rokeya’s “ABRODE BASHINI” is a master piece document of the prevailing situation at that time. We all know very well that even outside education for women was prohibited by Islam. I urge our honourable readers to read “ABRODE BASHINI” for themselve. This famous novel will give a true picture of Sub-continent Muslim women until early 20th Century.

After all where lies the actual beauty of a person? I consider it is the very “face” or “Chaahara” which identifies whether a person is beautiful or ugly. Why then we are arguing with “Hijab” and “khimar”? How one protect her beauty only by covering her hairs? What happens, if she shaved her hairs, does she still needs to wear Hijab? To me face (beautiful wide eyes, nose, lips) is the center of her beauty and I don’t need to see her hair. Then , who has invented this “Hijab”? What is the DRESS CODE for Afganistani women under those pure Muslim Talibani Mullahs? Surely black-colored Burkhas with only two small holes for two eyes. The great Mauolana Delwar Hossain Sayeedi calls them windows of the body. What was the true dress code for Prophet Mohammad ‘s (pbuh) wives?

Main problems of this subject are: (a) should women wear burkha to cover their head and face altogether or, (b) should women cover only their hairs by Hijab? Let us examine what Holy Quran says about veil:

In Holy Quran, Allah has decreed system of veiling men & women only in two Suras ( Al- nur and Ahzab). Let me cite here two Ayats relating to veils from famous Quranic translation of Mauolana A. Yusuf Ali for our discussion:

Quran-(24:31)—“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof ; that they should draw their veils over their bosom and not display their beauty except to their mahrem men (relationship does not allow legal marriage)”. Here, let us try to understand, as to, what exactly is the meaning of “beauty & ornaments” that Allah is pointing to? My understanding here is: Beauty is obviously women’s face, and ornaments (her decorative elements: gold, silver etc) which can only add to her natural beauty. In his Sha,ne nazul, Mauolana Yousuf Ali said, “the Arabic word ‘Zinat’ means both natural beauty (face), and artificial ornaments. I think both are implied here to cover, but chiefly the former (face).” Then, where in the Ayats God said to cover her hairs??? And how by covering hair she

can hide her God’s given beauty?

Quran-(33:59)---“ O Prophet ! Tell Thy wives and daughters. And the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (face) when abroad, that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And God is oft-Forgiving, most merciful.” ‘That they should be known as such, and not molested’-- exactly coincide what I have said in my brief history of veils. Here in this Ayat, there are two important things to note: (1) Arabic word “Jilbab” which means Outer garments over their persons (appearance, face)—a long gown covering the whole neck, head, and bossom.; (2) and that they should be known ,as such, and not molested—so that aristocrat women are not molested like a slave girls. . No where in any Quranic Ayats or any Shahi Hadiths says, COVER THEIR HAIRS ONLY.

Opinions of various Islamic Scholars:

In his Shane-Nazul, Mauolana Yousuf Ali quoted: “ The object was not to restrict the liberty of women, but to protect them from harm and molestation under the conditions then existed in Medina. In the East and in the West a distinctive public dress of some sort or another has always been a badge of honour or distinction, both among men and women in order to separate Aristocrats from that of slaves . This can be traced back to the earliest civilizations. Assyrian Law in its palmiest days (7th Century B.C.), enjoyed the veiling of married women and forbade the veiling of slaves and women of ill fame (page-1126)”.

In the Sha’nenazul by Mauolana Mirza Golam ( Bengali translation of Holy Qura’n, page- 730,731) said, “ the Arabic word ‘Zalabib’ means outer garments which should be pulled /hanged from head up to chest, so that it covers entire body. As per the Ayat 33:59, it is clearly evident that, (a) if women goes out of the house, she must cover with Zilbab (Burkha) ; (b) and if women stays inside the house with her relatives, then she must only wears Khimar (head covering) which is like ‘Ghumtah’. It should be clear now that, in the purpose-(a): dress must cover head, face (appearance), and bosom area; and in the purpose-(b): she will cover her head and bosom area but not the face (appearance)”.

As per (ibid. 2:155 and ibid. 2:156) , the face is part of the natural Zina (charm) which is the main source of temptation and seduction. As to the acquired Zina (ornaments) it is the clothes, the beautification, and the dyes that the women puts on herself to improve her appearance. They hold that it is not permissible to look at the face of a woman for fear of temptation, since temptation caused by the face is much greater than that caused by the feet, the hair, or legs. Therefore, it is more appropriate not to look at the face, as it is the origin of beauty, the source of temptation and the place where danger hides.

Let me cite one scenario to make it more clear : Say, you went to New York to select a bride for your oldest son. Could you determine whether the bride is beautiful or ugly by not seeing her face? You could have seen her hairs from behind, as hairs are more visible from behind, but how in the world you could determine her beauty by seeing only her hairs?

According to Mauolana Mohiuddin in his Bengali translation of Holy Qu’ran (Ayat- 33:33) stated: “ needless to say that, women should wear veils (Burkha) so that it covers her entire face (mukha-mondal) because it is the center of her beauty. Actually, Allah will not like to see women outside her home, because, she was created to stay home for the purpose of house-hold jobs. Therefore, it is not only forbidden to get out of the house, but it is also HARAM to go out of her house”.

Some Sahi Hadiths regarding veils:

Sahihi Hadiths (Bukhari Sharif): Abu Huraira narrated, “ in the battle Khaibar, when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) recived Safiyya Bint Huyay Ibn al- Akhtab as BOOTY ( ganimatter Maa’l) one of His ‘Sahaba’ asked , O Messenger of God, what will be the status of Safiyya ? Then Messenger of God replied, “tomorrow if you see her covered with veil than she is my wife; if you see her without veil than she is a slave girl (Books of al-Sira).” It can be noted here, Safiyya was the 10th wife of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and was, of course, veiled head to foot to separate from an ordinary Slave girls. Here is another proof what I have mentioned in veil’s history above.

Sahi Bukhari Hadiths (Chapter-27, #108): This is regarding the defaming incident occurred about Hazrat Aysha Siddiqa (R.A.) when she got lost while returning from the Battle field of Muray’ishi. Ibne Shihab narrated: “Hazrat Aysha (R.A.) said, when she was traveling with the messenger of Allah, she (Aysha) was always inside a ‘Haodha’ ( a covering all around by black cloths so that nobody can see her) and in one nightly journey, the Caravan left the place without Aysha being inside ‘Haodha’ by mistake (Aysha was out for natural call). Next morning they found that the Haodha is empty and Aysha (R.A.) was not there. One soldier named Shafoan ibne Muathal was out on that night to search for left out articles of war in the desert. After some times, Muathal saw Bibi Aysha sleeping alone in the open desrt’ sands, and he recognized Bibi Aysha’s by seeing her face. When Aysha awoke up she immediately covered her entire face by her ‘chaddar’. Ibne Muathal took her on the camel’s back and joined the caravan afterwards. When Shafoan ibne Muathal was asked how he was able to recognize that she was the Bibi Aysha , he (Muathal) replied, “ because I saw her face before the veiling system was adopted in Islam.” Now, let me ask my honorable readers—what you have learned about veils from this authentic Hadiths ? It was the very FACE which used to be veiled not just hairs.

Tabrani, Majhari: Hazrat Amar Ibnul Ash (RA) stated, “ Prophet (pbuh) forbade women even to talk/converse with others without her husband’s permission

What I read in Qur’an and Hdiths is: “women do not exhibit their BEAUTY in front of non-mahrem men, period. Now, what is women’s beauty ? Or did Allah ask to cover only the partial beauty leaving main beauty exposed ? My thirteen year old girl ask me repeatedly, “abba, what is wrong with our hairs, why Qur’anic teacher always bothers about our hairs?”

Color Restriction of veil:

There is, of course, a strict color code in Islamic dress. Ministry of Education in Iran, specifies the color code for girls students covered from head to toe for children as young as 6 years of age. Islamic Mullahs sets the rules of women clothing for older women, only black, brown and dark blue colors are allowed. Bright colors, especially red color are strictly prohibited. In Afghanistan, only black and white colors are allowed. In 1998, one young woman was whipped harshly in Kabul ,for wearing red color clothing. There are some sahi Hadiths about forbidden colors in Islam.

Evolution of Veil (Pardha):

Only at the beginning of 20th Century, Aristocrat & affluent Muslim families all over the World, started modification of this veiling system and perhaps promulgated ,without any uniformity, to “Hijab” only to cover hairs & ears, living the face uncovered. BECAUSE, MODERN,CIVILIZED WOMEN REFUSE TO COVER THEIR FACE. SO, TO MAKE IT SOME WHAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE ELITE WOMEN, THIS SYSTEM WAS STARTED. After all, who wants to be seen’ like a creatures from another planet’. However, this system of covering hairs only was not accepted by Katmullahs, lower class believing women and many others who wants to follow Qur’an & Sunnah. Because, if we judge purpose of true veiling as per Qur’anic view, the Hijab covering only hairs exposing her center of beauty FACE is a pure MOCKERY. Even now, in Saudi Arab and other Arab Countries, one can see lower class women wears Burkhas and elite group wears Hijab covering hair only. This picture can be seen equally in all other Muslim Countries including Bangladesh.

Another interesting phenomena of veiling are seen frequently among the Arab elite class who wears hijab or Burkha at the Air port but the moment they are boarded the aircraft, immediately they remove their veils altogether and become a perfectly western-dressed lady in front of other male passengers. Wives of some of Bangladeshi Muslims in USA, usually wears ‘hijab’ in front of Bangladeshi males, but in front of American people they do not wear Hijab. These are of course, a total hypocrisy or‘Munafiqi’ and bears no moral value at all.

Practical perspectives of veil:

Do we need to put women behind the veil to protect their chastity? In other words, can a veil alone protect women from the hands of sick minded men? Answer is universally No!

It is not the veiling women but veiling men’s heart should protect chastity of a woman. We all know that, no country on earth can claim that women are absolutely safe. But I can tell it for sure, in all third World countries (Muslim and non-Muslim) women are more often oppressed by men then western world, even though those countries have more conservative dress system. We all have seen the recent horrible picture of ‘Unruly youths tried to strip a woman of her cloths in Dhaka University campus on the 31st night (Independent photo). UN report says: 47 percent women assaulted by their male partners in Bangladesh. This type of assault on women was only 22 percent in U.S.A., even though, women in USA, wear mini-skirts, walks alone freely during dead of night, and where hundred percent of cases are usually reported. This assault in Bangladesh, doesn’t include rape. Institute of Democratic Rights (IDR) reports that 730 women, children raped across the country (Bangladesh) last year. It is obvious, percentage of rape will be much higher if every case was disclosed/reported by victims in Bangladesh. Will veil alone can protect women ? I don’t think so !

Here in USA , one Muslim wife ( who is fairly beautiful and young) can get out alone with her new car, drive 50 or 70 miles far away , shopping in Malls, eating lunch in a restaurant and, safely return home without any disturbance at all. Could this same Muslim lady do the same at the Dhaka city, or in big city of any Muslim countries? Even Burkha will not be able to save her from molestation or else.

Afghan Talivan Mullahs have imposed strict and true Islamic dress for women, even though, some bigot Muslims think, Talivani Mullah Ghusti doing wrong or some muslims do not like to discuss this issue very much. Because, they know very well, that Afghan Talivan mullahs are highly educated from the best Madrasha/Moktab of Pakistan. Question is-who knows better Islam than this Afghani Talivan ? Can any Mullah tells us that he knows more than those great Talivan ? I fervently CAUTION all women to be care full about Islamic utopia, as I can assure them, if Talivani Mullahs can grab power in Bangladesh—Mullahs will never be satisfied with ‘Hair Covering hijab’, rather, they will adopt similar Burkhas like Afghanistan. They did it in Iran and they are doing it in Afghanistan. They will take the Country to the dark ages. So, don’t be so hypnotized by sweet fatwa.

Conclusion: As we have understood positively that, to satisfy total requirements of Islamic veiling fatwa as per Holy Qur’an & Sunnah, women should wear Burkhas to cover her beauty so that, they can be protected from the hands of weak and sick hearts in the Muslim society, as because, in the minds of Mullahs, WOMEN are the source of temptation and evil, while the poor innocent man (?) plays the role of the victim. But problems are: Modern civilized women unlike 7th Century’s women do not like to sit idle at home, they needs to compete men in their struggle of survival. Modern women needs to work outside, drive cars, pilots Airplane, pilot rockets to the Moon or even Mars. Only Almighty Creator knows, keeping women’s “GAZE DOWN” how in the World, women could drive a car or pilot a Airplane. She would be a dangerous driver of course. Maybe, Almighty God did not want women to be the driver or pilot of an Airplane. For valid reason this Middle-aged cumbersome, ridiculous, unscientific, senseless, veiling system has, long before, become obsolete.

Actually, veiling women alone will never solve this problem. Men should learn to respect women as human being and to achieve that men should wear veils around their hearts

kchowdhury@surfree.com