Veiling the untruths

By Julian Sudre


IN our lenient western society, where political correctness and uber-liberalism are surging far above rational ideologies, the candid utterance vocalized by the Leader of the House of Commons unequivocally has sparked fury in the Muslim circle.

Jack Straw declared that Muslim women who wore full veils made relations in the community more difficult and it was “a visible statement of separation and difference” added clearly fuel to the fire. But isn’t it taking a leaf out of France’s book when it comes to banning the veil in schools so as to enhance laicity and merge differences and, inter alia, religions onto an equal-footing, forward-looking society?

Let me take the example of the school uniform, which in this country, has enabled to dissociate pupils with their personal clothing thereafter eradicated the pigeonholing of working class and bourgeoisie into a neutral schooling terrain. Now comes the Muslim dress code into western schools which is accepted with compliant welcome because Britain is democratic.

I believe garments have always had a strong relation with our personality and I respect this as the bedrock of freedom. But here, we are talking about both ends of the spectrum. Either the body is covered up or bare of clothes. Why can't we strike a happy medium?

The law avers that nudity in public is an offence, whatever religion or country; never the less, libertarians assume it should be our rights to wear clothes or not, such sensitive issue revolves round the fact that a society must have a certain etiquette so as to avoid confrontation within. What if the Bible stated the use of clothes as superficial and irrelevant? Would you be comfortable talking to someone naked in your office? Being covered-up by a veil could engineer the same shock to a westerner.

In the Arabic world the Hijab fulfils the Koran’s edict that a woman should cover her beauty except what it is apparent of it – that is the face and hands. Once again, the Hijab is a headscarf and only covers the hair.
Religions are emblematic; evident clothing items worn such as the kipa for the Jews or the garb for the Buddhist monks represent the differences of cultures within religions.

The point Jack Straw was trying to make is our laissez-fair society has encompassed dogmas of diametrically opposite cultures becoming British. And once those doctrines are ingrained in our system, a public appeal for consistency in the freedom to see a woman’s face becomes an act of effrontery, if yet of aggression.

It goes without saying that people should be free to choose what they wear and according to their religion, belief or tradition, a democratic country should, by no means, take issue with this. But what the Leader of the House of Commons wants to highlight is the extreme belief that being covered-up epitomises Islam, in that, such reaction – certainly unorthodox to Muslims – could give food for westerners’ and Islamics’ thought. The Niqab has become part and parcel of a religious set of beliefs that human beings have tolerated and construed as the truss that supports the Islamic roof.

The Koran does not mention the wearing of the Niqab, or worse the Burqa. Its connection has been intertwined into the translation of its scriptures. Niqaabi do believe that being veiled maintains the private zone of their faith. It buttresses their belief in Allah. Chastity in Christianity is what the Niqab is to Islam.

This is where Islamics have crossed the line; being accepted into a country does not mean the democratic thread will weave round their principled pattern. It is high time that someone spoke up for the sake of both beliefs and stressed the inaptitude to interpret the religious message of God. Those [tenets] should in no way be admitted into western cultures as western cultures would not be established in Islamic countries.

Never, whatever religion it is, the divine message will ask to hide the female body behind a swath of cloth. Those who do, should reconsider reading Allah’s Scriptures, revalue the articles of faith and open their mind to the purpose of life.