Some arguments used in support of Syria's Niqab ban

There are a number of arguments circulating popularly regarding the Niqab ban and I thought it would be helpful to outline the main ones and see whether they can withstand any scrutiny. I don't think it is helpful to provoke bitter and divisive debate about what will prove to be a highly controversial issue. Furthermore, and I hate having to do this, I have to say that I am not a fan of the niqab nor am I looking to Islamise any society. For some people apparently this disclaimer might make what I am about to say a bit more credibility. So in the interests of spreading some common sense, I decided to say it.

Here are the points and a brief outline of why I think these issues are non-starters for a debate on the neqab. From my point of view, the Neqab is an Islamic phenomenon, and the only appropriate response to it is using the Qur'an and the Sunnah and allowing young Muslims to know their Islamic rights and be able to resist being "fanaticised". The answer is not in poorly thought out decisions by the Ministry of Education.

The first argument is that it is alien to Islam and an imported fundamentalism which is incompatible with Syrian ways.

Firstly this argument is quite similar to the French "burka-ban" arguments. That somehow being essentially French precludes wearing such foreign styles of dress or that there is a typical Syrian. Firstly this is not an "alien" style of dress in Syria, our great grandparents all used to wear such clothing before the occupation of the French. In fact the alien dress is what most people in Syria are wearing today. If you want to ban alien forms of dress from hostile countries that have occupied us in the past, why not begin with the necktie or jeans? The United States carried out an attack on Syrian soil, killing Syrian citizens, only recently. Why not ban American forms of dress in light of such terroristic attacks? Or do we only tolerate the attacks and dress-code of some terrorists but not others?

The second argument is that it erases the identity of the woman and is sexist.

Assuming that such a noble and lofty aim as women's rights was behind the latest decision to ban the niqab, why then are women still being commodified in every sense possible in Syrian popular culture. An intense social pressure (similar to that which is allegedly imposed on Syrian women wearing niqabs) encourages many girls, and from a young age, to sexualise themselves. This is not to paint all women who do not wear Islamic dress with the same brush, but a rule which is aimed at one extreme whilst ignoring another is quite inconsistent. Those same people cheering for a ban on the neqab would go livid if somebody wrote an article calling for the ban of the mini-skirt, tight jeans or low-cut blouses. Both extremes are a minority in Syria, but only one of them is being banned through official government intervention. Why?

The third argument, quite sleazy, is that the neqab is being used as a front for prostition.

This is ridiculous and there isn't even an argument. Prostitution exists in all countries and comes in as many ways as there are to avoid prohibition and social disapproval. I'm sure there are plenty of prostitutes who do not wear a neqab, why does nobody have a problem or complaint about them?

The ban makes the problem more difficult for women forced to wear the neqab.

In this argument, women are caught between a rock and a hard place. Is there immense social pressure on some women to wear it, and are they threatened by domestic violence? The answer is yes. But this ban is not aimed at limiting domestic violence, there are just as many women who do not wear a niqab that are also victims of domestic violence. We should not confuse these issues.

Education requirements in modern Syrian universities require an academic exchange incompatible with the niqab

A particularly stupid argument made by someone I know is especially ignorant, but it is important I mention it because it has emerged before. This is a variation to a similar argument made in England that it is important for human social interaction that you can see the person's face when you are speaking to them. This begs the question, how are human beings able to listen to the radio or speak over the telephone then? As for being an impediment for academic exchange, that is ridiculous. There is a university in Syria called The Open University, where courses are mainly delivered over the internet and exams are undertaken in person. How does having a niqab affect this or any other type of academic exchange. The answer is simple, it does not.

There are security concerns for women with neqabs

This is the final argument used in desparation when all else fails. Again, this begs the question, were the people who assassinated Imad Mughniyeh, or who set off car bombs in Damascus, wearing niqabs? In fact has there ever been a case in Syria in the past twenty years where a woman in a niqab posed any kind of security threat? The answer is no. Furthermore, that is not the reason given by the Minister of Education Ghiath Barakat, his words were that he was concerned that these women will introduce fundamentalist ideas to young impressionable students. But if so, why are students who obtain their ideology from the United States or Europe still allowed to mingle freely?

The Ministry of Education's ban on the niqab is arbitrary and discriminatory. It introduces a dangerous new level of control over what people are allowed to wear, setting a precedent for more invasive measures in future. This is a poorly thought out and implemented decision and there should be a concerted campaign to call for the sacking of the Minister of Education.

.

Syrian realpolitik

I've been thinking hard about that niqab ban that was put in place by the Syrian minister of education and the more I mulled it over, the more things began to make sense. My first impulse in an earlier blog post was to avoid both sides of this argument, but seeing some of the stupid arguments made by people in support of it drove me to criticise both the decision and its supporters very strongly. Still, something just didn't make sense about the whole business.

In a way this is typical for Syria - it is a byzantine maze of intrigue, strange decisions and alliances. Why would Syria ban the niqab when we are the strongest allies of Iran, Hezbullah, Hamas and a more Islamic Turkey? Not only that, but the number of women this would have actually affected was, to my knowledge, negligent and hardly worth the fuss. No, the timing which came with the French decision to do a ban was no coincidence. I think this whole exercise was a PR exercise which complements Syria's regional strategy of positioning itself as the one the West can talk to. Syria will be the conduit to Iran, to Lebanon and the Palestinians. From an economic perspective it gives Syria that air of being "moderate" and this isn't bad if it wants to do business with Europe or its Arab allies. Syria intends to become the gateway to the real Middle East.

Domestically it's perfect. Syrians aren't really niqab fans and it isn't as prevalent as some would like to think. Those affected by it are not important or influential enough to kick up a fuss. Religious people are safe in the knowledge that the niqab is not a religious obligation, Syrian secular people can rest assured the country is not becoming a Saudi Arabia and everybody can start to "debate" and feel clever with arguments for and against this wise decision made by the powers that be. A completely artificial debate is generated, which can be a good thing. It is good to distract stupid people with something, it lets decision makers focus on the real issues without interruption.

Politics is beautiful sometimes, and I do think that the Syrians are masters of it.

.

Debate as Syria bans the Niqab in Schools - كذلك كنتم من قبل فمن الله عليكم

Syria Comment has just posted a link claiming that Syria has banned the niqab in schools. No doubt this will attract all manner of comments and discussion. Very few people, I expect, will defend the niqab, rather they will be defending conventions on human rights. Those that attack it will range from the outright vulgar and anti-Islamic to the enlightened defenders of civilization who recall the good times of the twentieth century when life was a party and it was all just harmless fun.

The problem is I don't feel inclined to enter the fray on either side of this debate. I mentioned before that it is a sham debate, manufactured, and framed to elicit precisely the reactions that it does. I have seen discussions about banning the burqa or niqab arise from circles and people who, prior to the 2001 attacks, would have been seen as fringe elements of society, or at least they certainly wouldn't have felt comfortable saying what they do today in polite company. Today, after considerable numbing of people's sensitivities by the press and media, it is fine to say things about Muslims,. In much the same way as some circles of Muslims or "anti-war" activists I have been amongst said the most horrible things in a blaise manner that I found unsettling. But it was only possible for them to say such things because of the invasion of Iraq and the souring of the conflict in Afghanistan.

Up until quite recently I would have joined in the fray with much gusto but instead today I feel the urge to turn my back on these mad people. I just don't ask myself the same questions anymore. I suggest you all go and find your own way the best you can, nobody can give you understanding. It can only be discovered.

.

More on the Syrian Niqab ban

Syria's Minister of Education, Giath Barakat, has given his reasons for banning the niqab from university campuses throughout the country:


"طلابنا هم أبنائنا لن نتركهم عرضة لأفكار والعادات المتطرفة", مشيدا بـ "أخلاق المجتمع السوري الذي اثبت على مر العصور الوعي والقدرة على التصدي للكثير من العادات السيئة وشارك بفاعلية وجدية في ضد حملات الغزو المنظمة

"Our students are our children and we will not leave them vulnerable to radical ideas" and he called upon the "morals of Syrian society which have proven over the passage of time a maturity and capacity in dealing with many bad habits and has been effective against organised invasion campaigns"


I suggest Dr Barakat starts by banning subversive television series' like Bab el Hara where all the women in these sinister historical dramas are shown to be wearing the niqab or "mlayeh" as some Syrians with false consciousness used to call it. Apparently these foreign ideas have been bubbling away in Syria for over 1000 years, ever since these subversives came in with their camels under their bloodthirsty general Khaled Bin Waleed. Thank God (can I still say that?) that we now have Dr Barakat to save our robust Syrian morality from this foreign invasion. Somebody should remind the good Minister of Education that we kicked the French out of our country over sixty years ago and that this is Syria, heart of the Arab and Islamic world, not France or Germany.

Elsewhere in the article he said he responded to calls by "concerned parents" who were worried about the influx of these women in neqabs who had joined the universities "under the pretext of getting an education". Yes, because it's inconceivable that these barbarians would actually be interested in learning anything to better their lives or futures. I mean look at them, they're following some kind of subversive and sinister ideology which is telling them they aren't allowed to steal, cheat, sleep around, smoke, do drugs, or drink. They should even work hard and think independantly according to these radicals. Apparently their Mullahs are telling them that they must seek knowledge, but we all know this is certainly a coded instruction to go and radicalise our delicate Syrian flowers with their corrupting ideas.

What on earth is a man like him doing as the Syrian Minister of Education, and what on earth is it his business telling students what to wear? Will he take a similar stance if, for example, concerned parents came to him asking him to ban the wearing of tight jeans by girls? Or do the precious morals of his Syrian society only go one way?

Click here to see what average Syrians on the Shabab Syria discussion forum think about this ignorant decision.

.

Bassam al Qadi - Again

Bassam al Qadi is a self-styled 'intellectual' who specialises in being daring with topics that he is allowed to speak about. In what seems like a life-time ago, I criticised his stupid position where he supported the so-called 'niqab ban' that the Syrian regime's education minister had put in place - at around the same time that France had put this law in place. On a side-note, at the time I was vehemently against the ban, but today - as I review some of my old comments - I'm quite startled with how differently I saw the Syrian regime last year. Then again the Syrian regime hadn't killed three thousand Syrian citizens yet. But that is another discussion for another time.

Anyhow, going back to Bassam al Qadi, apparently the guy has his own website now. Like most Syrian 'intellectuals', he uses his own name as the address (and "brand"). What a vain, ridiculous, man. Oh and he has written an article (linked above) where he mauls al "Arabiya" and al "Jazeera" for 'conspiring' against Syria. A very stupid article where it is very clear by now that he is a regime mouthpiece and a keyboard-for-hire sycophant. With hindsight, I am not surprised that this pseudo-secularist and pseudo-intellectual would have supported the regime's silly niqab ban as vehemently as he did last year. One of the things that I look forward to when this oafish regime collapses is to buy some balila from somebody like Bassam al Qadi, because in a free Syria where stupid people can no longer be put in charge of NGO's, government agencies or newspapers, he won't be able to find any other kind of useful employment. Did I say he's a silly man who is vain and ridiculous? What a silly man.

.

Bassam al Qadi of the "Syrian Women Observatory" (I know, I've never heard of them either), has written a silly argument about why he supports banning the niqab in Syria's university campuses. Not once in his article does he consider that some women would choose to wear this voluntarily. But that is fine, because it's only wrong when the "fanatics" seek to deny a woman her voice. Men like Bassam al Qadi are allowed to speak for her instead because they know what she wants before she does.

Welcome to the ugly side of Syrian secularism.

.

On female circumcision, the headscarf and Rebels without a clue

One must always be weary of getting dragged into a debate and battle which is not his. There has been quite a lot of debate raging about a certain "writer" called Ayan Hirsi Ali, whose account Infidel is that of her life and the hardships she experienced growing up in Somalia (if I remember correctly), this is related to the huge furor being kicked up recently about the practice of female circumcision or "Female Genital Mutilation" as referred to by some. I've seen many Muslims jump up and defend it as a knee jerk reaction because they imagined it was attacking Islam, but I don't think they've really thought through what it is they are defending. I've never personally felt comfortable about it, I'd only even heard of it a few years ago, and I have to say that I personally find it revolting. I know that it was known during the time of the Prophet Muhammad but that it was not too widespread at the time, ie. if there was a particular reason (the female clitoris or labia were unusually large and might have caused discomfort or whatever other reason one might choose for this) they might have done it. He is recorded to have told one woman who did this as her job to not overdo it (remove too much or all of the bits) and have mercy on the child. It's interesting how people seem to think that the whatever the Prophet Muhammad had said is law when it wasn't. A lot of the things he reached conclusions on, like other men, was by consultation and deliberation when it wasn't to do with religion. People seem to forget that he was just a man. Frankly, it is a practice which is culturally rooted to eastern Africa and has no basis in religion whatsoever, unlike male circumcision which has it's roots in all three Abrahamic faiths. Female circumcision and indeed the Hejab itself, are cultural (In no way do I equate the two) and peculiar to a region and peoples of a different time, it serves no purpose whatsoever and if one wishes to tackle it, then this must be done by undermining the religious arguments put forth for it. For those of you who rush off and try to defend the indefensible, please do your research first and don't make fools of yourself.

I also had a long discussion with a friend of mine regarding the Hejab. I had already known that it is in fact obligatory in the Jewish faith and had been in the Christian faith until recently (Nuns in the Catholic church have only recently been allowed to go without one) but I had never been sure as to why or where it says women should be covered from head to toe in a black bag. In fact I've looked and the Quran only calls for decency in clothing and for non form revealing clothes, both for males and females, on no counts does it say women have to hide their faces or wear gloves. The full face cover idea was mostly for the wives of the Prophet (that has a different story and reason, read Karen Armstrong for an excellent non-biased work on his life). I'm not against the Hejab if a woman decides to wear it of her own volition but I'm against the way it is being imposed in Saudi Arabia and Iran - that is by force, or in Syria, where the influences are a lot more subtle but just as powerful sometimes. Still, I refuse to stereotype any woman I meet with a Hejab or without, and, whilst in Syria or Britain, was always mindful of who wouldn't shake hands and who was alright with a peck on the cheek. I think some people confuse wearing the hejab with piety whilst not wearing one implies a lack of it. That notion is ridiculous and nonsensical.

Back to the main topic, I've learned that the hejab itself is a lot more cultural than it is Islamic, something which can be seen in the various implementations we see throughout the Islamic world, so there is no one rule on how it should even be expressed. In Britain, I think it's become an issue for Muslims because they feel (quite rightly) like they are under some form of attack, whether by the media or by the public. I have seen it taken too far however, such as with the recent court case of the schoolteacher insisting on wearing the Niqab in her kindergarden class, but it was good to see that the English judge had enough common sense to put a stop to this excess. This was a classic example of someone picking up a cause without knowing what it is they were fighting for or what was being debated. These people are the quintessential rebels without a clue.

A rebel without a clue can be defined as a person who thinks they are rebelling against a status quo but are in fact, conforming to it. On the opposite end of the spectrum (to risk contradicting my earlier statement on piety!), Arab female pop singers on the Rotana music network also fall into this category, where the status quo they think they are rebelling against leads them to a ridiculous scenario where they confuse political freedom with sexual freedom. They fall from the frying pan and into the fire without understanding what the core issues faced by women in the region and worldwide are. Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan and particularly Irshad Manji are in my opinion, also prime examples of such 'rebels'. Irshad Manji is quite amusing in her debates, though I wouldn't recommend you support her by buying her book, but a rummage on Youtube or Google should bring up some of her finest moments and even some of her own 'radical' interpretations of Islam - interesting. In my opinion, women like these marginalise any genuine Arab or Muslim voices which are tackling the genuine issues faced by females, thus ensuring they aren't taken seriously and continually ostracised.

.

.