There is a lot of debate about the
burqa and its links to oppression today. To state my stance immediately, I dislike the burqa for everything—and I mean everything—that it stands for. I however, do not say we should ban it, but complete criticism of it should be brought forth. I have an issue with the current struggle in the debate; I can see where the anti-burqa argument is coming from… I however, have no clue where the pro-burqa argument seems to get its legs.
For those who wear the burqa “freely” the argument amounts to it being religious tradition. They’re not oppressed, it’s their religious tradition and heritage and they’re proud of it. For those not wearing the burqa, the defense is the Qur’an doesn’t actually enforce the burqa (they’re not being forced to wear it, and if they are being forced to wear it—it is the culture).
These arguments aren’t compatible—they’re contradictory. The fact that they are contradictory is a sign of oppression itself. Why do these women think that burqas are a part of their religion if they are not? The banning of the burqa proposal is constantly referred to as an attack on the Islam religion, and yet, at the same time the same people are arguing that the burqa has nothing to do with the Islam religion itself but with oppressive cultures… The argument contradicts itself even.
Perhaps we should inspect why people think the burqa is commanded by their religion. I’m sure everybody is aware of commands to lower gazes, cover private parts and so forth. The main aspect is covering the beauty, and that the traditional khimar would be extended to cover the bosom. The Qur’an directly calls for a
hijab, as Muhammad clarified on these parts and stated their meaning as covering all but the face and hands (although hey, I for one think the face is an incredibly beautiful part of the body).
But hold on now, do not take this into thinking that the Qur’an doesn’t say that women should cover their faces. The
niqab, or burqa, has the impression of being required in a later passage. It’s a matter of interpretation, which one is it? Typically the one that comes later as a general rule of all religions is the one that actually matters (which brings up the question why give it in the first place if it was just going to be labeled obsolete). Even though the niqab rule comes later sequentially in the book (
Surah al-Ahzab 59 for the niqab vs
Surah an-Nur 31 for the hijab), chronologically it’s argued to be actually before… There is a bunch more evidence for that as well though.
The issue here is that the Qur’an does indeed have the burqa as a requirement, even though it is supposedly rendered obsolete. This rendering obsolete, however, is a matter of interpretation. Along this, there are interpretations that the clothing is not required at all but rather more suggested by the prophet Muhammad… This is contradictory, as Muhammad’s words are law under Islam religion, especially considering Muhammad clarified the rule as opposed to creating it anyways—overall it is simply trying to explain away oppressive doctrines by applying what they think is morally right to a book that is supposed to define what morals are.
But just a second here, most conclude that the burqa is not required but the hijab is. What is the difference? Is the hijab so much better? I don’t think it is at all! Under the common interpretation, the only parts of the body left uncovered are the face and the hands… I’m sorry if you don’t find that nearly as oppressive as I do. For that matter, from a book ordering nearly 96% of the body to be covered, is it not safe to assume that the rest should be as well?
Let’s get back to the debate that is occurring. It is claimed that the anti-burqa movement is simply anti-Islamic (yet again, at the same time they conclude that the Qur’an doesn’t enforce the burqa…). Is it really so hard to see why women and people in general associate the burqa with this oppressive structure that subjugates and confines women under the name of Islam?
All I see is that they are obscuring the fact that there are indeed pervasive and sexist propaganda in the Muslim communities for favor of these burqas. Women are murdered for it even in the Western world, and giving a blind eye to that fact is—in my opinion—a completely uncaring and wrong action to do. Let me ask you, why it is a “choice” to choose whether or not to get murdered and not a guaranteed right.
Do you know the real problem about the burqa is? Why do so many women hate the burqa? Can you differentiate between two burqa wearing women, even if you knew them personally? When women wear the burqa, in a sense, it the most perverse kind of sexual objectification… that woman, is identified by absolutely nothing other than her gender: a shapeless, faceless, nameless woman and nothing more than that at all.
Perhaps a ban is needed, maybe just a temporary one though—one that enables women to escape if they need to from their oppression. To allow them to get their voices and give them back their right to be human. Have no mistake, many need help, and to ignore those pleas is perhaps the worst action to do by those who are free.
Last night my friends and I were talking about ethics and morality and we sort of went in circles because we all seemed to have different ideas of what they were. Some expressed the idea that morals only come from religion so they avoided the word and used ethics instead.
Recently I got an email from someone who said the following:
