It may seem a strange that a country such as Somalia should ban the niqab, the face veil worn by some Muslim women, but, on January 3rd this year, forces of the Somali Transitional Federal Government took such a step.
Why? According to the PEW Forum Research Centre
98.5% of Somalis are Muslim so why on earth should the veil be banned? The answer is, of course, because of security. Apparently in and around Mogadishu there have been a spate of attempts by Al Shaabab terrorists to penetrate the area and wreak havoc. So, in a sensible, calm and pragmatic fashion, the niqab is out.
 |
| Male or female? Friend or foe? Shopper or suicide bomber? |
And why not? There is no religious requirement for it; it is worn by those who wish to 'extend' their religious teachings regarding modesty but, it is an extreme measure. Conventional Muslim female attire, that is, being clothed from head to foot with just a face showing is perfectly, if a little extremely by today's western standards, modest and acceptable to all. Nuns dress in this fashion (or, at least, the real ones do) and no person, other than Richard Dawkins, would take issue with that.
Last year, France banned the niqab in public and whilst there were a few squawks I cannot find any instance of grave civil unrest as a result. Turkey (another Muslim country) currently does not allow the niqab in any public sector building or grounds.
But, in Britain and in the USA, we shrink away from making such a politically incorrect move.
In the current climate, Islam is seen as untouchable. Chritian evangelists will be arrested for preaching peace but Islamic fundamentalists go free for preaching jihad. You can see this in many parts of London and I for one, object to crimes of religious hatred being committed freely and without police interference in my own country.
You see, there is one law for the Muslim and one law for the poor Christian.
And there are two dress codes for men and for women.
If I donned a face mask and walked into Tescos or, heaven forbid, my local branch of Nat West bank, there would be panic and uproar and it would not be too many minutes before I would feel a knee in the small of my back and an eighteen stone policeman behind it, reading me my rights.
If I was a male teacher and appeared in front of my class fully masked up, my feet would not touch the ground en route for the fire exit. I would be branded a pervert and a paedophile. But Great Britain and the USA are strongholds of equal opportunity and parity of esteem (yuk) aren't they?
But to return to the niqab for women debate. I don't like it for the following reasons:-
1. It is unnecessary in Islamic religious law
2. It is separatist and divisive
3. It is un-British
4. It does not allow for clear communication
5. It has the potential to become a potent symbol of Islamic fundamentalism
6. It presents a grave security risk
7. It is a barrier for race and religious integration
8. It promotes gender inequality
Now there will be howls from some sources complaining about freedom of rights. Not so. I believe totally in adopting the "when in Rome" approach. When I travel to Saudi Arabia I do not walk around the hotel or in public in shorts and a short sleeved shirt, I do not carry a rosary on my person, I leave my missal at home, I keep my Catholic identity (such as it is) discreet and out of sight.
To do otherwise is to show disrespect for my host and also break the law of the country!
If you believe that such a move would be provocative and unnecessary let me tell you (without being hysterically xenophobic) that the world Muslim population is set to rise by 35% over the next 20 years, that Muslims will soon outpace weekly British churchgoers and that Mahommed, in all its varied spellings, has already become the most popular boys name in Britain.
None of these things present a problem as such but we must put into place a structure of nurture and education that ensures that all ethnic groups are fully behind their adopted country. No more ghettos, no more 'no go' areas, no more radicalising in the mosques. If we are to assume rights and controls, as is the duty of any government, then we must not hold back from being inclusive. We do need to create strategies that will enhance the religious experience of all groups but that does mean that some controls will have to be implemented. Immigrants must learn the "when in Rome" ethos and a British government must have the spine to implement it.
