By Zainab Mahmood

There goes my love of Belgian truffles, or a chance to walk down the Champs Elysees again or patronise my favourite seafood restaurant in the suburbs of Lyon with my mother, who incidentally wears the niqab. Considering we the misguided masses turned on Danish butter, Portuguese chicken and a Norwegian mobile company when the infamous caricature incident took place, one can only wonder if Pakistan will declare a fatwa on French fries in light of the French government’s stance on the ‘burqa’.

Originally published by The Friday Times (print only)

On a more serious note, this issue is rapidly gathering steam around the world for all the wrong reasons. President Sarkozy, against the advice of his parliament, is asking for a complete ban of the burqa, and the Belgian government has declared that “the ban on the burqa will be imposed in streets, public gardens and sports grounds or buildings meant for public use or to provide services to the public”.

France’s justification in the matter seems to be an attempt to harmonise its community and as an added bonus protect or ‘liberate’ the Muslim women of France who are forced to wear the veil. If one may dare to ask, what of those women who choose to wear the veil of their own free will? Is there a mind-reading device that France is using to conduct surveys to estimate how many women wear the veil because they want to or are being forced?

Why not impose a more practical ban which might even be supported by Muslims, such as one requiring the Muslim woman wearing the hijab or burqa to be above a certain age, to ensure underage girls are not forced into wearing it, and to require only a limited form such as the headscarf to be allowed in hospitals and government buildings?

Initially France banned the wearing of ‘conspicuous religious symbols’, as a result of which Sikhs, Jews and Christians could not wear large crosses, turbans or skullcaps. So in essence all the unique and intrinsic principles of each of these religious faiths have been disallowed to be worn in public. Is this an attempt on France’s part to create a more pure and superior race, a page out of history perhaps, particularly that of Hitler’s Mein Kampf? So France’s next generation should grow up unaware and unexposed to diverse religious, cultural and traditional expressions from around the world that ordinarily enrich societies, not pollute them?

What I would like to know is the true and honest non-politicised motive behind the ban. Is France truly implying that by banning unique and diverse religious expression it will create a more fraternised and cohesive society? Is it trying to pre-empt and restrict a possible rise of radical French Muslims, who might impose sharia upon France in the next 30 years if allowed to multiply? By forcing women to uncover their heads are they really changing their psyche and religious leanings, or is it erroneously ostracising Muslim women who might be forced to stay home?

Either out of their own personal inability and discomfort to roam in public without their veils, or sadly forbidden by husbands and fathers to appear in public without the covering, these students or professional women will be punished by the very law set in place to protect them.

Bilal Ahmed, a young banker from Multan who defies the conservative environment he lives in, is appalled at all the fuss: “Attire is something personal and I don’t judge a person by what they wear and neither should a state. And above all else, harmony in society cannot be imposed, it has to be fostered, and imposing such laws on a national level does exactly the opposite.”

More than 100 years ago France passed a law that enshrined the idea of laïcité, which means the strict separation of state from church – in other words, to have no state religion. The French state officially regards religion as a private affair. But, in an anomaly, religions new to France are not allowed access to public money to build new places of worship, as that would be against the principle of laïcité.

As far back as the 1980s and 1990s there have been incidents of female Muslim students rusticated or suspended as a result of wearing the headscarf in school. The law disallows them to ‘sport signs of religious affiliation that, due to their nature, or the conditions in which they are worn individually or collectively, or due to their ostentatious and provocative character, would constitute an act of pressure, provocation, proselytism, propaganda, or would harm the dignity or the freedom of the student or other members of the educative community, or would compromise their health or safety, or would perturb the educational activities or the education role of the teaching personnel.’

How does the wearing of a veil affect a teacher’s ability to teach, a doctor’s ability to medicate in a state hospital, a newscaster’s ability to read the news on state television? What kind of precedent are they setting if they say that it is acceptable to contort discomfort with covered women out of proportion by banning the act of head covering from state institutions? Does a scantily clad woman not pose the same problem – heightened discomfort, inability to make eye contact – or is that acceptable because it does not reek of any religious sentiment? Will they ban someone from baring themselves if the woman claims she is doing it as a form of religious expression?

They now wish to apply this law to tourists; unafraid of any economic repercussions it might have, France is pulling in the welcome mat for any burqa-observing woman from anywhere in the world. This sentiment is not surprisingly echoed by countless secular Muslim women today. Samia Shahnawaz, an ambitious professional balancing family and career in the fast lanes of Dubai, wore the headscarf of her own choice briefly in her younger years, but is strongly in favour of the ban: “This will protect the next generation of Muslims from getting marginalised - ask the younger lot; I am sure they are screaming freedom! Whenever I see women in full burqa, at international airports or destinations or swarming to Harrods in the summer, i just feel sorry for them.”

In Belgium, Daniel Bacquelaine, the Liberal MP who proposed the bill, said: "We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen. It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and enclose an individual. Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society."

And forcing women to take off something that they choose to wear, that expresses their religious sentiment and strengthens their faith and makes them feel more respectful, dignified and secure, is a clear indication of an open liberal society? Why are the habits worn by nuns not under scrutiny? Are they not forced to wear that garb by the church? Do they not deserve to be liberated from a life of strict discipline and almost inhuman conditions that writers like Karen Armstrong depict? Why is this liberation so generously bestowed upon just Muslim women? Will it also for instance be applicable in the winter months when countless women might find themselves drawn to the idea of wrapping shawls and mufflers round their heads? Will countless non-Muslim women find themselves fined or sent to jail as a result? How will they decide if the covering is religious or protective?

There is also the matter of the radical Muslim clerics who are apparently propagating the wearing of the veil and the bearded husbands and fathers who are forcing it upon their women. So instead of attempting to reabsorb these men back into the fold of a patriotic and loyal French society, the implementation of this law, which will either impose a fine or even a week long jail sentence against the offender, will further enrage and strengthen the anti-West mindset of these radicalised men and women.

Ibraheem Mirza, a secular young Muslim born and bred in Nigeria who constantly defends his moderate views to impassioned Christian and Muslim peers, is afraid this law will fuel the wrong fire. “Will actions such as these on state levels not further the extremist view that the Western world is making it impossible for Muslims to freely practice their religion, thereby justifying their call for a holy war to be waged against them? These state-endorsed bans make it difficult for moderate Muslims to defeat the extremists’ arguments, as they can almost rightfully say the sanctity of Islam is coming under threat, warranting a response as directed by the holy Quran – jihad.”

Countless journalists and media moguls in France have been fanning the fire of anti-Muslim sentiment for a few decades now. With high immigration statistics, an influx of Muslims sporting religious ‘symbols’ such as headscarves and beards, and reports of forced marriages among French Muslims, what the French president is most afraid of is the ‘Islamisation’ of France.

The controversy and laws regarding the headscarf and now the burqa are by no means unique to France. Several local authorities in Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Turkey have imposed some form of ban on the wearing of headscarves, burqas and niqabs in state-run educational and other institutions. The latest in an ever-increasing roster of cases involving the headscarf, has seen FIFA ban the inclusion of the Iranian women’s team in this year’s Youth Olympic games in Singapore. This ban is in my opinion in direct violation of the Olympic spirit which attempts to join sportsmen and women from all over the world through the love and commitment to the games they strive to excel in.

Shikha Kuhar Dahiya, an Insead graduate, cherishes living in multi-faceted London for all the varying cultures it is home to, and is affronted by France’s attitude: “If it is trying to make European Muslims integrate with the society, just changing someone's external appearance is not really a step in that direction. One needs to influence people's minds not clothes. If the ban is attempting to reduce possible terrorist activity, then again, attack the roots of the cause, educate people in the right direction, make children and young adults aware of how fundamentalists can misguide them only for their own political agendas. Give the next generation an alternative not an ultimatum.”

Where will it end? Today the burqa, tomorrow the headscarf – what’s next? Offering prayers in public, wearing modest dress, we might even see a ban of overt adherence to Islam in public places of intolerant countries. Possibly by awarding Miss USA to Rima Fakih, the Lebanese-American beauty, they are trying to tell us what kind of easy-on-the-eyes and palatable Muslim they want us to be. What kind of world are we living in where the discomfort of individuals and heightened security concerns of the state become more important than the sanctity of a human being to practise their religious faith and doctrines, whether we agree with them or not?

The situation of hijab/burqa/veil-wearing women in Pakistan sums up the world’s problem with the issue. Pakistan is one of those few countries where the wearing of the veil is widely accepted, even encouraged, and where an enormous increase in the observance of the niqab has occurred in recent years, which brings all of us who wear the hijab under scrutiny – by the public, the liberals and the so-called women rights advocates who either pity these women or want to ‘free’ them from a misguided choice they most likely have been forced to make as a result of religious brain-washing.

There is definitely a new wave of religious fervour amongst the youth, men and women, flocking en masse towards beards, niqabs and anti-Western agendas. But in the end it is those who take the middle path that suffer the most. As Daniyal Ahmed, an A-Level student from Karachi, points out: “The young women who wear the full veil might be doing so to gain their family approval or out of respect, but that is traditional to Muslim families. We cannot judge them to be too Islamic and unfit to be an active participant in modern or Western society, at schools or offices or professional sectors based on that. Islam needs to modernise, but surely this is not the way.”

The problem for Muslims is that in today’s world they find themselves repeatedly boxed in a corner, forced to choose between their religious or cultural identity and loyalty to the country they live in. Be it the US or the UK or now France and Belgium, second and third generation Muslims who have been born and bred in these countries now find themselves at a crossroads. The radicalised youth will undoubtedly be further brainwashed against their government by hatred-spreading clerics, liberal Muslims might remain apathetic or even applaud Sarkozy as the next Ataturk of Europe, while it is those who take the middle road who will suffer the most.

Which is what the world is doing now. By bringing burqa-wearing women under the spotlight, it has undoubtedly pulled the rest of the hijab-wearing yet moderate women into the media circus too. I have never before in my life been afraid of how people perceive me in all my travels around the world. But I am now afraid that the world is becoming a much smaller place for people like me, who dread to take the next flight to their favourite European destinations only to be met with discerning eyes, questioning looks and unaccepting glares. In my trousers, shirt, coat and headscarf I have been to clubs, beaches (yes, even nude ones), restaurants, luxury hotels, motor shows, dinner parties attended by heads of companies and royalty, and have never in the past met with anything but positive curiosity, respect and admiration.

Unfortunately that is all about to change, and I am saddened to think that this is the world our children will be growing up in, riddled with scepticism and state-backed intolerance, where human rights are violated by the very people who assume authority to protect them. The solution might lie in a better understanding of the matter – why women are choosing to wear the niqab, how this will impact their choice in the long run and how this will impact the moderate Muslims in European countries.

As Amean Jan, a well-travelled and renowned visual artist says: “I’m strictly looking at the subject from the point of view of an average citizen on the road and I feel a complete burqa could be seen to pose a threat to security, and because it is a complicated topic there needs to be dialogue. It needs to be dealt with great care and while Muslims should advocate security and safety for all, democratic governments should respect the concerns of its citizens, hence I sincerely believe tolerance can only be accomplished on a two-way road.”

Published on Tuesday 29th June 2010