I HAVE been intrigued in recent times by the calls by some Australians for the burqa - the head-to-toe, face-covering clothing worn by a small minority of Muslim women - to be banned.
I think such calls are a threat to religious freedom and provoked by ignorance and fear rather than by logic and real concern for the rights of Muslim women.
This is certainly the case in Europe. More than 50 million Muslims now live in Europe, including Russia and Eastern Europe, with some 15 million in the countries of the European Union.
Tensions have arisen partly because of this, partly because of the religious/cultural differences and partly because in some countries, including traditionally tolerant Britain and the Netherlands, locally-born Muslims have been attracted to the Jihadi cause and become involved in murder and terrorism.
Hence an increase in fear.
Recently, France became the first nation in Europe to ban the burqa, but Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and some parts of Italy are also debating the issue. And, back home in Australia, we have seen the Rev Fred Nile and other Australians take up the cause.
Should the burqa be banned?
About the only reason I can see for doing so is security. But how often have we seen, even in Europe, the burqa being used as a cover for terrorist operations? I may be wrong, but I can't recollect any.
Locally, most of those opposing the wearing of the burqa, including the Rev Nile, follow the European mantra and claim they are taking their stand in the interests of human rights, the freedom of women to wear what they want to wear. But are they?
Only a small minority of Muslim women in Australia - even in many Muslim countries - wear the burqa. Is it not plausible that most of them do so, not because it is imposed on them by males, but because they take references in the Koran, which encourage modesty among both men and women, literally?
The Rev Nile and his unlikely bedfellows among the women's libbers are really patronising these women.
There are Christians, Pentecostalists, Revivalists and so forth who take the Bible literally, who believe in creationism. Should we stop them from holding their belief?
Of course not. Roman Catholic and Anglican nuns used to wear head-to-toe habits and have just their faces exposed for similar reasons of modesty. That is what the burqa is about.
There is still debate among Muslim scholars relating to interpretation of the Koran and the extent of covering of female bodies. Modesty is demanded of both sexes, not just women.
It is difficult. We live in a secular society but that society has evolved from traditional Christian values, that in many respects were - and, among a minority still are - not all that different to those of Muslims. But as secularism has become more widespread in Western society, norms have changed and secular (civil) law has evolved from the religious laws which once prevailed.
Will this happen with Islamic law? It may but certainly not in the short-term. However, as long as Muslims living in Australia and other Western countries accept that they owe an allegiance to their new countries as well as to their religion, there should be no conflict of loyalty.
As Muslim women mix more widely and new generations of Muslim Australians are born, there may be evolution and change in attitude. But a minority may always feel the burqa is both a religious statement and helps protect their virtue.
Is that a bad thing? Why should we force that minority to compromise their religious beliefs?
Some say the burqa is intimidating but then so is a Mohawk haircut to some and tattoos to others.
Should we ban them too? I repeat, I agree with those who have said that the only real reason to ban the burqa is security. And, in the absence of any security threat linked to the burqa or the nijab, I see no reason to do so. If we offer respect, perhaps it will be returned.
I salute such sensible & realistic thinking ..
No comments:
Post a Comment