No beating about the bush. This issue is quite a ‘hot’ one around me. I’m looking at it, both as an insider and an outsider. An insider, because I’m a Muslim and sisters around me are directly involved in this issue. Yes, there are also Malay-Muslim sisters who wear the niqaab, though not on every occasions. An outsider, because I don’t wear a niqaab, at least for now.

What is the significance of this issue? It is directly related to Muslims, especially Muslim ladies. It seems to be considered as a symbol that we’re going towards ‘backwardness’, a sign that Muslims are oppressive towards women, and perhaps an indication that Islam and Muslim is always preoccupied with notions of sex especially when dealing and handling women. And yes, it is also an issue of personal choice.

Honestly, sometimes it was absurd, why do people make so much fuss on the issue of niqaab. The major argument is that of personal freedom. Women’s rights’ groups and the so-called humanitarians took it upon their hands to assume that niqaabis (ladies who chose to wear the veil) are oppressed, are victims in the cruel grips of patronizing men. And the other argument is the seclusion from society. Niqaabis are seen as a group, or a ‘tribe’ of ladies, a sign of social protest and potentially subversive. As Jack Straw puts it, “covering the face makes communication difficult”. Not word-by-word quotation, though.

Theoretically, I’d learnt in depth of four ways of knowing, namely perception, language, emotions and reason. Which all, in my opinion, would innocently lead many persons to assume that niqaabis are indeed oppressed and anti-socials. And worse, assuming that Islam is indeed a horrible religion.

I can easily the things from ‘their’ point of view. ‘Their’ perception. The pictures that they perceive are ladies all-covered-up except for the eyes, which can be a very intimidating picture and representative of a very different lifestyle compared to the one that they are used to.

Linguistically, there’s a horde of terms typically associated with Islam and its presupposed ‘tyrannical’ treatment towards its women. Terms like ‘oppression’, ‘fanaticism’, ‘Taleban’, ‘fundamentalism’, and other phrasings of the media adequately sum up the situation and project a pre-determined image into the minds of the readers/listeners. Well, it may be a generalized an unjustified statement, but isn’t the influential force of the media something to be really reckoned with?

Emotionally, people are easily moved by sentiments of anger and sympathy, triggered by seemingly unjust situations. The inherent good nature of humans make them vulnerable to emotional responses when confronted with perceived injustice. Well, look at the monstrosity of it – women being forced to cover up, restricted from enjoying the things that they take as part and parcel of life, Muslim men holding control of everything and the women not having a say – yes, the imagery projected to appeal to the perceptions and hence, emotions, of the mass, with well-disposed jargon to further enforce the notion. So, we see fighters of women’s rights and humanitarians – everywhere in the world, not just in the UK where I’m currently in - screaming their heads off, appealing for the niqaabis to free themselves from ‘oppression’, without fear in a ‘democratic country’ and speaking with such passionate loathing to what they believe as a cruel inhumane treatment to otherwise-free ladies.

Finally, there’s the way of reasoning to know things. One thing about reasoning is that it may not necessarily lead us to the truth. It will lead us to logical conclusion, which may or may not be true, based on premises that relate to each other. If a lady is covered up from head to toe, only showing the eyes, she is unable to enjoy her life like other women who are less conservatively dressed. If she is unable to enjoy her life, then she is deprived of an essential right. Therefore, a veiled lady is deprived of an essential right. Another premise may sound like this. If someone appeared in a way that does not conform to societal generally-accepted mores, then she is antisocial. A niqaabi dressed in a way that is contrary to the aforementioned mores. Therefore, she is antisocial. Logical, isn’t it?

And the question remains. Would these four ways of knowing the world lead us to the truth? Aren’t there so many fallacies in them that one may be totally deviated from the truth, merely relying on them? Perception, for instance, is deceptive. One can easily make incorrect conclusions relying on them. Can anyone confirm, just by perceiving her attitude, whether a lady in spaghetti straps at a bar is a prostitute or a professional manager on a night-time fling? Can anyone actually determine whether those niqaabis are actually comfortable with themselves or are struggling with unhappiness underneath the veils? Earlier on, I had proposed the idea that life of these veiled ladies are mysterious and quite unknown to ‘outsiders’. So how can they presume that these ladies are oppressed and unhappy? My, my, perception can be misleading. Can we rely on it?

Glib tongues can easily use language to shape the minds of the people, improving or impairing the image of any objects. Why on earth do we use terms like ‘sex workers’ instead of ‘whores’, ‘single mothers’ instead of ‘widows’ or ‘illegitimate mothers’ and ‘partner’ instead of ‘spouse’ or ‘husband/wife’? To be politically correct, and to neutralize the negative notions associated with the original terms. Words are powerful image-former and image-destroyers. Read 1984 by George Orwell, including the afterword at the end. You may get a lot of new thoughts and insight, especially into the power of language and words to shape thought.

Emotionally-obtained knowledge is also fallible to errors. Humans acting guided by emotions, and learning from emotions, tend to view things from their own perspective only, making their own judgments and be ignorant of other ways of looking at the matter. Young ladies sacrificing their youth and money for men that they love, to end up stranded penniless and dishonored by the society as well as their own selves, are classical examples. And well, Muslims who react like wildfire to unjustified claims of insult to their Faith – remember the haraam sausage SMS, the Azhar Mansur baptizing people SMS, the Denmark cartoon issue – how many Muslims act reasonably, how many chose to let emotions lead the way? And while we’re at it, those who emotionally claim that veiled ladies are oppressed, how true can their arguments be? While emotion can lead people to noble actions, every so often it blinded people from the truth because people are so preoccupied with their own way of understanding things and refusing to consider others’ opinions which may be equally valid. In this case, veiled ladies who emotionally claim that it is their right, their choice, their way to assert a sense of independence and adherence to their faith, is their voice less authoritative to judge their own situation, as compared to the emotional voice of outside observers?

Finally, even reason is not chaste from misleading results. As asserted earlier, reason does not necessarily lead to the truth. In the formation of the premises themselves, one is not free from prejudice or assumption. An obvious example is the faiths, various and none, held by people of the world. Everyone has their own reason to hold to their own beliefs. And yes, people of faiths – creationists, Islamists, Catholics, name them – they also have reasons to justify their choice. Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, all of them have their reasonable arguments. If all of these arguments are logical, isn’t their inability to reach a common conclusion indicative of the fallacy of logic in reaching the truth? Everyone has their own justification of their action. Just as niqaab critics have reasons to rationalize their arguments against niqaab, niqaab proponents, especially niqaabis themselves, they also have their own reasons, which every so often they proclaim in the media. So, reason is not the ultimate means anyway to reach the truth.

I hope people are not bewildered by what I am expounding on here. I am only trying to get people to view the issue in an analytical, non-judgmental manner. A lot of self-professed fair-minded thinkers would claim that it is wrong to be judgmental, which is, to impose one’s own values on others and judge them according to our own set of worldview. Funnily enough, these very set of people tried to impose their set of values – which is against niqaab and almost all forms of hijaab – to the community of Muslims, who exclusively possess our own set of values.

Funnily enough, when the Muslim ladies themselves claim that they are not oppressed, that they feel free in their veils, outsiders maintained that they know better and tried to regulate our lives according to their presupposed ‘correct’ way of life. In what way do they justify themselves as superior, which makes them feel that they have the right to determine what is oppressive and what is not? Funnily enough, when they propounded ideas of freedom for all, they refused to allow Muslim ladies to be free in choosing what to wear and how to express themselves. They even tried to free Muslim ladies by restricting them from going to school, getting jobs and socializing. And they claim that they are doing this because they wanted to free these veiled ladies and integrate them into society. Absurd. Like a perverted vicious cycle.

As for communication, isn’t it a two-way process? I see it as quite imbalanced that niqaabis being given the ‘responsibility’ to work towards successful communication, as if the success and failure of a communication process is dependent on their relenting and giving up of their religious assertion. Looking at the issue, it may be just as well if other communicators are asked to be more open and willing to accept niqaabis without prejudice. I dare say that it is the prejudgment towards niqaabis that can more of a hindrance compared to the veils themselves. Why are we asked to be tolerant of homosexuals instead of asking homosexuals to abandon their tendencies? Why are we asked to be responsive to the needs of the disabled instead of demanding them to conform to the way of life that we are comfortable with? I am not equating niqaabis to homosexuals or the disabled, but well, I think you get the point.

Yes, niqaabis can be quite intimidating. I used to be terrified of them also, and stare at them, and cower in disgust at the way they seem to be maltreated. The niqaab, yes, if viewed in the prejudiced way, is a symbol of oppression and seclusion. But what justifies us to restrict our view to it in that manner only, when it can also be viewed in other ways? As symbol of courage, faith, freedom, and independence. Is there anything else but closed-mind prejudice that confined ‘their’ opinions to the negative side of niqaab only? Well, that question is indeed rhetorical and evident of generalization in my part, but it works for emphasis.

And Allah knows best.

meow~