 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 July - 4 August 1999 Issue No. 440 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 July - 4 August 1999 Issue No. 440
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters Veiled insinuations
By Mariz TadrosInfringement on personal freedom or sound educational policy? The ban on wearing the niqab, or full face-veil, in schools has stirred intense controversy and a lengthy legal battle ever since it was issued by Minister of Education Hussein Kamel Bahaaeddin in 1994. The legal wrangle came to an end this week when the upper bench of the State Council, the highest administrative court, rejected a lower tribunal's decision to revoke the ban on the niqab. "The minister's decision defining the characteristics of the school uniform is one of his prerogatives as the arbiter of the organisation of the education system," the court was quoted as saying in its ruling. The court also said the decision does not contradict the principle of freedom of religion as enshrined in the constitution, and does not prevent schoolgirls from wearing a scarf covering the hair and neck.
The court also rejected a lawsuit filed against the minister by the father of a schoolgirl who was suspended for refusing to remove the niqab. Dozens of schoolgirls have been suspended since the ban was issued, but in most cases the courts have overruled the schools' decision.
Veiling that shows the face is allowed in school, but pupils are required to bring a written request by their parents for permission to wear the veil.
The minister's ban on the niqab has been interpreted by many Islamists as an indication of his hostility to Islamic fundamentalism. Bahaaeddin has been outspoken in his opposition to Islamism, at conferences and in statements published by the media. In 1992, he dismissed the headmistress of a preparatory school who imposed veiling on all female pupils, and was vehemently attacked by Islamists. In 1995, he transferred to administrative posts 160 teachers whom he accused of being fundamentalists and of spreading extremist thinking. Many more were to follow.
Montasser El-Zayyat, an Islamist lawyer, denounced the court's stand and asserted that it violates personal freedom and human rights. The issue, he insisted, is not one of whether wearing the niqab is required by the Shari'a or not, but of freedom. "I personally think that the niqab is required. I cannot say that it is a religious duty, but it is preferable. My wife wears the niqab. I have filed many lawsuits on behalf of girls and women who were suspended from schools, universities and the workplace because they wear the niqab. I won 25 of these suits and I have five to go."
The oft-cited argument that the niqab can pose problems in identification bears no weight, according to El-Zayyat, because a female officer can be employed to carry out the necessary measures. "It is on this basis that the court ruled in our favour in previous trials," he said.
The minister's attempt at banning the niqab, insisted El-Zayyat, is void because any attempt to criminalise a practice that reflects people's beliefs and convictions will fail. "The government is trying to fight the Islamist wave in this country, and it will fail. Take female circumcision, for example. I just circumcised my two daughters last month. What is the minister of health going to do about it? Will he sue me because in Islam female circumcision is regarded favourably?" El-Zayyat contended that efforts at banning niqab and female circumcision are part and parcel of the same package: the enforcement of the agenda of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which seeks to obliterate the Islamist wave in the Middle East -- a task that has been facilitated by globalisation, in his view.
photo: Mohamed Wassim
Safynaz Kazem, a prominent Islamist writer and activist, does not believe that the court's stand contradicts the Shari'a. She asserts that the legitimate and required proper Islamic dress is a form of veiling that reveals only the face and palms. She is not enthusiastic in her support of the face-veil, because, she argues, it can be abused by "individuals who wish to undermine the image of Islam and Muslims by disguising themselves".
She is convinced, furthermore, that the niqab poses organisational problems in schools, and argues that even women who go on the pilgrimage are prohibited from wearing the niqab, "because men could pretend to be women and commit all sorts of vices".
She recalled, however, that the minister previously prevented girls who wear the head-scarf from attending school, and described this ban not only as a violation of human rights but, more importantly, as a violation of the Shari'a, which requires women to veil. She also accuses the minister of committing a "great crime" by transferring thousands of teachers accused of propagating Islamist thought. Kazem believes that just as the minister attacks Islamic garb for failing to conform to school uniform requirements, he should also make sure that "girls who go to school in miniskirts, tight skirts, make-up and jewellery" should be punished for the same reason.
Feminist thinker and writer Nawal El-Saadawi, on the other hand, argued that the minister did not go far enough, and should have banned all forms of veiling. "Wearing the niqab is against a woman's humanity because it hides the face, thus hiding her personality," she asserted. "You become a faceless being. How can you speak to a person without a face?" El-Saadawi, however, believes that the government's stand on these issues has been ambiguous and contradictory. "On the one hand, the minister is standing strong against fanatic religiosity, but on the other, he allows the hijab. Rather than compromising with the fundamentalists, he should stick to a principle, because otherwise he is compromising his legitimacy," she asserted.
El-Saadawi believes that all forms of veiling should be banned as forms of discrimination that differentiate between girls and boys on the basis of their sex. She also insists that veiling should not be associated with a girl's chastity or morals.
Suzanne Fayyad, a human rights activist, believes that school administrators are entitled to know who is going in and out. She considers that the court's decision is positive because young girls are sometimes coerced into wearing the niqab if they want to go to school. "Even if there is no coercion, there is a strong inclination among parents to persuade the girls that this is the only right thing to do," Fayyad argued. Still, she feels the court's ruling fails to deal with the roots of the problem, and addresses only its manifestations.
"Wearing the niqab imposes certain limitations. There are, of course, the physical constraints of having your face and hands covered, but there is also psychological repression because you cannot move and talk freely and naturally. It also has to do with a woman's image of herself, because she becomes very conscious that her body is a source of continuous temptation for men."
Fayyad also believes the niqab has a negative impact on women's rights because it inhibits full participation in society by imposing a variety of limitations on their behaviour.
