Yasmine Mohammed ياسمين محمد  🦋

There’s so much more than can be explained in a tweet. Did you watch the clip above? I try to explain it. Under fundamentalist Islam a women should not be seen, heard, or smelled by any man other than her husband. Banning it actually frees women from the obligation to wear it.

I do understand. And there are - frankly - a lot of things that religions ask of their adherents I think are deeply bad for them, and are counter-productive and dangerous and limiting. And I wish they didn’t believe in them or want to engage in them.

To me it’s akin to the laws that demand medical practitioners treat children from Jehovas Witness families whether their parents consent or not. Parents are obviously happy that the law is going to ensure their children are cared for-and their religious conscious can stay clear.

Women can now say to the men in their lives-look, I have no choice! Of course I want to wear it and please Allah, but it’s against the law so oh shucks. I wish I could have said that.

I can see that and if that was the clear majority view, I might even argue for it, although I don’t know how you’d work that out. But fundamentally, women aren’t children. They are allowed to make their own decisions, however bad! They shouldn’t need the state to force them!

It’s not about the state forcing them. It’s about the state ensuring the security of all its citizens. Google the number of kidnappings, rapes, murders and even suicide bombings by ppl in niqab. It’s a godsend for criminals.

And I should add-it’s not even mainstream Islam. In fact, niqab is not allowed to be worn in prayer or hajj (2 of the 5 pillars) it’s the clothing of a far-right fundamentalist interpretation of the religion. Similar to Mormon underwear.

But doesn’t banning it on principle set up a basis for banning other stuff too? Won’t people argue that the chandor or hijab makes it too hard to identify people and that they should then be banned on principle too?