Re: Should the Niqab be banned?
Sister! You are right. That is what I am suggesting. Actually, I am suggesting more reason that if they have uncovered face, those who would like to molest a women, would not.
Reason is that, if face is obvious (can be seen) than molester would have no excuse to molest, make comments or tease a women … on pretext that since identity is unknown and face covered, than molestation happened due to mistaken identity (molester thought … women was his wife or whatever).
Yes, I think that those who would like to tease, make juicy comments, start unsolicited conversation, touch the women or molest her, would not care if the women is Muslim or not Muslim.
Anyhow, if molestation happens and women took action and molester got caught ‘or’ molester got caught due to interference of people around the incident, then:
Molester would have excuse if face of women is covered.
‘but’
Molester would have no excuse if face of women is not covered.
For instance, a man could not say that ‘the women I was teasing, I thought she was my wife’ … because if face is not covered than people would not believe or buy that excuse and they would give that person beating or would take that person to police … but if women face is covered than the molester can easily say that … ‘I am sorry, I thought that women was my wife and I did not meant to molest or harm her knowing that she is not related to me … thus my action is due to mistaken identity’.
This argument can work, especially if the molester is caught first time … or people around him do not know that the molester has habit to molest.
I could not think of any excuse that molester can put forward if face of the women he molested is uncovered … as then molester would have no excuse of mistaken identity, neither people around the incidence would buy that molester molested without recognizing the woman (as his wife or whoever).
Here ‘recognition’ is of two type.
Type one: Women is recognized as someone molester know (his wife or whoever molester want her to be known).
Type two: Women is recognized that she has no relation with molester (she is not his wife or whoever molester would like her to be).
Both recognition, that is ‘relation with women’ or ‘no relation with women’ can only happen if women face is uncovered (she is not wearing niqab).
So … in both cases … a molester recognizes the woman … as ‘his wife or someone he knows’ … or as ‘not his wife or not known person’ … and that would stop molester from any excuse of molesting … because molester would know that he would not be able to defend himself if he would get caught molesting woman he do not know.
Well, Islam has given a concept of ‘Aurah’ for male and female (part of body that should be covered), that is all.
As for given instruction on how to dress to get recognized as Muslim, that was not given in Islam because there could be no monopoly on how to dress, by any religion or community. Since everyone can dress whatever way they like, dressing instruction would be more problematic than not.
Example: Some misguided people think that Niqab is part of Islam for Muslim women … so where that believes get entertained, unwanted elements take up Niqab to hide their identity and try to portray themselves as Muslim women … Maulana Burqa (Aziz) is one example, though Pakistan army has captured many Talibans using face covering Burqa to escape or spread terrorism.
We have to understand that Niqab has never ever got recognized as exclusive dress of Muslim women … because there is no monopoly in dressing. Actually, most prostitutes and women with bad characters in Pakistan, India, as well as middle east, wear face covering Burqa to move around, especially if they are famous or know … as such burqa hides their characterless identity that can attract unwanted people around them. Many film actresses, trying to hide their identity in public, do the same.
Unfortunately, where face covering Burqa is tolerated, many criminal elements (and terrorists) also use such Burqa to hide their identity and commit crimes (robbery, escape after robbery, petty crimes, terrorism, theft, etc) under the guise of Burqa.
I have read Modudi commentary of this surah long time ago … and I read relevant part of the next site you mentioned. Maududi commentary confirms what I wrote earlier that surah was revealed in 5 Hijri … and that was after Gazwa-e-Khandaq.
Second site tells about the ayah and gave many interpretations and understood meaning about the ayah. Well, earlier in my last post, I did write that … many later Muslims who did not wanted to leave their pre-Islamic custom of veil (face covering burqa) tried to twist the meaning … but nevertheless, meaning is obvious … that is, ‘put scarf over oneself so that one is recognized and not get molested’.
I believe that only way to stop molester molesting, is getting recognized (keep face open) so that anyone daring to molest would know that he could get into trouble and there would be no way out of that trouble.
And yea … remember that a women cannot do Hajj in Niqab. If Niqab was part of Islamic code than there was no reason a Muslim women had to abandon Niqab while performing Hajj.
I think, that in itself is clear indication and proof that Niqab is nothing to do with Islam … rather, not wearing Niqab during Hajj confirms that Allah do not want Muslim women to wear Niqab.
Allah has created and given face to human so that human can recognize each other. To hide that face in niqab mean insulting the purpose of creating face by Allah … as primary purpose of face creation by Allah is recognition (so that people recognize each other). Looks and beauty is secondary purpose of face creation.
And yea, if what I have written above, that Allah wants Muslims (mea or women) to not cover their face so that they can recognize each other, than obviously those who wear Niqab considering that as command of Allah, are disobeying Allah, for which they would be answerable.
On the other hand, if purpose of covering face is environmental need (saving face from extreme cold or heat) or something else that is nothing to do with Islam … for instance, personal like, dislike or preferences … than that is fine.