Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.While reading the Western Standard report that Portugal had enacted a law banning face coverings in public spaces, my head began to spin, not least because this new legislation has received global media attention even though other countries like France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, and the Netherlands passed similar regulations years ago.I was also perplexed that the final version of the measure was characterized by local media as the "burqa law," a reference to the body and face covering that Muslim women in another part of the world wear in public places.There are several types of Muslim head coverings, the main ones being the hijab, which covers the hair and neck but leaves the face visible; the niqab, which covers the face except for the eyes; and the burqa, which covers the entire body and face, often with a mesh screen for visibility, a practice confined to Afghanistan.The photo below shows the controversial niqab, a form of total female body covering almost as extreme as but culturally distinct from the burka..The ruling right-wing Portuguese coalition passed the law in its parliament in July. The country’s left-wing parties opposed it, a decision I also found confusing given the left’s strong support for female bodily self-determination. That this traditional support for women’s rights was now trumped by its habitual antipathy to organized religion only enhanced my confusion..Equally puzzling is that the new legislation also prohibits forcing someone to cover their face for reasons related to gender, religion, age, or origin, a surprising nod to alleged systemic discrimination by what’s supposed to be a right-leaning government suddenly beguiled by the excesses of wokeness.None of these issues was explained by a law meant to ensure personal identity in public settings. More particularly, the interpretation of many commentators was that Portugal’s president, Antonio Jose Seguro, last week signed off on “a law pushed by the far right banning the concealment of faces in public, a measure widely seen as targeting Muslim women wearing a full-face veil.”Left-leaning human rights campaigners have long pointed out that such bans also effectively erode women’s rights by telling them what to wear, implicitly arguing that orthodox Muslim women, whether in their home countries or in the diaspora, are free to choose how they dress outside their homes.Muddying the waters even more, Seguro acknowledged that the issue was one of “great social and cultural sensitivity,” weasel words if there ever were any."For the president of the republic, the uncovered face constitutes a structuring dimension of social trust, a characteristic of Portuguese society," according to an English translation of a Portuguese-language press release..The press release went on to claim that:"Social integration, non-discrimination based on gender and the security resulting from similar decisions by the European Court of Human Rights underpin this decision. The president of the republic shares this court's conviction that the face is central to human identity and communication, serving as a minimum element for mutual recognition among fellow citizens.”“And to admit that women, and only women, must hide their entire faces implies an asymmetry incompatible with the values of parity and equal dignity between men and women, values that shape European democracies."For me, these high-sounding ideals only detract from the law’s basic public security function — the ability to determine a person’s identity in public venues, especially those where public security may be at risk — thereby making this ban on face covering even more troubling. Most worrying to me, however, was how this legislation took for granted that the doctrines of Islam prescribe a Muslim woman’s full-face veil. If true, this assumption invites claims of discrimination based on deeply held, foundational religious beliefs and practices, thereby contradicting the law’s gender-protecting basis.Because nearly all European Muslims are “people of colour,” charges of racism could easily be added to this charge..Curiously, apart from the wording of the legislation itself, accusations of sexism never seem to accompany these other claims of discrimination: orthodox Muslim women, wherever they live, have little or no personal choice about having their faces covered in public venues. Indeed, this new legislation will only serve to confine them to virtual house arrest.Also missing in a debate that should focus exclusively on a clash between public safety — the need to allow the recognition of people in public places such as airline security zones — and freedom to practice the tenets of one’s religion peacefully is whether face and/or body coverings for women are a genuine feature of traditional Islamic belief as revealed in the Muslim holy book, the Quran.Though face and body covering continues to be debated among Islamic scholars, nowhere in the Quran is there a Surah [Chapter] that obliges Muslim women to wear a hijab, let alone a niqab or burqa. This is a critical observation because the Quran is the only source of law authorized by Allah [God] (Surah [Chapter] 6:114). Moreover, the Quran warns true believers not to fall into the trap of following the words of scholars and other interpreters instead of the words of God (9:31). It also condemns those who prohibit what Allah has not prohibited (Surah 5:87, 6:140, 6:150, 7:32, 10:59, and 16:116). Likewise, it says that those who invent laws that were never authorized by God, along with those who follow such laws, shall receive a painful punishment (Surah 42:21).Given these scriptural underpinnings, the Quran offers two key guidelines for women's dress.First, revering God is the most important principle for women when they choose their dress. The righteous, reverent woman will know that God is always watching her; she will therefore dress modestly and in line with God's requirements for decency and morality. Any woman knows full well what clothes are considered decent and what clothes are revealing; she will not need to be told. This is why God set reverence as the first rule..Surely, this very open-ended guideline is why there are several different head and body coverings among Muslims.Second, God commanded women to cover their cleavage (Surah 24:31).This is a much more definite injunction, the roots of which may lie in a combination of the erotic appeal of women’s breasts and the fact that most of the converts to Islam in sub-Saharan Africa did not cover their breasts in public before they accepted this religion.The main difference between a hijab — a form of covering not proscribed by the Portuguese clothing law — and a niqab is the level of coverage: a hijab is a headscarf that covers the hair, neck, and shoulders while leaving the face completely visible, whereas a niqab is a face veil that covers the mouth and nose (see photo above), leaving only the eyes open. An extreme version of that covering is the ‘burka.’ But the burka is legally mandatory only in regions controlled by the Taliban in Afghanistan, where guidelines enforce total face and body covering for women in public..The broadly defined Arabic word 'hijab' literally means barrier or veil and includes screens, cover(ing)s, mantles, curtains, drapes, partitions, divisions, dividers, and barriers..The word 'hijab' is used in seven Quranic verses: 7:46, 17:45, 19:17, 33:53, 38:32.More particularly, Surah An-Nur (24:31) directs women not to display their beauty except what is apparent, and to “draw their head coverings over their chests.” At the same time, Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) instructs the Prophet's wives, daughters, and believing women to “bring down over themselves part of their outer garments,” so they are recognized and not harassed.Many classical and modern scholars view the face and hands as exempt from mandatory covering (awrah), arguing that the instruction to be "recognized" implies that the face must be visible.Equally important, while many Muslims and non-Muslims call the 'hijab' an Islamic dress code, they seem oblivious to the fact that the concept of 'hijab' has nothing to do with Islam, nor with the Quran.In fact, the 'hijab' is an old Jewish tradition that influenced the ‘hadith’ books. In this way, it is like many innovations that infiltrated Islam through the hadith — a recorded collection of the alleged sayings, actions, and silent approvals (tacit permissions) of the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam — released after his death.Indeed, a careful examination of the Quran would show that Muhammad borrowed liberally from Old Testament beliefs and practices.Moreover, any student of Jewish traditions would know that a head cover for Jewish women (and men) is encouraged by rabbis and religious leaders.Religious Jewish women still cover their heads most of the time, especially in synagogues, at weddings, and religious festivities. This Jewish tradition is cultural, not religious. The 'hijab' was observed by women of the civilizations that preceded the Jews and was passed down to Jewish culture.Many Christian women also cover their heads on certain religious occasions, while nuns cover their heads all the time. The tradition of covering the head was practiced thousands of years before so-called Muslim scholars claimed the 'hijab' as a Muslim dress code without bothering to ground it in Quranic texts.In fact, traditional Arabs, of all religions — Jews, Christians, and Muslims — continue to wear a 'hijab' not because of religion but because they are accustomed and expected to do so. In Saudi Arabia, for example, all men cover their heads not because of Islamic law, but because it is part of their cultural heritage.If there is so much reason to reject the religious origin and meaning of the non-face-covering hijab, could there be any more doubt about the face-covering niqab and burka, garments never mentioned in the Quran?Although this examination of the misinterpretation of Muslim dress codes weakens the freedom of religion position, at the end of the day, such bans in secular countries like Portugal need to be given more careful interrogation than they have currently received, regardless of their real or alleged public safety implications.At least, that’s what my anthropology training teaches.As for female cleavage, I’ll leave its detailed inspection for another day.Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
