Headscarf, yes, up to the extent of a nun's Habit.
Full-face-cover with eye-slit, No.
Body-cover-tent, No.
Because it is a 'health & safety' issue!
Individual's health (rickets, sweaty-dehydration & BO)
and public safety issue of 'concealing identity'.
*
'Culture & voluntary choice' do not exist in Islam, particularly for their women,
who are treated as dry-shagh oles for inb reeding.
*
The issue of full-face-covering under religious pretext has several facets:
1. By any stretch of imagination, the veil originates from the barbaric past custom of ‘protecting’ sexually mature women from risk of rape or or sexual molestation, i.e. a face-veil is an 'anti-rape device'.
2. In primitive, pre-barbaric Mohammedan cultures, where stranger men’s intent is looked with suspicion and assumed to be towards sexual abuse or molestation of women of sexual maturity at the first opportunity; a face veil may serve exactly such purpose of an ‘anti-rape device’, coupled with the stranger/guest’s assurance of ‘salaam-alikum’: “peace to you, i.e., I mean no harm to you, your women, sheep & camels, etc.”
3. That such a veiled is a sign of bondage or submission and like ‘cooped hens’, such veiled woman is a particular man’s possession, or property for his private enjoyment, is a logical conclusion reached quite easily.
4. Women living in the modern post-barbaric societies insisting on wearing veil either by choice, right or ‘as a religious identity’ could not be true or honest, because (a) the same women would not be able to exercise such choice in the opposite direction: of not wearing a veil in the primitive, pre-barbaric Mohammedan society; and (b) ‘one’s face may be one’s identity’, but covering it can not be. These purportedly liberated women also have a right, or ‘choice’ to stay indoors of their husband’s, father’s, brother’s or owner’s home[s] or ‘coops’.
5. The opposite of a ‘face-covering veil with a slit for the veiled person to peep at the outside world’ is wearing dark glasses or ‘shades’, which allows the wearer the privacy of the direction of his/her gaze or stare, but covering just the eyes in such way is quite acceptable, even fashionable or ‘cool’ and not seen as objectionable, unsociable or a sign of bondage.
6. The most insulting and the least recognised aspect of face veil is the automatic branding of the gentlemen from ‘the unveiled masses with uncovered faces’ as “potential rapists or women-molesters” who they are certainly not.
7. In the ‘post 9-11’ or ‘post-7-7’ modern societies, concealing one’s face under whatever pretext raises the issue of security, health-and-safety of the ‘masses with uncovered faces’.
8. The only excuse for wearing a face-veil could be ‘to conceal ugliness’, which again may be seen as discriminatory against the disability of ugliness…
Veil covering ought to be unwelcome on the streets of modern society. If it has to be banned by legislation, it would be by necessity and much greater pity. [Simon A Smith] [423]
In Biblical times, full-face veil was the custom of prostitutes [Bible, Genesis: 38:15], or at least an apparatus for adultery:
"When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face."
Comments
Well said. +6
by Theby on December 22nd, 2008
Headscarf, yes.
Face-cover, No.
Body-cover-tent, No.
Because it is a 'concealing identity'
health and safety issue.
by ScienceSwamy on October 25th, 2009
Visored bike helmet?
by Theby on October 28th, 2009