The face-veiled DAP member and all that

Muslim women’s clothing has been a source of debate among ordinary Muslims and scholars, and like the Sunni-Shiite conflict, it never ends.

It is a popular topic among our male Muslim scholars as it provides an opportunity to caress every part of the female body with their scholarly words, and with quotes blamed on the Prophet, all on the pretext of imparting knowledge.

It is a subject discussed with full zest and excitement, and the audience will usually be in stitches, the same way they are whenever these “inheritors of the Prophet” talk about the Islamic dos and don’ts in sexual intercourse, a subject which is probably as mythical as post-marital sexual bliss.

At one end of the spectrum of this intra-Muslim debate on women’s clothing are those who say it is compulsory for a Muslim woman to cover all of her body and face (the niqab), leaving only the eyes shown. At the other end are those who say there are no such instructions whether divine or prophetic on how a Muslim woman should be dressed, other than modestly.

Somewhere in the middle are those who say it suffices that a woman cover her hair (hijab), leaving “whatever appears thereof” as the Quran has described, and that it is up to her to wear the face-veil.

On the periphery of this debate is a set of people which usually includes the ultra-liberals, who argue that it is the right of the woman to wear whatever she wants.

Ironically, this line of argument has gained followers among many pro-niqab Muslim scholars in the West in facing the onslaught of secular fanaticism while at the same time struggling to become loyal citizens. The irony, of course, is that they would recognise the personal freedom for a woman to go around in public like a walking tent with a small vent through which to breathe (and I suspect, to ogle hot hunks like me), but would not do the same for a woman whose investment of drapery would not exceed 20 grammes. It is like some Muslim leaders who cry for secular values when it comes to minority rights in countries such as India and in Europe, yet would be the first to condemn secularism as evil when they visit Muslim lands.

But why am I talking about the Muslim woman’s clothing, as if we were still in the glory days of Muslim civilisation, where one could indulge in such pious topics of religious vanities?

It’s because of the niqab-clad person who recently joined DAP, who, as her name suggests, is a woman.

I say “as her name suggests” because the person is fully covered from top to bottom, her feminine shape hidden with only her eyes shown to salivating mortal men around her. There is no way to prove what she claims to be, a young Malay-Muslim woman, as reports suggest. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall accept this at face value.

It is possible that this DAP niqabi will create a storm just like that Mara graduate who should have gratefully joined Perkasa instead of going around with a bunch of veteran Chinamen.

How would DAP leaders react in the face of such a storm? There will be questions as to whether the party, in its quest to shed its anti-Islam image, real or perceived, would now say it is all right for people to go around in niqab.

The same questions will then be asked: will a niqabi be allowed to drive? If so, how would a traffic policeman confirm her identity if she is stopped for a traffic offence? Looks like there are no two ways about it. Either you let a woman drive, or you ban them from wearing the niqab. Now there, the Saudi high priests could be making sense after all.

There is a chance that DAP leaders will come up with the “liberal” argument, that it is up to a woman to dress how she likes, and that her acceptance as a DAP member is her right.

Granted that DAP has the right to accept anybody it wants as members. One does not bother if it accepts even Ibrahim Ali, a man whose honesty deserves praise, into its folds. It is, after all, a political party, and it survives with the support of everybody, especially those registered to vote.

But here’s my fear as a Muslim: will it reinforce the silly perception that Muslims and non-Muslims have about Islam? Will the niqabi be paraded as a sign of DAP’s transformation, to show that a “staunch Muslim” will also accept the party’s ideology?

Worse, in its hurry to transform to become a Malay-Muslim-friendly party, will we one day also see the face of a niqabi next to the DAP symbol on the ballot paper? (Ah, who am I kidding? Of course we won’t see the face of a niqabi.)

The niqab, as much as it is claimed by a minority of Muslim scholars as a symbol of piety and modesty, is actually a great disservice to Islam. It is a form of negative da’wah, a legacy left on the courtyards of the proverbial sexually charged dwellings of caliphs of old, not unlike A Thousand and One Nights. It is just as bulky as some of the official royal names adopted today, which are also a legacy of medieval sultanates during their last days of royal debauchery.

The niqab hides a woman’s identity in her interaction with society. There is no way face-to-face communication can effectively take place without the whole facial expression being shown to the other. The niqab does exactly that: it dehumanises not only the person behind it but also human interaction. It reduces a person to a feminine voice behind the veil.

In fact, the niqab has nothing to do with Islam, whether in the Quran or the Hadith, just as it has nothing to do with human rights. It is as ridiculous as those who say they have the right to go around naked in public because it is their freedom and their bodies.

Forget about justifying through Islamic texts, what about good old practicality? True, there are some things which we mortals do not know, like how God came into existence (a question which my daughter asked me recently... what a silly girl!). But with certain things, we have to call a spade a spade. The niqab is one such thing. There is no justification for its acceptance, no matter how hard one tries to reconcile it with modern life.

The niqab has been a source of controversy in Western countries, but in recent years, it has been slowly accepted on our shores as more rich people adapt the so-called Islamic way of life in their attempt to please God, and more importantly, to redeem their sins of indulging in luxury and materialism. (How God can be pleased by hiding oneself behind a veil is something we can debate later.)

The fact that more Muslim women are donning the niqab is a reflection of the “millionaire Islam” increasingly being adopted by middle-class Muslims in Malaysia’s urban neighbourhoods.

Such an act to seek divine pleasure, however, is not within the reach of the poor Muslim woman, as she has to work as a receptionist or a nurse, or sell vegetables at the market to help her husband make ends meet.

Not so the rich. They can go around in their ninja suits under the guise of Islamic piety, driving their built-for-life Swedish marquees to pick up their kids from the private English-Arabic-medium Islamic schools, which charge an annual fee that equals 20 months’ income of the face-baring woman.

This, then, is the context in which DAP should respond in the event of another storm sparked by its newest faceless member. While it has done the right thing to accept a niqabi into its folds, it will be a huge mistake if party leaders attempt to parade her to attract Muslim votes, thinking that it has embraced Islamic culture, when in fact it is a form of misplaced piety which refuses to face the hard realities of everyday, ordinary human life.

Indeed, this faceless attire is never the face of Malaysian Islam. – October 4, 2014.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.