Hate Peddlers Using Burqa To Create Discord Again!
Lakmal Harischandra
There is an interesting video having a viral circulation these days of a Burqa clad Muslim woman challenging a man (reportedly a Sinhala Christian), who was videoing her in her garb at Arpico in Wattala. He was pointing accusing fingers at the woman in her Niqab stating that it is prohibited under country’s laws whereas she was seen to be telling him that it is not. When he was saying that he can only see her eyes , the woman appears to be asking him what more does he want to see in her? She also protested against videoing her which impinges on her privacy.This whole incident has polarized the debate in the social media, projected as Sinhala vs. Muslim, with one side taking up the position that the Muslim woman has in fact acted in a way against the Sinhala race whereas the Man, a Sinhala Christian has acted in defence of the Sinhala race. The social media is agog with hate posts reminding the people of the Eater Sunday attacks by ‘Muslim’ extremists( we forget the fact that those who inflicted those attacks were donned in jeans/slacks and not in burqa. The burqa ban only diverted the attention away from government’s culpability). The other side of the debate however says the women merely acted bravely in defence of her rights to wear what she likes as long as it is not in any way illegal. She says that the prohibition was taken away after a brief period in the aftermath of Easter Sunday tragedy and offers to submit herself to any inspection if there are any security fears.
I need to state that I have my own reservations about the suitability of this dress for a country like Sri Lanka. According to my limited knowledge and my inquiries from my Muslim friends, the religion of Islam too does not prescribe this form of dress compulsorily for the Muslim women.; rather it is a matter of choice. Therefore this explains the reason why majority of Muslim women do not wear this form of dress (either Burqa or Niqab). There is a scholarly debate going among Islamic theologians too on this sensitive subject. Even the Ulema Council in Sri Lanka has told the Muslims to exercise discretion in the matter of face cover in the context of security. In particular, traditionalists and reformists have their own arguments. Anyway, I am aware that Hijab is not a particular design as understood by many. But, Muslim women have the total freedom to choose the colour, design and pattern of their dress according to the changing context. The ultimate purpose is to protect the society as a whole and promote modest dressing and behaviour. It creates a barrier between the sexes and allows us to conduct our lives with modesty, dignity and respect.
Having said this, Muslim women, like any other women of other races have the constitutional right to exercise their cultural and religious identity. If a Muslim woman chose to wear her dress of preference within the confines of the law, there is no legal basis to others to challenge a Muslim woman, initiating another anti-Muslim hate campaign in the process. Whatever our likes and dislikes of a form of dress, the question revolves around the fact whether any citizen has the right to police other citizens on false pretences. It should be left to the law enforcement authorities to enforce the law. In this case, it is clear that the prohibition against face covers was removed after a brief period of prohibition last year. In the above case, the Muslim woman was, in a civilized way explaining this reality to the man and says she was acting within the law and that she is willing to go before the Police if the Man wants her to prove this fact.
Despite many misconceptions about Muslim forms of dress include Hijab as well as Burqa, my numerous discussions with Muslim sisters reveal that women who wear hijab point out many benefits to be gained from adhering to the Islamic dress code. Some describe wearing hijab as being “set free” from society’s unrealistic expectations. They are no longer thought of as sexual objects, but are desired for their intellect. They are no longer valued for their looks or body shape but for their personality and character. Women wearing hijab report that it minimises sexual harassment in the workplace. Thus this dress is not imposed upon them as popularly believed; rather those sisters have chosen. This should be respected.
It has been a public nuisance as seen in recent times that several ‘holier than thou’ characters have taken upon themselves to act as un-official Police to enforce their versions of patriotism, morality, social rules of conduct and ethics on others. Particularly the monks and Sinhala social media warriors are taking the forefront in this regard. This is a dangerous trend and will lead to the re-enactment of anti- Muslim hate episodes which took a worrying turn after the Post- Easter Sunday developments and also in the context of the present Sinhala supremacist prone government in power. In the case of this Burqa incident, it is dangerous to make it out as an affront or a challenge to the Sinhalese race as portrayed in the social media. It is not, as the Muslim woman was clearly re-iterating her rights as a citizen of this country with no malice intentions to the Sinhalese people as her dialogue in Sinhala, proved without doubt. Trying to turn this incident into a racial or religious hate incident by hate peddlers in the guise of social media warriors should be condemned and those responsible should be brought before law for having instigated racial and religious hatred.
