69 million page views

face veils are not Islamic, should be banned in public

Reader comment on item: Burqas and Niqabs in the Classroom?

Submitted by A. Whealey (United States), Dec 12, 2005 at 22:09

Face-veils should be banned in public spaces in Western countries. Covering the face is used to obscure the identiy of the perpetrators and victims of all sorts of crimes. Public safety is far more important than humoring those who erroneously assume that a face-veil is "Islamic."

Face-veils are a pagan Arab custom, not an Islamic one. The Christian writer Tertullian in his treatise "On the veiling of virgins" observed that veiling the face, not just the head, was a common practice among pagan Arab women of his own day, around 200 AD, four hundred years before Islam even existed. The compilers of the Talmud, also writing before Islam, likewise observed that Arab women often veiled their faces (Shab 6:6).

The sixth century Syriac writer Simeon Beth Arsham also assumed that veiling the face was standard practice among the women of Najran, Arabia, as his letter about the martyrs of Najran makes clear. (Versions of Simeon's letter can be found in the chronicle of Zuqnin and the chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene). As with so many other allegedly "Islamic" practices, some Muslim "scholars" erroneously assume that the pagan Arab practice of covering a woman's face is Islamic because they do not serious study any pre-Islamic evidence (in this case Tertullian, the Talmud, and Syriac Christian writers).
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (13) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
face veils are not Islamic, should be banned in public [214 words]A. WhealeyDec 12, 2005 22:0929843
face veils are for modesty and protection. [197 words]maryam kim martinJan 19, 2006 02:5929843
Are you Muslim? [103 words]AliayahJun 6, 2006 10:3229843
america the free [85 words]ummzazaAug 8, 2006 15:0529843
Niqab and Islamic Indentity [49 words]ZahraSep 10, 2006 10:5029843
Niqab [477 words]Against NiqabOct 4, 2006 11:4429843
Face Veils are Intrinsically Dehumanizing [148 words]Paul NewcombeNov 1, 2007 05:2929843
Why do you care? [203 words]SammyNov 14, 2007 22:5129843
2Militant Islam Forces Me To Care [1097 words]Paul NewcombeNov 16, 2007 04:0629843
why not [20 words]danNov 19, 2007 10:2429843
1Against nikab?? [258 words]Aeishah Griffiths-WilliamsonApr 1, 2008 14:4029843
hey who are you please [18 words]osmanJan 26, 2010 15:2429843
Garments meant to hide [68 words]Ed BrophyDec 9, 2005 16:5029714

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to face veils are not Islamic, should be banned in public by A. Whealey

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)