Introduction
The debate between Hebah Ahmed and Mona Eltahawy revolved around the ban of burqas and niqābs in France. The discussion began with a quote from the statement from the French government regarding this attire, which portrays burqas as a tool to control the personal lives of Muslim women (Spitzer, 2011). While Eltahawy expressed a strongly negative opinion regarding burqas and niqābs, Ahmed provided arguments that had shown another approach to this ban. This paper will examine the issue, the arguments from both sides regarding its validity and severity, and provide my view on it.
Main body
The very nature of this attire is controversial, which leads to the need to discuss how its ban must be viewed. Eltahawy reveals that while this attire is used in some Islamic countries, this religious uniform is only promoted by a minority of Islamic men (Spritzer, 2011). This clothing can be considered a way to hide women’s bodies from the public. Eltahawy, in her response to Spritzer (2011), states that “the niqāb dangerously equates piety with the disappearance of women” (1:53). However, I do not find these two terms to be linked directly, as a complete disappearance is an exaggeration. As Spritzer (2011) observes, Eltahawy has “used the single personal pronoun “I” many times” in her speech (2:13). I found some statements by Mona Eltahawy lacked a solid basis to them, as there are issues with the personal and cultural meaning of a burqa.
Ahmed, on the other hand, provides a more reasonable rationale for her right to wear a niqāb. Ahmed states that even if someone dislikes hew dress, “it doesn’t mean that we can use laws to violate people’s freedom of expression” (Spritzer, 2011, 3:15). She understandably calls for a recognition of her legal right to choose to wear this clothing, and it will be violated if such a ban will be imposed in the United States. However, I would like to note some of the issues with her statements. In her answer to Spritzer (2011), Eltahawy states that it is vital to recognize that “millions of women are forced to cover their faces” (7:57). The control of the women’s dress code by the French government indeed appears to be a violation of their rights, but only if the other side of this dress code is not taken into account.
The topic of the debate has several issues with civil and legal rights. The legality of this ban can cause problems due to the government-issued dress-code control, as has been pointed out by Ahmed. Simultaneously, burqas and niqābs are already a sign of discrimination against women’s personal lives in some the Muslim communities. I believe that there is no consensus between the two sides due to the cultural differences that make a compromise unachievable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this debate has revealed how one of the two opposite views on the issue in which both sides are correct can be more convincing than the other depending on the presentation of arguments. This ban presents the issues with the governmental control of women’s attire and the appropriateness of this clothing in modern society. However, I found Ahmed to be more convincing in her arguments, as they were based on reason and rationale, instead of being more emotionally charged, as were the statements from Eltahawy. This difference in debating styles can be a deciding factor in other critical discussions.
Reference
Spitzer, E. (2011).CNN: French niqab ban debate between Hebah Ahmed and Mona Eltahawy [Video]. Web.