Dominic Asquith

The Niqab

The debate that has erupted following Shaikh Al Azhar's comments on the niqab has reminded me of a debate that erupted in another religion 50 years ago.
 
In 1959, the Roman Catholic Pope at that time, John XXIII, took an important step in opening up the Catholic church.  His successor carried this forward in what was called the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II).  The role of those who were not clerics but "ordinary" devout worshippers had until then sometimes been described as being to pray, fast and obey.  With the changes, they became participants in the religious celebrations, rather than followers from a distance.  During the religious service, the priest faced towards them, rather than turn his back on them.  The religious service was conducted in the language they used every day and understood, rather than in Latin. Some have used a sporting term to describe the effect, which was to turn the lay worshippers from spectators into players.  

As a Catholic child at the time, one of the things I also noticed was that my mother no longer entered church with a veil on her head. My aunt, whose devotion was legendary in my family and whose rosary, given to her by the Pope, I still possess, did the same.

No one is arguing that wearing the niqab is unIslamic, just whether Islam dictates that it should be worn; whether wearing it is central to faith or is a tradition.   I'm not surprised that views are strong on either side of the debate.   Just recently in France and in Britain when leaders debated publicly wearing the niqab, our Muslim communities had mixed reactions.  Some even resented that the question was raised, imagining another attack on Islam.  I remember how difficult it was for some Catholics fifty years ago to accept the changes - to the symbols and the traditions. 

The changes brought in by Vatican II broke with long tradition.   Some Catholics embraced the changes.  Some were sceptical.  Others were shocked, thought the changes were heretical and rejected them.  In the case of the veil in church, we ended up realising that it had been a mixture of tradition and culture.  That is all now in the past.  The arguments have moved on  - well beyond the veil.  But the consequences were profound.  The effect of Vatican II was to reach out to Catholics - and I believe to non-Catholics.  The Catholic church seemed to become less severe.
 
Quite rightly, however, what never changed were our central religious beliefs.
 
Emotion has an important role in religion.  It can be a powerful force for good.  I suspect there will be some who read this who will reject any attempt to draw lessons between religions.  But there are some brief conclusions I think can be drawn.  It is not impious to suggest a reasoned debate about religious matters, which focuses on the essence of our religion, not its symbols.  Anything which increases one's ability to reach out, whether to those of our own religion or to those from other religions, must be good.  However, symbols will remain important for some because of tradition and culture.  It will take time for them to come to terms with the changes.  Change is always difficult.  But above all, once again, the debate must be reasoned  as the Qu'ran so repeatedly encourages.

Posted at 13:22 16 October 2009 by Dominic Asquith  |  Comments[6]