Egyptian Court Rules on Niqab Ban

Today a committee in the High Administrative Court of Egypt upheld a 2001 court ruling to prohibit the American University of Cairo (AUC) from enforcing a complete ban of the niqab on campus. The niqab is a veil worn by a woman that only shows the woman's eyes; as opposed to the hijab which only covers a woman's hair but leaves her face completely visible. Both are garments designed to promote modesty in Islamic women while they are in public. Female Muslims generally begin wearing veils after they reach puberty; although there are varying opinions in the umma - Muslim community - as to the type of veil to be worn by a female Muslim, and even if veils are required by the Shari'a at all.

I first came across the article on the BBC News website entitled "Cairo campus veil ban struck down." After reading it I googled the subject to see if there were any other articles on the subject. The way in which the media outlet portrayed the ruling differed from site to site. Al-Jazeera (English edition) titled their article "Egyptian Court Permits Face-Veil Use"; whereas CBSNews went with the verbose title of "Egyptian Court: University Can't Ban Veils, American University Of Cairo Says Ban Protects 'Personal Safety And Security'". The American source goes immediately for the safety and security concerns AUC used as justification for the ban in an effort, I can only presume, to keep American fears of Muslims and the Middle East alive. Al-Jazeera went with the simple and postive title, choosing to focus on the right to wear the veil. The BBC went with the more negative title, focusing on the court's decision to strike down the ban.

The differences in the articles didn't end with the portrayal of the court's decision. The BBC and Al-Jazeera articles name the claimant as Iman al-Zainy, a former doctoral student at the Islamic Al-Azhar University. CBSNews names the plaintiff as Heba el-Zeini.

Regardless of the differences the articles all discuss that AUC banned the niqab in an effort to promote personal saftey on campus. As the Al-Jazeera article - the only article to mention the campus' current security measures - states students are currently required to pass through a metal detector and show IDs before entering the campus. This is true. We were required to pass through a metal detector, show IDs and they searched our bags every time we entered one of the entrances to the campus; it was the same on the Greek campus as it was on the main campus. Despite the modern security measures, the guards - all male for the entire 7 weeks I was there - paid much less attention to the female's bag and ID as they did the female student. Perhaps it was because I was with American/Western females, but even when female students walked in who where of Middle Eastern ethnicity, the guards smiled more than they searched.

While on the campuses I didn't see any students in the niqab, obviously because this case was still being argued. I did see female students wearing hijabs. I would say the split was about 50/50 on covered and non-covered female students. They same percentage could be said for the young Egyptian women that frequented the restaurants and clubs we visited during our stay. The use of the niqab was even less frequent and was - in my experience - only worn by older women. You may wonder why I think they were older if I could only see their eyes, fair question. I could see wrinkles; moreover, body posture and sometimes hands were indicators as well.

A commentary on the case from December (found here) pointed out that AUC also wanted to ban the niqab to ensure student integrity during exams. A point I hadn't considered but a fair point. Given the pace the guards move students through the gates - it's not wise to keep American, Western, or liberal educated youths lined up near extremely busy and dangerous (traffic laws don't apply unless a guard with a gun is present) streets, especially if you are concerned of attacks from hardline Islamist groups - I doubt the niqab is dispostive on tricking the guards. Just like a bar in the United States, a favorable look-a-like will get the job done.

The Islam Online commentary also mentions the fact that universities rarely enforce the ban. It's probably not coincidence that this case started in 2001. AUC security was quite responsive to world events while we were there, and I don't imagine that year was any different.

Chapter 1, Art 2 of the Egyptian Constitution states "Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)." Notice that the provision states "the principal source..." not "a principal source"; the Constitution was actually changed to the former to reflect a more pro-Islamic stance. This change means that Shari'a has a greater influence in Egyptian law, leaving the ban on veils to be a peculiar ban. Yet Art. 3 states, "Sovereignty is for the people alone who will practise and protect this sovereignty and safeguard national unity in the manner specified by the Constitution". Unlike their Muslim brothers and sisters in Iran, Egyptians place their sovereignty in the people, not the ulema - Islamic law scholars/imams. Of course the power is really lies with the Hoss, but at least on paper it's a socialist democratic state.

Article 40: "All citizens are equal before the law. They have equal public rights and duties without discrimination due to sex, ethnic origin, language, religion or creed."

Article 41: "Individual freedom is a natural right not subject to violation except in cases of flagrante delicto. No person may be arrested, inspected, detained or have his freedom restricted in any way or be prevented from free movement except by an order necessitated by investigations and the preservation of public security."

Article 42: "Any citizen arrested, detained or whose freedom is restricted shall be treated in a manner concomitant with the preservation of his dignity. No physical or moral harm is to be inflicted upon him. He may not be detained or imprisoned except in places defined by laws organizing prisons..."(emphasis added)

The reason I mention articles 40 and 41 is that they are the justification offered by the plaintiff for filing her complaint. 42 was mentioned purely because of the choice of pronoun.

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)quotes the committee as saying

The report recommends that the ban on the niqab be revoked on constitutional grounds. Specifically, Article 41 of the Constitution, according to the report, "prohibits discrimination against citizens on a number of grounds including religion or belief; a Muslim woman's niqab is linked to her religious beliefs." The report likewise invoked Article 41 of the Constitution "which holds personal freedom as a natural, sacrosanct and inviolable right; a woman's dress, which protects and covers her body, is a pillar of personal freedom, as dress is intimately linked to a person's body… and falls under the rubric of bodily freedom."

Actually, Article 41 states exactly when individual freedom can be violated, including public safety. Which is why AUC framed their argument in terms of public safety, even though my experiences tell me that AUC security is only a moderate concern to the actual guards.

In the end, I think wearing of the niqab is a personal choice. So long as AUC staff - female staff if requested - makes sure that jihadi terrorists don't start hiding underneath the veil, the female students should have the right to wear whatever they want so long as it's not threatening the safety of those around them. If you are to believe some Islamic scholars the women who choose to adorn the niqab are protecting the public from the noxious and uncontrollable male libido; a charitable action that should be allowed to continue if the veil-wearer freely chooses to take part in the tradition.