Christchurch, the Islamic veil ‘in solidarity’ is ‘ambiguous’
by Kamel Abderrahmani

Muslim scholar: "It calls into question the battle of Islamic women, who fight against its imposition every day". After the attacks on the two mosques, there are numerous demonstrations of solidarity by New Zealanders. Calls to Islamic prayer on radio and TV, an invocation in parliament. Some denounce: "excessive Islamophilia".


Paris (AsiaNews) - In New Zealand, the Christchurch attacks against the Islamic community were followed by an outpouring of solidarity with Muslims: gatherings, vigils, prayers, green cockades. The Islamophobia that armed the hand of the supremacist Brenton Tarrant, now contrasts with what some New Zealanders call "excessive Islamophilia". One of the most disputable initiatives was the transmission of the call to Islamic prayer on national radio and television channels; the recitation of an invocation in parliament - where only recently the authorities had canceled a Christian religious event; finally, the gesture of some New Zealand women, who decided to wear the Islamic veil as a sign of participation in the pain of the victims. The idea has raised criticism even among Muslims. Here is the reflection of Kamel Abderrahmani, a young scholar of Islamic doctrine.

One week after the terrorist attack on the two mosques in New Zealand - which caused the death of 50 Muslims - New Zealanders remembered and showed their solidarity with the Islamic community of their country. Among the signs of solidarity, New Zealanders have decided to wear the veil referred to as "Islamic".

Being in solidarity with others is actually a good sign of the possibility of coexistence. However, as a Muslim who in the past lived in the land of Islam, I could consider this act of proximity, or way of being in solidarity with the victims, ambiguous and at the same time dangerous. It has connotations that go beyond what we can imagine.

Covering yourself with the veil as a sign of solidarity with Muslim victims could have different interpretations. The gesture consigns woman to her religious condition. That is to say, the Muslim woman is reduced to the one who is veiled. This calls into question the battle of those Muslim women who fight against the veil imposed upon them by their societies every day. Women who are beaten and struck by a father, a brother, a husband or even a neighbor because they are not veiled. Women who are daily subject to religious misogyny. Furthermore, I would also like to point out that today the veil is also a sign of Islamist domination.

I would also like to highlight that the rigorous use of the veil is justified by radical Islam as a mandatory precept imposed by the Koran. However, within the Islamic community it is also considered under other interpretations as a personal choice and not as a religious obligation. From my point of view, the veil is an accessory that refers to a culture, an era that is no longer ours because in the Koran, the verse is addressed to Mohammed in his status as a prophet, or a space-time status.

In general, Muslim women are subjected to the suffering and rigidity imposed by community traditions and customs inherited from another era. Therefore, wearing the veil as a sign of solidarity with Muslims will certainly not help these women to awaken and acquire freedom from such submission. Yes, the veil is not a personal freedom, but an imposition of a predominantly Muslim society; a social code! For this reason, it is the task of Western societies to help women in their emancipation, evolution and liberation from the yoke of religious men, male-dominated societies that fully immerse themselves in a tribal, clan and sexist spirit.

ISLAM-NUOVA_ZELANDA_-_0328_-_Islamofilia.jpg