Even if you were right about that argument, Old Pickler, how would it be bothering you if a woman was being “inconsistent” in that way?

“Well, a woman in a niqab does draw attention to herself, so how can that be modest?”

Even a hijab or long clothes might draw attention to her. But if she’s wearing a niqab, then even if people look at her, they can’t see anything.

I’m sorry to hear that you are blind. I have a blind friend who is also a Muslim. She says that she feels at a disadvantage not being able to see people’s expression. She wears a headscarf but not the niqab, which makes sense.

Actually, for me this isn’t about oppression or terrorism - it’s about the inconsistency. If women - and men, though as has been pointed out, you never hear about men - must dress modestly, then surely that means not drawing attention to yourself. Well, a woman in a niqab does draw attention to herself, so how can that be modest?

(As for myself, I was a mid-30s, feminist, liberal, career-woman type when I came to Kuwait on a computer contract with all the same kinds of stereotypes that you have. Gradually, I realized that those stereotypes were all wrong - especially the ones about Muslim women - and became curious about Islam. I do choose to live in a Muslim country, which I do find more comfortable.)

Anyway, I don’t know if it’s worth the effort to address each of your tired stereotypes, but…

I do understand that the niqab is strange for a lot of people, and that it might make them uncomfortable. It’s not a bad thing that there’s a discussion about it, and that women who wear it are allowed to speak for themselves. But I suspect that no matter what we say, you “know” that it’s a sign of oppression, and you’re not going to let the reality change your opinions.

It’s too bad you can’t be with me when I’m sitting with so many intelligent, educated, confident, wonderful women who wear niqab. It’s too bad you have such contempt for them.

Its deeply offensive to me to see people degraded or oppressed, too. And it’s clearly prohibited in Islam.

It’s deeply offensive to me, and prohibited in Islam, to sell off daughters in marriage to strangers (although it might happen in some cultures, including non-Muslim ones). Beating one’s wife and murder are also called “assault” and “murder” where I live, and they are not acceptable. (And are you going to tell us that there’s no domestic violence in the UK among non-Muslims? Among native-born Britons? )

Polygamy is allowed; it’s not the norm. This means that if a man wants to have a relationship with another woman, he has to legalize it and give her and their children their rights. I know that the UK has very high rates of children born outside of marriage, but Islam (and Christianity, of course) tells us that sexual relationships are allowed inside marriage only. You’re not going to tell us that men in the UK don’t have mistresses, are you? Those mistresses have no rights, and some of them become bitter and cause a lot of problems, as we know from all the scandals with politicians. (I assume you’re not French, but I might just point out that in France, it is the norm - at least for politicians - to have all kinds of extramarital affairs. It’s expected and accepted. In the case of their president Miterrand, he had a long-term relationship and a daughter with another woman, and she and his wife both stood at the casket at his funeral. What is that if not polygamy?)

“what if it was the custom for… men to wear clothing that exposed the testicles, that women’s clothing bare the breasts? Would we not all find this appalling?”

Well I would find it appalling. But it’s considered acceptable in much of Europe for women to go topless at the beach, and the Dutch government is forcing prospective immigrants to see a film which shows a topless woman walking out of the water, among other things. It’s used an example of the “Dutch values” that immigrants are required to accept.

“If you were forced to see it on the streets or in public transportation or to know your children were exposed to it in schoolrooms from their teachers, would you not, finally, no matter how much you wish to be sympathetic and tolerant, say something?”

Do you live in the UK? Have you missed all the billboards and ads which have nearly naked women on them? Don’t they still have the “Page 3 girl” or whatever she’s called, in the newspaper? Don’t they still use half-naked women to sell everything from beer to cars? Aren’t children exposed to this all the time?

You equate the niqab (and maybe the hijab, too?) with degradation and oppression? But on what basis? I was pleasantly surprised that I felt very liberated when I started wearing Islamic dress, which is comfortable and modest.

“If people are going to emigrate to free societies, they must understand that they are guests and conduct themselves accordingly, at least in shared public life.”

So in other words, if someone wants to come to your “free” country, they have to understand that they can’t be free there?

But what about the women who aren’t immigrants - who are citizens and have as much right as you to be there? And why do you assume that a woman’s wearing of niqab equates to contempt for you?

And how did Jack Straw get elevated to such a position that if someone disagrees with him, she should have to leave the country?

It is deeply offensive to the most fundamental feeling of people in free societies to see other people openly oppressed. Though we know it happens in various ways to many people in many places, including our own, when that happens it saddens us. To see degradation of another human being worn publicly and held up as a virtue of some sort is simply sickening to us.

It may be a cultural norm elsewhere to mutilate the genitals of little girls, and considered a virtue; that is not the case here. The custom must be observed elsewhere, not in this society. It may be a cultural virtue to sell off daughters in marriage to strangers, but that is not the case here, and it becomes something that people must do in private -not on the street. It may be a cultural norm for men to have four wives but women to have a single husband - but polygamy is unlawful here, and disgusting to the majority of citizens. People may freely engage in this sort of arrangement elsewhere. It may be perfectly acceptable to beat one’s wife (wives) or kill one’s daughters (“Honor” killing, I believe the term is) but here these things are crimes - assault and murder. They may not be practised, accepted and applauded here.

Imagine if you will some reversal of experience regarding the scarving of females: what if it was the custom for men to wear clothing that exposed the testicles, that women’s clothing bare the breasts? Would we not all find this appalling? If you were forced to see it on the streets or in public transportation or to know your children were exposed to it in schoolrooms from their teachers, would you not, finally, no matter how much you wish to be sympathetic and tolerant, say something?

The degradation of women is an obscenity to us. To deliberately throw it in the faces of one’s neighbors does more than separate - it’s offensive. If you are in our countries, you are free to act as you wish in your homes - something that is not the case, I believe, in many of the countries that promote the subjugation of women as a virtue. If people are going to emigrate to free societies, they must understand that they are guests and conduct themselves accordingly, at least in shared public life. Or, live elsewhere. I cannot help but wonder what it is that attracts immigrants to places for which they have such contempt. Please, be happy, perhaps somewhere else.

Jack Straw finally said something. It’s worth listening to. If it is unacceptable, perhaps it would be better, and you would be happier, occupying some country whose customs towards females are more in keeping with your comfort zone.

Brother, I refer to your comment: “When I first came to Islam, I was in contact with a group of brothers in Croydon who followed Shaikh Asif Hussain Farooqui, and he insisted that all the brothers wear the shalwar-kameez or other sunnah dress with a turban, and their wives often wore niqab even though the shaikh himself did not regard this as compulsory. This is not what we find in many universities in the UK, however; we often find brothers in western clothes, while the sisters wear long dresses and hijab, and often niqab as well.”

On what basis do you say that the Shaykh does not view the niqaab to be compulsory?

I would appreciate if you did not post the comment and just replied via email.

JazakAllahu khairan.

Wassalaamu ‘alaikum