Alarabiya.Net recently published a news item informing us that a man who works in papers and applications processing (government liaison) has succeeded in developing a new method to deal with women’s identity card. His method hides the woman’s photograph on the card and leaves her personal details to be read, and thus no one can see the photo of a woman on the ID. He called his “invention” the sheath of bashfulness.
The man said the idea of such an “invention” came to his mind as a result of women suffering when they submit their ID cards to some departments where there is no women’s section. The “inventor” began his experiment with his sister’s ID card.
He pointed out that he launched the product after consulting the imam of a mosque and some employees in the government sector, who welcomed and supported his idea. He has already launched the product without the need for any certification or permission and has sold thirty thousand copies within a period of 10 days!
This raises a lot of questions. What is the point of having a photo on the ID card? Of course, the reply to this question was not neglected by the news. Alarabiya.Net says that an employee in charge is always satisfied with the personal details mentioned in the card without checking if the photo matches the card holder or not as long as the woman has her custodian present with her and further that the custodian’s presence is imperative to “identify” her. However the question remains: Why does the ID card exist if it does not contribute to the identification of the woman or the woman dispensing with and getting along without her sponsor or custodian just to identify herself?
Another question: Doesn’t such an act, represented by what is called Sheath of Bashfulness imply an infringement of the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior, especially when there is an official declaration that an ID card would become, within a period of few years, obligatory for all women? Are the opinions of an imam and some government employees a good reference to formulate an important issue that will have a great impact on social safety? Hasn’t the Woman’s Identity Card Regulation been enacted and promulgated to avoid fraud, such as when a woman goes to the court pretending that she is another woman just to get hold of the rights and interests of that other woman? Suppose someone brings his sister to the court pretending that she is his wife just to relinquish the wife’s interests and rights and transfer them to him? Didn’t some men, accompanied by their concubines, present themselves to the authorities as husbands and wives just by using the Familial Civil Status Booklet (which has no photos of women) presented as evidence?
We have a lot of cases and instances to prove and establish the fact that a woman must have an ID card of her own, but if we cover her photo with what is called the “sheath of bashfulness,” then who can give us a guarantee that such an ID card pertains to that certain woman herself and not to some other woman?
This sick idea only means two things: We should not have any confidence in government employees who are attracted to a woman just by seeing her photo, as the “inventor” and his peers believe. Has a civil servant no other occupation but to look and admire a woman’s photo that does not show anything but her face? And the second issue is that the government, seeing the oppression committed against women in many cases, wanted to give them their full and undeniable rights and at the same time to reduce their dependence on what they call custodians or legal sponsors. But, unfortunately, the old rotten mentality refuses this new step, and perhaps such people want to exploit any gap to gain profits on account of women. Didn’t we remember their objection to women working in the lady’s apparel shops to sell to ladies only? However, after a while it became clear to everyone that their aim was not to protect women but to protect traders who were afraid of employing women!
I have always held the view that there is no point for the existence of a custodian for women after a woman attains her legal age, and in such cases, she is the same as her brother in all aspects, except when it comes to her marriage and this is just to protect her rights in the marriage contract. I have also written on many occasions that a woman’s face is not “private part” (awrah) and should not be covered.
The question of bashfulness and decency, (from which the “bashfulness sheath’’ derives its name), differs from one community to another. All rational communities accept that a woman’s decency is in her clothes covering those parts that distinguish a male from a female. In some communities, the hair has no sexual attraction. For example, the Austrian Muslim thinker Muhammad Asad says it should not be required of Muslim women living in Western countries to have a head cover because seeing a woman’s hair does not mean anything to a man in the West. The German Muslim thinker Murad Hofman subscribes to the same opinion. Although, European countries permit Muslim women to cover their hair, the existence nowadays of the veil (or face cover) in Europe and the American continent is not in any way justified. Mohammed Al-Ghazali in his book “Woman’s Issues Between Stagnant and Imported Traditions” states that imposing a face veil on European Muslim women is equivalent to annihilating the Islamic call in those countries.
The Kingdom has ratified international human rights treaties which stipulate that there is no difference between a man and a woman, and if there is a reservation here it is only on a family level when the husband has the guardianship right because he is the one in charge of spending money on his wife and on his family requirements. Outside the familial level such differences between the two sexes should not prevail to the point that the exposure of a woman’s face is considered a kind of sinful act and awrah.
If a woman likes to cover her face, let her do so but without infringement of the law and without her naive acceptance being exploited. And this exploitation is what our above-mentioned “inventor” facilitates and his invention reminds us of the “chastity belt”, made out of iron, which European women were forced to wear during the Middle Ages to prevent them from committing adultery during their husband’s absence.
The only difference here between the two is that the “sheath of bashfulness” is a transgression of the law and an infringement of a woman’s right to be an independent individual. Therefore, let’s pose this important question here: How long should we give a free hand to anyone to misrepresent Islam and despise the Kingdom by belittlement of its laws and its commitments?
— Dr. Laila A. Al-Ahdab, MD, is a social consultant and writer.
