reasons the niqab does NOT cover enough

 reasons the niqab does NOT cover enough

for outsiders i must specify: this is an academic analysis, and despite the differences from western culture, seem absurd , it is not to mock, but simply academic. sadly it is necessary due to a VERY problematic tradition that was not famous enough, only an obscure website published it for me to see in passing , when reading about something else.
BURKA
what is a burka
within the culture it is known but outsiders often think of both burka and niqab, when they hear either niqab or burka, but they are different.
despite both are like long tents that hide the shape of women's body, still they differ.
the garment named Burka covers the whole face, even both eyes, so they see out through a tight net "mesh window" but hides even the eyes. a hint to distinguish names is the letter b of burqa is same as letter b in word both, to help remember it covered both eyes.
some leaders teach this is obligation however that does not accurately represent the traditional interpretation in books. it is a new custom outside of islam.
if the tradition in books would be famous and applied then a lady should have options albeit limited, to choose from, as i will show.
tradition specified cover one eye so covering both with burqa is not truly obligation despite often taught as obligation.
NIQAB
what is a niqab?
The garment named niqab covers her face but not her eyes. Some muslim experts have said "niqab is more accurate," because a veil that covers hair, in quran section also covered neck therefore logicly must hang over face. so this interpretation of quran , the obligation is in quran not only sharia, has been taught , must cover face as obligation. however, for her to see,  an exception was made to "cover one eye" so she can see. since revealing one eye sufficed for this necessity, therefore a niqab revealing both eyes is not sufficient it doesn't not cover enough because, it does NOT cover the entire face, and tradition specified one eye.
this would be relevant indoors, if a visitor came for example "Muslim women do not cover their hair at home with their own children, a son can see his mother's neck and hair". in other words, a hijab and niqab is not worn at home, unless a man visited.
for this reason men outside family, even friends who meet away from home, if men, he is not invited. in the instance when a visitor outside family, is invited, for them cover hair. for example a child reported, ("son of hamas" book) that when cops came to arrest his father,  his ma went to cover her head hair, this story preserved the custom that for outsiders cover hair and that in home she had shown her hair, not as sinners but despite very religious still with family not veiled when with children, unless someone outside their family visits. in that instance they were not invited nor expected.
in contrast to the extremist orthodox jews a women must cover her hair at least with a wig or a large cap, even indoors, the result of that traditional law, prevented even husband cannot see it except a bit of time when alone in their room.
in theory a law targeting either religion for oppression such as an anti-religious decree would outlaw religious garments in the same way as someone without a gun license can't have a gun even in home.
the home would be searched for weapons and equaly if targeting the religious garb for persecution. similarly taliban in Afghanistan had beard police, as police they were authorised to raid homes and check if husband obeyed the beard tradition to grow a beard. those who shaved would be punished by beard police, until the taliban lost control. then the story became known to westerners and the beard became optional some chose to grow, but others chose to waste time shaving, but that is not the topic here. it just demonstrates that something forbidden is forbidden even at home. the beard police idea of taliban was undoubtedly persecution by preventing choice in the home. similarly if a law would target the religious it would forbid even in the home, where a woman's hair showed, until the police came for persecution, which they cannot keep out in contrast to not inviting outsider men as above.
then she would cover her hair as above, in hijab which does not hang over face or niqab or burqa, then a law targeting religion would persecute the wearer indoors same as the beard police of taliban.
in contrast, safety laws such as no ski mask in a bank include no burka nor niqab, because included in ski mask, not targeting the religious style but due to inclusion in a ski mask law in response to  criminal use, by criminals to avoid identification by witnesses and cameras. i wonder if ski masks should be permitted in streets? however that is not the topic here. the point is, covering both eyes with mesh is academicly not truly obligation because tradition specified one eye, so teaching burka as obligation is false and does not accurately represent traditional interpretation of quran as above it is an addition outside of islamic tradition. still the exception for seeing was specified "one eye" so showing both is not justified, so not only must men restrain themselves from seeing her two eyes until after marrying her, even she must cover one eye only showing one, the other eye, because allowing men to see both, i mean not her sons as above, is not justifiable unless she would renounce islam.