Politics of Veiling
In countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran women, all women, Muslim and non-Muslim women cannot step outdoors without covering. It is mandated by law. As it was under the Taliban in Afghanistan. These societies are described and criticized as "Islamic fundamentalist." Where as France and Turkey have banned hijab from public [government] spaces and schools. Is this a form of secular fundamentalism or enlightenment?What are your reflections on the politics of Hijab? Here is my take on it.
26 Comments:
I agree with Dr. Khan's stance on the “Epistemological Hijab.” I have a very deep respect for women who choose to wear hijab because they have studied the literature and have interpreted it in a way that is personally meaningful. The same goes for women who opt not to after the same type of personal research and dialog. However, it is obvious that too many women let their daily actions, sphere of influence, and their life experiences be dictated by cultural requirements that masquerade as religious doctrine. This is an unfortunate occurrence for Muslim women, but for females all over the world. Should governments even encourage women to wear hijab? No. Should they encourage women to keep from doing so? No. What should be encouraged is a more open and honest discussion of women's issues in religious forums.
In my discussions with Muslim women about their decisions to cover, I am met every time with an almost uniform response: “I are not ashamed to cover. I am proud because I know I'm not being objectified.” While it is a adequate response, I am always disappointed that each woman seems to spit this phrase out almost verbatim, as if taught to them instead of it being a personal revelation in which they could take pride.
I think the Politics of veiling are similar to the social issues battles in America. The government shouldn't stifle the religious beliefs of it's citizenry, especially in a place as volatle as Turkey. The Secularists are doing themselves no favors by replacing one form of spiritual tyranny with another. Nobody should be mandated to wear a Hijab, but nobody should be forbidden to wear one either. France seems to be taking the same approach to this as it has to the English language and other things that threaten French Culture. They have always been a litle bit obsessive with their protection and preservation of all things French. France should stand by the values it espouses and allow the Muslim students to wear their Hijab and focus more on intergrating them into French socity instead of competeing against them. Turkey on the otherhand seems to be fighting extremism with extremism and while I can understand the logic they are following it is not the correct course. They are in a tough situation because if they cede an inch to the extremists they will take a mile, but arbitrary bans on the Hijab hurt the majority of their citizens rather than an extremist faction of their political enemies. I think the headscarf ban should be reversed and the secularists should be the one to do it.
In this article there are some points concerning the veiling of the women that I agree, such as when it mentions "that women have no role in the process of developing Islamic Fiqh". Islam in the Middle East does not give women the place she deserves, and they dont have the right to speak how they say publicaly nowdays. However, they do have say because women in the family is the most respected figure by its family members, therefore, they have the ability to manipulate men as they like in most cases. Also, a solution to this is that women have to stand up and let this society manipulated by men thier way of thinking. But the problem is that there is a group of women that think they should be dominated/controlled by men.
On the other hand, to my opinion the veiling in a way allows these men to feel more power over women by, yes, aparting them from the world. But it also has little to do with it, this is because the veiling to my opinion also gives this sence of purity and uniqueness to the women. Although it cannot be confused that those women who decide not to wear it are less that those who do. This is a personal choice as mentioned in the article. For example in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to go out alone moreover are not allowed to go out without covering every part of thier bodies. In this case I would agree that men want to have complete control over women by separating them from reality and giving them the right to choose. But how can one as a women after beign raised in this enviroment it is hard to get out of the cycle and make a diference. I think it is a personal choice weather to wear the veil or not. Unfortunetly even though wearing the veil is part of the religion men have manipulated this action to have control of the women. Men thinking that they have "devine status over women" as mentioned in the article.
The fundamental objection that comes to mind is the notion that “Hijaab” is a form of tyranny subjected upon women in attempt to clandestinely satisfy masculine “muslim” egoism. The problem does not lay on the Hijaab, but on the sexism that arises in countries that are economically debilitated and technologically stagnant. Regardless of religion, wherever there is destitution, there will be discrimination, in particular sexism. Hijaab, in the contemporary Muslim world, can be used to cage women in, but the same argument can be made for wayward economic and military policies imposed by post-colonial masters. Thus, it seems irrational to claim that the “Hijaab” is mechanism for oppression, as removing poverty, military calamity and etc. would negate the observed injustices bombarded on women in the realm of the Muslim world; moreover, the systemic devaluation of women throughout the world, including the United States and her liberal democratic republics, is the main problem. It makes sense that populations that are ruled by illiberal states would incur greater higher degrees of natural rights infringement.
France, Turkey and other nations that have adopted legislation proscribing hijaab are further solidifying the idea that “Western” liberalism is simply an ideological subterfuge aimed at the domination of Muslim lands and the ebbing of Islamic religiosity. The cultural assimilation the French claim they want seems unreasonable when comparing the draconian nature of French laws equating symbols of religious culture as vitriolic and detrimental to the fiber of the nation. Clearly a reasonable person can assume that such attitudes can only make polarization more conducive.
{Here's a sample of my mid-term paper and my thoughts on the subject}
The controversial Islamic female head covering known as the hijab has recently taken on a political identity all of its' own. Increasing religious and national tensions occurring in our globalized world has let to forced veiling in some Arab nations to hijab-bans in Western nations. By regulating and creating policy involving the struggle of Muslim tradition and modern secularism, patriarchal systems are only furthering control and inequality of Muslim women.
Forced veiling is a problem for women’s rights because all historic Islamic interpretations of the Qur’an were done by male Islamic scholars. Women are essentially barred from extensive study of the Qur’an and Islamic legalist discourse (Fiqh) and thus cannot examine Shariah laws imposed on them,
“Muslims scholars and philosophers of every tradition maintain that the essence of humanity is either our moral compass or our reason or both. By preventing Muslim women from exercising their reason to derive the moral laws by which they live, Islamic legalism denies them the most human of all exercises using our reason to become capable of making moral judgments. In a way Islamic legalism steals women's God given humanity from them” .{Khan}
In response to issues of modernity, terrorism, and maintaining and promoting a secular state, other nations have created hijab-bans. In Turkey, in order to promote an image of modernity and progress, leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk discouraged the wearing of the hijab in the 1920’s as he thought of it as “backwards” . After the 1980 coup, military officers and officials who took over with ideas of a totally secular Turkish state imposed a headscarf ban in civic areas such as government buildings, schools and universities .
Traditionally having a huge Muslim population, controversy and protests regarding the hijab have been present throughout Turkey. The difference with having a religious wear requirement or ban in a more westernized nation is that they women is western nations, including Turkey, are able and encouraged to be educated and have a respectable job, thus education empowers these women and allows them to stand up for themselves and protest the fact that they should be able to decide what they wear. In response to the dispute regarding the hijab ban, the European court of Human Rights looked into the case but in November 2005 found that the ban was legitimate and should remain in place . Recently, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan released a statement saying he thinks that the 1980 constitution should be rewritten and the headscarf ban should be removed stating, “We have said this many times so far. We are talking about freedoms” . Despite the leaps in rights for these Muslim women, they are still at the mercy of male policy makers who feel that they know what’s best for Muslim women.
European nations have also become involved in hijab bans. France allows women to choose whether or not to veil in public but does not allow the hijab in public schools. Religious symbols, namely the hijab, are restricted from public schools in order to preserve France’s secular identity. The act of wearing the hijab or other religious symbol would be seen as a challenge of French patriotism .
Resistance to regulation of the hijab has caused much debate in Europe. For many Muslim people feeling a lack of representation and economic and political inequality in European nations, the wearing of the hijab is an outward statement of defiance. Writers such as Leila Ahmed (Women and Gender) have come to the conclusion that historical European domination has led to the creation of the political hijab, “it was the discourses of the West, and specifically the discourse of colonial domination, that in the first place determined the meaning of the veil in geopolitical discourses and thereby set he terms for its emergence as a symbol of resistance” .
The hijab has not only become a defiance of European domination, but Western ideals in general. As Karen Armstrong states in The Battle for God, “The veiled woman has, over the years, become a symbol of Islamic self-assertion and a rejection of Western cultural hegemony” . In this statement Armstrong is saying that not only is the hijab an instrument of political and social control but also a symbol of power for women.
In conclusion, the hijab can be a source of empowerment or an instrument of patriarchal control for Muslim women. For the future of women’s rights in areas that either mandate the wearing of the hijab or have headscarf bans, Muslim women need to be a part of the policy making process in order to make the hijab optional. Through the education of women regarding their rights, Islamic law, and the historical and cultural significance of veiling in general then they have the tools and information to make decisions that are right for them.
Hijab. We have to put things in context and hold each society accountable to its own supposed values not others’. If we are talking about a secular democratic nation, as they call them, like France or America…then yes Women cannot be banned from wearing hijab according to these countries’ definitions of religious freedom. In a Muslim country that claims to follow Sharia then we must also uphold that country to its own claimed values…the Qur’an and Sunnah. Therefore, the Qur’an and Sunnah would tell us very clearly that women must cover everything except the hands and face, anything MORE than that there is room for difference of interpretation on. Under Sharia, men must also cover from naval to knee. You could make the classical hackneyed argument that from a Western perspective “this isn’t fair”…well Muslims believe that Islam is 100% just, because it is Divine law. Islam has different guidelines for men and women because men and women are different. And more importantly because God said so. The proofs that justify these limits on men are from a hadith. The proofs for these limits on women are in the Qur’an in 2 or 3 chapters and in hadiths. So, manmade constructions of reason about what is fair and what is not will only be accepted when it hasn’t been spoken for by clear texts, which this issue has been. Human reason is faulty, God is not. When the Qur’an was first revealed, everyone thought it was crazy to give women inheritance, freedoms of speech, movement, etc. Yet, Muslims didn’t care because this was declared by Allah. Hundreds of years before the Renaissance and the enlightenment when everyone could pat themselves on the back and claim to be intelligent. Hundreds of years before 1800s “modern” Britain where I could sell my wife for 12 cents, Muslim women had these rights. They could, according to Sharia, partake in politics (except head of state), social and economic institutions, and academia. All this happened in a culture that thought it knew what was best and “civilized”, and thought these Muslim values were ridiculous and barbaric according to their culture. But Muslims practiced their religion anyway because it was their faith. Similarly now, Muslims don’t care what others say about our beliefs, because they are our beliefs that we practice and are not subject to control by others.
Oppression on the other hand has not been allowed in Islam. There is nothing in Sharia that says women cannot drive or work or speak in public. In the time of prophet Muhammad (saws) women spoke with men when it was necessary (business, etc.). They worked, and some were even scholars, so there is a difference between modesty and oppression. The hijab is the Islamic way of bringing women into the public sphere without being manipulated by men. It sends a message that “yes I am a practicing Muslim so don’t even think about it.” Hijab is also spiritual not just a piece of fabric, it’s a mental and physical state of modesty. If a woman wears the cloth hijab and behaves respectful accordingly, solely to please God, then she is committing an act of worship and will be rewarded for it by God just like any other act of worship. If she is doing it merely because of societal influence or culture, then it is still good because she is contributing to modesty in society, but she will not get rewarded by Allah, because her intention isn’t pure. Sharia is merely a frame for code of conduct, but many regional and local laws can be added to it that don’t contradict it. For example, sharia is in place to protect morality as one of its objectives. It specifically calls for hijab, but it can be manipulated just like any other political system. For example, not allowing women to drive like in Saudi Arabia is an exaggeration of sharia. While they are allowed to implement laws that support Islamic principles like modesty, it is a stretch to claim that not allowing women to drive is supporting modesty. I’m not even going to mention the Taliban because it is already a well established fact that the extremes they went to (no education, work, complete isolation of women) explicitly transgressed womens’ rights in Sharia. However, requiring all men and women to abide by morality laws in regard to Qur’anic and Sunnah injunctions of dress in public is completely permissible in Sharia. We must be careful not to lump everything together. The Sharia has in fact very few rules, but the leeway it leaves for other rules to be added can be either used positively or exploited depending on the culture or context.
The issues concerning the "Hijab" are very important in understanding the struggles between modernity and traditional thoughts. Dr. Khan brings up the point that the Hijab can be a symbol for some that Muslims are "resisting" the modern and Western world. I believe that those who feel this way, really have nothing better to attatck in their lives. I do not understand how someone can attack Muslim women for wearing something they believe to be holy. Unfortunately, I agree with Dr. Kahn's statement that the Hijab "remaisn an instrument of segreation and containment." This is so sad. With all the problems there are in the world ,such as hungry, war, and poverty, It does not make sense how the wearing of a peiece of clothing creates such an uproar. Maybe that is infact why there is an uproar because some may see the Hijab to just be a piece of cloth, while others believe that it preserves the Islamic Heritage. Dr. Khan made an interesting statemnet: "Muslims who claim that Hijab is an instrument that compels society to treat woemn in a speical, even exalted way do not work to ensure that the society has special affirmative laws in place that will guarantee equal outcomes for women." I could not agree more with this statement. Consequently, those who exalt women do not believe in equal rights for men and women. The "Epistemological Hijab" is an important concept in determining the connection between women and Islam. Some Islam traditions give men more rights then women, consequently exploiting them.
Another important thing that should be reviewed is governmental roles in religion. I belive that the government should be based on the religions on those that it governs. This statement before is true, but certain exceptions must be followed. These excpetions would be if the government applied laws that affect religion in a violatle region (Turkey).
A previous poster (Muhammad Hussain) wrote: "The fundamental objection that comes to mind is the notion that “Hijaab” is a form of tyranny subjected upon women in attempt to clandestinely satisfy masculine “muslim” egoism. This post sums up my belifs. It is not the Hijabb that promotes inequality. It is sexism which creates this masculine society.
Optimally it is the woman's decision whether to wear the Hijab. Those who choose to wear the Hijab or those who do not must be respected as human beings. This respect is can be given when women do not let outside factors determine their thouhgts.
To me, the debate over the Islamic Hijab is similar to the debates going on in the U.S. a few years ago regarding taking “under god” out of the pledge of allegiance. Really, it is just a distraction from the issues that are much more important to the world today. If you are an atheist, just don’t say “under god” and whether you want to wear a Hijab or not, it should be your own choice.
Sure, Hijab is a way for women to be modest and keep their religious traditions alive; however, debating whether all women should have to wear them or banning women from wearing them defeat’s the purpose. The Hijab should represent a woman CHOOSING to cover herself to feel closer to God. Maybe she chooses to cover herself when she goes to the Mosque to pray, another woman might like to wear Hijab because it is a way for her to reject Western clothing and have pride in her own culture. It is possible that a Muslim woman could have a very strong Islamic faith and never want to wear a Hijab and I don’t feel there is anything wrong with that.
I agree with Professor Khan’s point that the more important issues Muslims should try to focus on are “military relations” and economic issues. The rules in both these political and economic spheres are presently being dictated in the Middle East by the West, a form of Neo-Colonialism. Legalistic and educated Muslims should be challenging these norms rather than debating the role of Hijab, and “legality of eating marshmallows”.
Hijab plays a very important role in the lives of Muslims and in the Islamic World, but there are topics more important than these social issues. Islam is also about Falsafa, Kalam and Tasawwuf, Islam should stress education and Islam should be tolerant of alternative interpretations of the same religion.
I think men using the Hijab to exert their power over women is wrong and I think the Hijab defining women as “Good” or not-good Muslims is wrong too. In reality, Hijab should be one’s personal choice and remembered as a symbol of the religion rather than its definition.
The Hijab represents Islam in many ways; It is the symbol of Islamic religious revivalism, and an icon that stands for a rejection of western dominated cultural globalism. Hijab in both forms is to be respected and admired as it is the private choice of a Muslim woman to wear hijab.
Mandatory hijab is, however, a reprehensible icon of oppression. The forced wearing of hijab on women can be equated to the forcing of jews to don the star of david in Germany under the Nazi regime. It's very mandatory nature removes the religious significance and replaces it as a symbol of oppression. Professor Khan's argument that laws requiring Hijab are nothing more than thinly veiled policies of inequality and gender based abuse. It is always mandatory in cultures with extreme inequality in their respective legal systems, a correlation that should not be ignored.
Hijab should be the decision of a Muslim woman to guard her modesty and express her devotion to her faith. Hijab should be allowed to act as a covenant to the special religious relationship a woman has with her divine creator. Hijab in a strictly voluntary manner is the only form in which it can be considered respectable or meaningful.
At the same time, banning hijab is equally as reprehensible as mandated hijab. It is a form of religious persecution to many Muslim women who view hijab as an important aspect of their faith. Although the burka may be considerably too concealing as students should be recognizable to their educators for academic honesty purposes, hijab is by no means excessive.
Perhaps in a more perfect world, religion will not be forced or forcibly removed from public policy and individual freedom will reign in France, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
When we discuss Hijab, and claiming that women should have the right to choose to wear or not wear Hijab, it reminds me of conversations of how municipalites recieve funding for there education system in the U.S., bear with me while I explain. That the undermining of government policies is prevalent in all societies. Such as funding education in certain states, under President Bush's policy where you have to teach abstinece in the public school system and if you decide to teach about contraceptives and/or condom use that state will not recieve that funding.
This administration found it necessary to create such a policy because of religious beliefs. This is why when I hear the issue of wearing Hijab, I see the hypocritical rhetoric of many individuals.
Hijab is a very sensitive issue because as I get older and my children get older I know that my family will be far from Islam, and Hijab is only a remembrance of what your values are. It is something that is so simple, but it my eys needs to be mandated because if it wasnt you would have more and more women that choose not to cover and like I mentioned earlier you will move further and further away from Islam.
It is a very important issue, people believe that women who wear hijab are being treated less as a human being, but on the contrary men feel more comfortable around women who cover because you know exactly their positon on religion. You already know there vlaues and as someone who is looking from the outside you will have greater repect for her.
This is only my own opinion, so I do not mean to say that all men think this way, but I know when I see a Muslim who chooses to wear Hijab v. woman who chooses not. I see a very big difference in atttitude, and is comical to believe that men do not objectify women. The choice of dress is only one other way men choose to do this. I agree with Muhammad entirely, it is not an issue of "Hijab", but issues regarding sexism.
This post has been removed by the author.
I agree that it should be up to Muslim women to interpret the Quran and decide whether they ought to wear the Hijab or not. Too often however, it becomes a form of oppression in patriarchal Muslim societies where the Hijab is imposed by Men (fathers, brothers and husbands.
Some people are just uncomfortable with some of the reasons given for wearing the Hijab like “protection against male predatory sexuality”. As a male gaze is always sexual and as if a woman always needs protection from sexuality in the first place.
For Muslim women wearing the hijab in western societies it can be interpreted as a stance against secularism and a distinction from western civilization.
In the case of France, it should be understood that not only there is a deeply rooted secularist tradition but the French are strongly opposed to the Anglo-Saxon model allowing ethnic groups to live in separate cultural communities. Unlike in the US or the UK they are very hostile to the concept of "multiculturalism". Hence, they see the Hijab is a direct challenge to French culture that prevents immigrant’s integration into the French culture and society.
Recently, I talked to one of my friend who goes to school in France and she said that it would disturb her to be sitting in a class with Muslim girls wearing the Hijab or Jews wearing their skullcap. She totally agreed with the law banning the Hijab in public schools and said most French including a lot of Muslims did agree with it. She has Muslim female friends who, when they step into the school they take off their headscarf and when they step out they put it back on, it is better that way. She asked one of them who told her, she would be rejected by her family if she didn't wear the scarf outside the school.
To her, not only the Hijab is often imposed upon girls by Muslim families but it is an instrument of segregation. She thinks people should only be religious at home and outside work and classroom environment. People cannot go to France and impose their culture that’s not how it works.
“Immigrants are the ones who have to fit in, on the visas it says they have to respect French laws”, she insisted.
In fact, by law, public schooling in France has been secular since 1905; it was just not well enforced.
Although I kind of agree with her that it is their country and it is true indeed that many French Muslims think alike. I believe that they are overreacting and should allow girls who have made that choice to wear their headscarf wherever they want to.
my first instinct with regard to these kinds of controversies over the hijab is a questioning of why people care. why does it matter whether women wear the hijab or not? I've certianly never been very concerned with womens clothing generally, and the hijab is no exception. But of course many people responded with exactly that sort of attitude to Michael Newdow, who I think is fighting over a very important issue. Reading professor khans article helped me understand why it matters. It isn't just about a piece of cloth any more than the newdow case is about a particular pattern of sound waves. In both cases the issue is about the ideas represented by the controversial thing, not the thing itself. and like everyone else here I'm sure, I fully support womens rights and freedom of religion. if women choose to wear a hijab, that's fine. and if they choose not to, that's fine to. If we are going to live in a diverse society, we can't exclude people from politics or education because of their beliefs or harmless ways in which they express their beliefs. that would be secular extremism.
Where these questions start to get interesting I think is when we look at women who want to cover their faces as well as their hair. There was a case in Florida a few years ago where a muslim woman refused to allow her face to be photographed for a drivers liscence. That seems a little different to me, cause there actually is a legitimate reason to photograph a persons face, how else do you identify someone? and if a person keeps their face hidden, isn't that going to change how you interact with them? That's where there seem to be questions to me. and since I've never interacted with a woman who covered her face, it's difficult for me to know what the answers are. Though generally, any time a government makes an exception to an otherwise legitimate rule based on a persons religious beliefs, as this woman was asking the state of Florida to do, that seems to me to be a very slippery slope.
my first instinct with regard to these kinds of controversies over the hijab is a questioning of why people care. why does it matter whether women wear the hijab or not? I've certianly never been very concerned with womens clothing generally, and the hijab is no exception. But of course many people responded with exactly that sort of attitude to Michael Newdow, who I think is fighting over a very important issue. Reading professor khans article helped me understand why it matters. It isn't just about a piece of cloth any more than the newdow case is about a particular pattern of sound waves. In both cases the issue is about the ideas represented by the controversial thing, not the thing itself. and like everyone else here I'm sure, I fully support womens rights and freedom of religion. if women choose to wear a hijab, that's fine. and if they choose not to, that's fine to. If we are going to live in a diverse society, we can't exclude people from politics or education because of their beliefs or harmless ways in which they express their beliefs. that would be secular extremism.
Where these questions start to get interesting I think is when we look at women who want to cover their faces as well as their hair. There was a case in Florida a few years ago where a muslim woman refused to allow her face to be photographed for a drivers liscence. That seems a little different to me, cause there actually is a legitimate reason to photograph a persons face, how else do you identify someone? and if a person keeps their face hidden, isn't that going to change how you interact with them? That's where there seem to be questions to me. and since I've never interacted with a woman who covered her face, it's difficult for me to know what the answers are. Though generally, any time a government makes an exception to an otherwise legitimate rule based on a persons religious beliefs, as this woman was asking the state of Florida to do, that seems to me to be a very slippery slope.
This post has been removed by the author.
I feel that there are two ways that the banning of the hijab in public places can be viewed. One way is as a reaction to misogynistic practices as discussed by Prof. Khan in the Epistemological Hijab. In many societies where Muslim men desire to remain in control, the hijab is used to distinguish the women from the men, to contain them in an effort to keep them subservient. All this is employed in the name of Islam, preaching that the hijab is required in order to be a good Muslim – by requiring women to wear hijab the men are being good Muslims and by wearing the hijab, the women are being good Muslims. It is ironic how one sole act can distinguish a good Muslim from a “bad” one. By banning the hijab from public places, Turkey and France have recognized these sexist practices, and have arguably made the lives of Muslim women better, as the Muslim men no longer can dictate them to wear hijab. But is this really the reason why France and Turkey banned the hijab?
The hijab can also be a seen as a symbol of pride and freedom of expression, where Muslim women choose to wear the hijab from the own free will and it serves as a major component of their personal identity. If this is the mindset of the Muslim women in France and Turkey and it explains their reasoning for wearing the hijab, then its banning is a form of secular fundamentalism. In an effort to make the entire citizenry more “Western”, the French and Turkish governments have stripped the Muslim women of the option of expressing their identity through the hijab, and instead of feeling more welcome to the society, they may feel as if they can only participate in the society if they leave certain aspects of their identity behind.
--Ritika Samant
I think that quite a few posts on this blog on the topic of hijab make very good points, and it is important to take them into consideration when deciding one’s own take on the issue surrounding hijab. In my opinion, I feel that women who wish to wear the hijab should be permitted to do so, but those who wish not to should not be forced to. This solution, however, is oversimplified because of the politics and symbolism of the hijab. Because some view the hijab as a symbol of oppression and sexism, and others view it as symbolic of pride of one’s religion and faith, there is inevitably a lack of understanding between the women who wear the hijab and those who do not.
Those who view it as a symbol of oppression of women and sexism believe that as long as the hijab is worn, women’s rights will not develop fully. The act of a woman differentiating herself from men suggests that women should be seen as different, along with being treated differently. In the eyes of those opposed to women wearing hijab, any treatment of women that differs from the treatment of men is unequal and sexist. The fact that only women wear such garments shows that the women are singled out and seen as inferior to me. Therefore, the wearing of hijab is hindering women’s rights and preventing them from being seen as equal to men. I feel this view is quite extreme, because if a woman chooses to wear hijab, then she is using her right to choose what she wears. In my opinion, only in cases where women are forced to wear it is it infringing on women’s rights. When the government forces women to wear hijab, it then turns into an issue of women’s rights.
On the other hand, it is my understanding that women who choose to wear hijab feel like it is part of their faith, and are proud to show their dedication to their faith. In this case, I do not think there should be any problem surrounding the wearing of it. I also do not agree with the banning of the wearing of hijab, like in Turkey. If women want to wear it, they should be allowed. I think the banning of it is as bad as requiring women to wear it. In both cases, women do not have the right to decide whether they want to wear it or not, so both instances take away women’s rights.
Overall, I think that any extreme, either banning the hijab or requiring women to wear it, is not the right decision.
I tend to agree with Dr. Khan and other moderates on this issue. I think that it is a form of oppression to force women to wear hijab, but I also think it is oppressive to forbid them from doing so. To force a woman to cover herself is to reinforce the position that men have no responsibility for their actions. According to this reasoning, a woman simply showing her hair is putting herself in harm's way. To put all the blame on women in this way is totally unreasonable. It is also unreasonable to believe, like is common in Turkey in France, that allowing women to wear hijab will undermine the secular society to such a degree that there will be a revolution. Thus, one must logically come to the middle of the road. Neither banning the wearing or the failure to wear hijab is fair or just. Hijab must be in political life what it is in personal life; a voluntary decision.
I think that it should be the choice of the woman whether or not to wear the hijab. Both requiring it and prohibiting it are affronts to the personal freedom of the individual. In the case of France where the hijab was banned in public places, I think that it is a case of taking secularism too far. I understand the desire for a society were religion is largely out of the public and political spheres, but if someone wants to do something that is part of their faith, such as wear the hijab or even for some Jews were a skull cap, I think that they should be allowed to and it is hypocritical to champion freedom and then tell people that they can’t do something in public.
Now in terms of Dr. Khan’s article, I agree with the idea that Islam is trying to be controlled by people who have lost control of things they used to control. I think that the push for more rules on Islam stems from this lack of control and is a reaction by those who wish to return Islam to the “good old days,” as in when they weren’t heavily influenced by the West and were relatively autonomous.
Every time I hear a story revolving around hijab, I invariably end up coming back to this bottom line: whether headscarves are allowed or prohibited, someone gets hurt either way.
Hijab is a tool for social segregation, although this can work in one way or another. For devout Muslims, it serves as an identifying mark, a protection from sexist abuse, and an overt symbol of devotion to Allah.
To others, it serves as a social ball and chain. That part has been described to death, so I’ll spare everybody.
The point is that banning the hijab isn’t fair to those wishing to practice their faith, and allowing it in a “laisser faire” is harmful to those who are pressured, threatened, or coerced into wearing hijab.
Instead of blindly condemning countries like Turkey and France who institute bans on hijab (though the bans differ vastly from each other in terms of extent and nature), we should instead try to understand why they picked that particular side. I can speak for France, having spent a copious amount of time there.
What is drastically different in the French case is the interpretation of secularism. In America, we tend to think of secularism as a carte blanche to do whatever we please – a form of strict nonintervention in which the rights of the individual are placed above all else. We’ve been told over and over again that this is the only fair means through which to run a country, but few of us have ever examined where this notion comes from.
America was founded by religious zealots and (for lack of a better word) extremists. The puritans were NOT cute, cuddly, or particularly friendly -- a truth epitomized by the Salem witch trials. Let’s not forget that many of the sexist practices we hold against traditionalist Muslims can also be found in the 17th century puritan lifestyle. The reason we are so libertarian with regards to religion is that these very people (or at least groups closely derived from them) founded the modern American civilization, and they did it for their own gain.
The French, on the other hand, identify the inception of modern France as the moment in which the Catholic Church was forcibly removed from power — the French revolution. Napoleon’s Concordat later mandated that the Church not intervene in any and all public affairs, and the 1901 secularity laws further enforced a strict interpretation of secularism: All may practice religion privately, though none are obligated to do so. These circumstances are as far removed from the American political/social context as can possibly be. Thus, the French will always place protection of the individual above the rights of the individual. “Liberte” in French is generally held to mean “freedom from” rather than “freedom to.” In this case, it’s freedom FROM religion as opposed to freedom OF religion.
Thus, the French (and I suspect the Turks as well) have opted to protect minors in public schools who face (often violent) social pressure to wear hijab. It is also worth noting that the headscarf ban does not apply to colleges and universities (which are public institutions) as the state is no longer dealing with minors, who have little legal recourse without the help of a parent in these cases.
When it comes down to it, it seems that women have always been persecuted in one way or another. I totaly respect women that decide to waer hijab because it is there own choice and they believe in it. It in some way is meaningful and it helps them in society. I truly respect this ideology. At times though I feel as if they are taught this and dont really believe it. Women have always and will always be looked at with a degree of questioning because we are unaware of how they truly feel. With aspects of religion we are taught what is right and wrong and are forced to believe in it. Truly not knowing whether it is wrong or right. In soceity we do know what is right and what is wrong. I feel like we put to much faith into aspects of religion that we dont really understand. Women should not be forced to cover their faces in public. They should have the free choice to do what they believe is right and not let a book writen long ago tell them what to do. Muslim women should be respected above all else because their religion asks them at times to hide from society, and alghough they do they still keep their faith. They believe in something that might make their life worse and more difficult, but still do. Individuals should be allowed to act and do whatever they think it right, long as it has no negative effect on anyone else.
No matter what perspective one employs, the fact remains that the Hijab is ‘an instrument of segregation and containment’. Whether it is enlightening or a form of oppressive fundamentalism is a matter of the woman’s personal perspective and what kind of environment they live within. However, I do know that a society can condemns a woman for wearing or not wearing one is completely unjust and with that point both Western and Islamic societies are culprits. France’s public ban on the hijab is a form of religious oppression. Even though France want to uphold there tenet to ‘laicize’ religiously, they are partaking in a form of unjust denial of people’s right of free expression. However, many Islamic cultures have strict laws that require women to were a hijab and thus overlook the right of a woman’s choice.
Prof. Khan’s notion of the Epistemological Hijab being the traditional barrier that exists between women and Islamic sources is very interesting. I interpreted this as the hijab marking women for distinction intellectually as well as socially. Muslim women, like all women from major religions, follow a faith that has been dominated by men scholarship and interpretation, especially concerning the juristic aspects of Islam. They have either not been allowed to exercise individual or women’s interpretation of religious text or have been socialized into accepting men’s scholarship as fact. I believe this article ties into a major theme of this class, that the Islamic world must uphold the principle of ijtihad and use their reason and free thought in order to progress intellectually into a more just society.
I agree with some and disagree with a lot of comments about Hijab without mentioning any names. Talking about Hijab is a very sensitive subject to me , because I don’t like to argue what has been talked about over the past generations . If you are Muslim and you read the Quran and you follow the Sunni and the Hadiths, then you should have a pretty clear understand of wearing the Hijab and why it is important. I don’t understand why wearing Hijab would cause all these problems. Why would you consider a country that follows the divine laws of god would be considered a intransigent or ascendance with the west?
I agree that wearing the Hijab should come natural but at the same time not when you know something is going to happen to you or has happened to you than you would wear one. I don’t think that wearing one either oppresses women or gives men more control over women, nor is it a social segregation. I don’t think that was the whole point of wearing a Hijab. I think by this point we all know why a Muslim women should wear Hijab without me be redundant and saying why.
If a western country comes out with a law banning the Hijab for the sake of the Muslim women being oppressed then that would be lie. Thus, we can see France and Turkey are the biggest examples. When their laws banned wearing the Hijab they thought it would benefit them. But actually it manipulated Muslim women, from going to school, universities and other public places. So I don’t see how is it supposedly helping Muslim women; if they are banned from their basic right, which is the right of education. This is only hurting Muslim women who practice their faith and follow the Sunni. And they are being manipulated, threatened, harmed and pressured to take off their Hijab which is part of their identity, their character in order to go to school and universities.
I do not think that this just applies to Muslim women but every women around the world, women have their choice, their right, and their freedom. If they chose to wear it then let it be, but when they are being deprived from these basic rights and are being harmed then this not a welcoming country for women who chose to practice their religion especially for Muslim women.
The hijab is something that should not be imposed on the woman and it actually represents how the men in society make an attempt to appear superior to woman. Woman should not be required to where it in a public sphere. This requirement is a form of oppression imposed on woman and should be a woman’s choice to wear the hijab and forcing her to do so is imposing on her freedom. I do agree with Dr. Khan’s point of view that the hijab represents a history disenfranchisement for woman and its acts as a barrier for woman. In regards to the banning of the hijab in public areas I feel that also imposes on the freedom of woman and I feel that should also have the choice in that matter.
When did Hijab become political? And why? I find all of the controversy about the hijab one of the most interesting and ironic things. In the end I really don’t think it has anything to do with a woman covering her hair, its about Islam. If we look at a nun and a Muslim woman wearing hijab, what is the difference? In most cases, the nun is more covered then the Muslim woman so this whole topic of oppression and woman’s rights is nonsense. The hijab is being used for political means. As a Muslim country, Turkey is just pleasing the West by banning the hijab. If you ban the hijab ban nuns from covering ban any thing that shows religion. I am simplifying the issue of hijab because I do not feel that it is complex. This is not an issue of wether a woman should be able to wear it or not. It is part of Islam, it should not be forced like in Saudi Arabia. When it is forced it loses its meaning its true value which is modesty. On the other end, when it is banned many women want to wear it as sign of resistance to the West and again it loses its value.I agree with Dr. Khan that “the Hijab is to some a symbol of Islam's ascendance in the world, while for others it is a reminder of the intransigent Muslim resistance to things that first emerge in the West - modernity, secularism, feminism, liberalism and globalism. For some Muslims in France, it is a symbol of their resistance to French cultural occupation over Arabs and Muslims in France. For Islamists in Turkey, it is an important means to preserving the Islamic heritage of Turkey from secular fundamentalism. My point is when a country decides to put rules to a fundamentally religious value, it doesn’t became religion anymore…then it is practiced for different reasons.
Either by banning or forcing the issue, you are taking away a fundamental human right: CHOICE. In a modern country like France, what does that say about them and the west that they are taking away a woman’s choice?
The Hijab is an external sign of a Muslim womans dedication to her faith. Weather a woman chooses to wear it or chooses not to, does it make her a better or worse Muslim? In many societies, wearing the Hijab would make her a better Muslim. Yet, when governments step into a society and begin dictating when and where this religous action is appropriate, a hidden or sometimes blatant government agenda appears. In the case of France, it seems that France is, once again, protecting its French culture and roots through these actions. Taking an agressive stance to anything that seems to threaten its culture, in this case Hijab. When observing Turkey's actions, they seem to be over zelous in their religous-social sphere. Afraid that Hijab and any "favoritism" that maybe mistaken by allowing them to practice this maybe mistaken by the broad religous population. None the less, Muslim women, regardless of which country they live in, should be encouraged to wear Hijab, but not required and Governments should observe this right and protect against discrimination that may ensue.
Post a Comment
<< Home