Drawn on September 5, 2024 | Published from Santiago de Los Caballeros |
There exists a vocal community of secular apologists who routinely aim their critiques inward, afraid to offend those they might otherwise be critical of. Perhaps this reluctance stems from a kind of passive religious indoctrination — a phenomenon where individuals consider themselves religiously sensitive without being particularly devout. Rather than engaging in a healthy dose of criticism, this ambiguously under-educated state of “personal belief” unevenly fills gaps of knowledge, driving the more agnostic to defend truly regressive traditions without much forethought.
Some traditions may not necessarily be worth having. The struggle for women's rights has always been fraught with lopsided progress, marked by both significant victories and persistent backlashes. In contemporary discourse, one of the most contentious battlegrounds remains the debate over women's dress codes. In the West, this dispute takes many forms, with one of the most visible and divisive issues being the controversy surrounding the hijab, niqab, chador, burqa, or the infamous burkini.
Where one might expect liberals to challenge these practices, we instead find a curious crowd of politically correct, a-religious defenders who argue ardently for women's right to wear the veil. In theory, their conclusion seems straightforward: in a democracy, the right to dress as one chooses is simply a matter of freedom of expression. Nothing inherently wrong with that if the culture embraces such liberal autonomy. On the surface, a stylish hijab might seem no different from a dapper Foulard Hermès on a brisk spring day from the driver’s seat of a cherry red convertible. But that similarity is purely cosmetic. Is a veiled woman’s newfound right to drive — celebrated as a social milestone in some places like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia — truly worth applauding if the DMV figuratively stamps her license with the stigma of a lesser human organ donor? Curiously, is it halal to envelop a car in a burqa? Jokes aside, Hermès may symbolize many things, but it lacks the cultural darkness shrouding the Islamic fabric.
“Allah commands you regarding your children: the share of the male will be twice that of the female.”
- Qur’an, An Nisa 4:11
No matter the perspective, veiling in Islam presents a remarkably problematic proposition. Although not explicitly enshrined in the Qur’an, the practice does retrace its roots into Muhammad’s rich religious mulch. The grim origins of this tradition date back to 6th-Century Arabia, where free women who did not wear cloth were often taken as slaves [1]. This isn’t to say that the theme of female servitude wasn’t exclusive to uncluttered heads; veiled women still ended up stamped as property of the mosque. This pernicious approach is a very effective method of double denigration: you’re either a slave of the faith or chattel waiting to be marked.
For most Muslims, a practicing woman is typically culturally required to cover herself [2]. So, setting medieval context aside for a moment, the suitable modern challenge to a freethinking Muslim lady is to ask herself if the option to choose to not wear the hijab actually exists. Ultimately however, for the pious, the final decision comes down to how Allah wills it, which, given the Qur’anic depiction of women’s place in the grand scheme of things, unfortunately bodes quite poorly for their independence. Even if a woman advertises the decision to wear a hijab as being hers alone, the very sight of a covered Muslim woman perpetuates a certain irresponsibility. The choice to veil, then broadcasts a display of naïve pride in a repressive religion eager to remind women of their place in the social hierarchy mandated by this unforgiving God. Typically, “choices” made under penalty of eternal damnation do not realistically qualify as expressions of manumitted self-determination. Is it any wonder that a religion whose name literally translates to “submission” would offer such a conundrum? At best, veiling by self-proclaimed dissenters conveys a profound inability to see irony gone too far; where the concept of liberation is immediately contradicted by the choice to visually signal one’s indoctrination.
For a religion so saturated in symbolism, would the moment a Hermès square dons a Muslim head not signal the object’s metamorphosis into a high-fashion emblem of pain and oppression? Critically, any variation of the hijab carries a meaning that goes far beyond a mere expression of faith. Although lighter, this garment is akin to slave-collars in tone; primarily serving to promote the serfdom of less fortunate Islam-born sisters who are denied any veneer of a true choice in life. While a woman is completely free to indulge in domestic misogynistic masochism, the hypocrisy in championing purdah [3] becomes blindingly clear when its holy endorsement of universally homogenizing female persecution leaves little to be desired.
The cultural background of veiling is profoundly sinister and does not justify endorsements like respecting a woman’s “choice” to cover herself [4]. In the West, veiled Muslims regrettably represent a problematic element in the broader struggle for women’s emancipation, choking the liberation of their compatriots abroad. This reluctance to challenge problematic norms, driven by a misguided sense of respect or political correctness, is an alarm bell signaling the pervasive influence of passive religious conditioning on society. In a broader sense, perhaps it takes faith in religion for good people to be indifferent to evil. We might grudgingly tolerate misguided choices for the sake of social harmony, but to extend them our respect is another matter entirely.
Offering respect to a sectarian practice like wearing headscarves is to provide cover, however inadvertently, for the broader religious agenda — a callous pursuit to immortalize the ownership of women. We wouldn’t waste any such respect on a klansman’s right to publicly dress as a grand wizard; why should this be any different? Bottom line, regardless of how many cars one might be allowed to drive, hijabs and their derivatives are frightening reminders of the subhuman qualities assigned to women in Islam [5]. What, then, within this practice could possibly warrant respect? Would it not be more noble to stimulate the debate further and vehemently challenge our complicity in normalizing this antiquated custom for the sake of women everywhere?
[1] non-Muslims
[2] Brandeis.edu. 2021. Veiling and the Hijab | Muslim Sexual Ethics | The Feminist Sexual Ethics Project | Brandeis University. [online] Available at: <https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/veil.html> [Accessed 4 November 2021].
[3] the tradition of veiling in Islam
[4] BBC, 2021. Hijab campaign tweets pulled by Council of Europe after French backlash. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59149035> [Accessed 4 November 2021].
[5] Qur'an translation by Haleem, M.A.S.A. (2005) The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK. :
"Husbands should take good care of their wives, with a [the bounties]
God has given to some more than others and with what they
spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard
what God would have them guard in their husbands’ absence. If you
fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings
of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.
If they obey you, you have no right to act against them: God is
most high and great."
- Qur’an, An Nisa 4:34-35.
"Divorced women must wait for three monthly periods before remarrying, and, if they really believe in God and the Last Day, it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in
their wombs: their husbands would do better to take them back
during this period, provided they wish to put things right. Wives
have [rights] similar to their [obligations], according to what is
recognized to be fair, and husbands have a degree [of right] over
them: [both should remember that] God is almighty and wise."
- Qur’an, Al Baqarah 2:228.
Comments