Do not wear a headscarf in “solidarity” with the ideology that most silences us
Asra Nomani and Hala Arafa say thanks but no thanks to the whole “wearing ‘hijab’ in solidarity” thing – not for the familiar and irritating reason that it’s “appropriation” but for the much better reason that it’s sexist shit.
Last week, three female religious leaders – a Jewish rabbi, an Episcopal vicar and a Unitarian reverend – and a male imam, or Muslim prayer leader, walked into the sacred space in front of the ornately-tiled minbar, or pulpit, at the Khadeeja Islamic Center in West Valley City, Utah, the women smiling widely, their hair covered with swaths of bright scarves, to support “Wear a Hijab” day.
The media obligingly reported this interfaith gesture.
For us, as mainstream Muslim women, born in Egypt and India, the spectacle at the mosque was a painful joke and reminder of the well-financed effort by conservatives to dominate modern Muslim societies. This modern-day movement spreads an ideology of political Islam, called “Islamism,” enlisting unsuspecting well-intentioned do-gooders, while promoting the headscarf for women as a virtual “sixth pillar” of Islam, after the traditional “five pillars,” the shahada (or proclamation of faith), prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage. We reject this interpretation. We are not too sexy for our hair.
It’s been grating on me for ages, the way the media and would-be progressives beam approval on the headscarf for women, as if it stood purely for mutual love and respect and not at all for the subordination of women.
This modern-day movement, codified by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan and the Islamic State, has erroneously made the Arabic word hijab synonymous with “headscarf,” furthering a sexist interpretation of Islam that women and girls must “protect” their “honor” by covering their hair. Hijab literally means, “curtain” in Arabic. It also means “hiding,” ”obstructing” and “isolating” someone or something. It is never used in the Koran to mean headscarf.
I did not know that. I’ve been calling it hijab all this time. Damn.
Born in the 1960s into conservative but open-minded families (Hala in Egypt and Asra in India), we grew up without an edict that we had to cover our hair. But, starting in the 1980s, following the 1979 Iranian revolution of the minority Shia sect and the rise of well-funded Saudi clerics from the majority Sunni sect, we have experienced bullying to cover our hair from men and boys – and women and girls, who are sometimes called “enforce-hers” and “Muslim mean girls,” for example, telling jokes about “hijabis” in skinny jeans actually being “ho-jabis,” using the indelicate term for “whores.”
…
To us, the headscarf is a symbol of an interpretation of Islam we reject that believes that women are a sexual distraction to men, who are weak, and, thus, we must cover ourselves. We don’t buy it. This ideology promotes a social attitude that absolves men of sexually harassing women and puts the onus on the victim to protect herself by covering up.
And treats her like so much garbage if she doesn’t cover up.
Unfortunately, the idea of “hijab” as a mandatory headscarf for women, duping well-intentioned “interfaith” supporters, is promulgated by efforts such as “World Hijab Day,” started in 2013 by Nazma Khan, the Bangladeshi American owner of a Brooklyn-based headscarf company, and Ahlul Bayt, a Shia proselytizing TV station, that the University of Calgary, in southwest Canada, promotes as a resource for its participation in “World Hijab Day,” the TV station arguing “hijab” is necessary for women to avoid “unwanted attention.” World Hijab Day, Ahlul Bayt and the University of Calgary didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Yikes. Bad move, University of Calgary.
In its “resources,” Ahluly Bayt includes a link to the notion that “the woman is awrah,” or forbidden, an idea that leads to the confinement, subordination, silencing and subjugation of women’s voices and presence in public society. It also includes an article, “The top 10 excuses of Muslim women who don’t wear hijab and their obvious weaknesses,” with the argument, “Get on the train of repentance, my sister, before it passes by your station.”
Also, the notion that “the woman is awrah” presupposes that the only people who count as people are men. The woman is forbidden to men, and therefore she’s just plain forbidden, because only men count. Since only men count, the way to deal with these forbidden women is to imprison them. Problem solved…as long as you assume women don’t count as people.
The rush to cover women’s hair has reached a fever pitch with ultraconservative websites and organizations pushing this interpretation, such as VirtualMosque.com and Al-Islam.org, which even published a feature, “Hijab Jokes,” mocking Muslim women who don’t cover their hair “Islamically.”
Last week, high school girls at Vernon Hills High School, outside Chicago, wore headscarves for an activity, “Walk a Mile in Her Hijab,” sponsored by the school’s conservative Muslim Students Association. It disturbed us to see the image of the girls in scarves.
These things always disturb me. They just send the message that Muslim women and girls are expected to wear the damn curtains.
As Americans, we believe in freedom of religion. But we need to clarify to those in universities, the media and discussion forums that in exploring the “hijab,” they are not exploring Islam, but rather the ideology of political Islam as practiced by the mullahs, or clerics, of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State.
In the name of “interfaith,” well-intentioned Americans are getting duped by the agenda of Muslims who argue that a woman’s honor lies in her “chastity,” pushing a platform to put a headscarf on every woman.
Please do this instead: Do not wear a headscarf in “solidarity” with the ideology that most silences us, equating our bodies with “honor.” Stand with us instead with moral courage against the ideology of Islamism that demands we cover our hair.
I do!
It’s simple to avoid being taken in if human rights take precedence over religious observances. Which they’re supposed to in secular democracies. Hell, even animal welfare takes precedence over religious observances. Followers of voodoo can’t go around sacrificing chickens if anyone knows about it.
But when it comes to women, somehow, too many people get all confused. I wonder if remedial classes on human rights would help.
But Orthodox Jews can sacrifice chickens once a year. (See kapparot)
The situation with religious head-covering has two different strands: On the one hand, pressuring women to cover up is a bad thing that places women in an inferior position, marks women as ones that should not be too visible in decent society. On the other hand, treating women who cover up badly because they are the more visible aspect of a harmful religion is also wrong (since the men are more assimilated in their dress they can avoid some of the awfulness). At least some of the people wearing hijabs out of solidarity are trying to address the latter. Can they do that without unnecessary promotion of the covered look?
Besides, if the problem is the male gaze, just covering up women and girls is plainly illogical.
It presupposes that these helplessly sinful men see a headscarf and either (a) immediately the woman becomes invisible to them, or at least no longer obviously female, or (b) no muslim man, however sinfully weak, has any imagination whatsoever. Does anyone believe in magic garments? Or a lack of imagination?
Surely, the solution is either to wrap every single person in one of those mobile tents, so that it becomes impossible for anyone to be able to tell what sex someone is, or blindfold all the men.
Last week, three female religious leaders – a Jewish rabbi, an Episcopal vicar and a Unitarian reverend – and a male imam, or Muslim prayer leader, walked into the sacred space in front of the ornately-tiled minbar, or pulpit, at the Khadeeja Islamic Center in West Valley City, Utah, the women smiling widely, their pelvises covered with the bright steel of locking metal underwear, to support “Wear a Chasity Belt” day.
Tigger, illogical and fucked up in so many ways. Maybe many men in those societies do lack self control. If so, it is the result of centuries of telling men that they have no self control under certain conditions and that it’s all the womens fault anyway – do what you like with her. I suspect in practice that MOST men in those societies are perfectly decent and are able to control their urges, just as MOST men in our society can as well.
I grant the argument that a headscarf or hijab are required for the good of society as much credence as the idea that being anti-vaccine is acceptable as a public health response (i.e. less than none).
Rob, “those societies”? It’s nearly universal; it’s just that muslim societies are currently the ones under the spotlight.
Consider:
Men are expected to remove their hats upon entering church, as a mark of respect to the deity (they shouldn’t attempt to hide themselves from his gaze), which has become a tradition extended to secular spaces; women, however, are expected to cover their hair upon entering church, so as not to distract the worship of the men. A clear indication that no-one expects women to be of any interest whatsoever to the almighty, not being people.
The nuns’ habit; it is based upon traditional widows’ wear. We should never forget how, up until very, very recently, women have been regarded as chattel in the West.
Pleas on a variant of “I couldn’t help myself; just look at her!” still. fucking. work. in. the. fucking. 21st century.
Yes, the vast majority of men are decent human beings who wouldn’t dream of hurting a woman or violating her boundaries; the problem is, that they usually won’t step up and criticise, let alone ostracise, those few who do. Worse – by participating in conversations and laughing at jokes that denigrate women and/or make the idea of violating them acceptable or even ‘amusing’, they actually support the men who do. Oh, they might not think that is what they are doing, especially when they feel uncomfortable themselves. But what do they think the misogynists are feeling? If they only get positive, or even just neutral, feedback from their peers, they take it as support.
It starts in infancy, this encouraging of boys to push the boundaries of girls, and the encouragement of girls to blame themselves for their victimisation. The phrase ‘boys will be boys’ has no female equivalent, does it? “He only hits you because he likes you” is something heard in every fucking playground and primary school every-fucking-where.
We kid ourselves if we blame this behaviour on the exotic and foreign. There is a very thin line keeping us from going back to those days of open misogyny ourselves; it is terrifying to contemplate losing our few, very recent, legal gains – hell, we’re still waiting for most of them to translate into changed societal actions.
@6
Have you been in a church lately? There is no longer any compulsion for women to cover their hair whilst attending mass. At one time there was, but even then head coverings were RESTRICTED to church services only. Outside of church services, women, be they Catholic, Anglican, Baptist or Lutheran, can wear what ever they like. The only thing that has any bearing whatsoever on what women wear are the caprices of fashion, and those caprices can be ignored. And as for men and their hats? It has usually been considered rude for men to wear a hat indoors…especially when seated… and a church is an indoor kinda place. Furthermore, unlike the hijab, women covering their heads or men removing their hats while in church has absolutely no political component.
No equivalence, no comparison at all…the *similarities* you cite are all baseless and superficial. They are a balm you use to minimize and even dismiss an IMPOSED symbol of Islamist misogyny.
Tiggerthewing @6,
I’m with John on this… and definitely with Asra Nomani and Hala Arafa. I’ve been to various denominations of churches (and synagogues) and seen a large array of attire. It’s none of my business if they wear things to perform their mumbo-jumbo. But the hijab (which I wore myself for one year) – not to mention the niqab or burqa – is an atrocity foisted upon women out in the real world. Like FGM, it has no real religious basis, but is a prominent feature of current Islamic misogyny. Comparing it to hair covering in church belittles its coercion and everyday nastiness.
Tigger, I said those societies to make it explicit I was referring to the particular cultural groupings under discussion. I agree wholeheartedly that ‘our’ society also has deeply ingrained problems with sexism expressed in many and varied ways (generally not head coverings). It’s why I believe that feminism needs to have a strong and focused voice.
It occurs to me that if the request was reversed – if there was some kind of ‘day of solidarity’ with non-muslims – and the muslim theocracies were asked to set aside the veil for a day… would they? I suspect cries of ‘islamophobia’ and ‘cultural imperialism’ would be more likely.
Or how about when dignitaries or especially royalty from said nations visit their western counterparts, they also frequently request the female diplomatic and political staff dress more demurely, out of ‘respect’ for their traditions. Again, the question that springs to mind is would they reciprocate? If a western leader visited e.g. Saudi Arabia, imagine that westerner asking the house of Saud to relax their clothing requirements for the Saudi women for even a day. Would they grant it, or howl in outrage?
And so to my mind, there is another reason to not grant this (silly) token of respect: they will never reciprocate. There is no ‘meeting half way’ when the other group demands everything their way.
Ultra-orthodox Jewish women are obliged to wear wigs when they go out in public, since their hair is for their husband’s eyes only (what is it with gods and hair anyway?). Ultra-orthodox women and girls are also required to cover their arms and wear dresses below the knee. In some fundamentalist Christian churches, there are still requirements for women to wear head coverings in church. And of course, the women and girls are all dressed in longsleeves, high necks, and below the knee dresses.
As for the “rudeness” of men wearing hats indoors, I’m with others who have suggested that this is just an extension of “proper” behaviour in church. I once went to a church in Buenos Aires, Argentina that was also a museum. There was a sign requesting that men remove their hats, out of respect for God. My (mostly secular) Jewish father suggested that for him, the proper sign of respect for God was to keep his hat on. I recently went into a historic Sefardic synagogue in London, England where the request was made for *both* men and women to keep their heads covered.
I think that for a women to wear a headscarf/hijab/nikab/burqa is without a doubt demeaning and dehumanizing for a woman, even if she asserts (and believes) that she is doing it voluntarily. I don’t think it’s helpful to ban the practice, but I strongly oppose the idea of celebrating it.
The whole rationale we in the west are supposed to buy is bollocks because sexual harassment is rampant in countries where the headscarf is mandatory. So no, the headscarf does not prevent or reduce sexual harassment or any type of unwanted attention. No.
It takes one generation to do away with this mentality. I suppose we’ve all seen by now those pictures from the 70s of Afghan, muslim women protesting against the headscarf. I should like to see today’s lefties explaining things to them.
I saw this ‘parody’ liked on my facebook timeline today, by a man who found the original article ridiculous:
https://medium.com/@mohamedghilan/as-muslim-men-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-grow-your-beard-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity-cc1ab14089df#.vedje6xz7
It’s so nice of him to show how the silly complaining women have got it all wrong.
(Have been a long time lurker and reader of yours btw, Ophelia, I really really enjoy your writing, especially back here, without the ads and …. other stuff on FTB. Greetings from Austria :)
I’m familiar with Vernon Hills. I did a little digging to see if my suspicions were right, and they definitely were–median income over $100K, 80% white, majority have at least “some college” education, or actual degrees. So pretty much the exact environment to breed this sort of absurdity.
Just re-read this. Sorry for not being clear – I wasn’t meaning to imply that I think that Western women have it just as bad, I was trying to show how close we are, historically and legally, to having religious restrictions placed upon women’s dress, the same way they were suddenly imposed in Iran recently. Or doesn’t a mere forty-something years ago count as ‘recently’? Any Western country suddenly coming under mediæval religious rule within my own lifetime counts, to me; after all, people have been trying to escape for millennia.