Aimee Howarth brings you an interview with The Yorker directors on the final day of the advent articles
Aimee Howarth speaks to YUSU's sabbatical officers about their Christmas Day routine for day 17 of the advent calendar
For the final time this term, Vicky Morris updates you on this weeks film news
50 years after the publication of 'James and the Giant Peach', the works of Roald Dahl continue to celebrate success.
The concept of the hijab is mentioned in the Quran, along with the ideals of modesty (however you choose to define the specifics): for both men and women. Although there is widespread debate over exactly how sartorial modesty should be implemented over men it's often the case that nothing in particular is observed. The knowledge I grew up with was that men cover to the elbows and knees, and whilst a few men I know adhere to this, it's not nearly as stringent a routine as the headscarf has become. Whilst I'm not even going to pretend to be a Muslim scholar, as all opinion articles go I'm going to toe the line and give you my opinions. Take it or leave it, here's what I've got.
Firstly, a couple of arbitrary distinctions. The hijab, as it's usually assumed to mean, is the headscarf. The burkha is the most commonly scrutinised mode of Muslim female dress - the black dress obscuring the entire female form from neck to toe (the head will be covered by the hijab. Are you following?) Finally, the niqab is the veil that goes across the face. So if we're going by some sort of Muslim alphabet, it goes burkha for the body, hijab for the head and niqab for the...nose. So long as you're clear about that, we can move on to the focal point for this particular article on the concept of hijab: France!
France's reported move last month to 'ban the burkha' is inaccurate. The £700 fine is being imposed on anyone who has their face covered. (According to the New York Times the burkha actually includes the niqab but I'm overruling them on this one). With the headscarf already banned in French schools, one must wonder why the Muslim female dress code is being so passionately attacked in the name of secularism: when actually a piece of legislation formed by the state which relates directly to a religious principle is doing exactly the opposite of what secularism preaches - it's linking religion to the state. Hey, I'm all for freedom of expression. Maybe having everyone in school, boy and girl, being dressed the same regardless of their religious belief, is some sort of equality, but it's one that has been enforced, not intellectually nourished. What about equal opportunities, not equal results? If the niqab is a sign of oppression, then banning it is a mental form thereof.
Sarkozy's argument is that the veil is an attack on the republic. Are my green jeans a sign of that too? What about purple hair, piercings, short skirts and stripy tights? If it's a sign of difference that’s an attack on the republic then I frankly don't accept it, because, as secularists widely believe, people should be able to wear what they want. If some women are being forced to wear the veil then perhaps the French President is launching an admirable attempt at liberating them, but forcing them not to wear it is definitely not the way to go.
Politically however, I understand that the headscarf is also a sign of religious affiliation which threatens the presupposed loyalty to your nation and the state that one should hold. Since 9/11 thousands of women have taken up wearing the headscarf as a public badge of their faith, empowering themselves not necessarily just as women but as Muslims standing up strong against the newly hostile global attitude towards them. The concept of 'ummah', the global community of Muslims united over nothing but their beliefs, is something that transcends geographical location and national boundaries, raising questions over what it is that comes first for a Muslim - religious or civic loyalties? In this sense I can understand Sarkozy's views as a politician and arguing that this stamp of religious belief poses a threat to the idea of his republic
That being said, I can also understand the issue people have with Muslim women covering their faces. Yes, ones’ face is a sign of their identity, and psychologically speaking, connections between people are stronger in person when you can connect with the other person's expressions and understand what they mean. However as I said at the start, the concept of modesty is recommended in the Quran - however you decided to define the specifics. Some women decide to define it thus; as applying to the face as well as the body. I don't agree with it being labeled a rigidly religious principle but if a woman can justify it then why can‘t she wear it? I know for one that I couldn't leave the house without a headscarf on, but not for the usual idea of saving a woman from men's gaze, an idea that is taken at face value and not a step further. Unless the headscarf emits some blinding effervescence that prevents men from seeing, I do not agree with this somewhat shallow definition.
It's a matter of personal property. What's mine is mine, and who are you to have the right to see it? Apologies if that sounds hostile or rude, I compensate for this in daily life with an easy sense of humour and what I'd like to think is a welcoming manner, but when it comes down to it, my hair and body is mine and I feel better for having hidden it, because it's a part of me that I only allow those close to me to see. If you don't understand that, feel free to contact the features editor and she'll pass on my details so we can talk about it further, but that's my reasoning behind it. So why shouldn't a woman feel the same about her face when it's the most obvious sign of her beauty, the most evident and memorable part of her identity that people can capture and keep for themselves? In this way the concept of niqab is actually empowering, contrary to what many may think.
What's not empowering is having someone else dictating the implementation of it, which is in effect what both the Taliban AND French have done. Maybe it's the religious motivation behind it that separates the matter of the veil and all its accoutrements from the usual arguments behind wearing whatever you want, but I think it still stands that it is a way for women to express how they feel about themselves. Yes it may still be an expression of how they also feel in relation to others, including men, but then everyone dresses with that in mind, even if they don't think so. People must in their daily dress meet some sort of social expectation of being presentable, and I suppose the headscarf suits that definition, but for me it's always been the fact that I can dress up how I want because the headscarf has helped me not to standardise myself against what I see around me, but to value myself more as an individual person with independent thought. Strange that it should come out of a mass-religious ritual, but I actually think Islam's a big believer in individualism and the hijab is one way of nurturing it, should women choose to take it.
Personally I feel that in a different life, if I'd been bought up in a different background, I may well have been one of these women, not just wearing the hijab as I do now, but possibly the burkha and maybe, just maybe the niqab. Those who've seen me around campus in my rainbow coloured clothes may find this notion absurd but for a woman who feels violated if a person walks in on her hair, her inner self, the side that only she and her loved ones are supposed to see, I really do feel the easiest way is to cover yourself up so no-one gets to see what you look like. On the other side, there is no denying that I absolutely adore being able to express myself through the clothes I wear and in this real lifetime, wouldn't have it any other way.
France should stay out of what its constituents decide to wear - but I'm opening up the question to you. Is the veil really an insult to female dignity? Is it not just another form of expression, another facet of fashion, despite its religious background? Finally, how is it that you yourself react to a woman covering herself up? Are you really frustrated when you see a woman in a burkha because of her alleged religious oppression, or because we as a Western society place enormous impetus on identity and the burkha obscures it from the public eye? All I can say is never judge a book by its cover. It's a cliché but it's true. Despite the dark, black appearance of burkhas or stand-offish attitudes a headscarf may present, all we're trying to say is that we're not so concerned with what our hair - or in the burkha's case - clothes are saying, as we are with what we have to say. So listen. Look if you want, but trust me, there's more to hear than there is to see. And if you get to know us well enough, you might just get a flash of those follicles one day…*
I always love reading your articles. Great insight into something most of us only get fed through the papers (though not the Sun for myself personally).
I have always supported the rights for someone to be able to wear the burkha, hijab or anything else if they want to express their religion. The only thing I personally object to are those who do not want to wear it and are made to by parents, society etc. In a way that's as oppressive as people trying to get them banned.
Free choice rules throughout imo.
I think you do make a very good point, only i disagree with the term 'oppressed' as, in the UK especially no one says you cannot wear the headscarf. I think the only problem people have is that the government is all over 'religious freedom' and allows Muslim women to wear what they will as an expression of faith, whereas Christians are repeatedly asked to remove cross necklaces and so forthin the work place and as we are technically Christian society I believe its wrong and frustrating,and in the UK Christians are far more oppressed than Muslims
Wow! That really made me see things in new ways. Thanks!
#2 - The difference between asking a Christian to remove a crucifix necklace and a Muslim woman to remove a hijab or burka is that wearing the crucifix is not in any way encouraged in the Bible. It's often more of a fashion accessory too. You may as well complain about not being allowed to carry a life-size wooden cross around with you in the work place. It just isn't an established facet of Christianity. Also, Christians are not more oppressed than Muslims, generally speaking, because for the odd woman who is asked to remove a crucifix in the workplace, there are several Muslim women in burkas and hijabs that are verbally abused on the streets. I know a woman who wears a burkha who has been spat at, and a woman refused to help her carry a push chair up stairs, telling her to uncover her face first.
Secondly, the burkha is generating some resentment because hooded youths can be barred from shopping centres, and people can be asked to remove hats in shops because of CCTV, but the same would not be done for a woman in a burkha. However, this often sounds very petty and whiny. "I have to take off my hood in a shop, and that woman doesn't have to!!! it's sooooooo unfair..." And it is, partly. But maybe we should see how many white youths commit crime compared to Muslim women in burkhas. Maybe it's not necessary right now to kick up a fight about principles?
Also, there should be no problem in society of people covering their hair. I've dyed my hair, worn hats and put hair accessories in it. How much difference does wearing a scarf on it make?
This is a really interesting article, thank you. I have the utmost respect for a woman's personal choice to express herself and think that Sarkozy is only scapegoating and contributing to a culture of intolerance. That said, as a feminist, there is something about the sexist politics of this kind of costume that I can't get on board with as ultimately, I think it serves to perpetuate female inferiority to men. You seem to be very keen to emphasise that this is a choice and, while the act of putting on the costume perhaps is a choice, I just wonder how much choice there was in accepting the ideology that supports such a choice. For example, you mention about how your face and hair etc belongs to you and you don't want to show it to everyone - but where did this attitude to your own body come from? Was it an active choice to think like this, or a way that you have felt in relation to your own body for as long as you can remember? It appears to me as though muslim culture constructs a bodily taboo for women; fetishizing purity to the extent that women feel they must protect themselves from an unexplained threat of their own sexuality and the male gaze.
Amazing article as usual Zee. Oh, and loving the photo!
#5, thanks for your comment, just to answer your question I think a lot of what I do as a Muslim is unfortunately because I've done it for as long as I can remember - it's the hazard of having a family environment that insists upon it - but I can proudly say that wearing the headscarf is not one of them. It's been a long road down to this point where I feel comfortable and empowered - at the age of 16 I was so unhappy with it my teachers at school genuinely thought I would return after the holidays showing a full head of hair. Equally, being alone at university has really given me the chance to explore why I wear it and in many ways, confirm the reasons for it. So don't worry, I'm not one for blind obedience and never have been - Muslim culture may well dictate taboos as the one you suggest, but not every Muslim is part of that culture (I'm still not, and not necessarily voluntary either), and ultimately the Quran is dictated to the believer with no mediators attempting to read between the lines. I understand your concern about fetishizing purity and maybe that's the case for some Muslim men out there but my view is that an empowered woman disregards this (like I do) because as you say it suggests inferiority.
Agree with most of what you're saying and indeed the ban in France seems to be the oppressive part. There is one part of the story, however, which has been touched on by #4, but does not receive much attention in your article. Namely, that being recognisable might be something that the state may reasonably demand of its citizens. This is certainly the case with security checks, but perhaps also when working with children and even more generally. What do you think?
I totally agree Yoni - and previously that's what I've argued, but I guess I gave myself a break this time round and tried fighting on the otherside! But yes, it is incredibly important to be recognised by the state - the niqab is in no means compulsory so it shouldn't be a hassle to do things like take it off when in official capacities such as teaching children or having a passport photo taken because I do think that facial contact in those situations are important. Thanks for reminding me!
I think the fact that children are wearing head scarfs in school is the problem itself, rather than being looked at as something which is harmless. Children should be brough up free from religion until they are free to really choose for themselves what they want to believe in.
"2 - The difference between asking a Christian to remove a crucifix necklace and a Muslim woman to remove a hijab or burka is that wearing the crucifix is not in any way encouraged in the Bible"
well that may be, but fornunately alot of christianity is not completely defined by a dated book written in a horrible period of man, and i hope most religions can do the same. but if that is how you choose to rank maxims that great...
and seriously what are you on about calling the hijab fashionable instead of suggesting oppression to women?
Let it be clear, one of the very reasons people think there is a need to get rid of it is because the oppressiveness it represents itself, but in doing so are repressing islam?
#10 I agree with what you say about individuals being free to choose their own religion and not having it forced on them as children, but even in Iran children aren’t made to wear the headscarf. Although banning the hijab in schools isn’t really the issue being discussed here it is important to note that the ruling primarily affected young women who, in their teens, can be supposed to know their own minds and it was from them that there was greatest opposition to removing it.
Secondly the burkha has a long and complicated history with regards to French rule and repression- particularly in colonial Algeria, where the burkha became a symbol of freedom and for that reason was also a fashion statement, I think if you read Fanon it may change you’re perception of it purely as a symbol of Muslim oppression.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report