On the Hijab and human faces.

[FloralBuntingIsObnoxious]

Way back when I wore headcoverings myself as a Christian woman, I took a keen interest in what was taught about the Hijab, and what women themselves had to say about it.

I recall being particularly impressed by something I saw from a number of women about it being 'liberating' because it creates a focus on the face, on the woman as a human, rather than a sex object.

I took that at face value for some time as a good thought, but over time, I've begun to feel very uneasy about it.

For a start, there is an implicit understanding that a woman who is not covering her hair is a sex object, not a human. It all leads in to this notion that if a woman does not cover herself then she is not as worthy of respect as those women who do.

Then there is the understandable desire to be seen as a human, rather than simply subject to the male gaze. I feel it myself when I'm not wearing make up and just want to get on with my day - a sort of wish to be invisible to leering glances.

But why is there this strange notion that only our faces are 'human'? My whole body is part of what makes me human, the same as a man. How come a Muslim man is able to walk around with hair uncovered and still be seen as a human, but a woman does not have that ability unless we can only see her face? This 'disembodying' is so harmful.

Anyway, just some rolled around thoughts I had this morning while reading some things about the objections to hijab. I'd be interested in a discussion about it.

I will also note here that for 50+ years, at least, since the beginning of the second wave, feminists in the west have been criticizing Judaism and Christianity, so no, Islam is not going to get a pass.

Any discussion of veiling in Islam is incomplete without mention of the origins of the practice. One of the verses from the Quran that is often quoted on the matter is the following:

Verse 33:59
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

The Hadith provide a commentary on the Quran and it is there that the somewhat enigmatic passage in the Quran about covering is put into context. For example, in the Tafsir Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani the following explanation is given:

(One night) some foolish people accosted a group of women and bothered (or hurt) them because they thought they were slave women, but they were actually free women. Because of this, the Prophet ordered the believing women to cast their cloaks upon themselves, so they would be distinguished as free women, and known from the slave women, and not bothered.

In other words, veiling originally existed to distinguish between ‘free’ and ‘slave’ women in order that free Muslim women would not be mistaken for slave women and harassed.

It is also made clear in the Hadith that slave women were not allowed to cover and were punished if they did. The sartorial code revealed in the Quran offered a discriminatory form of protection which kept women firmly in their ‘madonna’ or ‘whore’ boxes.

But the elephant in the room is, of course, the conduct of the menfolk. The pseudo-solution to harassment by men - that of giving a select few higher status women a badge of protection and leaving the other lower status women to cope with the resultant increase in ‘unwanted attention traffic’ headed their way - sounds very odd to modern feminist ears. Could the free women not have stood up for the rights of all women and refused to cooperate with such a chauvinistic non-solution, one which singularly failed to acknowledge and address the men’s complete culpability in the problem?

It’s clear from the Hadith what the significance of veiling once was - a means by which men categorised women according to social standing and sexual function - but it is equally clear that many Muslim women are freely choosing to veil these days and they see it as helping them to feel empowered in their Muslim identity.

There is certainly much to be proud of in Islamic culture - from the poetry of Rumi to the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. But for me the veil, with its murky historical connections to misogyny and slavery, is a deeply problematic symbol of identity. And I feel there must be better ways to celebrate Islamic heritage.

Outwitheoutcrowd. Thank you for setting out the origins of the veil. That was fascinating. I agree with you too.

The origins of veiling for women in the Middle East and wider area, predates Islam. It was used to divide the upper classes from everyone else. In this context, the original use was for the wives of the prophet (pbuh) only, as a reflection of their social standing.
The current widespread adaptation of the veil seems to be more an identifier of Islamic faith (a statement) rather than a celebration of heritage.
This is a decent review of the subject: core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43167797.pdf

Outwitheoutcrowd

Thank you for that. I do believe the 'woke' have a massive blind spot here. I don't see how women walking around in sacks in a sign of societal progress in anyway and it's testimony to the UK's tolerance that it's now so common here.

Other religions do not get a pass but there is no denying that Christianity is far more willing to admit it's mistakes and accept homosexuality, women etc.

Sheela, Christianity is an easy target. There are very few Christians nowadays that still apply the strict codes that people quote out in the bible especially in Western Europe.

I too can't see how covering yourself from head to toe is anyway logical especially in this day of age.

The thing that I find so frustrating is that it wasn't that long ago that these views on women's dignity applied in the west. It just feels like a retro step to argue against these views again so soon.

Christianity is significantly older than Islam, and therefore has had further time to evolve as a belief system. That's just happenstance. There are still plenty of permutations of Christian belief that are not willing to exercise any reflection at all.

This is not about one religion being better than another. This is about examining whether certain understandings of religious practices can change, or if there is something so oppressive and misogynistic underneath them that they really should just be rejected. I'm a little on the fence about it, but I'm not going to indulge in comparisons designed to either shut down the conversation, or create some kind of hierarchy of religions.

My only concern is women being liberated to make free choices that are not heavily influenced by a need to be safe, when the focus should be on challenging the acceptance of bad behaviour from males and expecting women to mitigate it.