[Marxism] Yes or No to Hijab: Not for Men to Answer

[usman x <sandinista@xxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: itrath

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/2004/02/000541print.php

By Sarah Eltantawi

The government of France approved on Tuesday by a vote of 494 to 36 a ban on
religious emblems in state schools. France¹s Commission of Reflection on the
Principle of Secularity and Jacques Chirac, in his December 17, 2003 speech,
made it clear that the measure, which would ban the wearing of head scarves
by Muslim girls, Jewish skull caps and large crucifixes in public school was
well on its way to being implemented.

I can¹t speak authoritatively about the internal politics motivating the
French political establishment into taking this step, nor am I able to
assess comprehensively all the implications the headscarf and this ban have
on the ground in French society. At a recent conference called the U.S.
Islamic World Forum co-sponsored by the Brookings Institute and the state of
Qatar that I had the pleasure of attending in that country, I had the
opportunity to meet incredible European activists who forced me to reassess
and fine-tune my previously idealized notions of secularism. These activists
and intellectuals were actively challenging the exclusionary and ultimately
internally inconsistent and illogical way European secularism is often
enforced, usually on the Arab and/or Muslim ³other.² One attendee described
the enforced secularism of his country, Belgium, as ³neutrality, our way;²
?our,¹ meaning, plainly and simply, white and Christian.

I oppose the French ban on the headscarf, but not only for the obvious
reason that, in principle, the ban trumps the laudable ideal of individual
freedoms and liberty. The ban on the headscarf, or hijab, also ironically
strengthens, rather than weakens fundamentalists. By problemitizing and
forbidding hijab, a favorite fetish of Muslim fundamentalists and the
Western press alike, the French government has forced a reaction from those
forces that includes sworn proclamations that the headscarf is a mandatory
religious duty for women, and that banning the scarf is tantamount to
interfering with the fundamental practice of Islam itself.

Putting aside the case that can be made that France is interfering in
religious freedom, the not-oft repeated truth is that many Muslim scholars
do not think the headscarf is mandatory in the first place.

Sticking strictly to the Qur¹anic text and the hadith (sayings of the
Prophet Muhammad), the Qur¹anic verse most frequently pointed to tells women
to pull a covering over their bosom, since women in 7th century Arabia were
known to have worn outfits that exposed their chests. The second doctrine
most frequently used to justify hijab is a hadith in which the Prophet
Muhammad is reported to have said that women were to cover all parts of
their bodies except for their faces and hands. The isnad, however, or chain
of transmission by which most hadith is evaluated (a methodology for
analyzing hadith that is itself man-made) is in fact weak for this hadith,
meaning that this saying can not be traced directly back to the mouth of the
Prophet. A third justification for mandatory hijab argues that the
preponderance of scholars have come to the conclusion that hijab is fard, or
required. However, what is radical about Islam, and what makes it truly
revolutionary, is precisely the fact that there is no authoritative clergy
structure built into the faith. Translation: no man (and I use the word
?man¹ pointedly) is to stand in the way of a worshipper and her creator.
Moreover, the majority of traditional scholars were men who lived and worked
in a traditional, patriarchal milieu, and who were bound to incorporate the
norms of their society and culture into their decision making.

All of this is to say that the case for mandatory hijab is by no means
closed, and that¹s what makes the reaction to the French headscarf ban so
interesting ­ and a little suspicious. At a meeting I recently attended in
Washington D.C., an active, intelligent Muslim woman I know who is
politically active and who wears hijab took me aside after the meeting we
both attended. She confided in me that the pro-hijab protests that had been
held in Washington had been almost totally organized by men, and that she
herself had been forced onstage to demand that she be allowed the wear the
scarf at all times. Ironically, this woman, an African-American Muslim, is
in the habit of wearing the scarf or taking it off according to the context
she is in and according to her ³spiritual meter² for the day: when she feels
like being spiritual, she wears the scarf, for the scarf has that effect on
her when she wears it of her own free will. When she is not in the mood, or
when the scarf ceases to have that effect on her, she simply doesn¹t wear
it. Now that¹s choice.

Many Muslim women, even those who don¹t wear the scarf, assume that it is
mandatory and that they are ³bad² Muslims or ³weak² for not yet donning the
scarf. Unfortunately, this repressive mentality is reinforced by many of our
mosques and religious organizations. The other evening I met an active,
professional woman at a restaurant in New York to discuss, among other
topics, politics and religion. This high-powered, confident, extremely
intelligent and articulate Muslim woman does not wear the scarf and does not
partake in Islamic rituals on a regular basis, but supports fundamentalists
(almost always men), who claim the scarf is mandatory because she had never
heard otherwise. Because of her professional orientation as an American of
Arab descent working in politics, her perspective was more focused,
understandably, on attacks directed at Arabs and Muslims by others as
opposed to from within. My dinner partner¹s view was that those who called
hijab mandatory and fought against the French ban tooth and nail were
upholding Islam and defending it against the undeniably dangerous and
neo-conservative, right wing Zionist and radical Christian fundamentalist
forces that systematically attack Islam.

I would argue that this logical leap, however, is in fact illogical and
dangerous. As our discussion about whether groups had the right to call
hijab mandatory started to turn into a debate, I started to wonder how this
woman would react if those forces that were calling hijab mandatory were
ever to really come into power and directly affect her life. What would
happen when the wearing of the scarf was no longer a theoretical right but a
mandatory duty punishable by law, when my colleague¹s stylish clothes were
to be deemed by a council of men as ³lewd,² when her elegant lipstick was
called too sultry red and her beautiful jewelry too sparkling? Is it only
then that when the question of authority over these matters becomes
relevant? When it¹s too late?

Another point must be made here. If the hijab is usually a choice made
completely by women, then why are so many men up in arms about France? The
fact is that the enforcement of the headscarf is often times carried out by
men, including fathers, husbands, brothers and others that for many reasons,
some benign, some oppressive, are concerned about containing the sexuality
of the female in question, in order, perhaps, to protect their ³honor,² or
perhaps to protect themselves and their honor. Many women choose to contain
their sexuality themselves, but is this really a choice? In other words, in
a social/imaginative world in which the public space is a male space, in
which the expression of sexuality is a male right, in which the fact of
sexuality itself is sometimes understood to be exclusively male, and often
threatening at that, can the requirement that women hide their beauty really
be celebrated?

Well meaning and honorable Muslim men I know have pointed out to me that the
hijab protects women against the carnivorous gaze of men; but, aside from
the obvious objection to this conception of reality -- why don¹t men just
control themselves? -- isn¹t this insulting to the majority of Muslim men
who would never consider assaulting a woman? Isn¹t this explanation of hijab
therefore a tragic one -- shouldn¹t the scarf in this context be a sad,
drooping, gray and depressing commentary on the hopelessly animalistic
nature of man? I, for one, reject this notion of men, and I suspect that
most men do as well.

Furthermore, is the notion of ³choice² really so uncomplicated? Egyptian
doctor, activist and intellectual Nawal El-Saadawi, in voicing her
opposition to the opposition to the ban, has raised the very important
question of false consciousness, whereby she argues that at least a
percentage of the women on the street demanding to wear hijab are in a
complicated way the architects of their own oppression, the unwitting
enforcers of a patriarchal worldview. Most Muslims would dismiss such a
theory as inherently imperialistic, the ³white man² or woman, as the case
may be, telling the oppressed other they don¹t know how to think. The
problem is that El-Saadawi and others like her are Muslim women from the
Muslim world, and it strikes me that their perspective is as valid as any
other.

I fear that unless Muslim women stand up for the right to make their own
decisions about what they are or aren¹t going to wear while they still have
the chance, the fundamentalists will have completely succeeded in convincing
yet more women that the simple act of wearing what makes them comfortable
and adjusted is somehow shameful, traitorous, or haram.

Some will call this concern about hijab petty, or missing the point. There
are many other problems facing Muslim women, they will argue, including
illiteracy and inadequate healthcare. While these concerns are of the utmost
importance and are certainly qualitatively more important than the freedom
to wear or not wear a scarf or red lipstick, as the case may be, I worry
that a slippery slope may be in effect. If we let religious ³authorities,²
which, as we have established, have no real authority, tell women what to
wear one day, what is to stop them from telling them where to go and not go
the next day? More to the point perhaps, will Muslim women themselves cease
to remember that they have a choice in these matters, that their lives
should be their own, and that they are under no religious obligation anyway
to listen to ³decrees² from on high that limit their personal freedom? And
if those other issues are more important, then why do we even talk about
hijab, and why do we oppose France so stridently? Presumably, the literacy
rate for women in France is high and healthcare is by and large adequate.
Lastly, what¹s wrong with defending one¹s right to be comfortable and make
decisions that make them happy and mentally healthy? Especially when we are
lucky enough to live in a society that allows for such nuance?

Do I applaud the actions of the French government? No. I think it¹s a silly
and exaggerated overreaction that will only strengthen the forces France is
trying to weaken. Do I oppose hijab? No. But I do not believe the practice
is mandatory and I am uncomfortable with some of the stated reasons I hear
for wearing it, namely reasons that revolve around ³preserving honor² and
protecting one¹s self from the male, sexualized gaze -- as if this gaze is
only male, a male gaze is always sexual and as if a woman always needs
protection from sexuality in the first place.

Sarah Eltantawi is a New York-based activist and writer.

Copyright © 2003-2004 Muslim WakeUp! Inc.
The World's Most Popular Muslim Online Magazine
http://muslimwakeup.com
Email: info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx









_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism