Hijab Redux
It doesn't often happen that I get a comment on an entry that's two months old, but I'm glad I did and I'm grateful to oj, the commenter, for taking the trouble to point out some facts about the practice of hijab. It doesn't often happen that I get a comment on an entry that's two months old, but I'm glad I did and I'm grateful to oj, the commenter, for taking the trouble to point out some facts about the practice of hijab. The original post, Hijab, quoted a woman who had taken up the practice of dressing so that only her face, hands, and feet are visible during her time at school in Chicago. The essence of her argument is that in hijab she will be evaluated by the world for her heart and mind, not her sex-appeal. That is an appealing thought and it's is why I quoted her. I hoped to stimulate some illuminating conversation on the topic. As I do today. *ahem* My commenter pointed me toward an article in the NY Post by Amir Taheri. [I know; the Post] Upon further investigation, I found Mr Taheri to be rather more than qualified to opine on the subject. Among other qualifications, Mr Taheri was born in Iran and educated in Tehran, London, and Paris. He was editor-in-chief of Jeune Afrique, Middle East editor for the London Sunday Times and editorial writer for Die Welt. Mr Taheri was member of the Board of Trustees of the Institute for International Political and Economic Studies (IIPES) from 1975 to 1980. He is currently listed with the Benador Associates' speakers bureau. "Each of our experts is nationally and internationally recognized on issues of the Middle East and national security, among others. ...Among the speakers are James Woolsey, A.M. Rosenthal, Richard Perle, and the Iraqi nuclear scientist, Dr. Khidhir Hamza." Amir Taheri presents a different picture of the history and practice of hijab. The occasion for the article is the move by France to draft a law banning hijab in state-owned establishments. In Germany several Islamist organizations are suing authorities because of similar bans.[Hijab] is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet. This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi'ite community. In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. ...Sadr's idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shi'ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon. Sadr's neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah's regime.[all emph. mine, ed.]
Mr Taheri encourages us to consider the apparel of women in other Islamic countries. "In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colorful headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless." He invites women to go through their photo albums where he predicts they will not find any of their mothers nor grandmothers wearing hijab. "Even today, less than 1 percent of Muslim women wear the hijab that has bewitched some Western liberals as a symbol of multicultural diversity."
The garb is designed to promote gender apartheid. It covers the woman's ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out. ...This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilization.
He describes a government study in Iran identifying hijab as the cause of "widespread depression and falling academic standards" and even suicide among teenage girls. In schools where they have experimented with allowing the girls and their teachers to drop the hijab within school walls reflect "a 30 percent rise in the number of students obtaining the highest grades."
The delicious irony of militant Islamists asking "Zionist-Crusader" courts in France, Germany and the United States to decide what is "Islamic" and what is not will not be missed. The judges and the juries who will be asked to decide the cases should know that they are dealing not with Islam, which is a religious faith, but with Islamism, which is a political doctrine. The hijab -wearing militants have a right to promote their political ideology. But they have no right to speak in the name of Islam.
I admit to a certain amount of bewitching. I also admit to a whole buncha wondering how anyone could manage to get anything done while wearing a garment that often requires both hands and the teeth to keep it from sliding off into a lump on the floor. I have read accounts by women who find comfort in the anonymity of the chador. I have also read accounts by women who hated the awkward garment with all their being. That is all without mentioning wearing the bare minimum hijab consisting of a head scarf and overcoat in the summer heat of Tehran. Mr Taheri's argument makes sense to me, though I will have to take the citing of the Koran and hadith ...er, on faith.
[Hijab] is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war.
When an “expert” is mentioned in the same sentence with Richard Perle and James Woolsey, you know something’s got to be wrong…
I don’t think it’s worth giving a point by point response to Taheri’s preposterous claims. But several points are worthy of mention:
1-The best way to prove the utter laughableness of this guy’s assertions is to take him up on his challenge and actually go around and look at the apparel of Muslims in other countries. First off, take a look at the dress of Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Egypt:
Saudi Arabia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1969535.stmEgypt:http://www.middleofeverywhere.com/women.jpg
Both came up in a very simple Google image search. I’m sure Taheri is not going to say that the women in the Egyptian village started wearing the black garments after seeing Iranian women doing so on television. PLEASE!!!
2-My own grandmother, who died in 1980 in Tehran, wore the chador all her life. I don’t think she had ever even heard of Imam Moussa Sadr and the so-called “neo-Hijab” that Taheri claims he had invented. And the memory of Reza Shah (ruler from 1925-1940) and his infamous order to his soldiers to remove women’s chadors on the streets by force is still pretty fresh in Iran.
3-The Iranian chador (chador is a Persian word) does have its differences with those of other countries. Everyone is now familiar with the Afghan term “Burqa” which covers a lot more than the chador, and the Arab term “abaya”, which Iranians refer to as the “Arab chador”. The Lebanese women that I have seen so far wear their own distinct form of chador, which is similar to the Iranian chador but also has its own distinct features. As far as where the chador comes from, some historians maintain that it was worn by the female nobility as early as during the Sassanian period (200-640AD), before Islam was even introduced to the Persian Empire. These nobles covered themselves from the eyes of commoners, who they thought were not worthy of laying eyes on them. In fact, only “common” women would be seen in the streets with their heads bare.
4-The main verse in the Qur’an that stresses hijab is this:
“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.” - [33:59]
More on mentions of Hijab in the Qur’an and Hadith here (Sunni source—so it couldn’t be “neo-Hijab” right?):
http://www.islamweb.net/pls/iweb/misc.view_topic?vtopic=31087&thelang=E
I think that’s enough. The main problem with the Taheri assertions is that he resorts to REALLY pathetic lies to support his point that Islam has been hijacked by the “Islamists”. He probably would’ve been able to make a much stronger point if he hadn’t said all that crap beforehand. But anyway, the base of the argument being refuted thus, I don’t really see any need to go any further as far as what the “negative effects” of the hijab have been in Iranian society. That’s an entirely different debate.
Posted by Alireza on 08/16/03 at 04:44 PMAlireza, thank you for the information and direction on the Koran and hadith. I also found several other citations which are translated into English with much the same sense. I appreciate your bringing some perspective to the questionable nature of some of Taheri’s arguments.
I think that the negative effects of literal minded and humorless dedication to the letter of the law and not its spirit is the question I was addressing.
The concepts of modesty, not bragging nor calling attention to oneself, and even differentiating oneself from those who do not share your faith all make sense to me. This seems to me to state the essence of the quote.
>>In fact, only “common” women would be seen in the streets with their heads bare.
Yes. It was like that in the US until the late 60’s. Different shape—similar concept. I believe that is a fairly common idea throughout many world cultures and times that women, and men, of good breeding, or good background dressed modestly in the streets and formally to suit the occasion. I have no argument against modesty nor appropriateness of costume.The issue which still troubles this American Barbarian is this: Why should any sensible rules of society be different for women than for men? It seems to me that a faith which is dedicated to decency, peace, learning, and behavior that promotes the smooth functioning of society would hold men and women as equally valued contributors to that society.
And that seems to be the heart of the matter. If a woman’s wrists are seen, “men might be tempted,” or “it is a potential source of mischief.” It certainly presumes a very low opinion of men and their ability to behave like adults.
It seems that the attempt to protect women has not curtailed the freedom of the potential villain as much as it has the freedom of the women.
If the real concern is that men might become overwhelmed by temptation, why not make men wear an unwieldy and restrictive garment so as to hamper their potential for “mischief?”
Posted by Claire on 08/17/03 at 10:26 AM“The issue which still troubles this American Barbarian is this: Why should any sensible rules of society be different for women than for men? It seems to me that a faith which is dedicated to decency, peace, learning, and behavior that promotes the smooth functioning of society would hold men and women as equally valued contributors to that society.”
I think being “equally valued contributors to society” is different from having the “same rules” for everyone. The classic argument about women and men’s rights that I have heard is this: men and women are equal (i.e. they have equal worth in the eyes of God, and are equal contributors to society), but they are not “the same”. Their differences - biological, emotional and otherwise - warrant different rules if society is to function smoothly. Exactly how the difference should play out is of course debatable. And it could be argued that a male-dominated society could easily take advantage of the argument that men and women are equal but not the same in order to maintain the dominance of men over women. However, I think that dismissing the differences that exist among men and women for fear of prejudice amounts to what we Iranians call “erasing the question” instead of solving the problem. It is work avoidance.
On another note, the modesty laws of Islam are not restricted to women. You will seldom see a Muslim man who wears shorts on the streets. Many have beards. And there are things that Muslim women can wear that men can’t, including anything made of gold (my wedding ring is made of platinum) or silk.
Differences exist in other spheres of the law as well. For example, while the inheritance of women is half of men, the flip side of it is that by law, a married woman has no obligation, under any circumstances, to share her wealth with her husband. She can spend it anyway she wants, and the man is the sole responsible party in providing for the financial needs of the household. Married women also have no obligation to work at home. Indeed, according to the Shari’a, a woman can ask for a salary from her husband even for nursing her own baby. Also, men are required to make a financial pledge to their wives-to-be at the time of marriage (in Iran this is usually a certain amount of gold coins, ranging from a very small amount to - more frequnetly - something in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars, the exact amount of which is agreed upon by the two families), since a woman is seen as making a sacrifice and a risk by leaving the security of her own family to join another man in a new life, and the mehrieh is supposed to be a monetary form of compensation, and an assurance of security for the woman. The pledge is called “mehrieh”, and eventhough it has in recent times become more of a ceremonial issue than something of social and legal value, as far as Shari’a is concerned, a man MUST give his wife the “mehrieh” on demand. There have been stories of women going to court to get their mehriehs even as they are married. And courts requires the husband to pay his wife the mehrieh in the event that they separate.
It is generally recognized in Islamic countries that the laws of the Shari’a are meant to ensure the smooth and healthy functioning of society. As such, many Islamic scholars, lawmakers, etc. recognize that Islamic laws as detailed in the Qur’an and in the ways of the Prophet should be analyzed and interpreted in their own historical and sociocultural contexts, and that it obviously would not be appropriate for every law to be implemented in the exact same fashion it was carried out 1400 years ago (The Taliban would obviously disagree with this assertion). For example, there are arguments now being made (in the Iranian parliament for example) that the law that gives women less of a share of inheritance is related to times when women were not responsible for the finances of a household, whereas it is very common now for women to work (particularly in the case of single mothers, and in many places, where the man might be a drug addict or a jailed criminal who obviously cannot work) and provide for their families. The proponents of this argument say that there should be exceptions made to the inheritance law in such cases. There are many other debates in other legal areas as well, though of course, it is not the forward thinking jurists and lawmakers that always get their way.
Finally, I have to say that as far as I’ve come to understand (and I may be wrong about this), Islamic countries are not the only places where some of the “sensible rules of society” are different for men and women. As far as modesty is concerned for example, men in North America are allowed to go shirtless in public, while women cannot go topless. I may be wrong about this… but I do remember there was a protest by women in front of the parliament buildings in Ottawa back in 1993-4 where they took off their tops to protest the “discrimination”. Also, women are generally favored in terms of child custody rights when divorce is involved. Again I may be wrong about this too. The point is that I don’t think any right-minded society would jeopardize its own well-being by neglecting the differences that obviously exist between men and women (and lots of other differences, for example between children and adults, sane and insane, etc.) for the sake of ensuring “equality” (but actually “sameness").
Posted by Alireza on 08/17/03 at 01:40 PM... for the sake of ensuring “equality” (but actually “sameness” leading to inequality).
Posted by Alireza on 08/17/03 at 02:55 PM
Next entry: The Boy Is a Joy!
Previous entry: The Real Deal
