INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the

text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and

dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of

computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment

can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and

there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright

material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning

the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from lef! to

right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in

one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic

prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for

an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell d Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 481061346 USA

8W-5Zl-06OO

THE POLITICS OF THE VEIL.

Katherine H. Bullock

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Graduate Department of Political Science, University of Toronto.

(c) by Katherine Helen Bullock ( 1999).

National Library of Canada

Bibliothaue nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaON K 1 A W OltawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduire, preter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette these sous la forme de microfiche/h, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent Etre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

Katherine Helen Bullock: The Politics of the Veil. Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 1999.

ABSTRACT.

The Politics of the Veil is an attempt to undermine the negative stereotype, widely

held in the West, that the veil is a symbol of Muslim women's oppression in Islam. My

main argument is that the popular Western notion that the veil is a symbol of Muslim

women's oppression is a constructed image that does not represent the experience of all

those who wear it.

My method in undermining the stereotype of the veil is eclectic. There are five

chapters, each using a different methodology, to take a different tack in challenging the

stereotype. Chapter One is a feminist ethnography of some Torontonian Muslim women.

that uses women's experience as a foundation of knowledge. To stress the constructed

nature of the anti-veil paradigm, Chapter Two traces the origins of the 'veil is oppressive'

discourse in the West. I argue that attacking the veil was an essential part of the colonial

project. Chapter Three is a survey of the contemporary 're-veiling' movement in the

Muslim world that demonstrates that women cover for many different reasons, be they

religious, social or political. Chapter Four is a critique of Moroccan feminist Fatima

Memissi-s idiosyncratic perspective on the veil. Chapter Five is an effort toward

formulating a positive theory of the veil. My eclectic methodology, in bringing together

disparate literatures in a way that has not been done before is an important contribution to

the various fields. My thesis gives a better picture of the meaning of hijkb for some

women believers than the literatures (while important in themselves) do when read alone.

So, this thesis aims to present an alternate and positive perspective on the veil and to

show how such an alternative reading is possible within Islam.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

All praise is due to God, Creator and Sustainer of the Universe who has nurtured and guided me. May He accept my good deeds and forgive me my bad deeds.

Writing this thesis has been a tough, but rewarding challenge. I relied on many people during the research and writing process who gave me their time, their thoughts and their encouragement. A warm thanks to the women who graciously allowed me to interview them and to tap their thoughts on women, Islam and the headscarf. Without their voices, the thesis would have no heart.

My committee has been wonderful: generous with their time; full of support and encouragement; and also pushing me to excel in my thinking and writing. Special thanks: to my supervisor, Joseph Carens, who knew how to put me back on track when I faced difficulties, and who coached me, not only in the writing of this thesis, but in academic life in general. When I hear myself giving his advice to younger student fiiends of mine, I realise how indebted I am to him; to Melissa Williams for her helping me clarify my argument at several tricky junctures of the thesis, and for her friendship, mentoring and PhD survival tips; and to Janice Boddy, for her careful editing of my drafts, for her thoughtfbl embellishments of my argument, and whose training in anthropology allowed me to understand my topic from a refreshing and helpful angle. I will miss their attentive advice and encouragement.

Thanks also to Professors Paul Kingston and Shirene Razack, who generously took the time out of their busy schedules to offer feedback on various chapters; to my internal readers Ronald Beiner and Jennifer Nedelsky, and Y v o ~ e Haddad. my external examiner, for their critical engagement with my topic, and encouragement and feedback for ways to strengthen my argument should I manage to turn it into a book.

My friends have sustained me through this process in more ways than one, by offering critical feedback on various drafts, by reminding me that I will survive the PhD, and by distracting me with social events, allowing me to recharge my batteries. Special thanks: to Irene Langran, Aparna Sundar. Jema Sindle, Lisa Mills. Michelle Baert, Alice Ormiston, and Lianne Barras, fellow travellers through the PhD process, for their fkiendship and stimulating discussions; to Jasmin Zine for taking time out of her busy schedule to read various drafts and for her Friendship, encouragement and suggestions for improving my argument: to Arnatullah Keeling, Thayyibba Ibrahim and Maliha Chisti for their fkiendship, feedback on various issues related to women, Islam and the West, and for their willingness and ability to help me locate difficult Islamic references; to Imam Malabari and Dr Jam1 Badawi for their generosity with their time and sharing their Islamic expertise with me on various issues; to Youcef Derbal and Abdel Monem Sherik for their encouragement and interesting discussions on women, Islam and the West, to Soreya for helpful feedback on Chapter One; to Sharon Hoosein and Sonya Mann for special support during difficult times; and to all the sisters and brothers too numerous to name who have given me their love, friendship, support and encouragement. May God bless you abundantly, forgive your bad deeds and reward your good deeds.

And a fmal word for my husband, and for my family and friends back in Australia, a special thanks for their patience, support and encouragement through this journey of the PhD. I hope they think the end product has been worth the wait.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Abstract.

Acknowledgements.

List of Appendices.

Introduction.

Chapter One: Perceptions and Experiences of Wearing Hijab in Toronto.

Chapter Two: The Meaning of Hijab in the Colonial Era.

Chapter Three: Multiple Meanings of Hijab.

Chapter Four: Memissi and the Discourse on the Veil.

Chapter Five: An Alternative Theory of the Veil.

Conclusion.

Works Cited.

Appendix One - The Interviewees.

Appendix Two - Qur'anic Verses and Hadith about Covering Referred to by Interviewees.

Appendix Three - How do the Interviewees Want Others to See Them?

Appendix Four - Interview Questions.

iv.

1 - 29.

30 - 96.

97 - 144.

145 - 194.

195 - 240.

24 1 - 287.

288 - 297.

298-311.

312 -313.

3 14.

315.

316-321.

LIST OF APPENDICES.

Appendix One - The Interviewees.

Appendix Two - Qur'anic Verses and Hadith about Covering Referred to by Interviewees.

Appendix Three - How do the Interviewees Want Others to See Them?

Appendix Four - Interview Questions.

INTRODUCTION.

In 1991 I saw a news report on the television that showed Turkish women who were

returning to the veil. I felt shocked and saddened for them. 'Poor things,' I thought. 'they are

being brainwashed by their culture.' Like many Westerners I believed Islam oppressed women,

and that the veil was a symbol of their oppression. Imagine my surprise then, four years later, at

seeing my own reflection in a store window. dressed exactly like those oppressed women. I had

embarked on a spiritual journey during my Master's degree that culminated four years later in

my conversion to Islam. The journey included moving from hatred of Islam. to respect. to

interest, to acceptance. Naturally, being a woman. the issue of the veil was central. Despite my

attraction to the theological foundations of Islam, 1 was deeply troubled by what I believed to be

oppressive practices to women. I felt that the veil was a cultural tradition that Muslim women

surely could work to eliminate. I was shown the verses in the Qur'an that many Muslims

believe enjoin covering on men and women. and it seemed preny clear to me then that. indeed.

the verses did require covering. I wandered home. feeling quite depressed and sorry for Muslim

women. If the verses were clear. they had no recourse: covering would be required for a

believing Muslim woman. I had to put these issues aside in order to decide whether or not to

accept Islam. What counted, in the final analysis. was the fundamental theological message of

the religion - that there was a single God. and that Muhammad was His Last Servant and

Messenger. After several years of study I had no doubt about that ... if only it weren't for the

issue of women and Islam.

When I finally made my decision to convert, now one and a half years into my doctorate

(July 1994), I decided that whether I liked it or not. I would cover. It was a commandment, and

I would obey. I warned some people in my department that I had become a Muslim, and that

2

the next time they saw me I would be covered. Needless to say, people were quite shocked. and

as word spread (and as people saw me in my new dress), I found myself subject to some hostile

treatment. How could I have embraced an oppressive practice, especially when 1 was known as

a strong and committed feminist? How could I embrace Islam? Hadn't I heard what Harnas had

just done? Hadn't I heard what some Muslim man had just done to a woman? 1 was not quite

prepared for this hostility, nor was I prepared for the different way I was being treated by

secretaries, bureaucrats, medical personnel. or general strangers on the subway. I felt the same,

but 1 was often being treated with contempt. I was not treated as I had been as a white. middle-

class woman. It was my first personal experience of discrimination and racism, and made me

see my previous privileged position in a way that I had never before properly understood.

My new Muslim women friends (including many converts) comforted me as I negotiated

my way through my new religion and the reactions I was experiencing from the broader

community. How did my friends cope. I wondered? Did they experience wearing hijab

(headscarf) in Toronto the same way 1 did. or was I just being overly sensitive? Did people

really stare on the subway, or were they looking at something else? Why was I being treated

with pity and/or contempt? During this difficult time I was searching for a topic for my PhD

dissertation, and although 1 tried to avoid it for a while, it became obvious that the reaction to

the headscarf was a topic worthy of exploration. Why was the 'veil' seen as a symbol of

oppression in the West? Why did the West seem to malign Islam? How could 1 and my friends

feel committed to something that we felt was liberating. and yet be in so much conflict with the

non-Muslim society around us? Why did people not know our version of Islam and the scarf?

The foremost aim. then, of this dissertation is to undermine the Western stereotype that

the scarf is oppressive, and to challenge the notion that Islam subjugates women. My main

argument is that the popular Western notion that the veil is a symbol of Muslim women's

oppression is a constructed image that does not represent the experience of all those who wear

3

it. That construction has always served Western political ends, and it continues to do so in the

late twentieth century. In addition, I argue that the judgement that the veil is oppressive is based

on liberal understandings of 'equality' and 'liberty' that preclude other ways of thinking about

'equality' and 'liberty' that offer a more positive approach for contemplating the veil.

A. THE VEIL AND FEMINIST APPROACHES.

That the veil is a symbol of Islam's oppression of women has different adherents who

embody different assumptions and different levels of sophistication. On the one hand there is

the mainstream, pop culture view: Muslim women are completely and utterly subjugated by

men, and the veil is a symbol of that. This version is the most simplistic and unsophisticated

view of the veil. It is underpinned by an unconscious adherence to liberalism and modernisation

theory. compounded by an ignorance of any actual details about Muslim women's lives. The

pop culture view is found in the mainstream media and mass market 'women and Islam' books.

It is the view I encounter: when my dentist suggests my grinding problem is caused by my scarf.

and why don't I experiment by taking it off for a while?; when bureaucrats, upon seeing my

Australian passport and my husband's Middle Eastern passport. whisper conspirationally and

worriedly to me. "You mamed a Muslim, didn't you? What's it like?;" when strangers, upon

discovering I married a Muslim ask me worriedly. "Are you happy?"; and when I am told that I

do not belong at an lntemational Women's Day fair because 1 represent the oppression of

women. It is the view Western politicians can count on and manipulate when they need to

assert their interests in the Muslim world.

A more sophisticated view is that of one school of feminists. both Muslim and non-

Muslim. They argue that Islam. like any patriarchal religion subordinates women. They are

committed to women's rights and believe Islam does not allow women liberation. Unlike the

pop culture version. these feminists are often very knowledgeable about Islamic history and

4

practice. Though some of them do not listen well to the voices of covered women,' others do

make an attempt to understand and present the other's voice? But these writers do not

ultimately find Islamic women's arguments for the meaning of covering persuasive. They

remain convinced that a satisfying life in the veil is still an oppressed life. Like the mainstream

view, their assumptions are also ultimately grounded in liberalism. The-concepts most at play

are liberal concepts of individualism, equality, liberty and oppression. Because of this. I shall

call this school of feminists 'liberal feminists.'

There is another school of feminists. both Muslim and non-Muslim, that also listens to

the voices of covered women, but reaches different conclusions about covering from those of

the liberal feminists. Often anthropologists and historians. this group of feminists have been

concerned to understand the meaning of a social practice from the inside. These feminists may

also be grounded in liberalism to some extent. but their methodological approach leads them

away from using mainstream Western liberal categories to judge the Other's voice. Many of

these feminists raise the question as to whether Western feminists' issues are universally

applicable.3 Naming this group of scholars is somewhat problematic. because unlike the liberal

approach described above. there is not an 'ism' that captures this orientation. For want of a

better term, I shall call this approach the 'anthropological approach.'

Writing as a practising Muslim woman. I fall into this school of feminism. I present the

interviews of Muslim women who live and work in Toronto as a way of better understanding

the practice of covering, and as a way of puncturing the popular stereotype of Muslim women

(Chapter One). My argument is thus directed at two different levels. In addition to challenging

the pop culture view of veiling, I also seek to challenge liberal feminists' understanding of

Muslim women's oppression.

I Tabari, Mernissi: Helie-Lucas; Moghadarn. ' Afshar. e; Macieod; Hessini: Makhlouf; Ahmed. d; Keddie.

5

Despite the ubiquity of the image of the veil and its symbolising of Muslim women's

oppression in the popular culture and in studies of Muslim women, veiling itself has been under-

analysed. Veiling is usually considered as part of a list of oppressive practices Muslim women

face: veiling, seclusion, easy male divorce, polygamy, domesticity, and so on. In

anthropological studies, covering is usually treated throughout the writer's work. and if the work

is a book length study veiling is often given a chapter on its 0~x1.~ There are very few book

length studies of covering.'

B. ISLAM AND METHODOLOGY.

As many commentators have observed, the study of Muslim women, indeed. Islam in

general, has suffered from methodological problems not found in other areas. Until recently. the

predominmt methodological approach to the study of Muslim women has been Orientalist. or

neo-Orientalist. Orientalism, mastefilly analysed by Edward Said, has viewed Muslims

through the prism of religion. 'Islam' has been seen as a static, monolithic, backward doctrine

that both explains and determines Muslim behaviour. Colonialists, missionaries, and secular

feminists subscribed to this view. After World War Two Orientalism transformed into

modernisation theory (neo-Orientalism). This approach analysed the non-Western world with

the assumption that 'progress' required the world to evolve into Western style institution^.^ The

mainstream Western media and mass-market books still rely on a belief in the inherent

superiority of Western ways to make the case against Islam. In colonial times. Muslim elites

accepted the Western version of the meaning of the veil. and they also saw its disappearance as

3 Wikan; Abu-Lughod, L; Tucker; Boddy; Yamani; Fernea; Fernea and Bezirgan. 4 Wikan; Abu-Lughod, L; Makhlouf: Femea. a: Macleod. 5 Madeod's Accommodaring Protest is the only book-length study I know of. Mernissi's two books, Bqond the Veil. and The Veil and the Male Elite come close. But even they are not about covering per se, veiling being analyzed as one part of the other oppressions Muslim women face: the family, divorce, polygamy, Islamic law. 6 Nelson: 13 1 . Divine: 5-1 0. Fernea, d: xi. Sonbol: 4. For examples of modernisation theory in relation to Muslim women see the introduction to Keddie and Beck's volume, and Shilling.

essential to the 'modernisation' of their countries. A Lebanese woman, Nazira Zain &Din, the

"first Arab woman to publish a lengthy treatise" on the topic of veiling wrote:

I have noticed that the nations that have given up the veil are the nations that have advanced in intellectual and material life. The unveiled nations are the ones that have discovered through research and study the secrets of nature and have brought the physical elements under their control as you see and know. But the veiled nations have not unearthed any secret and have not put any of the physical elements under their control but only sing the songs of a glorious past and ancient tradition.'

Historians, and anthropologists in particular, have challenged Orientalism and

modernisation theory in relation to Muslim women by urging a focus on the specificity of

Muslim women in order better to understand them! They have challenged viewing Muslim

women only through the eyes of a deterministic religion, and demonstrate in their work that

other institutions in society make an impact on women's lives: local customs, and political and

economic forces. Marsot argues economic and political exigencies are what count. and

religiodideology is used only to legitimate whatever has been required. She observes that

during war, women are encouraged to work outside the home. but after the war. domesticity is

urged. She believes this is a universal phenomenon. and mentions Rosie the Riveter in the US?

Indeed, it is useful to point out that women's rights frequently deteriorated under

European intervention in the Muslim world. challenging the linkage of modemisation and

Westemisat ion with liberation for Muslim women. '' Seclusion increased in the Ottoman

Empire during European penetration." Meriwether documents the' adverse impact European

economic penetration had on Aleppo. Syria. especially on urban working class women. who lost

7 "Unveiling and Veiling: On the Liberation of the Woman and Social Renewal in the Islamic World," [I9281 in Badran and Cooke: 272. 8 Tucker, a: 327. Lazreg, b: 14-1 5. Marsot, b: 50. Sonbol: 20. El-Sohl and Mabro: 2. Kandiyoti, b: 9. 9 Marsot. b: 5 1. l o Meriwether, Tucker, Sonbol. ' I Divine: 8. Wikan's study of Omani women is a masterfid study of women who live in seclusion. She looks at their lives through their own eyes and categories. I know that not all women experience seclusion as oppressive, and I am aware that I may be committing the same act of negative judgement as those who judge the veil oppressive when I write against seclusion. My point is not to claim these women are not happy, or deluded by false

7

their important place in the cotton industry due to imported European twists and dyes.12 Elite

and bourgeois Muslim women have had the right under Islamic law to own and control their

own property, theoretically without the husband' s involvement. In Aleppo upper-class women

were "property owners of some importance in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.. .In 1770.

59% of all property sales involved women as either buyers or sellers; in 1800,67 percent; and in

1840, 53 percent."'3 women in Egypt were not so lucky. Muhammad Ali's (1805-1848)

centralisation program deprived them of economic independence. In Mamluk Egypt (1 254-

181 1) upper- and middle-class women had actively participated in the economy. Elite women

were significant property owners and tax farmers. They engaged in trade and commerce.

Centralisation excluded them, as Marsot documents. because the ruler gave away land at his

discretion to women's detriment. In addition, the

new centralized system also introduced new institutions derived from Europe that militated against women. Banks, stock exchanges, insurance companies, et cetera. in Europe did not recognize the legal existence of women; and so they followed the same strategies in Egypt. Women were not allowed to open bank accounts in their own names or to play the stock market or to indulge in other activities in their own right. ''

Marsot argues that it is only in the twentieth century that women have "recovered some of the

economic activities they had had in the eighteenth century."" So, if modernisation improved

health. education and after colonialism. the end of seclusion. in other areas women's "social

maneuverability" deteriorated. l 6

Hence historical study of specific women in specific places is revealing that

Westernisation and modernisation did not always equal advancement for Muslim women. That

should not actually come as a surprise to any feminist. Which of them in their analysis of their

consciousness. But their way of life is not a vision I aspire to, nor do 1 think it one in accord with Islam. See Ikramullah for an aristocrat's nostalgic look back at her life in purdah before the partition of India ( 1 956). '* Meriwether: 75. 13 Meriwether: 70. 14 Marsot, b: 45-6. Is Marsot, b: 47.

8

own societies ever believed that modernity was liberating for women? To the contrary,

feminists attack modernity for enshrining 'male-female, 'reason-nature,' 'superior-inferior'

dichotomies in the world." Part of challenging the stereotype that 'Islam' oppresses women

entails highlighting the specificities of Muslim women's lives, and showing that religion is but

one institution amongst many that influence people's lives. Unfortunately these scholarly

understandings have not filtered into Western popular culture.

My study also attempts to challenge the tradition/modernity dichotomy. The veil is seen

as quintessentially traditional. Colonialists, missionaries, Orientalists and secular feminists

attacked veiling as a backward tradition, but it is now known that veiling became more

widespread in the Middle East after Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798, and increased during

European cccupation of the Middle East (1 830- 1956). Cole writes:

In an Orientalist corollary to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. the intrusive presence of Westerners appears to have helped produce the phenomenon (widespread veiling) that they observed. In short, the notion of tradition as a stable foil for the dynamism of modernity has been demolished, as the diversity and volatility of premodern extra-European societies has come to be better appreciated. ''

'Tradition' and 'modernity' are unstable categories. My thesis aims to break the equation:

'modernity equals unveil.' Certainly while linked with particular practices of the past. such as

denying women education, and/or secluding them in the home. covering can be a symbol of

oppression. I argue that covering can be de-linked from such practices, and that in and of itself

it need not be oppressive. On the contrary, in urban, capitalist society, many Muslim women

experience covering as liberating. But these are women who have full access to the public

sphere, so the linkage to seclusion and illiteracy is weak for them. I argue that one can be

'modem' and cover, the two are not oxymoronic.

l6 Sonbol: 7. See also Tucker, a: 332 and b: xi-xii. I' Kutke: 134-5. l8 Cole: 24. Keddie, b: 13.

9

My study could be criticised for falling into the "religion paradigm" trap that has

characterised Orientalism and modemisation t h e ~ r y . ' ~ Part of the historical and anthropological

challenge to the study of Muslim women has included a critique of the role of ideas in society.

Several writers criticise committed Muslims for discussing the status of women in 'Islam' in

terms similar to the Orientalists: they assume religion as the determinate force in people's lives,

and they discuss an historical 'Islam' that liberates women. For instance, they argue that 'in

Islam women have the right to own property,' when in actual practice women may not have

been able to own property. Lapeg notes how that approach mirrors the Orientalist: it ignores

the very real oppressions that Muslim women have faced, or currently face. Orientalists ignore

specificity to claim Muslim backwardness: these Muslims ignore specificity to claim

progressiveness.

Quite simply religious text does not determine in any causal way how people live. There

are factors of interpretation of text, prevailing discourse, local customs. and political. economic

and social considerations. Any study that purports to discuss Muslim women as they are must

account for all those forces.'* However. the critique of an idealist bias ought not to preclude a

debate over ideas. Tucker notes that ideology does play a role in affecting people's ~ ives .~ '

Afier all. the state, opposition leaders. imams and parents all draw on Islam in order to make

sense of their prescriptions. because that is what is required and expected of Muslims. Even if

there are other factors involved. at the level of rhetoric, what people believe 'Islam' requires is

the legitimating factor. My thesis is at this level of ideas. I do believe that in theory Islam does

not oppress women, while I am well aware that in practice some Muslims do oppress women.

and sometimes claim textual support for so doing. But in my argument

that the lives of real women reflect the normative outline I describe. I am

I am not trying to say

saying that the ideal is

19 Lazreg, b: 12. 'O Nelson: 14 1. Tucker, a: 325.

10

a worthy one and one that many Muslims do in fact strive to achieve in their daily lives. 1 am

convinced that this is an important part of undermining the stereotype about the veil. because it

is commonly believed in the West that Islam per se oppresses women, that Islam is not an ideal.

And many feminists would support the conclusion (especially liberal feminists) that it is not an

ideal, in spite of their understanding of Islamic women." My thesis challenges frequent

feminist assumptions that pro-veil arguments are part of an anti-women religious discourse. A

pro-veil discourse can be pro-women too.

Here I differ from Sonbol who argues that.an important methodological problem in the

field is with those scholars who accept Qur'an, hadith. and sunnah as "representing the aalral as

opposed to the normative condition of women."23 Her assumption is that the normative position

of women can be said to be oppressive. but that actual women's lives may not have been, that

actual women's lives may not have been how a constricting 'official' doctrine describes: ''If

anything, social discourse seems to point to a position quite opposite to what the "formal"

discourse presents us. This means that the actual lives women led caused reactionary clergymen

to interpret laws more conservatively. The "looser" the women, the stricter the interpretation."*'

Across Islamic history, there may be some truth to this statement. Huda Lutffs analysis of

fourteenth century ibn al-Hajj's prescriptive treatise is an example. He was denouncing Cairene

women's habits in no uncertain terms. arguing forcefblly that they should be made to stay in

their homes. Cairene women ignored such injuctures to stay home, and carried on business in

the market place and so on. as usual. Lutfi uses these women's daily lives to challenge the

--

?' Tucker, a: 332. 77

For example. Sonbol and Lutfi. Sonbol: 5.

'" Sonbol: 5.

I 1

stereotype of Muslim women as s~brnissive.~~ But, like Sonbol, her argument is that Muslim

ideals found in theological literature are restrictive and oppressive to women, and not an ideal.

Now, Sonbol and Lutfi's points are an important corrective to the Orientalist/religion

paradigm that would have Muslim women oppressed due to one or two verses in the Qur'an that

do not seem to accord women equality and dignity. But I would qualify their corrective. I agree

that there are interpretations of the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah that normatively point to an

'ideal' that is anti-woman. But I think there are other interpretations that do not. It depends. It

depends on which verse one is quoting and which scholar one refers to. In addition, it depends

on which definition of freedom or equality one is drawing upon. Hence I disagree with Lutfi's

extrapolation from ibn al-Hajj's text to all Islamic theology. She analyses his text to show that

"formal Islamic discourse." whether medieval or modem, seeks a patriarchal ideal order.26 It is

a bit like a feminist scholar using St. Paul's or Tertualian's version of women's role in

Christianity to explain that normative 'official' Christian doctrine has been and is anti-women.

but the actual lives of women may not be." Plenty of Christian women would challenge that.

Many see Jesus @ b ~ h ) ~ * as the first feminist.

Lazreg argues that unlike black women in the United States. 'Eastern' feminists

frequently adopted Western feminist categories without interrogating their relevance first.'9

Tabari's account confirms this, as she mentions second wave feminism in the West as a guide

and inspiration to Iranian feminists in the late 19709s/early 1980's.~' That entailed an

acceptance of modemisation theory. and the view that liberal secularism was the only path for

women's liberation. There are still feminists with those views. But the 1990's has seen the

' 5 Lutfi: I 18. 26 Lutfi: 100, 1 18-9. " St Paul is the one who emphasised wornen's need to be silent in church. Temllian on women: "You are the Devil's gateway. You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree ...( etc)" Ahmed, d: 36

"Peace be Upon Him." an Islamic etiquette said after the name of any Prophet is mentioned. 23 Lazreg, a : 82. 30 Tabari, b: 353.

emergence of two separate, but probably related phenomena, that signal a change from this: the

rise of indigenous academics who accept a feminist goal, but who seek to fashion an indigenous

model that does not hold the West as its ideal model; and the increased numbers of Muslim

women world-wide who have started covering. These two groups may have overlaps. but there

may be some in the first who do not wish to cover, and some in the second who do not identify

with feminism. The first category often includes historians and anthropologists who emphasise

studying the specificity of Muslim women. Even if they are secularists, MuslidArab feminist

scholars are insisting on a feminism that is indigenous. Yarnani's collection of essays about

Muslim women by Muslim and Arab women is a call for an indigenous feminism.)'

The second category of women. which comprises mostly non-academic women. are

those in the 're-veiling' movement that started in the late 1970's. This trend. where many

young, educated women started covering even though some of their mothers and grandmothers

had fought against hijab, has caught feminist scholars off-guard. Why embrace a symbol of

oppression? Afshar, who admitted not understanding why women embrace the veil. writes:32

The twentieth century marked the apex of Muslim women's intellectual engagement with their religion. first to denounce it and to disengage from its gender-specific prescriptions, and then to return to the texts and reclaim their Islamic rights. Faced with this unexpected volte face researchers have tended to take embattled positions to attack or defend the faith. and have all too ofien failed to engage with the realities and the situations in which women have found themselves."

By and large, it seems many feminists have trouble knowing how to deal with the veil.

Islam. and the women who embrace it. Afshar points to the 'embattled positions' researchers

take. and Keddie observes that the women and Islam field is ideologically charged and tense:

One group denies that Muslim women.. .are any more oppressed than non-Muslim women or argue that in key respects they have been less oppressed. A second says that oppression is real but extrinsic to Isiarn; the Qur'an. they say, intended gender equality. but this was undermined by Arabian patriarchy and foreign importations.

" Yamani 24 . See also. Tucker, b: xi; Karam, and Ahmed, d. " Afshar, b: 3 15. l3 Afshar, c: 8-9.

An opposing group blames Islam for being irrevocably gender inegalitarian. There are also those who adopt intermediate positions, as well as those who tend to avoid these controversies by sticking to monographic or limited studies that do not confront such issues. Some scholars favour shifting emphasis away From Islam to economic and social forces.34

Keddie notes that a debate amongst feminists is whether to try and reform Islam from within. or

wholeheartedly to embrace secu~arism?~ The latter seems to be the course Keddie. Helie-Lucas,

Tabari and Berktay argue for.

Berktay, a Turkish feminist. criticises the anthropological approach described above.

which seeks to understand the women from their own perspective, for its cultural relativism.

She argues, following Tabari, that "cultural relativism becomes a banner under which

oppression may be made to appear tolerab~e."~~ Berktay refers to veiling as an example of the

problems of cultural relativism:

This benevolent cultural relativism on the part of Western feminists sometimes goes so far as to extend a rationalisation of the segregation of women to accepting and condoning even veiling for the Middle Eastern 'sisters': 'Although universally perceived in the West as an oppressive custom, it [veiling] is not experienced as such by women who habitually wear it7, writes Leila ~ h m e d . ~ ' Leaving aside the strength of the argument about the social construction of experience and feelings. and about how misleading it therefore is to claim a special 'authenticity' for (only some among) them, one wonders whether Western feminists. who know perfectly well that these practices spring from a theology of the maintenance of so-called female purity, would ever accept 'veiling' for themselves - and not as an 'alternative' way of life. but as something compulsory. from which there is no possibility of opting out.3"

Berktay believes there is a difference between avoiding Eurocentrism. and avoiding criticism of

oppressive practices in 'other' cultures. But as the quotation above illustrates. it would be

difficult to agree on what counts as 'oppressive practices.' She obviously finds veiling

oppressive. whereas I do not. And I reject the assumption that 1 hold my position unreflectingly.

Keddie: 1-2. 35 Keddie: 19. For Turkey see Arat. 36 Berktay: 120. Tabari, b: 356 37 Ahmed, b: 523.

Berktay: 123.

Our different judgements about veiling have to do with differences in our worldviews. And

perhaps also differences in contexts, where we each face different kinds of pressures.3g

However, I understand Berktay's emphasis on seeking what is common between women of

different cultures. As Moors argues, difference should not be essentialised; there are universal

human values that can unite us.40 What this means, though, is that it should be indigenous

women themselves who define what counts as an oppressive practice for them. Even amongst

themselves they will not agree. What needs to be done, then. is to accept disagreement. work

together on issues that coincide, and be happy with small things. There will be issues all women

can co-operate on: education, spousal abuse, humane treatment for women and so on.

I mentioned above that some feminists, in spite of their puzzlement over veiling. have

sought to understand that point of view, even if they may not agree or understand the effort to

find liberation within Islam. This is admirable. However. many of them find their feminist

commitments not met by Islam. and several students of veiling and of the 're-veiling' movement

disagree with their interviewees about the meaning of hijab. They hold that in the final analysis.

the new veiling is an "alarming trend.''4' Hessini. for example, argues that women who choose

to cover ultimately are acquiescing in male dominance by not challenging the male-female

relations at their core. Hessini:

When women wear the hijab, they obtain respect and freedom. In this sense, the hijab. which is often perceived by Westerners as a tool of male domination, may ultimately be a liberating force for some Moroccan women. However, this choice is made within a patriarchal framework. It is a conditioned reaction and can exist only within prescribed norms established by men for ~ o m e n . ~ '

Given some of the politics associated with the 're-veiling' movement it is not surprising many

feminists are womed about the outcome. For example, some Islamist movements are trying to

39 Thanks to J Carens for this point. 'O Moors: 12 1-2. J I Ahmed, d: 230.

Hessini: 54. Macleod.

15

push women out of the labour force back into the home.43 But my argument is that covering is

not the cause of this, nor need a movement toward covering necessarily be linked with

discrimination against women. Certainly, in Islam motherhood is a highly recommended career

for women. but it has never been the only career for women. That motherhood is currently

being emphasised as the only option for women by some groups reflects the conditions that the

Islamic opposition groups are responding to: colonisation, poverty, unemployment and so on.

In other circumstances other aspects of Islamic doctrine would be emphasised: women's right to

own and run a business independently of her husband's control." Analysts of women's

situation in Iran fifteen years after the revolution show that women and men are now using

Islamic shari'a to re-gain rights for women that they had lost when Khomeini first came to

power."5 So covering ought not to be seen as the symbol of women's oppression.

My thesis, then, is entering this debate over covering, women and Islam. at a couple of

levels. First. I rely on interviews with Muslim women living in Toronto to get at their

understanding of the meaning of hijob. This joins me to the anthropological approach in two

ways: first. by adding to our knowledge of particular women in a particular time and place; and

second. my thesis surveys the re-veiling literature to compile and emphasise the diverse reasons

women give for covering (political. spiritual. custom etc.) A second level is to add a perspective

in the methodological approach that has hitheno been marginalised. namely the point of view of

the be l ievdb I do not make claims to generalise from my small sample of interviewees to all

Muslim women, though some of the sentiments expressed by my some of my interviewees are

in tune with views recorded by other scholars studying the 're-veiling' movement. Because

43 Karam. 44 This is not to excuse the curtailment of women's rights under any circumstances, merely to observe that economic circumstances influence political programmes and intellectual discourse. Of course, women's Islamic rights should never be curtailed. " Afshar, d: Mir-Hosseini. 46 Because my interviewees and I are Sunni. the thesis also has a Sunni Muslim orientation. I do not speak for other Muslims.

almost all my interviewees are religiously oriented, indeed, because I am religiously oriented.

the thesis as a whole has a spiritual orientation. This allows for a different reading of women.

Islam and the veil.

Not surprisingly, religious belief is marginalised in the Western academy, which has a

secular orientation. Even less surprising is traditional feminist disdain for religious belief. given

historic associations between religion and misogyny." But feminist scholars are revising their

total rejection of religious belief and practice for women. Young's introduction to Sharma's

Women in World Religions finds that the feminist assumption that religion is irredeemably

patriarchal is now seen as ~ i m ~ l i s t i c ~ ~ C m o d y ' s Women and World Religions assumes that in

spite of women's suffering under organised religion, many women have drawn strength from

their religion, and that the world's religions offer women and men "great sources for forgiveness

and renewal :"

Without denying [the] feminist critique. I would add that, nonetheless. the bottom line in virtually all the developed religious traditions is a holiness equally available to women and men. Women have suffered many disabilities in the organisationai dimension of religion, but when it comes to intimacy with God and helpfulness toward other people, they do at least as well as men ... If one's self was honest. loving, and wise, one was what God or the Way wanted. So the depths of the world's religions offer an instruction as important as it is consoling. Indeed. the instruction is important precisely because it is consoling: any person may become holy and wise.J9

Warne speaks of the "unacknowledged Quarantine" that has existed between feminists and

religious studies, and suggests it is time to break down the barriers:

Unfortunately. there is a tendency to consider only [women's] negative experiences [with religion] as accurate. and all positive ones. by definition. as a kind of patriarchally induced false consciousness. Judgements such as these pose serious problems for scholars interested in both women and religion. because work that attempts to be more nuanced is sometimes read as betrayal. or as patriarchal co- optation.'O

47 Carmody: 3, passim. Young, K: 3.

J9 Carmody: 9. Also. O'Connor. 50 Warne: 97-8.

These are welcome voices. But, as Lazreg has pointed out, their force has only been

observed within Judaism and Christianity. While many would still view these religions as

oppressive to women, there is an acceptance of those feminist (even non-feminist) women. who

seek to identify as Jewish or Christian. while simultaneously claiming liberation and working

for women's equality. Muslim women have not yet been accorded such respect:

The evolutionary bias that suffuses most thinking about women in the Middle East and North Africa is expressed in a definite prejudice against Islam as a religion. Although U.S. feminists have attempted to accommodate Christianity and feminism and Judaism and feminism, Islam is inevitably presented as antifeminist. What is at work here is not merely a plausible rationalist bias against religion as an impediment to the progress and freedom of the mind but an acceptance of the idea that there is a hierarchy of religions, with some being more susceptible to change than others. Like tradition. religion must be abandoned if Middle Eastern women are to be like Western women. As the logic of the argument requires. there can be no change without reference to an external standard deemed to be perfect.51

My task, then. is to introduce respectability to the believing Muslim woman's voice. to

claim liberation and women's equality inside Islam. I believe this is an indispensable part of

both unsettling the Western popular culture view that the veil is a symbol of Muslim women's

oppression, and those feminist conclusions that concur with pop culture. I seek to challenge the

assumptions Hessini, Macleod and others use to criticise women's choices to cover as ultimately

un-liberating. I do not believe that a woman's choice to cover is any more a conditioned

response than a woman's choice not to cover. To believe otherwise is to believe that only

secular Westerners have self-critical capacities. and the rest of us are fools.

The difference in judgement over hijab ends up turning on a few key points. Those who

criticise the veil rely on secular liberal assumptions about society and human nature. Thus

veiling is supposed to be oppressive

femininity; b) is apparently linked to

particular view of woman's place (in

because it a) covers up. in the sense of smothering.

essentialised male-female difference: c) is linked to a

the home); d) is linked to an oppressive (patriarchal)

" Lazreg, b: 85.

18

notion of morality and female purity; and e) can be imposed. I address these assumptions over

the course of the thesis. I will argue (not in this order) that covering a) does not smother

femininity; b) picks up on the 'different-but-equal' school of thought, but does not posit

essentalised male-female difference; c) is linked to a view that does not limit women to the

home, but neither does it consider the role of stay-at-home-mother and homemaker oppressive:

d) is linked to a view of morality that is only oppressive if one considers prohibition on sex

outside marriage wrong; and e) is part of islamic law. but a law that ought to be implemented in

a very wise, and women-friendly manner. It will become clear that I do not necessarily dispute

some of the feminist criticisms as false. But my own world-view leads me to view those things

differently (e.g. male-female differences). Rarnazanoglu's boundary around what feminism can

accept suggests that my perspective may not be welcomed:

A consequence of building alliances between women. however, is that tackling oppression on many fronts means also struggling against women; for example. against right-wing western women who collude with men in trying to drive women back into the family and out of public life, except as cheap labour, but also against Muslim fbndamentalists and others who have defined their own version of liberation in serving men and ~ o d ?

I am not a Muslim fundamentalist (in fact. I dispute that term to describe Muslims at all). nor a

right-wing woman. but I can see that these ideas. not confined to Rmazanoglu. represent

challenges to my project. Helie-Lucas argues feminist attempts to find liberation from within

Islam will eventually reveal the limits of 1s1a.m.~~ and Keddie and .Berktay conclude that the

'different-but-equal' notion is not equal. but inferior.54 Keddie holds that even if Islamic

women experience dignity and respect in covering. veiling is part "of a system where males are

dominant and females are to be controlled."j5

Ramazanoglu: 180. 53 Helie-Lucas. b: 2 19. 54 Keddie: 18. Berktay: 123. 55 Keddie: 12. She adds, "It is true that the overall system is more important than veiling as such."

Critics of the Western discourse of the veil point out that the Western focus on the veil

has been obsessive? Many of those Muslim women who do not cover feel annoyed that

Muslim women are reduced to their headcovers, as if there is nothing else about their identity

worthy of mention. Many of those who do wear it are disappointed that their own positive

experience of covering is denied; and, like those who do not cover, annoyed that other aspects

of their identity are ignored. In some ways by doing a PhD dissertation on hijab. I am keeping

alive the Western tradition of discussing Muslim women only in relation to their headcovering.

My justification is that despite the Western focus on the veil. the prevalent view is that of the

'oppressive' nature of veiling and Islam. This is in spite of the ethnographic and historical

accounts of particular Muslim women in specific times and places that challenge the stereotype

of Muslim women as oppressed. There are still very few fora that provide a positive space for

the voice of those who cover. My thesis is attempting to fill that gap. Drawing on the

experience of some Muslim women living in the West who cover. I am calling for a

reassessment of judgements about them as oppressed.

My focus on the voices of women who cover also speaks to concerns of specialists in the

fields of women and Islam or Islamic studies. for whom my thesis may not appear to be

breaking new ground. Specialists are well aware of the problems of Western stereotyping of

Muslim women. I have been urged to push my inquiry funher to include. for instance.

discussions about the debates amongst Muslim women over issues of women's role in society.

in the home. and in the religion?' Or to make detailed examinations about the meaning of a

woman's Somali Muslim identity as compared to a woman's Trinidadian Muslim identity.

These are topics worthy of research. and necessary to f i l l out the picture of Muslim women.

However. my thesis is not covering old ground. even in the specialised women and Islam field.

20

Only a very few scholars have given a voice to the perspectives of those women who cover. or

attempted to outline a positive theory of veiling.

C. THE VEIL, ISLAM AND THE WEST.

At the close of the twentieth century, the topic of Islam, fundamentalism. terrorism.

extremism and women's position in Islam is on many people's minds, from the local bus driver

to the specialist scholar. The discourse in the popular mind is one of the backwardness.

violence and barbarity of Islam. Arabs and Muslims. The oppression of women is a given. I am

convinced that the public rhetoric demonising Islam is part of Western maintenance of its global

hegemony. The discourse of the veil in the West is tied to Western national interests. With an

eye to maintaining Western hegemony. as Edward Said eloquently argues. some Western

scholars provide the intellectual justifications for this anti-Islamic diatribe? The mainstream

media also have a stake in Western hegemony, and carry the discourse into the popular

culture.59 Journalist Hoagland argues that with respect to US foreign policy. Washington DC

sets the media agenda:

With intemational affairs it is pretty much a Washington business: it's a company town. And it is very difficult to sustain interest in a foreign policy issue if the White House and the State Department and the Executive Branch and even Congress are not interested, or are trying to downplay that particular issue. ..but without that kind of follow-through by some part of the government. the press itself is very weak in trying to set or sustain an agenda. You can do it for a day. or maybe for 3 days, but at the end of the 3rd or 41h day. if there's no echo. there is very little you can do to create that issue.60

The goal of foreign policy is to assert one's national interests. The post-Cold war period

sees the continuation of the West's and particularly the United States' dominance in

intemational relations. Haddad. Braibanti. Said, and Quandt among others. argue that US

- - - -

57 An example would be Karam's discussion of the debates between Islamist, Muslim and secular feminists in Egypt.

For instance. Huntington. and Barber. 59 Said. b: 48.144

Hoagland: 226.

2 1

policy in the Middle East has been concerned to protect its access to Middle Eastern oil fields

and give unconditional support to ~srael .~ ' The United States has aimed to be the dominant

power in the region. George Bush, a previous President of the US, captures the sentiment well:

Access to the Persian Gulf and the key friendly states in the area is vital to U.S. national security. The United States remains committed to defend its vital interest in the region, if necessary and appropriate through the use of U.S. military force against the Soviet Union or any other regional power with interests inimical to our own.62

While the Clinton administration, and the other Western powers. do not have anything

against Islam as a religion in general. or against Muslims in general, US and Western national

interests have dictated policies that are interpreted by Muslims as hypocritical and harmful to

Muslims' own interests and needs. These anti-Western sentiments have fuelled terrorism and

violence in the Muslim world, causing some policy analysts to worry about anti-US/Westem

powers gaining ascendancy in the Muslim world. It is still the case that "Friendly" dictators are

preferred over democracy if the interests of the US are at stake. So, US and Western national

interests have allowed the demonisation of Islam to flourish. As I write. the US is leading the

Western world in a potential military bombardment of Iraq. People who consume mainstream

news as their only source of information about Islam cannot know anything but the negative

perspective. It is easier to drum up anti-Iraq feeling (that is. asserting US/Western foreign

policy needs) when the Western populace is predisposed to disliking Muslims and Arabs.

So the symbolism of the veil as an oppressive indicator of Islam is playing a central role

in manipulating public opinion in the West. But people should be suspicious that the US'S

sraunchest ally in the Muslim world is also the one which does not let its women drive cars -

Saudi Arabia. Here, concern over the status of women is either taking a back seat to US

national interest, or, as I am convinced. the 'Islam oppresses women' discourse serves that

6 1 Haddad. b: 4 19. Braibanti5. Quandt: 4 13-4. Said, 6: 1 4 3 4 " National Security Directive 26. October 1989. Quoted in Amos: 60.

22

national interest. My thesis on the politics of the veil attempts to highlight the political

dimensions of such anti-Islamic discourse.

Challenging the popular Western stereotype that the veil is a symbol of Muslim

women's oppression is particularly difficult in light of certain late twentieth century events in

the Muslim world: Iran's imposition of the chador after Khomeini's revolution in 1979: the

Taliban's imposition of the burqa after its accession to power in 1997; and the violence

perpetrated by radical groups in the name of Islam in Egypt. Israel. Algeria and the like. Does

not all this merely confirm that Islam is violent, intolerant and anti-women? My thesis is not an

attempt to discuss all the socio-political problems in the Muslim world. But the turmoil in the

Muslim world complicates my task because of the Orientalist legacy in the West (a legacy

combined with widespread and profound ignorance of Islam). The Orientalist vision of Islam is

precisely that Islam is barbaric. violent. medieval and backward. (When was the last time the

media tarnished all Catholics with the actions of the IRA. or all Protestants with the actions of

the Loyalists? (Not that they should.)) There is no recognition. as already mentioned. of special.

localised circumstances that intervene between 'Islam' and enactment. Of course what the

Taliban is doing is tragic. but the problem for Muslims living in the West is that Westerners

actually believe that Taliban's actions are Islam embodied.

The general public in the West must also be made better aware of the dialectic that

drives islamic/Westem relations. The anti-Islamic discourse in the West fuels extremist groups

in the Muslim world. Most of the Muslim and Arab populace are convinced that Western

powers are hypocritical in their foreign policy. targeting them while letting other countries off

without penalty (Israel is not bombed for its covert nuclear weapons programme), and

supporting cormpt governments over democratic movementd3 The West must shoulder pan of

the blame for the turmoil in the Muslim world. But the actions of terrorists in the Muslim

23

world, especially against Western tourists, leaves the Western populace convinced that Islam

and Arabs ore barbaric and anti-Western and in need of strong treatment and punishment fiom

the West. The complexity of world politics is simplified in the demonisation-of-Islam

discourse. Middle Eastern and Muslim governments' repression of Muslims and their

complicity in the demonisation of Islam is rarely taken into account.& Nor is the complicity of

the West in supporting 'friendly dictators' who are undemocratic, or in remaining silent over

other violations of Muslims' human rights. Which Western country tried to punish the Algerian

military for cancelling democratic elections in which a moderate lslamic party won an

overwhelming majority of the vote?65 So, Westerners are afraid of lslamic parties being elected

into power, and act against that, and Muslims. convinced that the West is against them. are

driven to more extremes. The vicious cycle continues to this day.

The mainstream Western discourse against Islam has also made it harder for reformers to

improve the status of Muslim women. because betterment has often been linked with

colonisation and/or ~esternization. '~ Tucker observes that Arab feminism has had to chart a

difficult course between 'tradition.' that may be oppressive but seen as 'authentic.' and reform.

Said. b: xvi, 164. 64 In 1998 Turkey's secular-oriented army forced the resignation of the Turkish President who was tiom the Islamic party Refah. It purged the arm); of religious officers. sacked teachers and nurses from state-run hospitals, expelled women who wore hijab fiom university and closed down 500 religious schools. Army officers who "don't take measures to stop their wives fiom donning the hejab ... are being penalized ... Some officers have been warned: Divorce her if she refuses to shed the hejab." Nora Boustany. Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday. January 7, 1998; Page Al6. Tunisia has banned hijab in government and universities. Wearing a beard in Egypt. Tunisia. Algeria. Morocco can lead to State harassment of men. and so on. 65 See Esposito's discussion of the FfS (Islamic Salvation Front) and Algerian politics. The FIS party advocated for a multiparty electoral system, and had been a more effective social service provider than the government for several years before the 1990 elections. Esposito notes Western criticisms that FIS support for democracy was supeficial (based on equivocal statements by FIS leaders), but he points out that it was the Algerian military that interfered with the democratic process: "If the charge was that fundamentalists were out to hijack democracy, the actions of the military supported a countercharge that ruling elites only believed in "risk-free democracy ." While some feared that the FIS only believed in "one man, one vote. one time," others countered that secular elites believed in elections as long as the opposition remained weak and thus their victory assured (183)." "Despite fits of democratic rhetoric, political liberalization and democratization have been placed on hold or subvened, while Western governments are generally content to look the other way ( 184):'

Tucker, b: x-xi.

24

that may be seen as Westernization, and 'ina~thentic.'~' Indeed, calls to protect *traditiona and

'authenticity' have even hampered improvements that would bring women more in line with

earlier rights women exercised under Islamic law over a deteriorated 'tradition.' For instance.

Maududi on the Indian subcontinent decried family planning efforts as Western attempts to

undermine Islam by reducing the number of Muslims. even though family planning was

condoned by all four Islamic madhbs (schools of law) and widely practised in the pre-colonial

68 era. And education for women, enjoined by the Prophet (pbuh), became a battleground in the

nineteenth and twentieth centuries because Muslim tradition had deteriorated into thinking

women should not be educated.

Another legacy of Orientalism that complicates the task of undermining the stereotype

that the veil is oppressive is the WestEast dichotomy that it enshrines. It is too simplistic to

label that stereotype a 'Western' stereotype (though easier for sake of exposition). because there

are plenty of Muslims in the world who also view the veil as oppressive. Dividing the world

into 'West' and 'East' is an Orientalkt assumption that has worked to ensure 'Western'

superiority and 'Eastern' inferiority. The duality simplifies global politics. and most

imponantly. erases areas of simiiarity between 'West' and 'East.' Plenty of Muslim states have

been secularisin~'modemisin_g' for the past 100 years. Lots of Muslims are not practising

Muslims, just as a significant number of Westerners are no longer practising Christians or Jews.

(Indeed the WestEast dichotomy glosses over Christians and Jews living in 'Muslim' countries,

and Muslims living in the West.) Many Muslims are as anti-Islam as many Westerners are.

convinced it is oppressive. backward. violent and so on. The legacy of Orientalism in

mainstream Western media and scholarship. by leaving out these dynamics. works to reinforce

67 Tucker. b: xi 68 Omran: 206-8. Musallam. Egypt hosted the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 amidst "antagonisms and suspicions that the ICPD as a whole was a Western conspiracy to rid the Muslim world of

25

the negative stereotype of Islam in the West. It fortifies the negative stereotype because the

uncomplicated WestEast division enables simplistic equations to be made: West equals

progressive, East equals underdeveloped; Western women are liberated, Eastern women

subjugated; and so on. And yet it is also widely acknowledged that these days. the world is a

'global village.' In recognising globalisation, it is possible to become a more sophisticated

observer of the world. The truism the 'veil is oppressive' is not tenable in the face of a refined

understanding of the dynamics and currents in a global village in which some Muslim women

love the scarf. but others do not, and in which some Muslim women love Islam. but others do

not.

D. MUSLIMS IN THE WEST!^

The need to challenge the negative stereotype of the veil as oppressive is urgent for those

Muslims who live in the West. Anecdotal evidence demonstrates that Muslims (male and

female) are hurt by the negative image of the veil and Islam. Several examples will suffice to

highlight this. In 1995 some Muslim schoolgirls were expelled from school in Quebec for

refusing to remove their scarves. The schools ruled that the scarves were an 'ostentatious

symbol' akin to a swatiska. A teenage girl in Quebec who wears hijab to high school was

mortified to see her teacher on television proclaiming that "lslam degrades women. I started to

cry. 1 couldn't understand why someone would say something like that." she told [Kelly]. "She

? ~ 7 0 knows me. She knows what I am like. and that I am not like that. How can she say that. . An

Islamic advocacy group in the US and Canada. the Council on American Islamic Relations

(CAIR) documents harassment and discrimination against Muslims. In 1998 they reported

incidents of women losing their jobs or not being hired for refusing to uncover at: Dunkin'

its Islamic values by legalizing abortion, calling for women's equality and destroying family values." Kararn: 172. Many Roman Catholics had similar fears.

26

Donuts (Boston); US Airways; Boston Market Restaurant (Sacramento, California); Taco Bell

(Arlington, Virginia); Domino's Pizza (Colorado); KMART (New Jersey); and the Sheraton

Hotel (Washington). In all cases the women were reinstated after CAIR intervention. Some

women received apologies and compensation. Muslim men suffer fiom the negative discourse

on the veil too. CAIR reported in November 1997 that a 13 year old boy was hospitalised after

being beaten by two or more teenagers who called him a "rag head" and "f--4ng sand n-gger."

Apparently the attack occurred after the father of the victim was called a "rag head" and "rag

head lover" by the father of one of the attackers.'' My thesis. in seeking to undermine the

stereotype, thus aspires to improve the lives of Muslims living in the West.

E. METHOD AND ARGUMENT.

My method in undermining the stereotype of the veil is eclectic. There are five chapters.

each using a different methodology, to take a different tack in challenging the stereotype.

Chapter One is a feminist ethnography of some Torontonian Muslim women. I interviewed

fifteen Sunni Muslim women and one Ismaili woman to ask them about their understanding of

hijab. and for those who cover. their experiences of wearing hijab in Toronto. The chapter

draws on feminist methods of using women's experience as a foundation of knowledge. I argue

that the women I interviewed shatter the stereotype of the submissive Muslim woman because

the women demonstrate intelligence. agency. and self-confidence. They exhibit a high level of

self-esteem not expected fiom the downtrodden. Chapter Two traces the origins of the 'veil is

oppressive' discourse in the West. I argue that attacking the veil was an essential part of the

colonial project, necessary to break down barriers between colonial power and hidden women.

The point is to stress the constructed nature of the anti-veil discourse. and to highlight its link to

69 I refer to the 'West' in this thesis because it is a recognisable shorthand for place: the West being the Anglo- European world and its ex-colonies (Australia, Canada and so on). I advocate for the discontinuation of the terminology even while I use it. as there are no agreed upon terminological alternatives yet. 70 Kelly: 103

Western political interests. I also show how the move to independence in colonized Muslim

countries included a focus on the veil, as nationalist elites accepted the West's version of the

meaning of huub and strove to 'liberate' their country from backward Islamic practices.

Chapter Three is a survey of the contemporary 're-veiling' movement in the Muslim world.

Here I draw on contemporary anthropological, sociological and historical literatures that discuss

the 're-veiling' phenomenon. These surveys demonstrate that women cover for many different

reasons. be they religious, social or political. Empirical reality alone challenges the Western

stereotype that all Muslim women are forced to cover and that covering is oppressive. With a

critique of Moroccan feminist Fatima Mernissi's perspective on the veil. Chapter Four moves

the thesis into theoretical grounds. Here I show that Memissi3 analysis of the veil is based on

an idiosyncratic reading of Islam. Her interpretations are based on her own negative personal

experiences with veiling. but she argues all Muslim women suffer because of veiling. I disagree

with that conclusion and attempt to show why an altemative reading is possible within Islam.

Chapter Five is an effon toward formulating a positive theory of the veil. I draw on two

testimonials by Muslim women in newspaper articles about their positive experience of

covering. The women's arguments derive from feminist critiques of the exploitation of the

female body in capitalist society to contend that covering can be a form of liberation. In this

chapter I highlight the aspect of religious belief that is all too often left out. I will reiterate as I

proceed through the thesis that I am not attempting to argue that the veil is never oppressive for

Muslim women. Clearly some women experience covering as oppressive. My point is that the

'veil is oppressive' notion has become a paradigm in which the 'meaning' of the veil as

oppressive assumes the status of a truth claim. I am saying that I disagree with that

interpretation. In this thesis, I present an altemative perspective.

" CAlR Winter Newsletter. 1998. The incident between the boys allegedly began as a school bus dispute over spilled paint.

In addition, as each chapter draws on different literatures that form the overall scholarly

discourse on women and Islam, one of my contributions is to bring together the disparate

literatures in a way that has not been done before. My eclectic methodology gives a better

picture of the meaning of hijab for some women believers than the literatures (while important

in themselves) do when read alone.72

Terminologv - the veil.

A final note on the word 'veil.' I sought to avoid the word 'veil' in my writing. because

the word is so laden with the negative stereotype. Part of the whole problem of the West's focus

on the 'veil,' as many scholars have mentioned, is precisely the simplification that the phrase

'the veil' entails: as if there is only one kind of 'veil7 that Muslim women have ever worn.')

This is a travesty that augments the problem of the negative stereotype. In the English language

a 'veil' is normally "a piece of usually more or less transparent fabric attached to a woman's hat

etc. to conceal the face or protect against the SU~."[OED]'" This word corresponds to the Arabic

niqub, the veil that women cover their faces with. As a word to convey the Islamic notion of

hijab it is totally inadequate. Hijab, from the root hojuba. meaning to cover. conceal. hide is a

complex notion encompassing action and apparel. It can include covering the face, or not. It

includes lowering the gaze with the opposite sex. and applies to men as well. who must lower

their gaze and cover from navel to knee. These days. hijab is also the name used for the

headscarf that women wear over their heads and tie or pin at the neck. with their face showing.

Over the centuries. and in different places. how a woman covers varies enormously - what parts

are covered. with what kind of material. texture, pattern etc. The terminology varies also. of

course. But many Westerners do not know the word hijab, and as the weight of the discourse

" Thanks to J. Carens for pointins this out to me. 73 cf Watson, a: 14 I ; El-Sohl and Mabro: 9; El-Guindi, b: 374, Chatty: 403. 74 Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Definitions 2 and 3 are interesting, but not widely known: 2) a piece of linen etc. as part of a nun's head-dress; 3) a curtain esp. that separating the sanctuary in the Jewish Temple.

29

finally overcame me. I had to resort to the word 'veil' to be understood. From now on. I will

use the word hijab to refer to the concept of covering. The word headscarf will designate

women who cover ail but hands and face, and in keeping with common Muslim usage.

headscarf will be interchangeable with hijab; the word niqub will refer to the face veil some

women attach to their headscarves.

According to the OED, 'To take the veil' means becoming a nun. Given the respect held by nuns in the West, it is a pity 'taking the veil' has not had the same positive connotations for Muslim women who 'take the veil.'

CHAPTER ONE.

PERCEPTIONS AND E-XPERIENCES OF WEARING HIJAB IN TORONTO.

About three months after I started wearing hijub, a 13-year-old girl in Montreal. Quebec

was sent home from school for rehsing to remove her headscarf in class. In November another

Montrealer was told to transfer to a different school if she wanted to wear hijab.'' The incidents

sparked a debate across Canada about the meaning of hijab and its place in Canadian society.

The controversy in Canada about the meaning of the headscarf was framed in terms of it being

an *alien9 practice that Canadians had to decide whether or not they would accept as 'authentic.'

The Canadian Broadcasting Commission (CBC) aired an investigative report into the issue in

1995. At the end of the show, the CBC reporter asked the question: "Can the hijab pass the

litmus test of being Canadian?" That the girls who were expelled were Canadian (born and

bred) seemed irrelevant. The headscarf is still too new to be considered anything other than

foreign.

Jeffery Simpson's opinion piece carried in The Globe and Mail that argued that Muslim

women should have the right to wear hijab if they so de~ired.'~ sparked an angry response from

two women citing that hijab is 'clearly' a sign of Muslim women's oppression. Mona LeBlanc

wrote:

. . . Simpson's argument against opponents of the hijob is careless at best. dishonest at wont.. . .leaving aside the connection between the hijob and women's oppression, which is obvious but will. no doubt be picked up by other readers, I fail to see the [Sikh's] turban and the [Mennonite's] bonnet as threats of holy wars against those who do not share their wearers' beliefs. And yet, there is such a link between the hijab and jihad. Rest assured that neither I nor most other "wrong-headed

. . .. .-

" The Quebec issue followed on from French expulsions of girls in h@ in 1989. Naturally there are connections between French and Quebec culture. '' Jeffely Simpson. "The Current Objections to Muslim Clothing are Simply Wrongheaded." Globe and Mail. December 28. 1994, p.A 16.

objectors," I'm sure, believe for one minute that all hijub-garbed females are gun- toting terrorists at heart. That is not the point. The point is the ill-advised and ill- timed use of a highly loaded symbol when many in the West are growing weary of the rise in hndamentalist Muslim violence.

This is classic Orientalism: a) jihad equals depraved Muslim violence (against innocent people

because they are not Muslim); b) hijob as a symbol of Islam. hence jihad; and c) hijab as a

symbol of women's oppression. No one in their right mind would welcome such symbolic

meanings into Canada. Many Muslims saw these kinds of negative responses to hijab as just

another example of Western racism.77

What was obscured in these popular debates were the voices of covered Muslim women

themselves. The CBC reporter did interview one of the girls concerned. plus other Muslim

women about covering, but covered Muslim women's voices are still not heard by many

Canadians. This chapter attempts to fill that gap by presenting the voices of some Muslim

Canadian women who cover. Asking the question "Can the hijab pass the litmus test of being

Canadian?" from the point of view of those who cover reveals very different responses than that

of the h e - s t o r y of the CBC report.

If the voice of the Muslim woman in hijob is little known in Western popular culture. the

situation in the academic literature is more complex. The trend has seen the emergence of a

voice that has been largely absent in the women and Islam field. but a voice that is still largely

framed and contained in a skeptical literature that questions whether or not the act of covering

represents acceptance of patriarchy.78 Certainly there are few studies of Muslim women who

cover and live in the Naturally. any trend that gives Muslim women positive space is a

good one, but much more needs to be done.

77 See the NovernberIDecember 1994 issue of lslamic Horizons, and the January 1995 issue of The Message. 78 Mule and Barthel. Hessini. Macleod.

A. FEMINIST METHODOLOGY AND HIJAB.

Feminists know first hand the feeling of being misrepresented and excluded in

mainstream discourse. They have spent much energy challenging academic representations

about women, their 'nature,' their role in society and the like. Feminists have done this because

their experience, their feeling about themselves was not captured by 'malestream' discourse. In

the early days of (second-wave Western) feminism (1 970's). women's experience was made the

bedrock of knowledge. For example, a feminist collective, dedicated to documenting women's

life narratives wrote:

Feminist theory emerges from and responds to the lives of women. The recovery and interpretation of women's lives have been central concerns of feminist scholarship for the earliest pioneering works to the present. Listening to women's voices, studying women's writings. and learning from women's experiences have been crucial to the feminist reconstruction of our understanding of the world.80

Or, Lorraine Code: "and yet it is also true that feminist inquiry has a commitment to taking

women's experiences very seriously and to attempting to discern what those experiences

mean."8' Or. Dorothy Smith: "the remedy is to take women's experience into account so that

the balance can be achieved and women's perspectives and experiences can be represented

equally with men's."82

This emphasis on experience could not but help highlight the exclusion of women who

did not experience the world in the same way as those early feminists. who tended to be white.

middle-class, and Westerners. In the early 1980's black and third world feminists challenged

and exposed their own exclusion and misrepresentation in Western feminist theory. Mohanty

charts the colonising effect Western feminist discourse has had on knowledge production of

women in the third world. iproducing/re-presenting a composite, singular "third world

79 The papers by Watson and Reece are the only ones I have found that look at covered Muslim women in the West. Several unpublished theses examine women's experience with hijab in the West: Cayer, Kelly, Khan. and Zine.

Personal Narratives Group: 4. Code: 26.

woman."83 Despite the diversity of the 'third' world, feminist scholars propagated "the*' image

of "the" average third world woman:

"[She]. . .leads an essentially truncated life based on her feminine gender (read: sexually constrained) and her being "third world" (read: ignorant, poor. uneducated, tradition-bound, domestic, family-oriented, victimized. etc.) "84

"[Third world women are]. . .religious (read: "not progressive"). family-oriented (read bbtraditional"), are legal minors (read: "they-are-still-not-conscious-of-their- rights"), illiterate (read "ignorant"), domestic (read: "backward"). and sometimes revolutionary (read: "their-country-is-in-a-state-of-war; they-must-fight!").85

Like other third world women, covered Muslim women were not given a voice. Indeed. Muslim

women were the example par excellence of oppressed Third world women. being seen as

secluded. veiled. "beasts of burden"/submissive wives. or, (less so in the 1990's) "odalisques" in

a lustful man's harem.86

The tendency in Western feminism has been to assume that Western women's struggles

and prescriptions for emancipation are Muslim women's, or to define Muslim women's

oppression based on what they would consider oppressive for thern~eives.~' Tucker:

There are certain benchmark aspects of a society that we. as westem-trained feminists, tend to search out as a measure of the position of women. Legal equality. reproductive freedom, and the opportunity to express and fulfill the individual self whether through work, through art. or through sexuality recur as central topics of feminist inquiry. But are these the natural universals of feminism?88

Or Fernea:

. ..Western perceptions of Middle Eastern women are based not only on a limited knowledge of the area and the culture and on old preconceptions but also on their perceptions of themselves. Western women fiom the English-speaking world have struggled for the past century to achieve some economic. legal. and political parity, attempting to overcome a long tradition of inequality. Coming fiom behind. they sometimes lay upon women in other societies the burdens from which they have only recently been freed. This is particularly problematic in regard to the Middle

82 Smith: 62. " Mohanty: 334. 84 Mohanty: 337. " Mohanty: 352 86 Mehdid: 25. 87 Kazi: 87.

Tucker, b: viii.

East, given the early cultural superiority of the Middle East, and the recent shifts in economic and political power between East and west!'

White, Western feminists have been able to recognize the shortcomings of their theories

when it comes to non-white, non-Western women. Some have been enthusiastic about

embracing the 'minority voice.' Dorothy Smith:

[Tlhis is a particular instance [that the general culture is men's not 'women's] where I most powefilly feel the absence of non-white women. For of course the texts of the white women's movement have obliterated their subjectivity and experience in ways directly parallel with those described here and here attributed to a general women's experience with the totalitarianism of male texts.90

Muslim women, especially covered women, are still battling to have their voices welcomed into

this circle.

At a time when 'experience' is being questioned by poststructuralist scholars as a

legitimate foundation for knowledge." it is the case that recounting Muslim women's voices is

still extremely useful. It is all very well to subject experience to scrutiny. but what if your voice

has not even yet been heard? In breaking new ground. the most useful feminist methodologies

are, not surprisingly, those formulated in early feminist days. when women were just beginning

to explore their exclusion in androcentric culture. Telling how one feels, what one experiences.

is the first step. When one has a voice, a presence. enters into a dialogue. then one is able to

scrutinize the voice in more depth.

Thus it is Dorothy Smith's message that is advantageous to my. study: "It is only when as

women we can treat one another, and ourselves. as those who count for one another that we can

break out of our silence - to make ourselves heard."9' In this chapter, I am presenting. in as

positive a space as possible. the voice of some minority women - the experience of some

89 Fernea, c: xi. ' Smith: 36. See also Stanley and Wise: "We also suggested [in our past work) that the category *woman' used in academic feminist writing then (and, to an extent. now) actually reflected the experiences and analyses of white, middle-class, heterosexual, first world women only, yet treated these as universals (23." 91 Scott. '' Smith: 35.

35

Muslim women who have chosen to wear hijab in a country in which they did not have to cover.

and indeed often face difficulties if they choose to cover. I am using their experience to contest

the negative representation of themselves as oppressed.

Speaking of women in general, Stanley and Wise argue that:

. ..to say that women share 'experiences of oppression' is not to say that we share the same experiences. The social contexts within which different kinds of women live, work, struggle and make sense of their lives differ widely across the world and between different groupings of women. We argued that the experience of 'women' is ontologically fractured and complex because we do not all share one single and seamless material reality.93

When it comes to Muslim women, there may be a danger in accepting the notion that women's

experience is "ontologically fractured:'' that connotes the danger of assuming an essentialised

difference, the alien 'Other.' But the general point can be claimed. Muslim women are not a

homogeneous group. They do not experience wearing hijab in the same way. Muslim women

may somehow share 'Islam,' but they come from a wide variety of class. race and ethnic

backgrounds. Muslim women wear hijab for different reasons. They experience wearing hyab

differently. They have very different life-styles. ambitions. and self-understandings. This

applies both to Muslim women cross-nationally and also to Muslim women intra-nationally.

The meaning of hijab for a woman in Iran can be completely different for the meaning of hijab

for a woman in Toronto; the meaning of hijbb can be different for a woman from Tehran and a

woman from Qom. as it can also be different for a woman in Scarborough and for a woman in

Hamilton. Of course, the meaning and experience of wearing hijob for these women could be

the same, or similar - the point is not to assume that just because they look similar. they are

similar. Each woman needs to be treated as an individual case. The point here is to challenge

and hopefully change, the idea that hijab 'is' necessarily an oppression for Muslim women.

That some women experience hijclb as oppressive is known, but the received wisdom about the

- -

9: Stanley and Wise: 2 1 -22. Also Smith: 108.

veil (it is oppressive) fails to recognise the possibility that some women may not experience

hijab as oppressive (especially in popular culture, and bookshewspaper articles written for the

rnain~trearn).'~ To emphasize 'fractured experience' is to emphasize perspective on hijabOg5

Dorothy Smith holds that "...[a] feminist method of inqui ry... [must] insist on

preserving the subject as active and competent and as the knower of inquiry. the knower to

whom our texts should speak."96 but as so many feminists have shown. third world. black. and

Muslim women have precisely been denied such agency. Cast forever as "the" victim. as '-theq*

submissive. oppressed Muslim woman, negative stereotyping has denied that Muslim women

have agency, that they have autonomy, and even that they have any "critical perspective"97 on

their own situation.98 Any support for Islam and its prescriptions (even in the women and Islam

field) frequently is taken as an example of 'false consciousness.'

I hope to demonstrate that in choosing an Islamic identity, women are not imbibing the

potent brew of an Islamic ''~nonster.''~~ The interviews will show what women say about their

own identity, their notion of self and the meaning they ascribe to their actions. The women will

talk about what it is like wearing hijab in Canada. and whether they feel contradictions between

being 'Canadian' and being 'Muslim.' Although there are problems in taking 'experience' at

face value, the first task is to hear these women's voices. and only then to interpret them.'''

94 See for example the recent spate of women journalists' expose bookslanicles about the 'truth' about women 'behind the veil.' Brooks; Goodwin; Scroggins. I like Watson's comment about this: "The piethora of books about women behind, beyond or beneath the veil may give the impression that Muslim women's main activity and main contribution to society is being in a 'state of veil,' (p. 14 I .)" 95 Among studies of Egyptian women returning to hijab concern for 'respectabiiity' in the public space and the saving of money from not having to follow fashions are fiequently cited. These are not reasons given by the women I interviewed. See, El-Guindi. b; Hoodfar. a: Watson, a; Williams; Zuhur. % Smith: 142 97 Mohanty, b: 29. 98 Wiiliams is a rare exception. Puzzling over why they started to cover again after a time where most women wore Western dress. he writes: "Egyptian women. it has been shown. are no sheep. No one is likely to persuade them to exchange the cooler, more comfortable modem dresses for myy shar'i (Lawful (Islamic) dress) unless they wish to do so. (p. 53)" 99 Helie-Lucas. c: 39 1. She goes as far as to compare 'fundamentalists' with the Nazis.

B. THE INTERVIEWS.

Initially I had twenty-one women on my list to interview. AAer sixteen interviews. I

realized I had more data than I could present, so I stopped at number sixteen. The initial plan

included interviews with Muslim women fiom different sects in Islam: Sunni. Shia. Ismaili etc.

The end result is interviews with fifteen Sunni women and one Ismaili. Of the sixteen women.

ten cover full-time (including five converts), four cover part-time and hope to cover full-time

one day (including one convert), and two do not cover, nor want to.

My interviewees live in the greater Toronto area. They are mostly women I met through

student groups, various Qur'anic study circles I attended, and religious festivals. Although I am

not presenting a quantitative study of Muslim women who wear h i j d in Toronto. I did try to get

a cross-section of ages, ethnic backgrounds. and educational and occupational experiences. My

sample is not scientifically selected, nor comprehensive. nor is it trying to be. In fact. my

sample appears to come fiom a tiny minority of Muslims who are active mosque participants.

about 1 4 % of North American Muslims according to scholars of Islam in North Arneri~a. '~ '

My aim is simply to gain a thorough understanding of what a few Muslim women think about

themselves. their religion and its prescriptions and requirements. The interview with each

woman was conducted either on campus. or in the woman's home. I had a list of open-ended

questions (see appendix 1 ) and the interviews were taped and transcribed. They lasted between

1 '/2 to 3 hours. and if I was in the woman's home. I was usually invited to stay after the

interview for lunch. or for tea and cake. depending on the time of day. If I was in the woman's

home. neither she nor I covered our hair. and as it was summertime. she would often be wearing

short sleeves. If the interview fell near one of the prescribed times for Muslims to pray. we

would also pray together after the interview had ended.

100 Personal Narratives Group: 26 1-2. Chapter Five will be the place for interpretation of the women's voice. lo' Haddad. a: 75.

38

Being a fellow Muslim opened the way for the interviews. First. Muslims are often quite

suspicious at how their words will be used against them, but all the women were very excited at

my interview project and were happy to co-operate. They see me as someone battling to have

their voice heard in the general public space.I0' Second, while it is certain that in spite of

anonymity, I was not told anythng the person did not want to reveal, 1 am also certain that the

women spoke to me in ways they may not have if I had not been Muslim. For instance, before I

became Muslim I was convinced that the hijab was a symbol of a Muslim woman's oppression.

I asked two Muslim women friends of mine, both studying at university. why one of them

covered and the other one did not. The one who covered told me that she believed that the

Qur'an was God's word and that she believed that the Qur'an required her to cover. The other

woman told me that she believed that the Qur'an was God's word. but that God would not judge

her on her external state but on the internal belief in her heart, so she did not need to cover.

After I accepted Islam and started to cover. the latter woman confided to me actually she wanted

to wear hijab, but was afraid to do so in Canada: she wanted a career and did not think she

would get a job if she started to cover. She revealed this to me only after I became an insider.

and I am convinced that my interviews would have been vastly different had I been a non-

Muslim-white- Westem-feminist-researcher.

People from my community frequently tell me how impatient they are for me to finish

my thesis. and that I must make sure I give them a copy. Although there are some 250 000

Muslims in Toronto. it is still the case that. in spite of anonymity. many such readers will

recognize details of my interviewees' lives. Thus I have de-emphasised identifying aspects of

my interviewees' identities, at the cost of losing interesting information about their

backgrounds. I have given them pseudonyms.

101 Cayer documents the difficulty she had securing interviews for her Master's thesis on Muslim women. She learned that the women were suspicious and wary about what she would say about them, p: 55-59, 68.

C. PERCEPTIONS OF HIJAB.

Muslim women in hmb are regulariy told by Canadians "This is Canada. You're free

here. You don't have to wear that thing on your head."lo3 Being on the receiving end of such

comments can be amusing or upsetting, depending upon the style in which this information is

delivered. One summer day, I went to High Park with a group of fiends for a picnic. Wardia. a

woman from Tunisia, and I went to the washroom to make ablutions for prayers. We had taken

off our head-scarves and Wardia was having some difficulty rearranging hers. A middle-aged.

white woman was looking at us with some interest. Watching Wardia having problems with her

scarf, she eventually said "Don't worry about it. this is Canada." Wardia turned to her and said

in a perplexed manner "What's Canada got to do with my scarf?" The woman replied. "You're

free here, you don't have to wear it." Wardia replied. "I wear it because of my religion." This

surprised the woman a bit. who responded. "Oh. I thought you wore it because your

culture/custom forced you to." Wardia ever anxious to dispel negative stereotypes eagerly told

her. "No. in my country I get thrown in prison for wearing it. [ s i ~ ] " ' ~ and went on to tell an

embarrassed women very enthusiastically about how she wears her scarf for religion. and how

much she loves her religion. and how she is not forced to do anything. In fact. Wardia started

wearing her scarf' five years after coming to Canada.

~ u r . " ~ on the other hand, experienced a traumatic version of this son of encounter. She

was "just having coffee at the cafeteria" in the library one day when she was approached by an

older woman saying "excuse me. may 1 speak to you for a moment:.'

I thought well maybe she wants to ask me something And she said "why are you wearing this, you're getting so much attention. why are doing this? Why are you bringing the backwardness to Canada?" Like she really wanted to know, she was pretty hostile. I tried to explain to her, but she was not convinced. She was like weli you shouldn't really wear it, not in Canada, because you're bringing, she thinks they worked really hard in Canada for

'03 Cayer: 162. I M In 1989 the Tunisian government passed a law banning hoab from schools/univenities and workplaces. Shahed. Women covering are taken to the police station to sign a form agreeing not to cover again. lo' See Appendix One for limited information on interviewees.

women's rights and for you to wear it and destroy all that, she thinks almost by wearing it you're dismissing all the work that the women's movement have done. She was coming more from a feminist point of view. and also she was saying you're one of the easy targets for hate and why do you want so much attention. She was almost like I was trying to make some sort of a statement. Of course I had to tell her no, it's not a statement, it's more a religious thing, and once I said that she seemed sort to calm down. Oh okay you're not coming fiom that perspective, you're more like it's part of the religion, but she was still not convinced, she was still not convinced. she was like I still think that you shouldn't wear it.

1. WHY HIJAB? (Part One)

I stressed in the introduction that my thesis was not seeking to generalize from the

experiences of the women I interviewed to encompass 'all' Muslim women. But I can

generalize about the women I interviewed. Apart fiom Noha, an Ismaili. all the women I

interviewed are Sumi Muslims. Of the 15 Sunni Muslims. only one did not pray the five daily

prayers, so the rest are what other people consider 'religious.' As mentioned above. this makes

them part of a tiny minority amongst Muslims in North America. This is an important point. for

being 'religious' means that the motivations for these women's actions/decisions are unfamiliar

either to those who do not believe in God, or to those used to looking at issues from a secular

perspective. Hence in order properly to understand these women. it is important to grasp their

ontological framework. Muslims (of all types. Sumi. Shia', Ismaili etc) believe that the Qur'an

is the word of God. revealed to the Prophet Muhammad via the Archangel Gabriel. Sumi

Muslims are so called. because they follow the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad @buh) - his

way of life. They try to mould their behaviour according to prescriptions they believe are found

in the Qur'an and sumah. Ismaili's also believe the Qur'an is the word of God and that

Muhammad @huh) is the Last Prophet. but they follow the guidance of a contemporary leader

(Imam) whom they believe to be an infallible interpreter of the Qur'an for the current times.lo6

So. when Wardia and Nur were trying to explain to the Canadian women why they wore

hijab in Canada, they both referred to the fact that huab is 'for my religion.' a 'religious thing.'

4 1

When asked to explain why they covered, all the women I interviewed used a similar reasoning;

they all believed that in the Qur'an God commanded women to cover their hair, and that

Prophetic statements backed that up. '07

Nur started wearing hijab when she was 13. She says it was not a very difficult step for

her, because she had been brought up to practice Islam, and had been taught that hijab was "part

of the Islamic package." She was encouraged to ask questions about her religion, and to discuss

issues, and wearing hijab was something she started to do gradually, i.e. wearing it when she

prayed, then to the mosque, and then full-time. Nur appeared very comfortable with hijab. and

that is probably because she "accepted hijab" when she accepted the "Islamic package.'' It

meant she agreed to "do certain things." At the time. other women in her family did not wear it.

for them hijab symbolised "narrow-mindedness and backwardness." However. her grandmother

started wearing h&b when she was 65, and her mother shortly before the interview.

Nadia's story is similar to Nur's. She started wearing hijab when she was 14, and found

it to be a very natural step. She had spent the summer with some practicing Muslims and "felt

very influenced by that." She looked up to some "older girls in the mosque who wore hijab

and.. .really admired the way they carried themselves and behaved, [she] really respected that."

When school started again in the summer. she did not see why she should take her hvab off

Nadia is also very comfortable with hijab. and believes that hijab is the "proper Islamic way to

dress for women," and though she now finds 14 to be a young age to start covering full-time.

she does not regret it, because she thinks if she had not worn it then and had waited till she was

older, she may never have started to cover full-time:

At that time (wearing hijab] just made a lot of sense to me ... and it was logical. and it, urn, you know how when you're at that age, you think you know everything anyways, do you know what 1 mean? Like I remember being 16 and thinking, 'You know I could move out

106 Because they follow their Imam, Ismaili's do not really have a concept of 'sunnah.' Shi'a have a concept of sunnab, but their sources are often different from those of Sunni's. Io7 See Appendix Two for the Qur'anic verses the women referred to about women's dress.

right now, and take care of myself, and you know, I could do anything, anything! Nobody would stop me too!' {laughs) I remember thinking that way, 'oh, I just know everything I nezd to know right now!'

Believing that one's religion requires a certain act, and actually doing it are two separate

things. Some women, especially the converts, found it a struggle in the beginning to cover.

Ellen, who started covering when she was 35, admits it was difficult for her to start wearing

hijab, because her hair is a source of pride for her. She had grown up wearing a small scarf over

her hair, like other women in her church, but her stumbling block as an adult was having the

courage to wear it to work:

In the beginning it was very difficult I will admit it was very difficult because my hair was one of my best - my hair was everything and if my hair wasn't done properly and my hair didn't look good I didn't feel good, okay. And when I converted to Islam and I kept hearing about hijab, hijab, hijab and you have to cover, and this, that, and the other, and I wanted the proof, I wanted to know why we had to cover and what it stated in the Qur'an. I read [the verses] over and over and over, but still it wasn't enough because it wasn't telling me how to wear the hijab you know, or anything like that, and so I found every little bit of information I could find I wanted to read it. So as I kept going through information, information and any time anybody was talking about that topic I would always listen in, you know, and really try and figure just how important this is and why is it so important. Then I had bought some audio tapes and one of the tapes was entitled "Why Muslim Women Cover" by Imam Siraj Wahaj and after listening to that tape I decided I have to cover. So 1 listened to the tape again, after the first time I listened to it a second time. and I told myself listen you can't worry about the people, you have to worry about Allah, because no matter what you do you can't please the people. so that's when I decided I will cover. In the beginning I used to wear it like if 1 go to the Mosque I would wear it. If I go to any islarnic function 1 would wear it. If 1 go out shopping or anything I would wear it. but to work 1 wouldn't wear it. And that was the difficult part because for me to start wearing it anywhere else it wasn't a big problem for me. because as I was growing up 1 used to always have my head covered and I used to always wear long sleeves clothing and long pants. Actually my Mum used to fight sometimes because she used to always tell me why do you have such heavy clothes on it so hot. but I never like to show my arms or my legs and we used to always wear a scarf too. So to wear it wasn't a big deal to me and just you know, the point of wearing it to work and having to work all day with hijab on. I found that dificult.

Elizabeth had started wearing hijab full-time when she was 25, but was so

uncomfortable with the negative reactions of her workplace colleagues that she stopped wearing

it two weeks later. 1 asked her when and why she started to wear hijab?

I started to wear [hijab] when I came back to Toronto [from being overseas], and why? Because I wanted to wear it, and I wanted to wear it from the beginning, but with my fiance, [an Arab Muslim] he didn't want me to wear it, and ah, he was uncomfortable with me

converting to Islam anyway, so I couldn't wear it in his presence, but when 1 came back home I was afraid.. .I was really afraid, afraid of everything, afraid of life.. .I was so afraid, ah, even though I was going back to everything as it was before, but I wasn't the same anymore. I mean I hadn't, I'd never really, I'd never been the same as other people, ever, I never felt like I fit in, but now I've found something that completed me [Islam], but now I had to do that here [instead of overseas], and it seemed very odd. So ah, I wanted to wear it because I think it's the right thing to do, I don't think there's a question about it.

Even though she does not cover at present, Elizabeth believes the Qur'an clearly commands

women to cover their hair, and hopes to do so one day.

Among the women who do not cover full-time, four believe (including Elizabeth) they

should be covering full-time, and hope to do so one day. Khadija, 50, thinks it is her upbringing

that is making it so hard for her to cover but says that '%wearing hijab continuously is always in

my mind, when am I gonna do it I don't know, but it is something that one day I will." She

grew up in the Middle East during the last years of European occupation. During this time. the

elite attempted to imitate the British and looked down on anything Islamic:

the influence of the British was really strong there. Now we [Middle Easteners], particularly the higher class, to show they are a higher class they tended to imitate the British, the European and so.. . we dressed like them basically, and if you go back to our movies in those days, panicularly even earlier days like in the early forties to late thirties ah you find that the actresses were wearing really revealing dresses at that time ... it's not clearly stated [that you should imitate the British] but the more you like European the more chic you are. you know, you more of a higher class and so on. So hijab was out of the question because you won't look like European, so this is something that we didn't think of.

Hdab came to be seen as a low class dress. and as a symbol of poverty. backwardness and

ugliness:

There were two classes, those elite ones. the ladies. what is compared to the ladies and the lords of Britain, and these are the ones who dress very elegantly and so on to the highest European fashion. The other group who would dress modestly and cover and so on, these are the poor people who worked for those. So that makes the difference. if you would wear it you are fiom the other class.

For Khadija hijab symbolises "determination. strength. courage. dedication to your religion

Islam." She was nervous when she first started wearing hijab to go to the mosque and had to

walk across the street from her car to the mosque wearing hijab she "said to [herself7 I hope

nobody's gonna see me. You know I didn't realise it could be that bad, but I hoped nobody

44

would see." However, she really thinks what is holding her back is her childhood memories of

hijrrb as backward, ugly and low-class, "We were brought up in [my country] to always look

perfect even when my daughter came with me this year. I mean you would see everything has

to match, your clothes has to be like this, your clothes have to be like that. so suddenly looking

totally different is very difficult, very difficult." Nevertheless, Khadija always praised women

who covered, and supported her two teenaged daughters' decision to wear hijab full-time in

1994.

Iman, in her early twenties, covers when she prays and attends Islamic events. and she

believes that the Qur'an makes covering a full-time an obligation for believing Muslim women.

and hopes to cover full-time some day. What is holding her back? "I guess because I'm

womed about, urn, people's reactions. urn. but I feel that after a point that one has to get over

that. because people are not always going to approve of what you do. urn. and so at one point I

would like to wear it and I feel that. urn. I hopefully will not be affected by what other people

think of it." Iman is womed that if she wears hijab people will not interact with her in as

friendly a manner as they do now. Her Muslim women friends tell her stories about the

comments they receive from people about their hijab. and she thinks that being stared at a lot

would be "unnerving." Iman is feeling the pressure of assimilation and is worried that hijab

"sets you apart" as "different." Also. she is womed about the political overtones associated

with hijab in the western mind: "I'm not a political person. I don't want people to think that my

scarf for example is a political statement." So Iman is being held back from wearing hijub

largely because of the reactions she thinks she will receive from the broader Canadian society.

Her concern over the political ramifications of hijab is important given the image Westerners

have of the hijab (remember LeBlanc above). Some women do not wear hvab even though they

would like to, because they do not want it to be mistaken for a political statement.

Only Fatima, in her late 403, and Noha, mid-twenties, were not covering and did not

also wish to cover some day. Fatima grew up in the Central Middle East, where Islam was

derided as backward, and an attempt was made to 'modernize' the country along Western lines.

The experience is similar to Khadija's country, where hi jd came to be seen as a symbol of

poverty and backwardness. Fatima's daughter Rania covers full-time (see below). and as we

have seen, her other daughter, Iman hopes to. But Fatima herself seemed to oscilliate between

two positions: she is a believing Muslim and feels sad that she does not practice Islam more

filly; at the same time, she is still under the influence of the arguments against hijob and other

Islamic practices of her upbringing:

For [our President] yes he, he bring the modem things to [my country], and but in that time it also had a reason, 1 mean I because still ah we are happy to have somebody like [our President] too, because we had enemies and, but you know, so when 1 think about it and the religious things been you know ignored so much in that time and maybe that's - we are the product of this modernisation. And village people most of them still they cover their hair, the children but we were living in the town and city, and they were all not cover their hair.. . if you are living in a city, if you are going school, high school.. .not even one person covered, little girls covered their hair in high school not even one person .... In that time not to question [if we should cover or not] because nobody wants to cover their hair. I don't remember even this issue, later on we heard about it. There is some young girls and they covered their hair and teachers or Professors says "no," but in our time everybody wants not to cover at all ... I don't know but now my children is talking about it. how sad it is to, for [our people] to urn become so modem and forget about religion or ignore religion and because [our President] is so important for us, 1 mean my husband and me we don't want our children to say anything about him, because we said even that is bad for the religion side but that was important for that time to take his action, so we don't have no bad feelings in our generation [towards our President]. . .And we say this is free if you want to cover your hair, he [our President] never said anything about it, still see my mother, my husband's sister still they cover their hair even maybe we are modem now, it doesn't mean we are bad or we want to wear mini skirt and here we open walking around 1 mean still we have our values we kept it, [but I am a] little sad for us. I am not praying, I'm saying I am good people and I am Muslim. I'm doing half, maybe less than half.

Fatima has asked her daughter about hijab, and she also asked me why it was considered

important for a woman to cover her hair. She says she thinks about covering sometimes but

would not unless she really believed it was "so important." and seemed worried that covering

was too difficult, especially if a woman wanted to work and that she would encounter too much

staring and questioning on the subway. Fatima is also not persuaded by a typical Islamic

argument, made frequently, that covering makes male-female interactions better by removing

physical attraction from the interaction. 1 asked her why she thought Muslim women covered

their hair?

Part of religion and also, um, it looks more attractive to men see the lady hair. but for me it's not the case because I know myself and I until now not even one person I look or they look me because I know myself. 1 put my hair everyday go to hairdresser I don't think I have the feeling or that's or that's why I want to be beautiful. [Kutly: So you haven ' f felt in your life that men give you unwanted attention? You haven't felt harassed by men or anything like thar?] No, no because I have - I am always in control I believe - if I'm married that's it, that's over and most of the things good I believe I maintain that marriage and that is it. [Kathy: And where you work do you ever get men who m, to flirt with or try to touch when you don 't want them or anything like that?] Never let them or I don't give them that even choice, if they ask me to lunch or anything I never ever [go] because maybe I had a good father and he said why some girls women prefer the friends with mens instead of women what they can not find on the women friend and they're looking men fiiend, so I always had men friend but not as I mean never go alone to lunch or - I never had boyfriend/ girlfriend relations and that was out of question. If you are serious. think about it. ask questions and married, and that is it, and never mens never go with women.

Fatima joked that in her country people would sometimes say that if your husband asked you to

cover and you did not:

then it is not his fault later on, because you're going to answer to God as to why you didn't cover your hair. So if your husband ask you then it is not his fault, he did his share. But my husband didn't ask me! {laugh) ... Sometimes I tell my husband 'how come you didn't tell me to cover my hair?!' [Kathy: And what does he sqv?] 'Oh,' he says 'up to you.' I say 'if I cover my head do you think you don't mind?' He says 'No I don't,' but ah - and I know from inside I don't [think] he'll [feel] comfortable. but in also it would be choice and I don't think he would mind at all, no.

Nevertheless, she admires and praises women who cover for being "good Muslims." although it

was a struggle for her when her daughter Rania decided to cover full-time (see below). even

though her own mother and other women in the family covered.

As an Ismaili. Noha has a different understanding of the Qur'an and sunnah. Noha says

that in the 1940's the Imam gave Ismaili women permission not to cover if they did not want to.

Noha's views on hijhb are a mixture of Muslim views and typical Western views. She thinks

that hijab probably used to be men's way of controlling women, but that these days she sees it to

be more a "feminine thing.. .expressing yourself." Noha has several Sunni and Shia friends who

wear hijab, and she understands it to be an obligation for them, as well as their expression of

their Islamic identity in Canada. She said she sometimes contemplates covering out of

curiosity, but that in general she does not like to "stand out ... I like to blend into the wood

work."

2. TRADITIONAL (I.E. MALE-BIASED) INTERPRETATION?

The women who covered full-time, or who wished to, are aware of feminist intimations

that they are being 'duped' by an anti-woman interpretation of the ~ u r ' a n . " ~ however. they

reject this suggestion, and in so doing demonstrate they do not follow blindly Qur'anic verses.

They have considered various interpretations of the Qur'an, and chosen that which made most

sense to them. They are not 'obeying the rules of the oppressor unq~estioningly.' '~~ They all

believed that the Qur'anic verse asking women to cover their hair is straightforward. Nadia

captures the women's position well:

I have to say that when I read the qvoh that says take your head-dress and put it over your bosom [4:30-311, it's pretty clear to me that there is an assumption that you're wearing a head-dress, and that's pan of the Islamic dress. 1 mean why didn't he [God] just say 'wear a hi& neck collar?' (laughs) You know, if it was your bosom that was the important thing then why wasn't there more stress on. urn, you know put a button in the top of your shirt, or something, I dunno. Or make sure your bosom is covered. or urn, that kind of thing.

In Sunni Islam, whenever there are differences of opinion over interpretation. the methodology

is to iook at the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him), how he explained a verse. or how

the people at the time applied the verse to their daily life. So. to support their understanding of

hijab, in addition to the Qur'anic verse. the women referred to several Prophetic statements

about hijab, particularly the one which states that when a woman reaches puberty she should

cover everythmg but her face and hands (See Appendix Two). When 1 asked Bassima how she

knew God commanded women to cover, she said:

I08 Zuhur susgests in a footnote in her study of the current 're-veiling' in Cairo that Muslims who refer to the Qur'an to justify veiling are in fact making specific what is in fact a vague verse about modesty. Zuhur: 144. '09 Afshar, b: 3 15.

Oh gosh, chapter and verse, you've got me! There is the verse about urn, I think, pulling the head-covering over the bosom or something so that you're covered, and that you be known as a religious or righteous woman and not be molested. There are also, I mean you have to look at the Qur'an and the hadith together, and there are several ahadirh that say when a woman reaches puberty you should see nothing but the face and hands.

Raneem added she was not following 'just blindly" the interpretation of the verse to cover. She

stated that she understood the problems that hijab solves to the point that she believed even if

hijob was just a cultural thing, "it's a good thing to do."

Even those who did not cover full-time, but wanted to, believed that the Qur'anic verse

was clear. Khadija says the reason she thinks about, and hopes one day to wear. hijab, is

because "I believe it is in the Qur'an, like the verse that says the head-cover should also cover

the bosom, so obviously there is a head-cover." She knew that some academics were trying to

argue that the verse did not mention a head-cover, but then she referred to the hadith mentioned

above. She argued:

The translation of the word in the Qur'an is head-cover and I remember very well in one of the ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] conferences somebody had stated it as hair- cover and 1 wrote a little note, I said is it head-cover or hair-cover? And he stood corrected, it is head-cover ... A lot of academics are trying to go the way you are talking about, [huub is a patriarchal cultural interpretation] like it's not there any more [in the Qur'an,] to the point where I have seen women who have covered for years and years at this [academic idea] they think that it's not necessary and urn they have done it. fine, but it's not right. I don't believe so, and ah, again, there is a hadith from the Prophet SAW)"^ when women reach maturity only the face and hands should show, so what does that mean? ... Even if I choose not to stress too much on hadith. I mean the Qur'an was clear. It's one verse - every verse is important as the others.

Nadia. Halima Bassima Elizabeth and Khadija's answers are important because they show that

they have thought about different ways of interpreting the Qur'an and have chosen the

interpretation which makes the most sense to them. Like the other women who also cover full-

time, they have exercised the qualities denied to Muslim women in popular Western discourse,

and qualities rendered suspect in much feminist writing on women and Islam: contemplation,

consideration, judgement, and choice.

It0 Salh Allah 'Alqvi wa SaiIarn: "May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him."

Moreover, several aspects of covering convince them that hijab is a positive and

beneficial act: its relevance to male-female relations, its benefit for society, and its protection

for women. The next section explores these.

3. THE MEANING OF HIJAB.

Whv Hijab? (Part Two)

3. I ) Male- female Interactions.

Westerners are often puzzled to see Muslim women covering their bodies more than

Muslim men do, and see that as a proof of the woman's inferior status. Actually. Islam lays out

a dress code for both male and female believers, but the requirements for covering are different:

a man is to cover from navel to knee. and wear opaque, loose clothing in this region (tight jeans

are out of the question); women cover more. everything but face and hands."' All of the

women I interviewed, except Fatirna and Noha believe that these differences are due to inherent

differences between men and women. They subscribe to the notion that men are more easily

turned on sexually than are women. The point to covering is not that sexual attraction is seen as

bad. only that it should be expressed between a husband and wife inside the privacy of the

home. A public space free of sexual tensions is seen as a more harmonious and peaceful place

for human beings. men and women. to interact. do business. and build a healthy civilisation.

Hence. these women see hijab as a benefit to society. as a protection for women. and as a source

peace.

Rania expresses this well:

I think there's a natural difference. between women's bodies and men's bodies. I think a women's body has more of an attractiveness to a man. than a man's body does to a woman. that's why the whole fashion indusm and make-up industry is where it is right now. You know I think everybody can see that ... so that's [why] women cover more than men. And that would include their hair obviously ... when you're covering, men aren't distracted or attracted by a physical look, and that's good for men I mean, you know [men] shouldn't

I" An unsettled debate in the Muslim world is whether or not covering the face is optional or compulsory. A minority believe hands are to be covered also. Cf AI-Kanadi. Some of the women I interviewed also thought that men should cover their hair as well, as a sign of religion, and humility.

tempted or interested in things that they really shouldn't be lawfully attracted to, you know a woman passing in the street. I feel much more comfortable if I knew that my husband was say going to a work place, were Muslim women were working that were covering. I feel much more comfortable about that than, you know, your average son of work place. ..you [would] feel that.. .my husband's not going to be distracted or tempted by some things.. .

Rania started covering when she was 18, and said she noticed a difference in the way

men approached after she started covering, they were more respectfbl, and did not try and flirt

with her, or make "leering" comments. Several women, especially the converts who started

covering in their twenties, commented that in hijab they felt men approached them more

respectfully, and treated them as 'persons' not 'sex-objects,' allowing them to get on with the

task at hand. rather than having to be side-tracked by dealing with male harassment.

Raneem had been working in the computer industry and was in her mid-twenties when

she converted to Islam and started wearing hvub full-time. Because she used to work almost

exclusively with men, she found that she received a lot of unwanted attention from them. and

had been searching for a solution. She believes she came to the Islamic position on hijob before

she ever heard about Islam. and had already decided to wear long, conservative clothes to work:

It's a funny story, because before I accepted Islam, I didn't know anything about islam. I was wondering, you know, what should I do with my clothes? I used to go to work and you know I was young and [had] long hair, and used to get a lot of attention fiom my co- workers ... unwanted attention. So. 1 was thinking, 'What should I do? This is a problem. What should I do?' This was what I was thinking, so my solution after a long time of thinking was to first of all dress differently. I would wear more conservative clothes, and I would look like a professional lady. ..I will cut my hair [very short]. I will never grow again, and that will be it. So that's what was my solution - I was looking for solution because I knew the problem. I was living the problem in my everyday life, so later on I came to Islam and I found the hijab, I said well ... before Islam I was seeing the problem, and after Islam, I found a better solution than the one I thought of ... there's nothing magic about it. [and once 1 started to wear h@b 1 didn't get the attention anymore] so it did solve that problem and I was actually quite surprised and happy about it. Actually when I came to Toronto I didn't have this kind of attention anymore and I was very pleased. I was really happy because I - the people were more clear when they talk to me, where I would stand so they didn't have to come to try [to flirt with me], because it was very clear first hand. I did get males' attention because I work in the male environment, but the attention I'm getting is different [ie it's not sexual innuendo] ... So I like that, like you're talking to a person, not like [a sex-object], like there's no other idea behind it. So it's something I really appreciated.

Although Nur sees the hijub as a kind of "sexual harassment policy," as God's "helpful

hint" for women, she understands the differences between male and female dress quite

differently from most of the other women I intentiewed:

[that women cover more is] something that's given in the religion. I never said 'oh you know he does less because he doesn't have hair or something' you know I don't make comparisons like that. It's like, to be a Muslim woman, she has to cover - it's almost like one of the given things. I don't make a big deal about it. In terms of why, is it because she's more beautiful? Well, some women are not very pretry, but they still wear it. It doesn't depend on whether you're beautiful, desirable, or not. Like, all Muslim women are told to wear it, regardless of their beauty, so it's not a function of beauty, 'I have nice hair therefore I cover it.' [Men don't cover their hair because] it's not required by their faith. If it was, they would have.. .In Muslim societies men also used to cover their hair. It was part of their humility and modesty, but it was not like an obligation, but they used to do it as a Sunnah, the practice of the Prophet, in terms of turbans, the topis, the little round hat. You're almost symbolising that he's a Muslim. They used to cover and they have beards. Like why don't women have to wear beards? Like, no, we don't. [Kathy: We can't grow beards!] {laugh) You could put an artificial one on. Something like that, but it's not a function of 'beautiful therefore I cover,' it's not a function of that. It's a part of the - see if you are female and accept the religion, you have to accept - it's part of the package that it comes in. Why would women wear - why do women wear skirts and men don't? It's something like that, women do and men don't. But men in the West usually wear trousers right? Why don't they wear mini skirts? Because. men don't wear it. (laugh) You just don't do it. Women do it [wear hijab], and men don't, it's iike that.

Noha the Ismaili, does not see that wearing hijab is relevant to male-female interactions

at all. She thinks a guy can "be turned on even wearing that thing [hijab]." But she has noticed

that her men friends approach her differently than they do approach her Friends who cover:

when [my male friends] ... talk to a girl that's Sunni Muslim. and she's you know she's with-in her own self.. .she's wearing her hijab and she's.. .very quiet kind of thing. they're more reserved with her, and then when they see me walk in. they're like, are then, you know, the whole friendly bit, you know they're casual, rather than being reserved, and they're a lot more open with me than they are with another Muslim girl.

Noha resents this differential treatment, but on behalf of her friends. She thinks the men are

being unfair to be more reserved with her covered friends who '-are just as friendly as I am."

She sometimes finds the men's attention unwanted. but says "all you have to do is say a couple

of nice little remarks to them, they'll leave you alone, mind you, they'll think you're a really

nasty person after that, but they leave you alone after that.'' 1 suggested to Noha that another

way of looking at hijbb was to see it as a way of protecting women against such unwanted male

attention. She replied that she did think about wearing hgab for that reason, but felt that male

attention also depends on the way she approaches them, and thought if she was more reserved.

they would treat her more respectfilly, irrespective of her clothes. She added that she felt it was

a bit hypocritical for people to treat you more respectfully just because you wore long clothes:

I remember when I used to go the [Isrnaili] mosque wearing a shon mini-skin, mind you they weren't that short, but still they were shorter, and then I starting walking into the mosque wearing a long skirt, my reputation from being a slut to being a perfect girl. was like an overnight change! You know, people who thought I was really sleazy thought I was so pure ... {laughing) Guys are so funny, I thought this was so funny, this thing ... I'm still the same person, I'm still the friendly person I always was, I still talk to the guys like I always did, you know.

3.2) HGub is u Benefil for Society.

Muslim women are aware of the feminist argument that women who cover to help men

not feel distracted are buying into a patriarchal argument which masks the self-sacrifice of

women for the sake of men. But the women I interviewed do not accept this interpretation. For

them, Muslim women and men are brothers and sisters in faith, and find nothing wrong with the

idea that women can help men practice their faith better. They believe society benefits by

having sexual tension between men and women in the public space reduced. As Zainab said.

"women have been exploited so much. and men make such silly fools of themselves over

women. that I really think it's a good thing for the men, that women wear hijab. Why encourage

jealousy or envy or anything like that? Why encourage the negative emotions?''

Rania argues that hmb is a benefit for both men and women. Hyab protects women

from "unwanted male attention. and h@b helps husbands not be attracted to women other than

their wives. "If we're going to be a healthy, just society. then why aren't we helping each other

out? Why can't I do something that makes it easier for the opposite sex?" she asks. She

continues:

I think we need to be concerned about everybody in our society, and I think, you know, men may be attracted or tempted by physical features when they don't want to be. So knowing that. why don't we kind of help them not get into these types of situations? So it's more of

a situation where we're trying to help each other, rather than saying, 'oh, you know. they can't control themselves.'

Nadia agrees that hijab benefits society by helping both women and men. She believes

hijrrb protects women from male advances, and that it protects men from feeling "lust." Nadia

"downplays" this aspect of hgab, because "[although] we're actually protecting our brothers [in

faith]" by wearing hijab:

The Canadian society feels that we're bearing the brunt of the responsibility in that way. and I think in a way we are, but I've integrated it to be pan of what I [am] ... being Muslim. or practicing Islam, and that kind of thing, so it's not a hardship on me. But 1 think that the feminist point of view that, you know, we're being oppressed to save men, that kind of [idea] is out there.

She laughed that "[on days] when my hijab is bothering me I'll think 'guys just don't really

appreciate the sacrifice I'm making for them!" But she would probably agree with Nur that

'male lust,' is not the ultimate explanation for the wearing of hijab: "You know for a lot young

girls, you think to yourself, well I'm not that pretty anyways, why would anyone want to lust?

Do you know what I mean? Even I think now, like I think. you know. if I walked into a room

without my hijob, nobody would turn around! Nobody would look! (laughs)"

Halima, who started wearing hgab full-time when she was 23. argues "hijab is more for

men than for women," and thinks society is healthier when sexual desires are controlled more

strongly. rather than currently in Canada where she thinks sex is everywhere. on TV, in the

mall, and so on:

[in hijob, men] don't see you, [so] it's protection for the men too ... In this society it's harder for our husbands [than it is for us]. No maner where they look, they see women who are uncovered, so that's hard for them. that's a test [from God] for them. But I mean, if everybody in Toronto was covered. it would be much easier on our husbands. [Korhy How do you mean?] Well they have to always be averting their eyes and they always have to be. like they can't let themselves be caught up in this thing. and to look at these women and [feel] desire.. .so I think that's hard.

Zainab would add to these ideas that hijab is also a benefit for society in that it makes the

display of wealth (i.e. jewelry etc) more dificult. She thought it "eliminates negative feelings

on other people's part that may not be as well off as you are. It son of makes everybody equal."

3.3) Hijab Protects Women.

One theme which is evident fiom the quotations above is that most of the Muslim

women I interviewed view hijab as a form of protection - for society, for men. and for women.

The idea that hijab is a protection for women was stressed by almost all the women. Halima

noticed a difference between the way non-Muslim men treated her before she convened and

wore hijab, and afienvards. They would apologize if they swore. and were more timid in

approaching her. She also pointed out that male-female interactions were based on more than

just the clothes. Hijob is not just clothes. but a mode of decorous behaviour as well. '*when

you're covered. you're not p i n g to be a flirtatious person." But Halima believed that even

though a woman in a mini-skirt would get more attention in the street than a woman in hijob.

hijob is not "a protection against rape" because "rape isn't about beauty it's about power."

Yasmeen disagrees with the argument that a man would rape a woman even if she was

covered. She really considers hijab as a protection for women even against rape. Yasrneen

argues that men who rape are "sick," but "for the people who have [that] sickness. to be

uncovered encourage [sic] them to do it. It make [sic] it easy for them." Yasmeen argues that

in a society where the women cover. there are men who will hassle women. but that is "bad

about them [the men], they could be worse if she's not covering, you know it depends about the

person. how sick he is."

Elizabeth thinks h f i b should protect a woman fiom sexual harassment and rape, and

refers to Qur'anic verse that says hijab is to protect women from "being molested [verse

33591.'' This verse makes a lot of sense to her. because she has found that when she wears

hijab "men don't look at you ... if they look at you it's a very quick glance and then away

because they, if they're Muslim. they probably won't look myway, and if they aren't, they just

think 'who is this woman?' and they don't even bother looking at you! {laughs)." Elizabeth

thinks men do not have to cover as much as women do because even "if we [women] look at

them [men] lustfully, or whatever, which we shouldn't do, we can't do any harm to them."

Ellen emphasises the notion of protection in her understanding of hijab:

wearing the hijab for me, it means protection. I feel protected.. . When I am getting dressed, my dress is not complete without my head cover, my hijab. When I put my hijab on. I am putting it on, because for me it's a protection and for me it's part of my dress, part of my Islamic dress. [it is a protection against] people whistling at you, people calling you on the street and stuff like that, because before I started wearing hijab and stuff, that used to make me very angry, because guys used to whistle at you, and they used to call you. I used to say what right do they have? You know, they don't know me, what right do they have to intedere with me? For me it's a protection, because I don't get any of that anymore ... lf there's me and my friend, and she's not Muslim, and we are walking down the street and she has on - I'm all in long clothing down to my ankles everything covered up, you can't see much of anything - and she has her hair well-done, and she has her make-up on, and her mini skirt on, and there comes this person trotting down the street, who do you think they're going to pick, me or her? Obviously they're going to pick her you know, so for me hijab is a blessing. I feel really good about wearing hijab. Sometimes it's a hassle to get it to match with what your wearing, but you know, you get over that, and when you think about why you're wearing it, it just becomes easy and natural, when you look at it, as if. well I'm doing this to please Allah.

Sadia 15, Yasmeen's daughter, had started wearing hijab at Islamic school around age

1 1 or 12. She highlighted other things when she stressed that hijub was a protection for her:

[H&J~] protects you fiom everything that's bad outside and you know, so you start to wear your scarf you feel like you can't go to ... bad places [like movie theatres showing bad movies], and from other bad things [like] drugs ... My other friend, she's Muslim. she doesn't cover she has another fiiend that takes drugs, she's Muslim too ... if I were wearing a scarf I wouldn't talk to them that much you know. It helps.

Sadia clearly sees her hijub as protecting her fiom the negative peer influences that exist in high

school to get involved in drugs and sex, and saw her view confirmed. when, while attending an

all-girls Islamic high school for one year she saw uncovered young girls with problems being

brought to the school: "Their parents just bring them there to get fixed up or something. I see

them wearing all these nice clothes," but she also sees them talking to boys and "they're not

really that strong." One 15 year old girl "came to the school after having an abortion, so her

Mum found out and she sent her there, maybe she'll learn a couple of things." But Sadia doubts

it, because "she brags about" her abortion.

56

So, the women in my sample firmly believe hijab is a benefit for society. They believe

that it 'cleans up' male-female interaction because men harass them less; they feel treated as

persons, not 'sex-objects;' and that negative feelings of envy and jealousy would be lessened in

a society in which the women covered, as they would not feel jealous because of their husbands

looking at, or desiring other women, nor feel jealous about each other's wealth and 'designer

clothes.' They also believe that hijrrb helps men be more peaceful because they are not always

being tempted by other women.

4. EQUALITY?

Many feminists argue that to believe in male-female differences is to accede to women's

oppression, because it is these differences that have been used to stop women from realizing

their potentials. The Muslim women I interviewed do not agree that believing in male-female

difference is to believe women and men are unequal; they were all convinced that women and

men are equal in Islam. For these women, the principal definition of equality is how human

beings are in relation to God. In Islam. everyone is considered equal in the eyes of God. and

what differentiates people is their piety. The Qur'an unequivocally states that men and women are

equal in the eyes of God. Men and women were created from a single soul. and are both the

trustees of God on eanh (Qur'an 2:30), individually responsible and accountable for their actions:

For Muslim men and women-For believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant. for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise-For them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward (Qur'an,

No distinction is made between male and female for all the most important marten of

Islamic faith: a woman must make the shahaada (the Muslim statement of faith ("I testify that there

is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger."); pray the five daily prayers; pay the zakah

(annual poor due, calculated at 2.5% of assets); make the pilgrimage to Mecca once in her lifetime

if she can afford it; and fast the month of Ramadan. Similarly, no distinction is made between male

and female in matters of divine reward and punishment: "If any do deeds of righteousness-Be they

male or female-And have faith, They will enter Heaven and not the least injustice will be done to

them (Qur'an, 4:124)." This is the understanding of equality the women had, and they find such

verses very reassuring. As Yasmeen said, "[men and women] are equal in the sight of God, this

makes me comfortable too, because I feel &...God is not prefemng anyone another or the

other. Like brother and sister they treat each other with respect."

The women conclude that men and women in Islam are equal. but different: that they

have different natures and complementary roles on earth. This line of thinking upsets many

critics of Islam, but let me stress that while there are some similarities between the Islamic and

traditional Western notion of male/female roles, there are some qualitative differences also. The

women I interviewed believe that women are more numving than men are. and hence better

suited to care for children. They believe that because of the woman's childbearing role. it is

men's responsibility to provide for the household. This is a familiar idea. However, the reader

must note that the women I interviewed do not believe that male/female differences include

traditional Western notions of men being more rational or intelligent than women. In addition.

the women did not believe that a woman's childbearing nature meant she could not be in the

workforce. and nor did they believe that a man's duty to support his family financially meant

that he should not do household chores. The women referred back to the sunnah of the Prophet.

who used to mend his clothes, sweep his house, and perform other chores.'" The husbands of

the married women in my sample, in varying degrees. cooked. cleaned the house, did the

laundry and minded the children. The view that men and women have inherent differences is a

source of the conflicting understanding of women's position in Islam between those who hold

"' Three of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider that housework is not part of a wife's marital obligations. Abdalati.

that Islam subjugates women and my respondents. These women argue that equality does not

have to mean sameness, and criticize liberal presumptions that if men and women are not doing

something in an identical manner they must be unequal.

Of course, what I have just outlined is the theoretical ideal of the relationship between

men and women in Islam. Clearly Muslims. like all human beings, do not always implement the

ideals of their religion. Many women pointed out that while women and men are equal in Islam

in theory, it is not always like that in practice. Safiyah, talking about her country, highlights the

discrepancy between what the Qur'an teaches and what Muslims do:

We read the Qur'an, you see that all people are equal, even they are black, white. men, women, they are all equal before God, yeah, and it depends on people how they are raised. like in [my counw] we have - like they prefer boys than girls, and when we have boys there is a big ceremony, when they have girls they didn't want even talk about it. but I think this is old fashioned it starts to go away ... now the children are - they try to change this because they are boys and girls, and both go to school, university and they have friends and they don't think like their parents, anymore, yeah. [so the younger generation] are challenging these old ideas.

Yasmeen agrees. and believes that the "calamity of Islam these days, is that people often

take their interpretation of Islam from the "mouths" of Muslims. not fiom the "source," the

Qur'an. She said that "even the act of Muslims it doesn't explain Islam. because unfortunately

in many ways, they act very bad. they act against Islam. and they say this is Islam." She said

that when Muslims follow the Islamic law, women will be treated justly. but "if they put upon

their desire or tradition [onto Islamic law]. it will not be fair. Like they can't change it, you

know if they change what God [said] or they interpret in a wrong way, so maybe it will hurt

women." Here she referred to her recent surprising discovery that in her country's history

women had once been denied access to university. She had not known that the generation prior

to her mother's had been prevented fiom attending university:

1 was surprised because some people were against that the women can learn. I was surprised, they are claiming they are Muslim and they are against Islam.. . [Islam says women] should be educated as men, no difference, and even fiom the Prophet's hadith ... to men "treat your daughters equally as boys." You know because some

people was treating them [women] different, so he [the Prophet] put emphasis about it and even he give ah. .. a special place in Paradise like ah.. .if someone would treat one daughter or two or even three equally to the son ah he will be with me in Paradise, he promised a good hereafter, like take care of your daughters, like. be just to them. I don't know maybe this was nature of the people to be against women.

5. FREEDOM?

The women's views about male-female relations and society strike many observers as

views that accept the patriarchal version of male-female relations, and women's place in society.

Mule and Barthel consider the decision to cover as one that does offer women "a practical

solution to the problem of men's harassment. It allows them to cross gender boundaries without

being penalized as intruders." But, Mule and Barthel follow Memissi's view of what h@b

means in a Muslim society: that women are seen as powerful because of their sexuality, "a

sexuality which is seen as irresistible and disruptive. As a source of corruption and a jeopardy

to the social order, women's sexuality must be held in check, and women confined in a separate

sphere, excluded from the world of men.""3 In Memissi's own words: "[the veil] "can be

interpreted as a symbol revealing a collective fantasy of the Muslim community: to make

women disappear, to eliminate them from communal life, to relegate them to an easily

controllable terrain, the home, to prevent them from moving about. and to highlight their illegal

position on male temtory by means of a mask."' '' The issue is one of freedom for women.

The women I interviewed do not believe that hijob is a s i p of women's "illegal position

on male temtory." Now, they did not specify whether they meant just a head-scarf or niqab, but

their answers still stand as a response to the view that the 'veil' symbolizes their exclusion from

the public space. For the women I interviewed. hvab is seen as a device to facilitate Muslim

women's movements outside the home. Nadia expresses the sentiment well:

' I 3 Mule and Barthel: 328. 1 I 4 Mernissi, d: 189. Terminological clarity would require that Mernissi spec@ here she means 'niqab ' - the piece of cloth used to cover a woman's face, a veil, for it is hard to imagine that a head-scarf leaving the face exposed can be viewed as a 'mask.'

I kinda see [hijcrb] the opposite way [fiom Mernissi]. I kinda think that if you've covered yourself Islamically, then there wouldn't be a reason for you to stay home, I mean that was the whole point, that you've removed the things that's made you attractive, you've removed the attention to yourself, so now you're out there to do your business, you know, based on who you are, I mean you what you have to say and what you're going to contribute and not what you look like, and that kind of thing.

Yasmeen, who wore niqab in Canada for six months did not make the distinction between niqab

and the head-scarf either, but it is clear her use of the word hijub includes both. She agrees with

Nadia that "hijab is for the opposite, for going outside, because while you are home, you are

free to be as dressed as way as you like, but for going outside you have to wear hijab. so hijab

for outside not for inside, so it's a way for women to interact with society."

Not only did the women disagree with the interpretation of hijab as a symbol of women

being forbidden from going outside, they were impatient or angry at those, like Memissi. who

argued in this way. Zainab:

[Women] can be out twenty-four hours a day if that's what they choose. I don't think anybody would choose it, but if that's what they choose. I don't think there is anything in the Qur'an or in the hadith that I've read women are only allowed out two hours a day or something like that. I think that is a totat ridiculous thing. I mean - you see a question like that to me115 doesn't make any sense and it is senseless comment and commentary and questions that really sometimes test my patience. And I say "Please Allah give me more patience, let me be more tolerant." Because it really doesn't mean anything, why hijab should restrict freedom of a woman?

Some of the women know that there are Muslim authors who argue that Muslim women

should not leave the home unless absolutely necessary, authors that codirrn (happily)

Memissi's interpretation of women and society.' l6 But my interviewees believe that these

Muslim authors are wrong about women's role, and are annoyed when feminist scholars like

Memissi take one scholar's (bad) point of view on Islam, rather than looking at other scholars'

points of view (who offer positive arguments about women.) Iman says she gets "very angry

when she hears that [views like Memissi's]." Iman concludes that Memissi must be basing her

I IS Interview question no. 36. See Appendix Four. 116 For example, Maududi; Jameelah.

argument on Muslim authors and cultural interpretations of Islam that do argue women should

not be outside much:

I mean there are some Muslim men who will say that a practising Muslim women should not be outside the home, there are some men who will say that, there are scholars in fact Maududi says this, I mean this is his opinion as a scholar, this is not, it should not be considered on the same plane as what the Qur'an tells us, and the Qur'an. does not allude to this. ..I really resent what [Maududi's] done, and what he said ... because it makes people make some other assumptions about women, and he like, he's stopping women's potential. like I think women can and should do things outside the home as well ... but people.. . rnagnifjr it, men read this and expect their wives to respect that.. . like a man who wants his wife to be very subservient will take this and you know make sure she believes it. I resent it because I mean Muslim women have so much potential and [Maududi's] saying this, we couid be doing so much as a community and he's telling us this like. I'm just flabbergasted.

The women argue that the idea that hijab means women should not go outside is contradicted by

the sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh): during his life-time women were very actively involved in the

community, in business, in fighting wars, in scholarship and so on.

They did not consider the hijub a restriction on their freedom. however they were

frequently ambivalent about whether or not they felt less free than their non-Muslim Canadian

women friends. There was a surprising range of answers. depending upon what definition of

freedom was being thought of. When freedom was conceived of as fieedom of thought. or

fieedom 'from' things. or freedom of movement. many women felt they were as free. if not freer

than non-Muslim Canadians. But. a few women. when they conceived fieedom in physical

terms of mobility felt that they were. in fact. less free than non-Muslim women. However. it is

important to realize that feeling less free was not seen as a result of wearing hijab, but as the

result of other factors pertinent to life in Canada.

5. I . Freedom of though~/fieedom fiorn.

Elizabeth expressed most eloquently this dichotomy in the conception of freedom. She

believes that Muslim women are not less free than their Canadian non-Muslim counterparts. and

utilises the distinction between positive and negative fieedom to explain her understanding of

liberty :

You know people talk about freedom, freedom to, fiee to do this, free to do that, fiee to do all these things, and I think that in Islam we have freedom from, fiee fiom having to work hard in the workplace, h e fiom having to worry about financial problems,"7 we are free fiom all of these things and this is to me one of the greatest reasons why I embraced Islam. because these are written, if you have freedom fiom all these terrible things which western women think are so great. [Knthy: What other 'terrible things ' do you mean?] From being exploited, and freedom from being gawked at, and like touched and bothered by men, and you know all the things that go with that, the way men treat men in western society, which women in western society think is fieedorn to that they can walk around and wear a mini- skirt, and like show their breasts, and everything else. Well, I just don't get that argument 'cause all they're doing is contributing to their own exploitation, and so also women think they're free to hold a job and study and all that stuff, well women in Islam are fiee to study as well, but we don't have to go out and support our families, what else? I guess those are some of the two main things that always stay in my head, it's like financially and in terms of sexually like sexual liberation or whatever, I think [the West's version] is just not a liberation whatsoever.

Rania refers to these different notions of fieedom as well, and defines freedom in a

classically liberal way:

I mean [Western women] think that they're more free [than us] because they can just go swimming whenever they want to, and they can go to bars and dance and whatever, but I mean I don't see that as freedom. [Kathy: What do you see asfi.eedom?] I guess they're free in the sense that they have a lack of inhibition, but that's not necessarily the good sort of freedom. Anarchists have the freedom to crash any window that I want to. and I can hit anybody I want to, but you know that's not really freedom, like sort of unbridled activity. [Kathy: Whar isfieedom?] It's the ability to choose and do what you would like to do, but within the limits ofjustice and responsibility to society, and people around you. I mean yes. [Westerners] have the right to drink. but [they] don't have the right to drink and drive for example, so that freedom should not exist [the freedom to drink and drive] that's not a good type of freedom. Freedom has to be iinked to responsibility and rights of others. [Kathy: Do you think you7refi.ee?] I think 1% free yeah. I mean we're a11 free in the sense that we choose what we want to do, and I have chosen to follow what I think is the best way of living.

Noha defines freedom in terms of thought. and speaking on behalf of women who cover

puts it nicely:

I think fieedom is a matter of personal and individual choice, just because you wear a hijab doesn't necessarily mean that you have less freedom, or that you're not able to choose anything, it's a piece of cloth, it doesn't cover your attitude, at least not to an extreme, it may stop you from going to certain places you know [like nightclubs], but I don't think it limits you in anyway, because you are human, you still have the same thoughts and attitude and all that stuff, like everybody else.

- - -

117 A Muslim woman is not responsible for her up-keep, even if she is independently wealthy. Ideally, it is her husband's responsibility. Of course, many poorer families need women to work in waged labour to help make the household's ends meet.

5.2. Freedom of Movement.

Iman's trip to the Central Middle East made her feel that women who cover are freer

than those who do not. Interestingly here she refen both to fieedom of thought and movement:

Freedom um, initially I think of freedom of movement. Like for example I was in [the Central Middle East] with my cousin, and she's three years younger than me, and she was sixteen or something and I was nineteen at the time and we were in [a large cosmopolitan city] and it's a really big city and we went just sight seeing. She's fiom there and she was wearing a low necked dress and as we walked down the street she was getting comments from men and no one was making any comments to me, (I cover everything but my hair) and I felt much more fiee than her. and her mother in fact would be totally and completely hostile to the fact for her to cover her hair, she likes it when she dresses that way, [but her mother] doesn't want her to ride public transit. she says the men will bother her, but I mean I think I feel safe when I'm on the transit, I don't attract attention to myself in the way that she attracted attention to herself by wearing a low necked dress. So in that way for example I have much more freedom than her ... And freedom is also like your ideas, I mean that's, that's um -it's more tied to your Islamic way of thinking, which [you have] whether or not you wear the scarf anyway. I mean you're able to have your ideas and to voice them. things like that, that's the fieedom you can give yourself anyway.

Raneem finds the idea that "if you wear a mini-skirt you're fiee.. .very strange.. .It's not

that simple," she continues, "you know you have women who wear hijab are oppressed and

there are women who wear hijab who are free." Raneem believes she is not less fiee than other

Canadian women, and probably more fiee than most homemakers. She has her car. and is

constantly out at the park. library. or other events with her young children. and she always

remembers and compares herself to her (Catholic) mother, who is "not aware of the world, and

she's always been at home, and she's not reading. and she3 not aware of things. and all she

knows is how to cook, she afraid of going out on Friday without my father, and she's afraid to

talk to people, she's afraid of herself. she doesn't go visit family anymore. So I'm something

like a mother to her."

Nadia was ambivalent about freedom, depending on how it was defined:

I find hijab limits me from doing certain things and they're things like taking part in outdoor sports activities that hijab would be constricting obviously like swimming, urn, [hijab] limits me fiom going into bars, it limits me from maybe going into certain professions. I'd never think of becoming a waitress, serving alcohol or any of those things, so if you want to call that restricted freedom then, oak, I'll go with that, urn but in some ways I think I'm gaining 'cause 1, you know what I mean, I limit myself fiom doing those

things, which I would've, which now I find kind of degrading ... not swimming, but (laughs) like serving alcohol, or being in position where you know, men are calling you. or whatever, I don't like it, I don't like it, I would prefer to be rejected [by Canadians than do those things].

Halima argues that while Muslims are "less free" than non-Muslim Canadians. Islam is

fieedom: "We are less free than them [non-Muslim Canadians] because they are free to do

anything, but Islam, sort of, I guess, it's what you call freedom." Halima argues that because

Muslims believe they are accountable to Allah they are restricted in what they do. but because

this makes Muslims guard their behaviour more, Islam makes them live within healthy limits.

and thus society is better off, and people are more free. However, Halima is also ambivalent

about fieedom because she thinks living in Canada as a Muslim woman sometimes "feels

oppressive." However, she does not think that is 'Islam,' rather a misfit between Muslim

women's needs and the structure of Canadian society. Halima is expressing a finding of other

scholars' studies of Muslim women living in the West. Western assumptions are that to live in

the West is "by definition liberating or at least less oppressive for females than developing or

third world countries."' l 8 But sometimes women's lives are more restricted here than they

would be in their home country. If the parents/husband believe that the West's values/practices

are too 'loose,' theyhe become overprotective of the women in the family. Academic Suad

Joseph learnt that when she visited Lebanon. she had been raised "according to the standards of

female modesty in Lebanon at the time [my parents] had left it in 1949.. .Many of my cousins

had had a more liberal upbringing in Lebanon than I had had in the u.s.""~ Carmen Cayer's

Master's thesis studying second generation Indo-Pakistani Muslim women living in greater

Toronto, found that parents' fear that the daughter may marry a non-IndoPakistani Muslim. or a

non-Muslim led to stricter controls on her movement, plus a propensity to arranged

I18 Cain kar: 29 1 . ' I 9 Joseph: 36.

A more innocuous, but not insignificant, example that a few women mentioned

was the lack of opportunity to exercise, since Canada's facilities are mixed-sex, and Muslim

women cannot participate unless women-only hours are set aside for them.

Clara Connolly, on behalf of a group called "Women Against Fundamentalism." argues

that at the "heart of the fundamentalist agenda is the control of women's minds and bodies."12'

Hijab is what is pointed to as the way men control women's sexuality. In fact the WAF critique

echoes many feminist critiques of Islam, and is partially true. Islam does control a woman's

sexuality, in that Islam condemns sex outside the marital situation. But the women I

interviewed reject the negative connotation of the feminist critique. After all, as some women

pointed out, Islam controls men's sexuality as well: they are not to have sex outside the marital

situation either. Moreover, several women argued that the order to cover comes from God in

the Qur'an, so it is not fiom men, and thus is an unbiased, non-sexist, command. Sadia said, "If

they knew it was fiom God they wouldn't say that. I guess." Yasmeen expands on this idea:

[The idea that hijob is men's way of controlling women is] completely wrong, they [women] do it because God create us men and women he knows our nature and what is the best for us. If someone invent a machine he put a manual for it like how to use it. how if something go wrong, he knows what's go wrong, what's going on, and ah something like that, God create us, how he can make it a good society we can see that in the heavens, the nature how it's perfect how our body is perfect. how all the creation is perfect. this is the way of God, what God wants fiom us it will be perfect as the heaven and earth. it didn't come From men and husband it come from God.

As with the question about h w b making women unfree, Zainab was impatient with the

idea that h&b is men's way of controlling women. "I think that is so ridiculous it doesn't even

deserve an answer." She says that farm women have been wearing scarves to protect their hair

for years. "I'm really lost for words because how does a kerchief first of all control you for one

thing? You can still do what ever you want to do whether you've got a kerchief on head or not."

"' Cayer: 48. 85. The young women were resisting such parental attempts at arranged marriage. One strategy was to adopt huab, since Islam gives women the right to say no to a suitor. It' Connolly: 72.

Zainab thinks the chastity belt is a more appropriate example of control of women's sexuality

"now that is what I call control, you know, but a piece of cloth? No, I don't call it control."

Several women did believe that in Muslim countries, and in Muslim history, some men

have tried to control women, and that they used hijab as a tool for doing that. However, the

women did not believe those behaviours were appropriate for a Muslim man, and believed that

they were negative cultural interpretations of Islam. or male use of religion as an excuse for

oppressing women. Nur, who lived in Saudia Arabia for nine years. thinks Saudi Arabia is a "a

prime example" of a country which uses religion incorrectly to suppress women:

The Kingdom there, it poses a lot of restrictions on women and they use hijab as pan of this tool, as a religious tool to keep women indoors, or not let women freedom of movement, or not to hear women's voices. They use this tool, they have used it and in many countries they do use it. That's a fact and I can not deny that, there's evidence in the past too. You'll see that in past, maybe in the Subcontinent [Asia] hijob was used to keep women illiterate ... by saying that you don't go to school ... and women rarely go out because you're not supposed to. because if you do go out it has to be totally covered and public space is not for you. It's all these interpretations did come from a religious - but I don't know why it was there, but it certainly in historical times, in some societies and even today there evidence of it being used. Even though it was never meant to [because] if you read the sources of the Qur'an and the hadith. or you read the different accounts of the Prophet's time, you would see that Aisha [the Prophet's wife] did go out. Women were a very dynamic, very active in society.

Rania believed Iran was another country where Islam was being misused religiously. She

felt there, hijob could symbolise oppression:

The people wearing hijab in that kind of environment make me wony about a political system that doesn't give much importance to women's rights and to - who forces Islamic practices on people.. . [Women shouldn't be forced to cover] because obviously you know. it says in the Qur'an it says there's no force in ~siam.'~' 1 mean people have to do things from their own will ... I feel sorry for [the Iranian woman who is forced to cover] and 1 feel she's been treated unjustly because I feel that she's getting the wrong idea of Islam.

Safiyah is very angry with the way Muslims in her country are behaving in their attempts

to fight the government and implement 'Islam.' She thinks they are doing things the "wrong

way:?'

because in our religion we see Islam is not by force, yeah, you have to believe in it. If you don't believe in it, you can't love it, or you can't follow it. They push people

-

122 Verse 2: 256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error ..."

to hate Islam, yes, they are killing, they are raping, they are like, this is crazy.. .if they are really Muslims they don't have to do this, it's against the religion. ..they even killed children!. . . I don't think they are Muslims if - I don't know what they are - they talk about name of God, they cannot because our religion doesn't like - all different fiom what they are doing. Yeah, we can't force people to do something, even if they like it, they will hate it if you force them, and what they are doing is forcing people, if they fmd girl without hijub they kill her, they rape her. she would hate Islam because she-because of Islam what happened to her. +

6. SOCIALISATION OR COMPULSION?

When Canadians teli Muslim women they are "free" here and should take off their

headscarves, they are expressing the conventional wisdom that the 'veil' is oppressive because it

is imposed. Even when it is understood that the woman is covering not due to a state imposed

law, the assumption remains that the women have been brainwashed by their family/culture into

believing in hijab, and that they have not had the mental wherewithal to question their customs.

One woman who told this to a friend of mine was quite shocked to learn that my friend had

converted to Islam in her twenties, and had not started covering until she was 33. The point is

that every one grows up in a particular culture that attempts to socialize its citizens into

acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Many Muslims try to socialize their children to believe

that wearing hijob is a good thing. Most non-Muslims do not agree that hijab is a good thing.

and so they conclude that women are being brainwashed to believe in covering. However. even

if one does not agree with the Muslim interpretation of hgab, socialization that hijab is a good

thing is not the same as compulsion. After all, most Westerners are themselves socialized to

consider huab oppressive. Moreover, as Nadia. a women Helen Watson interviewed, said:

"[Wearing hijclb is] not so very dzferent fiom deciding to wear a bra at a certain age or a

wedding ring to show that you are married. Most girls I know wouldn 't question either of those

things. "

123 Nadia is the eldest daughter of a second generation British-Asian family. She is studying medicine at university and is the first woman in her family to have an education beyond the secondary level. She started wearing hijab when she was 16. Watson, a: 148. Emphasis added

6.1. Negative Muslim Reactions to hijab.

In fact, while the general perception in the West is that Muslim women are forced to

cover by their families, usually the father, or husband, many Muslim families, particularly

middle to upper-class families are as opposed to hijab as are Westerners. For the last 100 odd

years, many Muslim countries have tried to imitate the West. They believed that the Western

model was the only way a society could progress, so they tried to shed certain Islamic practices

considered backward, such as hijub. (See Chapter Two). Muslims who grow up in Canada

often object to hijab, taking on the Western perception of the meaning of hijob: a second-

generation Muslim woman complained to Abu-Laban. "I hate it when I see those scarves. They

make people look so ign~rant."'~'

Muslim objections to hijub revolve around issues of class, and marriage and beauty. As

we saw with Khadija and Fatima's interviews. Muslim elites, who tend to be more Westernized

and secularized than their fellow country-people? view hij'ab as a sign of backwardness and low-

class status.'2s Elizabeth learned that upper-class Muslim families object to h w b fiom her

fiance's objections to her desire to wear hijab. For him and his family hijab was something

lower classes or old women did, not young women in their prime. In addition, they viewed

hijab as ~nat t ract ive. '~~ Yasmeen remembers when she was a teenager in her country that

wearing hijab was not very common. She recalls that a 12 or 13 year old girl was punished

daily in school for wearing hijab:

- - -- -

1% Abu-Laban: 28. She is second generation. wave 2. See also Barazangi for similar views fiom first and second wave immigrants. 125 A Pakistani woman explained to Cayer that many Pakistanis cannot shake the association of hgab with backwardness which is why it is difficult for upperhniddle class families when a woman starts covering. This woman's husband was not pleased when she started wearing hgab in Canada after migrating here fiom Pakistan. Cayer: 100.

Now Elizabeth is adamant that her husband be someone who will not be "embarrassed" if his wife covers, rather supportive. She wants him to think that wearing hijab is a "good thing," and be "really happy and.. .proud.. . I want him to say, you know, that's my wife and good for her, and especially if it is in this culture, you know, there she is, and t'rn happy that she wears it."

[The] principal took [the girl] outside and punished her.. . She came in the morning and she was covering, so &...the principal and the teacher noticed fiom a11 the school we stand up and salute the flag, so ah.. .she was clear, so they put her and put her beside the wall, and let all classes go in except her.. .they ask her why you did this? She said 1 went to the mosque, and ah.. .the sheikh he was teaching us and he told us this was in the Qur'an we have to do it, and I think every morning they was doing that and I believe later she took it off.

Marriageability and beauty are the second set of issues for which Muslim families

dislike hijab. Many Muslims believe that Muslim women who cover are not attractive. and

being so, will not be able to get rnarried.l2' Yasrneen remembers her struggle to wear hijab

back home. She started to cover when she attended University, when she was almost seventeen.

As mentioned above, at that time in her country hijab was not very common. Yasmeen wanted

to wear hijab because she felt her religion required it, and she felt the University was an

environment where there was a lot of sexual innuendo and flirting going on, and she felt the

hijob would be a protection for her. Her family were completely against it:

When I'm in the last year in my high school I want to cover, because we have a good teacher, Arabic and religion teacher, so he used to tell us about the hereafter what's in the Qur'an, and ah ... like teaching us very well, so I got very attach to it. and what I'm doing is not pleasing Allah, so I ask them to cover, 1 told them my wish. [My mother] said "No way! No way! You will not get married," and ah. everyone from my member, ah from my family like my uncles, my four uncles if he comes to visit they [my parents] cornpiain to them about me and everyone in the relatives give me a lecture, "Why you are doing this? You will not get married, wait until ah ... after marriage or until you be old. and go to had, and ah like you're still young." They couldn't understand so in fact ... so ah, I forget about it for one year, and then when I went to University and the effect I saw [flirting etc].

At University she became friends with other practicing Muslims which gave her the support to

go against the wishes of her family. This time. she said, "my family couldn't.. .resist."

Rania's mother, Fatima was not happy when Rania started wearing hijab. Rania

experienced her Mum's objections as pressure not to cover:

My mother wasn't very keen to put it lightly, corning fiom a [secular] background. She was disappointed and she was upset ... She said. "Why are you doing this?" "You shouldn't do this, you're entering medical school, you're a young women unmarried, people aren't going to take you seriously in your profession, and you're not going be able to marry somebody who's decent." Her idea of people who married covered women are those seeking their third or their founh wife, or they're gonna ignore their wives, the worst possible stereotypes of

. .. .

"' Some of Cayer's interviewees said this is the reason they do not covei (p. 106).

Muslim men came to her mind when she thought of people who would be interested in me as a wife.

Fatima's objections to her daughter wearing hijab obviously stem from her upbringing, as

mentioned above, but they also stem from her love for her daughter and her desire that she

should succeed in her career. When Rania first told her she wanted to cover full-time, Fatima

says she was not happy, but at the same time thought Rania probably was not too serious about

it. and that since it is hard to cover in Canada, that Rania would change her mind:

[I told her] ... sweet-heart why don't you think about it? ... I said maybe she will change her mind, this is not easy thing. And when you decide you should keep it on. and. but in the same time I said why she's covering her hair, she's going that much trouble, going to University how hard it is, and after she finish her degree it'll be very hard for her, or for Professor to approach her, and I feel maybe she make too hard for herself. and ... 1 tell her think about it and it is good idea, but still I didn't believe in, I didn't wish very much. I don't know why, to cover her hair. So next year, but I thought she forget about it, we never discussed too much, and then next year just before school, [the day she went to school] she told her father and 'I'm covering my hair' and her father just kissed her [as she left the house] and said, 'okay, good luck,' but he phoned right away to me at school, he said "Do you know that Rania covered hair [when she left today for school?]" I just couldn't believe it, and I was so busy [at school], and he said 'you should do some work, you can do as her mother, because,' he said, 'I told her good luck,' and I said 'what did you said good luck for, now you tell me [to talk to her]?! (laugh) [Kathy: He wasn 't happy either?] No, no, I mean she's our daughter we love her. we believe that she's good. but ... we want her go top, very top [of her profession].

Fatima and her husband were womed that a woman in hijab could not be a leader in her field, or

that in hijab she would not be able to ask questions, as they had the impression that in hgab a

woman was not supposed to talk confidently. Even though part of her admired her daughter for

being more religious than her, she was worried that Rania would not be able to get married. All

she could think was that hijub was something "village women," not educated women did. and

she was womed that a family who would accept a woman in h@b would have to be less

educated and that this would cause problems for her daughter. and that the husband's family

would make life hard for her daughter to work, and to live happily. She was also womed that

people would wonder why, if her daughter covered, she was not covering herself:

I just didn't want [her to wear hhb] and that thing got us just so upset, and I said. there is nothing much to do, and if she's right. I give her trial one year [but] she [was] serious

about it. [Ranis told her] 'I'm going to put this here,' she put headscarf on next day. I was, how should I be - I mean she's my daughter, but this her decision she's old enough.. .

Nadia's mother also was unhappy with her decision to wear h w b for the same reasons

as Yasmeen's and Rania's family, that she would not be able to get married. Nadia's mother did

not pressure her so openly as Yasmeen's and Rania's. In fact, Nadia's mother started to wear

hijab six months after Nadia did:

My mother didn't outwardly say anything, [but] she was resistant to [my wearing h&~b.] When I was in my early 20s, I had met a guy and I really liked him, my family had introduced me to him, and I had really liked him, but his mother told me initially right off that, you know, he wouldn't really go for a girl in hijob, so my mother said to me 'well you have to a make a decision then, do you want to wear it or don't you want to wear it,' and I kinda didn't really want to get into that relationship knowing that he was like that line. wouldn't accept hijab]. [but we saw his family a lot, so] I got to see him, [and] I got to like him a lot actually ... He used to ask me [if we were married] 'well you're not going to wear it [hijab] in front of my friends are you?' Or, urn, 'when we go out with [these] people you won't wear it right?' 'I don't care if you wear it around my family or when we got to the mosque, but you won't wear it around my friends, right?' and I was kinda like 'yeah I will!' And then he asked me too 'but on our wedding day you won't wear it right?' and I was like 'yeah I will!' and I came to terms with the fact that he really wasn't into this and so that relationship broke off, but I remember my mother as well kind of, I felt she was kinda pushing me to take it off, not pushing me, but she didn't ever come out and say I think you should take it off, or whatever, but I think she was kinda asking me to really consider this guy as a future husband and so really think about keep wearing it.

The conventional wisdom in the West is that married Muslim women are forced by their

husbands to cover. But Safiyah's experience is the inverse of the stereotypical story. Safiyah is

a North African woman in her mid-twenties and has been living in Canada since the early

1990's. Safiyah started wearing hijab in her country in her late teens, because she believed

hijab was one of the "rules in my religion." Her mum and sisters cover. and they and her

friends supported her decision. She married in her early-twenties, and six months later was in

Canada and under pressure from her husband to stop wearing hgab. Even though the women in

his family cover, her husband does not like the headscarf: "He says he doesn't believe in it, it's

not logical, because every women are without you know like ahl how do you say? Women are

all same and if I see this women without, it's same thing, why you cover? For him it's not

right." As Safiyah believes that the Qur'an prescribes hijab, I asked her how her husband

responded to that argument? She told me that her husband does not understand much about

Islam. She is trying to get her husband to be a more practising Muslim, to get him to pray, and

observe other "rules" of the religion. Safiyah enjoyed wearing hijab. it's been 2% years since

she stopped wearing hijab, and she misses it immensely. Even though her husband did not seem

to mind her wearing hgab back home, in Canada he is emphatic that she should not. When she

first arrived she did not feel strong enough to resist him because she was in a strange country far

fiom home and family. Now she feels stronger and. although she has not put a time limit on it.

Safiyah says she tells her husband over and over again, "I will wear it again you have to be. like.

ah, believe it:"

Yes, I have all my clothes I keep them. I spoke with my husband I told him you better believe in it, because I'm going to wear it yeah, I don't have - because first time we had lots of argument, it was hard for me, I didn't want it was - I was far fiom my family. every-thing new to me, I wasn't like comfortable, you know, [...but] I told him when you are ready you will tell me to wear it, you yourself, yeah.'28

Safiyah's story shows that a woman need not be in hvab to be beholden to her husband's

wishes. This is the point Haeri makes about the relationship of hijab to women's liberation in

Iran: without structural changes in the social/economic/political aspects of a society, it is very

simplistic to think that taking off the hijob will automatically liberate Muslim women.'29

Without a change in attitudes. women can be constrained even if they do not wear hijab (kept at

home, illiterate), and they can be 'free' when they do wear it; that depends on other factors.

We have seen that Muslim women want to cover their hair, ahd choose to do so. The

image of the Muslim woman in the West. though. is usually the image of the woman with her

face covered. Perhaps people can be persuaded that women who cover their head are not

12' In Ramadan 1997 (February), Safiyah put hgab on again. Her husband did not speak to her for 10 days inside the home. until she could not support his silence any more, so she took it off again.

Haeri: 2 16-7.

brainwashed, but what about those who cover their faces?')' Even in that situation there are

some Muslim women who want to cover their faces, and who do so. Yasmeen decided that she

wanted to cover her face after she got married because even though she was covering her hair,

she felt that when she was in the crowded streets and public transportation system people were

staring a lot at her face, "like they eat my face." She did not like that and decided to cover her

face so no-one could do that anymore. Her husband was not keen for her to start covering her

face because they were coming to Canada. He said wait and decide after arriving in Canada. "I

said 'No, I want to cover my face,' and he said 'ok.' So I covered and I came here while

covering my face.. ." Yasmeen said Canadians were shocked by the way she was dressed. they

stared and sometimes said nasty things to her. Her husband was very uncomfortable to be seen

with her in public. Yasmeen decided that it was not necessary to cover her face in Canada

because people were not staring at her face in the same way as back home. She was also

womed she was giving Canadians a bad impression of Islam. so she took her niqab off about six

months after they arrived.

6.3 Converts ' Family React ions.

Because Islam is not well understood in the West, some converts have big problems with

their families, friends and colleagues about becoming Muslim and about wearing hijab.

Raneem :

My brother didn't speak to me for about six months. My mother was very, very stressed. she felt that, you know, now it was showing, [ie my hijab made my conversion public] everybody's going to know and everybody's going to think she's a bad mother because she didn't succeed in keeping in the Catholic religion, and my father pretends it doesn't bother him. I know because I get some comments here and there, little comments. [Like] "Why don't you go and wear shorts?" So I just tell them that the clothes that I am wearing, the dress I am wearing is very light and it's much cooler than shorts; 'My long dress is much cooler than your shorts.' So I know the tone of voice and everything. It's not so much - in previous times I asked 'can you drive me [to] this place?' he was going playing golf with co-workers, and he rehsed, because he said I'm going to that's just before he retired, he

''O See for instance, Lemon, who argues she can accept the head-scarf in Canada, but draws the line at accepting the niqab. She argues women in niqab out not be allowed to "promenade in this country as slaves ... It is an affiont to the rest of us; to human dignity and self-respect."

said 'I'm going to play golf with some people at work you know, and they're just going to say '3% ya, ya, ya, your daughter, you know," so he didn't want to take me. When 1 went to visit, and also they moved away, they have new neighbours, my father was doing the landscaping and the first time he was talking to the neighbour and I happened to be around, first thing he said, "that's my daughter not my wife." It was son of funny."'

Raneem's Mum feels slightly better about her daughter's conversion now. She had a

conversation with a Priest on a bus trip one-day: "So when my mother asked him. is it a good

thing, like Islam, is it a good thing? And he said 'well, we work with them,' like she didn't

understand, "we work with them," is it a good thing? He said 'yeah, yeah we work them. the

only thing is that they don't believe in the Cross."' Apparently this helped her mother be more

accepting.

Bassima reports two kinds of family reactions:

[There were] those who said 'you look like a bloody foreigner,' 'It's not [European],' 'Why do you have to do that? Why do you have to make it so blatant? [ie wear hijab]' 'Think what you like, but why do you have to dress this way?' [and those who were "cool" about it] my brother actually thought it was quite cool to walk down the street with me wearing a scarf and shalwar kameez, 'cause it was so freaky that all his friends'd say 'hey what's that?!' so. urn he kinda liked it.

Zainab's family seems to have taken her conversion in stride, although her son and

daughter accepted her conversion better than her mother, who was unhappy about all organized

religions. Her daughter told her "Just don't preach to me, you've always been son of weird so

why should you be different in you old age?'' Zainab says that her young grandson is very

proud of his grandmother. She teaches him and his sister about Islam:

One of the things I say, you know, if you ever have to do something and it's past the present point you always say Inshallah. So one day [when he was 6) he went to school. the teacher asked them to do something for the next day, and he said 'ok, inshallah.' And she said 'what did you just say?' you know she didn't really understand it, he said 'inshallah' and she said 'well, what's that?' And he said, 'well if God wants it to happen, you know, by the will of God.' And she said 'where did you pick that up?' And he said, 'oh my from my grandma, she is a Muslim. She is special.' So the teacher didn't know what to say. She spoke to my daughter afterwards and she said 'that happened with your son' and so on, and

13 1 Raneem's story is the worst of those I interviewed, but some of my fiiends have sadder stories to tell. One fiend, 19, was told to take off her hijab or to leave home. She left, and then was not allowed to visit her family because they did not want the neighbours to see her. Another friend deals with her family telling her Islam is an "evil" 'religion.' In fact, men converts have to deal with these familial responses also. According to Elizabeth, a 16-year-old man in Toronto has had to leave home after his conversion to Islam.

[my daughter] said 'oh my son picks up all kinds of things from my mother, don't pay any attention to it, but he'll probably say assatarnu alaikum to you one day.'

6.3. Positive Muslim Family Reactions to hij ab.

Because the image in the West that families force their women to wear hija6 is so strong.

I have spent some time outlining and explaining negative Muslim family reactions to hijab. The

women who struggle to wear hijab against the wishes of their families thus have a dual battle.

They must deal with the reactions from the broader non-Muslim Canadian society that believes

they are forced to cover and are oppressed because they cover. On the home front, where they

most need the support in order to cope with the negative public reactions to hijab, they are

coping with similar pressure. Their courage and determination must be admired.

Of course, not all families object to their female members wearing hijab. Many expect

them to cover, and teach them that this is the right way to dress. Depending on the daughter's

belief, she will experience that teaching as natural, or as pressure. We have already seen Nur's

acceptance of her family's teachings about hijab. Because Sadia started wearing hijab fiill-time

when she was young, (1 1/12ish) and because I knew how committed her mother Yasmeen was

to hijab, I harassed her in her interview a bit to see if she felt she had been pressured to cover.

Because of the way I asked her these questions. Sadia had to stress to me she wore hijab

willingly. and because she believed the Qur'an asked her to cover: "Like I did have a choice you

know, if you're not going to wear it for [the sake of] Allah, then what% the point? Like nobody

ever forced me to do it. I did it on my own. There was a choice."

Halima's story encapsulates how pressure to cover and the choice to cover are separate

threads that can be woven together in the same situation. Halima had been married for several

months before she converted to Islam. Before she started covering full-time, she had been

covering part-time in "non-threatening situations" such as places where she would not know

anyone, or when her husbands' friends came over. She admits that part of the reason she first

wore h w b was to "please my husband, like when his friends came over he felt better if I wore

my hijab at that point, and it didn't bother me to wear in the house." But she did not experience

knowing that he would like her to cover as coercion. Her husband and she both believed that a

Muslim should only do an act for the sake of God, not for the sake of a human being, so when

her husband "always said don't do for him, do it for Allah," Halima understood what he meant:

he would like her to wear hijub, but he would not like it if that was the reason she decided to do

it, he wanted her to do it when she felt it was the right thing to do. Halima wore hijab off and

on, until she started to feel hypocritical, wearing hijab sometimes and not wearing it at other

times. It was in reflecting over being a hypocrite that she decided that since the Qur'an

commanded women to cover full-time, she ought to do it:

I was reading the Qur'an lot and started to feel scared. like if you do read the Qur'an. there's so many verses about the hypocrites or the people who don't obey, it's not just the people who don't believe, you can believe but if you don't obey. how much do [you] really know? So I just started feeling afraid, like 'cause if you really believe, then it should be your life, it shouldn't be something that sort of half your life or part of your life. it should be all of your life. It was just feeling in myself that I felt like a hypocrite and I didn't want to be a hypocrite.

Nadia's story is similar. She sometimes wonders if in deciding to start wearing hijab

full-time, there was a "certain amount of wanting to please my father." She had been wearing

h@b since she was about twelve to the mosque and other Islamic places. She knew her father

would be "pleased" (as he was) if she wore hgab full-time, and she remembers him pointing out

to her that she was being inconsistent in her hijclb, wearing it some places. but not others. She

wonders if part of the reason she decided to cover full-time was out of "defiance" to her father.

to prove she was not being hypocritical: "'Well I could wear it all the time' or that kind of

thing."'32 Like Halima Nadia did not experience knowing her father would be pleased if she

covered as coercion: "I realized later on that I wasn't wearing it for him, I was wearing it for

'%eaders have been confused by this word 'defiance' [Nadia's own word], suggesting I meant 'deference.' or the like. But what Nadia means with the word 'defiance' is that she wanted to prove to her Dad (defy his opinion) that she wasn't a hypocrite.

77

me, like I knew that, do you know what I mean? Like I knew that I got myself in, this is what I

had decided, I got myself this way and I was continuing to do it because I wanted to do it and

not because what my father thought."

7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THOSE WHO WEAR HU4B AND THOSE WHO DO NOT.

One of the interesting aspects to surface in the interviews is the friendly reiationship

between women who cover and women who do not. Hand in hand with the West's popular

cultural assumption that Muslim women are forced to wear hmb. seems to be a suspicion that

women who wear hijab are hostile to women who do not. Amongst the women I interviewed

no-one felt hostility toward the one who was doing something different. Nadia says although

she was a bit less tolerant of Muslim women who did not cover when she was young. now she

knows that wearing huab is not an easy thing to do. and a woman who decides to do it, needs

the support of family and friends. Nadia has "among my friends Muslim women who don't

wear hijab and I still value their opinion and their ideas, and feel accepted by them. and don't

feel that they want to change me to become like them either."

Halima and Yasmeen reflect a common Muslim belief that human beings may not. and

cannot judge who is a Muslim and who is not, that is God's role. Halima said that she could not

say that women who cover are 'better' Muslims than those who do not because the women who

don't cover "maybe have things [better] that a woman who's covering is not doing..' They may

be "better than me [because] they pray better. or fast better." She does think. though, that it is

their duty to investigate the hijab issue. Yasmeen says she "better leave it to Allah." to decide

who is being a good Muslim and who is not. because God, and not us. "knows what's inside

your heart." Yasrneen hopes women who do not cover "can study Islam and they realize this is

the best for them, it's better."

Safiyah articulates a related and common Muslim view that piety is not determined by

external details, wearing hijab is neither an indicator, nor a guarantor of piety:

Better Muslims follow the rules, and to be like how do you say, you have to know your Islam ...y ou have to be ... honest, to be kind to people, gentle all these things. I know people who wear huab and they are very like, I have fiends both wear hijab but they are like enemies, it doesn't mean when you put hijob you are real Muslim, you have to be inside. Muslim inside.

As someone who does not cover full-time, Iman said that she sometimes experiences

pressure to cover when she attends Islamic events, but she rarely experiences hostility from

other Muslim women. She pointed out that women who do not cover "might be trying to

develop other parts of their Islamic character and [that's] very admirable." Mcreover. she

reminded me that:

God has ninety-nine names in the Qur'an, and that the one that Allah repeats the most is that Allah is Merciful and Mercy Giving, and that Muslims need to reflect that and we should not, be too judgmental or be condemning, [but as for not covering or] something like that, I think people should try and help them, try to include them, try to be a good example and the rest is up to them. Yeah it can only be something that emanates from the person.

These quotations highlight for me one of the most attractive aspects of Islam: its tolerance, not a

quality usually associated with Islam in the West. For Islam stresses that what counts in a

person's behaviour is their intention, not their actions: a woman is not rewarded by God for

wearing hijab just so others think she is pious.

8. HIJAB AND SELF-PERCEPTION.

Another aspect of hijab that came through strongly in the interviews was how wearing

hijab had given these women sources of imer strength and a high level of confidence and self-

esteem. Rania beiieves this is another benefit for society at large; not just for the woman

concerned: "children grow up and they see that women [in hijab] are - especially girls grow up

seeing that women can be successful and respected without having to be beautiful or flirtatious

or whatever."

In fact. even though Nur's point that wearing hijub is not a function of beauty is true

(because non-beautiful women cover too), the argument that women are covering their 'charms'

and 'beauty' when they cover is Frequently made. This idea comes through in Halima's

attempts to answer her 3% year old son's questions about why Muslim women are covering:

I explain to him why women do and men don't, I mean men have their hijab but it's less and they don't have to cover their hair. [My husband and I tell him that] we don't want the men to see ummi [Mum] because women are beautiful, and we don't want the men to see them, like that and he- I think on some level he understands, but not really.

So men and women learn from an early age that women (all of them) are beautiful. and that is a

reason they cover. And that message is good for women's self-esteem, as well as for the way

men think about women.

Many women stressed how comfortable they felt wearing hijab, and how it made them

feel good about themselves. Ellen stresses in hijab she feels "like 1 am doing something to

piease Allah, you know.. .it makes you feel good about yourself. Makes you feel different from

everybody else, but you feel different in a good way, because you're not exposing yourself and

you know, you're not exposed to many things like you would be if you're not covering.''

Rania feels pride in her huab:

I feel very comfortable in hijab, I just feel like I can do what I want to do. I'm not going to feel uncomfortable, people will take me seriously. I know that it's the best way to dress. so I feel secure in that thought, and ah, I mean sometimes it feels a little hot, but that's really the only drawback. There is a iittle bit of pride that I feel with it as well, when I go to places where people are not expecting to see you, like a big coffee house or whatever, you feel that when people see you they kind of look and stare a little bit, or whatever, then you feel a little bit - I feel good that I'm wearing hijab and that I'm showing people yes, you know, Muslims do go out and drink coffee, and go out with their friends. and so I feel like sometimes I'm representing, you know the presence of Islam to people, I like that too as well.

Even though Raneem had seen hijab as the solution to her problems at work, she found it

a bit dificult to wear at first because she still had some negative perceptions of Muslims and

Arabs, and did not want others to associate her with Arabs or Muslims. Like many new

converts, she also felt like an 'ambassador' for Islam, and felt concerned to be on her best

behaviour all the time:

I didn't want to be associated with Arabs. I used to go to the Friday prayer, wear my hijob to pray, and as soon as it ends I would take it off right away. So it took a while after I

accepted Islam, it took me about six months to get ready to the idea to wearing hijab and forget about you know this conception, I'm not an Arab, I don't care what people think. Then after that I stmed to wear it and.. . I felt a very heavy sort of responsibility on my shoulders. I felt everybody knows that 1 am Muslim, I have to set an example, I'm not up to it. I felt guilty. I felt this huge responsibility on me for another six months, and then after that, it just went away. I cannot be perfect over night, I felt a huge responsibility. I was feeling a little bit overwhelmed by that in the beginning.

This feeling of responsibility is shared by many converts. When 1 first stmed wearing hijob

full-time, I tried not to look tired on the subway on the way home fiom work in the evening. in

case people thought I was worn out fiom being oppressed by my husband. I tried always to

appear bright and happy.

Nur enjoys wearing hijab because she has found that fellow students often approach her

to ask for her notes, or to get help on school-related questions, or for her opinion on

philosophical questions such as "what do you think a soul is?" She really enjoys this. and

laughed that she was Mother Theresa. "I like to be helpful ... like, you know, you're Mother

Theresa out there helping everyone, right?!"

Yasmeen says she enjoys life, and that being religious is not how some people back

home perceive it, as a kind of torture. Wearing hijab brings her inner peace: "I feel in peace.

and ah.. I feel I respect myself more, I am not concentrated about my beauty and ah.. the fashion

and this stuff ah.. I think it's a peace of mind.. .I feel comfortable because this is what God want

from the human being, ah.. . I am obeying."

Personally, I have found wearing hijab a liberating experience. I had been trapped in the

dietinglstame yourself vortex in high-school and had been constantly anxious about 'being fat'

and 'ugly,' and how others perceived me. Wearing hijab, that is, wearing loose, long clothing

was an enormous relief because I knew that people could no longer see the shape of my body

parts, so I did not have to worry anymore about my body image. Of course, 1 could have worn

these clothes anyway, long, loose clothing is fashionable in the West too, but what was most

relieving was the philosophy behind hijab: that my body was my private self; that no-one had

the right to see my body; and moreover, that since I was not to show my private body to the

world at large, my body's shape was not relevant to my role in, and acceptance by the world at

large, I was a being accepted for, and judged according to, other criteria. My self-confidence

improved dramatically. Bassima has experienced wearing hijab in the same way. She has been

covering for about 13 years (since she was 18), and found hijub "liberating," especially having

grown up in the West where the pressure was to be thin and fashionable. She found hijab

"hurnanising" because it took away the "sex-appeal nonsense" and you become just a "face."

not a "sexual-object." "It may be a bit disconcerting for those on the other end!" she added.

"Hijab [has] become part of my identity now.. .I don't think I could go out without a hijub on.

I'd feel naked."

These views about hijab clearly coincide with (may be derived from) the feminist

critique of the commodification of women's body in capitalist society. This is an interesting

angle on the critique of 'woman-as-sex-object,' since one reason Memissi and other feminists

are so strongly opposed to hijab is their conviction that it is hmb (not the absence of huab) that

signals the view women are regarded merely as sex objects. I pursue these differences more in

Chapter Five.

Naturally, those who do not wear hijab full time see it differently. Iman "always feels

self-conscious" in hijab, even at Muslim events. She says she thinks if you wear hijab you "get

stared at a lot, which would be kind of unnerving." But Bassima also pointed out that you do

not always get stared at, or get nasty comments when in h w b : "It's not all bad news.. .when

you first wear hijab you're very self-conscious and you feel as though everybody is staring at

you. but once you get used to it. and you feel more at ease in your new identity you kind of urn,

you realise they're not all staring. Some do. but not all of them. Quite a lot of people take you as

they find you." She thinks the adjustment period depends upon your own personality:

if you're one of these people that, how can 1 say it, has the courage of your convictions. you're not going to let it bother you, then I think the transition would be quicker. If you're one of these timid little people who feel self-conscious, then it's going to feel as though it's taking a lot longer. And I think your attitude and whatever's underlying in your dealings with other people, sometimes you get what you're expecting. It's like a confidence issue.

Nadia, with an exhibitionist twist, concurs:

I think the ease of [wearing hijab) depends on the person's personality, because I think that I have a bit of stubbornness in mc and a bit of standing outlindividuality in me anyways. I think if I didn't wear hijob, if I didn't get into Islam, I would've in some way tried to make my individualness you know, I think although I don't like, I say I don't like the limelight or like to be in the public eye and stuff, I think, I think wearing hijob definitely puts you in that place and although I shun it, in a certain way I guess I like it {laughs) so I guess if there's people out there who just don't want any attention, just want to go about their business. or don't want to be questioned, or maybe their faith isn't strong enough to answer all the questions that go with wearing hijab, it wouldn't be easy for them. I know it wouldn't be easy for them.

By now, the reader should have an understanding of why these women want to wear

hijab, and why they enjoy wearing hijab. The interviews should challenge the conventional

perspective on hijab as a form of oppression, for they clearly demonstrate that these women

have thought about their decision to cover, have considered the reasons for and against hijab.

and have decided hijab is something their religion requires, and something that benefits them

and their society.

D. W A R I N G HIJAB IN THE WEST - EVERYDAY EXPERIENCES.

Muslim women in the West who cover suffer daily indignities from the people around

them because of the way they dress. The Western image that they are oppressed. or represent a

terrorist religion makes it difficult for them to be accepted easily by the Canadian community.

For example, a 1996 article in the Toronto Star, had a photograph of two Muslim women, one

with her face covered, the other wearing a headscarf. The title reads: "An act of faith or a veiled

threat to society? To some, wearing the hijab is an expression of piety and modesty. Others

detect a more political motive."'33 I want to conclude this chapter by looking at the experience

133 Sunday, May 14, F5. C.f. Govier and Lemon for harsh reactions to the niqab. Lemon accepts headacarves, but not the niqab.

of wearing hijab in a society that is uneasy about women's public commitment to Islam. What

is it like to cover in such an environment?

1. REACTIONS FROM THE BROADER COMMUNITY.

Many of the women 1 interviewed stressed to me that overall they do not get too many

hostile reactions, and some of them also experience positive reactions from non-Muslims. They

think that Toronto is so multicultural that people are used to seeing all different kinds of dress.

Also, those with the least amount of interaction with the non-Muslim community had the fewest

problems. Zainab has not had any nasty interactions. She walks with a cane, and says that

before she wore huab, people would hold open elevator doon for her. but that mostly stopped

afler she put hijob on. One time in the elevator in her apartment building just after she started

wearing hijab experimentally:

[A lady] said to me "how is your earache, is not getting any better?" I said "An earache? I haven't had an earache, I don't have an earache." And she said "i just thought you had an earache because it's the middle of summer and you were wearing that scarf 1 though it was because you had an earache you know." I said "No, I'm planning on becoming a Muslim and this [is] part of how I'm suppose to dress and I am trying it out to see if it will work or not." And she just son of looked at me in a strange way and she said "Oh I thought you had an earache, and I was saying to my husband 'gee it takes a very long time for Mrs. --'s earache to go away."'

Raneem has a h y story to tell. She was walking along a downtown street and was about nine

months pregnant and somebody evidently mistook her for a nun. and came to her and said.

"Way to go Sister! Way to go!"

Nice stories notwithstanding. Muslim women are often harassed by strangers because of

the way they dress. Bassima tells how she went on the subway with her Mum and four-year-old

daughter once:

My mother, my daughter and myself had gone downtown. in Canada to visit some of the tourist places. We were coming back on the subway and my mother is not Muslim so she doesn't wear hijab. I wear hijab and my daughter had one of those sweatshirts on with a hood that she insisted on keeping up, so it may have looked as if she was in training, and this couple were sitting nearby and they were having this loud and animated discussion about religion, indoctrination, how people shove religion down people's throats. how they force it on people blah blah blah. And I had a feeling that they were talking about me, and

assuming that I didn't speak English, and I leaned over to my Mum and 1 said 'do you know what these people behind me are saying? And I told her and she thought it quite fbnny, but she said, no, don't say anything because they're not necessarily talking about us, and the next thing I heard these people saying to one another 'What language are they speaking?' and fiom the context of the grammar of that sentence it was obvious that they were talking about us. So I turned round, smile sweetly and asked for directions in perfect fluent English with a slight [foreign/Western] accent and they changed the subject after that!

Despite this, Bassima experiences Canada as a relief after her experiences back home. There.

she had people yelling at her on the street that she is a "f---- race traitor." Her sense of

humour and courage sustains her through most of these exclamations. When people yelled at

her to "go back to where you come fiom," she would reply in the right accent: "it's a bloody

long walk to ---Shire," ''It freaks them out!" she added."

Several women report being sworn at by strangers: a young man driving past Yasmeen

in his car, yelled "smelly sh-," to her; Raneem walking downtown was approached by a woman

who told her "you go f--- yourself;" Sadia was in Shoppers Drug Mart with her father and a man

told her "f--- you." Of course, there is no way of knowing whether or not these people said that

because they were Muslim, but the fact that the question arises is enough to make Muslims

uncomfortable.

Other kinds of harassment are clearly related to the woman being Muslim (or at the very

least. foreign). Khadija, who has lived here for 27 years. recalls:

Recently [--I my daughter [who wears hijab] left the car, 1 dropped her at school [University], and there was that woman who was screaming at me. and honking, and she followed me all the way to the [mall's] parking lot. I even entered into the place where it says the parking lot is ful l to avoid her. She was still there, finally I looked at her, I said 'what seems to be your problem?' She says 'I don't have a problem. You just go back to where you came from.'

Another time, while she was with a community and race relations group, they had to deal with

complaints about an Islamic calligraphy display in the Civic Centre:

Four or five groups from churches, fiom different churches, went to the Mayor and asked him to bring them down, all these, Why? Because you know these Muslims, they are bad people, they don't want to work, they are terrorists, they are this, and that. How could you put what they are saying there in the room? And they went fbrther with a petition that this display will never occur in [the city] again. [Kathy: Did !hey succeed?] No they did not. I

mean we fought and fought, and it wasn't an easy thing, but Al-hamdulillah, they did not succeed the next time. Actually the city.. .give us a hard time to put the display back again. and I told them, I said 'you know you are being influenced by these people.' and they said 'definitely it's not,' and so on. Anyway [the display] went up again. The Mayor was there, the Mayor used to be with [us] in the ... community race relation [committee]. But it shows you, like that to me was an eye opener. 1 didn't realise how bad we've been portrayed [in the media].

Nadia reports while standing waiting for an elevator at her hospital one day a man

walked by and said "where do you think we are, in the friggin' Middle East?" She laughed that

most abusive comments are made obliquely: '?hey don't say it to you right in front of your face.

they say it as you're walking by. and then you're like looking around going 'I guess that was

directed to me! ' (laughs) ."

Sadia says that people look at her as though she is from "outer space." After school one

afternoon, while Sadia was walking toward the elevator, a woman waiting for the elevator

started telling her to go away and when the elevator arrived. the woman quickly got into it.

closing it on herself, leaving Sadia behind. She thinks the woman thought "I'm gonna kill her

or do something bad to her. I was kind of upset and then started laughing 'cause I realized how

stupid she was." Sadia is only 15. and yet she has to deal with these kinds of problems as she

grows up.

2. WHEN BEING MUSLIM IS IRRELEVANT.

Muslim women also have problems with people in situations where their identity is

really irrelevant to the situation at hand. Nadia has found that one of the disadvantages of

wearing hijob in the West is that people. especially when you meet them for the first time,

frequently focus of the "the novelty" of &jab. rather than the business at hand. She finds that

she will be talking and "'you can tell that they're not really hearing you, and they're asking you

to repeat yourself, or when you leave the room they'll ask someone else 'what was she just

talking about?' And they're looking at you. or once you start talking or discussing business,

they'll say 'oh you were born here right?' like they'll just change the subject completely and

talk about you instead of what you're talking about."

Some women have had problems during trips to the doctor. For example, when Halima

went to a couple of doctors, she found herself dealing with the doctor's disgust that Halima

would have converted to Islam: "It wasn't what [the doctor] said it was her face, (laughing) like

she just looked like she was totally disgusted, and shocked by the fact that I would take as Islam

as my religion." Zainab has had similar problems. When she was a patient at a major Toronto

hospital (the same hospital Nadia works at):

The doctor came in one day and I always wear my hijab like my head coverage or 1 wore things with long sleeves or I had one of these Somali things wrapped around me depending on what time of day it was, and [the doctor] said to me 'why did you want to become a second class citizen?' I said What are you talking about?" I really didn't know, I never related it to religion, I said "what are you talking about? Because I'm a woman or something?" and I thought how can he ask me - I didn't want to become a woman or a man I just happened to be born a woman. He said "Why did you want to become a Muslim? I mean that is becoming a second class citizen. Don't you know how badly the women are treated in Islam?" and I looked at him and I said 'what in the world are you talking about? I said a man with your education? I [assumed he had studied comparative religion in his training] and I said maybe you were like me, you just wanted to pass your courses and get a good mark and you didn't retain anything. I said but if you read the Qur'an. I said, you should realise that women are not second class citizens in fact as far as Prophet Muhammad is concerned, I consider him the first feminist. [But the doctor] was just so negative about everything.

This story is surprising because Zainab was a patient in the same hospital Nadia works. a

hospital that is supposed to be emphasizing cultural respect and diversity. In fact, a couple of

days later. a Muslim doctor came by to see Zainab. to see if she wanted to attend the Juma

prayers that are held every Friday in the hospital. So the first doctor's negative comments about

Islam are surprising and worrying; not only is he repeating the usual stereotypes about Islam and

women to the patient, but the question arises. how does he interact with Nadia and other Muslim

women nurses?

Rania, who is a doctor, found she has had similar problems fiom patients when she did

her residency in small-town Ontario. She was on call, and was called in to the emergency room

at three in the morning:

It was an eighty eight year old man, and you know I'm tired, and I just want to see him and understand what he's gotten.. .and if he has to be admitted and whatever, and the first thing, he asked me questions like 'why are you all wrapped up like that?" {laugh) as if 1 was like a mummy or something. And his daughter was right beside him and she went like this [hand motion around face to indicate head-scarf]. (laugh) But it's one of those cranky eighty year old guys, they don't care what you say, they just know. I said 'oh my scarf? Oh, I'm wearing this because I'm Muslim.' He said 'Oh, Muslim okay. Do you wear that all the time?' I said 'When I'm outside, yeah.' and then he said "Do you have hair under there?" I said, "Actually I do." And then I got back to him, I said 'Sir can you tell me about this?'

Another time with an older woman patient, Rania was asking her what type of cough she had.

and the woman asked her, "Where are you fiom?" So Rania replied she was from -- (Ontario).

and they continued with the consultation until the woman asked her "What type of national

costume is this?"

I felt like, you know, I'm not some type of an object ... I wasn't wearing - like I was wearing a normal Eddie Bauer shirt or a skirt fiom some-where else. it was very kind of Canadian looking wear, just with a scarf. ..I just sort of stopped and I said "Well these clothes are from Canada, but as for my scarf. I wear this because I'm Muslim," and she just said "Oh. Oh, we have some nice Muslims in England." I felt like this is so condescending, I feel like you know you're making an object of me just because I look difierent. and I felt as if she wanted just to parcel me into a category of culture, and so I really didn't like that kind of interaction.

Rania adds that she finds that "there's the time to explain and then there's the time to just give a

brief answer and go on to other things.. .I mean you may look like a Muslim. but you have a job

to do, and let's talk about why you're here, and I'm the doctor and you're the patient okay?"

3. SCHOOL REACTIONS.

Only two of the women I interviewed wore h@b while attending high school in Canada.

and Sadia had been at an Islamic school. Nadia attended a Catholic high school but did not have

any problems as serious as those of Quebec in 1995 when girls were asked to leave school if

they did not take off their scarves. Boys would tease Nadia about her scarf and tug at it. Once

88

one succeeded in pulling it off, but he seems to have been as mortified as Nadia was, and

apologised. She does not remember having any problems from the teachers. She thinks they

did not know "what to do" with her, and she thinks even though she "was walking around

telling people I was a Muslim, ...[ that] they probably thought I had done this outside of my

family, that probably my family were Christian they had put me Catholic school. but I was

being rebellious and just calling myself a Muslim, I don't know:"

But I remember one day I was taking a typing class and our teacher was ill, so the Principal had taken over the class. And.. .he came up to me, and he stood in front of my desk. and he goes 'you know that's not really school regulations for you to wear that,' and he didn't look at me when he was talking to me, it was like he was looking somewhere else, so I was kinda like going, whose he talking to? And what's he talking about? 'cause of course Catholic school you had to wear a uniform, sweater, pants. colour coded, all that kind of stuff. And I used to try to wear my hijob the same colour, either a beige or white or something like that ... and I really didn't know he was, fully, at that time. [so] I realised he was talking to me and I said something like 'who said?' or 'how do you know?' Or something like that (laughs) just kinda being flippant, and I didn't really think about it ... and he never ever said anything to me ever again about it! (laughs) Never! Which I think now, my god! I really got away with a lot! f laughs).

4. CONVERTS' WORKPLACE EXPERIENCE.

The women who have converted to Islam experience different kinds of problems from

those 'born' Muslim. This is probably because the workplace colleagues have to deal with the

changes in a person, but also because Westerners do not seem to be able to believe that a

Western woman would become Muslim on purpose. Elizabeth started in a new placement after

returning from overseas, and wore hijab for the first two weeks. She was so shocked and

unnerved by the reactions she got fiom colleagues and clients that she took it off. She thinks

one reason she was not able to handle the reactions well was that as a white woman she'd never

experienced discrimination before. What kinds of things happened? Most colleagues were

puzzled as to why she was wearing a scarf on her head. She would explain that she was wearing

it for religious reasons, "that [it's] prescribed by God.. .and it's to protect women fiom the

glances of men and to protect their chastity and their piety." Oddly, after this explanation her

colleagues responded with "well, why don't just you take it off?" Once a (white Canadian)

client refused to let her stay in the booth where she and a co-worker were consulting with him.

Elisabeth created waves at work by asking that her workload be altered so that she didn't have

to visit men's houses alone, or be alone with male clients in booths, seeing these as important

practical aspects of her new faith. Her manager said "no way" and decided she needed

counseling. She called the counselor, only to find that the counselor was quite ignorant about

Islam, and thought that Elizabeth she coming to work with her face covered. Elizabeth is very

angry about the whole experience:

1 told [my manager] that that was, you know, I didn't understand what for, I did speak to the counselor and told her I didn't know why I was talking to her, she was very ignorant and she thought that I was filly veiled, I mean up to and including only showing my eyes, it was this person who's employed who's supposed to be aualified, to counsel people and obviously she doesn't know anything.. .basically I was discriminated against.. . .basically, you know the bottom line is that I have to seek counseling and I told [my manager] well, no, I don't have any problem, this is my religion and I'm perfectly fine with it, the problem is that you're not giving me the opportunity to work around it ... in government there's unions, and often you know, if you go to the union you're deemed like a trouble maker or whatever, and people often go on let's say long term leave or disability or sometimes people have like, you know, urn I forget what it's called, post-mortem [post-parturn] depression or whatever, and peopie come back to work and they're treated like with kid gloves because they think that, you know, something's really wrong, and I think that's the treatment I was starting to get and I'm not willing to toierate that, like I'm capable of doing a job but there are things that I won't do now.

When Elizabeth took her hijab off her colleagues were very happy. "Oh. you look so much

nicer with it off?" one woman told her. Elizabeth's story is particularly troubling. since as a

government worker, she ought to be in a proactive environment that is leading the pace for the

rest of the workforce. If government employees face discrimination how can we expect the rest

of the workforce not to? Moreover. her co-workers deal with Muslim women as clients all the

time, if they could not treat a Muslim woman co-worker with respect, how do they deal with

their clients?

Zainab was still working when she embraced Islam. She said t!!at over time she lost her

connection with most of her of non-Muslim acquaintances and colleagues. She thinks they were

very uncomfortable with her being Muslim and were "afraid that I was p i n g to talk to them

about Islam too much." Like Elizabeth, her co-workers knew little about Islam. "They knew

about the four wives and the amputation of the hands, and terrorists and things like that and ah

they were afraid of me." Her co-workers were "ashamed of me, they didn't want to be seen

with anybody that wore hijab" and started to find excuses not to go out with her:

Some of them came right out and they said, "Oh come on, I can't go out with you dressed like that and can't you just once wear something different, you know wear a suit or pants, slacks that'll cover you up too, you know, I mean do you have to do this, can't you wear a hat, put all your hair under the hat or something." And when I rehsed to do that they said, "well then I just as soon not go to lunch" so eventually ah when it happened more and more, I sort of pulled back the relationships and they didn't want to know what the reasons were or why I did that.

Ellen says the first day she wore h m b to work was a "hard day." Ellen had worked

there for eight years, and her co-workers knew she had converted to Islam and about hijob

because she talked about it to them, but it seems that some of the co-workers were not prepared

when she came in wearing hijab:

That was a hard day. (laugh} That was a hard day for them. That wasn't a hard day for me. For me it was a strengthening day, because for me it gave me so much strength. And the first day when I wore it, when I decided that I'm going to wear this hijab to work starting tomorrow, I told myself I am doing this for Allah (SWT) I am not doing it for the people. 1 said if by me wearing this hijob, causes me to lose my job, then that's what Allah has in store for me and I'm willing to accept that at this time. So when I went to work and everybody's looking like has she got a headache, is it cold outside, what's wrong with you? ... most of it was just snickering behind my back, and my supervisor she came in and she starts work one hour later then I do. She came and she looked at me and then she turned really quickly and looked a second time and she started laughing and she said "oh Ellen please." I said "what?" She said "that thing on your head." I said "listen, this thing on my head, you better get used to it because this is how you're gonna see me from now on." And she laughed. So for the whole day for her that was a laughing matter, but I was okay with that because I was strong. I told I said. "listen if you look back in your history you'll properly see that your Grandmother used to dress like this too." I told her "go ahead check it out look back," ... then one of my other co-workers she also, she's from Germany, my supervisor's German, and she had this picture and on this picture was a bunch of kids in this big field pickin' apples and it had some adults too. To my surprise every one of them girls had their heads covered, and long dresses on. So she said "maybe Ellen you'd like to have this?" I said, "oh could I please? So she give it to me so I just posted it right on my table, so that my supervisor could see it. So she saw it and she wanted to know what's Ellen doing with this I said " You see how they got their heads covered?" She laughed, you know ... the whole day she laughed and laughed and laughed and then she called the big supervisor and she was laughing and she asked her what was wrong, so she went through the whole story again and then she looked at me and she said "you're the one whose going to have to put up with the criticism." I said "No I can handle the criticism, it doesn't matter how I come here dressed if I come in with the extensions in my hair, if I come here with blond hair, if l come

in here with a thousand dollar dress on, people are gonna talk." I said "so just let them talk I can handle it" ... from the very first day I wanted to make clear to them that what I was doing was my choice and I wasn't afiaid of what any of them said, I wanted to make that very clear the very first day and I think I did that.

Raneem was working for a Professor at a University when she embraced Islam. Her

Professor was a staunch Catholic and he came to her and said:

It seems that you have embraced a new faith, but you're not ailowed to speak about your new faith during business hours" ... and I said, "Well I don't make an attempt to go out and tell everybody about it, but if somebody asked me I'm not going to say 'no, I'm not going to talk about it.' I'm just going to answer as I would normally," and he said "well just tell them that so and so, he mentioned his name, said that we shouldn't talk about Islam during business hours." That's what he said. So 1 said, "Well I'm not going to do that, if you don't like it then it's over."

She changed jobs and found a different problem, after six months she realized her co-workers

did not know she was Muslim! When she asked one why he thought she covered. he replied he

thought it was for "fashion."'34

5. PRESSURE TO ASSIMILATE.

Given these kinds of negative reactions to hijab, it is not surprising that many Muslims

try to hide their Islamic identity. The pressure for Muslims to assimilate to the ways of the West

is very great.'3s Safiyah is under such pressure from her husband to "look Canadian." Although

her husband does not understand why a Muslim woman should cover. it seems that the problem

for Safiyab is that they are living in the West. where there is such a bad impression of hijab. He

did not seem to mind that she wore hijab back home. presumably because there other women

wear it. But in their first six months in Canada, so many people stared at them. that he felt

uncomfortable with her in hijab. Safiyah did not mind the staring, but her husband did: "He told

me he wants, when he gets out [goes outside] to be like all people." He wanted to "look like

Canadian, not like a - if now I was outside nobody was looking at me, like, then he would be

0.k. If we went out for like a restaurant or everybody was [staring] it made him uncomfortable."

134 Other white women, including myself', have been told people assumed we wore a scarf because of a medical condition. They are surprised to find out we are Muslim.

In fact, Nadia believes that because it is easier for Muslim men to assimilate than

Muslim women, men are losing their Islamic identity faster than are Muslim women:

Being Canadian society, Muslim men are so easily lost to the society around us. I think Muslim women are tending to hold to the thread faster, or hold on harder than men do, and urn, I don't see that same level of commitment fiom brothers all the time ... 1 mean it's so easy for them [men] to assimilate and integrate and to just move in crowds that easier than it is for a Muslim woman in hijob, that's what I mean, it's so easy for them to live in that world ... I [think] that they [men] give up Islam easier because they're so easy to integrate into general Canadian society.

6. BEING MUSLIM AND BEING CANADIAN.

So the Muslim women I interviewed have had varying kinds of trouble fiom the non-

Muslim society around them. All are unhappy with the Western interpretation of Islam. and

most blame the media for it, as Khadija aptly put it: "the media has tarnished us all. over and

over. ..we have come to the stage where we are nothing but terrorist and bombers." How do

these experiences impact on the women's identification with Canada? Do they feel alienated by

their environment? Do they feel any conflict between being Muslim and being 'Canadian?'

Some studies of Muslims in North America demonstrate that most children born of

immigrant parents identify as AmericadCanadian depending upon the context. As 1 mentioned

earlier, the 'religiosity' of the women in my sample sets them apart from the majority of Muslim

North ~ r n e r i c a n s . ~ ~ ~ Halima pointed out that '.nationalism isn't suppose to be part of Islam,"

and all the women, except Noha. agreed, thinking of themselves as Muslim first. with

nationality secondary, or irrelevant. (Noha thought she was Canadian first, then ismaili, then

Muslim.) Zainab was in her early twenties when she came to Canada fiom Europe, but she does

not feel '[European]' because she has spent forty-five years in Canada. She felt having to

135 Cayer: 30,98, 137. 136 Barazangi's study of 15 Arab Muslim families across North America investigating generationai variations in perceptions of lslm, found four principal identity associations depending on the context: either Islamic/Muslirn, SyrianILebaneseAraqi etc, Arab, or American/Canadian. Barazangi, b: 134. Lovell's study of Muslims of Arab descent in 25 North American cities found that although fairly assimilated, third generation women interviewed still identified to some extent with Arabhfuslim depending on the context: ''When they are among the Arab Muslims, they feel like Christians. When they are with American Christians, they feel more like Arabs-and, perhaps, even

93

designate her citizenship was just having to obey governments who "insist on these foolish

questions." As a Muslim citizenship for her is irrelevant, Islam is the "only religion [she's]

come across, who makes no boundaries.. .Allah didn't create countries [so] it doesn't matter

what language you speak, what colour you are, what foods you eat."

Several women expressed displeasure at having to 'box' and label themselves in these

terms. Iman says her identity is made up of being Muslim, being Canadian, and having Central

Middle Eastern ancestry. She did not like being a hyphenated 'Central Middle Easternq-

Canadian because although being Central Middle Eastern is part of her identity. she does not

identify much with, or mix frequently with, the Central Middle Eastern community here. It is a

similar thing for Elizabeth. Her mother is Eastern European, and her father an Anglo-Canadian.

She sees herself first and foremost as a Muslim woman, and then perhaps as a Canadian. but not

a hyphenated 'Eastern European'-Canadian, since she has had little to do with these

communities. Iman and Elizabeth are both 'white' and this has had an impact on the way they

discuss identity in these terms.

An interesting part of the interview with Ellen was her resistance to being labeled as a

'black' Canadian. even though she did not find the label offensive:

I think of myself as a person. I do not think of myself as a black person, or as a Muslim person but at the same time I think of myself a person who deserves respect, from other people. I think of myself as somebody who has to set a good example to other people. As far as looking at myself as a Canadian Muslim or a black Muslim or -I don't think 1 look at myself like that. I look at myself as being someone who has been lost for a number of yean and who has been guided by Allah. I feel I'm on the right path.

I did not probe Ellen's resistance. but Nadia's reaction makes me wonder if Ellen resists

because she has been made to feel that she is not properly Canadian. Nadia came to Canada at a

very young age from the Caribbean. But she says she does not feel 'Caribbean,' nor does she

like to think of herself as a hyphenated Caribbean-Canadian. Like Elizabeth, Nadia's family did

Muslims. The oldest said that, if she claims a re tigion, it is Islam. The youngest said she "usually" considers

not socialize a lot with the Caribbean community as she was growing up, and she identifies

herself more as a Muslim. She would like to identify as a Muslim first, and a Canadian next,

if I could get away with it. I don't think I can get away with being Canadian.. .because if I tell someone I've been here for 24 years, they say to me 'oh, you were born here,' and I think if I said (I wasn't), but I think if I said yes, I dunno I don't think they'd still call me Canadian, I think they'd call me a hyphenated [Caribbean]-Canadian, or whatever, they wouldn't call me Canadian-Canadian. But I feel Canadian 'cause this is my frame of reference in life, like I grew up here, so I, you know, compare myself to other Canadians, how, where they are in life and what they have in life.

Nadia's answer contrasts starkly with Elizabeth and Iman who also had not been very involved

in their 'ethnic' communities growing up, but Elizabeth and Iman have never thought about

doubting their 'Canadian' credentials; Nadia has been made to feel that she would not "get away

with" being "Canadian-Canadian."

Yousif s study of Muslims in Ottawa concluded that Canada's freedom of religion laws

and multicultural policies had helped the Muslims retain their Islamic identity while adapting to

Canadian society. Those who were strongly committed to practicing the five pillars thought. "it

is easy to practice Islam in canada."13' This is despite the racisrn/discrimination Muslims feel

they face. as mentioned above. Yousif s respondents believed that the government's

multicul~ralism policies were attempts to fight racism/dis~rimination."~ The women 1

interviewed would concur with Yousif s conclusions. They all referred to Canada as a multi-

cultural and multi-faith society in a positive way. and they appreciate the liberty and protection

Canadian law gave them to practice their religion as any other group can.'39 The women all

understood the rhetoric of secular liberal multiculturalism. and thought as does Halima: "if

Canada boasts you can practice your religious freedom of thought and beliefs, if a woman

herself a Muslim. The other said she considers herself Muslim "once in a while." Lovell: 70. 137 Mrs Khatija Haffajee, Carleton Board o f Education, former chairwoman o f the Ottawa Muslim Women's Auxiliary, quoted by Yousif: 4 1 .

Yousif: 75. 'I9 Compares with Cayer, whose interviewees expressed conflict between indo-Pakistani identity and Canadian identity. Some did say 'Islam is my home,' so it is possible the difference is due to the way the question was phrased.

believes she should wear her hijob why shouldn't she? She's not hurting anybody, I mean if

people can go down Yonge street almost naked, why should her putting a scarf on her head

bother people, even for that matter wearing a veil on face, why should that upset somebody?"

Achlally it appears that it is the non-Muslim community that assumes there are

'problems' in being both Muslim and 'Canadian.' It was a high school in Quebec that expelled

the teenagers for wearing hijab. It was the CBC reporter that asked the question, "Can the h w b

pass the litmus test of being Canadian?" The reader is hopehlly sensitized enough by now to

the Muslim women's perspective to understand how offensive such a question is. Yasmeen

shows that Muslims may be better adjusted to accepting such multicultural differences than

mainstream Canadian society:

The Canadian belongs to God, the creation of God whether in Antarctica or Canada or in Somalia they are same human being, it's a humanity, it's a human being issue. not Canadian or [Arab], so I think the question is wrong. cause you know in Canada, many people who have different ideas black and white, and many different ideas from different countries, and they are here in Canada, but hijab for all the human, it's from God i think the [reporter's] question is wrong.

These experiences confirm a suspicion Elizabeth has about mainstream society's

acceptance of other peoples. Even though the government is formally committed to anti-

discrimination, Elizabeth thinks that mainstream Canadian society is being forced to accept

minorities against its will:

It was evident to me at work that there were a couple of people who were a really big problem with other groups. ..you know anything in the 'other' category, and 1 think that our society is becoming increasingly racist and intolerant and I think that a result of all this political correctness and all the moves to force certain things on society, urn, 1 think it's latent, I think some of it is really obvious. but I think that there's a lot of hate out there and dislike and ignorance and urn I think a lot of people didn't like it and there's some people in my office who obviously thought I was really a weirdo and thought what was she, what's that? and probably even more so because it was obvious that I was an Anglo.. . I think they - thought like what is she doing? like as if it was a cult or something I'd joined.. .and I think it's the same thing on the subway, of course, on the subway you're going to see a lot of groups of different people.. .so a lot of people know, a lot of people understand, but still you know mainstream society, is sort of not happy to see this.

96

Elizabeth's suspicions evidently resonate with some sectors of Canadian society, as another

Anglo-Canadian convert to Islam told me that when she started wearing hijab to work she was

told, "You look like a g-damn immigrant."

E. CONCLUSION.

The last section discussing the experiences of wearing hijab in Toronto demonstrate that

Muslim women face considerable discrimination based upon the way they dress. The public

perception of Islam is that it is a bad religion, promoting violence, and oppression of women.

However, the sections C and D of the chapter, where I give the women's own understandings of

the meaning of hijab, ought to highlight how ill a fit with these views is the conventional

'wisdom' about Islam. For the women in my study, hijab symbolizes, not oppression or

terrorism, but "purity," "modesty," a b'woman's Islamic identity," and "obedience. or

submission to God and a testament that you're Muslim." Halima adds that it symbolizes "the

woman's power to take back her own dignity and her own sexuality." They feel peaceful in

their hijab, and enjoy wearing it. If feminist methodology and epistemology is to mean

anything, it is these meanings of hijab which should be put forward. This is not to argue that the

reader should agree that hijab means any of these things. Rather. it is to argue that they should

b 1 respect the

judgement

oppressed'

women who do hold such beliefs. Give them the qualities of agency, autonomy, and

they have exercised, do not try to explain their behaviour in the 'women are

paradigm which puts Muslim women forward as unthinking dummies, blindly

swallowing any misogynist argument made in the name of Islam. Once this step has been taken,

only then it is possible to discuss with each other whether or not hijab does have the merits the

women believe it does, to engage in critical debate and dialogue.

CEMPTER TWO.

THE MEANING OF HIJAB IN THE COLONIAL ERA.

Part of the arsenal of pre-medieval and medieval writers' condemnation of Islam (that

resurfaced in the nineteenth century) was Islam's supposed indulgence and sexual license. That

Islam encouraged mamage (not celibacy), and allowed divorce and re-marriage. as well as the

Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) many wives, was abhorrent to the more ascetic minded

Chr is t ian~. '~~ While these Christian writings focused on the reprovable sensuality of Muslim

family life. the position of women was never of central concern. But the rise of feminism in the

nineteenth century in Europe led to a new focus on the status of non-European women.

Suddenly Muslim customs (such as seclusion. polygny, and the veil) became central motifs in

European discourse about the reprehensibility of Islam and ~us l i r n s . ' ~ '

That the veil was a symbol of oppression was an idea already in currency in the West.

Although I have not been able to pinpoint the origins of the idea, it is evident that by the

eighteenth century, the veil was already taken by Europeans to be an oppressive custom

amongst Muslims. The British Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. who traveled to Turkey with her

diplomatic husband, the Honourable Edward Wortley Montagu in 1 71 7- 1 7 18 disputed the idea

that the veil was oppressive in her letters. Having tried out the veil while in Turkey, she argued

it gave women freedom, for it allowed them to go out ~nrecognized.'~' But the notion of the

veil as oppressive assumed new and important focus in the nineteenth century because that was

the era of European colonization of the Middle East. As Ahmed demonstrates in her book,

"O Daniel. Pailin. Southern. I 4 I Ahmed, d: 128-9.

The Complete Letters of Lady Maty Wortit?, Montagu. quoted in Ahmed, d: 1 SO.

98

colonialists utilized that new focus on the status of women in part to justify invasion and

colonization of the Middle East.

Invasion and colonization presented themselves to Europeans as something of a right

and a duty, since only the superior Westerner could bring a stagnant Orient out of its

backwardness. Edward Said's superb analysis of European discourse about the 'Orient'

(Orientalism) unravels this aspect of colonial domination by examining how the Orient

historically has been imagined in Europe, and how that image found expression in a wide range

of texts, from academic treatises to popular fiction, and finally to colonial rule. Said

demonstrates that Western knowledge about the Orient was based upon the binary. structural

and "ineradicable" distinction between 'superior' Westerner and 'inferior' Oriental. '" Orientalism became a field of knowledge, or paradigm, for understanding the Middle East and

Islam that pretended to objectivity (impartiality), but that was actually based on the guiding

assumption of inherent Oriental i n f e r i ~ r i t y ' ~ In addition, Orientalism was (and is) "ultimately

a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference between the familiar

(Europe, the West. "us") and the strange (the Orient. the East. "them")."'J5 This structure has its

nuances. but Said demonstrates convincingly that the Western knowledge of the Orient was. and

99 I46 is. above all a "will-to-power over that geographical area, "a Western projection onto and

will to govern over the orient.'"'' Hence the easy relationship between Oriental scholars as

colonial, and later twentieth-century government. advisers. That the West has been materially

IJ3 Said, a: 42. 144 Said, a: 209. 145 Said, a: 43. We see the same dynamics today with certain scholars, such as Huntington and Barber, as well as the media, creating an image of a violent medieval (i.e. backward) religion that breeds terrorists, and oppresses women. IJ6 Said, a: 222. 147 Said. a: 95.

able to have power over the Orient has given, Said argues, Orientalism's ideas about 'East' and

'West' the "status of scientific truth. 99 I48

So, Orientalism prepared Europeans to think of Islam as a backward religion. and the

'East' as unchanged since Biblical times, 'trapped' in this unchangingness and

underdevelopment due to the hold of Islam in the region.14' (Cromer, British Consul General in

Egypt, 1883-1907, argued that the administration of Egypt had been unchanged since the

Pharaohs.) Iso And since, as Cromer argued, "reformed Islam is Islam no longer."15 ' what would

save the Orient, was European civilization - Christianity and secularism. The idea was that:

"Short of Christianity, no teaching can elevate the character and position of Mohammedan

women in any land; for, as long as she accepts the Koran as a rule of faith. she will

unhesitatingly acquiesce in the mutilated life to which by it she is c~ndemned."'~' Colonialism

was a mission civ i l i sa~ice , '~~ of which (with few exceptions) Europeans. men and women, be

they travelers. artists, missionaries, scholars. politicians or feminists were convinced.

In the Orientalist schema, the veil was further proof of Oriental inferiority. Indeed. the

veil, although part of a list of oppressions facing Muslim women (polgyny. seclusion. easy male

divorce and so on), became shorthand for the entire degraded status of women. and a metaphor

(or sign) of the degeneracy of the entire Middle East (Orient). And it is not just the West that

was convinced of the veil's oppressive name. Native elites internalized the Orientalist view of

themselves. They also became convinced that they were backward, their women degraded, and

that they ought to follow Western prescriptions for improvement.

IJ8 Said, a: 46. I49 Graham-Brown: 53. Mabro: 160. Note the irony: the Bible predates Islam by about 600 years. 150 Cromer, vol 1: 55. "I Cromer, vol2: 228-9. IS2 Mabel Shaman Crawford, Through Algeria, 1863, quoted in Mabro: 182. 153 Kabbani: 6,78. Lord Cromer: "[The Englishman] came not as a conqueror, but in the familiar garb of a saviour of society." Cromer. vol2: 123. Ladreit de Larchamere: ''La France ne colonise pas comrne d'autres pour exploiter mais pour civiliser." Bidwell: 3. ["France doesn't colonise like other countries do, to exploit, but to civilise."]

'How have we become to be regarded as part of the Orient?' asked a reader who wrote to the Egyptian journal al-Muqtaqaf in 1888. 'Are we not closer to Europe than to China or North Africa?' It had happened, replied the editor, because those who study us 'call themselves Orientalists.' But his scepticism did not last. Five years later, when he had come to know personally some of the leading Orientalists of his day, the editor was willing to accept the Orient as self-image. 'It is we who have piaced ourselves in this position. There is one thin that unites us all in the B Orient: our past greatness and our present backwardness.''

Unveiling became a central urgency for elites attempting to 'catch-up' to the West. Thus

the 'veil' became a potent symbol of the progress or regress of a nation.lS5 And since it was the

upper-classes leading 'modernization,' the anti-veil discourse was also an attack on those

classes that remained attached to the veil and its older symbolic meanings (a symbol of

piety/wealth/stahls).156 The anti-veil discourse opened a gulf between the people of a nation: the

Westem-focused elites and others who were adopting the culture of the colonizer as well as

benefiting economically and socially from colonialism, versus the rest, lower classes. traditional

Muslim teachers, and others who, as well as suffering from colonialism, were not assimilating to

Western ways. 15'

Thus, the notion that the veil is oppressive is an idea born out of domination. or, at least,

the will to dominate. Any argument that advances the notion that the veil is a symbol of Muslim

women's oppression draws, wittingly or unwittingly, from Orientalist and colonial discourse

about the veil. That is perhaps why debates over the veil can assume such furious proportions.

The veil, as Ahrned remarks, has ever since the colonial period "carried" the Orientalist "cargo"

of meanings.'58 Struggles today in the Muslim world over hijab reflect these kinds of

class/culture divisions. The rest of this chapter is dedicated to unraveling the Orientalist view

'" Quoted in Mitchell: 169. Ahmed, d: 128.

'56 Ahmed, d: 129-30. 15' Ahmed, d: 145. 15' Ahmed, d: 129.

101

on hijnb. What was the nature of the colonial pronouncements about the 'veil?' What were the

thought processes that led to such a view?

A. THE GAZE AND COLONIAL CONTROL.

Edward Said's thesis on Orientalism amply demonstrates how the Oriental person was

seen as inherently backward. At the most simplistic level then, the logic of the veil could be as

follows: Orientals are backward; Orientals wear the veil; therefore the veil is a symbol of

backwardness/oppression (since backwardness is itself oppressive, the two can be equated.)

Surely these conclusions are part of the story, but I think much more can be said about why the

veil became such a potent symbol for attack. In this section I argue that it is the nature of the

veil as a gaze inhibitor that most contributes to it coming under attack.

Anti-colonial and anti-racist scholars frequently point to the gaze as an integral aspect of

colonial power. Lott's analysis of black minstrels of the 1840's United States' (white men

blackening their faces and performing as 'black men') emphasizes the importance of the gaze:

"'Black' figures were there to be looked at, shaped to the demands of desire; they were screens

on which audience fantasy could rest, and while this purpose might have had a host of different

effects, its fundamental outcome was to secure the position of white spectators as superior,

controlling figures."lS9 This is domination through difference,I6O the creation of which, Homi

Bhabha argues, is the "objective of colonial discourse:" "[this objective] is to construe the

colonized as a population of degenerate types on the basis of racial origin. in order to justify

conquest and to establish systems of administration and in~truction."'~'

Thus colonialism depends upon racialized hierarchies: the hierarchies of civilizations

that the European visitor to the exhibit encountered, the laying out of human evolution in the

' 5 9 Lott: 140-141. 160 Thanks to J . Zine for this and other phrases, and for pointing me to several relevant pieces in the anti- coloniaVanti-racism literature. 16' Bhabha: 75.

102

museums, Orientalism's study of the evolution of Semitic language and cultures taken to

represent 'arrested de~elopment."~~ Race was an all important category, as Robert Young's

analysis of colonialism and desire attests. The Europeans feared mixed marriages because of

the belief that intermarriage led to "the degenerative results of racial hybridization." "('Let any

man turn his eyes to the Spanish American dominions, and behold what a vicious, brutal, and

degenerate breed of mongrels has been there produced, between Spaniards, Blacks, Indians and

their mixed progeny,' remarks Edward on^)."'^^ People were classified into ever more

nuanced racial categories (with their attendant character traits: a mulatto father (child of white

father and negro mother) with a zarnba mother (negro father and Indian mother) produce a

zambo child "a miserable race."lM). Spanish Americans could be classified into twenty-three

crosses, and in the United States, the boundary between black and white (the boundary between

having the vote and inheriting over f2000 ) was defined as from 1/8 to 1 0 2 " ~ part African

blood.'65 SO, the veil, as an Oriental custom, a practice of another 'race,' could be derided as

part of the process of propping up colonial rule, and European identity.

As well as blatant racism, there is another aspect of Orientalism's derision of the veil

that I want now to explore in some detail. Mitchell's Colonising Egypt suggests a way of

looking at the veil that is very persuasive: the encounter of the European "metaphysics of

modernity" with a non-European metaphysics. Certain aspects of Mitchell's argument provide

compelling insights into the processes by which the veil became a symbol of oppression for the

West. Namely, the notion of the world-as-exhibition, representation, the gaze, and colonialism

as 'remedy' (my word) for the problems of the Middle East. In order to set the scene to explore

these themes in relation to hijab, I must first outline briefly Mitchell's approach.

'62 Said, a: 234-5. 16' Young, R: 175. 164 Young, R: 176. 165 Young, R: 177.

103

Colonising Egypr starts with a compelling post-modem analysis of nineteenth century

(modernist) understandings of the world. Mitchell interprets modernity as an "ontology of

representation."166 Following Descartes' mindhody distinction, modernity splits the world into

two: a material, inert world of things, and a nonmaterial world of meaning

(concept/framework). The realm of meaning is experienced as being prior to the object world,

giving it structure and making it intelligible. But. for Mitchell, this duality is actually an effect

of the technique of representation that becomes paramount in the nineteenth century. Using the

World Exhibitions as his central motif, but extending his argument to zoos. department stores.

museums, urban architecture, and academic theories of culture and language. Mitchell suggests

that the modem person is oriented to the world as if fiom the outside. At a World Exhibition.

just as in a theatre, the visitor is a spectator, detached fiom the object, the spectacle. The exhibit

claims to be a faithhl representation of a real world somewhere else. Thus the Cairo exhibit at

the 1889 World Exhibition in Stockholm. Sweden, reproduced a street in Cairo that even

included the dirty paint.'67 (Mitchell draws attention to the fact that the Egyptian visitors to the

exhibit left in disgust.) But. as Mitchell argues, "by its realism, [suggesting itself to be a copy

of a real place elsewhere] the artificial proclaims itself not to be the The effect of this

claim on the visitor is to split the world into two: a real world (out there) and its copy, its

representation, here. In addition. the exhibit is accompanied by maps,

(directionslguideslframeworks) on how to interpret and understand the exhibit. The map

mediates between the person and the exhibit. confirming both the effect of splitting the world in

two and the visitor's sense of detachment From the material world. "The seemingly separate text

or plan. one might say. was what confirmed the separation of the person fiom the things

-- - - -p -

Mitchell: xv. I67 Mitchell: 1 . '" Mitchell: xiii.

104

themselves on exhibit, and of the things on exhibit from the meaning or external reality they

represented. 9,169

Mitchell argues that when the visitors left the exhibit, they imagined they had left the

world of representation, but in fact most aspects of nineteenth-century life were becoming part

of the technique of representation: "everythmg collected and arranged to stand' for something. to

represent progress and history, human industry and empire; everythng set up. and the whole

set-up always evoking somehow larger truth. ,9170 So the world is an exhibit. not just

metaphorically: commodities, signs of a labour process occurring outside the home, and

displayed under glass windows/cabinets in the new department stores; zoos exhibiting the

world's animals, museums other cultures, model farms and their new machinery representing

progress, cities representing a non-material plan (geometric lay out, street names, and numbers

on houses: "Haussmann laid out the boulevards of Paris to create a precise perspective in the

eye of the correctly positioned individual. who was given an external point of view by the

enframing architech~re."~"), and so on."'

The technique of representation leads the individual to experience the whole world as if

from the outside, as if the world were a picture: "Everything seemed to be set up before one as

though it were the model or picture of something. Everything was arranged before an observing

subject into a system of signification (to use European jargon), declaring itself to be the signifier

of a signified."'73 And because the individual is detached and separate fiom the object-world,

able to look down upon and grasp the world with a glance. this effect of representation leads to

the certainty of representation, to Truth."" Photographs and carefbl verbal descriptions of the

material world are taken as the truth about that world. "The publication in 1858 of the first

'69 Mitchell: 20. I7O Mitchell: 6. I" Mitchell: 59. 17' Mitchell: 6,7,12, 18, and chapter one generally.

general collection of photographs of the Middle East, Francis Frith's Egypt and Palestine,

Photographed and Described, would be 'an experiment in Photography.. .of surpassing value',

it was announced in the Art Journal, 'for we will know that we see things exactly as they

ue.rr, 175

A new term for this "combination of detachment and close attentiveness" was introduced

in the rnid-nineteenth century: the word objective. "'Just now we are an objective people', The

Times wrote in the summer of 185 1, on the occasion of the Great Exhibition. 'We want to place

everything we can lay our hands on under glass cases, and to stare our fill."176 Mitchell notes

that this is the modem experience of 'objectivity;' the feeling that one is able to look down on

and observe the world from a neutral place.

As debates in social sciences about the ability of a 'native' to research her own society

(only outsiders are trusted to produced non-biased, 'objective' scholarship) attests, we still

experience the world in these terms of representation.'77 But this modem subjectivity (the

experience of 'objectivitiy') is currently overlaid by a 'post' modem subjectivity. After all.

most of us know that 'meaning' is more complex than any simple relationship of representation

and represented. Reality is manipulable. Photographs can be touched up. the photographer can

exclude objects fiom the camera's viewfi~nder, descriptions are influenced by the describer's

own world-view (positionality), and so on. But there is also another aspect. highlighted by

Mitchell: 12-13. 174 Mitchell: 7. 17' Mitchell: 22-3. '76 Mitchell: 19-20. 177 People's modernist relationship to the exhibition seems to flourish still in the 1990's. as suggested by Coco Fusco's article about her and Guillemo Gomez-Penii's performance art. They posed as undiscovered Amerindians fiom the Gulf of Mexico. Located in museums, they stayed inside a cage for three days. They pretended not to be able to speak English, so had zoo guards there to interpret for them, to feed them. and lead them to the washroom on a leash. There was a map of the Gulf of Mexico depicting their fictitious island. Intended as a "satirical commentary on Western concepts of the exotic, primitive Other (143)," they were taken by surprise to find the majority of visitors believing in the fiction, (or museum staff uncomfortable about their duping of the public.) Fusco observed that "the audience reactions indicate that colonialist roles have been internalized quite effectively (153)-" One man paid to be photographed feeding them bananas, another complained to the museum staff that

Bordo's work on the female body in Western culture's imagery. If the modem person

experienced a distinction between reality and appearance (certain that appearance represented

reality), the post-modem person no longer experiences such a distinction between appearance

and reality. "Today, all that we experience as meaningll are appearances:"

We all "know' that Cher and virtually every other female star over the age of twenty-five is that plastic product of numerous cosmetic surgeries on face and body. But, in the era of the "hyperred" (as Baudrillard calls it), such "knowledge" is.. .faded and fiayed.. .like the knowledge of our own mortality when we are young and healthy, the knowledge that Cher's physical appearance is fabricated is an empty abstraction; it simply does not compute. It is the created image that has the hold on our most vibrant, immediate sense of what is, of what matters. of what we must pursue for ourselves. ' 78

Analagously, some of us may know that Muslim women are not terrorists, or oppressed. but the

weight of the mass media imagery makes that hard to compute; the appearance. the stereotype.

is the image with the most hold on 'us.' My examination of the colonial meaning of the veil

aims to show that the nineteenth century images of Muslim women were just as fabricated as

images of today's supennodels.

Bhabha's account of domination through difference suggests an instrumentality in

colonial discourse (as does Ahmed's account of the colonial use of feminism), that is missing in

Mitchell. Mitchell is well aware of the process of 'Othering,' of the West's need of an

'Oriental' in order to be a 'Westerner.' But Mitchell's argument almost implies that Western

belief in Oriental inferiority is an 'accident' of the techniques of representation. For him it

seems to be the 'effect' of dividing world into two, of the processes of representation that

creates Orientalism's hierarchies. The anti-colonial/anti-racism passion is missing. Nonetheless.

as I hope to show, his analysis of modernity is a compelling context and explanation for what

happened when Europeans encountered veiled women.

"these poor people had no idea what was happening to them," a group of sailors thought it good to have them in a cage, lest they become frightened and attack.. . .and so on ( 1 54-7). 1711 Bordo: 'Hunger as Ideology:' 104.

THE GAZE.

What I need to highlight about the modem experience of the world-as-exhibition is the

priority given to looking, 'We want to stare our fill,' The Times editor declared. Indeed, Middle

Eastern visitors to Europe often remarked on the European propensity to stare at them. Fiction

writers began to note this phenomenon in their novels. "'Whenever he paused outside a shop or

showroom,' the protagonist in one such story found on his first day in Paris. 'a large number of

people would surround him, both. men and women, staring at his dress and appearance. I80

Tahtawi, an Egyptian scholar and administrator who had spent five years in Paris in the 1820's.

had to explain (to surely puzzled fellow Egyptians: Middle Eastern culture believed(s) in the

'evil eye,' the ability of the look to cause harm) this European tendency to stare. "One of the

beliefs of the Europeans," Tahtawi noted in his book discussing the customs and manners of

various nations, published in 1883, "is that the gaze has no effect."I8'

But the tendency to stare was no mere curious European cultural custom. It was linked.

as mentioned above, with the experience of the world-as-exhi bit ion. Moreover. as Said

outlined, knowledge itself was conceived of in terms of the gaze. In 1802. Napoleon

commissioned the Institut de France to write a tableau ginerole on the state and progress of the

arts and sciences since 1789. One of the founders of modem Orientalism. Sacy. contributed a

piece on the state of Oriental learning. "[The report's] title - Tableau historique de I 'Prudition

fianqaise-announces the new historical (as opposed to sacred) consciousness. Such

consciousness is dramatic: learning can be arranged on a stage set. as it were. where its totality

can be readily surveyed."'" Knowledge was something that could be taken in by a coup

Mitchell: 166-7. ''O Mitchell: 4. ''I Quoted in Mitchell: 2. 181 Said. a: 126.

lo8

d'oei~,"~ at a glance, as if from the outside. For the Orientalists, knowledge "was essentially the

making visible of material, and the aim of a tableau was the construction of a sort of Benthamite

~ano~ticon."'" The Orientalist scholar's task was to make visible the "inscrutable Orient" for

the Western a~dience. '~ ' One had to be able to see. then, what one was to make visible. Or. if

one could not see, one would make visible anyway, that is, attach a meaning (veil is oppressive).

Artists, painters, photographers, writers, missionaries, tourists, and colonial governors

and administrators, all went to the Orient looking for the Orient Europe had already created via

Orientalism. Living the world-as-exhibition. they came to see the 'real' thing of what had

captured their imagination back home in Europe in books, pictures, theatres, museums, and

exhibitions. They had read the books, now was the time to see the "tableau vivant."'86

What happens, MitcheIl asks, when Europeans used to experiencing the world as a

spectator to an exhibit go to the Middle East, an area not constructed (yet) as an exhibition?I8'

First. conf~sion. '*~ "The Orient refused to present itself like an exhibit. and so appeared simply

93 I89 orderless and without meaning. For one thing, the streets had no numbers or names, and

seemed to be haphazardly organized. Herman Melville complained in his journal after visiting

Constantinople: "No plan to streets. Perfect labyrinth. Narrow. Close, shut in. If one could but

get up aloft.. .But no. No names to the streets.. .No numbers. No anything."'90 There was

nowhere from which to gaze upon the structure as a whole. The exteriors of buildings. with

their blank and irregular walls "seldom corresponded to the shape, or represented the purpose,

183 Said. a: 126. I84 Said. a: 127. Panopticon: An architectural plan for prisons, hospitals, asy!urns, schools, and factories. It was based on the 'inspection-principle'-to see without being seen. Bentham's idea was that people who think they are under constant surveillance would discipline themselves to obey commands. (Bentham: 43, passim). '" Said, a: 140. I86 Said, a: 158. "' Mitchell: 13.

Mitchell: 22. I" Mitchell: xv. 190 Mitchell: 32.

of its carefully oriented interi~r."'~' (Contrast to the world-as-exhibition, where, as Mitchell

points out, buildings represent their purpose: it is hard to think of a public institution without

thinking of the building or street that represents itIg2 - United Nations, Wall Street, etc.)

And second the Europeans failed to realize that the world-as-exhibition had been left

behind in ~ u r 0 ~ e . l ' ~ Here is Flaubert describing his first days in Egypt:

'So here we are in Egypt,' wrote Gustave Flaubert. in a letter from Cairo in January 1850. 'What can I say about it all? What can I write you? As yet I am scarcely over the initial bedazzlement ... each detail reaches out to grip you; it pinches you; and the more you concentrate on it the less you grasp the whole. Then gradually all this becomes harmonious and the pieces fall into place of themselves. in accordance with the laws of perspective. But the first days, by God it is such a bewildering chaos of colours.. . 1%

Flauben is confused by the masses of details. He is unable to process them into a whole.

because, Mitchell argues, Flaubert was expecting reality to look like a picture, something that

could be taken in at a glance.

Although [the European visitors] thought of themselves as moving from the pictures to the real thing, they went on trying - like Flaubert - to grasp the real thing as a picture. How could they do othenvise. since they took reality itself to be a picture? The real is grasped in terms of a distinction between a picture and what it represents. so nothing else would have been. quite literally, thinkable. Brought up within what they thought of as a representational world. they took representation to be a universal condition. Thus they set about trying to describe the Orient as though it were an exhibition - a delapidated and mismanaged one of course, indeed an exhibition of its own delapidation and mismanagement. What else could it be taken to rePresent?l9'

The European travelers were seeking the Orient already to them by Orientalism,

by the exhibits, the displays. travel books and pictures of the Orient. But since they experienced

the world as if oriented to looking at a picture, the reality they sought to capture was that which

could be made into a picture:

19' Mitchell: 54. 19' Mitchell: 59. 19' Mitchell: 13. 19' Quoted in Mitchell: 2 1 . '95 Mitchell: 22.

The reality they sought there was simply that which could be photographed or accurately presented, that which presented itself as a picture of something before an observer. A picture here refers not just to a visual illustrurion, but to what stands a m as something distinct from the subject and is gras ed in terms of a corresponding distinction between representation and reality. 3 9 1 !? 6

The representation effect was stymied by the design of Middle Eastern cities. But. unaware they

had left the world-as-exhibit, visitors albeit disoriented, proceeded doggedly to find the point of

view:

On his first day in Cairo, Gerard de Nerval met a 'painter' equipped with a daguerreotype. who 'suggested that I come with him to choose a point of view.' Agreeing to accompany him, Nerval decided 'to have myself taken to the most labyrinthine point of the city, abandon the painter to his task, and then wander off haphazardly, without interpreter or companion.' But within the labyrinth of the city, where Nerval hoped to immerse himself in the exotic and finally experience, 'without interpreter' the real Orient, they were unable to find any point fiom which to take the picture. They followed one crowded, twisting street after another. looking without success for a suitable viewpoint, until eventually the profusion of noises and people subsided and the street became 'more silent, more dusty, more deserted. the mosques fallen in decay and here and there a building in collapse.' In the end they found themselves outside the city, 'somewhere in the suburbs, on the other side of the canal fiom the main sections of the town.' Here at last, amid the silence and the ruins, the photographer was able to set up his device and portray the city.I9'

Able, finally. to 'depict reality' the visitor thus captures as 'true' only what could be recognized

as a point of view.

So, for the European trained to experience the world as a visitor to an exhibit, to be

detached from and looking down upon the world to grasp its meaning in a glance. the Middle

East was a frustrating, confusing, overwhelming, and disorienting place. Middle East was

not an exhibition. It seemed orderless and irrational. Even the locals seemed illogical.

emotional, and The Europeans tried to capture the Orient, to present it as a picture.

'% Mitchell: 29. My emphasis. 19' Mitchell: 27. 198 For exampie, Lord Cromer wrote:

Sir Alfred Lyall once said to me: "Accuracy is abhorrent of the Oriental mind. Every Anglo- lndian should always remember that maxim.'' Want of accuracy, which easily degenerates into untruth hlness, is in fact the main character of the Oriental mind.

but "since the Middle East had not yet been organised representationally, Europeans found the

task of representing it almost impossible and the results disappointing. ~ 1 9 9

'Think of it no more!' wrote Nerval to Theophile Gautier, of the Cairo they had dreamed of describing. 'That Cairo lies beneath the ashes and dirt,.. .dust-laden and dumb.' Nothing encountered in those Oriental streets quite matched up to the reality they had seen presented in Paris. Not even the cafes looked genuine. ' I really wanted to set the scene for you here, 'Nerval explained, in an attempt to describe the typical Cairene street, 'but.. .it is only in Paris that one finds cafes so Oriental.' . . .Nerval finally despaired completely of finding 'real Egypt,' the Cairo that could be represented. 'I will find at the Opera the real Cairo,. . .the Orient that escapes me.'. ..As he moved on towards the towns of Palestine, Nerval remembered Cairo as something no more solid or real than the painted scenery of a theatre set. 'Just as well that the six months I spent there are over; it is already nothing, I have seen so many places collapse behind my steps, like stage sets; what do I have left from them? An image as confused as that of a dream: the best of what one finds there, I already knew by heart.'200

And later he wrote: "I have already lost, Kingdom after Kingdom, province afier province. the

more beautiful half of the universe. and soon I will know of no place in which 1 can find a

refuge for my dreams; but it is Egypt that I most regret having driven out of my imagination,

now that I have sadly placed it in my Thus in Said's words, "Orientalism staked its .

existence. not upon its openness, its receptivity to the Orient, but rather on its internal,

repetitious consistency about its constitutive will-to-power over the ~rient ."~" It is in Paris that

one will find the 'real' Orient.

The European is a close reasoner, his statements of fact are devoid of any ambiguity; he is a natural logician, albeit he may not have studied logic; he is by nature sceptical and requires proof before he can accept the nth of any proposition; his trained intelligence works like a piece of mechanism. The mind of the Oriental, on the other hand, like his picturesque streets, is eminently wanting in symmetry. His reasoning is of the most slipshod description. Although the ancient Arabs acquired in a somewhat higher degree the science of dialectics, their descendants are singularly deficient in the logical faculty. They are often incapable of drawing the most obvious conclusion from any simple premises of which they admit the truth. Endeavour to elicit a plain statement of facts from any ordinary Egyptian. His explanation will generally be lengthy, and wanting in lucidity. He will probably conaadict himself half-adozen times before he has finished his story. He will often break down under the mildest process of cross-examination (Quoted in Said, a: 38).

Mitchell: 29. Quoted in Mitchell: 29-30.

*'' ~uo ted in Said, a: 100. 202 Said. a: 222.

Mitchell points out that an aspect of the exhibition is the inside/outside feeling it creates

for the visitor. On the one hand, one is in the exhibition hall, surrounded by displays; one can

reach out and touch the dirty paint on the Cairene buildings; one is there, in the exotic Orient.

But at the same time, being aware that this is only a replica of a real place somewhere else. the

visitor is not of that place, is outside. "To the observing eye, surrounded by the display but

distinguished from it by the status of visitor, it remained a mere representation, the picture of

some strange reality."203 This process creates two "parallel pairs of distinctions: between the

visitor and the exhibit, and between the exhibit and what it expressed. The representation was

set apart fiom the real political reality it claimed to portray as the observing mind was set apart

from what it observed."204 So, when in the Middle East, the traveler seeks the same

insiddoutside feeling. There is first the desire to be immersed in the exotic (as Nerval had

desired), but there is also the need to be removed fiom the exotic. The European was aware of

hisher status as a Westerner, the superior civilization.205 Nothing should unsettle that. One was

there to experience the exotic as one could in the exhibition, without actually 'going native' and

losing one's self. The exhibition enabled these dual feelings to occur. but in the Middle East it

was harder. as Nerval discovered.206 This is reminiscent of the 'black? minstrels. this need to

remain aloof, while immersing oneself in the Other's culture; it is also the need to confirm one's

difference in order to affirm one's

For those who were not photographers able to hide behind their camera's black cloth. or

scholars such as Edward Lane who disguised themselves in native dress, one solution for the

desire to be in the Orient without being of it, was provided by a tourist travel guide: Murray's

Handbook for TravefZers in Lower and Upper Egypt. in its seventh edition by 1888, advised

'03 Mitchell: 9. 'OJ Mitchell: 9. '05 Said, a: 223.

Mitchell: 29.

tourists to wear "either 'a common felt helmet or wide-awake, with a turban of white muslin

wound around it' or alternatively a pith helmet, together with a blue or green veil and 'coloured-

glass spectacles with gauze sides.'208 Veils and spectacles, these allowed the European visitor

to see without being seen. (Obviously the European who veiled, unlike the native women who

veiled, was not oppressed by the veil.) This preserved the exhibition effect of the point of view.

"The point of view was not just a place set apart, outside the world or above it. It was ideally a

position from where, like the authorities in [Bentham's] Panopticon, one could see and yet not

be seen. ,9209 Europeanized Turkish elites, understanding the power relation inhering in the

'seeing-but-not-being-seen' dynamic soon started to wear green- or blue-coloured spectacles as

well. In the 1860's the Khedive started to wear coloured glasses when travelling the country."0

As Mitchell notes, "To see without being seen confirmed one's separation from the world. and

corresponded at the same time to a position of power."2' ' Indeed European presence in the Orient had to be kept out. in order to preserve the rigid

'East7/'West' dichotomy Said points out is at the heart of ~ r i e n t a l i s m : ~ ~ ~

'Many thanks for the local details you sent me,' wrote Gautier to Nerval in Cairo. who was supplying him with first-hand material for his Oriental scenarios for the Paris Opera. 'But how the devil was I to have included among the walk-ons of the Opera these Englishmen dressed in raincoats, with their quilted cotton hats and their green veils to protect themselves against ~ ~ t h a l r n i a ? ' ~ ' ~

When Grace Ellison. an English writer, sent a photograph of the women's drawing room she

had visited in an affluent Turkish family's harem to a London newspaper, the photograph was

returned, unpublished. with the comment, "The British public would not accept this as a picture

of a Turkish harem." The drawing room had too much European furniture in it to be considered

'07 Thanks to J. Zine here. '08 Mitchell: 24-5. Wide-awake: a soft felt hat with a low crown and wide brim, OED. '09 Mitchell: 24. 'I0 Mitchell: 26. 'I' Mitchell: 26. "' Said, a: 46. "' Quoted in Mitchell: 26.

114

"Turkish" by the ~ r i t i s h ! ~ ' ~ Any suggestion that the EastWest boundary was firw, or porous.

undermined the fundamental premise of Orientalism and Western superiority. Thus keeping the

European presence out of the representation preserved the Orient for Europe.

And what about the veil? It should not be hard to guess how the preceding summary is

relevant to the Western perception of the veil: the veil obstructed the European visitors' gaze.

They could not see the women. Segregation meant they could not socialize with them either.

(Women visitors had an easier time since as women they were allowed access to women's

quarters, but it was not automatic. Some women visitors paid to visit a women's quarters as part

of their tour of a city215) Moreover, the houses were constructed so that passers-by could not

see in; lattices were over windows that looked onto the streets.

The inaccessibility of women was particularly troublesome for the modernizing state

(native or colonial), for it inhibited their ability to control and police the population. Bowring.

mend of Bentham, advisor to Muhammad Ali. and writer of a report on Egypt for the British

government wrote: "The difficulties of making anything like a correct estimate of the population

are much heightened by the state of Mahornedan laws and usages, which exclude half of society

from the observation of the police. Every house has its harem. and every harem is

inac~essible.""~ I have more to say about the harem in section C, for now I simply highlight the

point that the modernizing state saw access to women as crucial to its project. The harem had to

be penetrated. the veils lifted. For now. I want to develop in more detail the aspect of the gaze

and the veil introduced in this section.

gaze, the point of view, and the European confbsion on

the way the Europeans reacted to the veil. As mentioned,

THE GAZE AND THE VEIL.

My outlining above of the

arrival to the Orient are pertinent to

"' Grabam-Brown: 80. Mabro: 7.

115

arriving as one expecting to experience the Middle East as if in an exhibition gives primacy to

the gaze. The gaze requires a 'point of view,' to see but not be seen, and also that the natives

present themselves as a spectacle. It is not hard to see immediately how frustrated a European

visitor would be upon arrival to the Middle East, where the women covered their faces with

veils. The women do not present themselves as an exhibit. Neither do the houses in which they

lived nor did male/female segregation. The veiled women violate all the requirements of the

world-as-exhibition: they could not be seen; they could not be seen, but were seeing: and they

were not a picture that could be read. They were mysterious beings who refused to offer

themselves up to the visitor. For me, this is a key aspect of the European campaign against the

veil. Certainly Europeans arrived with the confident knowledge of being at the apex of

civilization. but this conviction could surely be destabilized upon arrival in the Middle East

(especially for someone used to and expecting the exhibition effect of detachment and the

feeling of looking down upon). How could one be superior, or establish authority over creatures

who could not be known (because not seen, grasped as a picture)? What could not be seen.

gasped as spectacle, could not be controlled. Moreover. Europeans felt uneasy about the veiled

women: the Europeans knew they were being watched by women who were themselves unseen.

That gave the women some power over the European. That was a reversal of the expected

relationship between superior and inferior - to see without being seen. And so - and here is the

crux of my argument - the Europeans retaliated. They attacked the veil, they tried to rip it off - they tried everything they could to see the women. They exposed women in paintings, photos,

etc. by portraying them naked, or otherwise undressed. I will elaborate by looking at some

travel books written by European visitors to the Middle East.

Bowring ( 1840). quoted in Mitchell: 46.

inventing women: male desire.

Europe already knew the Orient as an exotic, cruel, barbarous, but also delightfully

sensual, indulgent and licentious place. The image had been impressed upon European

consciousness by a wide variety of sources for several centuries. There were the folktales and

scholarly pieces from the Middle Ages about Mohamet the magician, the crazed lunatic with his

followers proclaiming a new religion;2" Middle English Romances with a common theme of the

chivalrous Western gentleman saving brutalized Oriental women;* ' Dante with Mohammed on

the lowest level of hell;219 Shakespeare with his shifty T U ~ ~ S ; ' ~ ' the stories of the Thousand and

One Nights, the Arabian Nights, enormously popular in Europe, filled with tales of Kings.

Princess, magic. devils, and be-headings;"' the exotic harem scene paintings of lngres;"' and

SO on.

And although there were women artists and writers contributing to a Western image of

the Orient, the imagery was shaped by men, and their (heterosexual) de~ire."~ The fascination

with the Orient was a fantasy about women: the exotic beauty behind the veil; the sex objects in

the Oriental man's harem (were they envious?). The image of the Orient beckoned the

European men, who, looking for the flocked to the Middle East to see/meet the famed

beauties of the East:

The Kasbah! This magic word intrigued me when I was a child.. .The kasbah! I only knew that bloody fights between Arabs and soldiers took place there at night. and also that women were to be found there. Which women? I had no idea.

-- -

2 17 Pailin: 91-2, passim; Southern, Daniel, Nasir. "' Kabbani: 15- 17. " 9 Said, a: 68. 220 Said, a: 60, passim. 2" Kabbani: 24. Introduced in 1704, but Kabbani argues that many of the stories had been known to Europeans since the fifteenth century. Disney's Aladdin, Kazarn, and the Refurn of Jafar are the late-twentieth century's recycling of the Orientalist vision o f the Orient. " De Groot; Rodinson: 39 a Mehdid: 46. De Groot.

Rodinson: 59.

Undoubtedly they were unnatural creatures, quite different fiom all other women. I imagined a den of danger and enchantment, straight from the Arabian nights.. . 225

Men's published travel accounts are full of detailed descriptions of women and the

men's trips to see dancers and to brothels. The men are amazingly (or not so amazingly?)

preoccupied with women as sexualized beings. For example, Klunzinpr describes an occasion

when he and some companions walked past a veiled woman and how they both turned around to

look at each other aftenvards. "Our eyes again meet, and the two large black beaming orbs

betray to us that under the uneasy covering a heart warm as our own is beating, perhaps beating

for BayIe St John wrote that in the expression in Egyptian women's eyes (the eyes being

all he could see) "there is a promise of heaven."227 A woman glanced at Richard Burton, he

returned the glance, and "Seeing that my companions were safely employed. I entered upon the

dangerous ground of raising hand to forehead. She smiled almost imperceptibly, and w e d

away. The pilgrim was in ecstasy. 9 , 2 2 8

The Orient itself was feminized. Swimming in the Red Sea was, wrote Flaubert, "as

though I were lying on a thousand liquid breasts."229 Women authors reproduced the dominant

male discourse. When Gertrude Bell wrote about her travel experiences in Persia. she described

her sentiments in classic Orientalist language:

The East is full of secrets and because she is full of secrets she is full of entrancing surprises. Many fine things there are upon the surface [but] its essential charm is of more subtle quality.. . [suddenly] the East sweeps aside her curtains, flashes a facet of jewels into your dazzled eyes, and disappears again with a mocking little laugh at your bewilderment; then for a moment it seems to you that you are looking her in the face but while you are wondering whether she be angel or devil, she is gone.230

When 'Eastern' women were not being fantasized about, they were still de-humanized

by all sorts of adjectives used to describe them and the ways in which they dressed. Women in

-

L 'AlgPrie de nos jours, 1893, quoted in Mabro: 3 1-2. '26 Klunzinger, Upper Egyp: Its People and Its Products. 1878. quoted in Mabro: 60. "' St John, Villoge Life in Egypt, 1852, quoted in Mabm: 67. ''%wton, Persond Narrtative of a Pilgrimage lo al-Madinah and Meccoh, 1 835, quoted in Mabro: 99.

1 I8

niqab were usually compared unflatteringly to various types of animals, to ships. balloons, or to

ghosts and the dead.23' So be it an exotic beauty, or a ghost, the Muslim woman was preserved

as a spectacle, an object by those viewing her. The veil, and the women who wore it. became the

metaphor for the entire East, and all that was both alluring and fearsome about it.

Behind the Veil.

The whole genre of works contributing to the popular Western image of the veil as the

symbol of the licentious, cruel, exciting Orient is another aspect of the world-as-exhibition

delineated by Mitchell. Europeans were busy trying to re-create the Orient of their

imaginations. For example, many European men went to the Orient imagining themselves one

of those gallant knights being the saviour to the exotic beauty. They were often disappointed to

find that their efforts were stymied. John Ormsby on his encounter with a veiled woman.

lamented:

If only I could have represented her as young and lovely. escaped from the harem of some cruel and elderly Moor, and with large tearfbl eye imploring the sympathy of the Christian, what a valuable incident it would have been, and how well 'Fathma the Victim' would have read at the top of this page! But truth compels me to say that there was nothing in this lady's expression or appearance to warrant any pleasant theory of this kind."'

Or. Leon Michel:

Whatever has been written about the Orient. French men happily believed that they will meet the famous odalisques, as beautiful as the morning star and just waiting to be loved. The European man thinks that he will find in Africa beautiful palaces with a balcony over the door to the street, where a charming prisoner will be waiting for a gallant French knight in shining amour to rescue her. They forget that the harems are well guarded and that the moushrobiar at the windows make it impossible to communicate. even to exchange glances."3

2' Flaubert, in de Groot: 105. 230 Bell, Persian Pictures, 1894, quoted in Mabro: 49.

Mabro: pp. 5 1-63. D ? Ormsby, Aurumn Rumbles in Norrh .4Pica, 1864, quoted in Mabro: 59. ?-'' Michel, Tunis, 1883, quoted in Mabro: 32.

119

These quotations show the writer's disappointment at not being able to enact an Orientalist

fantasy about the European Christian saving a beautihl damsel in distress, though Michel's

quotation ultimately saves the Orientalist fantasy, by implying that the women are constrained

by outsiders, i.e. that they would come to the Christian if only it were not for the guards at their

window.234

No wonder then, that travelers, men and women, were annoyed at the face veil that

prevented them fiom seeing the famed beauties of the Orient. How could they find the exotic

beauty readily seen back in Europe, where the veil was never an obstacle to seeing an Oriental

woman? (Indeed in European representations the veil was often a sensual addition to a picture

of a woman.)235 The niqnb was a real piece of cloth that actually prevented people from seeing

the beauty underneath. This frustration led to attacks against that which was preventing them

fiom fulfilling their desire, their gaze: the niqab. Bradley-Birt wrote of the Persian type of

niqab that it was "the most unpicturesque, ungraceful costume that the most jealous of husbands

could devise. No stranger may look upon the Persian woman and see the beauty that many a

poem and romance would lead one to believe lies behind those close-drawn veils."236 Doughty

disliked the veil because it prevented him from seeing "the women's faces. which God created

for the cheerfulness of the human ~orld."'~' Fanon reports that a European lawyer visiting

Algeria who had had occasion due to the nature of his work to see some unveiled women

commented that Algerian men were "guilty of concealing so many strange beauties. It was his

conclusion that a people with a cache of such prizes, of such perfections of nature owes it to

234 I owe this insight to J . Boddy. "' Berger's study of "the Nude" genre of oil paintings highlights how many of these paintings depict female nudity in Biblical and Oriental scenes. These paintings must have reinforced the notion that the European gazer had priviledged access to the Oriental female body. ^'6~radley-~in Through Persia, 1909, quoted in Mabro: 53. 237 Pastner: 3 14-5.

120

itself to show them, to exhibit them. If worst came to worst, he added, it ought to be possible to

force them to do so."U8

Sometimes the European travelers arrived with such high expectations that they were

disappointed in the women they did manage to see, and another common theme became how

ugly Middle Eastern women really were. As a traveler confirmed as late as 1955: "Eastern

women, even the young, are more often hideous than not, whatever legends may have been

suggested by their seclusion and the dark eyes under the voluminous And some

European travelers even praised or recommended the veil when they found the women too ugly:

"If only they would adopt the Moslem fashion, and hide their repulsive features. it would save

one many a shock," wrote an English woman living in ~ l ~ e r i a . ~ ~ '

Europeans were so frustrated at being denied a look at women without their veils that

they went to extra-ordinary lengths to see. Jane Dieulafoy, a Frenchwoman travelling in Iran in

the 1880's with her husband, describes how they overcame this problem:

In the centre of a courtyard the head of the household was chatting with two young women, doubtless his relatives. Unaware that they were being observed, they had left their faces uncovered.. . [I hid] behind part of the wall, asked my husband to pass me the cameras, and set them up as quickly as possible, delighted to have captured such a charming interior and one so jealously guarded in Persian circle^.^"

Mme Pomrnerol, annoyed at being denied the chance to see the Mozabite women of the Sahara.

waited in an alley one day until a woman passed. Mme Pommerol caught up with her, and after

telling her how beautiful she was, tried "very gently, of course, to draw aside her veil." For this

effort she received a "staggering blow." and as the woman ran away. Mme Pommerol "debated

Fanon: 43. '39 Cleugh. Ladies of the Harem. 1955, quoted in Mabm: 90. Cf Fanon: 45. *" MB G Albert Rogers, Winter in Algeria. 1863-4, quoted in Mabro: 257. Cf, pp 85,86. '" Quoted in Graham-Brown: 77.

121

in [her] mind how [to] achieve [her] object by less violent means.'"42 These veiled women were

an affront to the European visitors who felt they had a right to see behind the veil.

In fact, the travelen' resentment of being denied a look at what they had come to see

was more than a mere passing fhtration. It struck at the core of their being, and of their reason

for travelling and observing. The Orientalist world-as-exhibition had already given them the

Orient. They had merely come to see the real thing that had been represented back home, in

paintings, pictures, books, and folklore. The world-asexhibition had also taught them the

hierarchy of nations, and the knowledge that they, the European, were at the pinnacle of

civilization. The Orient was a timeless place, unchanged since Biblical times, here for them to

travel through and above all to see. The effect, described above, of being the spectator in the

exhibit, was that of power over a spectacle. To be denied the opportunity to see was to be

denied the power of the superior over the inferior. It was to be denied the spectacle. and thus,

since reality was only grasped as a picture, they were denied seeing reality, the Orient they had

come to see. Moreover, seeing is a form of possession. The veil obstructed possession of the

women (literally, for men, and figuratively, as colonialist male or female). So, the attempts to

render the unveiled women in pictorial terms are attempts to 'own' in perpetuity the 'reality' of

veiled women, to render them visible for the gaze always: thus to deny the veil.

And something else is going on too. The travelers, expecting to see, became aware that

while they could not see the women, the women could see and observe them. Their own tourist

handbook told them about wearing veils so as to see without being seen, but they could not have

expected to experience the reverse, to be the spectacle, not the spectator. As Fanon wrote: "The

woman who sees without being seen frustrates the colonizer. There is no reciprocity. She does

Pommerol, Among the Women of the Sahara, 1900, quoted in Mabm: 244.

not yield herself, does not give herself, does not offer her~elf.""~ John Foster Fraser describes

his feelings on meeting veiled women:

A side-glance, and each woman peeping over the veil seemed to be looking at me with great liquid eyes, fixing upon me the bold glance of one conscious she could see without being seen. Often I felt there was something uncanny about those great eyes of the solemn women, always bright and always black. Big, unblinking. dreamy, sensuous eyes which filled one with a nervous curiosity as to what their owners were thinking about.2u

Women travelers felt as discomforted by the veiled women as men. As Lucie Paul Marguerite

wrote: "beside these women wrapped up from head to toe, whose eyes cannot always be seen

but are always seeing, I have the feeling of being naked.""' Note here their comments that the

women were able to see without being seen, and the discomfort that caused them. Perhaps the

best example is De Amicis' description of his visiting Moroccan men: the women of the house

would hide behind upstairs' balconies and watch the men avidly. "The house ... had been

converted into a theatre, and we were the spectacle," he exclaimed.246 "We." the one who had

come to see the real world promised by the exhibit. 'we were the spectacle.'

In Writing Diaspora, Chow suggests that it is this knowledge of being seen that creates

the colonizer's subjectivity, not the other way around, as in Mitchell's account:

Contrary to the model of Western hegemony in which the colonizer is seen as a primary, active "gaze" subjugating the native as passive "object," I want to argue that it is actually the colonizer who feels looked at by the native's gaze. This gaze. which is neither a threat nor a retaliation, makes the colonizer "conscious" of himself, henceforth "reflected" in the nativesbject. It is the- self-reflection of the colonizer that produces the colonizer as subject (potent gaze, source of meaning and action) and the native as his image, with all the pejorative meanings of "lack" attached to the word "image."2J7

Chow is making a persuasive point, though I submit, based on my use of Mitchell, that the

colonizer does really experience the gaze as retaliation: the exhibit is not supposed to stare back.

Fanon: 44. Fraser, The Land of the Veiled Women. 19 1 1, quoted in Mabm: 46.

245 Margueritte, Tunisiennes. 1937, quoted in Mabro: 50. 'a De Amicis, Morocco, n.d. (1877), quoted in Mabro: 45.

123

What happens when the spectacle becomes the spectator, or in Chow's framework, when the

colonizer reaches the moment of self-consciousness, is explored in the next section.

Svmbolic Revenge.

Mitchell argues that for the European, reality is to be grasped through its representation.

its picture.248 What if, like the veiled women, reality does not allow itself to be represented?

The European, unable to have veiled women (except in brothels), sets up the representation so

he can have her. He describes her body, he paints her naked. he photographs her. Thus the

illusion that he can have her is maintained. This is his "symbolic revenge." (1 use the masculine

gender, because as mentioned, the Orientalist imagery was largely male driven. though

European women also participated in this unveiling process.)

Alloula's study of French colonial postcards highlights these dynamics perfectly. The

French colonial postcards present the 'Algerian' woman in various states of undress. Women

reclining on woven mats, their breasts exposed. are common. One postcard depicts a woman in

the usual niqab, but with her breasts showing through the folds. Alloula's critique of the

photographer describes so well the world-as-exhibition effect Mitchell delineates:

The opaque veil that covers [the Algerian woman] intimates clearly and simply to the photographer a refusal.. .Draped in the veil that cloaks her to her ankles, the Algerian woman discourages the scopic desire (the voyeurism) of the photographer. She is the concrete negation of this desire and thus brings to the photographer confirmation of a triple rejection: the rejection of his desire, of the practice of his '-art," and of his place in a milieu that is not his own.249

Alloula is talking of the photographer. but he may as well be talking of all the European visitors

who came seeking the 'Orient.' In fact. the dynamic is the same today. with the veiled woman

affronting the gaze of the modem person taught to gaze. Veiled women. writes Alloula. were

-

'" Chow: 5 1. Mitchell: 60.

2J9 Alloula: 7.

"not only an embarrassing enigma to the [French colonial] photographer but an outright attack

upon him,"

Thrust in the presence of a veiled woman, the photographer feels hmself photographed, having himself become an object-to-be-seen, he loses initiative: he is dispossessed of his own gme.. .Algerian society, particularly the feminine world with it, threatens him in his being and prevents him from accomplishing himself as gazing gaze. 250

Not to be outdone, the photographer proceeds to capture 'the Algerian woman.' He cannot have

the real one, so he hires prostitutes as substitutes. And since he is forced into this. his revenge is

a "double violation: [the photographers] unveil the veiled and give figural representation to the

f~ rb idden , "~~ ' Alloula has been severely criticized by feminists for reproducing the French colonial

postcards. Lazreg is critical of Alloula because she believes he, as a male Algerian. is the one

who desires the woman and sees her as part of a harem. and that he is merely projecting his own

feelings onto the French. Chow also criticises Alloula for making the women subject to a

"second gaze": 'Yhe Algerian women are exhibited as objects not only by the French but also by

77252 Alloula's discourse. Laneg and Chow are without question correct in observing this double

violation of the Algerian women "by making titillating pictures available to a wider audience

than the original," (students in Lazreg's class bought his book for its "pornographic" content.

not the intellectual message.2s3 Indeed. the English copy of Alloula's book at Robarts Library at

the University of Toronto has several photographs carefully removed). And yet a dilemma:

Alloula's arguments about French representation of Algerian women are compelling, and all the

more so for those not familiar with the postcard images. because of their reproduction. 1 make

use of Alloula in this chapter for that reason.

z0 Alloula: 14. "' Alloula: 14.

Chow: 39. 3 3 Lazreg. b: 19 1

125

Photographing Middle Eastern women and men was big business by the 1860's.~~" It

catered to soldiers, sailors, tourists, pilgrims, and Europeans resident in the Middle ~ a s t . ~ ' ~

However, it was difficult to obtain close-up shots of people, and impossible to photograph

women who veiled without their veil. So a "substantial proportion of nineteenti~century

photographs were taken in indoor or outdoor studio sets even though they purported to be 'real-

life' scenes."256 The women models were most likely prostitutes. Thus the image of 'Eastern'

women confirmed for the West was a fabrication of the photographer's studio. albeit presented.

as a technique of representation, as a snapshot of 'reality.' The fabrication is easily

demonstrated. A series of photographs from Bonfils' Beirut studio shows a *'woman who

appears in one.. .photograph as -an Armenian woman of Jerusalem7 [and who appears] in a later

photograph in the series in the same costume, but this time carrying a fan. as an 'Egyptian

woman. ,17257 In a postcard series from French colonial Algeria. the same model in the same

clothes in the same location appears in photographs taken by the same photographer as "Young

Bedouin woman," "Young Woman from the South," and "Young Kabyl "In the

absence of real Algerian subjects, the postcard thus creates its own version of the 'truth' about

Algerian women, and society."259 The postcard also plays upon the racism that denies

individuality to the 'Other'-one woman is just like another.260

The postcards reinforced the link between the harem and the veil as images of both

captivity and sensuality that the Westerner already believed in (see section B). The photograph

allowed them to 'see' what their imagination had constmcted via reading about harems and

veiled women. One of the series of French colonial postcards depicts "Moorish" women in their

3 4 Graham-Brown: 3 8. 235 Graham-Brown: 44,45.

Graham-Brown: 39. 257 Graham-Brown: 120. '" Alloula: 62. 239 Alloula: 17. 2W I owe this to J . Boddy.

homes. The entire post-card is taken up with the image of women behind big prison-like metal

bars. In some of this series of post-cards, the women are naked from the waist up, standing in

their 'homes' behind prison-like bars. Alloula argues the image of the 'woman behind bars' is

the

conjoined play of reverse logic and metaphorical contamination, both determined by the initial frustration. If the women are inaccessible to sight (that is, veiled), it is because they are imprisoned. This dramatized equivalence between the veiling and the imprisonment is necessary for the construction of an imaginary scenario that results in the dissolution of the actual society, the one that causes the frustration. in favor of a phantasm; that of the harem.""'

So not only was the revenge a double violation, unveiling what ought to be veiled. it was

also a twofold revenge: the photographer unveils the women, and places them behind bars. He

places them behind bars because he is the one who is barred from seeing. Already expecting

'the harem,' thanks to Orientalism, placing women behind bars is nothing but an enactment of

that expectation. And since lattice windows and guards barred the real women from him. again

he resorts to pictorial representations of what he believes to be the reality; but he has to fake it.

The colonial postcard is the vulgar, "caricature" of the European harem fantasy.262 It is also a

way to confirm the men's belief in their own desirability and superiority over the native men.

With the women behind bars, (i.e. denied agency) the myth that they would choose a Western,

Christian savior, over their cruel master, is preserved.'63

Photography was just a new technique of an older process of symbolic revenge. Alloula

analyses the postcard, but his conclusions apply to travel writers who describe women's bodies

in detail in books, 26J to painters painting the harem bath scenes and so on. Even missionaries

used these images in their books about Muslim women. A photograph in Our Muslim Sisters of

"A Bedouin Girl from North Africa" depicts a young woman with one breast exposed. This

261 Alloula: 2 1 . 2 6 h ~ ~ o u ~ a : 4. '" 1 owe this insight to J Boddy.

127

photograph appeared after the cuthor had informed us that Moroccan women were not yet ready

for liberty because they need educating and preparing "with propriety and true modesty" before

taking their "rightful place."265 The photograph must have confirmed in the readers' minds the

wantonness of Muslim women.

In fact, symbolic revenge was followed in places by real unveiling.266 The sex-tourism

industry grew as the European men flocked to the Middle East. French travel agencies

promoted the southern Algerian town, Bou Saada, which was renowned for its female belly

dancers, as a destination and the French authorities insisted that the women. who used to dance

hl ly clothed, appear naked before their new audience. Later, modernizing native elites would

conduct their own unveiling (sometimes forced) campaign. (See section C).

B. THE IIAREM AND COLONIAL CONTROL.

Showing how the veil frustrated the European gaze that led to attacks upon the veil is

only one part, albeit extremely important. of my argument about the veil being constructed in

European discourse as a symbol of Muslim women's oppression. Another crucial part is to

examine the broader discourse during the colonial era about the status of Muslim women in

general. So, even while such an examination would not focus on the veil per se, it is essential to

unpacking the notion of the veil as oppressive. This is because of the nineteenth century

discourse on the hierarchy of civilizations and the European belief in their own superiority and

in the necessity of their conquest of the Middle East. The status of women became the

benchmark of the rank a civilization had in the hierarchy. Islam was placed under Christianity

(with Eastern Christianity itself placed under Latin Christianity), but above pagan Africa and the

native peoples of the colonies (North AmericaKanaddAustralia). The veil was the sign of the

Muslim woman. The veil was the metaphor for the entire Middle East. So even if the topic at

2M Mabro: 9 1. Van Sommer and Zwemer: 100.

128

hand was a discussion of other aspects of Muslim customs and manners, the veil could be

invoked as shorthand for all the disabilities Muslim women and men faced because of their

religion.

The point of the discourse on women was that a nation could not advance while its

women were backward. Women as mothers were seen to play a crucial role in educating their

children, and thus perpetuating the civilization. Christian mothers (the European mothers)

exerted a healthy civilizational influence on their children. Muslim mothers did not. So

colonialists, missionaries, and feminists, as well as native elites trying to 'modernize' their

countries, all hoped to have access to the Muslim woman in order to influence her. so that the

nation might progress. But the Muslim woman was segregated from men. and many women in

the upper classes were secluded. Little polemic value had been made of the seclusion of women

in the Christian mediaeval period,267 but by the colonial era, seclusion, symbolized by the

harem, assumed a central place in the discourse on women, Islam. and progress. The harem was

also linked in the European imagination to the veil. Like the veil, the harem was seen as a

bamer to progress. The harem had to be broken down in order for the colonialists to have

access to women.

Harem.

The Western construction of the image of the harem could be a whole thesis in itself. I

will confine myself to some brief remarks. First, in the Western discourse, the veil and the

harem were linked in two ways: (a) due to the veil being the symbol of Muslim woman's

degradation? whatever the kind of degradation (marriage practices. harem, etc); and (b) because

the veil was seen as an extension of the harem mentality when the woman was outside her

home. Wilson's statement captures this sentiment well: "Wives in this comer of the globe," he

266 Lazreg, b: 3 1-2. '67 Daniel: 177.

1 29

wrote in his Travels in Egypr and the Holy Land (1823), "appear to be in a complete state of

captivity. They are slaves to their husbands, and allowed to see no other persons at home than

their families or relations, and when they do appear in the streets, their faces are completely

veiled.268" Veiling is a sign of captivity in the home (the harem). Even to many of today's

feminists the veil is seen as the extension of the walls of the harem when the woman is outside.

(For instance, Badran's introduction to Huda Shaarawi ' s auto biography: "When [the women]

269 went out they veiled their faces, thus taking their seclusion with them. )

Second, the European notion of the harem was already an idea predicated on the ages old

Orientalist fantasy of the exotic Middle East. A harem is simply the women's quarters in a

house, or a man's wives, but paintings of women in a harem, for example. depicted scores of

women lying around naked in the baths. The women appeared as captives, lying about just

waiting for their male master's sexual indulgence. This harem fantasy drew on the Middle Ages

Christian polemic against Islam that was revived in the nineteenth century. Islam was

supposedly an overly indulgent religion that scandalously allowed divorce. remarriage. and

polygny. For Christians. medieval and modem. this was proof of Islam's status as a false

~ e l i g j i o n . ' ~ ~ ~ According to this argument. the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had used sexual

pleasure as a way to gain converts; the Islamic paradise supposedly stressed the sensual and

sexual delights awaiting believers. and encouraged believers to indulge in this life also.27' For

the nineteenth century Christians, the 'harem' was proof that Muslim marriage was based not on

love and partnership, but on ~ensual i t~."~ Muslim men and women were degraded by the

"lewdness" encouraged by their religion. So, colonialists and missionaries discussed the

baneful effect the (European notion of the) harem had on the Middle East's inhabitants.

"' William Rae Wilson. Truveh in Egypt and the Holy Land, 1823, quoted in Mabro: 197. 269 Badran: 7. Cf also Hessini: "The veil therefore is a symbol of interiority. Because a woman's space is interior, she is permitted to move through the exterior only if she remains separated from it." 47. "* Rodinson: 66. Daniel: 168-9.

(Melman's study of European women writers fmds an altogether more humane and

of the harem as women's quarters.)

Third, there is something else going on as well. In his Modern E m ,

130

normal view

Cromer had

pointed out that 'The European would not reside in Egypt unless he could make money by

doing so."273 Colonialism required productive and industrious citizens. And since the colonials

believed the Oriental was inherently unproductive, irrational. lazy and the like, it was essential

that the natives be taught European ways. For this, the "healthy and elevating influence"

women as wives and mothers had over their husbands and children was paramount.27" Thus the

concem for the status of women was hardly a concem for women. (Cromer was. after all, a

founding member and a President of the Men's League for Opposing Women's Suffrage in

~n~iand.)''' Rather it was more the State's need to transform its inhabitants. And this sense of

the need to transform the Oriental was given in advance by Orientalist discourse.276 Cromer:

"The position of women in Egypt [is] a fatal obstacle to the attainment of that elevation of

thought and character which should accompany the introduction of European civilisation. [This

civilisation would not succeed iq the position which women occupy in Europe is abstracted

from the general plan."277 Cromer's putative focus on women supports Ahmed's conclusion

that "Whether in the hands of patriarchal men or feminists, the ideas of Western feminism

essentially functioned to morally justify the attack on native societies and to support the notion

of the comprehensive superiority of ~ u r o p e . " ~ ~ ~

So. whether it was in English or French colonies, the strategy was the same: make the

man monogamous, teach the woman to inculcate 'WestedChristian' virtues in her children,

'7t Daniel : 1 74, passim. "' Ahmed. d: 1 54. 273 Cromer, vol2: 432. 274 Crorner, vol2: 540. 275 Ahmed. d: 153. "6 Said, a: 95. 'n Cromer, vol2: 538-9, from Mitchell: I i 1.

and the society would advance. Cromer, British Agent and Consul-General of Egypt fiom 1883

to 1907, argued:

The European reformer may instruct, he may explain, he may argue, he may devise the most ingenious methods for the moral and material development of the people, he may use his best endeavours to "cut blocks with a razor" and to graft true civilisation on a society which is but just emerging fiom barbarism, but unless he proves himself able, not only to educate, but to elevate the woman, he will never succeed in affordin to the man, in any thorough degree, the only education which is worthy of Europe. 8 3

And, as Fanon noted for the French in Algeria:

[The] colonial administration [defined] a precise political doctrine: "If we want to destroy the structure of Algerian society, its capacity for resistance, we must first of all conquer the women; we must go and find them behind the veil where they hide themselves and in the houses where the men keep them out of sight.". . .Converting the woman, winning her over to the foreign values, wrenching her Free fiom her status, was at the same time achieving a real power over the man and attaining a practical, effective means of destructuring Algerian culture.280

The reconstruction of Egyptian villages exemplifies this colonial aim of focusing on

women in order to transform society. Father Ayrout? a Jesuit working in rural Egypt in the early

twentieth century, noted, "NO model village can be realized or kept presentable unless the

architectural enterprise is linked with teaching, education and instruction: in short one should

work with the fellahin beasant]. The reconstruction of the Egyptian village demands the re-

education of its inhabitants, and first of all of women. We must work from the inside out."28'

Missionaries also focused on 'working from the inside out.' targeting women in their

conversion campaigns. Zwemer. a well-known missionary to the Middle East. argued: "Owing

to the fact that the mother's influence over the children. both boys and girls ... is paramount, and

that women are the conservative element in the defence of their faith, we believe that missionary

bodies ought to lay far more emphasis in work for Moslem [sic] women as a means for

"' Ahmed, d: 154. 279 Cromer, vol2: 542.

Fanon: 38,39. :" Quoted in Mitchell: 93.

132

hastening the evangelization of Moslem lands."282 In Our Moslem Sisters, an author argues that

"the primary object of Mission schools for girls was to lead them to Christ, 'If you get the girls

for Christ, you get Egypt for ~hrist."'~" Missionary-school teachers tried to persuade daughters

to defy their parents and not wear the veil.*" In Algeria some French colonial women paid

Algerian students to ensure attendance at their schools.285

Melrnan has challenged arguments such as the one I am making above, about the

European image of the harem, for ignoring the 'heteroglot' of European views on the harem.286

Melman argues that women travelers to the Middle East presented a different view of the harem

from the mainstream (male) view that 1 have been treating so far. Of course, men did not have

access to real harems, so had to rely on Orientalist fantasy in their conceptions of the harem.

Women, on the other hand. did have access to the harems, the women's quarters of Muslim

residences, and this, Melman believes. led to a different kind of view of the harem.

There are bvo points to be made here. First, certainly Melman is right to stress the

'heteroglot' rather than monoglot of European views on the harem. Her study looks at an

unrecognized genre of women's literature on the Middle East, what Melman calls 'harem

literature.' In this genre, European women did present the women and the harem more as

*sisters,? than as alien other.287 In their hands the harem became the "image of the middle-class

'home:' domestic. feminine and autonomous."288 The harem seemed to embody the Victorian

ideal of separate spheres particularly well: Yf woman is the conserver of the home in the West.

guarding it strictly from innovation and change because it represents to her permanence, and is

veritably her throne, the woman of Egypt is even more completely synonymous with her home-

"' Zwerner: 170. Cf also van Sommer and Zwemer: 15. 283 Van Sornmer and Zwemer, b: 59. Zwemer states mysteriously that the identity of the authors of the chapters in this book are kept anonymous "for obvious reasons (6)." '" Ahmed. d. "Thus a trail of gunpowder would be led into the h e m of Islam ( 154)." 285 Laneg, b: 64-5. '" Melrnan: 3 1 5. 287 Meirnan: 3 10.

life, since it is her Kingdom," wrote Elisabeth Goodnow, in 1915.~'~ Nor was the veil always

seen as a rjmmbol of women's subjection, but sometimes as a liberty, a tool of feminine charm

and seductive powers, or as a protection from male harassment.290

Second, although this harem literature presented a different picture of the Orient from

the one 1 focused on earlier, and although some of the European women criticized "male

representations of the domestic sphere,"29' in its essence, women's harem literature played the

same role as did colonial and missionary discourse on Muslim women. For the European

women were still convinced that Western civilization was superior to the East. even if some of

them did not present the Muslim woman as an alien 'other."'* Key features of the colonial

discourse against Islam-polygyny, segregation, and the veil-were not by and large approved of

by the women writers. The 'angel in the home' aspect Melman presents as challenging the

male-stream harem discourse, was really just another version of the familiar targeting of women

for changing the society. Incredibly, Melman overlooks this political aspect completely, to the

point of declaring 'harem literature' "apolitical. ,9293 But the secular writers shared with

missionaries and colonialists the idea that "Given the right education [i.e. European education]

any Muslim woman should be able to mitigate the corrupting influences of the world and

elevate her children - and husband, or master - to a spiritually, generically ferninised sphere."294

Secular European feminists urged Muslim women to fight seclusion, polygyny and the veil:'95

the women's effort to reform the 'Eastern' woman, to get her to fight in accordance with

nineteenth century domestic ideals is hardly different from that of male colonizers and

288 Melman: 100- 1 . 289 Melman: 140- 1 . 290 Melman: 120- 12 1 . 29' Melman: 75. '92 Melman: 17. 293 Meiman: 20. 2w Melman: 14 I . " For example Eugeni Le Brun's urging of Huda Shaarawi to unveil. Badran: 80. See also Graham-Brown: 2 2 1- 3.

missionaries. In any case, whatever the women traveler's alternative harem image might have

been, it had little impact on the mainstream cultural discourse of the harem and Muslim

women's degradation. 296

Some women were especially in tune with colonial conquest and its mentality:

Were [the Muslim women] in sympathy with me? No, not in the least. Widely separated races never can be in sympathy with each other in any true sense of the word. And for this particular race which cringes, steals, sulks and shuffles, cheating and deceiving us on every possible opportunity, we feel a latent contempt. such as conquerors feel for the conquered.297

Civil iser.

Said emphases that it is a mistake to view colonial discourse as simply a rationalization

of power: "To say simply that Orientalism was a rationalization of colonial rule is to ignore the

extent to which colonial rule was justified in advance by Orientalism, rather than after the

fact."298 Mitchell's work shows that too. For Orientalism taught the European that she was

living at the apex of civilization. Europeans felt a 'duty' to bring this Western civilizaticn to the

other nations of the world. Europeans were needed, in Cromer's words. to introduce the "light

,9299 of Western civilisation into the Orient: "[tlhe special aptitude shown by Englishmen in the

government of oriental races pointed to England as the most effective and beneficent instrument

for the gradual introduction of European civilisation into Egypt. '"00 The French poet.

Lamartine, neatly expressed the European vision when he wrote that the Ottomans were

"nations without territory, putrie, rights. laws or security.. .waiting anxiously for the sheltei' of

European occupation.30' The connection was thus always between colonial control and superior

Western knowledge. In Morocco. the French enforced the language of French above Berber and

Arabic, not only because that was the "means of extending the grip of France upon the

'% Ahmed, d: 150. 297 Pomrnerol. Among the Women o f h e Sahara, 1900, quoted in Mabro: 243. '98 Said, a: 39. 299 Cromer, voi 2: 1 10.

but also because French was the "v6hicule de toutes pensdes nobles et clairs,

expression d'un ideal toujour plus ha~t."~" Cromer argued, "the new generation of Egyptians

has to be persuaded or forced into imbibing the true spirit of Western civi~isation."~~

Removing the veil was thus seen as a crucial part of the West's mission civilisatrice.

But the mission civilisatrice was also an attempt in practical terms to subjugate and

control, that is, to colonize, a foreign country. The colonial enterprise, however much it

conceived of itself as dutihlly civilising a backward nation, also required the ability to control

and direct its subjects. As a French military officer wrote after putting down an insurrection in

In effect the essential thing is to gather into groups this people which is everywhere and nowhere; the essential thing is to make them something we can seize hold of. When we have them in our hands, we will then be able to do many things which are quite impossible for us today and which will perhaps allow us to capture their minds after we have captured their bodies.'05

Capturing their minds was also a way to capture their bodies, and capturing the body was done

by attacking the local customs and manners that prevented colonial control and access: the veil

and the harem.

C. THE MEANING OF HIJAB FOR MODERNISING ELITES.

The French military officer spoke of 'capturing the mind' of the native. This was done

very effectively by the introduction of European schooling into the colonized countries. The

Oriental person, awed by Western power (economic and military) over them and puzzled at the

Orient's weakness was thus pre-disposed to listen and learn from the West. Western schooling

introduced to the native Orientalism's ideas about themselves. "[Llike any set of durable ideas,

Cromer, 1 :328. 301 de Groot: 98. 'Oi Bidwell: 237. 303 "vehicle of all noble and clear thoughts, (the) expression of an always loftier for nobler) ideal," Lyautey, Resident-General of the French-Moroccan protectorate, 19 12- 1925. Bidwell: 238. 3M Cromer, vol2 538. '05 Quoted in Mitchell: 95.

Orientalist notions influenced the people who were called Orientals as well as those called

Occidental, European, or Western; [so] Orientalism is better grasped as a set of constraints upon

and limitations of thought than it is simply as a positive doctrine."306 Orientalism was (is) a

body of knowledge, with its own language, rules, metaphors and images that constrained(s)

Westerners, but also native peoples themselves, who learned about their own country through

Western academic disciplines. Thus in the late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries, the elites

and rulers in Muslim countries were "inspired ...[ by their] intense exposure to new western

ideasdo7 Knowing themselves through the lens of Orientalism meant an acceptance of the

European diagnosis of the problems of the dilapidated Orient. and an acceptance of the

European cure. They attempted to *modernize9 their countries by imitating the

The degraded position of Oriental (especially Muslim) women had demonstrated the

women's position as a central barrier to Oriental advancement (civilization), as shown in the

section above. Native elites focused on the issues identified by the colonizer as the most

important problems holding their countries back: veiling, seclusion. and polygyny. The first

magazine for women established in Egypt by a Syrian Christian in 1892, declared in its editorial

its dedication to 'advancing' the women of "Egypt along the path that European women were

taking."309 Lebanese writer Nazira Zain al-Din pubiished a book in 1928 discussing amongst

other things, the issue of the veil. She concluded: "I have noticed that the nations that have

given up the veil are the nations that have advanced in intellectual and material life. Such

advancement is not equalled in the veiled

306 Said. a: 42. 307 Minai: 49. 308 Ahrned, d: 129. Sayigh: 263. '09 Ahmed. d: 14 1. 310 AI-Din, Unveiling and Veiling, quoted in Badran and Cooke: 272.

137

Qassim Amin's famous book on Muslim women that was published in Egypt in 1 899

inaugurated the debate over the veil in the Arab press.311 But his argument was an echo of the

West's prognosis of the 'illness' of the 'backward' East. Convinced of the West's inherent

superiority and Muslims' inherent backwardness, Arnin argued that the veil was "a huge barrier

between woman and her elevation, and consequently between the nation and its advance. 9,312

Arnin criticized the European (male) fantasy of the harem. He argued that in the Egyptian home

it was women, not men, who were powerful.313 Thus, just as the missionaries. colonialists. and

feminists had argued, Amin believed women were the key for remoulding society. and making it

'progress:' "The grown man is none other than his mother shaped him in childhood ... this is the

essence of this book ... l t is impossible to breed successful men f they do nor have mothers

capable of raising them to be su~cessful .~'~ In Turkey, Atatiirk claimed that "the failures in our

past are due to the fact that we remained passive to the fate of women." And he elaborated:

"woman's most important duty, apart from her social responsibilities. is to be a good mother.

As one progresses in time, as civilisation advances with giant steps. it is imperative that mothers

be enabled to raise their children according to the needs of the c e n t - ~ r ~ . " ~ ' ~ These quotations are

noteworthy both for their resemblance to Cromer's, the missionaries' and European feminists'

statements seen in the section on the harem, and for their betrayal that again. the concern is not

really for 'improving' the status of women, but for getting at the key of society: successful men.

Elite reformers with varying degrees of relentlessness focused on reshaping their

societies in the Western mould. Turkey under Atatiirk (1920-38) provides one of the most

ferocious examples, as he tried to replace the Arabic alphabet with Latin letters, purge Turkish

of ArabicPersian words, and abolished the Caliphate replacing it with a civil code modeled

31' Ahmed, d: 145. 312 Ahmed, d: 160. 3'3 Mitchell: 1 13. 'I4 Quoted in Ahmed. d: 156. Emphasis in original.

after ~witzerland's.~'~ Atatiirk passed decrees on dress reform. Men had to stop wearing the fez

and other traditional Turkish clothing, and don European clothes; he mocked Turkish men who

continued to wear Turkish clothes: "Would a civilised man put on this preposterous garb and go

out and hold himself up to universal ridicule?" He declared: "We will wear boots and shoes.

trousers, waist coats, collars, ties.. .we will dress in morning coats and lounge suits. in smoking

jackets and tail coats. And if there are persons who hesitate and draw back, I will tell them that

they are fool^."^" Atatiirk encouraged women to adopt European dress and his wife Latif

Hanem was unveiled at their wedding and continued to be unveiled at public appearances. 0)''

An "inquisitional committee was formed, called the Tribunal of Independence. which went from

village to village punishing those who did not conform to the new dress He also

attempted to reform his citizen's customs and manners; for instance, he had them learn ballroom

dancing.320

Reformers across the Muslim world agitated for similar kinds of changes in their

societies. In Egypt Huda Shaarawi. returning from the International Women's Alliance

Conference in Rome in 1923 made a famous and dramatic gesture of casting off her face veil

after stepping off the train. In Iraq Jamal Sudki h a Khawy was jailed for advocating abolition

of the veil?2' Queen Suraya of Afghanistan appeared unveiled in public in 1928, while the King

argued for the veil's ab~lition?~' and in ban. Reza Shah banned the veil in 1936. His wives

appeared unveiled in public. government employees were forbidden to enter a cinema if their

wives wore a chador, and taxi drivers could be fined if they accepted veiled women passengers.

'I5 Quoted in Jayawardena: 36. 3 '6 Minai: 64-67. 'I7 Jayawardena: 38-9. "Vayawardena: 13, 36. Whether or not he actually banned the veil is apparently a deba~ed issue. Abadan-Unat argues it is a misconception of the West that AtatUrk banned the veil. rather he favoured persuasion through public address. I and my Turkish friends have not been able to confirm nor deny this.

Is Jayawardena: 39-40. 320 Minai: 66. 321 Jayawardena: 1 3.

139

Again, the Shah emphasized in his speeches that women should take up the banner of modem

civilization for they were to be "the educators of the coming generation."323 The ban was

vigorously enforced by the police who were instructed to shred a woman's veil with scissors if

she was caught wearing it in public.324

D. CONCLUSION.

In sum, the "metaphysics of modernity," where meaning is grasped as a distinction

between a material thing and the non-material structure it represents, with its emphasis on the

gaze, led European visitors to the Middle East to attack the veil. The veil was a barrier to the

European carrying through to completion the project promoted by the Orientalist vision of the

Orient: namely the inherent inferiority of the Orient and the need for the West to civilize it.

Colonial discourse also introduced ideas about Oriental inferiority and the focus on women's

status as the benchmark for progress into the colonized's discourse. Native elites seized upon

the European understandings of certain practices. such as the veil and the harem in their efforts

to 'modernize.' To the older premodern meanings of the veil, as a symbol of piety, wealth or

status were added the meanings that the veil symbolized oppression and backwardness. The

new meanings did not displace the older meanings, just created a new layer that was attached to

one's class position. Thus did the divide between the Westemized elite minority and the non-

Westemized non-elite majority grow. As Ahmed argues. the discourse over hijob is "tainted"

with the "history of colonial domination and resistance and class struggle around that."325 These

dynamics are animating the struggles in the Muslim world today.

In the West, the Orientalist vision of the Orient lives on in a couple of ways. First, at the

level of imagery: modem technology, TV, cinema, photography, cartoons and so on, inherited

322 Jayawardena: 72. ''-' Jayawardena: 68. 3'4 Givechian: 526. 325 Ahmed, d: 130.

140

and reinforce the Orientalist vision of the Orient as an exotic, dangerous, exciting. violent.

timeless, magical, backward and scary place.326 Although the veil as exotic beauty has mostly

been replaced by the veil as oppressive, or veil as harbinger of terrorism image. the exotic image

is just below the surface: the 1987 Brooke Shields movie, Harem, for example, the story of a

New York woman kidnapped by an Arab sheik and taken back to his harem in the Arabian

desert; or, the June 1997 cover of the Canadian Automobile Association's magazine

Leisureways that depicts a woman in a face veil, her lovely eyes beckoning. The caption reads:

"Yemen: Lifting the Veil on a Colorful Nation."

Even feminist books about Muslim women reinforce the Orientalist view of Muslim

women: excerpts of Brooks's Nine Parts of Desire, published in The Australian Magazine are

accompanied by a photograph of a woman wearing a full head-to-toe veil walking in the snow

with a small child, the caption recycles Guy de Maupassant's quip describing Arab women he

met in the streets during his travels in North Africa in 1890: "Death out for a walk;"3" the cover

of Fatima Memissi's Beyond the Veil recalls the French colonial postcard of the Algerian

woman behind bars. The cover depicts three women looking into the distance from behind a

prison-like barricade (the French colonial postcard was looking into women's home through

bars, Mernissi's is looking out of women's home through bars. the difference is significant. i.e.

supposedly the point of view of the women.) Memissi's autobiography repeats the motif: the

illustration accompanying most chapters are pictures of Moroccan women behind doors and

fences.

Second, the veil can still stand as a metaphor for the entire Muslim world. Newspapers

frequently use the image of a veiled woman to evoke terrorism, or fundamentalism. And

women's position is still used as the benchmark of the progress of an entire nation, with the

326 de Groot: 93. Said, a: 26.

Western model representing the pinnacle: here is Peterson reporting on the status of women in

the Gulf States in 1989:

The tendency toward neoconservatism among many women is clearly displayed in the return to the hijab, or traditional confining dress. This return to traditionalism occasionally produces an ironic effect, as when a liberal minister in the Kuwaiti government was introduced to a prospective female employee in his ministry and reached out to shake hands-she refused to touch him. The consequences of neoconservatism, however, are far more serious. The emergence of a modem role for women alongside men in the developing countries of the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] is in danger of being terminated prematurely. Women would not be the only ones to suffer in such a situation; the entire development of the states would be victimized as well.328

The entire development of the Gulf States is threatened by women covering and not shaking

hands with men.. .

For the Muslim world, the dynamics initiated by colonialism continue. The elites still

campaign against hijab as if it were an anti-modem thing. (Popular Western discourse is

unaware of their like-minded compatriots in the Muslim world who are as anti-Islam (perhaps

even more) as any Westerner can be.) In Tunisia in 1989, to clamp down on the Islamic revival,

a law was passed banning government workers and school/university students from wearing

hijab. In arguments reminiscent of the colonial era, the law proclaims that "The wearing of the

head covering seems to negate the spirit of the modem era and progressive advancement, and is

in fact abnormal behaviour." Included is a diagram drawn up by Headmasters of high schools

depicting acceptable female dress.329 In 1992, a Kuwaiti Medicine Dean banned women

students fiom wearing niqab, the face In Turkey a 1988 Constitutional Court decision

reaffirmed the 1980 Dress Regulation that prohibits "dl male government employees fiom

wearing beards, moustaches, and baggy trousers, and females from wearing headscarves and

327 The Amfrahan Magazine, February 25-26, 1995: 22. Maupassant quip: La vie errante, 1890, quoted in Mabro: 51. 328 Peterson: 50 '" Shahed, The Muslim Yoice, Dec 1994: 1. "O Goodwin: 160.

veils.'")' Muslim women are still fighting for the right to cover at universities, and in 1998 the

military junta "sacked military officers who did not divorce their wives who refbed to give up

the l~ijab."~'* Wearing hijab in contemporary Morocco is not as socially acceptable as it is in

Egypt. Fatima declared to Hessini: "even if we are convinced of our faith, we can't practice it.

y333 I have friends who would like to wear hijab, but if they did that they would lose their jobs.

The veil-as-a-symbol-of-Muslim-woman's-oppression discourse has its roots in a

Eurocentric vision of the world that would have the West as superior and the non-West as

inferior. The current Western concem that the veil oppresses women masks these disreputable

origins and conceals a W e r irony. Today, many Westerns are outraged to see the veil

imposed on women because of a state law. Nothing could be more oppressive than requiring

women to cover, as in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Nobody likes to be forced to do

something against their will, and liberalism's concern to protect individuals from such

impositions is laudable.33J But this concern over individual choice and state law exists in an

uneasy tension with the West's Orientalist heritage. First the concem masks the irony that it

was in the interest of state control over women that the 'veil is oppressive' discourse was first

launched.335 I have spent this chapter trying to flesh out how and why colonial and native elites

strove to get women to unveil: as a mark of progress; as a way to penetrate the harem; as a way

to civilize; and as a way to ensure state control over the individuals of a nation. Mitchell's

analysis of state power in Egypt highlights these dynamics very well. The colonial governments

in particular were concerned to break down the Muslim patriarchal family, segregation. veiling.

and any practice that stood in the way of them having control over their colonial subjects.

33' Abadan-Unat: 187. "' World News, Islamic Horizons. JanuarylFebruary, 1998: 18. 333 Hessini: 52. 334 Of course, most Westerners also assume that this law is an imposition for all women. Any woman who suppons the law would be seen as having 'false consciousness.' I discuss this hrther in chapter 5.

Kandiyoti, a: 8. layawardena: ch 3.

Native political elites continued this practice, for indeed, it is the hallmark of modem political

power:

"We, the master, should seize on our subjects in their early youth. We shall change the tastes and habits of the whole people. We shall build up again from the very foundations and teach the people to live a frugal, innocent, busy life after the pattern of our laws." The words are from Fenelon's TiZimoque, which was translated into Arabic by Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, and published in 1867. To change the tastes and habits of an entire people, politics had to seize upon the individual, and by the new means of education make him or her into a modern political subject-frugal, innocent and. above all, busy."'

The campaign against the veil was not one initiated by women, unlike, as Ahrned points out.

Western feminist campaigns against bloomers or bras."' Neither was the campaign against the

veil one initiated in the name of women's choice. Rather, it was part of elite men's (and then

women's) attempt to fashion a new modem state.338 To veil or not to veil. is an issue

manipulated for state ends; women's choice has little to do with it.

Second, it is far too easy for the concem over women to mutate into an attack on an

entire religion and its adherents. The legitimate concem over Muslim women turns into an

(Orientalist) assumption that Islam has degraded morals and customs, and that women should be

saved fiom Islam's grip upon them. forcefully if necessary (i.e. ban women in hijab fiom

school). I t is a short step fiom rightfully worrying about the fate of Afghan women. to Islam

oppresses them, to the veil is a symbol of that, to not tolerating women in the West choosing to

cover since they represent oppression.339 Sound familiar?. . ."Short of Christianity, no teaching

can elevate the character and position of Mohammedan women in any land; for. as long as she

336 Mitchell: 75. 337 Ahmed. d: 167. 338 Ahmed, d: 165. "' Since I wrote this, my argument has been confirmed by a case in Germany in which a German woman of Afghan parents has been refused a teaching job unless she removes her headscarf. An interviewer suggested to her that she shouldn't wear hgub because it is a symbol of intolerance: "But the stricmess with which the mullahs of Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan insist on adherence to the dress code can also be considered to be a sign of a tack of tolerance and oppression." "The Last Battle," Der Spiegel. 20 July, 1998. (Many thanks to Sonja Mann for emailing me the translation of this story while on holiday in Germany.)

1 44

accepts the Koran as a rule of faith, she will unhesitatingly acquiesce in the mutilated life to

which by it she is condemned."340

Mabel Shaman Crawford, Through Algeria, 1863, quoted in Mabro: 182.

CHAPTER THREE.

MULTIPLE MEANINGS OF HIJAB.

Under the influence of colonial and national elites' conviction that the veil oppressed

women, Muslim veiling practices have undergone change. In some countries the change has

been dramatic - by the late 1960's hijab/niqab in many Muslim countries had all but

disappeared (small villages or lower class women excluded.) In other countries, the change has

been less dramatic, but evident nonetheless. In the late 1970's another change in the practice of

covering occurred: women whose mothers did not cover, indeed, whose grandmothers and

mothers may have fought to uncover, started wearing hijab and niqab. This trend has turned

into a women's movement that encompasses the entire Muslim world, from Arabia to Asia to

Muslims living in the West. It is called the 're-veiling' movement, although it is not really a

're' veiling movement because the women mostly concerned are covering for the first time, and

they are mostly adopting hijab, not niqab.

The most prevalent image in popular Western culture about women not covering and

then covering is that of Iran or Afghanistan. where women are forced by state law to cover; or in

Algeria or some other Muslim country, where women are said to cover due to the threat of

physical violence for not covering. Westerners rightly find such violence frightening and tragic

for the women involved. And the conclusion that the veil is a symbol of women's oppression

seems a fairly logical one under those circumstances. The problem is that this idea of covering

is the only notion known to popular Western culture. It is almost the only notion given play by

Western media. In the last chapter I discussed Edward Said's study of Orientalism in relation to

the colonial image of hijab. In contemporary times, it is the media that inherited and reproduces

the Orientalist view of Islam (backward, violent, and oppressive). The focus on the veil in

Afghanistan or elsewhere is used to fit into the already existing Orientalist framework that

provides meaning to Muslim behaviour. That is one of the defming features of Western,

Orientalist 'knowledge' about Muslims. The medieval Western writers on Islam (who provided

the foundations of modem Orientalism) did not allow newly discovered 'facts' to disturb their

pre-existent image of Islam and ~uslirns. '~' This is the same today. 'SO. the voluntary re-

covering movement is given little space in Western media, or if mentioned at all, slotted into the

Orientalist discourse. Recall the article in the Toronto Star that discussed re-covering in Egypt

?w342 asking, "An act of faith or a veiled threat to society. More importantly. Orientalism gives a

singular meaning to the practice of covering: it is coerced and oppressive. All Muslim women

in the West (and elsewhere) who cover are viewed through that lens.

Stanley and Wise, as mentioned in chapter One, argue that feminist methodology should

take account of women as 'ontologically While hesitant to embrace that notion in

its entirety, 1 mentioned the general point could be claimed: women's experience of the world is

not unitary. This applies to the wearing of h&zblniqub. Women wear it for different reasons.

Different societies invest covering with different meanings. Some women cover from custom.

others due to state law, others in a secularisinp society for various personal reasons. In times

past, women wore the niqob as a mark of wealth and status.3" (Non-Muslim women have worn

and wear hijablniqab too.345) In other words, like any piece of clothing, the social meaning of

the hijab depends upon the context in flhich it is worn.346

The sociological complexity- of covering is not captured by the conventional wisdom in

the West that holds that 'the' veil (as if there was just one type) is a symbol of women's

341 Daniel, Southern, and Said, a: 62. 342 Toronto Slor, May 14 1996, F5.

Stanley and Wise: 2 1-22. Thus when peasant women moved to the city, they were anxious to veil to demonstrate their new wealth. El

Guindi, b: 475. 345 Hindus in Northern India veil, as did Assyrians. Greeks. Romans, Byzantines, Jews and Christians before Islam. cf Sharma, Marmorstein, Ahmed ,d.

147

oppression in Islam. My concern in this thesis is to challenge the common Western

presumption that every woman wearing a scarf is doing so out of force or coercion, and that the

scarf represents her oppression in Islam. This chapter focuses on the multiple meanings hijub

holds, in order to demonstrate that an observer should not read a single meaning from it and to

highlight the injustice done to women in the West who suffer from the imposition of the "the

veil is oppressive" meaning. (For example, girls who are expelled from school in France and

Quebec, and Muslim women who suffer from job discrimination or harassment due to the fact

that they cover.) Practices of Muslim women in other countries are analysed here in order to

demonstrate the multiple meanings of hijab that shift according to context and individual

differences. I have synthesised seven core themes from studies of covering to capture women's

differing motivations for covering: Revolutionary Protest, Political Protest. Religious,

Continued Access to Public Sphere, Statement of Personal Identity, Custom and State Law.

Naturally there is some intersection among the themes I have identified and more than one may

apply to the same woman. For some reason. most of the studies have been conducted in Egypt

so there is now a good understanding across classes as to why women there have started

covering, but there are too few studies on other countries. This is an area where more diverse

research is needed. In the section to follow I present the themes of covering taken from these

studies. Section B discusses briefly these themes. In section C I look at the meanings the

contemporary Western media ascribe to hijab. This allows for telling demonstrations that the

image of hijab in the West that is generated by the media is overwhelmingly negative, with little

relevance to the women's perspective.

''' Rugh: 128.

A. REASONS FOR COVERING.

1. Revolutionary Protest.

The most dramatic re-covering phenomena of the twentieth century have been those

associated with anti-colonial and revolutionary struggle. During the Algerian struggle for

independence in the 1 9 5 0 ' ~ ~ and in Iran in the 1 9 7 0 ' ~ ~ women who had previously not covered

donned the veil to help overthrow oppressive governments. Because colonialists and the native

elite had targeted hijub for elimination, as Chapter Two showed, the headscarf became a potent

symbol of resistance during anti-colonial and revolutionary struggle. To don a headscarf was to

demonstrate one was against colonialism or against the Western sympathetic elite regime and all

that it stood for.

Algeria.

Algerians began their struggle to oust the French, in 1954.~" Women of all ages from

across the socio-economic spectrum joined in the nationalist struggle, and came to play a crucial

role.348 French-educated middle-class urban women who had been born in the 1930s. and who

had lived until then without covering, decided to cover to help in the urban guerrilla warfare.

As Fanon wrote: "spontaneously and without being told. the Algerian women who had long

since dropped the veil once again donned the haik9 thus affirming that it was not true that

woman liberated herself at the invitation of France and of General de ~ a u l l e . " ' ~ ~

The veil served a symbolic and practical role in the Algerian revolution. Its use was

dictated by the tactics needed at the time: some women dressed in European dress so they could

walk around the European city without suspicion. other women put on a veil when it was needed

to carry messages or military equipment from place to place without being detected.

Celebrating the 'non-traditional' use of the veil, Fanon writes:

347 The French conquered Algeria in a brutal war of occupation ( 1 830-1 880) Lazreg, b: 43. 348 La~eg , b: 122-3.

A new technique had to be learned: how to carry a rather heavy object dangerous to handle under the veil and still give the impression of having one's hands free, that there was nothing under this haik, except a poor woman or an insignificant young girl. It was not enough to be veiled. One had to look so much like a "Fatma" that the soldier would be convinced that this woman was quite h a r m i e ~ s . ~ ~ ~

Women, alongside their male compatriots, were imprisoned, tortured and killed by the French

during this struggle.3s'

The French tried to enlist Algerian women by promoting the idea that they would be

emancipated under continued French rule, not by a return to their 'oppressive' Islamic law. In

1957, three years after the revolution began, they made real efforts for the first time to bring

Islamic family law in line with French family law.352 And French-Algerians. campaigning for

Algeria to remain part of France, reenacted colonial attempts to 'liberate' Algerian women by

getting them to remove their veils: on May 13 1958, the French army brought a hundred women

into a public square and unveiled them to the cries of "Vive L 'AlgPriefianqaise! "353 After this.

about 1 000 Algerian men, who had been bussed in from nearby villages to watch, sang the

Marseillaise and the military Chant des Africans. Apparently not much is known about the

women: Lazreg reports that one commentator says they were "acquiescent Muslim women." the

FLN that they were maids of the colonial government and prostitutes, and Fanon that they were

"poor women, servants under the threat of being fired, and prostitutes."35J

Thus the veil became the national symbol of resistance to the ~ r e n c h . ~ ~ ~ Because of

French colonial emphasis on transforming Algeria into a French state (at the level of

consciousness as well as materially) which included the French campaign to unveil Algerian

women. the veil became a potent symbol of rejection: "[In Algeria] the veil was worn because

349 Fanon: 62. A h a l is the traditional Algerian 'veil,' a big square veil covering the whole body. jJO Fanon: 61. "Fatma" was the French stereotypical name for Algerian women. 35 1 Lazreg, b: 124. j5' Lazreg, b : 9 1 . 353 Fanon: 62. 354 Lazreg, b: 135.

Helie-Lucas. a: 108.

tradition demanded a rigid separation of the sexes, but also because the occupier was bent on

unveiling ~ l ~ e r i a . "356

The veil also played an important symbolic and practical role in the 1979

Iranian revolution against the Shah, Mohammed Reza. The 1979 revolution was not an effort to

oust a colonial power, but an effort to oust a corrupt and repressive Western backed Shah, and

the Westernisation campaign he had spearheaded.358 Once the sign of wealth. by the 1970s the

chador was seen by the uppedmiddle classes as backward and old fashioned. They wore the

chador only occasionally, such as when attending a mosque, funerals, or other religious

ceremonies. Working class women in cities and small towns, and middle-class women

connected to the religious establishment and bazaar merchants continued to wear the chador as

part of normal outwear. Peasant women wore the chador when they came to town and a scarf

when in the fields.359

The chador became a rallying cry for two powerful opponents to the Shah, the

~eda~een , '~ ' and the ~ u j a h i d i n . ~ ~ ' These groups, ideologically opposed, the Fedayeen being a

Marxist group. and the Mujahidin, an Islamic group (with Marxist leanings). joined forces to

oust the Shah. Islamic intellectual Shariati3 critique of women's position under capitalism (the

use of women's bodies for selling commodities. the competition amongst women to be beautiful

to attract men's attention) appealed to secular leftists, feminists and reiigious Iranians, and gave

an impetus for women to return to the chador as a way to counter that.362 The chador came to

356 Fanon: 63. Emphasis in original. 3s7 The chador is a head-to-toe black cloak held under the chin. leaving the face uncovered.

Reeves: 93-4. 359 A veil indicated one could afford all the material required to sew one, and that one did not have to work. Azari: 43-45. 360 Tabari, a: 9- 1 I . 361 The Mujahidin withdrew suppon for Khomeini's regime in 1981 and now operate a Parliament in exile in Britain. In 1993 they elected a woman as President-Elect. Ibrahim: 12. 36' Azari: 5 1. Yeganeh: 33.

be regarded as a leveller of gross income inequality, as a protector against male harassment. and

to confer dignity to a woman as she would be regarded as a person, not a sex object?) Thus the

Fedayeen and Mujahidin were able to find common ground in their fight against the Shah:

fighting Western imperialism, the loss of national identity and women's position under

capitalism. Wearing a chador symbolised that a woman was anti-Shah, anti-imperialism, anti-

corruption, anti-moral decadence and against capitalism's exploitation of the "modem consumer

woman." Secular women donned the chador in street demonstrations to show their anti-Shah

solidarity3" As in Algeria, the chador allowed women secretly to cany guns and messages

from place to place. Many such women were imprisoned and tortured.365

2. Political Protest.

Political protest of elite Westernization programmes and Western neo-imperialism has

assumed less dramatic forms than revolutionary coups. Several studies of reveiling found that

women put on hijab as a signal that they were not happy with the current political situation.

either with policies pursued by the State and/or with the "commercial, technological, political,

and social" invasion of their countries by the The 1967 Arab defeat at the hands of

Israel was a shock to many Muslims. One can date the rise of the Egyptian Islamic movement

and the replacement of Arab nationalism by Islam as the ideology of dissent from this event.367

Many Egyptians felt betrayed when Sadat signed the Camp David Accord in 1973. There the

recovering movement began in the late seventies amongst university students. Middle-class and

- - - -- -

363 Azari: 5 1. 3a Tabari, a: 13. According to Tabari, many came to regret it later, when the veil was made compulsory. Tabari believes their wearing of the veil was a "confked acceptance ... of the veil as a sign of soiidarity on the mass demonstrations (14)." On March 8, 1979, they marched to protest rumours of compulsory veiling. Some Mujahidin women joined in, and the Prime Minister, Bazargan, apparently assured the women that there would not be compulsory veiling. But it came into law by summer 1980. Tabari: 12-15.

Bahar: 185. The veil continues to serve as a facilitating instrument for war. According to Goodwin, Kuwaiti women resisting the 1990 Iraqi occupation donned hll-length abqwas to help smuggle arms and Resistance documents: 159. 366 Zuhur: 108. "' Zuhur: 5 1,55. Haddad, c: 1 40. Rugh: 95-6.

Bite families were shocked and at first did not take the rnuhq,abat serious^^^^^ but by 1985

hijab had spread through most of the lower middle-classes and to younger government

employees.369 It is important to understand that the type of outfit these women adopted differed

greatly from that of their grandmothers, that of the peasant, and that of the bint al-Mad, the

traditional lower-class urban women whose roots are in the rural villages. The new dress is

called al - rw al-shar 'i (the Lawful Dress), and signalled an intent to confoxm to Islamic Law as

well as an assumption that other forms of covering hadfdid not.

Williams' 1978 study of recovering tried to explain why Egyptian women. whose

grandmothers/mothers had led the Arab world in throwing aside the veil. and some of whom

had continued to pray, fast, and otherwise think of themselves as pious Muslims. even while

wearing Western dress, were adopting al-zayy a/-shar 'i. After all. he wrote. "Egyptian women,

it has been shown, are no sheep. No one is likely to persuade them to exchange the cooler, more

comfortable modem dresses for suyy shar ' i unless they wish to do ~0 . "~" He concluded that the

women had multiple reasons including the feeling that they were "solving and

making a personal statement in a modernising Muslim country that was "usually connected with

[their] faith."372

However, Williams found that "[elven those who tended to defend their dress on

fundamentalist grounds ('I am a Muslim woman; this is what my faith demands of me.')

responded somewhat differently when asked what had occasioned their response to a demand

that, after all, Islam has appeared to have made for a long time. and which has not always been

368 ~ ~ h a j ~ a b a f : the veiled ones. headccver; munoqqabat: the veiied ones. wearing niqab. Zuhur: 53. 369 El Guindi; Hoodfar, a: 1 12. 370 Williams: 53. Scholars differ over their assessment of the comfort of z a p shar'i. Rugh argued that Western dress was more restricting and stifling than traditional folk jalabiyyas, which were loose enough to allow for air convection systems to cool the body. Moreover, rather than being made of cotton, Western dress tended to be made of hotter synthetic nylons and knits ( 1 19). Macleod argues the same about the new veiling, arguing they are hot because they are made of polyester fabrics favoured by middle-class (138)- This is changing with more cotton Jalabiyyas now appearing. " Williams: 53.

so clearly heard." The women advanced several reasons as to what had made them to decide to

cover now:

"1 did it to reject current behaviour by young people and contemporary society;"

"Until 1967, 1 accepted the way our country was going. I thought Gamal Abd al-Nasser would lead us all to progress. Then the war showed that we had been lied to; nothing was the way it had been represented. I started to question everythmg we were told. I wanted to do something and to find my own way. I prayed more and more and I tried to see what was expected of me as a Muslim woman. Then I put on shar 'i dress.. ."

"Once we thought that Western society had all the answers for successfU1. fruitful living. If we followed the lead of the West, we would have progress. Now we see that this isn't true; they (the West) are sick societies; even their material prosperity is breaking down. America is full of crime and promiscuity. Russia is worse. Who wants to be like that? We have to remember God. Look how God has blessed Saudi Arabia. That's because they have tried to follow the Law. And America with its loose sociery, is all problems."373

The majority of the younger covered women Zuhur interviewed in her 1988 study of

Cairene women saw the hijob as a symbol of change. ''This change was not only a personal and

moral decision, but represented a social sisterhood to them.'"74 Zuhur concluded that for the

covered women in her survey, hijab symbolised a rejection of the "guiding principles of state

policy regarding women over the last thirty-five yean. Their rejection implies a relinquishment

of the principles of secularism and Western models and ideals in general."375

Watson (1994) interviewed Fatima a 70 year old widow who sells vegetables in Cairo

who had an interesting angle on the zayy shar 'i:

Why have young girls started to cover themselves in this new type of veil and dress like old women? I think that it is just a trend, a fashion like any other.. . I do not think that this new veiling is a religious duty. A woman's modest conduct is more important than what she wears. The new veils are expensive. I could not afiord to buy them for my daughters. they have to be satisfied with the peasant women's scarves which just cover the hair. Does this endanger their modesty? 'Rubbish,' I tell them when they raise the issue of the new veil, 'hijab is not about any one type

3" Williams: 5 1. 373 Williams: 53-4. 374 Zuhur: 76. 375 Zuhur: 109.

of dress, it's about your behaviour and what's in your mind, so give that your greatest attention.' Although I have this opinion about the new veil being a trend which is not an essential part of Islam, 1 am not against what it stands for if it means that society is becoming more concerned with morality and turning against some of the modem ways and Western values which started to take hold.. .it is important for the Arab people to rediscover their own traditions and take pride in themselves. Our ways of dressing can even be part of this.. .it seems very important when you see how the world has changed for the worse.. .we have become used to seeing Western women almost naked in our streets, and if because of this, our women want to cover themselves in the new veil, then it is a welcome protest against indecency and our overwhelming past interest in all things foreign. The women who adopt the new veil do so for a number of reasons, but it should not be a matter of law but one of personal choice ... for instance now it is important to think about how you appear to strangers and to know why you have chosen to safeguard modesty by an extreme measure. I have made my own decision and my personal views may explain why I have started to wear the new style of veil, even though I am an old woman.376

Hessini observed a similar spreading of hijab when she visited Morocco in 1989. She

became intrigued after she noticed the muhaj~abat were often the most outspoken/articulate in

class and found that that contradicted the Western belief that Muslim women were subservient,

so she decided to investigate further. Between 1989 and 1991 she interviewed educated and

professional urban women living in Rabat and Casablanca. As in Egypt. the outfit these women

adopted differed from the traditional Moroccan covering.377 Her interviewees stressed that they

had not been taught true Islam, and were part of a movement to try and change society so it

better reflected true Islamic principles. These motivations, as in Egypt, signal a relinquishment

of the secular path Morocco has been following for the past decades. The secular paradigm

exists uneasily with the indigenous value system, and the women feel "they have no control

over the systems that are shaping their lives and that the influence of Western values is

The women told Hessini that "only Islam can create a functional society, they

asserted repeatedly that capitalism leads to chaos, communism is passe, and that secularism as

Watson, a: 150- 1 . 377 Hessini: 42. See Ziane for photographs of different styles of Moroccan dress. 378 Hessini: 5 1 .

9,379 practised in Tunisia, is against divine will. As one woman, Jamila, put it: "practising the

true Islam is the only thing that can save us." Their ideal is the society that existed during the

time of the Prophet ( p b ~ h ) . ' ~ ~ Hadija said ''the hijab is a way for me to retreat from a world that

has disappointed me. It's my own little sanctuary."38' Hgab is their way of "project[ing] a

Muslim identity and refut[ing] an imitation of the West. 9,382

3. Religious.

Clearly part and parcel of the political protest against Westernization and secularisation

is a conviction about Islam as an alternative political, social and economic system. This

international movement, 'Islam is the solution/alternative,' has included calls for men and

women to observe the Islamic dress code. Many women have decided to cover based on these

invitations to practice Islam 'better.' Williams noted in his study of Egyptian women's

reveiling, that those adopting al-zaCIy aI-shar 'i "claim that its wearing is a religious gesture;

[and] that it conforms more to the religious law of Islam than any other available dress."383

Zuhur's study of Cairene women found that hoab and niqab wearers saw covering as a

sign of religious identity, as did 40% of the uncovered women.38' The covered women believed

covering was an obligatory religious duty Wrd) for Muslim women, and "[tlhe young veiled

women especially wanted to make sure that I understood the immutability of the Islamic

message; that they did not approve of reform or amendment to particular historical

circurnstan~es."~~~ The uncovered women disagreed that covering was obligatory,386 though

379 Hessini: 49. '13' Hessini: 49.

Hessini: 50. 382 Hessini: 5 1 . ''' Williams: 50. Although Zuhur saw some young women wearing the headscarf, but also tight jeans and makeup: 59. The male version was to dress in baggy trousers with loose shirts in off-white, and sandals. They would grow a beard. El Guindi, b: 474. '" Zuhur: 74. N=50. This contrasts with Macleod and Hoodfar who found only a minority seeing hijrrb as a sign o f religiosity. Macleod: 1 14. Hwdfar, a: 1 19.

Zuhur: 75. Zuhur: 77.

156

some indicated that they were thinking seriously about wearing it, some said they would wear it

after marriage."' Some younger uncovered women felt that the huab required some moral

preparation. One woman exclaimed: "To wear higub, a woman must behave like an

Zuhur found that age and social class have an important effect on receptivity to the new

Islamic message. She found an inverse correlation between covering and age, with the younger

women more likely to cover than older, and a direct correlation between covering and social

class, the lower income groups being most likely to cover (i.e. hijab is a way to "escape social

and economic limitations in a hierarchical society through a visible levelling process and the

wearing of a uniform, and by verbally ernphasising social equality.")389 She noted, however,

that existing theories that explain covering solely by refemng to socio-economic category are

not adequate, since they cannot explain the appeal of hijab to upper-middle-class. or elite

women. 390

In Morocco Hessini's interviewees mentioned similar notions. The women she

interviewed stressed their adoption of huab as a religious choice, an expression of adhering to

"true Islam." Sou'al: "My mother has always worn the veil, but she knows nothing about Islam.

She wore the veil out of tradition, whereas I wear it out of conviction." Wafa: "Women who

wear hijab are "true believers," whereas women who wear another type of veil may do so out of

habit.'"91 A11 her interviewees stated they had not been taught proper Islam either by their

parents or their society, so there is a sense that these women feel they are part of a new

movement of people practising "true Islam," believing, like Jamila, that "practicing the true

Islam is the only thing that can save us." and hoping to be models for others to

Houria: "It is important that women who wear the hijub pursue advanced studies and obtain

Zuhur: 59. 3118 Zuhur: 77. Egyptians pronounce the Arabic 'j' as 'g'. 389 Zuhur: 13. 390 Zuhur: 6 1 .

high positions [as doctors, lawyers, etc.]. If we do so, we will project a good image and set a

good example for others. We will show others how to practise the real Islam. 1 would like to

influence others into wearing the h ~ a b . ' " ~ ~

The appearance of the new hijub in the Middle East has surprised some observers, but its

appearance in Indonesia is even more dramatic, because there is no tradition of covering there.

(Only old women that may also have been on holy, the pilgrimage to Mecca, tended to over.)^^‘'

In 1993 Bremer interviewed 13 urban, educated women in their twenties in Java to try and

understand why they were adopting the new hijab. She found that the women were

experiencing a "conversion" process where they came to believe that good Muslim women

should be covering their hair. They believed that those opposed to the new hijub (devout

Muslims included) were not properly aware of Qur'anic injunctions to cover. The new hijab is

criticised by parents, husbands and friends for whom it "conjures up a picture of Fundamentalist

extremism that is as culturally dissonant for them as it is for many ~ e s t e r n e r s . ' ~ ~ ~ Not being

part of ancestral traditions, which is very important in Indonesia the new h w b is seen as a

foreign. Arab import, out of sync with local customs.

3.1 Make Societv Better.

Along with the themes of rejecting Westernization and secularisation, and adopting

Islam as an alternative, is the pervasive one that women who don huab feel they are being

proactive about improving society. Ideally, hijab represents a levelling of the social classes, and

Zuhur argues that in Egypt, the flexibility/adaptability of the Islamist message enables women

of differing socio-economic classes similarly to adopt a new ideology.396 Williams found that

39' Hessini: 42. 39%essini: 49. 393 Hessini: 47. "' Brenner: 674. 395 Bremer: 674. 396 Zuhur: 2. Zuhur found this ideal contradicted by the Y ves St Laurent line of headscarves available for purchase. See also Hessini: 50.

women felt they were wearing hijab as a way to remedy society, to stop it fiom falling apart. to

stop inhilul (dissoluteness, disintegration):

There are so many problems in Egypt today that we don't know how to solve. It seems that only God can solve them.. we have problems of housing, budgets. schools, transportation, electricity, gas and water, and the telephone doesn't work. When we put on zuyy shar 'i, we can feel that at least here is one problem we can help solve for our family and society by ourselves. At least we've done something.397

The Moroccan women Hessini interviewed also saw hijub as a sign of an attempt to

improve society, to make a more egalitarian, just society.398 As in Egypt the new hijab is not

like the traditional Moroccan veils which used to show class distinctions. Now the hijab stands

as a "unifying symbol shared by Muslim women."399 Nadia: "My religion saved me. In a world

where there is no justice. I now believe in something that is just. I now have something I can

count on. ,7400

Brenner argues that the young Indonesian's decision to cover is part of the broader

Islamic movement in Indonesia that is putting Islam forward as an alternative to Westernization

and secularisation. She finds the movement to be thoroughly modem, in that it represents a

break with the past and is forward looking:

As a symbol of the modem Islamic movement, the veil represents for some Javanese Muslims both self-reconstruction and the reconstruction of society through individual and collective self-discipline. The notion of reconstruction here does not mean reviving the indigenous past, it means tearing down and building something new, distancing oneself from local history in order to create a more perfect future for oneself and other members of society. The goal is to effect religious and social change through the individual and collective actions of members of the lslarnic community. In covering the sins of the past, so to speak, veiling here signifies a new historical consciousness and a new way of life. weighed down neither by Javanese tradition nor by centuries of colonial rule. defined neither by Western capitalism and consumerism nor by the dictates of the Indonesian political economy.

397 Williams: 54. 398 Hessini: 50. 399 Hessini: 4 1-2. 400 Hessini: 5 1.

It stands for a new morality and a new discipline, whether personal, social. or political-in short, a new Islamic

4. Continued Access to the Public Sphere.

Not dl the women who have started to cover in recent years have done so out of

religious conviction. Hoodfar notes that her interviewees had not become more religious after

covering, and only one woman in her sample prayed and she had prayed for four years before

adopting hijab. The number of women in Macleod's survey who prayed regularly was a 'iiny

And the number of women who discussed hijab as a religious form of dress was

These women have found that hijab facilitates access and movement in the public

sphere: seeking employment; gaining respect; and combating male harassment.

4.1 Continued Access to Emplovment.

The Egyptian women in these studies who started wearing the new h@b in the mid-

1980's are usually low-income first or second generation urban dwellers, possibly the first

women in their family to be educated. They find themselves congregated in overstaffed

government offices with promotion based on a system that does not take performance into

account.404 Egypt's economic crisis has hit these women and their families hard. their income

has eroded with inflation. and the cost of employment has rendered holding a job not always a

financial gain. Transport, childcare and clothing costs take up much of a woman's salary. As

Hoodfar notes, under these circumstances, low-income women have a "vested interest in

reinforcing the existing sex roles and sexual division of labour. while at the same time trying to

minimise the constraints that such ideology places on them" because they can then claim their

Islamic right for the husband to maintain them, regardless of their own income.405 Thus

'O' Brewer: 690. 'O' Hoodfar, a: 1 19. Macleod: 1 10. 403 Macleod: 1 13. UW Hoodfar, a: 1 19. '05 Hoodfar, a: I 10. Islarnically, even if a woman works, the husband is responsible for her maintenance, and if she works he has no claim on her wages. She can spend them as she sees fit.

adopting hijab is a way these women solve the dilemma of keeping gains from modemisation

(working for wages), while keeping at the same time the benefits of their traditional Islamic

rights as ~ i fe /mother .~ '~ Sommayya was having trouble with a fiancd and his family who did

not want her to work after marriage. She solved the problem by wearing h w b :

if I have only two sets of clothes I can look smart at all times because nobody expects rnuhaggabat (the veiled ones) to wear new clothes every day. This will save me a lot of money. It will also prevent people from talking about me or questioning my honour or my husband's. In this way I have solved all the problems, and my husband's family are very happy that he is marrying a r n ~ h a ~ ~ a b a . ~ ~ '

Macleod's conclusions are in line with Hoodfar's reading of the situation for lower

middle-class Cairene women, and her respondents voice similar things as the ones quoted here

from Hoodfar's study. For Macleod, the new "veiling is a protest of [sic] an erosion of power

women experience at the intersection of household and workplace, and an attempt to maintain

the gains women have made with the opened political space of the employment experience.'d08

She sees it as an attempt to recoup the lost dignity of the wife/mother role they "have somehow

been cornered into abandoning" due to their economic need to work. The veil solves the tension

of the work versus household All the scholars found that "veiling is primarily

women's idea and women's decision; the new movement is a voluntary movement initiated and

perpetuated by women. Its popularity rests in this ability to resolve the question of whether

women can work outside the home, yet resolve it in a way that satisfies the economic values of

,410 lower-middle-class families and pacifies disturbed gender beliefs. Hijab circumvents the

cultural belief that a good Muslim woman should not work, because as a ~ U h U j ~ ~ b a f the woman

is saying that she is a good Muslim woman. but forced to work in an effort to help her family. a

--

'06 Hoodfar, a: 1 1 1 . Macleod: 12 I . 407 Hoodfar,a: 114. 408 Macleod: 136-7. 409 Macleod: 132, 136, 12 1. 'I0 Macleod: 12 1.

I6 1

socially laudable This is miles away from the Western media-pushed notion that veiling

is spreading via male fundamentalist coercion (see section C).

Moroccan women are also using the hijab as a guarantor of their continued access to the

public realm, although the professional women of Hessini's study are not facing the same

economic dilemma as low-income Cairenes. For the Moroccan women, hijab is seen more as a

way to facilitate women's movement outside the home, rather than solving the work versus

household crisis. Theirs represents a more radical challenge than that of the Egyptian women

because it challenges the notion that a 'good Muslim woman' should not work. Remember the

women said they were practising the 'real' Islam. As Nadia said, "Wearing the hijab shows that

women have a role in the society. Of course I am for women who work outside the home. If

not 1 wouldn't be for the hijab, because inside their households, women don't wear the

h i j ~ b ! ' ~ ' ~

4.2 Gain Res~ect.

The issue of female employment is still an area of hot debate in the Muslim world, with

many holding the view that women should not work because being so much in the public realm

compromises their modesty and honour. The 'career' woman, the dominant role model for elite,

middle-class and some members of the petit-bourgeoisie, has not been an attractive one to other

low-income groups. Sornmayya's dilemma (the Egyptian woman mentioned above) was that

none of the women in her fiance's family had been educated or worked. and they were worried

she would not fulfil her wifely duties properly. Hijab signalled to them that she was a

' Macleod: 12 1 . Williams: 54. El Guindi, b: 48 1 . 'IZ Hessini: 47.

1 62

respectable woman who would care for and respect her husband and home. despite her

unconventional economic beha~iour.~ l3

Other Egyptian women have similar stories. Soheir. a single woman who had to work

because her father had died when she was young, found that her job kept her out late at night.

and people treated her badly. She started wearing hgab, which signalled to people that she was

a respectable woman and had a legitimate reason for being out late. "Since then I have had more

peace than ever before.'"I4 Now she concentrates on studying so as to achieve her goal of

becoming a white-collar worker. Samiha's family objected to her attending university, afraid

that her behaviour would undermine her and her family's honour. She took up hijub and the

objections disappeared. "By adopting the veil she demonstrated that she was committed to

protecting her honour. Thus, there was no longer any reason to prevent her from going to

university or from teaching, both of which are socially legitimate goals." Her family and her

neighbours think highly of And lest anyone wonder why women have to dress in a

particular way in order to gain respect in a work environment, let us remember that women in

the West have adopted a female version of the male suit in order to gain respect and be treated

as an equal by men in the office and professional environment?

4.3 Combating Male Harassment.

A common theme about the positive aspect of hijab as noted by those who wear it is that

it means women are treated for "their personality and their minds" not as sex objects, nor are

they available to be judged by their physical appearance, dress. or jewellery.'"' The hijab takes

'13 See also Rugh 122-3 and El-Messiri: 532: The bin! a1 balad "considen the government employee conceited, superficial and neglecthi of her wifely duties. This explains why she spends her salary only on selfish and superficial pleasures." 'I4 Hoodfar, a: 1 18. "' Hoodfar, a: 119. 'I6 Macleod: 18 1. 'I7 Hessini: 50-1.

away that sexual ambiguity/tension that exists between the sexes. As one woman told Mohsen

in her 1977 interview:

Before 1 wore the veil, 1 always worried what people might think when they saw me speak to a man in the cafeteria or outside the class. I even wondered what the man himself thought of me when I spoke with him. Since I wore the veil, I don't worry anymore. No one is going to accuse me of immorality or think that we were exchanging love vows. I feel much more comfortable now and do not hesitate. as I did before, to study with men in my class or even walk with them to the train c tat ion.^

Male harassment of women in the streets. on buses, in the workplace. etc. is a

widespread behaviour the world over. Some of the women I interviewed for Chapter One

mentioned a feature of h w b they enjoyed was the increased respect and good treatment they

received from men, even non-Muslim men. Women in other countries also mentioned this

aspect of wearing hyub as a positive feature that they The hijab succeeds in having

men keep their distance because it creates a space cushion around a woman. even for a non-

Muslim man who has no understanding of the reasoning behind hijab. In the Muslim context

"wearing a veil represents purity of intention and behavior. It is a symbol affirming that 'I'm

clean' and 'I'm not available."20 The effect of this personal space barrier gives women more

freedom to travel through the public realm in peace, and in those Muslim countries that have an

ideology of honour, husbands' jealousy and parents' concerns are vitiated by hijab, giving the

women more freedom to move around."' As Hoodfar points out, this is a challenge to the

traditional Islamic and Western association of veiling with seclusion.42' Women who adopt

zayy shar'i are severing Islamic law from customary practice, and demonstrating they can

participate in public life, while maintaining the Islamic dress code. With respect to Iran,

Givechian concludes this has been a by-product of the Islamic Republic's dress codelsex-

418 Mohsen: 69. 'I9 Hoodfar, a: 1 16. Hessini: 53. Williams: 53. "O Hessini: 53. '" Hessini: 54

segregation policy - women have entered the public sphere in increased numbers since the

Wearing hijob can give a woman a sense of power and hence self-esteem. Zuhur noted

that "denying men the ability to comment on their figures or silencing the "eyes of wolves" gave

the younger respondents some satisfaction.'*'" Halah told Hoodfar that covering had helped her

be more assertive in the ofice:

I used to dream of the day I would finish my studies and work to earn enough money to buy the nice clothes I never had because we were poor. When finally I had a good wardrobe and managed to look nice after years of waiting I had to take up the veil. I did it because in the of ice men teased us women and expected no answering back. If we answered they would start to think we were after an affair or something. That was difficult. All my life I always returned any remark a man made to me without being accused of immorality. In the office. whenever I would do that, my husband would get upset because he would hear what other men said amongst themselves [he was her colleague too]. But my veiled colleagues were always outspoken and joked with our male colleagues, and they were never taken wrong or treated disrespectfully. So I took up the veil. It has made my life easier and I feel fieer to answer back. express my opinion, argue or even chit-chat with men. My husband is also much happier.'25

Givechian concludes similarly for Iran. that many working women are pleased with

wearing hijab because not only has it saved them from the expenses and hassles of trying to

dress fashionably, the hijab can also "materialise their abilities and potential, without too much

worry about their clothing or appearance:?'

. ..The unveiling of women.. .imprisoned women in their look and clothing thus exaggerating their ascribed status as women, [while] the veiling of women has given rise to expectation of achievement and work. It has freed women from fascination of men with their look and also has forced them to compete if they are to enjoy their rights as human beings. The aggressiveness and professionalities of many of the new veiled women generation are a pleasant welcome to the passive and patronized unveiled women of modernised generation. 7,426

'" Hood far, a: 12 1 . '" Givechian: 524-6. "' Zuhur: 102. '" Hoodfar, a: 1 17. See also Mohsen: 69. 426 Givechian: 530.

165

Western women often bridle at the suggestion that in order to counteract male

harassment, women have to cover up. Certainly it is unfair to have women cover, while not

tackling the issue of male harassment. Zuhur reports that leaders of the lslarnic movement in

Egypt, as well as many of the young women she interviewed, are aware of the problem of male

harassment and are working to eradicate it as well. They believe that men can' be re-educated as

"long as the family remains strong enough to inculcate a stronger sense of moral values in its

sons.'427 The prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace in the West suggests such re-

education can be a long time coming. In the meantime, for many Muslims. covering is an

acceptable strategy to counteract such male behaviour.

5. Expression of Personal Identitv.

Another reason for wearing hijrrb, especially for Muslim women in the West. is to make

a statement of personal identity. This is what Cayer found in her interviews of first and second-

generation lndo-Pakistani Muslim women living in Toronto. Many of the second-generation

women had chosen to wear hijab against the will of their families (some first generation women

started covering in Canada against the will of their husbands), and against the prevalent view of

the West that their h@b was a sign of oppression. They were also protesting the Indo-Pakistani

culture of their parents, which the second generation women viewed as more or less un-

~ s l a m i c ? ~ ~ most particularly the practice of arranged marriages, and the focus on the beauty of

the wife as an important feature of her 'marriageability.'4'9 "By wearing hijab second

generation women are stating that they are no longer accountable to the fim generation for their

status and position. but rather, only to Allah.. .hijab is their resistance to first generation control

'" Zuhur: 130. '" Cayer: 77, 1 13. 429 Cayer: 1 84.

over them &d their identityA3' So for them, hijab was an anti-racism and anti-anti-Islam

statement, as well as a statement of faith.

The sense of needing to assert one's Islamic identity in a non-Muslim environment holds

true in Britain and France as well, as the experience of Nadia and Maryam respectively.

exemplify. Nadia is a second-generation British Asian woman who started covering when she

was sixteen:

My cultural background and my family's roots are in another part of the world. These things are very important to me and make me feel special. It is important to me not to lose these parts of my life. My decision to wear the veil also ties into my feeling of coming from this different kind of background. We are a British family but because of Islam and our links with Pakistan we have different values and traditions from the families of my non-Muslim friends ... I would feel completely exposed without my veil. It is liberating to have the fieedom of movement and to be able to communicate with people without being on show. It's what you say that is important not what you look like. My non-Muslim friends are curious about what it feels like to wear the veil. They ask what it's like to be invisible. But in my experience it can be just the opposite if you are the only person in a room full of students wearing western dress. The point is that it's what wearing a veil feels like for the girl that is important, not what kind of veil it is. or what she looks like. For me it's important to have a kind of uniform appearance which means that I don't draw attention to myself or my figure. At the same time wearing the veil makes me feel special, it's a kind of badge of identity and a sign that my religion is important to me.431

Maryam's story reflects several of the themes already mentioned about why women

choose to cover, but since she is an Algerian immigrant living in France. it is personal identity

in a non-Muslim environment which overshadows the other reasons she likes hijab. Maryam

works in a textile factory:

I did not think to wear the veil as a younger woman at home in Algiers. it was not important then. At that time my mother, my aunts and sisters wore a western style of clothes and did not cover their hair or face. Most women did not think about hijab twenty years ago. Times have changed a lot of things in my life, and all Muslim women have had to face numerous changes, especially women like me who end up living in a Western country. They were blind and deaf. not realizing how dangerous the world was becoming, how politicians and the wealthy classes were

Cayer: 169. "' Watson, a: 148. Nadia is the first woman in the family to have a post-secondary education She is now studying medicine at University.

becoming greedy for money, corrupt and westernized.. .Immorality and corruption had a serious impact on poorer families like my own and on the health of the whole society. But thadhlly we woke up after we saw what happened in Egypt and experienced the afiemath of the war with Israel and other conflicts with the West. Then there was the big example of Iran and the people's struggle to throw out their corrupt ruler, rid the country of all the ill-effects of Western influences and make a better society. These things all had the result of making me more aware of the importance of Islam and my conduct and duty as a mother and wife for the funw of the next generation ... When my husband and I came to France we faced a lot of hardship. When money was short because things did not turn out as we had expected I had to fmd employment.. .there was no question that 1 would not wear a veil ... it is difficult enough to live in a big foreign city without having the extra burden of being molested in. the street because you are a woman. It is important to me to keep my appearance private and not to be stared at by strange men and foreigners. My husband was happy with my decision to take the veil. Once I am dressed in this way it makes it easier for him. He doesn't have to worry about my journey to and &om work and being outside without him. There is nothing for him to be concerned about when I am veiled and it allows me more freedom and shows that I am a woman concerned about her modesty. The experience of being in a foreign place is unpleasant and difficult, and wearing the veil eases some of the problems. It is not frightening to walk through the streets for one thing. Being hijob also makes it clear that the person is Muslim and that is also important to me. We cannot forget that we have a different way of life. one which has different concerns and priorities with regard to morality fiom those of the French people. Sometimes wearing the veil means that you attract the attention of the French people who hate Islam, but experiences like this make me more proud of being an Arab and a Muslim ...y ou also feel safe when wearing the veil in any kind of situation - it is a protection was well as a sign of love of slam.^^'

Like the Muslim women in the West who cover as an expression of personal identity.

many Saudi women wear the veil for the same reason. Ramazani's interviews with Saudi

women in 1985 found that "one encounters American-educated Saudi women who declare that

they wear the veil with pride, as it is a manifestation of their native traditions and culture.'"33

AlMunajjed's interviews (1 997) confirm this conclusion:

A 35 year old teacher, married with two children and holding a BA in education fiom the United States, said: 'Yes, I wear the veil out of conviction'. 'On what do you base your conviction?' I asked. 'I am attached to my traditions. Wearing a veil is part of one's identity of being a Saudi woman. It is a definite proof of one's identification with the norms and values of the Saudi culture. ..and i will teach my daughter also to wear it.'

"' Watson: 149-50. 433 Rarnazani: 28.

For one 29 year old single woman who has spent most of her life in Europe, gaining an MA in social sciences in London, the veil is not a sign of oppression: 'I think that it is very wrong to believe that the veil for the woman of Saudi Arabia is a sign of oppression or retardation or subjugation as the West believes.. .and it does not mean at all that we hold a secondary status as all the Westerners want to believe. These are all false assumptions built against us.' She added: 'I wear the veil, because for me it is a sign of personal and religious choice. It is because I lived in the West, and 1 saw all the corruption and immorality in their, as they call it "liberated society" of illicit sex and drug abuse, that now I am more convinced of our local traditions and I am more attached to them. I want to preserve my Arab-lslamic identity, and for me. this is a way to show it.'

5.1 Social Status.

Personal identity is asserted in another way: as a way to declare one's position in the

social hierarchy. This is how covering has traditionally been used, with different social classes

using different styles, patterns and materials. The new covering initially was a rupture in this

kind of social meaning since it was a sort of uniform. stressing the egalitarian aims of the

Islamic movement. Perhaps it is inevitable that as covering becomes more widespread people

will use it as a way to distinguish themselves from Macleod suggests in Egypt the

new hijab is partly an expression of the lower-middle-classes' attempt to differentiate

themselves from the lower classes in the hopes of being 'middle-class.' As one woman told her:

"This dress is not the same as those baladi women wear! You see the way the scarf comes over

my head. and the pin I use to hold it on. And also the soft colours and material. This hi& is

not the same at all; this is the dress that women of the middle-level, the middle-class, wear.''435

Or, as Hoda told Hoodfar:

It is terrible that we had to move to this area [a cheap neighbourhood on the outskirts of the city] because we couldn't afford to stay in a better area. After all these years of studying 1 had to move to an even worse area with all these fafaheen and illiterate women.. .it is much better that I am veiled because if I wore European clothes to work, they would accuse me of being loose.. . even in the neighbourhood

134 Evidence for this aspect came from the Egyptian studies, so there is no way of knowing how it applies to other countries. Certainly this use of hijab contravenes the Moroccan women's statements as well as the earlier egalitarian stress of the new veiling in Egypt. El Guindi, a: 476. 135 Macleod: 134.

I would never go out looking the way the do. Wearing the veil makes them respect me and accept that I am not one of them. 4Y6

Wearing the new hijab as a mark of middle-class status represents a dramatic change from

earlier decades. Then, middle-class status was achieved by wearing Western dress. i.e. skirt,

blouse, two-piece suits, knit dresses, stockings, high-heeled shoes, and purse; for men. shins,

pants, suits, socks, and shoes.437 In a telling moment, an Egyptian University Dean refused the

request of Islamist students that they be allowed to wear traditional folk jalabiyyas on campus.

The Dean "explained that galabiyas were not appropriate dress for the educational

environment.. .Foreign dress is believed to reflect the greater sophistication of its wearer, who

has had his mind opened by education. , 4 3 8

6. Custom.

The notion that women cover voluntarily is viewed sceptically by many observers.

Orientalist discourse predisposes people to assume the worst about voluntary covering (it is

forced. the women are paid, et~). '~' Since it is a given that Islam is backward and oppressive.

someone choosing Islamic dress is by definition absurd. Orientalist discourse is on easier

ground with societies where there has been an uninterrupted tradition of women covering. Of

such societies. the Orientalist view that Islam oppresses people with backward customs makes

more sense, because there. women are not choosing to cover in an environment where most

women do not cover. The continuity of the custom makes it easier to assume that women are

being 'brainwashed.' In these societies, it is the woman who wants to uncover who has a harder

time. Since my thesis is an attempt to challenge the notion that hijab is a symbol of oppression,

a brief look at the experience of women who cover due to custom and state law is essential. In

436 Hoodfar, a: 120. "' Rugh: 1 18. '3a Rugh: 1 19. No date given. Her research conducted mid-late 1970's. and later nips in early 1980's. 439 Goodwin, Helie-Lucas.

1 70

Chapter Five, I discuss in more depth the liberal concerns that covering due to custom and state

laws are 'sinister pressures' on women.

In societies where women cover due to custom, the point I want to highlight is that

covering is the traditional way to dress, and everyone is socialised to dress that way and to see it

as natural. This kind of socialisation is no different from the West, where people are socialised

to consider wearing jeans normal and natural attire, but not appropriate for a formal dinner

dance, where another kind of dress is required.

Makhlouf s study of upper and middle strata San'anis (the capital of North Yemen)

provides a good illustration of a community which covers due to custom. She found that

typically a young girl would start to veil around age ten. Different social classes wore different

materials and styles and foreigners,"' rural women, low-class women, or Yemeni women born

in East Africa did not veil. In addition, San'ani women who wore niqub at home would not

while they travelled overseas."'

Of course, the customary nature of San'ani covering did not mean that clothing was

worn unreflectively. Indeed, at the time of Makhlouf s fieldwork (l974A976). the veil was a

matter of national discussion and debate. Major daily newspapers promoted national and

religious ideology that women were citizens, that Islam gave Muslim women rights and duties,

and that they should be educated and contribute to national development."' Makhlouf

concluded that people's attitudes towards niqob were ambivalent. San'anis, male and female,

were aware of the "contingency of the practice." since the veil was not worn by all women. but

none of Makhlouf s informants viewed the veil as a

cause or manifestation of the female's inferior social status. The women did not seem to think in these terms, even when directly questioned about the idea. Those

440 Makhlouf contemplated covering at one point but was discouraged by the women who laughed at first, and then told her seriously "No, you are a foreigner, you should not do that, people would laugh at you (37-S)."

Makhlouf: 37-8. 4Jt Makhlouf: 9 1.

who disapproved of veiling did not relate their position to the idea of the veil as a symbol of inferiority. They objected to the veil b e c a w they considered it cumbersome, meaningless, and an obstacle to sincere interaction between the sexes.

Other women she interviewed were in favour of the veil saying it protected them "against the

looks of men." The President of the Yemeni Woman's Association, who had studied in Cairo,

wore niqub and said that the veil "still provided some protection in a traditional society and that

the costs of taking it off would be too high." She saw the veil as secondary for the moment. and

considered other issues such as early marriage, high fertility, illiteracy, and lack of any activity

outside housework and ~ufiita'*~ as more s i g n i f i ~ a n t . ~

Makhlouf found that social pressure to cover the face was great, as one woman who had

tried to uncover had not lasted more than a year. Sana'is weren't yet ready for women to

uncover their faces, as another woman said, "men generalise about women and if one unveiled

woman [mutabarrija or faatsha] is dirty and behaves improperly, they would think that all

unveiled women are the same. So when all women unveil, we shall unveil too. but this will take

time.'*' The Head of the Nursing School (a woman) pointed out that "men themselves are

undecided about the veil: some may agree in theory that it should not exist, but when it comes to

women of their own family, they enforce the traditional norm." But women also enforce

traditional norms. When Makhlouf asked "whether some girls did in fact take off their veils.

some of my informants replied that this was impossible, or if it really happened. then the girls

must be 'mad' ( r n a j n ~ u n a ) , ~ ~ ~ or stupid (muufii 'aqi).'TU7

443 Tafrira: a regular female social gathering. It is an afternoon visit where women congregate in someone's house to sing, chat, eat, dance, and chew qaat (a small shrub, the leaves are chewed to produce a state of mental alertness, wakefulness, and a pleasant stimulation of the senses). Qaar chewing is a subject of great controversy, (p.22,48).

Makhlouf: 36. Makhlouf: 37.

446 Literally, 'possessed by jinn.' J i m are believed to be creatures invisible to the human eye. They, like human beings, have free will. Some are Muslim and some are not. The devil is a jinn. W7 Makhlouf: 37. Maa fii 'aql: does mean stupid but in a specific way: it means she "has no social sense" i.e. lacks understanding of her piace in society and the propriety she must exercise at all times so as to avoid offending others and making them feel uncomfortable and embarrassed. The same description is used of men who behave badly towards others - a socially relevant other is always implied in this phrase. (Boddy, editorial comment.)

With the revolution in 1962, and the impact of television since 1975, San'a society

undenvent some rapid changes. Makhlouf noted the changing practices of the veil. For instance

some girls' schools may have had a male teacher before whom the girls would not wear niqab.

At the San'a university she saw veiled women chatting to male students or studying with them.

Breaches and manipulations of the veil increased, she thought, a s more and more girls walked in

the streets with the veil lifted, their faces covered only by the iithmrr."8 In addition. a new type

of outdoor garment appeared, replacing the shmsafand sitaura?' a balto (adaptation of the

Russian word for coat) which is a long-sleeved ankle-length coat worn over trousers. with a

scarf on the head. Even traditional San'anis conceded that in theory, the balto was in

conformity with the requirements of modesty.450 Several mothers who were strict about their

own veiling said their daughters would not veil when 10, including one mother who was the

wife of a prominent tribal sheikh.451

Other countries where women cover due to custom and tradition are seeing similar

changing practices over veiling. Wikan's study of Sohari women in Oman. based on fieldwork

conducted in 1974 and 1975-76, found a debate over the need or not for Sohari women to

continue to wear their unique face covering, the b ~ r ~ a . ~ ~ ? Sohari Arab women usually assume

the burqa upon marriage (around early teens). and only those of very high or very low status or

of non-Sohari origins did not wear the burqa. Some Sohari's said that when "Sohar becomes

modem with electricity and a korniche [a paved road that runs by the sea], the burqa will be

Lithrna: the indoor veil, a brightly coloured thin material or muslin (30.) 549 Sicaara: a large piece of corton material printed in red, blue and green. and covering the head and body. To this is added a piece of black batik ornamented with large red and white circles covering the face and transparent enough to let the women see through. Tend to be worn by lower social categories, although middle social categories may wear it for casual occasions, such as morning errands. Sharsaj consists of three parts-a long pleated skin worn over the dress and a waist -length cape covering the head and shoulders, both made of black silk- like material, and a piece of thin black muslin to cover the face. Tends to be worn by higher social categories, and b middle categories for afternoon visits (i.e. more formal occasions.) (Makhloufi 30-3 1) '' Makhlouf: 67-8. "I Makhlouf: 77. JSZ Burqa: leather mask shaped to cover a woman's forehead, nose, cheekbones and mouth, leaving other parts of the face visible.

173

discarded because old-fashioned [sic]." Many agree that the wives of tomorrow-schoolgirls of

today-will not come to wear it, "for they will work and earn a living.'*'53 And just like during

colonial times, sometimes their husbands force these changes upon women. One Sohari man,

Ali, compelled his wife to stop wearing the burqa with the threat of divorce. "In this he is

representative of only the most modem of Sohari men at present. Yet he may have marked a

path for others in the f ~ n u e . ' ~ ~ ~

Saudi Arabia is another country in which niqab is traditional dress. As a 34-year-old

uneducated woman told AlMunajjed (1997): "I don't just wear the veil ... I was born in it, and I

grew up with it ... It is all a matter of customs and traditions. The Western media usually

presents the view that all Saudi women cover unwillingly, but empirical fieldwork suggests that

many women like covering. A Saudi woman doing her PhD in anthropology at Oxford

remarked to Alireza for her National Geographic article in 1985, that "I'm a Saudi woman. I

like my veil. ,9456

Saudi Arabia's "modernisation" process has been quite different from that of most

Muslim countries in that wholesale imitation of the West has never been a state policy.

Women's education expanded in the 1960's and a growing female-only employment sector

developed. There are women-only banks, colleges/universities, and women run private

businesses such as real estate. restaurants. hairdressing and beauty salons. and boutiques. The

Head of a Teachers' Training College in Riyadh with a PhD from Michigan State University

"smile[d]" when Ramazani "asked whether she [found] wearing the veil a hindrance. She

point[ed] out that she [was] pursuing a challenging and fulfilling career. that she [was] not

453 Wikan: 108. jS4 Wikan: 98. '" AIMunajjed: 47. 456 Alireza: 445. Abu Lughod's study of the 'Awlad Ali, a Bedouin tribe living in Egypt, presents another interesting angel on covering and custom. There the women cover their faces from custom to be sure. but wearing the veil is conceived by the women as a voluntary act on their part to show their respect for their fatherlhusband.

actually veiled "on the job," and that obviously the veil (hanging on a coatrack in a comer of her

spacious ofice) has been no hindrance.'"" Hence, Ramazani concludes for these women, "the

veil, as such, is not the issue. As long as women have access to education, and can have a

choice of working or not working, they have no objections to wearing the veil.'A58

However, as in Oman and Yemen, veiling is a matter of great debate in Saudi Arabia

and veiling practices are undergoing gradual changes. A forty year old woman with elementary

ievel schooling told AlMunajjed: "I don't like it [the veil] at all, and I wish the custom would

change ... I think that the custom was established here in Saudi Arabia during the Ottoman

occupation ... I hope my daughter will not have to wear it, but society still demands it. ,9459

Altorki, on the other hand, found in her study of thirteen elite families in Jiddah, that women

veil their faces less and less?' She believes this is the result of a combination of travel abroad.

education for men and women, younger women's greater autonomy in marriages. and the move

away from extended families residing in the same house to more nuclear fmilies. In mixed

gatherings of "'close friends' [a] haute couture dress of 'decent cut' is acceptable by those

whose very presence at the gathering indicates their liberal view in such matters, although that

view does not extend beyond the confines of the shared privacy which the occasion

provides.''46' In the traditional market place the veil is still worn. but elsewhere. especially in

the Western-style shopping centres. no niqab is worn. Unmarried women continued to observe

the veil strictly, but Altorki found that even for them the rules were relaxing. Women continue

By covering, the woman demonstrates the man is a good moral being. When they wish to demonstrate displeasure, or unworthiness of the man, they will not cover. Veiling for these women demonstrates their political agency. J57 Ramazani: 24-5.

Ramazani: 23-5. One friend who went to high school in Saudi Arabia, and who covers in Canada, but not her face, said she did not mind wearing the face-veil while in Saudi Arabia. She said it was light enough to allow the air to circulate. Another 6iend who went to high school there, and who now works as a doctor in Canada said she feels more constrained in Canadian society where the mixed-sexed institutions cramp her mote than the female- only institutions did in Saudi Arabia. 459 AIMunajjed: 48. J60 Based on field research conducted in 197 1, 1974-6 and often and on until 1984: 1. J6' Altorki: 37.

175

to wear h i j ~ b ? ~ It is also interesting to note that Altorki found that "In all families studied.

religious fastidiousness has declined over the three generations.'463 Only the older generation

of men and women performed all five obligatory daily prayers, with the younger generation of

men and women praying seldom, or only during Ramadan. Men's drinking, once considered "a

tabu that must be observed by men in private and public" is now condemned only if it is

44excessive.'4'" This reinforces the point made in section four, that covering is not always worn

out of religious conviction.

Historically niqab has not been worn by rival or lower class urban working women. but

many of these groups do have traditional dress which includes head-covering. The binr a/-balad

group in Egypt is an example of this.465 Bint a/-balad, in Egypt. meaning 'daughter of the

country' have basically maintained their traditional dress, in spite of the secular model of the

unveiled woman promoted by the Egyptian state for the last few decades. and the new covering

appearing in Egypt since the late seventies discussed above. These women often wear

jalabijya. ( a long, coat-like dress) covered by a black outer dress, and a modesty wrap known as

the malayya lafl Some have replaced that with a long, conservative Western-style dress, and.

sometimes, a shawl. They wear a kerchief (mandii) over her hair? The baladv are religious.

but attend shrines rather than mosques. and have not increased their religiosity. nor become

involved in the current Islarnists' political opposition to the state. as have many of those

adopting the new hijab?' The baladv are well known for being "outspoken. self-sufficient,

ingenious. and full of spunk." Zuhur concludes for them hijab is viewed as a defence of their

modesty in the

"' Altorki: 36-8. 68-9. By the late 1990's. I think this is changing, with an emphasis again on niqab. 463 Altorki: 4 14. '6.1 Altorki: 15. 465 Binr a[ balad can also include Coptic women (Christian), they dress alike. 466 Zuhur: 8-9. 467 Zuhur: 121. 468 Zuhur: 122-3. Cf El-Messiri.

1 76

Macleod's 1983 study of lower middle class Cairene women suggests another aspect of

covering due to custom. Even though the covering movement in Egypt is relatively recent, it

has spread amongst the lower middle class and taken on the characteristic of a mass movement.

Macleod points out that this spreading has given covering different motivations from the initial

impetus, even as some women cover for similar reasons as their predecessors.469 Over half the

women in her study associated covering with being fashionable. Hyub has become "stylish."

Said one woman: "I don't know why fashions change in this way, no one knows why: one day

everyone wears dresses and even pants. I even wore a bathing suit when I went to the beach at

Alexandria one time. Then, suddenly we are all wearing this on our hair!" Another: "I don't

know why everyone wore modem dress before and now we do not, but this is the

6. State Law Rewired.

State law required covering, such as in Iran after the 1979 revolution. and Afghanistan

after the 1998 accession to power by the Taliban, is the most familiar reason for covering for a

Westerner. Compulsory covering is one of the West's fears of Islam, and one proof against

Islam that it is a religion that oppresses women and ignores their fundamental human rights. I

am against compulsory covering of women. but it is difficult in a Western culture that is

predisposed to dislike Islam to condemn these laws without my condemnation serving a broader

anti-Islamic/Orientalist discourse. ('There is Muslim woman who agrees that these

Iranians/Af&anistanis are barbarians.') I return to this issue in Chapter Five. What 1 want to

highlight for the purposes of this chapter is that while it is certain that many women in Iran and

Afghanistan suffer due to state-law required covering, many women would cover whether or not

there was a law. Some women would even support the law: Mrs Taleghani, the head of the

Society of Islamic Revolutionary Women who had told a New York Times reporter that "it is

569 Macleod: I IS. Macleod: 1 12-3.

only Western propaganda that claims the chador is something that causes the degradation of

women. It is simply a type of dress. Those who believe in tradition keep the chador, just as

Indian woman [sic] wear the sari?'*

So, the point I wish to make here is not to defend state laws on covering. but to highlight

my discomfort with the way Orientalist media and other groups hostile to Islam make use of the

state-laws on covering in order to serve their broader agenda. Media images of state-law

required covering, as well as unsophisticated academics, always focus on the theme of coercion

and force. implying that all women there cover against their And. by extension. that

Islam is a violent, oppressive religion. An international group of Iranian exiles ("International

Campaign in Defense of Women's Rights in Iran") working to overthrow the Islamic Republic

of Iran, claims to represent millions of women in Iran who protest against the oppressive Iranian

regime that has "made life hell for millions in Although there are Iranian academic

women who make clear their opposition to the chador,J74 the only studies based on interviews

with Iranian women that I found include women who do not object to the law requiring

covering. I have already quoted fiom Rarnazani's 1983 survey. Givechian's fieldwork in 1986

led her to conclude that covering is "appealing to the bulk of Iranian people.'475 She found that

those opposed to covering were urbanised Iranian women who had experienced half a century of

uncovering under the Shah. and who disliked both covering per se and the compulsory nature of

covering under the Islamic Republic, bur most particularly the compulsory nature of covering.

47 1 Quoted in Ramazani: 3 1-2. Rarnazani rightly points out that Iranian women do not have the choice whether to conform to tradition or not. A reviewer rightly observed that given Taleghani's position as Head of the Society of Islamic Revolutionary Women, one would hardly expect her to say anything else. But is her credibiiity thus completely undermined? Here we are again at a thorny issue: how independently-minded are the women who support the regime? As for Afghanistan, in my opinion, the situation there, with women banned ftom work and going outside unaccompanied by a male is tragic, and, moreoever, a distortion of Islam. I have no interview data for Afghanistan, so I do not know how women feel about the veiling law. 472 For example, Reece. 473 b*lnternational Campaign in Defense of Women's Rights in Iran," flyer I picked up fiom their booth at an International Women's Day Fair, 1998. 475 E.g. Tabari. Azari.

Givechian: 528.

Givechian believes urban women opposed to the chador are a minority and that for the majority

of Iranian women, who live in small cities or in rural areas "veiling has never been an issue

because they kept wearing what they had previously been wearing regardless of revolutionary

change?"

B. DISCUSSION OF THEMES.

Based on her 1980-84 survey of women in Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait and the United

States, Haddad elaborated the following reasons women in the Middle East were re-covering.

My summaries of themes for covering are obviously consistent with Haddad's:

Religious-an act of obedience to the will of God as a consequence of a profound religious experience which several women referred to as being "born again";

Psychological-an of authenticity. a return to the roots and a rejection of western norms (one woman talked about the "end of turmoil'. and a "sense of peace");

Political-a sign of disenchantment with the prevailing political order: Revolutionary-an identification with the Islamic revolutionary forces that

affirm the necessity of the Islamization of society as the only means of its salvation; Economic-a sign of affluence, of being a lady of leisure; Cultural-a public affirmation of allegiance to chastity and modesty. of not

being a sex object (especially among unmarried urban working women): Demographic-a sign of being urbanized; Practical-a means of reducing the amount to be spent on clothing (some

respondents claimed that others were receiving nioiiey from Libya and Saudi Arabia for the purpose);

Domestic-a way to keep the peace, since the males of the family insist on it. [Haddad ought to have mentioned the role that mothers and mothers-in-law play in insisting on hijab too.lJ7'

interestingly it is the unveiled women in Zuhur's study who accepted El Guindi7s

interpretation of hijab as a psychological response to crowded urban space and as an economic

tactic in times of hardship. and Rugh's interpretation that some wore h&zb as a fashion item.

But Zuhur, while finding her conclusions in line with Haddad's study too, is not happy with

Haddad's 'economic' category:

476 Givechian: 529. (A great many of these urban, middle/upper-class women now live in the West.) 477 Haddad, c: 158

The veiled respondents simply did not offer that sort of explanation for their orientation, and they clearly were not ladies of leisure. Even though I feel strongly that economic factors contributed to the growth of higab wearing, they ought to be corroborated in a tangible manner by the women directly involved. Unveiled women would agree that there is an economic explanation for veiling, because they believed veiled women seek to hide their lower-class origins. They combine that category with the motivations in Haddad's 'practical" category.. .but socioeconomic and political insecurities as an explanation cannot be proven because this analysis must be based on the verbal evidence presented by the respondents. Most declared piety and a new realisation of the meaning of ~ s l a r n . ~ ' ~

Rugh noticed this also: "from my conversations with those wearing even the modified forms of

fundamentalist dress, I would be reluctant to underestimate the strength of piety that underlies

its The veiled women in Zuhur's study completely disagreed with these scholars'

conclusions and older women especially disagreed with Rugh's interpretation. The veiled

women

said that higab did not make travelling through public spaces easier for them personally, although they acknowledged that such an assumption was reasonable at a superficial level. It was difficult to understand why they would hedge on this point. I decided that it was because they wished me, as an observer and recorder. to interpret their decision to veil as one based upon piety and self-control rather than on practicality and pressure from other men and ~ornen.~' '

As pointed out in Chapter Two. there is clearly a class dynamic involved in the wearing

of and pronouncements upon hijab. In Zuhur's study most of the upper and upper-middle

classes are opposed to veiling, or unhappy with it. Pursuing the secular model of the -modem

woman,' a model promoted by the State, many unveiled women consider the muhaJabat as

threat^.'^' Others worry that the new hijab is the result of Saudi influence.48' In lower-middle-

class households. covering can be objected to for not being modem. Aida's fiance was not

impressed when he heard his future wife declare her intention to wear hijab after their marriage.

He exclaimed, "Why wear these clothes? They are ugly and not necessary. These are modem

''13 Zuhur: 104-5. 83. Ru@: 156.

480 Zuhur: 78. 48 1 Zuhur: 133.

times!'"83 Many uncovered women think covered women are seeking to conceal their class

origins, a seemingly patronising comment from some higher up the social adder.^"

Popular Western culture and some feminists often take the increased numbers of women

covering as evidence for a global threat of a growing Islamic movement. (An idea. as we shall

see in Section C, caricatured by the media as women's coercion by fundamentalist men.)

Watson concludes that while each of her interviewees has differing personal reasons for

covering, what they have in common "is that they are making an active politicized response to

forces of change, modernity and cross-cultural communication." She concludes that their

political act is "an Islamic example of the global trend of reaction against change experienced as

chaotic or challenging, which takes the form of a renewed interest in fundamental principles of

social and moral order.'"85 Haddad characterises the women in her study as part of an Islamist

movement which "becomes ... a kind of moral rearmament in which women are spearheading

the construction of a new social order and playing active roles in the anticipated vindication of

the Muslim people.''86 But Macleod cautions against making such generalisations The lower-

middle-class women in her study were

quite negative about the beliefs or actions of Islamic groups and called the followers "bad Muslims" or even "criminals." They saw such groups as political. not religious, organizations and as inappropriate areas or activities for women in general. . . Rather than participating in an overtly religious revivalism, these women express a general sense that people in their culture are turning back to a more authentic and cultural1 true way of life! and they perceive the veil as part of this cultural reformation? Y

Williams: 53. Bahraini women who mostly wore Western dress worried to Ramazani about "retrogressive ideas from Saudi Arabia" entering Bahrain: 29. "' Macleod: 2.

Zuhur: 78. Watson, a: 156. Macleod: 1 16. Haddad, c: 159.

487 Macleod: 110-1 11. Macieod is sceptical about the women's use of the veil, because she says while the women may not choose to remember the negative aspects long associated with veiling, others will, and the veil's prevalence will make it easier for them to invoke other traditions of the past, such as seclusion (152). The women thus reinscribe their own subordinate status (1534.) There is some truth to this claim, as evidenced by a growing pressure From some Islamic groups (with male and female adherents) for women in Toronto to wear niqab, and the promotion of an ideal of seclusion.

181

Macleod emphasises that for the women in her study "the idea of being Muslim has more to do

with their role as wife and mother in the family, than with expressions of nationalism or anti-

western feeling.'488 Rugh would concur. At the time of her study, zaqy shar 'i was largely a

middle-class phenomenon. Lower middle-class women wore a folk dress similar to middle-

class dress, but their "motives are more related to community norms than to pretentions of piety.

Lower-class women may be conscious of certain kind of dress appropriate for Muslims. but

vague about Koranic verses and specific And Zuhur notes that while the

Islamic ideal is a reaction to the model of the uncovered secular woman. upper class covered

women still have more in common with uncovered women in their own class than they do with

the

Rugh suggests that lower-class ra)?, shar 'i when compared to middle-class zayy shar 'i

shows an "inattention to the stricter interpretations of Islamic dress requirements that ask for

more sober colors, opaque materials, and a complete concealment of the hair. The middle class

usually claim that the lower classes are ignorant of religious meanings and implications even

though they may comply with some of the formal requirements of ~slarn."~~' Rugh found that

there is a great range of outfits in Egypt, and what one village considers immodest another may

not. She views the new hvab either as a generational rebellion against the liberal, pro-Western.

middle-class values of parents. or for socially mobile children of lower-class parents who still

maintain more traditional values, the new huab is a transitional outfit, less startling than other

middle class styles (i.e. Western dress). but still signalling the acquisition of educated status for

the young woman.49'

Macieod: 1 15. " Rugh: 155. '90 Zuhur: 15. in Egypt, bola& carries the sense of 'hick,' -redneck.' etc "' Rugh: 148. '92 Rugh: 154.

182

For those societies where traditional veiling is undergoing slow change, a point to

highlight is the people's acceptance of changing practices over the niqab so long as the changes

are gradual. This reflects flexibility (rather than rigidity, which is often assumed in popular

Western consciousness about these cultures) in their understanding of the nonns that required

veiling in the first place (modesty, shame, and religion for instance). Thus while they were not

ready to imagine women not veiling at all at the present time, they could for a future time. Just

as people in Ontario are not ready for women to go topless now, they may be in a future time.

Clearly the hijab has become a mine of meanings, and we should proceed very carefully

if making summarising or generalising statements about what hijab 'means.' As Bremer's

study of Javanese women shows, conclusions relevant to the Middle Eastern context of

recovering are not relevant for Java. Javanese culture has no tradition of male/female

segregation and no problem with women working outside the home, so covering for economic

reasons, or to secure respect in order to work, such as the Egyptian studies revealed have no

resonance with the Javanese women's decision to cover."93 At the very least, the presence of so

many differing motivations for covering should forever expel the simplistic Western notion that

'the veil' 'means' a woman is oppressed. 'The veil' obviously 'means' many different things.

depending upon the context and. to some extent. upon the individual. In the 1950's in Algeria it

could mean one was anti-French colonialism. in 1970's Iran it could mean one was anti-Shah. in

1990's Iran, it means one had no choice about covering, in 1990's Egypt it can mean one is

recopising the law of one's faith? or seeking an acceptable solution to the problems of work

and family, in 1990's Indonesia. Britain. France and Canada it can mean an assertion of one's

religion and unique cultural identity.

C. THE MEANING OF HIJAB - WESTERN MEDIA VIEWPOINT.

It is fairly easy to demonstrate the differences between the sociological complexity of

the motivations for and meanings of covering and the standard Western media image of the

motivations for and meanings of covering. For the Western media hijab. by and large, stands

for oppression. and as shorthand for all the horrors of Islam (now called Islamic

fundamentalism): terrorism, violence, barbarity and backwardness. This is a pre-determined

mould into which the empirical details are made to fit. As chapter Two highlighted. fitting

empirical details about Islarn and Muslims into a predetermined image that satisfies the needs of

the West has a long and illustrious history. Daniel and Southern studied that phenomenon for

the Christian medieval period, and Said named that scholarly practice as Orientalism. It is self-

evident that in the twentieth century media-driven images of Islam are reproducing the

Orientalist vision of the world, Islam and Muslims. As Said notes. '?elevision. the films. and all

the media's resources have forced information into more and more standarized molds.'4w

Many scholars, policy makers, popular writers and citizens share what Daniel called for the

medieval writers a "communal mode of and what Said calls a Western "cultural

consensus.'A96 Key features of Orientalist discourse are at play: the rigid WestEast dichotomy,

confirming Muslims as the alien 'Other;' the superiority of the West. with its liberal democratic

values that non-westems lack; the silence of the Orient. its mysteriousness and its inability to

speak for itself; the need for its practices to be given meaning by the superior West; Western

knowledge as book knowledge: and the veil as the metaphor for the entire 'Orient' and as

shorthand for all the horrors of Islam. In this pre-determined frame there is no space to capture

the sociological complexity of covering described in sections A and B. These kinds of mass-

495 Brenner: 674. 494 Said. a: 26. j9' Daniel: 302. At times a rare scholar faulted travellers with creating false impressions of 'other' religions due to the travellers' ignorance of the local language/custorns, and the short duration of their stay. C.f. Pailin: 17.

market books and newspaper articles about Islam and Muslim women purportedly aim to inform

us about contemporary politics in the Muslim world. What they really do is scare the Western

reader and c o d m for them the violence and backwardness of Islam, and hence the legitimacy

of Western politicians seeking to keep their hegemony over the Muslim world.

The Islamic Empire was once a real threat to Christendom as in the Middle Ages it

spread from Spain to China. And this threat has remained in the Western subconscious ever

since. Said notes that "Islam remained forever the orientalist's idea (or type) of original cultural

effrontery, aggravated naturally by the fear that Islamic civilzation originally (as well as

contemporaneously) continued to stand somehow opposed to the Christian These

days. Islam has replaced the 'Red Menace' of the Soviet Union, to become the 'Green Menace.'

threatening Western civilisation and all that is good in the Islamic fundunentalism.

like communism in the 19603, is said to be poised to sweep across the world. from "the gaudy

mosques of the Indian subcontinent to the shadeless deserts of North Africa" writes

~ c r o ~ ~ i n s . ' ~ ~ Tehran aims to establish "a chain of theocratic states from Sudan to Algeria."

argues ~ o o d w i n . ~ * ~ Goodwin engages in scaremongering by linking a world-wide chain of

Islamic fundamentalists to the World Trade Centre bombing, stating that in the US Islamic

fundamentalists are recruited on university campuses.50' Her final chapter closes with a

quotation fiom a Muslim scholar who says that the "Islamists will soon be causing a lot of

problems for the West, as well. in fact. it has already started there."50' Terrorist attacks on

Western tourists in the Muslim world only confirm this notion for the average Western reader.

496 Said, b: 48. 497 Said, a: 260. 498 E.g. Huntington, Barber. 499 Scroggins: P 1.

Goodwin: 125. Goodwin: 7, 17, 12.

502 Goodwin: 35 1 . Goodwin tries to separate "devout Muslims" (8) fiom hndamentaiists, but her argument that the Prophet himself was one of the "world's greatest reformers on behalf of women," and Islam is probably the "only religion that formally specified women's rights and sought ways to protect them,'*(29-30) is overpowered by her

185

And this fundamentalism is seen to be "fighting to keep a half-billion Muslim women in

legal bondage to men ( ~ c r o ~ ~ i n s ) , " ' ~ ~ or is "determined to remove every small gain women had

made and plunge them back into the Dark Ages ( ~ o o d w i n ) . " ~ ~ " Saudi Arabia's grim reality,"

writes Brooks, "is the kind of sterile, segregated world that Hamas in Israel, most mujahedin

factions in Afghanman, many radicals in Egypt and the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria are

calling for, right now, for their countries and for the entire Islamic world.. . [they want] Saudi-

style, theocratically enforced repression of women, cloaked in vapid cliches about a woman's

place being the paradise of her home."s0s

The fear created by these images and arguments is palpable, both in the authors writing.

and in Western audiences reading. The scary discourse about the threat Islam poses to the West

is predicated on the Orientalist's rigid division between West and East. So, Goodwin's Price of

Honor starts out by establishing the Orientalist division between West and East. between 'us'

and 'them:' "'Just as we learned with Japan, Islam is an ancient culture, one that is rigidly

traditional, and one that was essentially closed to the Western world for centuries. It has its own

way of doing things, its own philosophies. and, most important. its own religion. 9,506 But this

statement is inaccurate. The boundaries are, and have always been more porous. For instance,

Muslims preserved and studied the ancient Greek philosophers, and bequeathed that knowledge

along with other important sciences, such as medicine and mathematics (algebra, Arabic

numerals) to the West. Scholars flocked from all over the world to Cordoba, Baghdad and other

metropolitan centres to learn. helping move the West out of the "Dark ~ ~ e s . " ~ ~ ' But any

recognition of a joint heritage undermines the anti-fundamentalism argument these authors

emphasis on treacherous behaviour meted out to women in the name of Islamic fundamentalism. Her linkage of the scarf with fhdamentalism will not do anything but reinforce extant negative Western stereotypes about Islam and Muslims. 50' Scroggins: P I . '0.1 Goodwin: 144. ' 05 Brooks: 177. '06 Goodwin: 25.

present. The horror of fimdamedalism rests absolutely on thinking of fimdamentalists as alien

'others.' Western superiority and self-praise relies on dichotomising: we are superior, civil.

sane, rational, modem, women loving; but 'they' are fundamentalists, fanatic, extreme, anti-

liberty, anti-women, and inferior.508

Just as in colonial times, where the veil was the metaphor of the entire Orient. in the

1990's the word 'veil' is shorthand for all these horrors of Islamic fundamentalism. Headlines

proclaim: "The Veiled Threat of Islam: 93509 C b Women of the Veil: Islamic Militants pushing

,"510 women back to an age of official servitude, "Foulard. Le Cornplot: Comment les Islarnistes

Nous Infiltrent, [The Veil. The Plot: How do the Islamists Infiltrate US?]"^" ' b I ~ l a m ' ~ Veiled

~hreat,"'" "An act of faith or a veiled threat to society?"513 "Muslim Veil Threat to Harmony

in French Schools, Minister says;"514 "The New Law: Wear the Veil and Stay live;""'

"Women Trapped Behind Veils. 99 516 Even those who are not focusing on hijab in their reports

use the word 'veil' in their titles: Scroggins' article is called "Women of the Veil." and

Goodwin's subtitle is "Muslim women Lift the Veil of Silence on the Islamic World.''

In many of these popular articles/mass-market books the hijab is not the central focus.

but serves as a symbol of a range of oppressions women are alleged to sufer under Islam. Thus

hijnb is linked to claims about women's inferiority within Islam. The 'veil' is assumed to be a

"blatant badge of female forced on unwilling women by various methods-

bribery.518 or threats of and actual violence.s19 Goodwin ernphasises how uncomfortable hijab

50' Cf Southern, Daniel, Rodinson. '" Said. Mohanty: 353. '" New Sraresmun. 27 March 1992, cover page. 'I0 The Atlanta Jorrmal.The Atlanta Comirution, June 28. 1992, Section P . 51 1 L 'Express, 17 November, 1994, cover page. 'I2 Le Nowel Observateur, 28 September. 1994. 'I3 Toronto Star, May 14 1 996, F5. 5" Vancouver Sun, September 1 5 , 1994. A 1 8 . "' Monrreal Ga-ette. April l l . 1994.83. ' l6 Toronto Star, December 1 5, 1 996, F4. 'I' Scroggins: P3. "' Goodwin: 262.

is in the heat, and that wearing it can bring diseases fiom lack of sunlight.s20 When Brook's

colleague adopts hijab, Brooks writes:

The Islamic dress-hijab-that Sahar had opted to wear in Egypt's tormenting heat signified her acceptance of a legal code that valued her testimony at half the worth of a man's, an inheritance system that allotted her half the legacy of her brother, a fbture domestic life in which her husband could beat her if she disobeyed him. make her share his attentions with three more wives, divorce her at whim and get absolute custody of her children.521

(Compare to Hoodfar: "Whatever might be said for or against veiling, the veil is nonetheless a

socially sanctioned style of clothing, and most veiled women feel that the advantages it offers

outweigh any inconveniences it may present."522)

But as we saw above, many women in Muslim countries wear hijub willingly and with

conviction. In Scroggins. Goodwin's and Brook's hands, these women come across at best as

silly, duped. or bizarre, and at worst, as Islamist ideologues equally responsible and culpable as

men for supporting an anti-woman ideology:52?

... and the rise of hdarnentaiisrn in Islamic countries marks dramatic and detrimental changes in the lives of women. It is recognized. of course. that women do join the radical movements voluntarily, as happened in Iran at the beginning of Khomeini's revolution. Such women frequently become fhdarnentalists because they were among the disenfranchised who gained access to power for the first time. or because they are genuine believers in the ideology. Others felt that under fundamentalism. and if they are completely veiled, they will receive more respect and be less harassed by men. But in the vast maioritv of cases, women are forced to adhere to fundamentalism either because the men in their families require them to or because of threats of violence fiom Islamists in their c~mmunities.~'~

The youth. who featured prominently in the academic studies of covering discussed above, in

Goodwin's study are presented as easily attracted to "extremism" due to their age and their

- -- -

'I9 Goodwin: 55, 78-9, 8 1.98. 10 1 , 107-9,293,300. Scroggins: P3. "O Goodwin: 56. Note the double standard: *we7 Western women are advised to cover-up in the sun. (Boddy, editorial comment). '" Brooks: 8. "' Hoodfar. a: 1 16. 5'3 Goodwin: 1 12, I6 1, l86-7,217, 247, 342. Goodwin presents some women who cover as not fundamentalists and fearing hndarnentalisrn: 85. Scroggins: P2. 524 Goodwin: 15. My emphasis.

188

socio-economic conditions.525 Her 'vast majority' obviously escaped being interviewed by

those scholars cited above. In Brook's nands they are presented as the herald of a bleak firture

leading their country backward in time, proclaiming an Islam that is '?he warped interpretation

promoted by the wealth of the Saudis. I hated to think of a generation squandering its talent in

the service of that repressive creed."s26 None of the caveats/nuances of the scholarly studies

exist, such as Macleod's observation that the new veiling in lower-class Cairo is not directly

linked to the Islamic movement in Egypt, or Zuhur's and Rugh's emphasis on piety. not

socioeconomic conditions, or Bremer's perception of Javanese women as forward looking.

rational and modem women seeking to re-discipline themselves and improve their society.

When covering is a central focus of an article, the image is not much better. Two

representative, if scumlous, examples are Michele Lemon's piece in the Globe and Mail. and

Katherine Govier's in the Toronto Star. Lemon, who has an MA in Islamic Studies from

McGill University, discusses her reaction to seeing a woman in niqab while she is waiting for a

bus: "I feel I've been punched in the stomach." Lemon concludes that headscarves should be

allowed in Canada. but not niqob. Her reasoning is based on the well-worn notion that women

in niqab are oppressed:

I see a premedieval spectre before my eyes.. .her oppression, for oppression it is, becomes a symbol of the difficulty all women once faced and a startling reminder that the struggle for equality has not ended. I understand all too well why she wears this hideous costume, but I despise it nonetheless. How could anyone defend the outfit as preserving anything but the low regard and true unimportance of women, all protestations to the contrary? This woman is a walking billboard that proclaims public space is reserved for men.

The others at the bus stop tsk tsk. and laugh to each other. Lemon writes "I want to tell them

that this is no laughing matter, that under that forbidding costume there lurks a defaced human

being.. .I amve home feeling shell-shocked. I say that people who want to promenade in this

525 Goodwin: 175, 137. 526 Brooks: 165. See pp 152, 166.

I89

country as slaves should not be allowed to do so. It is an &ont to the rest of us; to human

dignity and respect." What I want to highlight here is Lemon's confident assumption that the

woman wearing niqab is oppressed, indeed her insistence on this ("for oppression it is") just in

case anyone might beg to differ. Lemon proclaims these judgements without even talking to the

niqab-wearing woman herself and without knowing anythng abut her. Here we have the

Orientalist, in the guise of a Western feminist, telling us the true meaning of a practice (no

'matter what anyone else, especially the woman herself might say: "I understand all too well why

she wears this hideous costume, but I despise it nonetheless.") Chandra Mohanty critiqued

approaches like Lemon's a full fourteen years ago for their colonising nature. This approach

constitutes women as a group outside any contextual social/political/economic relations in

which they live, and then universalises 'We" oppression of women to apply to all women. All

that is needed is to find a group of powerless women to "prove the general point that women as

a group are powerless."527 And the veiled woman is taken by this approach to be the example

par excellence of the powerless woman: "Her oppression . . .becomes a symbol of the difficulty

all women once faced." Further. the operative word here is "once," with the implicit

assumption that some women (Western women. Lemon) are no longer oppressed. but others (the

veiled premedieval spectre) still are.

Lemon argues that women who wear niqub have:

[Alccepted on some level the argument of those who claim that society must be protected from chaos and anarchy. One of the greatest dangers to social harmony is the temptation women present to men. The way to ensure that lust is not acted upon. runs this facile logic. is not to work on civilizing or restraining a handful of men who cannot be trusted to control themselves, but by making women believe that they are the source of evil and must be made non-existent if they wish to venture out of doors.. .It is not the woman I despise, but her compliance in a charade that can in no way be defended on religious grounds, that handy refuge of the desperate authoritarian ... a woman with a covered face will always be a shocking spectacle of subservience to men.. .I have read too mmy soul-destroying stories

-- - - - -

"' Mohanty: 338. Thanks to Boddy for pointing to the relevance of Mohanty here.

about crimes of honour and young men ordering their much older female relatives about for me to look at this woman with anythmg even approaching equanimity.s28

Remember Yasmeen fiom Chapter One, who, while in her own country had insisted she wear

niqab, but who took it off after six months in Canada because of reactions like those of Lemon?

Katherine Govier discusses her reaction to seeing women in niqab representing Yemen

at the Beijing conference on Women: "What are these figures? Bank robbers? Egyptian

mummies in full drag? Escapees fiom the executioner's chamber?' She articulates the

conventional Western view that women in niqub are oppressed. A woman in niqob, she writes

is "masquerading - as a non-penon:"

To present this walking black pyramid, a negation of a human figure, as a delegate, is gallows humor ... When I first saw the photo [Yemeni woman's identity card photo] I was choked with anger. Who enforces this walking jail on women? Or how do they get away with it? This is not to denigrate the individuals inside that cloth ... But what a tragedy that they are forced to represent their fellow Yemeni women in this dehumanizing way.

Recall section A above. and Makhlouf s study of Sana' women. Govier evidently did not sit

down and discuss with them what they perceive as more pressing social problems for women

than the veil - "early marriage. high fertility, illiteracy, and lack of any activity outside

housework and tafiira. "529 Govier says of these women:

Some women report to like the veil. We read all about that, several decades ago. when the veil first came into question by feminists. It's liberating, wrote some eastern women, because you don't have to feel vulnerable all the time as men stare at your body. That is tantamount to arguing that a 7 p.m. curfew would be liberating for women because you wouldn't have to worry about men attacking you after dark.. .It's a life 1 guess. But not much of a life.

Again, here we have the Orientalist questioning the ability of the native to understand her own

practices. ("Some women report to like the veil [implies: if only they could understand its true

oppressive nature] .") Govier wonders why nations tolerate this dress.

528 Note she says she has "read" stories, implying a 'book knowledge' of Muslims rather than first hand experience. Again, this is the Orientalist methodology that relies on texts for its understanding of the Orient. 529 Makhlouf: 36.

Do we mistake this cloaking and negating of the essence of women for worship. But it is a social dictate, enforced by men who regard women as chattels; it is for nothing but the protection of property, and to prevent women's participation in all but the most private spheres of life ... and why does this pass unremarked? Where are those among us who will stand up and cry enough to the practice of extinguishing women with black cloth?

"Orientalism is resilient if nothing else!" noted one editor of an earlier drati of this

chapter. Chapter Two went into the colonial image of hijab in some detail. but it will be

illuminating to make some more direct comparisons here. Scroggins, Goodwin, Brooks. Lemon

and Govier's pieces are not so very different from colonial representations of Muslim women.

In 1900 Hume-Griffith lived in Persia and Arabia for several years while her husband was

employed as a doctor for a Christian Medical Mission. Her book also capitalises on the word

veil, being entitled Behind the Veil in Persia and Turkish Arabia. Her version of Muslim

women is the same as that presented by Goodwin, Scroggins, Brooks, Lemon. Govier et a1 90

years later. Here is Hume-Griffith's description of Muslim women in niqab:

When Mohammed, acting under what he declared to be a revelation from Allah. introduced the use of the veil, he swept away for ever all hope of happiness for Moslem women. By means of the veil he immured them for ever in a living grave. "Imprisoned for life" is the verdict written against each Moslem woman as she leaves childhood behind her."530 [cf. Govier: "Who enforces this walking jail on women?"]

What these authors all share is the assumption that Western women are better off, and

ought to come to the aid of Muslim women:

How ohen I have said to these women. "Alharnd'llillah (thank God), I am not a Moslem woman!" and the heartfelt answer has always been, "Yes. indeed, you may thank God; but it is naseeb" (fate). The longer I live amongst Moslem women the more my heart yearns with love and pity for them, and the more thankful I am that their lot is not mine.531 [cf. Govier: "It's a life, I guess. But not much of a life."]

Ought not the cries of distress and agony from the poor women of Persia so to rouse us, their sisters in England, that we shall determine to do all that lies in our power to lighten their burdens and to bring some rays of light into the dark lives of our

530 Hume-Gri ffith: 222-3. 53' Hume-Griffith: 223.

Eastern sisters?532 [cf. Scroggins: "Wherever we went, Jean and I always wished Islamic women would ask us the questions we imagined they had about American women. For example, we were eager to discuss why we were free to travel without our own male guardians. (P 1 2)"]

Poor, blind, misguided Moslem women of Mosul and other Mohammedan lands! [cf. Lemon: It is not the woman I despise, but her compliance in a charade.. .] How my heart aches for them! Will no one heed the cry of anguish and despair which goes up from their midst? As we think of their lives our cry can only be. "How long. 0 Lord, how long will these things be?"" [cf. Govier: "Where are those among us who will stand up and cry enough to the practice of extinguishing women with black cloth?"]

D. CONCLUSION.

Orientalism is flourishing in Western media and in their attempts to describe events in

the Muslim world. in the last few years there are signs of change. with several high profile

newspapers publishing more positive articles from covered Muslim women's perspective:

"Their Canada includes h @ ~ b ; " ~ ~ ' "Nor a Fashion Fad. But a Way of ~ife;"'~' "Don't Let the

,9536 .w537 q h e Scarf Fool You; "My hijab is an Act of Worship - and None of Your Business.

. 4 3 9 Power Behind the b b M ~ ~ l i m Women Try to Debunk Myths About Women. "My

Body is my Own ~ u s i n e s s , " ~ ~ ~ but the full weight of the mainstream view is as yet untouched.

Just as in colonial times. the word 'veil' is a synonym, or shorthand. for Muslim women's

oppression and the inscrutability of that world as constructed by the West. The word 'veil'

stands for the entire culture of the Muslim world. and encompasses everything done to women.

For the popular media, hijab is foreign. alien. a sign of other, of violent, backward and inferior

foreigners trying to drag the civilised world down. This image of hijab serves journalists well - it is sensational, controversial, jingoistic. and exciting reading. And hijab is also something

53' flume-Griffith: 103. 53 3 Hume-Griffith: 235. 534 Globe and Mail, August 22, 1994, A 1. 535 Globe and Mail, August 27, 1994, D7. 536 Wesr Australian, November 16. 1993, You: 5 . "' Globe and Moil. February 1 5. 1995, Facts and Arguments. "' The Weekend Review (Austraiian), July 22-23. 1996. Features: 5. ' j 9 Toronto Star. July 30, 1996, E3.

193

visible, a tangible symbol on which to hang these meanings, something that 'pictures' well

(recall the importance of the gaze for giving meaning). It should be obvious how different is

that journalistic image from the sociological studies examined above.

The popular media's presentation of hijab as foreign is especially problematic for

Muslim women living in the West, who are challenged to prove that wearing hijob does not

violate Western [civil as opposed to barbaric] values. When the CBC broadcast its

documentary. mentioned in Chapter One, afier the expulsion of the Quebec schoolgirls in 1994.

about Muslim women and hijub, not only did the reporter typically evoke fear by linking the

wearing of hijob to the violence in the Muslim world: ("events in the Islamic world cast a

shadow over events in Quebec. Algeria forced women to wear hijab or face reprisals."), she

also framed the story in the rigid WestEast term that is a hallmark of Orientalism. The reporter

asked the audience "how much we [a 'we' not including Muslims] as a society can and should

accommodate?. . .So far the furore over the hijob has not spilled over Quebec's borders but it has

raised questions that face the entire country about who we are and what we believe in. Can the

hijab pass the litmus test of being Canadian?" Geraldine Brooks, on her way home to Australia

after a stint of covering the Iran-Iraq war. finds Indonesian women in hwb waiting in the airport

lounge. "A swift, mean-spirited thought shot through my jet-iagged brain: "Oh, please. Not

here too." She wonders if Muslims would "see that Australia, where atheists routinely p t

elected prime minister, was a much fairer, gentler society than the religious regimes of places

like Saudi Arabia and the Sudan? Or would they, as their numbers increased, seek to impose

?"54 1 their values on my culture. And her book closes with the argument that "in an era of

cultural sensitivity, we need to say that certain cultural baggage is contraband in our countries

and will not be admitted ...[ we should send a signal to Muslim countries] that we, too, have

540 Toronto Star, February 17, 1 998, C5. 54' Brooks: 236.

1 94

certain things we hold sacred: among them are liberty, equality, the pursuit of happiness and the

right to doubt,""' leaving a scared reader convinced such values hold no place in Islam. The

CBC's questions and Brooks' arguments leave no room for Canadian/Australian born Muslims,

or for Canadian/Austraiians who covert to Islam in adulthood. Are these people not

Westerners? Are they imposing foreign values when they practice Islam? Aren't secular liberal

westemers supposed to be neutral about how people live their lives? Apparently not when it

comes to h i j ~ b : Reece argues that h w b is a "classic example" of Muslims who have not "filly

assimilated psychologically" in the Discrimination. assault, and even murder of Muslims

living in the West are the results of these ways of thinking.5"

'" Brooks: 238-9. Reece: 37.

544 See Abraham, a and b; Kashmeri; Shadid and Koningsveld; and CAR, 1995 and 1996.

C W T E R FOUR.

MERNlSSI AND THE DISCOURSE ON THE VEIL.

If there were one author who is widely consulted in the West about the 'meaning' of the

'veil,' it would be Moroccan feminist, Fatima Memissi. Her two books. Beyond the k'eil, and

The Veil and the Male Elite are widely cited authoritative sources for scholars in the West. In

both books, Memissi argues that the 'veil' is a symbol of unjust male authority over women. To

date, apart from book reviews, I have not seen an extended academic critique of Mernissi.

despite her importance in the West. Academic writers seem to use her as an authority. rather

than subjecting her work to sustained criticism.545 The farther they are from the field of women

and Islam, the more they take her word to be the 'truth' about Islam. Mina Caulfield, giving a

Marxist critique of liberal feminist's use of the concept of equality, notes Nelson and Olesen's

paper suggesting 'equality' be replaced by the concept 'complementarity:'546 "[Tlhey lose

credibility in my eyes by choosing as their example the roles of women and men in Muslim

society. As Fatima Mernissi makes clear in her study of male-female dynamics in Muslim

society (1 979, the kind of b~cornplementarity'~ instituted by Islam between men and women was

that of master and slave."547 These scholars are representative of an uncritical use of Memissi.

The absence of a widely known alternative in the West to Mernissi's interpretation of the 'veil'

is disappointing, and makes urgent an extended critical examination of her works. Since my

thesis is aimed at undermining the stereotype of the veil as oppressive, a critical refutation of

Memissi's main arguments is essential. In this chapter I discuss Memissi's arguments about the

545 Mule and Bartfiel. Reece. 546 Nelson and Olsen: "Veil and Illusion: A Critique of the Concept of Equality in Western Thought," Catalyst, 10- 1 I , 1977. "' Caul field: 205.

196

meaning of the veil as presented in her two books, Beyond the Veil, and The Veil and the Male

Elite.

A. MERNISSI AND METHODOLOGY.

The personal trauma that Fatima Mernissi seems to have experienced growing up in

Morocco is never far from the surface of most of her writings. It is not hard to be moved to

empathy by her autobiography, or other autobiographic details that she intersperses into her

various works. She grew up in a harem during French occupation, and W. W.11. The harem was

guarded by a man at the gate you had to get permission from in order to leave;s48 she recalls the

painful way that she was taught the ~ u r ' a n : ' ~ ~ and her surprise at having escaped the illiteracy

that other women of her class were doomed to because of male control over them. In Doing

Daily Battle she writes:

My father adored me. He used to take me on his mule to the mosque for Friday prayers, and he kept me by his side during long hours of reading or discussions with his friends. The books that he loved and regularly pored over were histories of Musiim civilisation, which was his passion. Nevertheless, my father, who adored me, who was immersed in our heritage and impassioned by our civilisation, bought me a djellaba and tried to force the veil on me at the age of four. For him there was no contradiction beween civilisation, refinement, and immuring alive, physically and mentally, a child of the female sex?'

Another anecdote from Mernissi's autobiography illuminates her relationship to

covering very well. During the Second World War (Mernissi was not yet nine) Memissi says

that she and her playmate cousins. Sarnir and Malika, were trying to work out why the French

and Americans were in Morocco. Cousin Malika suggested "the blond-haired tribes were

fighting the brown-haired people [the Germans versus the French]." The young Samir and

Fatima were terrified when an older cousin, Zin, confirmed Maiika's theory, that Hi-Hitler

"hated dark hair and dark eyes and was throwing bombs from planes wherever a dark-haired

548 Mernissi, c. s49 Mernissi, b. "* Memissi, e.

population was spotted." Samir begged his mother to dye his hair with henna (i-e. red). and

Memissi started wearing one of her mother's scarves:

I ran around with one of my mother's scarves tied securely around my head. until she noticed it and forced me to take it off. "Don't you ever cover your head!" Mother shouted. "Do you understand me? Never! I am fighting against the veil. and you are putting one on?! What is this nonsense?" 1 explained to her about the Jews and the Allemane, the bombs and the submarines, but she was not impressed. "Even if Hi-Hitler, the Almighty King of the Allemane. is after you," she said. 'you ought to face him with your hair uncovered. Covering your head and hiding will not help. Hiding does not solve a woman's problems. It just identifies her as an easy victim. Your Grandmother and I have suffered enough of this head-covering business. We know it does not work. I want my daughters to stand up with their heads erect, and walk on Allah's pianet with their eyes on the stars." With that. she snatched off the scarf, and left me totall defenceless facing an invisible army that was running after people with dark hair. S T ,

Memissi's mother and other women of her generation fought and gradually changed

covering iuld veiling practices in Morocco. Their daughters wore Western dress. and they

switched fiom huge body wraps (haik) to long pyjama-like dresses. After independence in

1956, the women returned fiom a nationalist rally one day. faces and heads uncovered. "From

then on. there were no more black litham to be seen covering young women's faces in Fez

Medina: only old ladies and young. newly migrant peasants kept the veil [as a sign of moving

up the social ladder]."55' In the face of this. could a young child develop anything other than an

ambivalent (or negative) attitude to covering? Could a young woman decide she wanted to

cover without being seen as backward. anti-nationalist?

Memissi is obviously still traumatized by these memories. and her whole corpus is

evidently a search for the cause of her pain. as a way to change and remedy it. And who would

not condemn such a system? That women of her class had to veil (niqab) when they were

allowed outside makes her equation of veiling with women's oppression seemingly self-evident.

The problem. as Karima Omar noted, is that Mernissi equates her experience in the Moroccan

-

5 5 1 Mernissi, c: 100. 552 Mernissi. c: 120.

system with Idam. She does not seem ever to have questioned if her father was acting in

accordance with Moroccan tradition. or with the real spirit of Islam. Mernissi never seems to

have wondered if Moroccan society was a good refection of the Islamic vision; she just

assumes that it is. Omar concludes that Mernissi is still "subservient to the patriarchal culture in

which she was raised" because she accepts the childhood version of Islam presented to her by

her elders, and then attacks that version.5s3

So, one of my principal disagreements with Memissi is her failure to distinguish

between Islam as practiced by people, and Islam as normative vision. This is crucial because

Mernissi's argument against hijnb is based upon her failure to separate out these two strands.

She makes certain assumptions about Islam's view of women, that I will examine shortly, based

upon her ahistorical approach that confbses practice with text. She argues that the twentieth

century Moroccan social/political/economic system is the seventh-century Arabian system. and

an accurate reflection of the vision of Islam:

The Prophet's religious vision, his personal experiences. and the structure of society he was reacting against all contributed to the form Islamic society took. The assumptions behind the Muslim social structure-male dominance. the fear offitnu. the need for sexual satisfaction, the need for men to love Allah above all else-were embodied in specific laws which have regulated male-female relations in Muslim countries for fourteen centuries.s54

Memissi fails to recognize that religion can be used and manipuiated in many ways, and

that religion is but one institution of many that interacts in complex ways in a society to produce

social. political. economic and individual beha~i0ur . j~~ One approach in counteracting such

ahistorical generalizations is to hone in on a particular time and place. and provide

contexuaiized data on Muslim women. This is the historical/ethnographic/anthropological

approach. Practitioners of this method are leery of making any kind of claim about 'Islam' as a

553 Omar: 14. j5' Memissi. a: 82. '" Lazreg, b: 14-15.

1 99

religion.s56 Lazreg: "It is misleading and simplistic to look upon Islam as a text that is learned

and faithfully applied by all members of the society in which it is practiced."5s7

Nevertheless, to counteract the negative stereotype that hijab is a symbol of Islam's

oppression of women, I do not think it is enough only to provide detailed glimpses of the lives

of some Muslim women (although that is essential too). There is an appropriate debate to be

had at the level of ideas. Laneg is right to point out that in practice Muslims may not 'learn and

faithfully apply Islam as a text' in their daily lives. But Muslims do often justify their behaviour

with reference to 'what Islam requires.' It is pertinent to ask if 'Islam' requires the kind of

society Memissi condemns as hostile to women. or if there are altemative visions that are more

pro-women. In this chapter I will argue that Memissi's arguments about Islam3 view of

women are contradicted by the very sources of Islam, the Qur'an and hadith (sayings of the

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)). I will present an altemative view, and will argue that it is the

differences in assumptions about Islam's view of women that lead to different readings of the

practice of covering. I understand that Moroccan society (or any other society) does not

embody pure Qur'anic visions of women. Indeed one of the struggles for reform in the Muslim

world revolves around bringing practice in line with Qur'anic vision. Utopia may never be had

on earth, but my debate with Memissi is a debate over normative Islam (is the Qur'anic vision

anti-woman or not?). I turn now to her arguments in Beyond the Veil and The Veil and the hfale

Elite.

B. WOMEN IN BEYOND THE VEIL AND THE VEIL AND THE MALE ELITE.

Bqvond the Veil. first published in 1975. is about the effects of modernization on

traditional Moroccan society, and on the relations

Memissi's basic argument is that modernization

(especially sexual) between men and women.

is a rapid, unstable, but welcome change to

556 Eg. Wikan, Lazreg. 557 Lapeg, b: 14.

200

traditional Moroccan male/female roles. Traditional roles emphasized women's subjugation to

men, their seclusion in the home and to enforced domesticity. ("Fundamentalists are right in

saying that education for women has destroyed the traditional boundaries and definitions of

space and sex roles. Schooling has dissolved traditional arrangements of space segregation even

in oil-rich countries where education is segregated by sex, simply because. to go to school,

women have to cross the street!"5s8) Mernissi contends that in Islam. 'woman' is seen as a

dangerous creature needing control. Veiling, seclusion and the like are the Muslim social

order's attempt to deal with the threat women pose (firnu), the threat of the anti-divine. and to

the male's communication with ~ o d . " ~ Women are thus excluded from the community of

believers. She concludes that modernization is a threat to the Muslim social order because

modernization encourages heterosexual love between husband and wife, whereas the Muslim

social order wants to prevent such love.560 ("Sexual equality violates Islam's premiss.

actualized in its laws. that heterosexual love is dangerous to Allah's order. Muslim marriage is

based on male dominance. The desegregation of the sexes violates Islam's ideology on

women's position in the social order: the women should be under the authority of fathers.

77 561 brothers, or husbands. ) Beyond the Veil is divided into two parts. Part One attempts to

establish that in 'the Muslim social order' women are viewed as a threat needing containment,

and Part Two is a look at contemporary Moroccan society, that is supposed to reflect 'the

Muslim social order' outlined in Part One. Part Two is based on interviews conducted in 1971

and on a study of letters received by a Moroccan State television's religious counseling service.

The letters and interviews support her conviction that Moroccans are unsettled by the changes

modernization has brought to traditional Moroccan life.

- - - - - - -

558 Mernissi, a: xxviii. 559 Mernissi, a: 19,44. 560 Mernissi, a: 8.

Mernissi, b: 19.

20 1

Whereas in Beyond the Veil Mernissi believed that "women were much happier before

the Prophet's time,"562 by the time she wrote The Veil and the Male Elite some twelve years

later, she seems to have changed her mind: "When I finished writing this book 1 had come to

understand one thing: if women's rights are a problem for some modem Muslim men. it is

neither because of the Koran nor the Prophet, nor the Islamic tradition, but simply because those

rights conflict with the interests of a male elite."563 She says that she found in the Prophet's

(pbuh) community strong, intelligent and active women who spoke out and were involved in

the political economic and social affairs of the community.

The Veil and the Male Elite is an attempt to return to the first Islamic community and

the sources of Islam to reinterpret hijob using the traditional methods of Islamic scholarship: the

science of hadith, and Qur'anic interpretation focusing on the asbaab al-nuzuul (the reason for a

verse's revelation). This approach marks something of a tum-around in Memissi's attempt to

examine women's rights in Islam, but as I will show, the book contains important continuities

with Beyond the Veil, leaving the end result no more satisfying. The Veil and the Male Elire

elaborates an argument that pits the Prophet (pbuh) against Umar. one of his closest

companions, his father-in-law and the second Caliph after the Prophet's @huh) death. Memissi

suggests that the Prophet (pbuh) was a kind of feminist dedicated to women's rights, and Umar,

a misogynist dedicated to controlling women. At a crucial moment in the first community's

history. the years 3-8, years of military defeat and scandals associated with his wives, the

Prophet (pbuh), Memissi contends. gave in to Umar's misogynist demands for instituting the

hyab?' She holds that in this way male supremacy won out over the women companions'

562 Mernissi, a: 17. 563 Mernissi. b: ix.

Mernissi, b: 162.

202

(such as Aisha's and Umm Salama's) struggles for equality, and the hgab is a symbol of that

fight between men and women, "the vestige of a civil war that would never come to an end."56s

Naturally these two books contain a wealth of material with which to engage in dialogue.

Since my interest in the works is related to my concern over the notion that h w b is oppressive. I

confine my examination only to those themes that are relevant to hijab. Thus I leave out her

discussions in Beyond the Veil on marriage practices (divorce, polygyny), intra-family relations.

the role of mother-in-law etc., and in The Veil and the Male Elite, her examination of hndith

about women and leadership, and all the ins and outs of her history of the first community.

Beyond the Veil lays several thematic foundations (continued in The Veil and the Male

Elite) relevant to a study of hvab, in spite of the fact that the book only briefly mentions

covering. First, Mernissi is convinced that Islam views women as a threat to the social order.

Second, that Islam considers femaleness as anti-divine. Third that due to these notions about

women being a threat and anti-divine that they are a distraction to men and male piety and

communication with God. Fourth. that because of that potential for distraction women are

excluded fiom the community of believers (the umma), subjugated (and humiliated) by men via

polygamy, repudiation, seclusion, segregation of the sexes. and veiling. And lastly. the veil is

the symbol of Islam's control of and contempt for women. Elucidating the first theme makes

the second, third, fourth and fifth themes self-explanatory.

Theme 1 : Women as a Threat to The Social Order:

Mernissi reaches her conclusion that Islam views women as a threat to the social order

via her understanding of the Islamic view of women's sexuality. She believes that Muslim

society contains contradictory theories of sexuality: an "explicit theory" of female sexuality,

found in some contemporary Muslim writers such as Abbas Mahmud al-Aqqad's Women in the

Koran; and an "implicit theory" of female sexuality epitomized by the eleventh-century writer,

-

565 Mernissi. 6: 19 1.

203

ai-Ghazali's Revival of the Islamic Sciences. According to Memissi, al-Aqqad argues that the

Qur'an establishes male supremacy and dominance over women, and that women's nature is

masochistic, enjoying their defeat by the male. In the explicit theory, women are passive. men

active

But Mernissi does not dwell on al-Aqqad? or the 'explicit' theory, because she believes

that it is the implicit theory, as seen in al-Ghazali's Book of Marriage, in which it is women who

are active. hunting out the passive male prey, that is "driven far further [than the explicit theory]

into the Muslim uncon~cious."'~~ For Mernissi, the entire Muslim social order is constructed

around the notion of active and dangerous female sexuality. In Ghazali's work, women are

presented as desiring beings with a sexual drive. Mernissi attributes to al-Ghazali "awe of the

overpowering sexual demands of the active female"568 from his view that men have a duty to

satisfy sexually their wives. Ghazali writes: "If the prerequisite amount of sexual intercourse

needed by the woman in order to guarantee her virtue is not assessed with precision, it is

because such an assessment is difficult to make and difficult to satisfy." Mernissi concludes

from this paragraph that Ghazali views female sexual demands with awe, and that he "admits

how difficult it is for a man to satisfy a ~ o r n i u r . " ~ ~ ~ Since women are recognized to be desiring

creatures. their not being satisfied by their husbands makes them a threat to the social order

because one could go 'on the prowl' for a man. thus tempting him and making him committing

illicit sex.S70 Thus Memissi's conclusion that in Islam "[wlhat is attacked and debased is not

sexuality but women. as the embodiment of destruction, the symbol of disorder."s71

566 Al-Aqqad writes in Arabic. so 1 cannot confinnldispute her summary of him. Based on Wadud-Muhsin, Memissi's summary seems to be accurate. Wadud-Muhsin: 35,98. '" Mernissi, a: 32. 568 Mernissi, a: 39-40. 569 Mernissi, a: 40. 570 Memissi, a: 39. "' Mernissi, a: 44.

Mernissi translates these ideas into the notion that Islam views women as active sexual

aggression turned outward. "The Muslim woman is endowed with a fatal attraction which

erodes the male's will to resist her and reduces him to a passive acquiescent role. He has no

choice; he can only give in to her attraction, whence her identification with fitna. chaos. and

with the anti-divine and anti-social forces of the universe."572 Memissi is playing up the

feminist critique of the femme fatale that she here attributes to Islam's view of women.

Mernissi seems to take offence at Ghazali's concern over women's 'virtue' because she

interprets concern over virtue as an attempt to control female sexual self-determination. Like

many other feminists, Memissi apparently views marriage and bans on pre- and extra-marital

sex as an oppression of female desire:

The panorama of female sexual rights in pre-Islamic culture reveals that women's sexuality was not bounded by the concept of legitimacy. Children belonged to their mothers' tribe. Women had sexual freedom to enter into and break off unions with more than one man, either simultaneously or successively. A woman could either reserve herself to one man at a time, on a more or less temporary basis.. .or she could be visited by many husbands at different times whenever their nomadic tribe or trade caravan came through the woman's town or camping

Islam changed these marriage practices. and made marriage of a woman to one husband (at a

time, she is allowed to divorce and remarry) the only legitimate marriage. Memissi puts this

down to fear of female sexual self-determination. and it underlines her conclusion thatb'[t]he

entire Muslim social structure can be seen as an attack on. and a defence against. the disruptive

power of female ~exuality."~'"

The second, third. fourth and fifth themes (female is equivalent to the anti-divine;

women distract men; women are excluded from the urnma, on the veil) follow simply on from

this first theme that women are a threat to the social order: 2): For Memissi, the idea that women

are desiring beings who can only be satisfied l a f i l l y inside marriage is also the reason Islam

572 Mernissi. a: 4 1. 573 Mernissi, a: 78.

205

equates women with the antidivine. (Unsatisfied woman leads to seduction, and destruction of

the social order, akin to anti-divine destruction of the social order); 3): She argues women are

seen merely as ways for men to satisfy their sexual appetites, so that men may return to their

contemplation of God. For these reasons, she contends that Islam views heterosexual love

between men and women as a threat, since heterosexual love challenges man's allegiance to and

attention to ~ o d . ' ' ~ In addition, she argues that Muslim men and women are socialized to be

enemies, kept apart by segregation, with the women placed under the domination of the male;570

4): As the agent of social chaos, a satanic force, the sexually active woman must be contained

and controlled: "Since women are considered by Allah to be a destructive element. they are to

be spatially confined and excluded from matters other than those of the family. Female access

to non-domestic space is put under the control of males."577 Locked up in the home. she

concludes women are not considered part of humanity and are thus excluded from the

community of believers the umma; 5): The veil is the symbol of that exclusion.

Theme Five: On the veil.

The importance of Memissi's assumptions about Islam's view of women as 'anti-

divine.' with an aggressive sexuality needing control, are highlighted in her view of the veil. and

linked to her understanding of segregation and its relationship to space. Memissi argues that the

social institutions regulating male-female interaction that were put in place divided social space

up into territories: "the universe of men (the urnma. the world religion and power) and the

universe of women. the domestic world of sexuality and the family."578 The two universes have

a spatial dimension, with the male universe equivalent to everything outside the home, women's

57J Mernissi. a: 45. "' Mernissi. a: 8.45, 1 13. 576 Mernissi. a: 20. 5 77 Mernissi, a: 19.

Memissi, a: 138.

universe being confined to the domestic sphere. Women's presence outside the home: while

seen as sometimes necessary is deemed an "anomaly, a transgression. 99579

For Mernissi, requiring women to veil when outside the home is to ensure the male and

4 8 0 female universes are not transgressed. Veiling is a "symbolic form of seclusion. and "an

expression of the invisibility of women on the street, a male space par excellence."581 The veil

"means that the woman is present in the men's world, but invisible; she has no right to be in the

street."582 The veil protects men against the women's power to create social chaos:

A woman is always trespassing in a male space because she is. by definition. a foe. A woman has no right to use male spaces. If she enters them. she is upsetting the male's order and his peace of mind. She is actually committing an act of aggression against him merely by being present where she should not be. A woman in a traditionally male space upsets Allah's order by inciting men to commit zinu. The man has everything to lose in this encounter: peace of mind, self-determination. allegiance to Allah, and social prestige.

THE VEIL AND THE UALE ELI7'E.

The Veil and the Male Elite, first published in 1987. attempts to answer the following

question:

Is it possible that Islam's message had only a limited and superficial effect on deeply superstitious seventh-century Arabs who failed to integrate its novel approach to the world and to women? Is it possible that the hijab. the attempt to veil women, that is claimed today to be basic to Muslim identity, is nothing but the expression of the persistence of the pre-Islamic mentality, the jahil iya [pre-Islamic times of Ignorance] mentality that Islam was supposed to annihilate? 83

To answer the question just posed. whether or not hijnb is a sign of jahiliyyu. Memissi goes

back to the Prophet's community, to examine the occasions for revelation that led to the verses

requiring Muslim women to cover. As already mentioned. this is a completely different

methodology from Beyond the Veil. But The Veil and The Male Elite, in spite of the new

"' Mernissi, a: 139. Memissi, a: 140. Mernissi, a: 97.

581, Mernissi, a: 143. '" Mernissi, b: 8 1.

methodology, reaches the same conclusions about Islam's view of women: women are

associated with the anti-divine, and excluded from the umrna. Women's sexuality is less at

issue in this text.

In The Veil and The Male Elite, Mernissi resstablishes her theme that Islam views

women as antagonistic to the divine. She does this in her discussion of a hudith narrated by Abu

Hurayra: "The Prophet said that the dog, the ass, and woman intempt prayer if they pass in

front of the believer, interposing themselves between him and the qibla."5" Mernissi points out

how important the qibla is to Muslims, since it orients one's prayers wherever one is in the

world, it is a unifying feature of our umma. She writes:

The qibla makes the universe turn, with an Arab city as its center. Excluding women fiom the qibla, then, is excluding them from everything - from the sacred dimension of life, as fiom the nationalist dimension, which defines space as the field of Arab and Muslim ethnocentrism.. ..Since the whole earth is a mosque. aligning women with dogs and asses, as does the Hadith of Abu Hurayra and labeling her a disturbance, amounts to saying there is a fundamental contradict ion between her essence and that of the divine.. . 585

Mernissi uses Abu Hurayra whom she presents as a misogynist. in order to argue that Islam

considers the female as sullying: 'To understand the importance for Islam of that aspect of

femaleness. evoking disturbance and sullying. we would do well to look at the personality of

Abu Hurayra, who, as it were, gave it legal

To reiterate her theme that Islam wishes to exclude women from the divine, and hence

fiom the ummn, Memissi next discusses the linguistic meanings of the word 'hijab.' The word

huab is derived fiom the root, hajaba, meaning 'to cover, veil. screen. shelter.' Memissi notes

that depending on the context, it has different uses. The examples she gives are that: Arab

Princes used to veil to escape the gaze

radiance of the Prince; Sufis use huab to

of the entourage, and to protect onlookers from the

indicate those distracted by earthly delights. unable to

5w Mernissi, b: 64. 585 Mernissi, b: 69-70.

see God; anatomically, hijab denotes boundary and protection (eyebrows, al-hajiban.

diaphragm, hijab oLjawf (hijab of the stomach), hymen, hijab 02-bukurijya (hijab of virginity)).

In the Qur'an, the word hm is used in several ways including the notion of hijob as a veil

between men and ~ o d ? ' Mernissi takes offence at this:

So it is strange indeed to observe the modem course of this concept, which fiom the beginning had such a strongly negative connotation in the Koran. The very sign of the person who is damned, excluded from the privileges and spiritual grace to which the Muslim has access, is claimed in our day as a symbol of Muslim identity. manna for the Muslim woman.

She ends the chapter by reiterating a central theme of Beyond the Veil-that the hgab cuts women

off fiom God. The hijab segregated the sexes. and "the veil that descended fiom Heaven was

going to cover up women, separate them from men, from the Prophet, and so from ~ o d . " ' ~ ~

Having demonstrated Islam is against femaleness, Memissi goes on to discuss the

reasons for the revelations that instituted covering. The first verse is the 'verse of the hijab

(curtain),' as the fuqahu (theologians/lawyers) call it, revealed at the Prophet's (pbuh) wedding

reception to Zainab:

0 you who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses-Until leave is given you-for a mean. (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when you are invited, enter; and when you have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) m o y s the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you. but God is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. And when you ask (his ladies) for anything you want ask them fiom behind a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right that you should annoy God's Messenger, or that you should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in God's sight an enormity. (Qur'an: 3353 .)

On this occasion. some male pests had overstayed their welcome, and the Prophet (pbuh),

being too polite to ask them to leave. had waited in Aisha's house in frustration until they left.

Anas ibn Malik goes to fetch the Prophet (pbuh) afier the guests leave, and as they return, the

Mernissi, b: 70-7 1 . 587 Mernissi. b: 93-97. The word hijab is not used in the Qur'an to describe women's clothing. That is why some people argue the Qur'an does not require covering. Hijab actually refers more to a state of being, (including

verse is revealed. Anas reports that with one foot in his house, and the other out, the Prophet

@huh) let fall a curtain between h a s and himself. Mernissi makes much of this event.

emphasizing that the curtain was falling between two men, not men and women, and her point is

that what was originally intended to separate two men got mutated by misogynist Muslim law

into being imposed on women.

Memissi goes on to discuss the Prophet's (pbuh) family life. relations with women. and

military wars, in order to present her final version of hijab: the triumph of male supremacy over

a brief moment of feminist history in the first Muslim community. She presents the Prophet

(pbuh) as pro-women, revolutionizing male-female relations, by giving, for instance. women

the right not to be inherited in marriage. and the right to inherit goods (where previously they

had no such rights), and by trying to abolish slavery.589 She discusses one of the verses revealed

in response to Umrn Salama's question about women not being in the Qur'an, mentioned below

in section C, and says:

The answer of the Muslim God to Umrn Salama was very clear. Allah spoke of the two sexes in terms of total equality as believers, that is. as members of the cornmuoity. God identifies those who are part of his kingdom, those who have a right to his "vast reward." And it is not sex that determines who earns his grace; it is faith and the desire to serve and obey him. The verse that Urnm Salama heard is revolutionary.. . 590

So revolutionaxy, in fact, that Mernissi thinks the men were unhappy with this new religion,

which up untii then had left their pre-Islamic family customs untouched.591 Mernissi suggests

that the women. "emboldened by this victory. then asked for a share in the war booty and for

the men this was pushing things too far.s92 Memissi argues the men found in Umar a champion

of their grievances against the rights of women. According to Memissi. Umar was able to

modest clothing). lowering the gaze, and the like. and applies to men as well. In the late twentieth century, the head-scarf Muslim women wear is also called a h@b.

~emiss i , b: I0 1 . 589 Memissi, b: 104, 120-125. 590 Mernissi, b: 1 1 8- 19. 59 1 Memissi. b: 120, 142.

2 10

pressure the Prophet, until he finally capitulated on his revolutionizing efforts, and the following

verse was revealed: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to

excel the other, and because they spend their property (for the support of women.) (Qur'an.

4:34)fg3 She says the Prophet (pbuh) finally agreed to Umar's insistence on the veil because

he and the community were worn down both by personal scandals in the Prophet's @huh) life

(hypocrites were harassing his wives, Aisha was accused of adultery), and after having been

under siege from its enemies.s94 For Mernissi this verse represents a "double retreat" from

Muhammad's previously egalitarian message, which was compounded by the institution of

h w b on the rest of the believing women: "the hyub incarnates, expresses, and symbolizes this

official retreat from the principle of equality."s95 The institution of the veil was. she argues, the

"exact opposite" of what the Prophet (pbuh) was aiming for.S96 And thus. it is not only the

wives of the Prophet who had to cover, but all (free) believing Muslim women: Surah 33. verse

59: "0 Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their

cloaks close around them (when they go abroad). That will be better. that so they may be

recognized and not annoyed.-

Mernissi contends that Umar did not understand the Prophet's desire for "civility and

politeness" in every day life, with desire being controlled by one's will. At the time, men were

harassing women in the streets urging them to sleep with them. According to Mernissi. Umar's

solution was to "put up barriers and to hide women. who were objects of envy."

Unfortunately for Islam. the conflict and debate on this question took place at the end of the Prophet's life, when he was growing old and when he was being militarily tested and challenged in the city where he had hoped to realize all his aspirations. The reaction of 'Umar, for whom barriers constituted the only way to

591 Mernissi, b: 129. 593 A better translation: "Men are the protectors and maintainen of women. baause God has given the one more (strength) than the other and because they support them fiom their means. .." Yusuf Ali 594 Mernissi, b: 163. 167, 172. "' Mernissi, b: 179. 5% Mernissi. b: 185.

control the violence, reflected the horde mentality that was the pillar of the ethics of the Arabia of the period of ignorance (al-jdzilijya). 597

The Prophet succumbs to 'Umar's insistence women should be veiled. For Memissi, as for

other feminists, this is a backward step, imposing burdens on women, while leaving men free

from having to control themselves. The hgab "was the incarnation of the absence of internal

control; it was the veiling of the sovereign will, which is the source of p o d judgment and order

9,598 in a society. The hijab thus represents the "triumph of the Hypocrites:"

In the struggle between Muhammad's dream of a society in which women could move freely around the city (because of the social control would be the Muslim faith that disciplines desire), and the customs of the Hypocrites who only thought of a woman as an object of envy and violence, it was this latter vision that would carry the day ... The hijub reintroduced the idea that the street was under the control of the sufahu, those who did not restrain their desires and who needed a tribal chieftain to keep them under control.'99

Memissi considers hijab a male supremacist victory, because the feminist victory would be to

have men control themselves, plus a campaign to make the streets safe for women. rather than

having women cover.

C. DISCUSSION OF THEMES.

Memissi's account of the traditional Muslim view of women's sexuality. and their place

and role in society certainly captures one dimension of some Muslim women's experience.

Indeed. as her autobiography shows, her account captures her own experience of growing up in

Morocco in the 1940's. The problem is. as I mentioned above, Mernissi's ahistorical and

acontexutal account of women in Islam. Not all Muslim societies, nor even a11 classes, have

secluded. segregated or veiled women. In Beyond the Veil, Mernissi discusses Moroccan folk

customs, Qur'anic verses, Prophetic hadith. and al-Ghazali as evidence for her theory about the

Islamic view of women. But there is a problem in discussing these sources as if they all had

"' Mernissi. b: 185. 598 Mernissi. b: 185. 599 Mernissi. b: 187.

equal status as legitimate statements about Islam. In a sociological study all forces that mould

people's ideology and culture require even treatment. A folktale may be considered by scholars

as a foundational source that does provide people a worldview. But that only applies to

understanding people as they live their lives. As an account of Islam as normative vision.

foiktales are barely admissible as a source for guidance. If Mernissi had restricted herself to

arguing that "this is how Islam has been enacted in Morocco. and I wish there were some

changes around the practices relating to women" she would have been on safe ground. and

would have the suppon of many pious Muslims the world over, myself included. But she does

not. She does not even argue, as does Ahrned, that Islam (as Qur'an) has an ethically egalitarian

message that was overlooked in the patriarchal historical elaboration of Islamic law. Mernissi

argues that 'this Morocco is what Islam requires a society that follows its laws to look like.' But

Moroccan customs exist that are contrary to both letter and spirit of Islam (keeping women

illiterate is an excellent example). And as she highlights? some Moroccan folktales (as in the

West) do embody anti-women sentiments. ("Women are fleeting wooden vessels whose

passengers are doomed to des t ruct i~n") .~~~ But she has got Qur'an. hadith. and even al-Ghazali

wrong.

1 . What is Islam?

3 7 7 6 0 1 Thus my most important critique of Memissi dwells on the question "What is Islam.

In The Veil and the Male Elife. Memissi offers the following definition of being Muslim:

I define being Muslim as belonging to a theocratic state. What the individual thinks is secondary for this definition. Being Marxist or Maoist or atheist does not keep one fiom obeying the national laws. those of the theocratic state, which define the crimes and set the punishments. Being Muslim is a civil matter. a national identity. a passport. a family code cf laws, a code of public rights. The confusion between Islam as a belief. as a personal choice, and Islam as law, as state religion.

6~ Even on folktales. Mernissi is reductive. See Bergman for a more sophisticated and nuanced study of Moroccan proverbs. Bergman discusses how women use certain proverbs to make at times, discreet social criticism, at other times to claim power due to them as mothers of sons, and as queens of the home. "' Thanks to M. Williams for formulating this question for me.

contributed greatly, I believe, to the failure of Leftist movements, and of the Left in general, in Muslim countries.602

But this is a decidedly strange definition of being Muslim. By her definition no-one in

Canada, the US, Australia, Britain, etc. is Muslim. And I am not sure how Jews, Christians.

atheists, or anyone else would take to being defined as "Muslim" simply because they live in

Morocco and abide by its laws. In fact, we may be at the heart of the matter here. If Mernissi

thinks the Left failed to understand the difference between Islam as private belief and Islam as

state law, then Mernissi herself has failed to understand Islam as a din. The Arabic din is often

translated in English as 'religion,' but it really means 'way of life.' Every one has a 'din' - the

secularist, the Christian, the Jew, the Hindu, and the Muslim. Islam is a din that does not

recognize the distinction between 'Islam as personal belief and 'Islam as state law.' Whor is

recognized, is that the law, and the customs of the people, might nor conform ro the intent of the

Lawgiver, God: that the law and the practices of the people might conrrodicr unambiguous

commands. Reform is always possible, and desirable.

Linguistically a "Muslim" is one who submits to the will of God. (One cannot be an

atheist and a Muslim; an atheist is a kofr. one who covers up/denies the existence of God.) The

question is. to what is a Muslim submitting? To traditional practice? To unambiguous, or

ambiguous text? To certain male interpretations of text? The answer to this puzzle is the

answer to "What is Islam?" There are several levels of explanation required here.603 First and

foremost, the individual is submitting to the will of God that is embodied in the Qur'an. The

Qur'an is held by believing Muslims to be the actual words of God, revealed to the Prophet

Muhmmad (pbuh) via the archangel Gabriel. Unlike other religious traditions. there is no

602 The failure of the Left, is the failure to understand people's resistance to secularisation, to treat that process as normal and uncontestabie. Mernissi. b: 2 1 . 603 The following discussion is based on Kamali; Philips; Murad, and von Denffer.

2 14

disagreement amongst Muslims (Sunni, Shi'a, Ismaili, etc) as to the authoritative text of Islam -

it is the ~ u r ' a n . ~ ~

The Qur'an is God's guidance and commandment to humankind. Its message is meant

to be universal and timeless. It is the first source for determining 'what Islam requires.' This

does not mean that 'what the Qur'an requires' is always obvious, or not open to difference and

disagreement. The Companions, tafseer (explanation of the Qur'an) scholars. and fuqaha

(lawyers), did, and do still, differ over the meaning of some verses. That is why no one

interpretation is held to be authoritative. Naturally, too, the interpretation. while guided by the

rules of Arabic grammar, the spirit of Islam, and the example of the Prophet (i.e. how he himself

implemented the Qur'anic injunctions) also depends upon an individual's own judgment.

Context does count. For instance, nowadays some scholars interpret certain verses as upholding

the 'Big Bang' theory of the origins of the universe. Evidently these verses meant something

different to pre-Big Bang theory readers.

The second source for 'what Islam requires' is the sunnah of the The Qur'an

instructs people to "obey the Messenger" several times; that is why his example is paramount.

The sunnah inciudes what the Prophet said. did, and observed others doing. but did not

comment on. Muslims believe the sunnah to be preserved in the hadilh collections and in the

seerah. the biography of the Prophet literature. Once it became obvious that people were

fabricating hadith, the scholars set themselves to the task of devising a science of hadith that

wouid establish criteria for acceptance/rejection of a hudith. Hadith are classified authentic,

good. weak. and fabricated.

Mu The 'ulum 41-Qur 'an, the science of the Qur'an, establishes that the text we have today is identical to that of the Prophet. A copy of the Qur'an fiom the Third Caliph, Uthman's, time is in the Topkapi museum in Istanbul, Turkey. (Uthman took office twelve years after the death of the Prophet (pbuh.) and ruled h m 644-656CE). Von Denffer: Plate 2. 60s As mentioned in Chapter One, because they follow their Imam, Ismaili's do not really have a concept of 'sunnah.' Shi'a have a concept of sumah, but their sources are often different From those of Sunni's. My thesis is fiom the sunni perspective.

215

Third, '%hat Islam requires" has meant, until the nineteenthltwentieth centuries, the

body of laws developed by Islamic jurists over the last 1400 years. Islamic jurisprudence

recognizes other sources of law after the Qur'an and sunnah, including the actions and opinions

of the Companions of the Prophet, the generation after them, juristic consensus. local custom

(where it does not contravene explicit Qur'anic/sunnah practice), analogical reasoning.

considerations of the public good, and so on. This is not the place to discuss the sources of

Islamic law. The only point I am making is that the rnadhabs (schools of law) have been seen to

define 'what Islam requires' legally. This has been challenged in the twentieth century by the

Salaf, Wahhabi. and other movements who argue that the rnadhab have enshrined laws that are

contrary to Islam. They call for a return to the 'pure' Qur'an and sunnuh practices. Once we

are at this level, we have really entered the realm of difference. As Kashmali observes, "by far

the greater part of jiqh (law) consists of rules which are derived through interpretation and

ijlihod (independent reasoning)."606 Because the scholars recognized that there was no way of

adjudicating between differing reasonable interpretations of the Qur'an and sunnah. the

understanding between them developed that no matter the differences in legal opinion. each was

said to be correct. A saying of the Prophet established that "when a judge exercises ijrihad and

gives a right judgement. he will have two rewards. but if he errs in judgement. he will have

earned one reward. "607 That is why different schools of legal interpretation and rulings exist.

Now. Memissi might be analyzing a system in Morocco that reflected the application of lslamic

law as it was understood by jurists. It is possible that the law developed in ways that restricted

women. But it is also possible that Moroccan practice was not based on explicit legal texts

either. The practice of keeping women illiterate directly contradicts the hadith: "Seeking

knowledge is an obligation of every Muslim, man or woman." Thus a

Kamaii: 109. " Abu Dawud. Sunun, 111, 101 3, hadith no 3567. In Karnali: 47 1.

2 16

sociologist/anthropologist would have to consider that Moroccan practices around women

embody a combination of Qur'anlsunnah legislation via madhhab, plus local traditions.

Understanding economic and political factors would also be crucial in understanding how local

traditions evolved, how mudhhub law evolved, and how they interacted (or did not). The impact

of colonialism. Westernization, and the importation of Western statutory law into Moroccan law

would be essential. This is what Bouhdiba means by pointing out the social plurality of Islam:

"there is no one Muslim society, but a multiplicity of social structures all claiming allegiance to

~slarn."~O~

These last points mean that 'what Islam requires' ought never to include 'what Muslims

do.' There are simply too many factors involved to draw out of the actions of a people the

normative requirements of a religion. If a group of Muslims are found legally to endorse

drinking alcohol, does that mean that Islam allows drinking? No, for a clear text of the Qur'an

prohibits drinking.6o9 Certainly independent reasoning provides for the change and evolution of

law over time. but not if explicit texts are contravened. This is a point yet to be understood in

the West. which takes Islam fiom the practices of Muslims. h-lemissi. by arguing in the same

way. has shown herself to be an unsophisticated theorist of women and Islam.

2. Women and Sexualitv in the Ou'ran and Sunnah.

In my introduction above. I noted that the question I would pursue in this chapter was to

investigate if Mernissi's conclusions about Islam's negative view of women could be upheld by

the primary sources, the Qur'an and sunnah. Since Mernissi's foundational themes revolved

around the Islamic view of women's sexuality (dangerous, therefore needing to be controlled), it

'08 Bouhdiba: 1 04. 609 "0 you who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication ) of stones, and (divination) by arrows, are an abomination-Of Satan's handiwork; Eschew such (abomination), that you may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you fiom the remembrance of God, and from prayer: will you not then abstain? (Qur'an, 5: 90-91) "

is appropriate to investigate what the Qur'an and sunnah say on women's sexuality (and

sexuality in general).

As Winter notes, Islam has a "sex-positive attitude," exemplified by Imam Nawawi 's

statement: "all appetites harden the heart, with the exception of sexual desire. which softens

it.'"' 0 There is nothing in the Qur'an about women as dangerous sexual beings. Rather. there is

the notion that men and women are hdamentally alike, being created of a single soul. and

being both recipients of the divine breath:

0 humankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, Who created you fiom a single person, (nafsin-waahidah) created, of like nature, his mate. and fiom them two scattered (like seeds) countless men and women; reverence Allah through Whom you demand your mutual (rights) and (reverence) the wombs (that bore you): for Allah ever watches over you ...(Q ur'an 4: 1)

It is he who created you fiom a single person and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in love). . .(Qur'an 7: 189)

But he fashioned him (the human. or insan) in due proportion and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties 00 hearing and sight and understanding: Little thanks do you give!. . . (Qur'an 3 ~ : 9 ) ~ ' '

Notice how important this last verse is. Mernissi had claimed that Islam viewed femaleness as

anti-divine. or suilying, but as a recipient of Divine Breath, that hardly makes sense.

The Qur'an and sunnah provide that sexual desire is part of God's creation of the human

being, something both men and women have. Thus it directs believing men to "lower their gaze

and guard their modesty (24: 30)" and in the next verse, believing women to "lower their gaze

and guard their modesty (24: 31):' Lowering the gaze implies that men and women both can

become aroused by a look. Ahrned points out that the Qur'anic story of Zuleika. the wife of

King Aziz who tried to seduce Prophet Joseph (pbuh) is presented with sympathy. Joseph

@buh) was so beautiful she could not resist him, but he

started to gossip about Zulieka. Zuleika invites them all

resisted her, and the society women

to dinner. and while they are eating,

610 Winter, a: 1 1-12.

she brings Joseph @huh) out for them to see. They are so struck by his beauty that they cut their

hands with the knives they are eating with: "And she said (to Joseph), "Come out before them."

When they saw him, they did extol him, and (in their amazement) cut their hands: they said.

"Allah preserve us! No mortal is this! This is none other than a noble angel!" She said: "There

before you is the man about whom you did blame me! (Qur'an, 12: 3 1-32.)" Ahrned aptly

concludes: "Thus while Zuleika's conduct was wrong, it is portrayed as understandable. and the

tale does not imply that female sexual desire is in itself Hadith also record women

asking the Prophet if they were required to make ablutions after wet dreams, just as men have to

do. He replied they did if they noticed a discharge.613

Sexual desire is not evil. The Qur'an describes husbands and wives as garments of each

other: "Permitted to you. on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your

garments and you are their garments ... associate with them, and seek what Allah has ordained

for you.. .(QurTan 2: 187)." Obviously 'garments' implies a lot of things. including, warmth.

protection, and ornamentation. It also implies sexual intimacy, and thus the verse is saying that

God has ordained husbands and wives to "associate" with each other sexually. and to think of

the husband-wife relationship as mutually caring, loving, and beautifying. We are allowed to

enjoy what God has enjoined.

Hodifh only confirm this. Marriage is recommended: "Marriage is my sunnah and

whoever leaves the sunnah is not of me."614 Not only is marriage recommended. but the sexual

act inside marriage is considered a charity that is rewarded by God:

God's Messenger (pbuh) said: 'In the sexual act of each of you there is a sadaqa' [charitable act]. The Companions replied: '0 Messenger of God! When one of us

'" Badawi, b: 5-6. 6" Ahmed. c: 48. Also Bouhdiba: 20-28. 613 Ahmed. c: 47. Bouhdiba points out that the impurity here does not inhere in the person. but in bodiiy discharges. 14 "Whatever emerges fiom the human body, gas. liquid or solid. is perceived by the fiqh as impure.. .The body's excreta are all impure and disgusting: gas. menstrual blood, urine, faecal matter, sperm. blood. pus." 45. 614 lbn Maja's hadith collection, Nikah, 1 . Quoted in Winter, a: I I .

fulfils his sexual desire, will he be given a reward for that?' and he said. 'Do you not think that were he to act upon it unlawful1 , he would be sinning? Likewise. if he acts upon it lawfblly, he will be rewarded. 61Y

Each spouse is required to ensure the other is sexually satisfied, as the story of Urn ad-

Darda and Abu Ad-Dada makes clear. Salman went to visit his f iend Abu Ad-Darda and he

finds his friend's wife dressed shabbily. He asks her "why she was in that state." and she

replies, "Your brother Abu Ad-Darda is not interested in (the luxuries of) this world." Salman

discovers that Abu Ad-Darda has taken to excessive fasting and nightly praying. He tells him

off, saying "Your Lord has a right on you, your soul has a right on you, and your family [i.e.

wife] has a right on you; so you should give the rights of all those who has a right on you." Abu

Ad-Darda tells the story to the Prophet (pbuh), and the Prophet tells him: "Salman has spoken

the t r~th."~ ' ' Urn Ad-Darda, by dressing shabbily was sending a message to Salman that she was

not making any effort to beautify herself, an implicit message that her husband had iost interest

in her. Salman's response shows that he understood the message. and that it was a wrong to be

righted. The wife has a right to her husband's attentions.

Not only is sexual satisfaction an obligation of spouses. but there is an etiquette of sex:

the husband in particular is counseled to make sure he does not fulfil himself before the wife

experiences pleasure: The Prophet (pbuh) said. "'Not one of you should fail upon his wife like

an animal; but let there first be a messenger between you.' 'And what is. that messenger?' they

asked. and he replied: 'Kisses and ~ o r d s . " ~ " Al-Ghazali advised: "Once the husband has

aaained his fulfillment, let him tarry until his wife also attains hers. Her orgasm may be

delayed. thus exciting her desire; to withdraw quickly is harmful to the woman."618

Muslim's hadith collection, Zakat, 52. Quoted in Winter, a: 1 1 . Bukhari, vol3: 107, hadith no 189.

617 Daylami's hadith coilection, quoted in Maqsood: 86. 6'8 Farah: 107.

220

So, Memissi's view that intimacy during the sexual act between a husband and wife is a

threat to a jealous God, because the man's mind is taken away momentarily from worship is

patently false. She argues that, in "coitus, the male is actually embracing a woman, symbol of

unreason and disorder, anti-divine force of nature and disciple of the devil. ,,6 19 All of what I

have said contradicts Memissi's view. Her proof is the Qur'anic verses believers are

encouraged to recite (seeking refuge in God from Satan) before intercourse. and to praise and

thank God aftexwards. For Memissi, this is proof of the "antagonism between Allah and the

woman." She writes, 'The Muslim god is known for his jealousy, and He is especially jealous

of anything that might interfere with the believer's devotion to him. The conjugal unit is a real

danger and is consequently weakened by two legal devices: polygamy and repudiation. ,9620 But

women recite these verses too. Besides, there is so much evidence that women are sexual

beings. and blessedly so, that the recommendation of recitation of verses does not add much to

her argument.

Mernissi's contention that Islam is against heterosexual love between husband and wife

is easily refuted with reference to the Qur'an and SUM^^.^*' Indeed, there are so many verses in

the Qur'an stressing mutual marital love and harmony it is a wonder they have been overlooked

by her. The following verse is a favourite for wedding invitations:

And among His signs is this. that He created for you mates from among yourselves that you may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts); verily in that are s i p s for those who reflect.. .(Qur'an 3 0 2 1)

619 Mernissi, a: 1 13. 620 Mernissi, a: 115. Polygyny and repudiation are controversial issues outside the scope of my thesis on hijab. Even if from one point of view it is the case that polgyny and repudation make a monogamous marriage unstable, that does not imply that the monogamous conjugal unit is a danger to God. Afier all. it is God that permitted polygny and repudiation. The Qur'an also instnrcts men to treat their wives fairly, other wise to marry only one; and a hadirh provides that "Verily, the most hatefbl to Allah of the lawfbl things is divorce." Abu Dawud and ibn Maja hadith collections, in Ornran: 17. "' Boddy: This is a tribal affectation and has to do with the loyalties a man and a woman might come to feel for each other rather than for their respective natal families.

The Qur'anic picture of mutual love, consideration, compassion and harmony between husband

and wife is a far cry from Mernissi's view: "the Muslim order condemns as a deadly enemy of

civilization: iove between men and women in general, and between husband and wife in

particular."6u

So, to emphasize, in Islam there is nothing evil or undesirable about the body and its

desires. Woman, although partaking in the Fall, is not held responsible for the expulsion fiom

Paradise (Adam is). There is no original sin (God forgave them straight away), and no impurity

attached to her because of this act, as in other religious traditions. Desire per se is not of the

devil nor in tension to virtue. It is context that determines virtue. That is. fulfilling sexual

desire in marriage is encouraged and rewarded, fulfilling sexual desire outside marriage is

discouraged and punished. Every act in a believer's life can be an act of worship. if it is done

with the right intention. So, sexual intercourse, rather than expressing antagonism between

Allah and women, is an act which brings both men and women rewards fiom God, when it is a

lawfbl act. Thus Bouhdiba's observation that in Islam, the "sexual function is in itself a sacred

f~nction."~'~

It is also worth pointing out that unlike Christianity, which enshrines the masculine

principle in the image of 'God the Father' and Jesus the 'Son of God,' or Goddess religions that

sanctify the feminine principle in the image of the Divine. in Islam, neither masculine nor

feminine principle is enshrined in the Divine. God is neither the Father, nor the Mother, nor the

Son. In the Arabic language. God, Allah. literally means al-lah, the God. It is a gender-neutral

term. The shahado. the testament of faith: la illaha illa Allah, literally means: 'There are no

Mernissi. a: 107. 623 Bouhdiba: 14. cf 82.87.

gods, but The ~ o d . ' ~ " Femaleness and maleness are attributes of creation, not

females partake of the divine breath, as much as males, there can be no sense

degrades the female.

222

Creator. And as

in claiming God

Focusing on Qur'an and hadith is enough to demonstrate Memissi's misguided view of

women's sexuality in Islam, but it is worth briefly showing how it is that she reaches her

misguided view: basically it stems fiom a misreading of al-Ghazali, the eleventh century

theologian. (Ghazali is an important theologian in the Islamic canon, whose works are still

consulted today for guidance.) Her whole story of the veil as a way to control women's

dangerous sexuality stems from an interpretation of al-Ghazali that is really puzzling for its

errors. Memissi understands the positive Islamic view of sexuality I have just described. 625 A

close reading of her text suggests that her error comes in her next step. She turns to Qasim

Amin's nineteenth century book on veiling. Remember he was the Egyptian who opened the

controversial veiling debate in Egypt by campaigning against seclusion and the niqab. He

argued that seclusion of women demonstrated men felt afraid of their own ability to control their

desires. as if at the mere sight of a woman, men would lose their minds.626 Hence women are

perceived asfitno. disturbing the social order. Now Mernissi takes Amin's idea of woman as

jitna as a statement of fact about Islam. and reads this back into al-Ghazali.

Memissi notes that al-Ghazali begins his work by "stressing the antagonism between

sexual desire and the social order." She thinks what Ghazali really means here is the

antagonism between female sexuality and the social order. She writes: "[Ghazali] sees

civilization as struggling to contain women's destructive, all-absorbing power. Women must be

controlled to prevent men fiom being distracted fiorii their social and religious duties. Society

624 Some might object that God refers to 'himself as a 'He' in the Qur'an. This is true, but does not change the basic point. For a book addressed to real societies. most of which have been patriarchal for most centuries, the pronoun "he" seems to make sense. if The Book is to appeal to patriarchal men (holders of societal power). 625 Mernissi, a: 27.

223

can survive only by creating institutions that foster male dominance through sexual segregation

and polygamy for believer^."^^' The problem is that here she reads into al-Ghazali Arnin's idea

of the femme fatale. Nowhere does Ghazali discuss specifically female sexuality in relation to

the social order or to civilization, and Mernissi herself offers no textual evidence here.

Now Ghazali's Book of Breaking the Two Desires does begin with his view that sexual

desire "contains evils which may destroy both religion and the world if it is not controlled and

subjugated, and restored to a state of But Ghazali is talking about sexual desire

in general (and really about male desire, since the book is written for male readers. Perhaps we

could fault him for this). Mernissi's serious oversight is to neglect that al-Ghazali is a Sufi

(Sufis are ascetics who. like monks, priests and nuns, renounce the earthly world and its delights

for the sake of worshipping God), and to disregard his being a theoretician of the soul. and the

Greek intellectual heritage upon which he draws extensively.629 These influences should have

alerted Memissi to al-Ghazali's orientation. Ghazali is not attacking sexuality as debasing. as

Memissi recognizes. He is discussing sexual desire in a Platonic manner - dividing the soul into

three parts, the rational. the spirited. and the appetitive, and holding that the good could only be

achieved by subjugating the appetitive part to the rule of the rational part. And. following

Aristotle. al-Ghazali expounds the virtue of the mean, the middle path between excessive and

limited sexual desire. Al-Ghazali does not condemn women. He condemns excessive or

insufficient sexual desire. (Again. he is directing his work to men. It is by extension that we

understand he would condemn excessive/limited desire in women.) In fact. in so doing. he is

concerned to protect the rights of women to sexual enjoyment:

Excess in the matter of sexual desire, then. causes the intellect to be overcome to this degree, which is very much to be condemned. Insufficient sexual desire,

-- . . . - - .- . .

626 Mernissi, a: 3 1. 627 Memissi, a: 32. ''13 Winter, b: 165. 629 Winter, b: LI.

however, leads to an indifference to women, or to giving them insufficient pleasure, which is also to be condemned. Sexual desire is a praiseworthy thing when it stands in a state of equilibrium, obedient to the intellect and the [Islamic] Law in all its movements. Whenever it becomes excessive. it should be broken with hunger and

Nevertheless, Mernissi claims that Ghazali sees woman's "power as the most destructive

element in the Muslim social order, in which the feminine is regarded as synonymous with the

satanic."631 Again there is no textual evidence for this view of Ghazali (she would not find any).

But she does provide textual support later in the chapter, by trying to argue that al-Ghazali is

overwhelmed by female sexual desire that appears insatiable (and hence a threat). Again.

Memissi is stretching al-Ghazali to fit her argument. The textual support for this claim is. as

mentioned earlier: Ghmli's discussion of the husband's duty sexually to satisfy his wife. She

uses just one paragraph from Ghazali's Book on Morriage to make her case (a paragraph that in

her text is interspersed with her own comments. disguising the fact that in Ghazali it is only one

paragraph, making it look like a more extended discussion on his part). In part three of the Book

on Marriage. the Etiquette of Cohabitation. the tenth etiquette of cohabitation, on the etiquette

of intimate relations. Ghazali is addressing the husband about how to be a good sexual partner.

He counsels him to praise God before beginning intercourse, to engage much in foreplay. and to

make sure his wife has an orgasm as well. He advises when the best days of the week are for

intercourse, and when it should be avoided (menstruation). It is the following paragraph, which

she intersperses with her own comments. that Memissi uses to make her argument:

It is desirable that he should have intimate relations with her once every four nights; that is more just, for the [maximum] number of wives is four which justifies this span. It is true that intimate relations should be more or less frequent in accordance to her need to remain chaste, for to satisfy her is his duty. If seeking intimate relations [by the woman] is not established. it causes the same difficulty in the same demand and the fi~lfillment thereof.63'

Farah: 169-70. 63 1 Mernissi. a: 33. 632 Farah: 107.

225

The last sentence is a bit confusing, but the translation of the last sentence in Mernissi's Beyond

the Veil is clearer: "If the prerequisite amount of sexual intercourse needed by the woman in

order to guarantee her virtue is not assessed with precision, it is because such an assessment is

difficult to make and difficult to satisfy." Mernissi concludes from this paragraph that Ghazali

views female sexual demands with awe, and that he "admits how difficult it is for a man to

satisfy a ~ornan.'"'~ such extrapolations are not warranted by the text. Read in the context of

the chapter. this short paragraph simply says that women have a sexual drive that men have a

duty to satisfy, and that it may be hard for a man to know (if he is not told by his wife) when she

is not sexually satisfied. Here it is useful to recall that Ghazali thinks both men and women are

"burdened with the weight of sexual desire."

Ghazali is concerned about the virtue of both men and women, and he must be

understood within the Islamic framework not to be misinterpreted. This means that sex outside

marriage is a terrible sin. When Ghazali hints at the wife's need to remain chaste. (as he does

here. and in a footnote to the second advantage of marriage)634 he is implying that unsatisfied

women can seek fulfillment outside marriage, something that is dangerous to the social fabric of

a Muslim society. Here is Mernissi's "women are destructive to the social order" notion. But

while many feminists find these notions of chastity a kind of patriarchal control of women, who

should be free to flirt. sleep around and not be constrained by mamage.635 many others, who do

not condone sex outside marriage will understand Al-Ghazali here. Ghazali is of the opinion

that men seeking sexual fulfillment outside marriage is also dangerous to the social fabric: the

arousal of the male's private parts "is an ovenvhelming affliction for you when it rears its head;

neither reason nor religion can withstand it. Although it is fit to induce the two forms of life we

633 Mernissi, a: 40. 634 A footnote that does not appear in Farah. Ghazali worries that a woman's marriage to an impotent man "leaves the woman unfulfilled and is wasteful of her inasmuch as she fails to achieve her own purpose-a situation fraught with an element of danger," Ghazali, Holland translation: 18.

spoke of earlier [the continuance of the species, and the bliss of sexual enjoyment] nevertheless

it constitutes Satan's most powerful weapon against mankind."636 That is why marriage is

recommended.

So, Mernissi bases her most important assumption about Islam's view of women, an

assumption crucial to her case against hijab, since it is the veil that covers and hides a woman's

threat to the social order, upon a puzzling misreading of al-Ghazali. This is not to suggest that

al-Ghazali is beyond reproach. Indeed, he is not. As with every human being. his work has its

flaws and is also a creature of his patriarchal times. Ghazali sometimes takes a dim view of

women, even though his views on women's sexuality and the etiquette of sex are admirable.

For example, he considers marriage "a kind of slavery" for women as the wife "owes her

husband absolute obedience in whatever he may demand of her, where she herself is concerned.

as long as no sin is invo~ved."~~' Mernissi is not wrong to be critical of an Islamic scholar; she

is wrong to equate his single voice with Islam in its entirety.

I have made the case that the Qur'an and sunnah do not view women as an anti-divine

threat to the social order that needs containing. But Mernissi does mention several hadith that

appear to contradict my argument:

The Prophet saw a woman. He hurried to his house and had intercourse w:~th his wife Zaynab, then left his house and said, 'When the woman comes towards you. it is Satan who is approaching you. When one of you sees a woman and he feels attracted to her, he should hurry to his wife. With her, it would be the same as with the other one.

When a man and a woman are isolated in the presence of each other, Satan is bound to be their third companion.

Do not go to the women whose husbands are absent. Because Satan will get in your bodies as blood rushes through your flesh.

. --

635 Cf Abu-Odeh: freedom for women means living in a world where "women should be able to express themselves sexually. so that they can love, play, tease, f l i r t and excite." 153 1 . "' Ghazali, Holland translation: 23. 637 Ghazali, Holland translation: 89.

227

Mernissi uses these hadith to cement her argument that woman is "identified withfitnu, chaos,

and with the anti-divine and anti-social forces of the universe. ,3638 But these hadith do not

mean, as Memissi believes, that the woman is equated with Satan. To understand why not, it is

essential to understand the Islamic cosmology, and what 'Satan' is.

After creating the human being, God commanded the angels to bow down to it. Iblis

refuses. God asks him why he did not bow down, and Iblis tells him "I am better than he:You

created Me from fire, and him you created fiom clay (38:76)." God orders him out of the

heavens for having disobeyed, and Iblis asks God to give him "respite until the Day the (dead)

are raised (38:79)." God gives him respite, and Iblis tells him T h e n by Your power. I will put

them all in the wrong-except Your servants among them, sincere and purified (by Your Grace)

(38: 82-3)." God replies to him "Then it is just and fitting-And I say what is just and fitting-

That 1 will certainly fill Hell with you and those who follow you-every one (38: 84-5)."

Certain key features of this story differ from the Christian one: first is the notion that

God gives permission to Satan to try and waylay the believers from the Straight Path: and

second is the understanding that Satan has no power over a believer. unless the believer chooses

to ignore God and follow Satan. There are not two competing poles of Good and Evil that have

equal power. God is omnipotent. so has power over Satan. Satan only has power to do what

God lets him do. (Otherwise there would be two Gods). In another passage in the Qur'an God

tells Satan to "lead to destruction those whom you can among them, with your (seductive) voice.

make assaults on them with your cavalry and your infantry [Satan has an army of helpers];

mutually share with them wealth and children and make promises to them. But Satan promises

them nothing but deceit (17:64)." Thus Satan and his army try every thing they can to mislead

the human being fiom the path of God. Whispering in the ear, making suggestions. For

example, if I am asked to donate in charity, Satan may whisper in my ear, "if you give charity

638 Mernissi, a: 4 l .

228

you won't be able to afford that trip, you might become poor;" if I hear the alarm for the dawn

prayer, he may whisper in my ear "oh, aren't you sleepy, and isn't the bed cosy and

comfortable." And so on. If I listen to him, I am deflected fiom the path of righteousness. But

if I say, "Audhu billahi min ashshaitan arrajim" ( I seek refbge in God from Satan the Rejected)"

then I can overcome the whispering and give in charity, or get up and pray.

So Satan is allowed to test us, whisper to us, pull us away fiom the path of

righteousness. He will seize upon any of our emotions and weaknesses. Hopefully how this

applies to the hadith in question is obvious. When the Prophet tells men to beware when a

woman approaches, 'it is Satan approaching,' he is not saying that the woman is Satan. He is

saying that the heterosexual man should beware that Satan may play upon his sexual desire and

make the woman seem appealing to him. The man is being warned to be on his guard. Of

course he could see her. talk to her and feel nothing. But if Satan chose to whisper. then the

man is to be on guard. Feminists may feel annoyed that the hudith is directed to men. but it

applies to a woman as well, if she were to feel desire at seeing a man.

Moreover, the first is actually a hadith wives can appreciate. because it is message to

men that their wife is as good as any other woman. It is a message of the fundamental equality

of women, a message that denies a hierarchy of women based upon their beauty. To the man

who feels he has seen a woman who is more beautifid than his wife. one who he thinks may

satisfy him more, it is as if the Prophet (pbuh) is saying, 'that's an illusion of Satan designed to

tempt you into illegal intercourse. Your wife is the same as any other woman; she has what the

other has. So be faithful to your wives.' ('With her. it would be the same as with the other

one.') The last two hadith reinforce the idea that sexual temptation between unrelated men and

women is enhanced when they are alone together, and thus should be avoided as much as

possible. They talk about Satan getting in both man's and woman's body. Memissi misses this

when she comments on the last hadith: "The married woman whose husband is absent is a

particular threat to men."63g Well, the man is a threat to that woman too.

3. Women and Exclusion fiom the Umma.

So, the Qur'an and Sunnah do not see women as a threat. Women are endowed with

normal, natural sex drives that must be fulfilled in marriage to be lawful. The only significant

claim of Mernissi's left to consider is the notion that women are excluded fiom the umma. In

fact, Memissi's claim that women are not considered part of the community of believers is not a

new one. During the time of the Prophet (pbuh), Umrn Salama, one of the wives of the Prophet

(pbuh), felt same as does Mernissi. Umm Salama was worried that the Qur'an seemed to be

addressing only the men. She asked the Prophet (pbuh) "0 Messenger of God! The Qur'an

speaks of men but does not speak of us, women.""' According to the early Islamic scholars.

Al-Hakim and Tirrnidhi. three verses were revealed in response to her question. verses which

ought to lay to rest forever the notion that women are not considered part of the community of

believers:

And their Lord has accepted of them and answered them: Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you be he male or female: ye are members. one of another: those who have left their homes, or have been driven out therefrom. or suffered harm in My cause. or fought or been slain - verily I will blot out fiom them their iniquities and admit them into gardens with rivers flowing beneath: a reward fiom the presence of God and from His presence is the best of rewards.. .(Qur'an, 3: 195)

And in no wise covet those things in which God has bestowed his gifts more freely on some of you than on others; to men is allotted what they earn and to women what they earn: but ask God of His bounty for God has full knowledge of all things.. . (Qur'an, 452)

For Muslim men and women - for believing men and women - for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant. for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity. and for men and women who engage much in Allah's

639 Mernissi, a: 42. 640 Turabi: 7.

praise-for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.. .(Qur'an. 33: 39."'

Women believers are part of the urnma; they are equally responsible and accountable for

their deeds as men. They are not, as Mernissi claims, getting in men's way of worshipping God.

for they are busy (ought to be busy) with their own worship of God. The Qur'an considers men

and women to be 'brothers and sisters' in faith, as the Prophet @huh) said: "Women are but

sisters (shaqa 'iq, or twin halves) of men."M2 Indeed Memissi's discussion of this very event in

The Veil and the Male Elite is puzzling. How can she continue to claim women are excluded

when she recognizes the "revolutionary" nature of God's answer to Urn Salama's question?

The headscarf that women wear, that Memissi sees as the sign of "the person who is damned.

excluded from the privileges and spiritual grace to which the Muslim has ac~ess ."~ ' is the very

scarf they wear while praying - is not praying a way to spiritual grace? And is not the woman

praying while wearing her headscarf?

As to her claim that men and women are taught to view each other as enemies. that may

be a feature of Moroccan society (though I doubt it). but it would be in spite of Islamic precepts,

not because of them. The Qur'an instructs husbands to be kind to their wives:

0 you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness. that you may take away part of the marital gift you have given them, except when they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary, live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike a thing through which Allah brings about a great deal of good.. . (Qur'an, 4: 19.)

Actually the locking up in the home/exclusion from pubic life that Muslim women face

in Islam is not based on Memissi's ideas about woman as a threat to the social order, but upon a

misinterpretation of a verse in Qur'an (that unfortunately is widely

even discuss: the verse in Surah a1 Ahzab that tells the wives of

held) that Mernissi does not

the Prophet (pbuh) to "stay

Von Denffer: 100. u2 Badawi, b: 30.

23 1

quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of

ignorance (33:33)." People say that as our role models, the wives of the Prophet should be

emulated in this aspect also. Of course, this interpretation, leading to seclusion, does not even

capture the wives' lifestyle: they left their homes to carry out their business.

4. The Veil and the Male Elite.

Thus far I have mostly focused on refuting the arguments Memissi raises in Beyond the

Veil. Even though the same themes are evident in The Veil and the Male Elite. I left The Veil

and the hfale Elite until now because my criticisms of The Veil and the Male Elite are special to

the methodology that Memissi adopts to make her case. I mentioned in the introduction above

that in The Veil and the Male Elite Memissi tried to use traditional Islamic methodology to

make her czse against hijab. In The Veil and the Male Elite, Memissi just focuses on Qur'an

and hadith; there are no folktales, interviews. or reliance on a single scholar. And the use of

hadith is different in this book. In Beyond the Veil. she brings hadilh without discussion, as

surface proof that Islam is anti-woman. In The Veil and the Male Elite she understands that

hadith study has its own science, with rules of interpretation. She attempts to prove, not from

the content of any hadith. but fiom the science of deciding authenticity. that certain hadith that

can be used against women (such as the one declaring women should not be leaders of a nation)

ought to be rejected fiom the hadith corpus. This is an acceptable and admirable attempt on her

part to investigate some hadith that appear anti-women. The problem is that she goes about this

in a way that is unacceptable to Islamic methodology - she engages in backbiting, gossip. and

slander. in her attempt to discredit the character of two hadith narrators that are Companions of

the Prophet. I am not going to go into great detail on this; it is outside the scope of my thesis on

hijab. I will confhe myself to her use of the hadith of Abu Hurayra that Memissi uses to try

and continue to claim that Islam views women as 'sullying.' Although I have already

M3 Memissi, b: 97.

demonstrated the

in this book also.

quite strange.

232

falsity of this claim, I feel it necessary to highlight her emon of interpretation

As with much of my critique of her above, I find her arguments and procedure

The hadith in question here, is the one narrated by Abu Hurayra, mentioned above. about

a woman breaking a man's prayer by passing in front of him. Memissi uses this hadith to re-

establish her theme about Islam finding femaleness sullying. Mernissi attempts to discredit the

hadith by attacking Abu Hurayra's character. But the reason her discussion of this particular

hadith is so strange, is that there is another hadith narrated by Aisha, the wife of the Prophet

(pbuh) disputing Abu Hurayra on this point: "You compare us now to asses and dogs. In the

name of God, I have seen the Prophet saying his prayers while I was there, lying on the bed

between him and the qibla. And in order not to disturb him. I didn't move."64)

Now the science of hadith developed highly sophisticated methods in order to clarify the

meaning of seemingly contradictory hadirh (linguistic. textual. legal and historiographic

techniques).MS Memissi discusses Aisha's correction to Abu Hurayra's version. and she points

out that the hadirh scholars determined that Aisha's report was more authentic than that

attributed to Abu Hurarya (because they argued the Prophet had always striven to dispel

superstition).646 So. in the language of hadirh. Abu Hurayra's hadith really is irrelevant. and

thus cannot be used as part of an argument that Islam sees women as anti-divine.@' Why does

Memissi discuss it so much. using it as proof Islam regard women as sullying? Why engage in

character assassination when scholars decided Aisha was more correct? Why use traditional

Islamic methodologies to slander a Companion of the Prophet (pbuh). when that very

methodology records the Prophet asking Muslims to "Honour my Companions. for they are the

6U Mernissi, b: 70. 655 Murad: 33. M6 Memissi, b: 4 1. 657 Spellberg says that many hadith attributed to abu Hurayra are spurious. Footnote 20.

233

best among you, and then those who follow them and then the next generation. and then

corruption will proliferate after

Asbaab al-nuzuul.

My final critique of The Veil and the Male Elite is Memissi's recourse to the method of

asbaab al-nusaul, the occasion of revelation, to understand why hijab was imposed on women.

She looks at the 'verse of the hijab (curtain),' that came down after Prophet's wedding to

Zaynab, where the Prophet (pbuh) let fall a curtain between him and his male companion Anas.

and then the verses requiring believing women to cover.

There is not actually much to say about the first verse she discusses. Her interpretation

of the verse is peculiar. As already mentioned, the occasion for the verse is as follows. Zainab

was waiting inside her apartment after her wedding celebration, as the Prophet crosses the

threshold to join her he receives a revelation and then drops a curtain between him and Anas.

This is the verse that is used by many Muslims to argue that women should cover their faces

with a veil. For Mernissi this is an unintended interpretation of the verse. which was really

about separating two men by a curtain, not women fiom men. The fact that Zainab is also in the

room seems irrelevant to her. as does the fact that the verse says "And when ye ask of them (the

wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them fiom behind a curtain. That is purer for you and

for their hearts." 'Ask from behind a curtain' implies the curtain is between the man and the

wife of the Prophet. And yet I have seen Western scholars use this strange point of Memissi as

part of their argument about the veil being oppressive: in her piece on the veil, Reece writes:

Memissi devoted considerable space in her book to the origins of the hijab in Islam. explaining that originally the descent of the hijob, or curtain, was carried out to put a barrier between two men, not between a man and a woman. The event leading to the key verse in the Qur'an pertaining to hijub (sura 33: 53) involved the lowering of a curtain to protect the intimacy of Muhammad and his wife, and to exclude one

. .

648 AI Tabrizi, Mishkar, 111, 1695, haditb no 600 1 and 6003, in Kamafi: 302.

of Muhammad's male companions. Memissi continudly expressed dismay that one incident in Muhammad's life would split the Muslim concept of space in two."9

Since, after this verse came down, the Prophet's wives started covering their faces, we can only

assume that Muhammad, his wives, and the whole first Islamic community misunderstood a

commandment from God, and God neglected to correct them before the Prophet died. Did no

one else notice this error before Memissi?

Memissi's argument that the Prophet succumbed to Umar's pressures to institute hijab

on the rest of the believing women is little better than her interpretation of the verse of hijub.

As mentioned above, Memissi holds that the Prophet was resisting Umar's pressures to institute

hijab, but after personal family scandals, and military defeat. the Prophet. old and tired. cannot

resist Umar any more. so institutes hijab. The essential point I want to examine here is her

implication that Umar persuaded the Prophet @huh) to do something Memissi argues the

Prophet (pbuh) did not want to do: ask women to cover. The problem is that the Islamic

methodology of asbaab al-nwuul, that Mernissi is using to discuss hvab, requires the

assumption that the Qur'an is not written by the Prophet himself, but that it is the actual word of

God. dictated to the Prophet by the archangel Gabriel:

Narrated Aisha, the mother of the faithful believers (RAA): Al-Harith bin Hisham (RAA) asked Allah's Apostle (pbuh) "0 Allah's Apostle! (pbuh)" How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Apostle (pbuh) replied. "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet (pbuh) being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over).650

Thus someone utilizing Islamic methodology cannot argue that Umar persuaded the Prophet to

institute a verse, because that implies that it was the Prophet writing the Qur'an. If Umar did try

and persuade the Prophet on a course of action (and we know that he did advise the Prophet on

649 Reece: 40.

what to do), once the course of action is part of the Qur'an, then it is a commandment of God.

Umar's involvement is either inelevant, or prescient, since he advised the Prophet to do

something that God confirmed in the Qur'an as the right thing to do. But, let us say she is right,

and that Umar persuaded the Prophet to include verses of hijab in the Qur'an, it is still unclear

how this actually helps women. Once the sentiment is a verse in the Qur'an, standing for a

commandment from God, how does this help women campaign against the veil?

Memissi's choice to accept Islamic methodology to make a case against hijab creates for

her a central paradox she cannot resolve. Other Muslim women who try to argue against the

veil choose the strategy of arguing veiling is not in the Qur'an (Zuhur, Ahmed, al-Hibri). For a

Muslim who wants to argue against hijab, that is the wisest strategy. By accepting that the

Qur'an requires covering, Memissi's choice leads her to a dead end: if veiling is in the Quian,

it is a commandment to be obeyed. As a perceptive book reviewer observed:

Since Muslims have to follow the Qur'an as God's revelation to his Prophet. verses like these also have to be respected ... Though she attacks many hadiths as being misreported, which is acceptable in Islam, Qur'anic verses are God's own words and cannot be doubted. She also opens herself up to criticism by implying that the Prophet ignored God's dictates when she claims that he did not apply them in his own life?"

Mernissi, by arguing that Umar persuaded the Prophet to accept a misogynist practice, is also

opening herself up to the criticism that she is saying God did not intend good to women by

asking them to cover, whereas believing Muslims hold that God only asks or commands us to do

that which is good for us. ("God wishes for you ease and He does not wish difficulty for you

(Qur'an, 2: 185)"). Moreover, the Qur'an commands believers to accept the whole book. and

not to dispute about its verses: "It is not fitting for a believer. man or woman, when a matter has

been decided by God and His messenger, to have an option about their decision: if anyone

disobeys God and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path (33:36)."

650 Bukhari, The Book Of Revelation, Vol 1 : 2.

In fact, Mernissi is using Islamic methodology from a secular point of view. And she

will persuade only those who do not understand this argument of mine. And I will be

misunderstood, as a review of The Veil and the Male Elite demonstrates:

In Islam more than in either of its predecessors, Judaism and Christianity, the original ideas of the founder concerning women were incontestably revolutionary.. . [the] veil conf~ned women to a private existence shorn of public responsibility. Only by exploring these contradictions as deviations from the Prophet's intent can one make an argument for emancipation without rejecting the faith ... The book, part of a growing reform literature in Islam, will not convince those who are committed to the received tradition, for reasons she herself makes clear [the "have a vested interest in blocking women's rights in Muslim countries""]. But many who are troubled by the outcome of Muhammad's mission will be gratell for Mernissi's formulation of a persuasive

D. CONCLUSION.

In Memissi's Doing Daily Battle, a book of interviews with Moroccan women about

their daily lives. Mernissi castigates the Moroccan government for using foreign aid agencies in

implementing a family planning strategy and for not consulting women themselves on the issue.

The book is dedicated to bringing Moroccan women's experience and voice to the surface: "So I

can be proud of my interviews in that they give me a feeling of fidelity to the reality of women's

experience that no statistical table has given me.''654 In view of this, it is strange to see Memissi

write about hijab without taking into account women's experiences with it. Beyond [he Veil did

include interviews with people, but she was not focused on h ~ b . ~ ~ ' The interviews were

conducted in 1971, before the current re-covering movement, so that book is a dated analysis

about h w b .

The new preface to the revised edition of Be-vond the Veil that was published in 1987

brings her up to date with the re-covering movement, but still, covered women's voices are

65' Kanawati: 502. 652 Mernissi, b: vii. 653 Lev: 80-8 1. 654 Mernissi, e: 18.

She asked them, "What do you think is the main change that has taken place in the family and in women's situation in the last decades?" 89.

23 7

silent. In the preface, Memissi identifies two significant groups that have emerged in the

postcolonial era: fundamentalists and unveiled women.6s6 But she does not even mention veiled

women. For her, the fundamentalists are men and they stand opposed to women, who are

unveiled. "But while the men seeking power through religion and its revivification are mostly

fiom newly urbanized middle- and lower-middle-class backgrounds, unveiled women on the

contrary are predominantly of the urban upper and middle The Veil and the Male

Elite, also published in 1987, does not utilize any interviews, but neither does it give voice to

the perspective of the covered woman. In both books, the covered woman is silent, denied

agency, treated as a passive victim of men. But as Chapter Three discussed. there are educated

and professional urban Moroccan women donning hijab in the 1990's. Hessini decided to

interview some because she had been impressed by their articulate. outspoken and confident

behaviour in the classroom. Hessini makes clear her own view that these women are accepting

a patriarchal view of women. but at least she lets the women's voices and agency come through

in her text. Her interviewees did not find Islam or covering oppressive or anti-woman.

Remember Hadija, who said. "the hijub is a way for me to retreat fiom a world that has

disappointed me. It's my own little sanctuary."658 As a professor at a university. Memissi

cannot be ignorant of these women.

Mernissi's argument that the veil excludes women from the faith, fiom public space and

so on. is refuted by the opinions and actions of women examined in Chapter Three, and with my

interviewees in Chapter One. A key feature is the sense that they cover so that they may

continue to have access to the public space. be it education or employment. These women did

not see a contradiction between covering and working-they did not feel their scarf was a symbol

that public space was a male-only space. And it is worth pointing out, that the Javanese women

656 Mernissi, a: xi. Mernissi. a: xi.

238

did not see covering in this way at all, because women have always had access to public space.

Mernissi's focus on access to space ought to be heavily contextualized. In addition. the studies

of re-covering show that the covered women did not view the h w as showing that men were

their enemies. For instance, those who were part of the 'new veiling' in Egypt, regarded men

and women as 'brothers' and 'sisters' in faith. El-Guindi noted:

Addressing each other as brother and sister ideologically unifies the membership. which is physically dispersed on the campuses of schools and universities, and verbally expresses two fundamental features which characterize the Muslim ethic: egalitarianism and sexual separation. The veil, or rather the entire rtvy islami. is a symbol both of this ethic and for the Islamic

Memissi seems oblivious to these women's experience. Rather, she casts the re-

covering as a campaign by men who are trying to solve a postcolonial Muslim identity crisis by

forcing women back to the veil, putting the "accent on the confinement of women as a solution

for a pressing crisis. Protecting women from change by veiling them and shutting them out of

the world has echoes of closing the community to protect it from the She ignores

some of the devotional literature accompanying the re-covering movement that is pro-woman.

This view regards the traditional Muslim view. depicted in her Beyond the Veil. that women

should stay indoors, as a deteriorated Muslim society. These scholars and their readers argue

that the model that Muslims should emulate is that of the first community.66' The Qur'an.

sunnah and other historical evidences together demonstrate that women were involved in the

community, actively engaged outside the home (as well as inside), in trade, worship,

scholarship, war and so on. Many of these scholars view the history of the urnma since the first

community as a story of decline, and the lowering status of women is seen as one aspect of that

658 Hessini: 50. 659 El-Guindi, b: 474. 660 Mernissi, b: 99. 66' Philips: A hadith states ''The best generation is my generation and then those who follow them (v)."

declinef2 These scholars' work provide a foundation for viewing Muslim women as dignified

human beings. Then, the symbolism of the hijab changes too. In this reading. hijab is a symbol

of a woman whose religion dignifies her. Thus the re-covering movement is a challenge to

Memissi's analysis, to the Western stereotype about the meaning of the scarf as oppressive. and

also to some Muslim countries' traditional view of women and their role, and a claim that the

Islamic dress code does not necessitate women's retirement fiom the public space.

In ignoring covered women's voices, and in reducing them to passive victims. Memissi

is only reinscribing the colonial and Orientalist view of the 'veiled woman.'663 Her vision is

reductive, ignoring the sociological complexity of covering. Remember Hume-Griffith's view

of niqab?

When Mohammed, acting under what he declared to be a revelation from Allah. introduced the use of the veil, he swept away for ever all hope of happiness for Moslem women. By means of the veil he immured them for ever in a living grave. "Imprisoned for life" is the verdict written against each Moslem woman as she leaves childhood behind her."662

This is not so very different from Memissi:

[Hvab is the] very sign of the person who is damned, excluded fiom the privileges and spiritual grace to which the Muslim has access, [and] is claimed in our day as a symbol of Muslim identity, manna for the Muslim woman.665

The veil that descended fiom Heaven was goin to cover up women, separate them from men. from the Prophet, and so from God. 68

Memissi has codified a popular cultural view of Muslim women as dangerous beings

needing control for the academic world. But in so doing, she has failed to say that that is what

she is doing. It is not that Mernissi does not capture elements of the 'vulgar' unread Muslim

view of women. There are mosques that do not let women in; there are places where women are

6~ al-Faruqi: 10. Cf also: Badawi, b: al-mattab; Lemu; Lemu and Heeren; Maqsood; Osman; Turabi; Wadud- Muhsin. '63 Thanks to J. Zine for this thought. 663 Hurne-Grifith: 222-3. 665 Mernissi, b: 97. 666 Mernissi, b: 10 1 .

excluded, where women are kept illiterate, bound to the home, and so on. The problem is her

acceptance of those practices as truly Islamic ones, as practices that conform to the intent of the

Lawgiver, and her failure to distinguish between culture and carefid textual analysis. Even her

careful textual analysis, in The Veil and the Male Elite, misses this point. and conceives hijab as

a symbol of female exclusion. But actually Memissi knows very well the point I am making.

She makes it herself in The Veil and the Male Elite. At the end of her discussion of the hadith

by Ahu Hurayra, discussed above, Memissi writes:

Islam stresses the fact that sex and menstruation are really extraordinary (in the literal meaning of the word) events, but they do not make the woman a negative pole that "annihilates" in some way the presence of the divine and upsets its order. But apparently the Prophet's message, 15 centuries later, has still not been absorbed into customs throughout the Muslim world, if I judge by the occasions when I was r e h e d admittance at the doors of mosques in Penang, Maiaysia, in Baghdad. and in airw wan.^^'

In other words, she is pointing to the differences, already discussed. between Islam as vision and

Islam as practice.

So why does she argue otherwise? Because she relies on the assumption 'that in Islam

there is a contradiction between femaleness and the divine' to explain why Islam requires hijab.

She then objects to hijab for its symbolizing the degradation of women. The trouble for her

argument is that if Islam does not view women in the way she suggests (as I argue in its textual

essence it does not) then the hijab can carry a different meaning (as I argue in this thesis that it

does).

663 Mernissi, b: 74-5.

CHAPTER FIVE.

AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY OF THE VEIL.

The conundrum of the 'veil' (hijablniqab) is this: is women's wearing of it a symbol of

oppression, or, is women's wearing of it a symbol of piety, modesty and liberation? (Or, both of

these, or something else?) Feminism is concerned with the liberation of women from all kinds

of oppressions, and the question here is, can feminist theory provide a yardstick for us to

adjudicate between these competing interpretations? Is there a bottom line? For feminism. the

yardstick with respect to women has been women's experiences. Feminists have used their

sense of themselves to challenge androcentric versions of female nature as being unstable and

emotional. making them unable to vote, study, exist outside the domestic sphere. and so on. It

seems obvious then to turn to Muslim women's experiences of covering, as I did in the first and

third chapters, as a starting point for trying to figure out the question of the relationship of

covering to oppression.

Chapters One and Three have already presented a considerable amount of information

about women's views of covering, including many direct quotes. And the last chapter quite

clearly highlighted one Moroccan woman's (Fatima Mernissi) negative experiences with

covering. This thesis demonstrates, then, that Muslim women's relationship to covering is

complex. How do we adjudicate between the experiences of Muslim women who find covering

oppressive. and those who do not? Do we even have to? For feminists committed to political

action, to concrete projects designed to ameliorate women's lot. the answer seems to be 'yes.'

Should I join the Worker Communist Party of Iran in their fight to end the practice of covering,

or not? Should I support the banning of teenage girls in hijab from high school, or not?

242

Western feminist theory tends to find 'normal' the experiences of women who are

opposed to covering, women who experience covering (or the idea of covering) negatively.

What to do with those women who like covering? Who want to cover? (Remember Govier:

'Some women report to like the veil.') They are presented through a theory of false

consciousness: these women are mental victims of patriarchy. This conclusion privileges some

women's experience over others. More, it privileges those women's experiences that conform

to the West's (Orientalist) version of covering, and delegitimates those women's experiences

that do not conform. In other words, it pretends to use experience to inform theory (some

women's experience of hijab as oppressive equals hijob & oppressive) rather than observing

how theory relies on certain experiences and disregards others to prove itself to be accurate.

This chapter seeks to provide a positive theory of covering that makes sense of women's

liking of hijab without resort to denigrating their agency, integrity and intelligence. I aim to

develop a positive theory of covering from the perspective of a practising Muslim woman. In so

doing, I will attend to liberal concerns about choice. autonomy. coercion and women's

oppression. My argument is that in any consumer capitalist culture. (that is. the West or any

society seeking to replicate advanced industrial capitalism), where women's bodies are

commodified and women's sexuality is used to sell anything from movies to dishwashers to

cosmetics to trucks, wearing hijab can be a liberating process. Commodification places the

female body in a subordinate position to a powefil male gaze, a symbolic corollary of the

problem of male harassment and violence against women. Commodification also places the

female body under the scrutiny of the female gaze, because women consumers are the targets of

many of the products women's bodies are used to advertise.668 But from the point of view of a

believer, 'hijab as resistor to male gaze,' or 'hijab as liberation fiom commodification,' is only

part of the story. The rest stems fiom the commitment to belief in the Qur'an as the word of

243

God, and the commitment to submit to God's will to cover (as directed by Qur'anic verses

mentioned earlier.) Belief is pertinent to a theory of covering, because from the Islamic

perspective, the benefits of counteracting a male gaze are a secondary, indeed. a worldly, benefit

to a practice deemed to offer rewards in the Hereafter. Section A delves into women's

subjective experiences of covering in order to lay the foundations for a positive theory of

covering. Here I draw on women's published anecdotes about their experiences with covering.

Section B develops the theory further by looking at women's experience of the beauty myth and

the male gaze. I examine the question of hijab as suppressive of femininity and sexuality in

Section C. Section D considers the question of equality, and the last section. E. addresses

questions of choice, coercion and false consciousness.

A. WHY SOME WOMEN CHOOSE TO COVER.

Chapters One and Three provided many women's answers to the question 'why cover?'

In this section I will examine two newspaper articles written by young Muslim women

explaining why they cover. They show an interesting aspect of covering for Muslim women in

Western cultures: an appropriation of feminist critiques of dieting, fashion and the male gaze to

interpret their act of covering positively. First. however, it is necessary to address the issue of

using 'women's experience' as a foundation for knowledge. For it is clear that people's

experiences are not unmediated. People can be duped. brainwashed. confused. contradictory,

forgetful, and ultimately supportive of suppressive practices. even if personally aiming for self-

empowerment.669 I used, in Chapter One. interviews with Muslim women to demonstrate

positive experiences about covering in order to challenge the negative stereotype of the veil, but

668 Thanks to J Boddy for noting this. 669 Bordo presents women with eating disorders as fulfilling self-empowering goals by conforming their bodies to the culture's ideafs of beauty, but that in so doing, they are consenting to a 'tyranny of slenderness.' 'Introduction:' 3 1-33, passim.

from this point of view, their experiences are meaningless. How can we be certain these women

are not pro-hijab because of their socialisation in a misogynist religion?

Joan Scott problematises relying on experience as a foundation for knowledge, arguing

that to treat experience at face value is to leave out the context: how did that individual came to

have those kinds of experiences?

Making visible the experience of a different group exposes the existence of repressive mechanisms, but not their inner workings or logics; we know that difference exists, but we don't understand it as constituted relationally. For that we need to attend to the historical processes that, through discourse, position subjects and produce their experiences.. .It is not individuals who have experience, but subjects who are constituted through experience. Experience in this definition then becomes not the origin of our explanation, not the authoritative (because seen or felt) evidence that grounds what is known, but rather that which we seek to explain. that about which knowledge is produced.670

Scon does not argue we should not pay attention to people's experience. rather that we pay

attention to its construction and relationship to competing societal discourses:

Experience is not a word we can do without, although it is tempting, given its usage to essentialize identity and reify the subject, to abandon it altogether. But experience is so much a part of everyday language, so imbricated in our narratives that it seems futile to argue for its expulsion. [Let's work with it.] This entails focusing on processes of identity production. insisting on the discursive nature of "experience" and on the politics of its construction. Experience is at once always already an interpretation and is in need of interpretation. it also cannot guarantee the historian's neutrality, for the choice of which categories to historicize is inevitably "political". necessarily tied to the historian's recognition of hidher stake in the production of knowledge."67'

And yet, this questioning of the 'authority of experience' leaves out something crucial

for those for whom their experience has been ignored, and for whom a discourse has been

constructed about what they are (or should be feeling) about a certain thing (like Muslim women

and hijab). The very question that Muslim women's experience might be suspect because Islam

is misogynist, is problematic. because it relies on an already-known position in advance of any

inquiry into women and Islam. This is related to bell hooks' point about experience. In

670 Scon: 25-6.

245

discussing the problem of the 'authority of experience,' she observes that the point of

experience as a way to analyse or formulate theory is that sometimes experience gives an insider

knowledge an outsider cannot possible have, bringing a "unique mixture of experiential and

analytical ways of knowing-that is, a privileged standpoint. It cannot be acquired through books

or even distanced observation and study of a particular reality. To me this privileged standpoint

does not emerge from the 'authority of experience' but rather fiom the passion of experience,

the passion of remernbran~e."~'~ Thus, while taking on board Scott's concerns about identity

construction. as far as hijab goes, learning about the experience of Muslim women who choose

to veil is still a crucial first step, because the scholarship on hijab has mostly erased their voices.

But Scott's emphasis on the "processes of identity production" is still important. A

"Muslim" identity is not a given, as my whole thesis should demonstrate. Context matters. So.

the question "Under what conditions are Muslim women growing up and finding their selves?"

is necessary. Second, Scott makes another important point about observers, reminding them

that they are not observing fiom a neutral, objective place, but from a position equally

constructed as the one being observed. (1.e. not the modernist? outside-the-world place, but a

post modem, inside-the-world place.) The observer also lives in a process of identity

production. In this chapter, I focus on the former - the social environment and construction of

Muslim identity, speci ficall y, the construct ion of the meaning of hijab in Western culture.

Naheed Mustapha, an Honours graduate in Political Science and History from University

of Toronto, and a journalism graduate from Ryerson University wrote an article about hijub for

The Globe and Mail in 1993. She opens by referring to the two competing popular discourses

about the meaning of hijclb in Western culture: "I often wonder whether people see me as a

radical, fundamentalist Muslim terrorist packing an AK-47 assault rifle inside my jean jacket.

67 1 Scott: 37-8. '" hooks: 90.

246

Or maybe they see me as the poster girl for oppressed womanhood everywhere."673 She then

argues for a third interpretation: hijab means she is a "Muslim woman who believes her body is

her own private concern. Young Musiim women are reclaiming the hijab, reinterpreting it in

light of its original purpose - to give back to women ultimate control of their own bodies." For

Mustapha, wearing hijab gives her "freedom:" "Wearing the hijab has given me freedom from

constant attention to my physical self. Because my appearance is not subjected to public

scrutiny, my beauty, or perhaps lack of it, has been removed fiom the realm of what can

legitimately be discussed." Mustapha points out that in the West, women "are taught fiom early

childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness." And she mentions spending

her teen years a borderline bulimic, trying to attain the impossible Western cultural beauty

standards. She observes that women who try to bow out of the beauty game, by not shaving

their legs, or not wearing make up, or covering, face "ridicule and contempt" from men and

women in society. But she considers her choice to cover a better way of reaching women's

equality than the feminist argument for exposing the body: "Women are not going to achieve

equality with the right to bear their breasts in public, as some people would like to have you

believe. That would only make us party to our own objectification. True equality will be had

only when women don't need to display themselves to get attention and women need to defend

their decision to keep their bodies to themselves."

Sultana Yusufali. a 17-year-old high school student, in a Toronto Slar article "My Body

is My Own Business," echoes Mustapha's points.67J Like Mustapha, Yusufali posits a third

alternative meaning for the hgab other than the two typical Western versions: "[Wlhen most

people look at me, their first thought usually is something along the lines of 'oppressed female.'

The brave individuals who have mustered the courage to ask me about the way I dress usually

Mustapha "My Body is my Own Business." Globe and Moil, Tuesday, June 29, 1993. Facts and Arguments. 671 Y usufali: "My Body is My Own Business," The Toronto Star, Tuesday, Febmary 1 7, 1998. C: 1.

247

have questions like these: 'Do your parents make you wear that?' or 'Don't you fmci that really

unfair?"' Yusufali wonders why the Quebec schoolgirls were expelled "It seems strange that a

little piece of cloth would make for such controversy. Perhaps the fear is that I am harbouring

an Uzi underneath it. You never can tell with those Muslim fbndamentalists."

But in wearing hijob Yusufali positions herself as a rebel: "1 probably do not fit into the

preconceived notion of a 'rebel.' I have no visible tattoos and minimal piercings. I do not

possess a leather jacket." What is Yusufali rebelling against in choosing to cover? Against

Western culture's emphasis on physical beauty for women. Hqab is "one of the most

fbndamental aspects of female empowerment. When I cover myself, I make it virtually

impossible for people to judge me according to the way I look." Yusufali is rebelling against

the cultural emphasis on external appearance, on judging people "on the basis of our clothing,

jewelry, hair and makeup."

When people ask me if I feel oppressed, I can honestly say no. I made this decision out of my own free will. I like the fact that 1 am taking control of the way other people perceive me. I enjoy the fact that I don't give anyone anythmg to look at and that I have released myself from the bondage of the swinging pendulum of the fashion industry and other institutions that exploit females.

She believes that hijab is more conducive to women's equality than Western culture's allowing

women's bodies to be exploited for commercial purposes:

Why do we [women] allow ourselves to be manipulated like this [used in advertising]? Whether the 90's woman wishes to believe it or not, she is being forced into a mould. She is being coerced into selling herself, into compromising herself. Tlus is why we have 13-year-old girls sticking their fingers down their throats and overweight adolescents hanging themselves.

Next time someone sees her in hijab, she concludes, "don't look at me sympathetically. I am

not under duress or a male-worshipping female captive from those barbarous Arabic deserts.

I've been liberated?

Orbach, Bordo, Wolf. Ussher, Mackinnon, and many other feminists have analysed in

detail Western cultures' images of women. They examine the problem of the objectification of

248

the female body, its use in advertising, pornography, film, and the billion-dollar fashion and

cosmetic industry attached to women's attempts to make themselves into the image of model.

Not to mention the possible connections betwen the images of beauty and the tragedy of

anorexia, bulimia, compulsive eating and dangerous body altering cosmetic surgery. It is not

hard to prove that Western culture promotes a homogenising image of the ideal woman, against

which women measure and bbcorrect'y thern~elves.~'~ Advertisements, films, TV? magazines.

anywhere an image can be found all promote a specific kind of female body as ideal. To be sure

that ideal has undergone changes: the voluptuous 1950's, " s k i ~ y and flat chested with long

7,676 straight hair in the 1960's, and skinnier and skinner until the 1990's version of the skinny.

but "tighter, smoother [and] more contained [i.e. less flabby] body profile."677 The point is. as

so many feminists emphasise, that whatever the image, women strive to achieve it. no matter

their own body shape, and no matter the low self-esteem and self-loathing that develops as a

result of the inevitable failure to achieve the ideal. (Especially nowadays when the image is

retouched-airbrushed, or actually assembled from different models.. .)678

This chapter is not the place to explore these issues further, most especially when

feminists like Bordo have written such brilliant pieces analysing this situation. The point to

draw attention to is the worsening, not improving of the relationship of women to their bodies

(and increasingly men, as their bodies also are increasingly presented in idealised forms). It is

now agreed that in the 1990's low self-esteem. body dissatisfaction and eating

reached epidemic and are crossing class, ethnic, and gender lines!*'

disorders have

Veron-Guidry

675 Bordo: 'Introduction:' 24-25. 676 Orbach: 8. 677 Bordo: 'Reading the Slender Body:' 188. 678 Jacobson and Mazur: 75. 679 Bordo: 'Whose Body is Tbis?:' 57. Cf Abell and Richards. 679 Orbach: 52. 680 Eating disorders used to be found predominantly in white, middlelupper-class, Western women. Bordo: 'Whose Body is This?' 62-63. Wolf 288-9. Although the emphasis has traditionally been on women, cuiturai images now emphasise physical appearance for men too and that is increasing male body-dissatisfaction and eating disorders. A

249

and Williamson found eating disorders in "prepubertal children, as well as a preference for

thinness and body dissatisfaction among children as young as 6 years 01d.'"~' Muslim women

(and men) who grew up in Western culture are not immune from these dominating pressures.

The teenagers love the Spice Girls, and want to follow fashions as much as any non-Muslim

Western girl.

So when some Muslim women choose h*, they are constructing a Muslim identity. a

minority identity, in the face of the dominant (Western) culture's messages about women -

about the need to dress fashionably, and be slim and beautiful. They are able to find in their

Islamic heritage an empowering practice that others in other contexts may have found

oppressive. They use their Islamic heritage as a way to resist. rebel and counteract these

powerful images of ideal beauty. Their interpretation of this practice of covering draws on

feminist critiques of Western culture's treating women as sex object. Thus. for these and other

women. hijab is a counter-culture in the West. an appropriation of the feminist critique of

Western culture's valuation of woman as sex object, and a rejection and rebellion against that

model of women via an Islamic route (other women take other routes).

And although 1 am not sure how much the following knowledge is part of these women's

use of hijab as a response to Western culture's emphasis on slender beauty. it is wonh adding

that From an Islamic perspective, these kinds of bodily dissatisfactions and attempts to alter the

shape one has been given are a profoundly anti-religious stance. only possible in a deeply

secular. agnostic culture. It may well be that the body is a site of cultural practice and

formation, such that there is no such thing as a 'biological body,'682 but it is also the case that

recent survey in the U.S. of fifth and sixth graders found that 43 percent of boys want to be thinner. Stacey: 178. And while both men and women are trying to conform to Western cultural messages about ideal masculinity and femininity, there are gender differences in their body-dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Men tend to be dissatisfied with their body for not looking 'masculine' enough - i.e. low muscles/weight proportion, whereas as female dissatisfaction is the opposite - i.e. too much weight. '" Veron-Guidry and Wiiliamson: 287. My emphasis. Wolt 2 15.

Bordo: 'Postmodern Subjects:' 290. Also 'Material Girl: also 246-7,275.

250

one cannot change one's body structure too much without recourse to surgery; one can diet and

exercise, but if one is staying within healthy limits (i.e. not anorectichulimic) there is only just

so much tinkering to be done. Like in other religions, for those who would follow the Qur'an.

there is the message to be happy and content with one's body because God created our shapes

("He it is Who shapes you in the wombs as He pleases (3:6),") and He created us "in the best of

moulds (95:4)." The Prophet used to advise people to be healthy and consume and exercise in

moderation.683 By adopting hijab, these women are tapping into resources that can provide

psychic satisfaction.

B. HUAB AND THE MALE GAZE.

One of the most powernil arguments in support of the notion that hijab can be

empowering for women is the notion that hijab gives women back control of their own 0

sexuality. In capitalist consumer cultures, where women have more physical freedom, work and

educational opportunities than in other historical times/places, women's subordination takes on

a different, subtler form. Bordo argues that the social system promoting the 'tyranny of

slenderness' keeps women "docile." preoccupied with their body and locked into a subordinate

position where female desire (unlike male desire) is not given free reign, rather controlled and

restrained by the need to be slim.684 Another aspect related to this dynamic is the positioning of

women as objects of the male gaze.

Veronica Doubleday lived in Herat, Afghanistan in 1973. Although she does "not

approve of the veil" and considers it a "vehicle of oppression. through which men assert their

power of women,"685 she wore it while there, so as to fit in more with the local culture. In

Herat, she learned some local music. and sometimes went with some musicians to perform with

683 The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: ''A human being has not filled up a recipient worse than his stomach. A few mouthfuls are enough for the son of Adam to support him, but if he must eat, let one third [of the space] be for the food and one third for the drink and one third for his breath." Related by Ahmad and at-Tinnithi). A!-Jumuah, 9: 4 &5, 141 8 f 19971: 28.

them at their performances. One day they had had to wait too long for a driver to pick them up

for a wedding gig:

[The driver] eyed me suavely in his mirror, but I resented his interested look and pulled my veil around myself, far too primly for a musician girl. Over the months I had become used to hiding myself from strange men, adjusting my veil more closely as I sensed that the glance was sexual. The veil could be used as a decorous rebufl shaming men for their profane thoughts. But this was no place for modesty: Shirin and the others were free and easy, laughing and chatting openly with him. I realised that my response to his uivical look had been inappropriate, motivated by bad temper at our long wait. 682

This is 'the look' that women know all too well. This is the male invasion of female space. the

rapacious 'eating her with his eyes' look. the 'turning-the-woman-into-an-object-of-his-desireo

look. The male gaze. Did Doubleday's use of the veil in this encounter position her as

oppressed by the man, or was it useful for rebutting this unwanted intrusive male stare?

Feminists have most anaylsed the male gaze as manifested in art or film: the genre of

nude paintings, or The woman is presented in such a way to satisfy

heterosexual male desire: the woman is beautiful, her body sexually arousing, and imponantly.

she is passive, often reclining, offered as a possession for the man to take her. In the case of a

picture/film the 'taking' is visual, but it is not surprising that some feminists argue that this

visual objectification has effects in the real world, that it "constructs women as things for [male]

sexual Moreover. this positioning of the female body is not confined to 'm,' i t is

ubiquitous in imagery everywhere there are images, most especially in advertising: woman3

body in bikinis stroking a car exhaust system. woman's body reclining behind books, woman's

legs sticking out of a cereal box ('Get more kicks out of The relationship between the

Bordo: 'Introduction:' 18, 'Reading the Slender Body:" 2 1 1 . 685 Doubleday: 65-6. 686 Doubleday: 198-9. My emphasis. 687 Wolf. Ussher, Mackinnon. See also Berger er al. 688 Mackinnon: 142. 689 Jacobson and Mazur: 84-5.

product being sold, and the woman's sexualised body is nil; the body is there to attract attention.

It also excites the heterosexual man, and reinforces the lesson that woman's body is object.

Feminists disagree both about the nature of the male gaze, and how to fix it (given that

the male gaze is a problem for women). Is it innate? Or is it socially constructed? If the latter,

how can we re-socialise men? The majority of feminists argue for social construction. and

hence social change, with only radical and cultural feminists (a minority) arguing for some kind

of sexual essentialism. This is not the place to sort out the nature/nurture debate over the male

gaze. Whatever the cause, all feminists know the effects of the male gaze. John Berger's neat

summary is deservedly oft quoted:

[ w e n act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.690

Not only does the woman intemalise the male gaze and judge herself with the eyes of his

desire. but also women then turn to each other. and judge each other with those male eyes. Both

men and women are gazing at women through the eyes of 'the male gaze.' Rossiter's analysis

of her child's dance party, which produced anxiety in the girls makes this clear. The children.

aged ten to thirteen. organised a party at someone's house. and the boys told the girls not to

wear sweat pants. Rossiter argues that for the young girls. the dance party was a defining

moment in their transition ro womanhood: they had learnt a first lesson about dressinghehaving

to please a male gaze. She notes that none of the boys experienced the same anxiety as did the

girls. The girls were learning the cultural script which "organizes the identity of the girl/object

at the dance party through (1) the right way to taik. (2) the right way to dress. and (3) the right

way to dance."69' The girls made the transition from "I am dancing" to "I am being watched

Berger er d: 47. Original emphasis. 691 Rossiter: 5.

while I'm dancing."6g2 The desire to do all these things right, to have a desirable appearance

(for the boys looking on) ''produces obedience in subjects. In such a way, the intemalised male

gaze produces girls' 'consent' to their positioning as objects."6g3 The failure to dress, dance,

talk right produces shame, and "with [it a] threat of abandonment and rejection by others.""'

Not only does this fear produce obedience in women, and "'consent' to their positioning

as objects," it tums other women into competitors and judges. At the party their girlfriends

became repositioned as their "harshest critics and potential sources of abandonment."695

Because the boys could be dismissed for being like pesky brothers, it was their girlfriends who

were endowed with the ability to judge their appearance as conforming or not to the culturally

defined image of beauty. This is because of the girls' "cultural history" that had intemalised the

male gaze - i.e. their learning through teen magazines and other cultural images what is

'beautiful' for a woman.696 Rossiter argues that this transitional moment for the adolescent girls

is painful. and one not experienced by the boys. who treated the party as a place to learn and

practice '*cool" behaviod9' It is painful because the "preoccupation with appearance can be

read as a self-defeating attempt to seize control at a time when bodily control has disappeared

9,698 with the installation of girl as object. A woman can never reach the ideal (even models feel

they fall and thus begins the lifetime experience of aiming high and falling short. and

the concomitant self-hate and low self-esteem that grips many women in Western culture.

692 Rossiter: 4. 693 Rossiter: 7. 694 Rossiter: 8. 695 Rossiter: 9.

Rossiter: 1 7. See also Ussher. Rossiter: 12-3.

698 Rossiter: 16. 6w Elle Macphenon: "I don't panicularly like the way I look, to tell you the truth... when you're trying to sell how beautifd you are and you don't think that you're that beautiful, it's a bit scary." Ussher: 62.

254

So, there are several kinds of 'male gaze.' There is the cultural promoted in

the woman-most-pleasing-to-man imagery, enforced by both men and women on women

(women on themselves and each other), and there is the individual male gaze that whistles.

stares, calls-out at, or otherwise harasses women. A11 have deleterious effects on women's self-

esteem and body. It is an important part of the feminist project to change and ameliorate this.

Because they assume 'the male gaze' is a cultural construction. mainstream feminists, drawing

on the liberal tradition, demand that men change the way they behave (i.e. stop being 'male

gazers').70' Freedom means that women should be able to do whatever they want. be what ever

they want, to express themselves however they want and get treated with respect by men (within

'reasonable' limits i.e. not harm others); to be free of this looking, this policing, this control. this

discipline over their body. Here is Naomi Wolf:

A woman wins by giving herself and other women permission-to eat; to be sexual; to age; to wear overalls, a paste tiara. a Balenciaga gown, a second-hand opera cloak, or combat boots; to cover up or to go practically naked; to do whatever we choose in followingsr ignoring-our own aesthetic. A woman wins when she feels that what each woman does with her own body-unforced, uncoerced-is her own business.'*'

It is these assumptions that women should be able to do whatever they want, and that

men should change their behaviour to eradicate the male gaze that leads many feminists to be

critical of hijab. It is not surprising. The hijab looks like a practice that means women have to

be all covered up for the sake of the man who is (innately) unable to control himself.

Remember Memissi's verdict that the Prophet's (pbuh) imposition of hvab on women was a

signal that the street was a place men were allowed to harass women, and a signal that internal

700 Ussher: 9. 70' Wolf: 154. 'O"olf: 290.

male self-discipline was not required?'03 Afshar's comments are representative of this type of

feminist reaction to the hijab:

Behind the rhetoric of honour and sedition there lies a deep conviction, not of the vulnerability of women, as publicly stated, but of the fragility of men. It is because men are thought to be eminently susceptible to 'female lures' that the [Iranian] regime insists on making women invisible. This conviction about men's weakness makes it imperative for women to wear the hejub in order to 'eradicate' both 'adultery and sodomy.'

The stated assumption of the regime is that the only fundamental threats to male sanity and rationality are anger and sexual arousal; the latter caused exclusively by women. The mere presence of women is said to undermine men's better judgement. It is not only a woman's body, but also her face, her movement. the tone of her voice and even the colour of her garments which can arouse men.. .

The imposition of hejab is hailed as a timely check imposed on 'loose women,' apparently to 'check their dishonourable ways' and 'shield their honour.' But in reality this 'trench of modesty' is imposed, not to protect women, but to prevent the endangered male species from total annihilation at the mere sight of women. 704

In discussing huub with non-Muslims I am often asked questions that follow Afshar's

line of thinking: Why don't men have to cover? Aren't they also temptations for women? Why

is it that instead of making women cover to protect men, men aren't made to control

themselves? Why not socialise them to behave differently? Doesn't hijob give men the license

to harass women who don't cover? And doesn't hijab mean that women are just treated as a

sexualised body, not a dignified person? These questions look at hijab fiom a male point of

view. They assume that women have nothing to benefit fiom wearing hijczb, and that it is all

feminine sacrifice for the sake of men. When looked at from a woman's point of view, hijab

does have benefits. I have already mentioned embracing hijab as a counter-response to Western

culture's emphasis on slenderness and the body. Now I add the relationship of hijab to male

gaze.

The feminist aim of resocialising men not to look with a male gaze is a very laudable

goal, and one that is very necessary. But social science research shows that the effects of the

'03 Mernissi, b: 185.

male gaze (whether socialised or not) are still prevalent. Jackson's survey of the physical

attractiveness literature (in the discipline of. psychology) found that when judging overall

appearance "males emphasized the sexually related aspects of a female's body more than did

females. Females emphasized specific body parts (e.g., eyes, buttocks), health. stamina, and

scent more than did males in judging a male's body attractivene~s."'~~ 'wolf reports a 1986

UCLA survey in which 305 men said they would rape if they could get away with it. 58 percent

would force a woman to have sex. "In another survey of 114 undergraduate men these replies

emerged:

"I like to dominate a woman." 91.3% "I enjoy the conquest of sex." 86.1% "Some women look like they're just asking to be raped." 83.5%. "I get excited when a woman struggles over sex." 63.5% "It would be exciting to use force to subdue a woman." 6 1 .7%'06

And researchers into workplace sexual harassment have concluded that for men. women are still

'women' first. Watson's interviews with men about workplace sexual harassment led her to

conclude: "Almost two decades after Farley's study (Sexual Shakedown), her assertion that men

view women workers as sexual objects rather than employees remains a wholly accurate

conclusion in relation to these [Watson's] research findings."70' Other social science research

shows that men more frequently misinterpret women's friendliness as seductive or sexually

inviting.708 Wearing hijab is a strategy from their own tradition that many Muslim women

adopt to try and counter these effects. Zuhur observed in her study of 'reveiling' in Egypt that

"denying men the ability to comment on their figures or silencing the 'eyes of wolves' gave the

younger [covered] respondents some ~atisfaction."'~~

'" Afshar, a: 74. See also Macleod: 83. Brooks: 24. '05 Jackson: 159. 706 Wolf: 165. 707 Watson, b: 8 1 . (L Farley, Sexual Shakedown: The Se.tual Hurassmenr of Women on the Job. New York: Warner, 1980.) '08 Grauerholz: 4 1 . Sad: 69. 709 Zuhur: 102.

In Am I Thal Name, Denise Rile recounts a scene that many women will recognise as a

"classic example of" being "pushed into.. .female gender:"

You walk down a street wrapped in your own speculations; or you speed up, hell- bent on getting to the shops before they close: a car slows down, a shout comments on your expression, your movement; or there's a derisively hissed remark from the pavement. You have indeed been seen 'as a woman', and violently reminded that your passage alone can spark off such random sexual attractionturn-contempt. that you can be a spectacle when the last thing on your mind is your own embodiedness.. .the first thought here, surely, is not, 'Now, humiliatingly, I've become a woman', but rather that ou have been positioned antagonistically as a woman-thing, objectified as a distortion. $0

Wearing hijab is a way of counteracting this kind of male intrusion. The loose. long

clothing gives men little to whistle at, little to comment on. If it is a good Muslim man, the

h w b is a signal you are a Muslim woman, and he should lower his gaze (he should anway.

whether or not you are a Muslim woman). If it is a non-Muslim man, perhaps he just thinks you

are so strange he does not bother with you. The psychological satisfaction of this aspect of

hijab seems to me to be very important. There is a sense of security in knowing. as you walk

past that group of men, that even if they try to stare, they will not be able to see much. they will

not be able to make out the shape, comment on it, size it up; you feel as though you are in

Not only that, women often feel compelled to be nice to men who bother them on the

streets (Why? Are we afraid of hurting their feelings? Watch a woman try to rebuff politely a

man who tries to strike up conversation with her on the subway.) The hijab is also part of a

social system that prohibits strange men and women touching each other. and discourages them

from aimless social chit-chat. When a Muslim man hassles a strange Muslim woman on the

"O Riley: 96-7. "' The downside of wearing hijclb in a Western culture is that, as in Riley's scenario above, you are hell-bent on getting to school before the lecture starts, and someone makes a snide remark to you, or loud enough for you to hear, about islam and the oppression of women, or about 'going back to where you came from' or something like that. To adapt Riley, "Now, maddenly, I am pushed into this Western stereotype of 'oppressed woman."' Riley: 96. Once 1 was reading a book on the bus about women's rights in Islam (and not enjoying it either, thinking it silly),

258

street, he can be ignored and scorned without compunction, as he has demonstrated his lack of

proper Islamic behaviour. (In Toronto, Muslim men in the streets sometimes try to use the

Islamic greeting "Assalamu alaikum" in a flirtatious way that is annoying and inappropriate.

They can be (should be) ignored.). The same goes for a non-Muslim man who may not be

aware of Islamic etiquette. If he is annoying, he can be ignored without remorse. Permission

not to speak to men when you do not want to feels empowering in a Western culture that gives

men permission to hassle and chat-up women, but that does not give women @)any tools to

counteract that.

But does this mean that men are absolved fiom all responsibility? Is hyub a message

that it is alright to harass a woman not in hijab? Certainly some Muslim men behave as if that

were the case. (Many friends relate to me stories of male harassment fiom their home countries,

or while they were visiting Muslim countries.) But these are men lacking the proper lslamic

etiquette of male/female relations and are no more representative of the Islamic ideal than are

Western men who harass women exemplars of a Western Judaeo-Christian/secular-liberal ideal.

And as this is an oft misunderstood point by critics of hijub let me expand with reference to the

Qur'an and sunnah. (In her study of the contemporary recovering movement in Egypt.

MacLeod concluded of the hwb: "Rather than placing the blame, and the need for change in

behavior, onto men, women accommodate by altering their dress to fit the prevailing norm that

men should not be tempted by ~ornen.""~ That is, Macleod is critical of hyab because she

mistakenly assumes that men are considered absolved from responsibility with respect to their

behaviour toward women.)

First, the Qur'an commands men to "lower their Raze and guard their modesty (24:30)

[my emphasis] ." 'Lowering the gaze' means that if a man sees a woman (no matter how she is

and a young white man approached me to tell me that "I seen that book you're reading about women's rights in Islam .... Women don't got no rights in Islam."

259

dressed, full head-to-toe hijab or naked), he should lower his gaze. That means, do not look at

her, do not whistle at her, do not touch, do not harass or attack her. Second, several hadifh

emphasise the importance of men lowering their gaze:

Al-Bukhari records a hadith on the authority of Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

The Prophet @huh) said, "Beware! Avoid sitting on the roads." They (the people) said, "0 Allah's Apostle! We can't help sitting (on the roads) as these are (our places) where we have talks." The Prophet (pbuh) said, "If you refbse but to sit, then pay the road its right." They said, "What is the right of the road, 0 Allah's Apostle?'He said, "Lowering your gaze. refraining from harmin others, returning P greeting, and enjoining what is good, and forbidding what is evil." l3

Tirmidhi, Ahmad and Abu Dawood record the following hadith: "0 Ali. do not follow the first

(involuntary) look with a second. for, the first one is for you (you are not accountable for it). but

the second is not." Abdel Doi includes a narration from Jarir: "Jarir says, "I asked the Prophet

@huh) what I should do if I happened to cast a look (at a woman) by chance. The Prophet

(pbuh) replied, 'Turn your eyes away. ,797 14

Third, model men are those who resist their temptations. Al-Ghazali relates several

stories of men resisting desire by way of exhortation to his readers. He reports an anecdote

recorded by Al-Bukhari. It is the story of three men who were trapped in a cave by a stone

stopping up the entrance. As each man recounts a good deed, God moves the stone for him.

One man's good deed was that a niece whom he had once tried to seduce. but who had refbsed

him, came to him after a year of drought needing help. He agreed to give her money if she "put

herself at my disposal. This she did. But when I was upon her, she said, 'Fear God! Break not

the seal. save in a lawful way!" So I refrained from going into her, and went away, even though

she was dearer to me than all else, leaving her with the gold which I had given her. 0 Lord

MacLeod: 139. 'I3 Bukhari: vol 8, hadith no 248. 714 Doi: 12.

260

God! if I acted thus for thy sake, then deliver us from our Bukhari also recorded a

hadith narrated by Abu Hurayra about seven people God will "shade" on the Day of Judgement,

one of whom is "a man who refuses the call of a charming woman of noble birth for an illegal

sexual intercourse with her and says: I am &id of ~ l l ah . ""~ So, Hessini is wrong to conclude

about hwb: "the idea that women must be covered in order to merit respect is rooted in the

division of space and in assumptions about bdamental differences between men and

women."'" We do not cover in order to merit respect. We merit respect anyway. And if we

are not treated with respect because we are not covered, then the fault lies with the man. not

with the lack of hijab.

In contrast to Western culture, which teaches men and women that it is okay for men and

women to look at and be aroused by women and men (pornography, advertising, movies,

television, and other visual media that are full of images of half-naked and attractive women and

men), Islamic (Qur'anic) culture teaches men and women that it is not okav to look at women

and men. (None of these types of Western cultural visual images about would prevail in an

Qur'anically based Muslim society. In Islamic devotional magazines, advertisements for

women's clothes often display the clothes on a sewer's dummy with a blank face under the

headscarf.) 1 have already mentioned the Qur'anic verses and some relevant hadith. And this is

an ideal many strive to implement. Many of the practising Muslim men that I meet look at their

shoes, or over my shoulder when talking to me. (Quite unnerving at first, especially when one

is used to the direct stare.) They do not shake my hand, nor do they touch me on the arm or

shoulder during conversation as is common in Western culture. My physical space is safe from

--

'Is Winter, b: 187. (Bukhari. Buyu' 98). 716 Bukhari, Volume 2. Book 24, Number 504. The other six are: a just ruler; a young man who has been brought up in the worship of Allah, (i.e. worship Allah (Alone) sincerely fkom his childhood); a man whose heart is attached to the mosque (who offers the five compulsory congregational prayers in the mosque); two persons who love each other only for Allah's sake and they meet and part in Allah's cause only; a person who practices charity so secretly that his left hand does not know what his right hand has given (i.e. nobody knows how much he has given in charity); and a person who remembers Allah in seclusion and his eyes get flooded with tears.

26 1

their intrusions. Naturally they should behave like that whether or not 1 wear h@b, and whether

or not I am Muslim. So in my argument here about hijab and the male gaze, I am not trying to

imply that hQab is some magical protection device against male aggression, rape, violence, and

harassment. It is not. But I am pointing to the hijab as a protective and effective shield from

the prying eyes/comments of unwanted male attention. (Needed for the unreformed men

amongst us.)

Hijab, when viewed from some women's perspective is a way of saying 'treat me as a

person. not a sex object.' It is a tool for counter-male gaze aspects of the patriarchal capitalist

culture we find ourselves in. Wolf points out that a woman who speaks up against the beauty

myth is penalised by having her own appearance scrutinised. Women are either too "ugly" or

too "pretty" to be believed. She continues: "For us to reject the insistence that a woman's

appearance is her speech, for us to hear one another out beyond the beauty myth. is itself a

7 9 7 18 political step forward. Muslim women's h@b can be embraced as just such a political act.

C. HIJAB AND FEMININITY.

Rugh pointed out in her study of Egyptian folk dress, that in "the long history of Western

fashions."

it is rare to see unwaisted styles. The allure of dress for women is to display the figure attractively which requires fined rather than loose unstmctured style. In the last two hundred years. the major unwaisted styles have been the Empire dress which was the fashion during the period of the first Empire (1 804-1 8 14) in the Napoleonic era. and the boyish look of the flapper era in the first decades of the twentieth

From the perspective of those used to displaying the female body as right and appropriate, ("If

you've got it, flaunt it," is a common message for women in Western culture) 'covering it'

seems to suppress femininity and beauty. Again. this is to look at hijab only from a partial

'I7 Hessini: 53. 'I8 Wolf: 274-5. 719 Rugh: 18-19.

perspective, and not fkom the point of view of the woman covering. In this section, I advance

five points in order to rebuff the assumption that hgab smothers a woman's femininity and

sexuality. In the first place, women do not wear hijab inside the home. (Unless there are

unrelated men in the home.) Second, women are encouraged to dress up and beautify

themselves, to exult in their body, with and for their husbands. Third, because most socialising

is done in a segregated fashion, women frequently congregate with no men present. For these

occasions many women love to put on make-up, and wear fancy and fine clothes. One of the

most spectacular events is a bridal shower for the bride, with women wearing their most

beautiful outfits. At some of these events women spend time decorating each other's hands with

henna patterns. Singing and dancing is common. I have seen elderly women dancing, clapping.

and shaking their hips, urging on a shy, restrained bride to shake her hips and body with more

vigour.

Many anthropologists have noticed that in all-women gatherings. women are very

relaxed and enjoying themselves. This is no surprise. Western feminist research observes that

in mixed gatherings, men dominate the conversation. and women are more silent. Here are

some of Makhlouf s observations about the Sana'i women:

In a society marked by strict seclusion and rigidly defined sex roles, one would expect to find that the behaviour of women is extremely constrained. In fact, one of the most striking features of female society in Yemen is the atmosphere of

720 relaxation which seems to prevail during work and leisure time.

Women have a separate sphere over which men have little control, which may constitute a source of support and even of power. Moreover, a cultural ideology which presents women's participation in society as insignificant does not necessarily result in self-devaluation for the women. Rather, the subjective reality of women's lives may contradict this view. in fact, for the outsider expecting constrained and repressed female types as a result of seclusion, it is a most agreeable surprise to find that San'ani women do not seem nearly as tense or inhibited as women in some other cultures. Almost always the atmosphere at

r,o Makhlouf 2 1.

women's gatherings is pleasant and relaxing."' (They are wearing their best clothes, rich velvets and brocades, talking, eating, dancing and chewing qat.)"

Wikan's study of Sohari women in Oman noticed similar behaviour. Sexuality was the

favourite topic of conversation at women's gatherings, accompanied by joking and pantomime:

Women constantly tease each other about how desired they are by their respective husbands, how they enjoy intercourse, and they illustrate, with gestures and postures, how the objects of the teasing supposedly engage in intercourse. It is a striking and consistent pattern that whereas conjugal life is treated with a tactfulness so rigorous that any reference to it is avoided, this is not true of physical sexuality. Such matters are the object of unrestrained banter of the most intimate nature-but generally of an outra eous, jocular, and clearly fabricated kind and never genuinely indiscreet or vicious. .fi3

A woman who has soiled her dress cannot change without being teased for having had sexual intercourse. If she loses weight, she will be teased for sleeping with her husband all the time ... a woman rarely wiped the burqa marks off her cheeks without eliciting "Aha! Wait till the evening [or when your husband comes home]. and then he will kiss it off," and the whole gathering would burst into laughter, and maybe pantomime, and exchange "meaningful" glances." [The women] are not deterred by the presence of children [in these conversations] .724

The autonomy of the women's world is marked. Makhlouf noted that in San'ani society,

if a man wished to enter his own home. he must give '"early warnings' and call 'Allah' loudly

while climbing the stairs to give the women a chance to cover before he arrive^.""^ When I

visit my friends, or they visit me, we put the chain on the door, so no men can enter, even if they

have the key. This autonomy led Leila Ahrned to joke that Saudi Arabia, a society where the

separation of the sexes is most rigid, best exemplified separatist feminists' dream of setting up

women-only communes; that "commune-minded American feminists should go immediately to

Saudi Arabia (if they can persuade the Saudis to grant them visa) not to study Arabian women

as scientists smdy insects, but to study as apprentices and disciples of their women's

Of course. she says this tongue in cheek, as a corrective to the distorted western concept of

'" Makhlouf: 25. "' Makhlouf: 23. "3 Wikan: 127. '3 Wikan: 136-7.

secluded women as degraded, and repressed. She recognises that an autonomous female

homosocial world is not a substitute for access to decision shaping centres in society. I brought

these examples, not to say anything positive about seclusion, but to emphasise that just because

women cover in public, or in front of men, does not mean they have no avenues to display

themselves, exult in, play with and have fbn with, their beauty.

Doubleday, observing similar aspects of the female social world in Herat, Afghanistan

(women dressing up and enjoying "showing themselves off to one another"), remarked how

"strange" this seemed to "us" (~estemers). '~' The implicit question is 'Why bother to get

dressed up when there are just women around? What is the point, if there are no men around?'

A very revealing question, is it not? For it assumes that the 'point? of women's dressing up. of

displaying one's beauty, is for the sake of men, i.e. for the male gaze.

Western culture places a high premium on physical attractiveness for both sexes. Social

science research demonstrates that "[alttractive people are perceived more favorably on a

variety of dimensions-such as social competence. psychological adjustment, and intellectual

competence-than are less-attractive people."728 Researchers have also identified the "what is

beautiful is good" stereotype. Regan found that people tend to accept the fairy tale notion that

"the morally righteous are physically flawless, and this combination guarantees benefit in the

form of interpersonal happiness and social status, while the morally corrupt inevitably sport

warts. blemishes, or a variety of other socially undesirable characteristics, and are effectively

denied access to the same resource^."^'^

Feminists are critical of this emphasis on valuing women for their appearance over other

aspects of their persons, and yet the cultural messages about women's beauty seem to have a

' 2 ~ Makhioufi 28. n6 A hmed, b: 53 1 . "' Doubleday: 84-5. n8 Jackson: 8 1 .

strong grip on people. Cash's survey of 122 undergraduate women found that holding feminist

ideals did not 'protect' women &om having a poor body-image: "Messages about the

importance of women's appearance, both in general and in developing and maintaining intimate

relationships with men, may be so ingrained and socially reinforced that the acquisition of

feminist ideology has little impact on these core beliefs. In effect, these views may be

experienced by women as 'separate issues. 9 ~ 7 3 0 The Muslim women interviewed by Cayer (for

her study of Indo-Pakistani womenin Toronto) thought that this emphasis on a woman's beauty

devalued women, made women competitors of each other, and made women dependent on men

for their sense of self and identity. Sheri fa captured this point well:

I have a friend who dresses really provocatively. She would wear close to nothing ... so she's put this on and if she got a reaction [from a man] she'd say. "Good, I'm looking fine." She'd really question if these men weren't gawking at her ... that's pathetic right? That's how you judge your beauty, by the reactions of men? ... M a t Muslim women, and especially Muslim women that cover...are automatically saying ... is I don't care what you think of me. You shouldn't make a judgement if I'm attractive or not. Why am I dressing for your satisfaction? This has nothing to do with you.. .I don't establish my worth or my beauty by your reaction, only by the reaction of Allah ... the only person you want to please. that's Allah (subhanahuwataallah) and when you do that you think, wow, the world's mine. it's in my hand."731

As one of my Muslim women friends says, "hijab is a way of giving dignity to a woman's

femininity by making her beauty unavailable for public consumption."

So, women do not wear hm inside the home, they have fun with their husbands, and

have fun at women only gatherings. The fourth point 1 wish to make in reply to the notion that

hijab suppresses women's femininity and sexuality is briefly to look at Western women's

experience in mixed-sex public space. And lastly, I will say something about feminist critiques

of Western culture's view of female sexuality.

"9 Regan: 1803-4. Cash: 442.

266

Western women know that there are problems associated with being female while in the

public space. For every reformed man, there are several that continue to whistle at, and harass

(not to mention rape and violate) women. Women, while continuing to work on changing men

have also devised various methods with which to de-sexualise themselves, making it easier to

enter the public space.732 These include the professional business woman's suit. and the results

of eating disorders: anorexia/bulimia, or compulsive eating.

When women started entering the workforce in great numbers in the seventies, they

found that "women who wore business suits were one and a half times more likely to feel they

were being treated as executives-and a third less like to have their authority challenged by men.

Clothing that called attention to sexuality, on the other hand-women's or men's-lowered one's

status in the John Molloy, whose survey reached that conclusion, wrote a book that

became a best-seller, The Woman S Dress for Success Book (1 977). The professional suit that

Molloy promoted sold well, but as Molloy predicted, the fashion industry was unhappy with this

new suit. He told his readers that the fashion industry would be "alarmed" at women adopting a

work "uniform:" "They will see it as a threat to their domination over women. And they wili be

right."73" Faludi and Wolf argue that part of the backlash against working women has been a

backlash against the suit. In the mid-80's Molloy was rebuked for promoting "that dreadful

little bow tie," pushing "the boring navy blue suit," and making women look like "imitation

men."735 By the mid-90's we can see that there is more variety in fashion. both long, and short

skirts can be "in."'36 But. as Wolf argues. women have a fine line to tread between the demands

'I' Sherifa, an international relations student. not covering at the time of the interview. Cayer: 118-9. 120-1. Subhanahuwaraallah: May God be praised and may His transcendence be affirmed. Often mentioned after the name God has been pronounced. nz Grauerholz: 46. 733 Faludi: 1 75. 13' Wolf: 44. Faludi: 176. 73s Faludi: 177. 736 Thanks to Jenna Sindle for this observation.

to be business-like and feminine at the same time, women have to "work harder to be

"beautiful" and work harder to be taken seriously. ,9737

Altering one's dress in order to facilitate a woman's negotiation of mixed public space is

not alien to non-Muslim women, although naturally, they would not adopt hijab. The following

quotation captures, for me, the essence of this aspect of hijab, although it is made by a non-

Muslim woman who would probably think hijab is oppressive. A sexual harassment case in

Australia in 1992 led to a nation-wide discussion, and a well-known novelist wrote about the

case while pondering its ramifications. Here she is interviewing a university woman about the

college balls, at one of which the harassment was alleged to have occurred:

Once I went to the Ormond ball. ..it was held that year at the metro nightclub-awful place, I hated it. I wore a short black skirt and high heels -and I was amazed at the way blokes I'd seen round all year suddenly started behaving towards me in a different way. Afterwards I threw out the clothes. It's not that I don't want to be seen as attractive or sexy. It's more that I don't want that response from people I don't want to appeal to. Some women - I don't understand it but they seem not to feel worthy unless they're being treated that way. I could always deal with the sexism at Ormond. I dress so as to be treated the way I want to be treated.738

The last sentence highlights the aspect of hijab I am examining in this section: dress affects the

way people (especially men) react to you, and for many women, hijab is a satisfying dress that

seems to secure respectful treatment from others (especially men).

Some feminists working with women with eating disorders argue that women engage in

pathological eating behaviours in order to de-sexualise themselves. Compulsive eating, bulimia

or anorexia can make a woman so fat. or so thin, as to be seen as undesirable by men. Based on

her work with women with compulsive eating problems, Orbach believes that many of these

women purposely become fat in order to deny their female sexuality: "To expose their sexuality

means that others will deny them their personhood.739 These women found that by being fat,

737 Wolf: 45. 73%amer: 134. Original emphaSis. my underlining. '39 Orbach: 52.

they were no longer treated as sexual objects, particularly at work, as one woman said, "the fat

9,740 made me one of the boys. Orbach argues: "when [working women] lose weight, that is,

begin to look like a perfect female, they fmd themselves being treated frivolously by their male

colleagues. When women are thin [the image of the ideal woman], they are treated frivolously:

thin-sexy-incompetent ~orker."'~' Anorexics, on the other hand, she arguesT become very thin,

in order to achieve the same effect: "The quick "once overT' evaluation done by both men and

woman establishes the anorectic (and the obese woman) as outside the status of a sex object."74'

The obese woman's fat is an "an unconscious attempt to hide her curves just as the starving

anorectic attempts to disguise her form by ridding it of substance."743

As I mentioned above, Muslim women are turning to their Islamic heritage and adopting

hijab as a way to counter these kinds of cultural pressures. In Chapter One, we saw how many

women commented that after they started covering, men, even non-Muslim men, stopped

flirting with them or touching them. Actually, this process is a two-way street, for women in

hijab tend to be more reserved as well. Chapter Three highlighted the response of working

women in the Muslim world who had adopted hijob as a kind of uniform, to make them appear

more professional and business-like in the office, and to send a message to men that they were

serious about their SO, Muslim women can celebrate their femininity and sexuality

outside the public sphere. and use h&d~ as a way to enter the public sphere free from male

intrusion on their selves. The last point I wish to make in refuting the feminist suspicion that

7J0 Orbach: 38. '" Orbach: 13. "' Orbach: 173-4. Bordo's analysis suggests this might be changing in the 1990's. where obesity comes to symbolise lack of restraint, laziness, and lack of managerial capabilities. "Reading the Slender Body:" 195 743 ~rbach: 170. Bordo proposes another aspect: the anoretic and the obese as extreme resolutions of the conflicting messages of a consumer culture: the anorectic an extreme capacity of the producer self ("the work ethic in absolute control"), and the obese as an extreme capacity of the consumer self ("consumerism in control.") - -

Reading the ~ l e n d e r ~ o d y ' 2 10. She also argues some women see the slender body as empowering way to escape the traditional feminine domestic domain, and the chance to "embody qualities-detachment, self-containment, self- mastery, control" that are "highly-valued" in Western culture, but valued as 'masculine,' not 'feminine' traits. "Reading the Slender Body:" 209. 744 See also Zine's interviewees: 77, 79.

269

hijab is a way of suppressing femininity and sexuality is to highlight how that critique is born

out of feminist dislike of Western culture, and inappropriately applied to hijab.

A recurring feminist critique of Western society is that it suppresses women's sexual

desire, making women feel that they step outside the bounds of proper womanhood by being

desiring beings. Janet Holland discuses the "dominant [Western] version of female sexuality"

as "passive." She writes "any discourse which legitimates her pleasure, acknowledges her

sexual knowledge, values her performance and places it under her control. is potentially

threatening to his masculinity."745 Somehow these assumptions are so deeply rooted that they

are assumed to hold true for all cultures: Bordo: "the management of specifically female desire.

therefore, is in phallocentric cultures a doubly freighted problem. Women's desires are by their

nature excessive, irrational, threatening to erupt and challenge the patriarchal order."7J6 This is

the view of female desire that Mernissi and other feminists attribute also to Islam. From this

perspective, hijab looks like another male device of controlling women. so that they cannot

express their sexuality. But. as I discussed at length in the last chapter, Islam does not view

female sexuality in this way. In the Western context. the suppression of female desire appears

as a Christian legacy - the cult of virginity, and the suppression of desire as a way to come

closer to God. In Muslim cultures, the disapproval of female desire exists as an unread, vulgar.

folk-cultural aspect that is a legacy of who knows what cultural influences. But. a Qur'anically

based Muslim culture would not hold such attitudes to female desire, as I tried to explain in

detail in the previous chapter. As long as it is in the context of marriage (and for those feminists

who think confining sex to marriage is oppressive, then it must be true here that Islam controls

female desire), women's desire is actually encouraged to flourish. Al-Ghazali recounts a story

from Al-Asma'i: "I once saw among the Bedoiun a woman wearing a red skirt and made up

'" Holland, J: 30. 746 Bordo: 'Reading the Slender Body:' 206.

with dye, carrying prayer beads in her hand. 'How incongruous!' said I. But she said; 'I do not

neglect my duty to Allah, but fbn and games are my duty too.' Then 1 realized that she was a

virtuous woman with a husband for whom she was adorning her~elf?"'~' Here let us observe the

notion that 'fun and games with one's husband' is part of virtue. As I said in the last chapter, in

Islam, in contrast to Christianity, desire (in its proper place) is virtuous. Al-Ghazali continues

by instructing the woman that when her husband is away she should be chaste (as should he),

but when he returns "she should get back to playllness, relaxation and everything that gives

pleasure."74fi Perhaps some feminists will worry that this makes a woman's desire subservient

to her husband's. But it must be remembered that men are instructed to give their wives sexual

pleasure as well.

My theme that wearing hijab can be liberatory for women may strike many readers as

decidedly odd. And there is one last point to refute: Geraldine Brooks' idea. common to many

feminists: "And under all the talk about hijab freeing women from commercial or sexual

exploitation, all the discussion of the hijab's potency as a political and revolutionary symbol of

selfhood, was the body: the dangerous female body that somehow, in Muslim society, had been

made to carry the heavy burden of male honour."749 For her, as for many feminists, in spite of

all that is positive said about it, hijab is really a symbol of a culture that sacrifices women's

freedom and sexuality at the altar of male sexuality and honour. Hijab as a symbol of male

honour is a pervasive theme of feminist literature on Muslim women, especially during the

1960's and 1970's. This version captures an Arab cultural view of women and men: that male

honour is determined by women's behaviour. I do not intend in this chapter to explore this

dimension of the feminist critique of hyub. Covering for male honour is an alien notion for me:

747 Al-Ghazali, Holland translation: 94. 74 8 Al-G hazali, Holland translation: 94. 749 Brooks: 2.

27 1

I have never come across it in any of my interactions with Muslims, nor in any of the devotional

literature about women and Islam.

Abu-Lughod and Wikan are two anthropologists who have explored the concept of

honour and women's roles. Their analyses challenge the older 607s/70's paradigms. They both

point out that while a man's honour is affected by the behaviour of 'his' women. it is also

affected by the behaviour of himself and other men of his tribe. In Sohar, Oman, if the man

cannot perform sexually on his wedding night, he is given five days, after which he is divorced

and shamed. Moreover, Wikan emphasises that the anthropological literature is mistaken to

assume women do not also have honour themselves. "Within her own small scale world of

home and neighborhood, the woman's honor is not at all a minor reflection of her guardian's.

however much he might like to think so. It depends upon her ability to excel in those valued

acts of behavior that her female fiends and neighbors deem worthy of In the Awlad

Ali, studied by Abu-Lughod, honour is also a matter of blood. The tribe deemed the nobility of

ancestral origins an essential component of one's ability to act morally. Men and women of the

Awlad Ali considered themselves superior to the Egyptians, who were seen as having ignoble

origins.751 Additionally. among the Awlad 'Ali, when a woman feels her male kin do not

deserve her respect, she does not cover. So, I do not consider the male honour perspective

relevant to my construction of a positive theory of hijab. If Muslims enact the notion of honour,

then it is a cultural aspect having no basis in the Qur'an and sunnah. I have proceeded as if the

honour question does not exist.

To sum up, hijab does not smother femininity or sexuality. Rather, it regulates where

and for whom one's femininity and sexuality will be displayed and deployed. In the home, in

women's gatherings, and with one's husband. Muslim women can dress up, play with, display

--

750 Wikan: 72-3. 751 Abu-Lughod: 45-8.

and otherwise enjoy their beauty and sexuality. Beauty/sexuality is something special, not to be

enjoyed by strange men. One illustration often employed by Muslims, is to compare hijab with

chocolate wrappings (!). The best, choicest, delectable chocolates are those individually

wrapped, not on display in a box. The woman is not oppressed by her inability to display

herself for the public gaze-like a delectable chocolate she is keeping her specialness private (to

be savoured only by her husband). Hijab, then, rather than being a constriction upon a woman's

femininity, can be seen as a liberator of her being judged in comparison to a narrow and

impossible ideal of beauty, or to real beautiful women. It allows her to be her own God-given

body, without cosmetic, surgical, dieting or other kinds of alteration, to be relieved of public

scrutiny of her figure and body, and to get on with putting her energy into more productive

avenues than fighting with nature to make herself 'beautiful.'

D. HIJAB AND EQUALITY.

1 have no doubt that many readers will be very sceptical of my argument thus far.

Where is equality in this account? When I was buying myself some shorts to go swimming in

(Muslim women cover navel to knee in front of other women) I struck up a conversation with

the young woman helping me. She was asking me why I cover and she said to me "you know,

I'm a Christian, so I believe men are above women, but when I see the [Muslim] women all

covered up, and the men wearing whatever they like, it just makes me [and she curled up her

face to show anger]." Her implied belief that we Muslim women are oppressed because we

cover and men do not is common in the West. (Note that she assumed I would agree with her

that I think men are above women, which I do not.) The asymmetry of the dress bothers a lot of

people. Why are not men like chocolates too. wrapped up in their own special wrappings?

First, it must be noted that men do have hijab requirements (not always well observed by

men. and not made the focus of discourse, Muslim or non-Muslim, as is women's hijab). Jarnal

Badawi's The M u s h Woman's Dress: According to the Qur 'an and Sunnah, has the rules for

273

men too: "It should be noted that the basic requirements of the Muslim woman's dress apply as

well to the Muslim man's clothing with the difference being mainly in degree. ~ 7 5 2 That is.

clothing should be loose, opaque, cover the navel to knee area, and "not be designed in a way to

attract attention. The basic rule of modesty and avoiding 'show off [sic] applies to all

believers, men and women." In addition, men are not to wear silk and gold.

The main bone of contention, then, from the feminist point of view, would not be that

women have to wear hijab and men do not, but that women's hijab is so much more than men's.

I will not attempt to answer the 'why' of this difference. Some Muslims would argue that the

reasons are related to what each sex finds sexually arousing - with the obvious point being that

a whole of a woman's body is arousing for a man, while only the navel to knee area is for a

woman. But this kind of male/female difference does not stand up to academic scrutiny, since

we know that there are societies in which neither man nor woman covers, and societies like the

West's. where women and men both can wear virtually nothing in public. Arousal to another's

body seems to be related to what one is used to. Here is where the position of belief becomes

relevant. I have more to say about this later, for now I will just say that it is the sunnah, the

practice of the Prophet @buh), and his companions that have defined the differences in

male/fernale dress. Believers accept the sunnah as authoritative guides for behaviour.

Leaving aside the 'why' of the difference, I want to address the notion that difference

itself is indicative of male/female inequality. Most feminists have discerned in the notion that

men and women are different a basic patriarchal assumption that has been able to suppress

women for centuries. Women are more nurturing. weaker. emotionally, etc., so they should not

be outside the home, should not vote, get an education, and so on. Understandably, then, many

feminists are suspicious of any ideology claiming difference. Cross-cultural and historical

studies show that what one culture/era thinks is normal male/femaie behaviour. another does

274

not. It appears that male/female is malleable and not essential. Yet other feminists have argued

that to deny male/female differences is to devalue what is special to women (childbearing.

nurturing etc). Radical, cultural, and eco-feminists celebrate "what is distinct about women.

challenging male culture rather than strategizing to become part of it."753

As is often the case, Islam fits neither of these schemas. True enough. many Muslims

hold what is deemed a traditionally patriarchal view of women and men: men more aggressive.

women more nurturant, and so on. But as other Muslims point out, these kind of male/female

differences do not have Qur'anic support. Islam posits a nuanced rnale/female difference

schema. In the first place, men and women are created from the same soul. of like nature.

(Qur;an: 4;l). Second, when God created the human being (male and female), He breathed into

it of his ruh (spirit) (38:72). But, at the same time, God created all thmgs in pairs: "And of

everything We have created in pairs 51 :49)" and differentiated between them: "and in no wise is

the male like the female (3:36)." As Wadud-Muhsin argues. then, the Qur'an "establishes the

origin of all humankind as a single nafi. which is part of a contingent pair-system: that nafs and

its zawj. In practical terms, this essential pair is man and What particular qualities

we shouid ascribe to the pair is not stated. and obviously filled in by culture. We do not have to

believe in the kinds of differences told to us by patriarchy in order to continue to believe in

difference.

The interviewees in my Chapter One argued that Islam views women as 'different but

equal.' However, it is this very belief in difference, one manifestation of which is male/female

differences in hijab, that many feminists see as proof of Muslim women's inequality. Equality

must mean identicality if it is to have any meaning. As several feminists argue, 'different-but-

equal.' or ' separate-but-equal, ' arguments are, like apartheid, smokescreens for the

'" King: 359. '" Wadud-Muhsin: 22. NUB: self, soul. Zmvj: mate, spouse, pair.

subordination of the woman. Jeffery writes: "There is little evidence that separate is ever equal

(whether in the field of sex or race) even when it is dressed up as functional interdependence,

and I certainly think that the equality between the sexes is at the heart of the matter."7s5

No doubt, Islamic law privileges men over women in certain areas, as feminists never

fail to point out:

The Qur'anic regulations over the matters most important to women: marriage. divorce, child custody, unquestionably discriminate against women, when taken at face value. In essence, they permit a men a sexual licence completely forbidden to women: the right to marry up to four wives, to have an unlimited number of concubines, and to divorce with extraordinary ease... For women, on the other hand, the only permissible sexual relationship is that within marriage to one husband. Divorce is permitted for women only on limited grounds, unless the woman takes the precaution of inserting her own right to divorce in the marriage ont tract."^

Actually, the Qur'an has few specific regulations over any of the matters Kami mentions.

although her picture is relatively accurate in relation to Islamic law. This thesis is not the place

to engage discussion on all the issues related to women's legal rights in Islam. Let me note

briefly that Islamic law, like any law. always has room for improvement. and since it was

formulated in a time of male ascendancy, it is not surprising there are aspects that privilege

men. But it should not be overlooked that it is a partial vision to focus only on these aspects.

ignoring privileges laws accords women. The point about law is to try and balance men and

women's rights in harmony with each other. Men. for example. have the responsibility of

complete upkeep of women. From the man's point of view, this could be oppressive (it means

he cannot be irresolute and take a career path that is unstable financially). And from the

woman's point of view, it is liberating not to have ever to worry about supporting oneself. (All

the more so, since the law gives the woman absolute control over her own wealth, including any

money she earns from business activities.) But from another perspective, giving men economic

755 Jeffery: 22. Keddie. Berktay: 122-3 756 Kami: 75.

power is to make women dependent and subordinate to them. Judgements on this issue depend

on both how the issue is looked at, and, crucially, how it is applied. If applied in a spirit of good

will, and mutual love, it should be satisfactory, but if not, then it will oppress women. The

theme, then, in Islam, is complementarity between the sexes. As one Egyptian woman told

MacLeod: "Men are strong and hard, so they go out to deal with making money and having a

job. Women have strong feelings so they hold the home together. This does not mean man is

better than woman, or woman is over the man. Is the workplace better than the home? No! It is

different, that is all. Both are necessary and important."757

But what is more relevant for my thesis on hijab is the way the assumption that

"different-but-equal actually means inferior" is used to prove hijab oppresses women.758 The

notion that equality must mean sameness grows out of Western liberalism's long evolution.

Henog's study of consent theory highlights how this notion of equality is the logical conclusion

of liberalism's victory over feudalism. The emergence of 'masterless' men and women, not

beholden to feudal lords or the church leads to an emphasis on voluntary choice for behaviour.

the shedding of any kind of externally imposed guide/discipline: "Once ['masterless' men and

women] gain the self-understanding h i s h e d by consent theory. they come to scrutinize and

attack social roles and institutions that don't center on the voluntary choices of free individuals.

They demand that careers be open to talents. that workers be allowed a voice in shaping their

polity and their jobs, that women no longer be held hostage at home."759

Moreover, the liberal emphasis on role

equality means identicality. Herzog claims the

differentiation only confirms the notion that

ability to distinguish between roles is one of

- - --

'" Macleod: 82. Of course, I don't agree with the woman's implication that women can't work outside and men can't work inside the home as well. But I like this quotation for her insistence that 'man's' work is not 'better' than 'women's.' 's~nthropoligist Karen Sacks argues that analysis of hierarchical relations in captalist soicety leads to a bias when studying the concept of 'equality' in non-state groups. Sacks contends that in capitalist societies, 'sepante-but- equal' is inherently unequal, but that in non-state groups this is not always the case, She looks at the Iroquios/Delaware Nations, the Lovedu and Nuer of Africa.

277

liberalism's victories over pre-modern life.760 When a judge is a judge, she does not favour her

friends in the courtroom, but if outside that role, would treat them differently. In other words, it

signals the end of feudal privilege and the beginning of equal rights before the law regardless of

one's social station or income. Translated into male-female roles, this has meant that equality

means considering one's biological sex as irrelevant to interaction. Sex-role differentiation is a

pre-modern way of thinking about the sexes, and one that inhibits individual freedom. Being

male or female is supposed to be incidental to life's interactions between men and women.

So, feminists, when encountering Muslims, who evidently do not separate out

male/femaleness fiom other roles (a woman doctor still wears hijab), see this as proof of Islam's

pre-modem outlook on the sexes. It is proof of Islam's backwardness, Islam's inability to

liberate the sexes fiom rigid role definitions. Makhlouf s study of Sana'a, Yemen. exemplifies

this. She hails the disappearance of niqab as the disappearance of tradition. and the evolution

into (liberated) modernity:

In other words, sex no longer permeates all male-female encounters but rather becomes one element in a relationship, and one which may, temporarily if not definitely, be bracketed and put aside. It becomes possible in principle to separate the components that are directly relevant to the particular situation. since part of the rationale of the veil is that it is a protective device separating 'mankind' from 'womankind,' the emergence of role specific relations between the sexes is bound to make it lose some importance.'61

Makhlouf s study of covering in Sana'a. Yemen. is the most explicit statement I found

relating liberation of Muslim women to this view of modernity. But she is not alone, she has

merely made explicit what is implicit in most feminist criticism of hijab: a liberal assumption

about role differentiation. and a notion that to accept male-female differences is to acquiesce in

subjugation. Mule and Barthel endorsed liberalism's "faith in individual rights" and look

foward to a "a world in which all persons are both equal in rights and equally respectful of each

278

other's rights."762 Their endorsement underscores their view that in choosing to veil, Muslim

women are not working toward abolishing "sex typing throughout society"'" but reinforcing

gender boundaries: "in the invisibility [the veil] purports to give women in men's public sphere.

it symbolically reaffirms that women's proper space is in the Macleod criticised the

Egyptian women's use of covering as a desexualising strategy for the office because it failed to

promote the notion of gender neutrality, giving the signal that offices, though predominantly

female. are the preserve of Reece suggested the "need to cover" will disappear when

the concept of public space automatically included women.766

Muslim men and women are equal meaning identical, when it comes to certain

fundamentals: recipients of the divine breath, God's trustees on earth, responsible for the five

pillars of Islam, liable to be rewarded/punished for the same transgressions. But Muslim men

and women, in other areas, such as law-related areas of functional life on earth (marriage.

divorce, etc) do not have identical rights. Muslims try and 'save face' in the West by arguing

that 'equality does not have to mean identicality,' (which it does not). and that equality and

justice sometimes require differential treatment (which they do).767 Workplace affirmative

action programmes for women and minorities demonstrate that some in Western culture

understand that sometimes equality must mean unidentical treatment (other things being equal.

hire the woman, the minority person, etc.) But these programmes are often opposed by some

liberals, who, committed to equality as identicality, have trouble with any equality as difference

argument. So, while I believe that men and women are equal in Islam, and that both receive fair

and just treatment (normatively). I sometimes wonder if, like black 'womanists' who gave up on

''I Makhlouf: 68-9. Mule and Barthel: 325.

763 Mule and Barthel: 325. 7@ Mule and Barthel: 328. 765 Macleod: 139.

Reece: 39.

279

redefining 'feminist' (which they saw as irretrievably 'white') to include themselves, it may not

be better for Muslims to stop trying to redefine 'equality' for the sake of pleasing the liberal

critics.

E. HUAB AND CHOICE.

1 mentioned in Chapter One that Canadians often tell Muslim women to take off their

scad, they are in Canada now, and are free. This piece of advice reveals two assumptions with

respect to hij46 that I now wish to explore: 1) that hijab is a symbol of being forced to cover:

and 2) in Canada, where one is free not to cover, a woman would not choose to cover. The first

assumption is understandable, people had only to think of the law imposing hijab after the 1979

Iranian revolution, and now in Taliban's ascension to power in Afghanistan in 1998, where a

similar law was imposed on women. Islam looks like a terrible religion that forces women to

cover. I will come back to this topic. For now I wish to examine the second assumption. the

doubt that a woman would choose to cover.

In Canada people have the right to wear whatever they want (almost). But when a

Muslim woman puts on hijab there is a great deal of suspicion about her freedom. and

autonomy. The assumption is that her husband/father is forcing her to cover. No doubt there

are some families that force the women to cover, but this force can come as equally from a

woman, as from a man. And other families force the women not to cover. But even where it

can be shown that there is no family coercion to cover, people are still suspicious. They usually

have some form of false consciousness theory in mind: 'if you have chosen to cover. well, you

have been socialised to believe covering is a good thing, but if you really knew your interest as a

woman, you would know that it is not good to cover, so your decision to cover is a sad

767 See Iris Marion Young for a theoretical exposition of how equality for minorities sometimes necessitates different treatment.

280

indication of your being brainwashed.' (One woman, a PhD student in my department, asked a

friend of mine after I staned to cover, "Doesn't she know she is oppressed?")

There are a couple of ways to refbte this notion. First, fiom a liberal perspective. As

Herzog argues, the notion of choice is wrapped up with individual agency. The world must

offer choice, and the individual must be able to exercise agency. He holds that "to be an agent

requires that one be able to deliberate, to weigh reasons for various courses of actions, and then

choose among them."768 Muslim women living in the West pass all these tests: they have the

ability to choose to cover or not to cover; they are fully aware, as members of a minority

culture, of what the dominant culture thinks of hijab (remember Mustapha and Yusufali above,

they knew that for the West the hijab was either a symbol of oppression or terrorism. but they

chose a third meaning); so, they weighed the various symbolic meanings of hijab with Western

culture's meanings of attractiveness and beauty for a woman, and they chose h@b.

Second, fiom a non-liberal perspective. One only need read Susan Bordo's essays about

eating disorders in the West to understand how flimsy is the liberal notion of choice. Bordo

argues persuasively that Western culture so powerfully presents women with images of what a

beautiful body is, that they are willing to fight their hunger (to the death) to attain slenderness.

Referring to an Evian ad, that presents an array of very slim and athletic bodies with the caption

"If you could choose your own body. which would you choose?' Bordo points out that the

notion of choice is quite misplaced: "despite the claims of the Evian ad. one cannot have any

body that one wants-for not every body w;ll do. The very advertisements whose copy speaks of

choice and self-determination visually legislate the effacement of individual and cultural

difference and circumscribe our choices."769

768 Herzog: 223. 769 Bordo: 'Material Girl:' 249-50.

28 1

So, about choosing hijab, either I can argue that a hijab-chooser qualifies under liberal

criteria for choice, or I can destabilise the notion of choice itself. and argue. a la

poststructuralism, that no-one really has choice. If no one really has choice. then an outsider

cannot mock a Muslim woman for having false consciousness, assuming herself to be superior

and above that problem, while having choice in her own culture to choose her fashion and what

will win her approval as being beautiful.

Herzog recognizes how easy it is to rebuff the notion of choice: ''the claim that someone

has consented or acted voluntarily may be rebutted with a surprising variety of counterevidence.

One can say that she had no alternative or no reasonable altemative or didn't and could not have

known about the alternatives that did in fact exist, or one can set the action in another context

than the one given."770 And, in fact. this is precisely the strategy of several prominent feminist

writers discussing the re-covering movement examined in Chapter Three. Helie-Lucas explains

Muslim women's embrace of covering by arguing that they had no choice at the identity level.

(i.e. to be accepted as a "Muslim" woman. one is forced to conform to the "fhndamentalist"

definition of "woman." a definition that "confine[s] women into a model of society. way of life.

dress and behavior as close as possible to the historical model born in the Middle East fourteen

9 9 771 centuries ago. ) Macleod explains how the women in her study make the "choice" to cover.

by arguing that they "choose" from a narrow range of culturally sanctioned roles, leaving aside

other equally possible roles that are not culturally ~anctioned.~~' Afshar suggests as a plausible

explanation for re-covering: "Research on the psychology of oppressed persons tells us that one

strategy for dealing with their situation is to adopt the rules of the oppressor and obey them

Hemg: 229. 77 1 Heiie-Lucas, c: 400-40 1, 393. "' Macleod: 150-1.

unquestioningly."773 Macleod, Hdie-Lucas and Afshar thus challenge the 'choice' (of women

living in the Middle East) to over.''^

But Herzog's point in showing how easily bbchoice" can be challenged is not, obviously,

since he is a liberal. to destabilise the notion completely. He recognizes that we would not call

the postmodern understanding of the world but he remains convinced that consent

theory does offer a meaningful map of our world - a world where the state does not dictate what

we wear, eat, do for a living and so on.776 His point, then, is to caution against sloppy usage of

"choice:" "We need to tread carefully, more carefully perhaps than we often do. in deploying

,97777 the language of consent and choice.

It's a mistake to massage the concept of voluntariness so that it does the work a theory of patemalism should. Instead of saying, "This choice is so bad that it wasn't voluntary," we should say, "This choice is so bad that we don't care if it was voluntary." We're reluctant to accede to such paternalistic cases. We're also reluctant to rule them too entirely. So paternalism exists as an uneasy complement to consent theory.778

Clearly, feminists often embody this paternalism by arguing that they know hijab is oppressive.

even if the women themselves do not. But the paternalism is not recognised. Instead of saying.

'I don't care if your choice to cover is voluntary, it's a bad choice,'' they say "Your 'choice' to

cover is so bad it can't have been voluntary."

Obviously my suggesting the notion of choice can be destabilised. leads me to an

awkward place with respect to covering. Naturally. I do not endorse the spin Macleod and

Helie-Lucas Afshar put on it. For their assumption is that they have a better grasp of the issues

773 Afshar, b: 3 15. 774 That the women being discussed are in the Middle East is not insignificant aspect of these feminist scholar's conclusions: with the Orientalist assumptions about Islam being responsible for holding back progress in the Middle East comes the corollary assumption that Muslim minds are clouded by 'tradition,' that is, backward, dogmatic and unthinking, tradition. Thanks to J Boddy for pointing out the "Othering" aspect of Macleod's, Hdlie- Lucas', and Afshar's critiques. " Herzog: 179. 776 Herzog: 2 16. 777 Herzog: 229. na Herzog: 237.

at hand than do the women they study: hijab does not really mean what the women themselves

think.779 In fact, Macleod even argues that the Egyptian women need a "vanguard to develop

this consciousness [emancipatory change] amongst the people"780 (She must see herself in that

role.). But in inviting comparison to the Western tyranny of slenderness. am I suggesting that

Muslim women are 'choosing' hijab in a cultural context that detrimentally channels them in

that direction, as does advertising in Western culture, is it an equivalent 'tyranny of covering?'

Certainly many Westerners, many of whom may be willing to accept 'truly' voluntary

covering, are suspicious of such a coercive cultural climate. They worry about a social pressure

to cover that inhibits women's empowerment. Some Muslim cultural contexts channel women's

decisions to cover, others channel them not to cover (in Turkey. and Tunisia it is illegal to wear

hijab). but I do not think that the hijob is equivalent to Bordo's analysis of Western culture's

pressures for a woman to be slim and beautifid. This chapter clearly shows 1 am pro-hijab, I

think hijab is a good thing for women; I do not think the 'slim is beautifid' message is a good

thing for women.

One of Brenner's concerns about the Javanese women adopting hijab she studied

highlights this concern over coercion well. She understands in her analysis that the women.

who choose to cover. are choosing and not being brainwashed. But she remarks that she noticed

how strictly the veiled women 'police' each other and enforce the hijab on each other. after she

observed women telling their friends if their neck or hair was showing through their scarf. It is

easy to see how an outsider can view that as 'enforcing' a strict policy of covering because the

outsider is not convinced of the covering (otherwise she herself would cover). Let me show

how this is not coercion by reconstructing the scene in the Western context. A woman's middle

button on her blouse has popped open, you lean over and tell her and she quickly and

779 Although Afshar seems to have developed the ability to adopt a covered woman's perspective with sympathy. See her article in Yamani.

284

embarrassedly re-buttons it. Has she been coerced into a strict cover-your-breasts behaviour?

Or is she grateful that someone mentioned her open blouse to her, because she does not want

people to see her bra?

There is more to say. The liberal/Westem concern over cultural pressure to cover only

makes sense because covering is not seen as a 'good.' For, it is not that in other contexts

Westemers do not condone social pressure, nor indeed, state law to coerce individuals: the

'Don't drink and Drive' campaign, the 'Smoking is Hazardous for your Health' campaign

(including a law to ban smoking in public places, aeroplanes etc). the laws banning hate

literature, and so on. These are social pressure campaigns to change what most people see as

detrimental. Do many care that anti-hate literature laws might oppress some people? Only a

very small percentage of those committed to total freedom of expression. So. I disagree that the

mere existence of (non-violent) social pressure to cover is 'sinister.'

In fact. this argument can be further developed in order to deal with one major objection

Westemers have to hijab: the fact that some Muslim states impose it on women by law. This is

as good an example of oppression as the Westerner can think of. First. an ambivalence: 1 am

not sure what I think of state laws to cover. I wear hijub, and would not object to such a law.

However, I would object to the law if it not only told me to cover, but told me how to cover.

what colour of dress, what length. cover the face. and so on. These I believe ought to be left up

to the individual, in the same way as in the West. a general rule on not being in public in the

nude is a law, but what actually to wear is not legislated. In addition, I am convinced that as is

currently applied in Iran. or Afghanistan. the state law on covering is not wise. lslamic law is

not supposed to impose hardship on people. but to facilitate matters, to make things easy. A

hadith states 'The best of your religion is that which brings ease to the people."78' In a culture

'" Macleod: 159. "' Ibn Hanbal. Musnad, v 22, quoted in Kamali: 3 12.

285

where women are not used to covering, it is not fair suddenly to expect them to cover overnight

(and most especially not fair to have to adopt full head-to-toe covering). Certainly. many of

them will find covering oppressive. A better strategy is that of the Ikhwan - to call people to

Islam and let them choose to implement the laws themselves. And the violence that is

perpetrated on women for not covering is defintely not acceptable. This is a manifestation of

people's ignorance of Islam - akin to violence against women in the West: it occurs. but is not

condoned.

On the other hand, laws on hijab should be understood in the same way that women's

wearing a top is understood in the West. In 1997 Ontario's court offered a ruling permitting

women to uncover their tops in public. Some women hailed it as a feminist victory (equality

means identicalit).: men uncover their tops, why cannot women?). But other women tried to

campaign against it. The question is. if the law was reversed. requiring women to cover their

tops in public, are women who wear tops being oppressed? Have they been brainwashed? Are

they not really 'choosing' to cover, since there is a law requiring it anyway? Most women

would not feel oppressed by such a law. and most would still think of wearing a top as a

'choice' in spite of the law. Hijab laws can be seen in an analogous way.

CONCLUSION.

My alternative theory of the veil has attempted to lay out some grounds for thinking of

hijab in a positive way that will also be understandable for those outside the Islamic paradigm.

I have mentioned the way hijab can be a shield against unwanted male attention, how hijab does

not smother femininity, nor act as a sign of inequality. 1 argued that liking hijab is not a sign of

patriarchally-induced false consciousness. In conjunction with other aspects of Islamic male-

female etiquette, such as lowering the gaze, and not having physical contact with (unrelated)

persons of the opposite sex, hijab is part of what might be thought of as Islam's 'sexual

harassment policy.' So. hijab can be seen as a symbol of treating women as persons, as bearers

of rights, rather than as sex objects. This is the exact opposite conclusion to a common feminist

conception that hijab is a symbol that Islam views women as a sex object, that she must be

covered up because she is thought of reductively as 'female' whose only important attribute is

her sexuality that threatens the social order.

I have to round off this account with the aspect of hijab most important and meaningful

to a believer: that she covers because she believes God asks her to. The mother of one of my

friends once asked her why she was wearing hijab. My friend started listing off all the kinds of

reasons I have outlined in this chapter. But her mother stopped her, and told her. 'if that's why

you wear it, you may as well take it off.' The point her mother was trying to make is that for a

believing Muslim. actions are rewarded by intention. And our sole intention should be to please

God. If I wear hijab because I want the Muslim community to see me as pious. or to avoid

fashion demands, or because everyone else is wearing it, that is not laudable: what God rewards

on the Day of Judgement. is my covering because of my belief that in so doing. I will please

God.

Moreover, in spite of regulating dress and other aspects of our daily lives, the Qur'anic

emphasis is that people will be judged by their piety, not their appearance:

0 Humankind! We have created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes. that you may know each other (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honoured ofyou in the sigh of God is (she who is) the rnosr righteous ojyou. And God has full knowledge and is well-acquainted (with all things). (49: 13. My emphasis.).

0 ye children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame. as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness-that is the best. Such are among the signs of God. that they may receive admonition! (7: 26. My emphasis.)78'

A hadith in Sahih Muslim says: "Allah does not look at your appearance or your wealth but at

your hearts and deeds. (2564)"

''I Watson is the only Western commentator on h@b who has drawn attention to this aspect.

287

1 mentioned in the introduction to my thesis how marginalised is religious belief in a

secular-oriented academy. Surely no academic would find acceptable the notion of covering to

please God. For the non-Muslim that argument smacks of 'false consciousness'- women. who

believe the Qur'an is God's word (duped once, because 'we' know it was really written by

Muhammad, or some other human being), believe they should cover (duped twice. because 'we*

know this is just a patriarchal man's view of how women should dress and behave.) Certainly

that is what I thought before I became a Muslim. But my theory of the veil would be seriously

lacking if it did not include this aspect of belief.

CONCLUSION.

My thesis began with my attempt to understand why a secular liberal society that is

supposed to be neutral about how individuals pursue the good, reacted badly to my becoming

Muslim and adopting hoab. My quest has taken me on a journey back to colonial times when

Europeans first encountered hwb, to contemporary times, where after abandoning hija6.

Muslim women are wearing it again. I have presented the voices of Muslim women living in

Toronto who cover, and analyzed the emphatic voice of a woman opposed to hijab. Finally, I

have tried to articulate why 1 do not fmd wearing hijab oppressive, and why it appeals to some

women.

Hijab is a philosophy about male and female dress. and an etiquette for rnale/female

relations. But it is the piece of cloth that covers a woman's body to varying degrees. also

known as hijab, that is the focus of hostility in the West. as well as a site of a bitter struggle in

the Muslim world. In Turkey and Tunisia laws banning hijab are enacted in the name of

'modernity,' a modernity that sees Islam as backward, anti-civilization, barbaric and oppressive

of women. At this point, the common Western view of the veil as oppressive and the Muslim

world's attempts to banish h+ converge.

The 'modernity' that the secular Muslim world appeals to in its judgements about the

veil and Islam is a view of 'modernity' that originated in the West. It is the survival of the

Orientalist view of Islam. Orientalism posits Islam and Muslims as an essential Other. an Other

that has stagnated in backwardness. and shown itself unable to progress in tune with 'modem'

notions of liberty, equality and democracy. Orientalism has a hold on the minds of many elites

and intellectuals in our global village. Muslim and non-Muslim. It also has a hold on popular

culture in general, Muslim and non-Muslim.

In the bore over a French highschool's expulsion of young Muslim women for refusing

to move their headscarves, much of the French Left saw hijab in Orientalist terms: "Islamic

cultural constructions were equated with religious oppression and Westem social practices were

defined as the secular emancipatory norm."783 Intellectual and feminist Professor Badinter saw

hijub as an act of subordination, which "could not possibly be an act of political

,9784 insubordination. She commented:

Young people are generous, tolerant, they don't like exclusion. Who complains? But I believe that if one explains to them why the veil is really something other than an article of clothing, they will understand it very quickly. The veil, it is the symbol of the oppression of a sex. Putting on tom jeans, wearing yellow, green. or blue hair, this is an act of freedom with regard to the social conventions. Putting a veil on the head, this is an act of submission. It burdens a woman's whole life. Their fathers or their brothers choose their husbands, they are closed up in their own homes and confined to domestic tasks, etc. When I say this to the young people around me, they change their opinions immediately.'*'

"And who would not?" as Moruzzi notes. Badinter rehearses all the typical stereotypes about

In practice, then, the liberal-secular theory of choice and neutrality coexists uneasily

with old Orientalist attacks upon Islam. On the one hand. there are liberals seeking to guarantee

secularism's commitment that any citizen can determine the contents of their life, and if that

includes covering, they will help Muslim women in that endeavour. But on the other hand. as

Badinter's argument highlights, individual choice is a doctrine that coexists with the notion that

Western ways are superior, and sometimes those Western ways must be enforced. 'for the good

of the poor immigrant' (or 'for the good of our backward fellow citizens') who cannot know any

better.

Hijab is oppressive. This is a standard notion in the 'West' (and 'East.') It is a reigning

truth claim that flattens out the diversity of women's experiences with hijub. as Chapter One

and Three demonstrated. Historically, Muslim women have taken up different positions with

respect to covering. Assia Djebar, a well-known Algerian writer who grew up in French-

occupied Algeria, just before Algerian independence looks at the veil in a similar light as does

Memissi. For her the veil represents the "need to blot out women's bodies. ~ 7 8 6 Like Mernissi,

she regards herself as somehow having miraculously been saved fiom the doomed fate of other

women of her culture (illiteracy, seclusion and veiling):

My father, a tall erect figure, in a fez, walks down the village sstret; he pulls me by the hand and I, who for so long was so proud of myself - the first girl in the family to have French dolls bought for her, the one who had permanently escaped cloistering and never had to stamp and protest at being forced to wear the shroud- veil, or else yield meekly like any of my cousins, I who did deliberately drape myself in a veil for a summer wedding as if it were a fancy dress. thinking it most becoming - I walk down the street, holding my father's hand. Suddenly, I begin to have qualms: isn't it my 'duty' to stay behind with my peers in the gynaeceum? Later, as an adolescent, well nigh intoxicated with the sensation of sunlight on my skin. on my mobile body, a doubt arises in my mind: 'Why me? Why do I alone. of all my tribe, have this opportunity?'787

In Turkey, Minai remembers her grandmother's reaction to her throwing away her

scarves. She was eight years old and had just learnt about Huda Shaarawi's tossing her veil into

the Nile (1923):

I had grown up viewing this custom as normal for old ladies, but now I itched to liberate her fiom the chador, which was surely uncomfortable in warm weather. One spring afternoon my younger sister and I gathered up all of her scarves and veils into a basket and marched down to the nearby Bosphorous [and threw them in.] That evening grandmother looked in vain for her favourite Spanish mantilla to wear with her lace-trimmed dress. We told her where it was. She was hrious. Some women just do not want to be li berated.788

The ban against the veil in Iran in 1936 was welcomed by younger middle-classhpper-

class women who had been engaged in agitating for the emancipation of women since the

785 Moruzzi: 66 1-2. 786 Djebar: 180. '" Dje bar: 2 1 3. 788 Minai: 89-90.

1920s.'~~ But older Iranian women did not welcome the ban. In fact, some women did not

leave home the entire seven years of the ban."' Hoodfar recounts her grandmother's bitter

memory of the day she went out with a scarf covering her hair - a compromise for not wearing

the chador: "She ran as the policeman ordered her to stop; he followed her, and as she

approached the gate of her house he pulled off her scarf. She thought the policeman had

deliberately allowed her to reach her home decently [but he was following state orders forcibly

to remove scarves fmm women in the street]. . . 9779 1

Some women experience forced uncovering as painfully as might other women

experience forced covering. Farmaian, the founder of modem social work in Iran, who grew up

in the harem of her aristocratic father, describes her mother's reaction to Reza Shah's banning

of the veil:

[The Shah's banning the veil was] something that [my mother] Khanom. along with mill ions of other devout Iranian women, knew they could never forgive.. . [When] the Shah.. .outlawed the veil [wlith his usual incisiveness. he let it be known that the heads of old society families like ours risked his serious displeasure if they did not show their wives in public, and in Western garb.

When my mother had learned she was to lose the age-old modesty of her veil, she was beside herself. She and all traditional people regarded Reza's order as the worse thing he had yet done-worse than attacking the rights of the clergy; worse even than his confiscations and murders. wy father] Shazdeh, however. realized that he did not dare disobey.

I am sure that this was not an easy decision for him. For a Persian aristocrat to allow strange men to gape at his wives in public was shameful in the extreme. Having made up his mind to comply, however. my father resolved that for the sake of the family's safety. his wives would be the very first of the old aristocracy to appear formally in Western dress. He sent to the Avenue Lalezar for hats for all his wives in the compound and told them that the next day they were to put them on and ride with him in the open droshky. To my mother, it was exactly as if he had insisted that she parade naked in the street. Only her respect for his wisdom and her fears for his safety could have enabled her to submit to such degradation.

The next day, weeping with rage and humiliation. she sequestered herself in her bedroom with Batul-Khanom [her co-wife] to put on the hat. "First Reza Shah attacks the clergy," my mother sobbed, "and now this. He's trying to destroy religion. He doesn't fear God, this evil Shah-may God curse him for it!" As she

'" Yeganeh: 30. Azari: 45. Givechian: 526.

79 1 Hoodfar, b: 10.

wept she struggled futilely to hide her beautill masses of waist-length black hair under the inadequate protection of a small French cloche. There was nothing my stepmother could do to console her.792

Some women just do not want to be liberated ...

For those of us caught up in the hijab debate - is it, or is not it. oppressive? - the

psychological costs can be devastating. Minai notes that:

Generations of girls.. .grew up with an either-or mentality, convinced that to be Western was to be fkee and to adhere to tradition and Islam was to remain enslaved. North Africans went so far as to adopt their former colonial master's jargon in describing this attitude, indiscriminately referring to everything French as "evoluQ' (evolved), as if their own traditions were a primitive state from which they had to

7, 793 rise up.. .

A lot of Muslim families who object to their women members covering evoke just this struggle.

Hijab will make them look stupid, unable to have a career, unable to get married. unable to

enjoy life. Can the reader imagine how it must feel to believe in the inferiority of one's own

traditions and people? To be convinced that the only way up is out (to abandon one's heritage)?

As Said declares: "For almost every Muslim, the mere assertion of an Islamic identity becomes

an act of nearly cosmic defiance and a necessity for survival."794 Some survive by hiding their

religious identity.

To date feminist paradigms have not captured covered women's positive experience with

h w b , nor have they captured the diversity with respect to covering that prevails in the entire

world. As I mentioned in the Introduction, this is changing, but the predominant paradigm (that

hijab is oppressive) reigns and infiltrates even many of those studies committed to bringing the

voice of covered women. I attended a talk by Margot Badran at the University of Toronto about

the different kinds of ferninisms that exist in Egypt. She attends to the debates, the differences,

the variety amongst Muslim women. but at some point in question time she remarked: "1 wanted

792 Farmaian: 95-96. 793 Minai: 240. 794 Said, b: 72.

293

to put on a headscarf while I was in Egypt, but if you're mamed to a Muslim once you put it on.

you can never take it off." The audience nodded sympathetically. I was appalled. What about

my friends whose Muslim husbands would not let them cover? What about my fiends who

were dropped by Muslim boyfhends unhappy with their conversion to Islam? What about the

fact that if Badran is not Muslim, her husband could not even expect her to cover, since Islamic

laws do not apply to non-Muslims?. . .But the comment and the acceptance of it by the audience.

speaks volumes about the grip that the Orientalist (in feminist clothing) view of Islam and

women has on people's minds.

Hijab is oppressive, it closes them up. muffles their life, turns them into non-persons.

Actually, it is the regnant Orientalist/feminist discourse that effaces Muslim women. It is the

feminist, no matter if she is a Muslim or not. who, being hostile to Islam or hijab. turns covered

women into silent dummies, unable to speak for themselves, needing outsiders to speak for them

and to interpret the meaning of their traditions for them. Indeed it is an odd experience, after

immersing oneself in the 'women and Islam' field to read some Western feminists writing about

their own culture. The women and Islam field as a whole (a Western field of knowledge).

despite reflexivity and despite the presence of the indigenous researcher, still gives the

impression that Muslim women are the only remaining goup in the world to suffer oppression.

or that they are the most oppressed of the women in the world. By keeping her self and her

culture out of the research (i.e. by not making comparisons of similarities, focusing only on

difference), the Western writers give the impression of living in a society that does not

experience women's oppression. But t u n to feminist works on the West. and the story is

completely different: the message is one of the continued oppression of women. as if the culture

still has a long way to go. Shifting from one sub-genre to the other is an experiential shock.

"Do we mistake this cloaking and negating of the essence of women for worship

(Govier)?" Any early eagerness I had about my ability to undermine the popular Western

294

stereotype about the veil has been dashed after several years of research. There are already

many books pointing out the simplicity of the stereotype, many scholars seeking a more

sophisticated and nuanced view. Why have their versions not reached the mainstream? Why

has the simplistic view survived? I really do not know. But I suspect it has to do with a

complicated mix of the swival of Orientalism that may be held subconsciously and the effect

of the experience of reading in the women and Islam field I have just described. Although there

are scholars working against the popular Western stereotypes, there is a counterforce, a

counterforce that has to do with a conviction in the superiority of the West. and its ways. It has

to do with failing to recognize the point made by Scott in my last chapter - all of us have our

identities and worldviews formed by the various discourses to which we are exposed growing

up, and with which we are living as adults. It has to do with the illusion that social science

research has an 'objective' point fiom which to study others. that it is possible to look at a

society and say, 'that particular custom is oppressive.' It has to do with the inability of the

predominantly liberalsriented mainstream fiom recognizing their own positionality with

respect to their own culture. and that of others. And it also has to do with the fact that many

Western intellectuals rely on the media. just like any ordinary person does. for information

about the world. If that intellectual has never met a Muslim, never studied Islam, or only

studied lslam via Orientalist/feminist works, then that intellectual is just as likely to hold to

stereotypes about lslam and Muslims as any other. As Said highlights, scholarship/writing

frequently does not distinguish itself from the received wisdom. Rather it confirms and

perpetuates that 'wisdom.'

And as far as the media goes, in spite of the odd positive article, the overall image one

gets of Islam and Muslims is dismal: Muslims are barbaric, they blow up innocent people, they

kill for no reasons, they oppress women. A survey conducted in 1980 in the USA, but which

could stand for any Western country found that:

a large percentage of the respondents feel that the Arabs can be described as "barbaric, cruel" (44%), "treacherous, cunning" (49%), "mistreat women" (5 1 %) and "warlike, bloodthirsty" (50%). Furthermore, when asked how many Arabs are described by a long list of traits, a large percentage view "most" or "dl"Arabs as "anti-Christian" (400/0), "anti-Semiticw (40%) and "Want to Destroy Israel and Drive the Israelis into the Sea" (44%). All of these traits imply hostility and, when considered in combination, an antiChristian, anti-Semitic hostility. As many Americans consider their country to be a Christian nation, such an attitude is apt to be seen as anti-~merican.'~~

And even though the survey was conducted in 1980, events in the 1990's such as the immediate

assumption that Muslims were responsible for the destruction of Oklahoma City's Federal

building in 1995, indicate that Slade's survey still reflects mainstream Western opinion.

The role of power politics in the continuation of the hijab-is-oppressive stereotype

cannot be overlooked. In many ways the anti-hijab discourse is linked to the project of

Western hegemony, even if thar hegemony is seen as natural and not the result of this or that

specific foreign policy. Badinter's reactions to hijab. indicative of many Western reactions,

intellectual or not. reflect a fear of Islamic fundamentalism. that bogey haunting the Westerner

as much as communism did in the 1950s. Like the Orientalist in the colonial period. the fear is

of a breaking down of the barriers that keep lslarn at bay. as Said argued. No wonder the

appearance of hijab inside the West appears like a cancerous growth needing elimination.

But some will protest. And rightly so. In many Muslim societies, women have been and

are secluded; they have been and are forced to cover. Hyab has been part of a package limiting

women's potential. proscribing their roles in severer or not so severe ways. Hijub has been pan

of a system that denies women education. employment outside the home. the vote. It is no

wonder that, like Memissi, many Muslim women campaign against hijab, and celebrate its

disappearance. And it has only been forty odd years since this system was dismantled. and

women left the home, got educated and got employment. No wonder, too. that the reappearance

795 Although most Muslims are not Arabs. and many Arabs are not Muslim, many Westerners perceive 'Arab' and 'Muslim' as synonymous. 74% of respondents in this survey felt that "most" or "all" Arabs are Muslim. I t is

296

of hijcrb makes many secularsriented Muslims and commentators nervous. Many of the people

attracted to the new hijcb have not lived through the system their grandparents fought to

dismantle. They have only abstract ideas about what an Islamic state would be like.

The new covering movement is a radical challenge both to the Western stereotype of

oppression, and some traditional Muslim (Arab) practices. The return to the Qur'an and sunnah

movements (there are several versions) contain within them many forces. There are those who

see the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the .Prophet and the first community as embodying equality and

justice for women and men, but a way of life distorted by cultural accretions over the last 1400

years. These Muslims, men and women are claiming that hijab can be (ought to be) divorced

from oppressive traditions of the past, such as seclusion. They are demanding education. work.

and the hwb. But forty years is not a long time, and there are other forces working along with

the return to 'pure' Islam that are fostering restrictive interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

If these take hold, the traditional package could reassert itself. There are dangers for women.

But scholars and the media tend only to focus on the dangers, on the negative. without giving a

full context, and without giving the full story. The dangers-for-women story effaces other

stories. and positions the dangers-for-women story as "authentic Islam." But these kinds of

negative forces are just like those in the West, where feminists talk of a 'backlash.' where

women are still battling to have equal pay. have sexist rape laws amended. to end domestic

violence, child abuse, and so on.

My thesis has been an attempt to present another story of the veil: the story of those. like

myself. who find peace and joy in Islam. and who do not believe Islam suppresses women. or

that hijab oppresses them. Naturally I believe my positive story is the 'authentic Islam.' one

that ought to reign over all other interpretations. I am certain that the journey I have been on

has taken many strange twists and turns for the non-Muslim (or non-committed Muslim) reader.

--

appropriate, then, to cite these statistics here as an indicator of the image of Muslims in the West.

297

My thesis is an attempt to open the lines of communication with those who are willing to listen.

It is a request that Muslim women who enjoy hijob be treated with respect, be listened to

gracefblly, and disputed with in the spirit of goodwill. We may agree to disagree over certain

issues, but at the very least, we should be able to disagree and still remain partners in the global

village.

WORKS CITED.

Abadan-Unat, Nermin. "The Impact of Legal and Educational Reforms on Turkish Women," in Nikki

Keddie and Beth Baron (eds), Women in MirMe Emten History: Sh@ing Boundaries in Sex und

Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.

Abdalati, Hammuda. ?he Family S ~ c ~ a e in islum, Indiana: American Trust Publications. 1979.

Abell, Steven C and Maryse H Richards. 'The Relationship Between Body Shape Satisfaction and Self-

Esteem: An Investigation of Gender and Class Differences," Joronol of Youth cmd Adolescence. 15.

5, 1996,691 -703.

Abraham, Nabeel, a. 'The Gulf Crisis and Anti-Arab Racism in America," in Cynthia Peters (ed), CoIIateraI

Damage: The New World Order of Home and Abroad, Boston: South End Press. l9E.

--, b. "Anti-Arab Racism and Violence in the United States," in Ernest McCarus (ed), The Developmenf of

Arab American Identiy, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994.

Abu-Laban. Sharon Mclrvia. "Family and Religion Among Muslim Immigrants and the Descendants." in

Earle H Waugh, Sharon Mclrvin Abu-Laban, Reguia Burckhardt Qureshi (eds), Mislim Families in

Norrh America. Alberta: University of Alberta Press, 1 99 1.

Abu-Lughod, Lila. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Sociery. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1986.

Abu-Odeh, Lama. "Post-Colonial Feminism and the Veil: Considering the Differences." New England

Law Review, 26,4, Summer 1992, 1527-1 537.

Afshar, Haleh. a. "Women, Marriage and the State in Iran," in Haleh Afshar (ed). Women. State mtd

Ideology: Studiesfi.om Afi.ica and Asia. London: Macm i l Ian, 1 987.

-- , b. "Fundamentalism and its Female Apologists," in Renee Prendergast and HW Singer (eds).

Developmenr Perspectives for the 1 990s. London: Macm i 1 Ian. 1 99 1 . --- . c. "Development Studies and Women in the Middle East: The Dilemmas of Research and

Development," in Haleh Afshar (ed), Women in the Middle E& Perceptions, Realities and

Snuggles for Liberation. London: Macmillan, 1993.

-- , d. "Muslim Women and the Burden of Ideology." Women S Studies Intemationai Forurn, 7, 4, 1984,

247-50.

-- , e. "Islam and Feminism: An Analysis of Political Strategies." in Mai Yamani (ed), Feminism and

Islam: Legal and Literary Perspectives, London: Garnett. 1 996.

Ahmed, Leila, b. "Western Ethnocentrism and Perceptions of the Harem," Feminist Studies, 8, 3, Fall

1982, 52 1-534.

---- , c. "Arab Culture and Writing Women's Bodies," Feminist Issues, Spring 1989.4 1-55.

---, d. Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of o Modem Debate. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1992.

Alireza, M. "Women of Saudi Arabia," Nutiond Geographic. l72,4, Oct. 1987.

Alloula, Malek. The Colonid Horem. Tms. Myma Godzich and Wlad Godzich, Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press, 1986. (Le Harem Colonid: Images d'm sow-erotisme. Paris: Editions

Siatkine, 198 1 .)

AlMunajed, Mona Women in S d i Arabia Today. New York: St Martin's Press, 1997.

Altorki, Soraya. Women in M i Arabia: Ideology and Behavior Among the Elite. New Y orli: Columbia

University Press, 1986.

Amos. Deborah. Lines in the Scad: Desert Storm and the Remoking of the Arab World New York: Simon

and Shuster, 1992.

Arat, Ygiim. "Women's Movement of the 1980's in Turkey: Radical Outcome of Liberal Kemalism?'in

Fatrna Muge Cqek and Shiva Balaghi (eds), Recomcting Gender in the Middle East: Tradition.

Identity, and Power. New Y ork: Columbia University Press, 1 994.

Azari, Farah. "lslam's Appeal to Women in h: Illusions and Reality," in Farah Azari (ed), Women of

Iran: The Conflict with Islamic Fundamentalism. London: Ithaca Press, 1983.

Badawi, Jamal, a. The Mislim Womcm's Dress: According to the Qur'm ond Sunnah. Kuwait: Ministry of

Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, nd.

----, b. Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles. Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1995.

Badran, M. "lntroduction," Harem Yeors: R e Memoirs of an Egyptian Feminist (1879-1924). London:

Virago, 1 986.

Badran and Cooke. Opening the Gates: A Centzqv of Arab Feminist Writing. Bloornington: Indiana

University Press, 1 990.

Bahar, Sima. "A Historical Background to the Women's Movement in h n . " in Farah Atari (ed). Women of

Iran: The Conflict with lslamic Fundamenialism. London: Ithaca Press, 1 983.

Barazangi, Nimat Hafez. "Arab Muslim Identity Transmission: Parents and .Youth," in Baha Abu-Laban

and Michael W. Suleirnan (eds), Arab Americans: Continuity and Change, Massachusetts: The

Association of Arab-American University Graduates. 1989.

-, b. "Parents and Youth: Perceiving and Practising Islam in North America." in Earle H Waugh, Sharon

Mclrvin Abu-Laban, Regula Burckhardt Qureshi (eds), Muslim Families in North America.

Alberta: University of Albem Press. 1 99 1.

Barber, Benjamin. "Jihad Vs McWorld," The Atlantic Monthly, Much 1992, 53-65.

Bentham, J. ?Re Panopticon Writings. London: Verso, 1595.

Berger, John, Sven Blomberg, Chris FOK Michael Dibb and Richard Hollis. Wws of Seeing. London: BBC

and Penguin, 1972.

Bergman, Elizabeth M. "Keeping It in the Family: Gender and Conflict in Moroccan Arabic Proverbs," in

Fatma Muge Cgck and Shiva Balaghi (eds), Recomrwing Gender in the Middle East: Trodirion,

Identity, and Power. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.

Berktay, Fatmagiil. "Looking fiom the 'Other' Side: Is Cultural Relativism a Way Out?" in Joanna de

Groot and Mary Maynard (eds), Women's Studies in the 1990 S: Doing Things Diflerentlv?

London: Macrni llan, 1 993.

Bhabha, Homi. "The Other Question: Difference, Discrimination and the Discourse of Colonialism," in

Russell Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh T. Minkha, Cornel West (eds), Our There:

hfurginalization and Contemporary Cultures. The New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1990.

B idwel I, Robin. Morocco Under Colonial Rule: French Administra~ion of Tribal Areas, 19 12- 1956.

London: Frank Cass, 1973.

Boddy, J . Wombs and Alien Spirits: Women. Men, and the Zar Cult in Northern Sudan. Madison, W is:

The University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.

Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1993.

Bouhdi ba, Abdelwahab. Sexualiw in Islam. Translated fiom the French by Alan Sheridan. London:

Routledge, 1985.

Braibanti, Ralph. The Nature and Smcture of the lslomic World. Chicago: International Strategy and

Policy Institute, 1995.

Brenner, S. "Reconstructing Self and Society: Javanese Muslim Women and the Veil," American

Ethnologist, 23,4, 1996,673-69 I .

Brooks, Geraldine. Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of lslamic Women. New Y ork: Doubleday,

1995.

AI-Bukhari. The Transhion of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Medina:

Islamic University, n.d.

Cainkar. Louise. "Palestinian-American Muslim Women: Living on the Margins of Two Worlds," in Earle

H Waugh, Sharon Mc lrvin Abu-Laban. Regula Burckhardt Qureshi (eds), Muslim Famifies in

North America. Alberta: University of Alberta Press, 1 99 1 . CAR, 1995. (Council on American Islamic Relations), 1995. A Rush to Judgement: A Special Report on

Anti-Muslim Stereotyping, H~msment und Hate Crimes Following the Bombing Of Oktahoma

City's Murrah Federal Building, April 19, 1995. Washington: CAR, 1 995.

C Al R, 1 996. The Price of Ignorance: The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States. Washington,

DC : American-Muslim Research Center. 1 996.

Carmody, Denise Lardner. Women and World Religions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2"' Ed, 1989.

( I 979).

Cash, Thomas F, Jule R Ancis and Melissa D Strachan. "Gender Attitudes, Feminist Identity. and Body

images Among College Women," Sex Roles, 36,718, 1 997,43347.

Caulfield, Mina Davis. "Equality, Sex, and Mode of Production," in Gerald D Berreman (ed), Social

Inequality: Compmative und Development Approaches. New York: Academic Press, 198 1.

Cayer, Carmen G. Hiiab, N-riw, und trhe Production of Gender Among Second Generalion, Indo-

Pakistani, M d i m Women in Greater Toronto. Unpublished Masters' Thesis, Social Anthropology,

Y ork University, 1 996.

Chatty, Dawn. "Changing Sex Roles in Bedouin Society in Syria and Lebanon," in Nikki Keddie and

Lois Beck (eds). Women in the Mudim World Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1 978.

Chow. Rey, Writing Diaspora: Tactics of lnterwrrlion in Contemporary CuZtwal Studies. Blookington:

lndiana University Press, 1993.

Code, Lomine. "HOW Do We Know? Questions of Method in Feminist Practice." in Burt and Code (eds).

Changing Methods: Feminists Transfoming Practice, Peterborough. Ontario: Broadv ie w Press.

: 995.

Cole, Juan RI. "Gender, Tradition, and History," in Fatma Miige Coqek and Shiva Balaghi (eds).

Reconsmccring Gender in the Middle East: Trodiron, Identi& and Power. New Y ork: Columbia

University Press, 1994.

Connolly, Clara. "Washing Our Linen: One Year of Women Against Fundamentalism." Feminist Review,

no 37, Spring 199 1, pp. 68-77.

Cromer, Evelyn Baring, First Earl of. Modern Egypt. London: Macmillan, 2 vols, 1908.

Daniel. Norman. lslam and he West: The Making of an image. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. 2" rev. ed

1 993, ( 1 960).

Divine, Donna Robinson. "Unveiling the Mysteries of Islam: The Art of Studying Muslim Women," Jomral

of South Asian and MiddZe Emtem Smdies, VU, 2, Winter 1983,3-19.

Djebar, Assia. Fantasia. An Algerian Cavalcade. Translated from the French by Dorothy S Blair.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1993.

Doi. Abdul Rhman. Women in the Qw an and the Sunnah. London: Ta-Ha Publishers, 1990.

Doubleday, Veronica. Three Women of Heraf. London: Jonathan Cape, 1988.

Esposito. John L. 73e islarnic Threaf: Afvth or Redify? New York: Ckford University Press. 2" revised ed

1995 ( 1 992).

Faludi. Susan. Backlash: rite Undeclared War Against American Women. New Y ork: Crown, 199 1 . Fanon, Frantz. A Dying Colonialiism. Trans. Haakon Chevalier. New York: Grove Press. 1967. ( L 'An Cinq

de la RPvohtion AlgPrienne. France: Fran~ois Maspero, 1 959 .)

Farah, Madelain. Marriage and Sexualiv in Islam: A Translation of al-Ghazali 's Book on the Etiquette

of Marriagejiom the Ihva. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984.

Farmaian, Sattareh Fauman. Daughter of Persia: A Woman's Jountey#om her Father's Harem though the

Islamic RkvoIution. New York: Crown Publishers, 1 992.

Al-Faruq i, Lois Lamya. Women, Mulrlirn Society and Islam. Indiana: American Trust Publicat ions,

1988.

Femea, E. a: Guests of the Sheikh: An Ethnograply of an Iiaqi Wage. New York: Anchor Books. lRd ed.

1 989, ( 1969).

-, b. "The Veiled Revolution," in D Bowen and E Early (eds), Every* Lij"e in the Muslim Middle East.

Bloomington: hdiana University Press, 1 993.

-, c. ''Beyond the Veir' Book Review, Social kience Quarterly, 57,4, March 1977,9256.

-, d. "Foreword," in Amira El Azhary Sonbol (ed), Women, The Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic

History. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1 996.

Fernea, Elizabeth and Bassima Bezirgan (eds). Middle Eatem Mwlirn Women Speak. Austin: University

of Texas k s s , 1977.

Fusco, Coco. ''The Other History of Intercultural Performance," The Dram Review, 38, 1. 1994. 143- 167.

Gamer, Helen. The First Stone: Some Questions About Sex and Power. Sydney: Picador, 1 995.

Givechian, Fatemeh. 199 I , "Cultural Changes in Male-Female Relations." The Iranian Journal of

Infernutid Aflairs, 3,3, pp 52 1 -530.

Goodwin, Jan. Price of Honor: Mwlim Women Lifi the Veil of Silence on the Islamic World. New York:

Plume, 1994.

Govier, K. "Shrouded in Black," Opinion. Toronto Star, Monday, Sept 25, 1995, A19.

Graham-Brown, Sarah. Images of Women: 7he Por~rqvaI of Women in Photography of the Midle Eat.

1860-1 950. London: Quartet Books, 1 988.

Grauerholz, Elizabeth. "Sexual Harassment in the Academy: The Place of Women Professors,''

in Margaret S. S tockdale (ed), Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Perspectives. Frontiers, and

Responsive Strategies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1 996.

De Groot, Joanna. "'Sex' and 'Race:' The Construction of Language and Image in the Nineteenth Century,"

in Susan Mendus and Jane Ren&l l (eds), Sexuality and Subordination: Interdisciplinary Srudies of

Gender in the Nineteenth Century. London: Rout ledge, 1989.

El-Guindi, F, a. "Beyond the Veil" Book Review, Sociology and Social Research, 62,3, 1978,499-50 I .

--, b. "Veiling In fitah with Muslim Ethic: Egypt's Contemporary Islamic Movement," Social Problem,

28,4. 198 1,465485.

Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck., a. "Arab Muslims and Islamic Institutions in America: Adaptation and

Reform," in Sarneer Y Abraham and Nabeel Abraham (eds), Arabs in the New World.. Sfdies on

Arab-American Communities, Detroit: Wayne State University Centre for Urban Studies, 1983.

-, b. "Islamist Perceptions of U.S. Policy in the Middle East," in David W Lesch (ed), The M i l e Eart

and the United States: A Historical and Political Reassessment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview

University press, 1996.

-, c. "Islam, Women and Revolution in Twentieth Century Arab Thought" Kbe Muslim World, 74, 34,

July/October 1984.

Haeri, Shahla "Women, Law, and Social Change in Iran," in J Smith (ed), Women in Contemprar)?

Mrcslim Societies. London: Associated University Press, 1980.

Helie-Lucas, Marie-Aim&, a. "Women, Nationalism and Religion in the Algerian Struggle," in Margot

Badran and Miriam Cooke (eds). Opening rhe Gates: A C e n t 7 of Arab Feminist Writing.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.

-, b. "Women's Struggfes and Strategies in the Rise of Fundamentalism in the Muslim World: From

Entryism to Internationalism," in Haleh Afshar (ed), Women in the Middle Em: Perceptions.

Realities and Sncggles for Liberation. London: Macmillan, 1993.

---, c. "The Preferential Symbol for Islamic Identity: Women in Muslim Personal Laws," in Valentine

Moghadam (ed), Identity Politics and Women: Culrural Remsertions and Feminism in

Internatiooal Perspective, Boulder: Westview Press, 1 994.

Herzog, Don. Happy Slaves: A Critique of Consent Xheory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,

1989.

Hessini, Leila. "Wearing the Hijab in Contemporary Morocco: Choice and Identity," in Fanna Muge Geek

and Shiva Balaghi (eds), Reconstructing Gender in the Middle Em!: Tradition. I den t i~ and Power.

New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.

Hoagland, Jim. in Edmund Ghareeb (ed). Split Vision: The Portrcyai of Arabs in the American Media.

Washingon, DC: American-Arab Affairs Council. I 983.

Hoodfar. Homa, a. "Return to the Veil: Personal Strategy and Public Participation in Epypc'' in Nanneke

Redclifi and M Thea Sinclair (eds), Working Women: internationaf Perspectives on Labow and

Gender Relations, London: Rout ledge, 199 1 . -, b. "The Veils in Their Minds and On Our Heads: The Persistence of Colonial Images of Muslim

Women," Resources for Feminist Research. 22,3-4, 1993,s- 1 8.

Holland. Janet. "Power and Desire: The Embodiment of Female Sexuality," Feminist Review, 46. Spring

1994,2 1-38.

Holland. Muhtar. h e Proper Conduct of bfmiage in Islam. Book Twelve of lhyrr 'Urn Ad-Din. Al-

G h d i . Hollywood, Florida: Al-Baz Publishing, 1998.

hooks, be1 1. Teaching to Transgress. New York: Rout ledge, 1 994.

Huntington, S. T h e Clash of Civilizations," Foreign Afairs, 72,3, Summer 1993,2249.

Hurne-G ri ffith, ME. Behind the Veil in Persia and Turkish Arabia: An Account of an Engfishwoman S Eight

Years ' Residence Amongst the Women of the East. London: Seeley, 1909.

Ibrahim, T. Veiled Bodies ond Unveiled Discourse: Women 's Participmion in the Mojahedin Movement of

Iran. Unpublished Paper, Toronto, 1997.

I kramullah, Shaista Suhrawardy. Behind the Veil: Ceremonies Customs and Colow. Karachi: Oxford

University Ress, 1992.

Jackson, Linda A. Pbsicd Appearance and Gendec Sociobiologicd and SoeioculuraI Perspectives.

Albany: State University of New York h s s , 1992.

Jacobson, Michael F and Laurie Ann Mazur. Adhering M h e s s : A Survival Guide for a Consumer

Society. Ebulder: Westview Press, 1 995.

Jameelah, Maryam. Islum and the Mislim W O ~ C I I ~ Todqv. Lahore: Mohammad Yusuf Khan, 1978.

Jayawardena, Humari. Feminism and Nationalism in the mird World. London: Zed Books. 1986.

JeRery, Patricia. Frogs in a Well: Indian Women in Purdah. London: Zed Ress, 1979.

Joseph, Suad. "Feminization, Familism, Self, and Politics: Research as a Mughraribi," in Soraya Altorki and

Camillia El-Soh1 (eds), Arab Women in the Field: Stdying YOM Own Society, Syracuse: Syracuse

University Press, 1988.

Kabbani, R. Europe 's M j h s of Went: Devise and Rule. London: Macmillan, 1985.

Kamali, Mohammad Hashi m . Principles of Islamic Jwispnuience. Selango Dam1 Ehsan, Malaysia:

Pelanduk, 1989.

Al-Kanadi, Abu Bilal Mustapha. nip Islamic Ruling Regarding Women 's Dress: According to the Qur 'an

und Stanah Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Abul-Qasim Publishing House, n.d.

Kanawati, Marlene. "The Veil and the Male Elite, Book Review," International J o d of Midde East

Studies, 25,3, 1993,50 1-503.

Kandiyoti. Denit, (ed), a. Women, Islam cmd the State. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 199 1.

-----, b. "Contemporary Feminist Scholarship and Middle East Studies." in Deniz Kandiyoti (ed), Gendering

the Midde East Emerging Perspectives. New Y ork: Syracuse University Press, 1 996.

Kanm, Ana M. Women, Islamism and the Stare: Contemporary Ferninisms in Egypt. London:

Macmillan, 1998.

Karmi. G hada. "Women, Islam and Patriachalism," in Mai Yamani (ed), Feminism and islam: Legal mrd

Liferary Perspectives, London: Garnett, 1996.

Kashrneri, Zuhair. The Gulf Within: Canadian Arabs, Rucisrn unci the Gulf War. Toronto: James Lorimer,

1991.

Kazi, Hamida. "The Beginnings of a Debate Long Due: Some Observations on Ethnocentrism asid

Socialist-Feminist Theory," Feminist Review, 22, Feb 1986, 88-9 I .

Keddie, Nikki. "Introduction: Deciphering Middle Eastern Women's History," in Nikki Keddie and Beth

Baron (eds), Women in Middle Eatem History: Swing Bom&ries in Sex and Gender. New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.

Keddie, NiW and Lois Beck (eds). Women in the Mulint World Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University

Press, 1978.

Kelly, Patricia. Integrating Islam: A A i l i m School in Montreal. Unpublished Master's Thesis, lnaitute of

Islamic Studies, McGill Univenity, Montreal, Canada, 1 997.

Khan, Shahnaz Mulim Womm: Interrogorig he Comnw:t in Canada Unpublished PhD Thesis. Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education, 1 995.

Al-Khattab, Huda. Bent Rib: A Journey through Women 's Issues in islam. London: Ta-Ha Publishers.

1997.

King, Ynetra. "Healing the Wounds: Feminism, Ecology, and Nature/Culture Dualism," in Nancy Tuana

and Rosemarie Tong (eds), Feminism and Philosophy: Essentiai Readings in Theov.

Reinterpretation, and Application. Boulder: Westview Press, 1995.

Kulke, Christine. "Equality and Difference: Approaches to Feminist Theory and Politics," in Joanna de

Groot and Mary Maynard (eds), Women's Studies in the 1990's: Doing Things DrflerenrIy?

London: Macmillan, 1 993.

Lazreg, Mamia a. "Feminism and Difference: the Perils of Writing as a Woman on Women in Algeria"

Feminist Studies, 14, 1 , 1988, 8 1 - 1 07.

-, b. The Efoquence of Silence: Algerian Women in Question. New York: Routledge. 1994.

Lemon, M. "Understanding Does Not Always Lead to Tolerance," Facts and Arguments, Globe and Maif,

Tuesday, January 3 1, 1 995.

Lemu, Aisha B. The Ideal Mmlirn Hwband. Alexandria Virginia: Saadawi Publications, 1992.

Lemu, Aisha B and Fatima Heeren. Wornon in Islam. London: The Islamic Council of Europe, 1976.

Lev, Daniel S. "The Veil and the Male Elite" Book Review, Women and Politics, 12, 1 , l992,79-8 I .

Lo& Eric. Love cmd 7hefi: BIackjiie Minsn-efsy and the American Working Class. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1 993.

Lovell, Emily Kalled. "A Survey of Arab-Muslims in the United States and Canada," in Koszegi. Michael

A and J Gordon Metton. Islam in North America: A Sourcebook. New York: Garland Publishing,

1992.

Lutfi, Huda. "Manners and Customs of Fourteenth-Century Cairene Women: Female Anarchy versus Male

Shar'i Order in Muslim prescriptive Treatises," in Nikki Keddie and Beth Baron (eds), Women in

Middle Eastern IjLFmy: Shifng Bodaries in Sex and Gender. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 199 1 .

Mabro, J (ed). Veiled HapTnuhs: Western Traveflers' Perceptions of MirMe Eastern Women. London: IB

Tauris, 199 1.

MacKinnon, Catherine A. "Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: "Pleasure Under Patriarchy," in Nancy

Tuana and Rosemarie Tong (eds), Feminism mtd Philosophy: Essential Readings in Zleory,

Reinterpretation, and Applicoion. Boulder: Wesw iew Press, 1 995.

Macleod, Arlene Elowe. Accommodating Protest Working Women and the Nau Veiling in Cairo. New

York Columbia University Press, 199 1.

Makhlouf, Carla. Changing Veils: Women and Modemisaion in North Yemen London: Croorn Helm,

1979.

Maqsood, Ruqqayah Waris. The Muslim Marriage Guide. London: Quilliarn Press, 1995.

Mannorstein, Emile. "The Veil in Judaism and Islam," Jotand of Jauish Studies, 2, 1 954.

Marsot, Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid. "Women and Modernization: A Reevaluation," in Amira El Azhary Sonbol

(ed), Women, The Family, mi Divorce Lows in Islamic History. Syracuse: Syracuse Univenity

Press, 1996.

Maududi, Abdul A'la. PurdahandtheStamof Women inIslam. Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1972.

Mehdid, Malika. "A Western Invention of Arab Womanhood: The 'Oriental' Female," in Haleh Afshar

(ed), Women in the Middle Eat: Perceptions, Realities and Struggles for Liberation. London:

Macmillan, 1993.

Melman, Billie. Women 's Orients: English Women and the Middle E a t , 1 718-1 918. Saualip, Religion

and Work London: Macmillan, 2" ed, 1995, (1992).

Meriwether, Margaret L. "Women and Economic Change in Nineteenth-Century Syria: The Case of

Aleppo," in J Tucker (ed), Arab Women: Old Boundaries, New Frontiers. Bloornington: Indiana

University Press, 1993.

Memissi. Fatima, a. Be-vond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Socieq. Revised ed,

Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1987.

----- b. The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminisr In rerpretation of Women 's Rights in islam. Translator

Mary Jo Lakeland. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, 199 1.

----- , c. Dreams of Trespass: Tales of a Harem Girlhood. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley

Publishing Co, 1994.

----- . d. "Virginity and Patriarchy." in Aziza AI-Hi bri (ed), Women and Islam. Oxford: Pergarnon Press,

1982.

----, e. Doing Daily Battle: Interviews with Moroccan Women. Translator Mary Jo Lakeland. London:

The Women's Press, 1988.

El-Messiri. Sawsan. "Self-lmages of Traditional Urban Women in Cairo," in N Keddie and L Beck (eds),

Women in the kfdim World Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, I 978.

Minai, Naila. Women in Islam: Tradition and Transition in the Middle East. New York, Seaview, 198 1.

Mir-Hosseini, Ziba. "Stretching the Limits: A Feminist Reading of the Shari'a in Post-Khomeini Iran,"

in Mai

Y amani (ed), Feminism and Islam: Legaf and Li te rq Perspectives, London: Garnett, 1996.

Mitchell, Timothy. Colonising Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

307

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, a "Under Westem Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,"

Boundary 2, XII, 3, and ?UIT, 1, Spring and Fall, 1984,333-358.

-, b. "Introduction," in Mohany, Ann Russo and Lourdes Toms (eds), Third World Women und the

Politics of Feminism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 199 1 . Mohsen, Safia K. "New Images, Old Reflections: Working Middle-Class Women in Egypt," in Elizabeth

Warnock Fernea (ed) Women and the Family in the Middle East: New Voices of Change. Austin:

University of Texas Press, 1985.

Moors, Annelies. "Women and the Orient: A Note on Difference," in Lorrain Nencel and Peter Pels (eds),

Conshzrcting Knowledge Authority and Critiqae in Social Science. London: Sage, 199 1.

Moruzzi, Norma Claire. "A Problem With Headscarves: Contemporary Complexities of Political and Social

Identity" in Political Theory, Vol22, No 4, November 1 994, pp. 653-672.

Mule, Pat and Diane Barthel. "The Return to the Veil," SocioZogicd Forces, 7,2, June, 1992.323-332.

Murad, Abdal Hakim (TJ Winter). "The Problem of Anti-Madhhabism," Islamica, 2,2, March 1995,3 1 - 39.

Musallam, Basim. Sex and Sociee in Islam: Birth Control Before the Nineteenth Cen tq . New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Mustapha, "My Body is my Own Business," Globe and Mail, Tuesday, June 29, 1993. Facts and

Arguments.

Nasir, Sari J. The Arabs and the English. London: Longrnan, 2* e 4 1979, (1976).

Nelson. Cynthia. "Old Wine, New Bottles: Reflections and projections Concerning Research on Women in

Middle Eastern Studies." in Earl L Sullivan and Jacqueline S. lsmael (eds), 7he Conremporary

Study of the Arab World. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press, 1991.

Nelson and Olesen, "Veil and Illusion: A Critique of the Concept of Equality in Western Thought," Catalyst,

10- I 1, 1977,8-36.

O'Connor, June. "Rereading, Reconceiving and Reconstructing Tradition: Feminist Research in Religion,"

Women 's Studies, 1 7 , 1 , 1989, 1 0 1 - 123.

Omar, Karima. "Dissenting Initiative: A Response to Fatima Mernissi," islamic Horizons, October

1995. 13-14.

Omran, Abdel Rahim. Fami& Planning in the Legacy of Islam. London: Routledge, 1992.

Orbach. Susie. Fat is a Feminikt issue: A Serf-He@ Guide for Compulsive Eaters. New York: Berkeley

Books, 1979.

Osman, Fathi. Muslim Women in the Family and the Society. Los Angeles: Minaret Publications, n.d.

Pailin, David A. Attitudes to Other Religions: Comparative Religion in Seventeenth- and Eighteenlh-

Century Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.

Pastner, Carroll McC. "English Men in Arabia: Encounters with Middle Eastern Women," Signs, vol 4, no

2, 1978, pp 309-23.

Personal Narratives Group. Interpreting Women's Lives: Feminist meory und Personal Nmatives.

Bloomington: hdiana University Press, 1 989.

Peterson, J E. "The Political Sbtus of Women in the Arab Gulf States," M a l e East Journal, voi 43, no I,

Winter 89, pp, 34-50.

Philips, Abu Ameenah Bilal. The Evolution of Fiqh. Riyadh: Tawheed Publications, 2"d ed, 1990.

Quandt, William. "New U.S. Policies for a New Middle East?" in David W Lesch (ed), The Middle East

and the United States: A Historical and Political Reassessmenf. Boulder, Colorado: Westview

University Ress, 1996.

Ramazani, Nesta. "The Veil - Piety or Protest?" Journal of Soulh-Asian ond Midale Emtern Studies, VI1.2.

Winter 1 983.

Ramazanoglu, Caroline. Feminism urui the Contradictions of Oppression. London: Routledge. 1989.

Reece, Debra. "Covering and Communication: The Symbolism of Dress Among Muslim Women." The

Haward Journal of Communicatiom.7, 1996,3542.

Reeves, Minou. 7he Fernole Wmiors of Alloh: Women and the Islamic Revolution. New York: EP Dutton.

1989.

Regan. Pamela C. "Sexual Outcasts: The Perceived Impact of Body Weight and Gender on Sexuality,"

Journd of Applied Social PqchoIogy, 26,?0, 1 996, 1 803- 1 8 1 5.

Riley, D. Am I Thar Name?:Feminism and the Category of "Womeri" in his to^^ Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press, 1990.

Rodinson. Maxime. Europe md the M i q u e of Islam. Tms. Roger Veinus. Seattle: University of

Washington Press, 1 987. (La Fascination de I Wam. Puris: Librairie F r q o i s hfapero, 1 980.)

Rossiter, Amy B. "Chips, Coke and Rock-'N1-Roll: Children's Mediation of an Invitation to a First Dance

Party," Feminist Review, 46, Spring 1994, 1-20.

Rugh, Andrea B. Reveal and Conceal: Dress in Contemporary E m . Syracuse, New York: Syracuse

University Press, 1986.

Sad, Frank E. "Men's Misperceptions of Women's Interpersonal Behaviors and Sexual Harassment," in

Margaret S. Stockdale (ed), Seruai Hmarsment in h e Workplace: Perspectives, Frontiers, and

Responsive Strategies. Thousand Oaks, Cali fomia: Sage, 1 996.

Sacks, K. "State Bias and Women's Status." American Anthro~logisf, 78. 1976.565-9.

Said, Edward. a. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 2" ed. 1994. ( 1979).

--, b. Covering Isiam: How the Media und the Experts Determine How We See the Rest. of the World

New York: Pantheon Books, 198 1 .

Sayigh, R. "Roles and Functions of Arab Women: A Reappraisal of Orientalism and Arab Women," Arab

Studies Quarterly, vol3, no 3, 1981, pp. 258-74.

Scott, Joan W. "Experience," in Judith Butler na dJoan W Scott 9eds), Feminists Theorize the Political.

New York: Routledge, 1992.

Scroggins, Deborah. "Women of the Veil: Islamic Militants Pushing Women Back to an Age of Official

Servitude," The Atlanta Jot~naLOhe Atlanta Constitution, Sunday, June 28, 1992, p.P 1 - 1 2.

Shadid, WAR and PS van Koningsveld. "Blaming the System or Blaming the Victim? Srmctural Bamers

Facing Muslims in Western Europe," in WAR Shadid and PS van Koningsveld (eds), The

Integration of Islam cmd Hinduism in Western Europe. Kampen, The Netherlands: KOK Pharos

Publishing House, 199 1.

Shahed, Omar. "Under Attack in Tunisia: Laws Restrict Islamic Practices," The Muslim Voice, December,

1994, p.1. Summary of Muhammad al-Hadi Mustapha Zamzami, Tunis: al-lslm al-jariit.

(Tunisia: Injured Islam.) No publishing details, 1 994, pp. 19 1 - 1 94.

Shanna, H. "Women and their Affines: Veil as a Symbol of Separation," Mm, 12,2, 1978.

Simpson, Jeffery. "The Current Objections to Muslim Clothing Are Simply Wrong-Headed" Globe and

Maif, Dec 28,1994, p.A 16.

Smith, Dorothy E. 7%e Every Day World us Problematic: A Feminist Socioiogy, Toronto: University of

Taronto Press, 1987.

El-Solh, Camillia Fawzi and Judy Mabro (eds). Muslim Women's Choices: Religious Belief and Social

Reality. Odord: Berg Publishers, 1 994.

Sonbol, Arnira El Azhary (ed), Women. The Famiiy, md Divorce Laws in Islamic History. Syracuse:

Syracuse University Press, 1996.

Southern, RW. Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.

Spellberg, DA. "Writing the Unwritten Life of the Islamic Eve: Menstruation and the Demonization of

Motherhood," International Journal of Middle East Studies, 28,3, August 1996, 305-324.

Stacey, Michelle. "The Thin Man," Elle, Xn, 12, August 1997, 1 78.

Stanley, Liz and Sue Wise. "Method, Methodology and Epistemology in Feminist Research Processes," in

Liz Stanley (ed), Feminist Praxis: Reseurch. Theory and EpistemoIogy in Ferninis2 Sociology,

Routledge: London, 1990.

Tabari. Azar, a. "Islam and the Struggle for Emancipation of hnian Women," in Azar Tabari and Nahid

Y eganeh (eds), In the Shodow of Islam: ?he Women 's Movement in I'm. London: Zed Press, 1982.

--. b. "The Women's Movement in Lran; A Hopeful Prognosis," Feminist Studies. 12. 2, Summer 1986,

342-360.

Tucker, Judith E. a. "Problems in the Historiograhpy of Women in the Middle k t : The Case of Nineteenth

Century Egypt," International Journal of MiuWe Emt Studies. 15, l983,32 1-336.

--, b. "Introduction," in J Tucker (ed), Arab Women: Old Boundnries, New Fmtlers. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1993.

Turabi, Hasan. Women in lshm and Muslim Society. London: Milestone Publishers, 1 99 1.

Ussher, Jane M. Fantasies of Ferninity Refaming the Boundaries of k. London: Penguin. 1997.

Van Sommer, Annie and Samuel M Zwemer (eds), Our Moslem Sisters: A Cry of Needfiom the L a d s of

Darkness Interpreted by Those W&o Heard It. New York: The Young People's Missionary

Movement, 1907.

Veron-Guidry, Staci and Donald A Williamson. "Development of a Body Image Assessment Procedure

for Children and Preadolescents," Infentatiomol J o m d of Eaing Disorders, 20,3, 1 996,287-293.

Von Denffer, Ahmad. LRum a/-- 'on: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur 'an. Leicester. U K :

The Islamic Foundation, 1989.

Wadud-Muhsin, Amina. Qzir 'm and Women. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd, 1992.

Warne, Randi R "Further Reflections in the "Unacknowledged Quarantine": Feminism and Religious

Studies," in in Sandra Burt and Lorraine Code (eds), Changing Methods: Feminists Transforming

P m i c e , Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 1995.

Watson, Helen, a. "Women and the Veil: Personal Responses to Global Process," in Akbar S Ahmed and

Hastings Donnan (eds), Islam, Globalirarfion and Postmodmiry. London: Routledge. 1994.

- , b. Watson, Helen, b. "Red Herrings and Mystifications: Conflicting Perceptions of Sexual

Harassment," in Clare Brant and Y un Lee Too (eds), Rethinking Sexual Hmassmenf, London: Pluto

Press, 1 994.

Wikan, Uni. Behind the Veil in Arabia: Women in Oman. Baltimore: The John's Hopkins University Press.

1982.

Williams, John A. "A Return to the Veil in Egypt," Middle East Review, l1,3, 1979,4949.

Winter, TJ, a. "Desire and Decency in the Islamic Tradition," Islamica, 1,4, Jan 1994, 9- 12.

----- . b. AI-Ghazali ON DISCIPLINING THE SOUL - Kitab Rivadat a/-nafi and ON BWKIIVG THE

TtYO DESIRES Kimb Kasr al-shahwafmn Boob XMI and XXIII of THE REVEZVAL OF THE

RELlGlOUS SCIENCES Ihva 'ulum al-din. Translated with an Introduction and Notes.

Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts Society, 1995.

Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty m: How images of beau^ me Used Against Women. New York: Anchor. 2d

ed 1992, (1 99 1 ).

Y arnan i . Mai, "Introduction," in Mai Yamani (ed), Feminism and Islam: Legal and Literaty Perspectives.

London: Garnett, 1996.

Yeganeh, Nahid. "Women's Struggles in the Islamic Republic of Iran," in Azar Tabari and Nahid Yeganeh

(eds), In the Shadow of Islam: The Women 's Movement in Iran. London: Zed Press, 1982.

Young, In's Marion. "Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship," in I

Young, Throwing Like a Girl and Other &says in Feminist Philosophy and Social neoty.

B loomington: Indiana University Press, 1 990.

Young, Katherine. "Introduction," in h i n d Sharma (ed), Women in World Relrgions, New York: State

University of New York Press, 1987.

Young, Robert. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theov, Culture and Race. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Y ousif, Ahmad F. MwJims in Canada: A Question of Identity, Ottawa: Legas, 1 993.

Yusufali: "My Body is My Own Business," The Toronto Stm, Tuesday, February 17, 1998, C: I .

Ziane, Fouad. Le Maroc a truvers ses costumes. Trans. Egan Valentine. Morocco through irs

Costumes. (no publishing details.) Dec 1989.

Zine, J. Muslim Students in Public Schools: Education and the Politics of Religious Identity.

Unpublished Masters7 Thesis, Department of Education, University of Tqronto, 1997.

Zwemer, SM. Moslem Women. West Medford, Mass: Central Committee of the United Study of Foreign

Missions, 1926.

Zu hur, S heri fa. Revealing Reveiling: Islamist Gender Ideology in Contemporq Egypl. New Y ork: State University of New York Press, 1992.

APPENDIX ONE - The Iaterviewees.

BASSIMA Bassima, early thirties, European, converted to Islam in the 1980's, and later married a

Muslim, homemaker.

ELIZABETH Elizabeth, single, mid-twenties, Caucasian-Canadian, converted to Islam in the 19907s,

professional.

ELLEN Ellen, Black-Canadian, late thirties, mamed a Muslim and converted to lslam in the 1970's.

industry.

FATIMA Fatirna. mid-forties, migrated to Canada with her husband from the Central Middle East.

homemaker.

HALIMA Halima, Caucasian-Canadian, late-twenties, married a Muslim and later converted to lslam

in the 19903, homemaker.

IMAN Iman. single, early twenties, daughter of Fatima, student.

KHADIJA Khadija, mid-forties, migrated to Canada with her husband from the Middle East.

professional.

NADIA Nadia, single, late twenties. Caribbean, professional.

NOHA Noha. single, mid-twenties, AsiadAfrican, student.

NUR Nur, single, mid-twenties, South Asian. student.

RANIA Rania, married, late twenties. daughter of Fatima, professional.

RANEEM Raneem. early thirties, Caucasian-Canadian, convened to Islam in the 19803, and later

married a Muslim, homemaker.

SADIA Sadia, teenager, daughter of Yasrneen, student.

SAFIYAH Safiyah, mid-twenties, migrated to Canada with her husband from Nonh Africa.

homemaker.

YASMEEN Y asmeen, late-thirties, migrated to Canacla with her husband from Nonh Africa.

homemaker.

ZAINAB Zainab, early-sixties, European, single, converted to Islam early 1 WO's, retired.

APPENDIX TWO - Qur'anic Verses and Hadith about Covering Referred to by Interviewees.

Qur'an: 24:3 1 :

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereoc that they should draw their Wlumurihinna [usual 1 y trans. veils] over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; .and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And 0 ye believers! Turn ye all together towards God, that ye may attain bliss.

Qur'an: 3359:

0 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 God is oft-forgiving, most merciful.

Ahadith:

"Abu Daoud has transmitted on the authority of 'Aishah [the Prophet's wife] [that] 'Asma the daughter of Abu Bakr [and 'Aishah's sister], once came to the Prophet (peace be on him) wearing transparent clothes. The Prophet (peace be on him) turned his face away from her and told he, 'Asma, when a woman begins to menstruate, nothing should be seen of her except this and this,' and he pointed to his face and hands."

Source: Yusuf al-Qaradawi, The Lawful and the Prohibited in islam. trans Kamal El-Helbawy. M. Moinuddin Siddiqui and Syed Shukry, Kuwait: International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, 1993 : 1 57

APPENDIX THREE - How do the Interviewees Want Others to See Them?

Bassima: "I'd like them to see me as an intelligent human being, not a down-trodden minority. I want them to think that hijob is a respectable thing, not degrading or oppressive."

Elizabeth: "I really don't care what they think [...I I just hope that they wouldn't have thoughts of . . .hatred.. .towards me."

Ellen: "Just that I am an ordinary person, just like them. [A] person who deserves to be respected and treated as a human being."

Halirna: "I don't know I haven't really thought about it, I would like them to respect our choice and not [ . . . ] exclude women who wear h&b from certain things [like] in Quebec [. . . ] the one they didn't want her in the court and the other they didn't want her in the school, I mean this truly oppression. they say the women is oppressed because she's wearing the huab, but the true oppression is preventing somebody from going school because they have a scarf on their head, the larger issue is we'd like everybody to know about Islam so more people would accept it."

Iman: I like them to recognise that I am a Muslim, that I believe in One God; that this is dress that God has asked us to wear, and that we respect God enough to do it, even though there are a lot of societal pressures to do othenwise.. . l definitely hope there weren't any hostile feelings, they may feel indifferent and that's okay too, that doesn't bother me."

Khadija: "I like them to think the way I think [that hijab symbolises determination, strength. courage. dedication to your religion Islam], and to respect them [women who cover] the way I respect the Nuns."

Nadia: "I'd like people to judge me for the person I am and not be caught up in how I look."

Nur: "Just to think that this is a nice person [not] a hostile person.. .just a person practising her faith."

Raneem: "Just take me as I am you know, like they should accept me for who I am, not for the way I look and that goes for everybody."

Rania: "I don't want them to focus on ... the fact that I'm wearing hijab. What I hope that I show to people is that and what I would like to be is a good person, a fair person. someone who is friendly."

Sadia: "That I'm a Muslim, so I want them to know that, I'm doing this 'cause I'm obeying Allah. and it's a free country and I can do what I want. And that 1 don't care if I'm accepted by them or not. I'm going to do it anyway."

Safiyah: "It's my decision, and I want them to respect my decision."

Yasmeen: "I like them to understand Islam more. because ah.. . if they look to me [as] a terrorist or ah.. .a woman her husband forces her to do that, or [oppressed]. I liked them to know more about Islam from the Qur'an not from what people said about Islam.. .and even the act of Muslims it doesn't explain Islam, because unfortunately in many ways. they act very bad, they act against Islam [and then they will] look forward to do as me, like me. I don't know.''

Zninab: "I like them to think that these are believing Muslim, but I know that they won't."

APPENDK FOUR- Interview Questions.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Dear Madam

I am a student at the University of Toronto and currently doing research towards a PhD. My research is aimed at exploring the history of the West's views of hijab, and the experiences of women who wear the h@b in the West. To this end, I am interviewing several women to find out their feelings about huab. The results of the interview will be strictly confidential. and pseudonyms will be used if I refer to the interview in my research.

Your participation in the research is voluntary and you may withdraw it at any time. Your suppon would be greatiy appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Kathy Bullock.

I consent to participate in the research

NAME DATE

ADDRESS

POSTCODE TELEPHONE

OUESTIONNAIRE

Name

Age - 0 15-20; 0 21-30; 31-40; El 41-50; 51-60; 0 61-70

Place of birth y

Ethnic background T

Citizenship

How many years in Canada

(If a convert number of years as a Muslim)

Education (highest)

OccupatiodField of Study

Marital Status ?

Ethnic background of Husband

Parents' Occupation, Father , Mother

Husband's Occupation

Sons'/daughters' Occupation

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

I. (all)

1. What do you spend the most time and energy doing: your jobking a

parent/homemakerlpublic or charitable activitieslstudying?

2. Which role gives you the most satisfaction?

3. What reactions have you experienced from farnilylf?iends/coworkers about your decision to

worWstudy/stay home?

4. Do you think of yourself as a 'Muslim-Canadian', [country]-Canadian or something else?

5. Do you consider yourself to be a religious person? Why?

6. Do you consider the people you live with to be religious?

7. What is your definition of a "Muslim"?

8 What kind of involvement do you have with the Islamic community in Toronto?

I1 (those who cover)

9. Do you cover full-time? Why/why not?

10. How old were you when you decided to cover?

1 1. What factors led to your decision to cover?

12. How did your family/fiiends/colleagues react?

13. Have you received positive or negative feedback?

14. What kind of reaction have you received from the broader community - Muslims and non-

Muslims?

15. Do you feel that you are less accepted by the Canadian community than are those Muslim

women who do not cover?

16. Did yoddo you ever feel pressured to cover? From whom?

17. Did you/ do you ever feel pressure not to cover? From whom?

18. What kind of covering do you wear?

19. How did you view covering before you decided to do it yourself?

20. What have you been taught about h@b from your family? School? Society?

2 1. Do the women in your family cover?

(If a mother, What do you teach your children about hijab?)

22. What does it feel like to cover? [can prompt]

23. What are the advantages/disadvantages of covering?

24. Does wearing hijob have any noticable impact on your daily life at home/work/in broader

environment etc?

25. Do people comment on your hgab? What kinds of things do they say?

26. Do you receive special attention on the subway/streets?

27. Do you feel you are treated differently because you cover?

28. What does the hijab symbolise for you?

29. What would you like people to think when they see you in hijab?

30. What do you think they see?

3 1. How do you feel about women who wear hijab? About muslim women who don't wear

hijab?

32. Why do women cover more than men?

33. Some people think that the hijab is men's way of controlling women- their movements and

their sexuality- what do you think of this claim?

34. In Canada, you don't have to cover. Does covering here mean you are less free than your

Canadian women friends?

35. The CBC once did a story about the hijab issue in Quebec, and the reporter asked the

question 'Can the hijab pass the litmus test of being Canadian? ' How would you respond to

that question?

36. Fatima Mernissi argues the hijab means that women shouldn't be outside much. What do

you think of this claim?

I11 (those who don't cover)

37 Have you ever covered? When and why?

38 How old were you when you decided to cover'?

39 What factors led to your decision to cover?

40 Do you experience positive and/or negative feedback from your farnily/fiiends/colleagues

about your decision to cover in the context in which you do coverhot to cover (full-time)?

4 1 What kind of reaction have you received from the broader community- Muslims and non-

Muslims?

42 Do you feel you are more accepted by the Canadian community than are those women who

cover?

43 Have you/do you ever feel pressured to cover? From whom?

44 Have yoddo you ever feel pressure not to cover? From whom?

45 If you decided to cover, what kind of covering would you wear?

46 Have you ever considered wearing hijab more ofledfull-time? Whylwhy not?

47 What have you been taught about huab from your family? School? Society'?

(If a mother, What do you teach your children about hvab?)

48 Do the women in your family cover?

49 What are the advantagesldisadvantages of covering?

50 Do you think wearing hijab would have any noticeable impact on your daily life at

home/work/in broader environment etc?

5 1 What do you think it feels like to cover (full-time)?

52 DO you think people would comment on your h w ? What kinds of things do you think they

would say?

53 Do you think you would receive special attention on the streets?

54 Do you feel you would be treated differently because you cover?

55 What does the hijab symbolise for you?

56 What would you like people to think when they see you not covering/covering? (What do

you think they see?)

57 How do you see covering related to being Muslim?

58 How do you feel about women who wear hijab? About muslim women who don't wear

hijab?

59 Why do women cover more than men?

60 Some people think that the hijab is men's way of controlling women- their movements and

their sexuality- what do you think of this claim?

61 In Canada women don't have to cover. Do you think those who do cover here are less free

than their Canadian women fhends?

62 The CBC once did a story about the hijab issue in Quebec. and the reporter asked the

question 'Can the hijub pass the litmus test of being Canadian? ' How would you respond to

that question?

63 Fatima Memissi argues the hijob means that women shouldn't be outside much. What do

you think of this claim?

IV (Converts)

64 Why did you convert to Islam?

65 What kind of changes has becoming Muslim brought to your life?

66 What effect has your choice to be Muslim had on your relationship with

parents/siblings/friends/colleagues?

67 (If manied) What role did your husband play in your conver~ion?'~~

V (all, questions modified to be appropriate to interviewee)

68 What is the relationship between men and women in Islam? (Are they equal?)

69 Do men and women have different natures? If yes, what are they?

70 What are (would be) your husband's responsibilities at home. and what are (would be)

yours?

b. What do you hope for in a fbture mate?

71 Some people think that Muslims pose special problems for liberal democracies because Islam

and liberal democracy are incompatible (eg Islam does not recognise the separation of church

and state). What do you think of this claim?

72 How do you feel about the way Muslims are talked about in the media in Canada?

73 How do you feel about the current drive to establish an Islamic state in some countries?

How do you think this will affect women?

74 If you could design a utopia, a society where everything is just as you'd like it to be. what

would it look like?

75 Is there anything you wish to add? Have I forgotten to ask something that you feel is

important? Do you have any questions to ask me?

76 Would you be available for a follow-up interview if necessary?

7% Many people assume that women conven to Islam becaw of their husbands/boyfriends. This is true of some women (eg Ellen, at first), but there are others who, while married, conven out of their own belief and volition (eg. Elizabeth; Ellen, later; Haiima), and others who convert while single (eg Bassima; Raneem; Zainab.)