Cover that meat, babe.

The practice of hijab, or the wearing of a veil, is based on the Qu’ranic instruction for women to “draw their veils over their bosoms” which was interpreted as an injunction to for women to cover their hair and face. On one hand, the veil can be seen as a physical representation of oppression and domination, however feminist reinterpretations of the Qu’ran have unveiled another perspective in which hijab is not an organic outgrowth of Islam, rather a consequence of a male-dominated culture which denies rights to women which conflict with the interests of the patriarchal elite (Mernissi, 1991, p. ix). It is possible for hijab to be an act of beauty and an assertion of religious and cultural identity when a woman chooses to wear the veil. In cases where choice is removed and women are compelled by laws to cover themselves, the religious significance is eliminated and it becomes an act of meaningless onus. As the Qur’an states so simply and so beautifully, “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Surah 2, 256) Women in every culture should be free to live life unveiled because of their intrinsic value as human beings. To force women to completely cover their bodies is to rob them of many of the physical representations of human identity, which is central to a full existence.

The Qur’an, like many sacred texts, has the subject of considerable debate and subjective interpretation over the nearly fifteen hundred years since its initial publication. Muslims generally hold that the Qur’an is a book of divine guidance, a book of wisdom and direction for the lives of mankind. Qur’an means “recital” in Arabic, which is fitting because Muslims believe that Allah recited these words to his chosen prophet, Muhammed. (Wikipedia, 24) The faithful also practice recitation of the Qur’an daily, making it an oral tradition as well as a textual one. This tradition of recitation creates a great body of knowledge among the followers of Islam. However, memorization and recitation of a text does not intrinsically create understanding. Interpretation of such a great work as the Qur’an is a daunting task with a history nearly as old as the great book itself. Ultimately, it is the interpretation of the text that creates polarizing viewpoints on the tradition of hijab within Islamic communities.  

One of the most radical interpretations of hijab comes from a “mufti”, a legal authority and leader in Australia’s Muslim community named Sheik Hilali. During a religious address during Ramadan last year, Hilali sought to defend the honor of the Muslim leader of the infamous “Sydney Gang Rapes” by referring to the 2000+ female victims as “uncovered meat”. Addressing 500 Muslim worshippers during the month-long festival, Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”  He concluded his address by saying that women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men. (Kerbaj, 1-9)  Many Muslim leaders were outraged by Hilali’s comments. A prominent female Muslim advisor responded to Hilali in an interview with The Australian. “Iktimal Hage-Ali – who does not wear a hijab – said the Islamic headdress was not a ‘tool’ worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. ‘It’s a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don’t wear the headscarf doesn’t mean that you’re considered fresh meat for sale,’ the former member of John Howard’s Muslim advisory board told The Australian. ‘The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves.’” (Kerbaj, 11-20) Hage-Ali’s views are a strong recommendation against forced hijab, which promotes the view that women are responsible for carrying out drastic measures to protect themselves from the animal tendencies that men are naturally subject to. This is an inaccurate and dangerous view of both genders which cannot contribute to healthy interaction within a culture. 

In Eastern Islamic states such as Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, the question of hijab has been answered by law. In these three Islamic states women are forced, in varying degrees, to don a burqa or other covering garment that fits detailed legal requirements even to tend her front garden. In some cases, vigilante groups roam the streets looking to violently enforce the law of hijab, armed with measuring equipment to verify that each garment is the legal length. Some women who live under the restrictive laws of an Islamic state exist their entire lives without their hair or face being seen by a man other than a relative, sweltering under thick black outer garments in the heat of the desert summers. Many are even attacked or arrested for misunderstanding the often confusing and convoluted legal code that surrounds their dress. As recently as April of 2007, young women were victims of targeted attacks by the Tehran police, a manifestation of power that was encouraged by the hard-line Islamic leaders. (Sanati, 2)  An Iranian news agency quoted Brig. Gen. Ahmad Rouzbehani, director general of the law enforcement centre for combating social corruption as saying, “Everybody knows what improper dressing is and how one should appear in the public. Anybody who is improperly dressed must therefore expect to face a legal encounter by the police” (Sanati, 8). This use of violence takes the subject of force to an entirely different level that goes far beyond religious observance. This kind of force perpetuates the perspective that women belong in the home, covered, the possession of her husband, father, and children.

Perhaps some of the most interesting perspectives come from Islamic women who have elected to wear hijab for personal reasons, even though they live in Western cultures which do not mandate hijab. Some women find comfort in donning a piece of clothing that identifies them as a Muslim. Shaista Aziz gives an account of her choice to wear the veil to the BBC News. “When I see another Muslim woman on the street we always smile, sometime we nod at each other and other times we exchange greetings: Asalaam e-lekum Walikum Asalaam.” (Aziz, 15) Aziz finds that most non-Islamic Londoners are accepting of her choice, and she disregards the opinions of those who would criticize her. She isn’t compelled by laws, nor is she forced into hijab by male family members. For Aziz, the veil is a choice that affirms her freedom and womanhood. “Through Islam I feel empowered and have been moved by the beauty and simplicity of wearing the hijab and the direction that it has given me in my life.” (Aziz, 28)

Samah Gamar, a Canadian Muslim woman, views hijab as a brave declaration of will against the commodification of women in western culture who have been made into “tools to sell beer and boost sales for the next football season” (Gamar, 7). Gamar explains that “Islam tells us that every woman is a jewel” (Gamar, 12), and then posits that showing off a thing a value immediately diminishes its worth, but is the same true for intelligence? Should people who possess intelligence be encouraged to keep it under wraps? Gamar has a point when she singles out physical beauty as something that women should not measure their worth by. However she disregards all the courageous women who eschew the glamorized vision of beauty that Kate Moss once represented for the much more potent and lasting charms of people like Rosie O’Donnell and Beth Ditto, who embrace their individual appearances in a very public way without degrading themselves as sex objects simply by being unveiled. Although I agree that Gamar and other women who choose hijab are brave for asserting their rebellion against objectification, I believe that they are going about it all wrong.

The issue of hijab comes down to two issues; choice and identity. As women, as people, we ultimately choose to express our religion and our ideals as we see fit. Some women choose hijab as an expression of identity, and I believe that they should have the freedom to do so. But I hope that in doing so they do not forget the identity that comes from the expressions of their face, the determination of their walk, and the unabashed celebration of their bodies that speak, write, and act on behalf their most priceless jewel of all: their mind. By unveiling, these strong women might command even more attention than they expected; not as sexual objects, but as free human beings with something valuable to offer the world around them.

Nikki Keddie & Jasmine Rostam-Kolayi, editors, “Women and Twentieth-Century Religious Politics,” Journal of Women’s History, Winter, 1999.

 Mernissi, Fatima (1991). The Veil and the Male Elite, A Feminist Interpretation of Women’s Rights in Islam. Wikipedia.com. 25 Jun. 2007. Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur’an>.  

MSA-USC Compendium of Muslim Texts. University of Southern California. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html>.  

Kerbaj, Richard. “Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks.” The Australian. 26 Oct. 2006. The Australian Newspaper Online. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html>.

Sanati, Kimia. “IRAN: Dress Code Row – Another Ahmadinejad Failure.” IPSnews.net. 30 Apr. 2007. Inter Press Service News Agency. 26 Jun. 2007 <http://ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37543>.           

Aziz, Shaista. “Viewpoint: Why I decided to wear the veil.” Bbc.co.uk. 17 Sep. 2003. British Broadcasting Corporation. 26 Jun. 2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3110368.stm>. 

Gamar, Samah “Veiled Threats.” Peak.sfu.ca. 9 Nov. 1998. peak publications society. 26 Jun. 2007. <http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/98-3/issue10/veiled.html>.