The progressive case against the face veil

If opposition to the face veil is bigoted then my grandmother and great-aunt are bigots for describing their own experience of wearing the burqa in the 1930s and 40s as "physical and mental slavery".

Lejla Kuric is an independent artist interested in social justice, secularism and gender equality

The burqa and niqab, face veils worn by a minority of Muslim women, are often misrepresented as something harmless, something we should be comfortable with.

This narrative assumes that all women choose to wear the face veil of their own free will; that this is not oppression but merely sign of deep devotion; and that veiled women are not isolated from the society.

Any challenge to these assumptions is unjustly branded as a sure sign of racism, orientalism and Islamophobia.

If opposition to the face veil is bigoted then my grandmother and great-aunt are bigots for describing their own experience of wearing the burqa in the 1930s and 40s as “physical and mental slavery”.

Despite the best effort of many to present face veiling as harmless, it depersonalises women and assigns them an existence different and separate from men, burdened by social norms such as a woman is the custody of her male guardians, strict gender segregation, non-essential conversation with men is prohibited etc.

It is, by design, a device of exclusion and apartheid.

Assuming that the face veil is a choice, many liberals conveniently forget to mention how this choice comes about and what the rationale behind it is. It is fundamentally different to any other type of clothing, an embodiment of a misogynist worldview that perceives a woman’s body as harmful.

Unless women are covered up, men will be compelled to fornicate and rape them. Islamic cleric Sheik Taj Aldin as-Hilali puts it like this:

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside… without cover, and the cats come to eat it… whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

The “immodest” woman is also an “unwrapped lollipop” irresistible to flies; an “unwrapped sweet” covered in dirt, an evil temptress and so on – a rationale based on dehumanising rape apologia and victim blaming.

Lollypops

The lollypop on the left represents a veiled woman; the lollipop on the right a woman without veil. Flies represent men. The copy translates as: ”
You can’t stop them.
 But you can protect yourself.
Your creator has your best interest at heart.”

Lollypops 2

This type of meme is also popular on the social media: Pure veiled women go to heaven, while immoral temptresses go to hell.

Bina Shah, a Pakistani writer, notes:

“Many people use blackmail to convince women to wear hijab or niqab: you won’t be a good Muslim, you’ll go to hell, you’re pleasing God, you’ll be subject to harassment and molestation if you go outside without a veil. By playing on women’s vulnerabilities, by bringing up the imagery of women being sexually violated or bringing shame upon their families by walking around unveiled, by implying a woman’s morality is linked to how she dresses, women are coerced into believing they are making a free choice in the thousands and millions, every day of their lives.”

Assuming that males are sex-obsessed beasts, with no control over their animalistic instincts, is also demeaning to men, and arguably leads to a rape culture in which women are blamed for their own violation and sexual abuse. Men are afforded no agency or responsibility. “We’re all rape accomplices”, as Kunwar Khuldune Shahid bluntly puts it in this brilliant piece.

The face veil should be opposed because it is an inherently sexist and misogynist concept at odds with all precepts of an egalitarian society. The ability to critically address certain aspects of Islamic culture that are sexist does not, however, imply a blanket rejection of Islam or Muslims.

There is no explicit scriptural justification for face covering in the Quran, however Salafis, an ultra-puritanical movement, demand it.

Backed by Arabian petrodollars, the Salafi movement has gained significant influence in mosques, schools, Muslim organisations and communities. This has led to increased pressure on girls and women to cede to regressive patriarchy – from vigilante “Muslim Patrols” enforcing dress codes on the streets of London, to gender segregated events at our universities, and a school in Tower Hamlets forcing girls young as 11 year old to wear the face veil.

The goal of religious zealots is to carve out increasingly larger areas of public space where they set their own rules.

Some women wear religious clothing not as an expression of piety, but as political statement against ‘Western Imperialism’. Spurred by Islamist organisations, their intention is to deliberately provoke a culture war.

A blanket ban on the face veil would be wrong – based on a liberal principle that adults can make lifestyle choices that are self-restrictive and that state should interfere as little as possible.

However limited, context based bans are right and justified, based on the following egalitarian principles:

– the state must assert gender equality within its institutions

– religious freedom is not absolute, other concerns such as security or identification must be taken into consideration

– the state must protect those coerced

– the state must protect children not old enough to make an informed choice

Civil right activists, concerned about oppressive notion of ‘telling Muslim women what to wear’, should first look to an army of proselytisers, preachers and self-serving community leaders who do exactly that: telling us what we must and what we must not wear down to the tiniest detail.

53 Responses to “The progressive case against the face veil”

  1. Matthew Blott

    I posted this on Liberal Conspiracy in response to a similar article (see here)

    I despair of my comrades indulging this ugly divisive practice. A special mention goes to Owen Jones, simply because he has the biggest gob and is so revered yet chooses to take no notice of his feminist colleague Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. As the author of this piece notes, the goalposts have changed. I do not like the hijab – it’s an overt symbol of religiosity that perpetuates an ideology that believes woman should watch how they appear before men in case they send the wrong signal. There is no equivalent for men. And yet the hijab is now the new normal and attempts are underway to normalise the niqab. I don’t like banning things – for practical reasons more than anything else – and so would not support legislation that made it illegal for woman to walk around like post boxes. But quite why anyone with the slightest interest in woman’s rights feels the need to go out and actively campaign for the right to wear a niqab escapes me completely.

  2. swatnan

    I absolutely loathe the appearance of this garment on the streets of Britain. Its so demeaning and a kind of self abuse on the women who wear it. I just question the mentallity of women that hide behind the veil; its akin to agraphobia. The wearers may be few in number but the symbolism of Islam as a mocking religion of superiority is what they are stating. Moderate Muslims should be up in arms and taking on those islamofacists amongst them that are creating such disorder and turmoil in the world today. Why are they silent, unlike brave Yasmin?

  3. Atif

    If its just purely out of a choice of the women then your argument against is stands pretty weak. There are women who do trust me on this one!

    I agree with your point of the Salafist movements though its true they have taken over.

    But i see some irony in your article you claim self serving community leaders , preachers tell you what and what not to wear when you doing exactly that yourself.. Two extremes and your view is hardly impartial.

  4. Atif

    If its just purely out of a choice of the women then your argument against is stands pretty weak. There are women who do trust me on this one!

    I agree with your point of the Salafist movements though its true they have taken over.

    But i see some irony in your article you claim self serving community leaders , preachers tell you what and what not to wear when you doing exactly that yourself.. Two extremes and your view is hardly impartial.

  5. Peter Risdon

    Women wear sexy clothes because sexuality is a normal and good part of human beings, you bloody idiot.

Comments are closed.