AbSoLuTe_ZeRo

Behind What Veil? Muslim Female Dress and its Critics

By Guest Contributor Janan Delgado, originally published at Gender Across Borders

Despite a title that makes skins crawl among Muslim women the world around, The New York Times’ “Behind the Veil” article published a few weeks ago was a welcome relief from the usual sensationalist and mystery-clad coverage of veiled women. In a funny, inspiring and down-to-earth fashion, Lorraine Ali recounted the stories of two niqabi (face-veiled) American Muslim women; why they decided to adopt this dress, how it affects their life in Albuquerque, NM, and what this choice means to them.

The article sparked hundreds of comments from readers in America and abroad, unveiling some of these individuals’ stereotypes and misconceptions about Muslim female dress, as well as an inability –or refusal- to hear about the meanings of the veil from those who actually wear it. Nancy from the USA is a case in point. She wrote, “The message this sends to women is be invisible, be subservient, be asexual. As an atheist and a feminist, I find it repugnant that any woman would hide behind a dozen yards of cloth to please a nonexistent God.”

Though most obviously applicable to the face veil, the critique of ‘invisibility,’ is commonly associated with the Muslim veil in general. Muslims believe, the trope goes, that withdrawal from society is necessary because this is “impure, corrupted and dangerous.” However, this astonishingly simplistic claim ignores that Muslims’ opinions about the societies in which we live are as diverse as these societies themselves, be it in China, Senegal, Egypt or Ecuador. In America, veiled Muslim teachers, lawyers, doctors, academics, etc., send a clear message: behavior, not clothing, determines social invisibility.

So if not to hide from society, why do Muslim women veil? Ascribing motives is a tricky business, and the question itself is worth a pause. Unlike what seems the norm in secular liberal spaces, for many veiled women this dress isn’t a puzzling matter, nor is it on our top ten issues of concern. When asked ad infinitum about the veil, many of us wish to say, ‘the veil is what it is, can we talk about female education, world poverty, social inequality, military occupation, anything but this dozen yards of cloth?’

Yet, fixation on the veil remains a fact, and questions are asked. Many individual women, as the ones in the NYT piece, explain that the choice to veil stems from a desire to submit to God. This being the case, Nancy almost got it right about subservience. To God, though, not men. To those who think Islam is an evil male hoax designed to subjugate women, the distinction between subservience to God and subservience to men may be illusory. Yet to those of us who choose to believe in Islam, and find solace and comfort in it, the conflation of two is meaningless.

Nancy also mentions repugnance in her comment, and this feeling is not uncommon. Many veiled women have seen our dress inspire a visceral reaction in people who believe it goes against their core beliefs and values. Behind these feelings often lies a fear of the unknown or an incapacity to relate to a different worldview. Hence, the fulfillment Muslim women feel under those dozen yards of cloth is unimaginable, their place uninhabitable.

While this repugnance may be harmless if kept under check, it is hardly conducive to feminist sisterhood (which Nancy the feminist may wish to care about) or to societal harmony. Hence, a first step to get rid of it is to dismiss once and for all the ill-conceived notion of universality of desire; Not all women find fulfillment and happiness in the same life choices. A woman may actually find happiness under a dozen yards of cloth, seeking to please a God Nancy as an atheist believes non-existent. A second step is not to insult each other’s intelligence. Muslim women have not been brainwashed into Islam, nor are we waiting for anyone’s help to awaken from our supposed “false-consciousness”. Islam is our informed choice.

So is this informed choice the case for every Muslim woman? A recurrent critique of articles that focus on empowered Muslim western women is that “while women in the West have the freedom to veil, one should not forget that in Saudi Arabia…etc…” But who is forgetting? It is perfectly legitimate to speak about an American Muslim reality independently of the experience of frustrated veiled women in Iran (forced to veil), or frustrated unveiled women in Turkey, France, etc. (forced to unveil) (though people are usually not equally interested in the latter).

Experiences vary across countries, and it is ludicrous to insist someone must tie all these experiences together, unless she has offered to provide a comparative study of Muslim women across the world. It is similarly ludicrous to ask Muslim Western women to apologize for the misguided policies of Middle Eastern regimes they have no relation to whatsoever. This analytical mishap is the direct product of some people’s incapacity, unwillingness, or flat-out refusal to accept Western Muslims as Western. Hence the insistence on tying their Western experience to Middle Eastern regimes.

As Tom from Virginia comments about the veiled women in the NYT piece, “They can dress as their conscience allows in our country, but we can’t dress as our conscience allows in their country.” Except, of course, Tom forgets “their” country and “his” country happen to be one and the same.

YAY Grad School!! Because of you, I got a 6 month-1 year extension from my parents on the “don’t talk about marriage with your son” thing I was pushing for… so I guess that’s good for now…

Only downfall is, which no matter how long I stall for - I would still need to reconcile, is that the criteria stays the same… My mom was almost in tears when she said: “I’ll wait, but don’t you ever be with a person ‘from outside’!!”

I don’t know what to make of this…

A longer post may be necessary… when I process all this stuff :S

[Insert Name Here] El 25 de junio a las 22:07
Ahmed,

I don’t want you to think I forgot about you.

After reading your response, I will answer your first question, the reason I did not put that on your status is because it did not pertain to the subject. Many people know my feelings towards religion, and I really wasn’t trying to “knock” you as a Muslim.

That was a beautiful verse that you gave me. I am pretty sure though we could both put forth verses that are less than enthusiastic about diversification in the Muslim world. By the way my example of Saudi Arabia was purely coincedental and I did not know of your connections there.

I can respect the fact that you are a level headed individual as you have presented good reasons on why people fight wars. Although I am a little unsure of what natural resources Israel has that are so desirable?

Ahmed, again, you sound like a very intelligent person, so don’t take what I am about to say as personal. In my eyes a person can not be all encompassioning in knowledge and deny simple truths that our science communities time and time again have proven correctly. Religion and the thought of Gods existance is a backwards thought that holds humans back from moving on together. We could talk about radical vs social all day when it comes to religion but I promise you if I were to draw a picture of muhammed and post it in a public forum all Muslims alike would be up in arms. The notion of the term blasphemy by itself should raise thoughts in an intellectual persons mind. But instead we will debate these issues, instead of excepting the fact that all of these ancient ideals are totally irrelevant. We can talk about the benefits of religions as well but the truth is religion always divide, it never brings people together except only during the times in which those same believers fall under the same ideals. What’s my point? My point is that before we can move on together we have to get over the hurdles together, the first one being religion.

Appreciate the civil conversation Ahmed,

[Insert Name Here]
Enviado a través de Facebook Móvil

====

Ahmed أحمد Alawami El 05 de julio a las 22:30
Hi [Insert Name Here],

My apologies for the delayed and overdue response, I’ve been really busy in the past two weeks and a half.

To respond quickly to your message, I’ll skip to the Arab-Israeli conflict right away. A common misconception about the conflict is that it is religious and that it is between Jews and Muslims (see, I called it the Arab-Israeli conflict). Ever since the inception of the conflict, the Zionist cause was and always will be a secular cause. The first Zionists were all secular and not religious at all (Being Jewish is not the same as following Judaism, Jewish identity could be an ethnic one as well), and the opposing movements ranged from Arab Nationalist movements to Human Rights activists.

I’m not well versed nor knowledgable enough to give you specific details, and I encourage you to do your own research on the subject matter, as should I… but I can tell you that during WWI, in 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised Palestine as a home to the Zionists… The resource at stake is pure and simple, it is land. The Jewish people were a persecuted people in Europe, and their persecutors were not too fond of their presence in European land (even though the Jews in Europe were European, they were racialized as a people… and were passed down the constructed hierarchy of races). As the Zionists pushed for a land of their own in trade for leaving Europe (as well as giving Europe another form of presence in the region), the British gave them a land, which was not their’s - the British, a land that was already occupied with people: The Arabs (Muslims, Jews, Christians, and other religious groups). This caused their displacement from their homes, violence, and the rise of anti-Zionist movements (not anti Jewish, as there are Jews who are anti-Zionist).

Again, the information I am giving you is very superficial and may not be 100% accurate, as I am not an expert on the subject, but what I’m trying to say is that attributing the conflict to religion alone is an oversimplification. It is true that the conflict is “religious-ized”, and that in it and of itself is a means to an end, and not the end as many people believe.

[Insert Name Here], I respect your opinion on God and religion, and I can say that there were times when I struggled with similar thoughts and adopted my own form of agnosticism at certain points (sometimes referred to as Ahmedism, just for kicks :p) … but your assertion that we as human beings cannot get along until we think the same way and believe the same way - that there is no God and that religion is primitive, is the same problem that you’ve suggested as an ailment to world religions, which is pure fundamentalism! What works for you may not work for someone else :) You may see religion as backwards, but to many around the globe, religion, regardless of its nature, is a source of life, and a way of it too. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again:

I do not tolerate people who are different than me, I accept them… I include them as I would include family.

This does not just apply to race and ethnicity, it applies to religion/spiritual identification -or lack thereof, and to all other social and individual identities. This is why, when I embrace friendships, I don’t “look past” differences, I acknowledge them and embrace them too. The society I envision as a just and inclusive society is not one where difference is left aside and ignored, but one where it is celebrated and considered as the beauty of our collective identity as human. Now this cannot happen unless all rights are granted to those who were robbed of them, and those who were never given them in the first place.

Thank you for not forgetting my message, and I haven’t forgotten yours either :)

Again, my apologies for the delay, and I hope that this message addresses your concerns,

Ahmed