Origins of Hijab

Quite an accurate account of the genesis of Hijab. Sometimes I wonder why Orthodox Christian Women in Europe also cover their heads.

Gill Sahib

Great read. Just a few days ago I read Naguib Mahfuz`s book, `Palace Walk` the first of the Cairo Trilogy and was moved by the wonderful depiction of the life of women in Islam. The hijab or purdah a central prop to the stage of male and female dynamics in the Islamic society. It was proof of a woman`s purity and muslim identity. I agree with what you say in your article. Here are three reasons women who wear Hijab have given to me at various times:
1. A symbol new immigrant women wear to reassure her husband that she is subordinate, will not assert her superiority in anyway, or rock the family boat.
2. Pride about one`s Muslim roots.
3. An obvious signal to the world that she is not interested in any advances. Great idea by the way...(In Canada, I met the heroine of the movie we were both acting in, who was as can be imagined a very beautiful and alluring woman. Outside the set, she wore a hijab. She told me she does it so that she always has a reminder to be guarded against temptation such as drink, drugs and men).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Urstruly,

Orthodox Christian women in Europe and various parts of the world cover their heads because in one of the Pauline epistles, i believe it is 1 Corinthians, but perhaps in another one as well, Paul exhorts men to pray with their heads uncovered, but women with their heads covered, and for women to keep themselves covered. i remember during Bible study one evening, how one of the Orthodox priests explained that the `tradition` of covering heads came more out of the culture at the time.

didn`t know if you actually wanted an answer, but thought i`d offer one response anyways. :)

gill sahib,

...... the faithful can always come up with good reasons to do or not do something .......... you can always find all kinds of silly reasons to justify ridiculous and cruel practices ............. what are you going to justify next? ... slavery?.... concubines? .... wife beating?..........

For an agnostic, it seemed that Quran used to be the best tool for the last prophet to sort out pretty much anything that was going on in his life; from his harem to not having a male offspring (ref: Surah-e-Kausar).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Regarding the last para - why is it that only muslim women who feel the need to assert their identity? What about muslim men? Why a symbol that connotes female subservience/subjugation when women as such are discriminated against? Isn`t it peculiar that in the face of xenophobia they want to (according to the author) separate themselves even more? Is the size of the veil proportionate to the assertiveness? I wonder if the egyptian graduate students with their fully veiled wives in tow are expressing their muslim identity through their wives?
I grant that there may indeed be women who have examined the issue and wear the veil as a way of asserting themselves. If these women are otherwise integrated then they may end up teaching the larger society that veil is not something to be feared, reviled or looked down on. However, it seems to me, that a large number of veiled women do it as a matter of habit (hehe). It`s a sign of female oppression and being proud of it. (For what it`s worth, I`d rank high-heels almost up their with the hijab - worn to satisfy women or to make up for lack of self esteem.)

Dear Inter-actors:

Some of you have taken me quite wrong. I`m quite open-minded; I`m a freethinker. My daughter does not wear a hijab; it`s her own choice. If one day she decided to wear it; it will still be her choice. Let me tell you a real story; I have probably mentioned it some place else also.

A Yemeni young lady is a supervisor in a bank in Detroit. Whenever I went to the bank, I saw her modestly dressed in western clothes. At first, I thought she was an Indian lady (I found later that she has Indian roots). Later on, I came to know her better because she helped me in getting a mortgage loan from the bank. She told me her parents or grand parents were Indian who had gone over to Yemen and settled there. She is a very nice, refined and enlightened lady (she has an MBA).

After a month or so, when I went to the bank again, I saw her wearing a hijab. I casually mentioned about it and then she opened up. She said, ``by the grace of Allah, I now have the courage to wear the hijab. I don`t care what others may think about me. It`s my choice and I`m going to wear it.``

What right do I have (or others have, for that matter) to impose my will on her and dissuade her from wearing the hijab? I believe she should have the right to decide for herself. Why are the people so hooked up on a piece of cloth which some women choose to wear. If they choose not to wear it, well and good. If some girls choose to wear miniskirts, it`s their choice and the society allows it. And wearing a miniskirt is no sign of refinement either; it`s just a dress.

Incidentally, the article was written to provide a historical perspective as to how the hijab was introduced in the Muslim culture. The focus of the article was not to support or condemn it. I believe some of the inter-actors are male chauvinists; they are deciding for the women what to wear and what not to wear. If a woman wants to wear a hijab, it`s not my place to criticise her.

Best regards and take a deep breath, let it go real slow,

Mohammad Gill

I have to apologise for the numerous postings of my response. It`s not my doing; somehow the computer went berserk. Seeing so many of them, embarrases me.

Let me request the editor to delete the superfluous repitition of my response. Thanks.

Mohammad Gill

I think there is something wrong with a society where a woman has to wear a hijab to feel ``liberated``, compare the rude stares and eve teasing incidents in western countries compared to islamic countries.

``by the grace of Allah, I now have the courage to wear the hijab. I don`t care what others may think about me. It`s my choice and I`m going to wear it.`` ............. this is what i call ``in your face islam``.......... next thing you know she will be demanding the right to blow herself up to please al-lah ............detroit is not safe any more ..........

http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/24/stories/2004062402521000.htm

From hijab to jilbab

By Hasan Suroor

Shabina Begum`s is a perfect case for the authorities to ``discipline`` her guardians for depriving her of her legitimate right to education.


FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD Shabina Begum is like any other normal girl of her age, and given a chance she would, presumably, be doing what teenagers do — go to school, have fun in the playground, wear what they fancy and, generally, indulge themselves. Instead, it has fallen to her to become the public face of a campaign by radical Muslim groups to push for an ``Islamic`` dress code in British schools.

Shabina stopped attending school two years ago after she was told that she must conform to its dress policy, which is flexible enough and allows Asian pupils, for instance, to wear salwar-kameez. But her family, apparently egged on by fanatical elements in the community, insisted that she must be allowed to wear jilbab — a full-length burqa-type robe — and took the school to court claiming that it was trampling on her ``religious`` rights.

Last week, the High Court in London ruled in favour of the school saying its decision was not discriminatory and did not breach the girl`s human rights as claimed by her counsel. The Judge held that the school`s uniform policy had the ``legitimate aim`` of properly running ``a multicultural, multi-faith secular school,`` and the limitations imposed on Shabina were ``proportionate`` to that aim. After the verdict, the school urged her to return, but her family refused accusing it of Islambophobia.

From all accounts, the school in question — Denbigh High School in the predominantly Asian area of Luton — is by no means illiberal. Nearly 80 per cent of its pupils are Muslim and the fact that Shabina`s family drew no support from other Muslim parents appears to vindicate the school`s claim that they are perfectly happy with the present uniform policy, which, the authorities say, was agreed in consultation with the community taking into account the religious and cultural sensitivities of the students.

It is suspected that the whole controversy has been stirred up by an extremist group, Hizb-ur-Tahrir (HuT), whose supporters include Shabina`s elder brother, Shuweb Rahman. The group, which is banned in Germany and some West Asian countries, is said to be using the unsuspecting teenager for its own ends. Indeed, the judge hinted at outside influences when, underlining her brother`s pro-active role, he said: ``One wonders why it should have been her brother who articulated what the claimant was perfectly capable of saying herself.`` He also noted that Shabina had been happy to wear the school uniform for two years, and wondered why she had suddenly changed her mind.

The verdict, predictably denounced by the usual suspects in the Muslim community, has been widely welcomed as a much-needed precedent, which, hopefully, will discourage this sort of frivolous litigation in future. But the Shabina case raises issues that will not go away in the current climate of increasing cultural and religious militancy. The basic question is: to what extent can a secular state in a multi-racial and multicultural society be forced to accommodate the competing cultural and religious rights of individual citizens without disrupting social cohesion? And, as one commentator asked, can educational institutions be allowed to become religious battlegrounds in the name of promoting multiculturalism?

Increasingly, what is happening on the pretext of claiming such ``rights`` is an abuse of multiculturalism, which, far from contributing to diversity, encourages separateness and plays into the hands of racist groups. Already, the Shabina Begum case has been seized by the tabloid press to fuel anti-Muslim prejudice amid warnings that Britain is in danger of being ``swamped`` by burqa-clad women and bearded men in quaint dresses.

The fear of a right-wing backlash apart, there is a secular case for the state to start resisting patently sectarian demands, dressed up as religious or cultural rights. There is a growing view that the time has come to draw a line beyond which the state should not bend even if it means losing a few votes. ``If a line is not drawn, the next demand may be for permission to wear a burka, or to be excluded from lessons taught by men... . This could be followed by the desire to be absent from lessons five times a day to pray,`` says Terry Sanderson of Britain`s National Secular Society.

A case such as Shabina Begum`s is particularly disturbing, considering its long-term implications for her future. Here is a girl who has been denied her right to education by her own people who would rather that she remains uneducated than wear a school uniform happily worn by hundreds of other Muslim girls. In a country, where parents are sent to jail for the anti-social behaviour of their children, Shabina Begum`s is a perfect case for the authorities to ``discipline`` her guardians for depriving her of her legitimate right to education. And, for once, nobody is likely to object to the Government playing the ``nanny.``

Oh, OK, let me see, is this what the author and some of the interactors are trying to say? That . . . Muslim women have to preferably wear a Hijab/burqaa because Muslim men cannot be trusted to behave decently? Next logical step, therefore, is probably to jail Muslim women. Oh wait, that`s already been done, it is part of the Great Arabian Kulture. Been there.

The author makes one BIG error in his summing up. That the Caliph provides political power while the Imam provides religious direction. In reality, in this day and age, the Caliph is probably not relevant anymore, having been swallowed up by the Imam at many places.

The other mistake he makes is when he presumes that ````the debate on hijab in the Western world will continue```` . . . truth is that the main relevant people in this debate, the Muslim women themselves, are not part of this debate. Let us try to rectify that first before laying all the blame on the doors of Western Xenophobia.

Look within first, another great advice from The Book, if you will recall?