Hijab as a Tool of Repression

Responding to the French government's plan to ban the hijab from French schools, many Muslims - including women - have been arguing that the hijab is a sign of religious faith and has nothing whatsoever to do with the oppression of women. But is that really true?

Diana West writes for Town Hall:

If the headscarf is a feature of Islam, and Islam has a history of repressing non-Muslims, then is the headscarf a symbol of religious repression? ... [A]t "Fatwa Corner" at www.islamonline.com, a fundamentalist Web site tracking every wrinkle of the hijab controversy ... a reader learns that the headscarf is not a symbol of Muslim faith, but rather "an ordinance from Allah to protect (girls') chastity." In other words, unlike yarmulkes and crucifixes, the hijab doesn't function as a sign of piety, as many assume. It is wrapped around a girl's head and upper torso to serve a purpose.

As one Web site scholar puts it, "If a girl is approaching puberty, there is the fear that her not wearing hijab may cause young men to be tempted by her, or her by them ... The parent or guardian has to make her wear hijab so as to prevent means that may lead to evil or immorality." ... Muslims regard it as a functional means of safeguarding young girls and women from the untrammeled sexual impulses of men. This belies a fairly unevolved set of manners and mores (not to mention an almost literal state of war between the sexes) that reflects the culturally entrenched repression and abuse of women in Islamic society. Little wonder that Turkey and Tunisia, two Islamic societies with a somewhat more modern bent, have long banned the hijab in public places.

Apparently, in the Arab world there is a greater emphasis on the social control of things that tempt people to lust and anger, rather than on people controlling things like their lust and anger despite the presence of temptation. Thus, the responsibility lies with others not to tempt you rather than with you not to react to possible temptations. That is what West seems to have in mind when she mentions "unevolved set of manners and mores" - but is it really unevolved? Should the responsibility always lie with individuals to control themselves, regardless of what is occurring around them?

That, I think, would be going too far. I think that any community has at least some responsibility to at least not make it difficult for people not to give in to at least some temptations. Western nations may not have a tradition of women wearing veils and burqas, but they also don't let people run around naked - there is a similar principle at work in both cases, but in the Muslim context more responsibility is placed on women.

At the same time, I would also argue that Muslim societies go much too far in the other direction - and I think that West has a good point that the hijab is indeed a cultural symbol of the desire to have women be responsible for ensuring that men don't experience any sexual temptation (or sexual thoughts at all, it seems). This is achieved through hiding as much of the female form and as many of the markers of femininity as possible. Similar standards aren't applied to men... and if that isn't a double-standard that qualifies as oppression of women, then what does?

Read More:

• Recent Books on Islam
• Islam
• Islamic Extremists