The Hijab: Why Some Wear it and Some Don't

In Malaysia, which is predominantly Muslim, some women wear the hijab, a head scarf that shows the face but covers the hair, ears and neck. And some do not. A new documentary, “Siapa Aku?” or “Who Am I?” by Norhayati Kaprawi, a young Muslim woman, explores the reasons why.

“I am passionate about women’s issues,” says Ms. Norhayati, who herself once wore the hijab but no longer does. Her first documentary, “Mencari Kartika” (“In Search of Kartika”), told the story of Kartika Shukarno, a young Malaysian Muslim woman sentenced by a religious court to six strokes of the cane and a fine for drinking beer in a hotel bar. A day before the caning was due to be carried out last April, the sentence was commuted to community service.

In her new documentary, Ms. Norhayati interviews Muslim women — young and old, urban and rural — in Malaysia, as well as religious scholars and celebrities in Kuala Lumpur and Indonesia about the hijab, also called the tudung.

The pressure to wear one is a dominant theme: “I think this conformity is the most dominating factor on why women in Malaysia wear a tudung,” Shamsul Amri Bahruddin, director of the Institute of Ethnic Studies at the National University of Malaysia, tells Ms. Norhhayati, adding that those who don’t can expect to hear from the lady next door every day, saying “you will go to hell or your hair will be burnt in hell.” Often, he adds, the women don’t understand the Quranic verses surrounding the reason for the hijab.

Indeed, at times it seems wearing it has little to do with religion. Nik Aziz Nik Hassan, former head of the Dakwa (missionary) department at National University of Malaysia, tells Ms. Norhayati, “In the late 1960s, Nik Mohamad Salleh, the son of a Kelantanese mufti (Islamic scholar)… was really against the imposition of tudung on Malay women. However he was not against the wearing of tudung. It is up to women’s own taste and style…. He opposed the claim that women who do not wear tudung are not faithful Muslims and are un-Islamic.”

“This documentary is not aimed at discouraging Muslim women from wearing the hijab,” says Ms. Norhayati, who adds, “This issue is so big…the hijab issue has been there for years.”

The 50-minute film, which is in the local Malay language with English subtitles, presents scenes of Muslim women wearing the hijab at weddings and scenes of Muslim women dancing without the hijab, with their hair showing. There’s also one scene of Muslim men wearing the hijab — as a sales gimmick. They are hijab sellers on Kuala Lumpur’s famous Masjid Jamek street.

“I want to see the response, especially from the Muslim community,” says Ms. Norhayati. She talked to Scene about wearing the hijab and why she turned the issue into a film.

Q. Why did you do this documentary?

A. I decided to do this story because I am inspired by this trend: women taking off their hijab…. People will have an idea of what is actually going on in a Muslim woman’s life. They just see women wearing tudung and that’s it. But what happened? Why do they wear it? What are the challenges they face?

I know a lot of women wear it out of pressure. Especially in schools, they say it is compulsory.  The amount of pressure and harrassment the women go through …these voices, their voices are never highlighted. The women themselves are too afraid to talk about it in public.

The documentary also gives the history of the hijab phenomenon in Malaysia. When did the hijab become popular in Malaysia? Who popularized it? What organization popularized it? And how much of it is actually about religion?

Q.  Does Islam say it is compulsory to wear the hijab?

A. Opinions differ. Most mainstream ulemas (Muslim scholars) generally will say it iswajib (compulsory). I am highlighting [in the documentary that] there are actually differences of opinion, which I do believe  the mainstream media, especially the Malay print and TV, will never highlight. The difference [in opinion] is between the ulemas. In the 1950s, there was an ulema from the state of Kelantan, Nik Mohamad Salleh, who studied in Mecca. He was against the imposition of tudung on Muslim women…. Now the mainstream ulemas view that sort of opinion as  un-Islamic.

Q. You did not interview any ulemas in Malaysia for this documentary. Why?

A.  If anybody can tell me, “You can interview this ulema,” I will go.  I have asked around.

Where are the progressive ulemas?  That is why for this documentary I had to go to Jakarta.  Of course, there are many conservatives in Indonesia as well. But at least there are moderate voices as well as well as progressive voices.  Whereas in Malaysia, where are the progressive voices?

Q. You don’t wear the hijab. Why?

A. I used to wear the hijab. I wore it when I was 14 and I took it off in my 30s. I wore it because at that time…from what I read, I said, this is what a Muslim girl or woman should do, [it was the] right thing to do…. But as the years went by, I felt something was not right, especially when I was 17 years old.  I was already wearing tudung but a friend of mine did not wear the tudung. Almost every day boys [at a co-educational school] would put notes in her table insinuating she will go to hell for exposing her hair. She felt so pressured finally she wore [one]. It left me thinking: How come boys can do whatever they like, can wear whatever they like, yet they feel this higher ground, this higher moral authority to pressure girls?

Q.  How did your family react to that?

A. They did not comment.  I don’t know if they said anything behind my back. One of my sisters wore the hijab when she was working in the civil service. She was pressured to wear it. Once home, she took it off.

Q. What conclusions can you draw from the various interviews?

A. From this documentary, one of the main things that is quite obvious is that it seems the ulemas, their accomplishment is forcing women to wear hijab through whatever ways, either through mental pressure or emotional pressure. From my interviews they have not managed to educate the Muslim women about why they should cover up. [The women] don’t even know the verse in the Koran which says you must cover up. [The ulemas] don’t emphasize education…. You wear or you go to hell. It’s like a command.

source: WSJ 

A history of the veil by Newsweek

Here is an article by Newsweek on the veil, will provide my own commentary on it soon.

Seeing Clearly

Aside from the flag, no piece of cloth in history has been imbued with as much power to liberate and oppress, rally and divide as the veil. Throughout the Muslim world, women have donned the veil as a form of modesty, piousness and defiance, and thrown it off to express freedom, strength and protest. Muslim governments have legislated head covering as a sign of religiosity and banned it as an obstacle to secularism. For liberal Western societies, the debate over the higab --a scarf that covers the head but not the face--crystallizes a key modern dilemma: how to reconcile the commitment to protecting freedom of expression with the ideal of integration and social cohesion?

As traditional as it seems, the veil has gone through perhaps more radical changes in use than any other item of apparel. It has been embraced, banned, enforced and made optional, often in the same country within a matter of years. Indeed, throughout history its meaning has been shaped by the political and social forces at work. The only unchanging characteristic of the veil is that it serves as a universal sign of Islamic heritage--and that women resent being told what to do with it, either way. "When women are pressured to veil, they protest, and when they are forced to unveil, they protest," says Fadwa el-Guindi, an anthropology professor at the University of Qatar. "The veil becomes the symbol of liberation par excellence."

The veil did not always have religious connotations. Pre-Islam, it was worn by upper-class Arab women in the Byzantine and Persian empires, who covered their hair as a symbol of status. More and more elite women began adopting the veil in the seventh century as a way to distinguish themselves from the lower classes. As the Islamic empire spread, the value of modesty--stipulated in the Qur'an for men as well as women--merged with the social customs of the upper class, creating a correlation between the veil and Islamic faith. While the Qur'an does not mandate veiling for women, it does encourage the Prophet Muhammad's wives to cover their heads to separate themselves from the rest of the religious community. "When Islam became imperial, a lot of cultural baggage infiltrated Islamic society," says Haifaa Jawad, a senior lecturer in Middle Eastern studies at the University of Birmingham in England.

Continue reading the article.

Being yourself in a marriage

I recently read an article by Kristin Armstrong, former wife of Lance Armstrong. The article is all about her marriage to Lance and how along the way she lost herself. She writes how she was before she met her husband, working for a start up and living the independent life, doing those things that she wanted and living her life fully. However after she married Lance Armstrong those things slowly went away and she threw herself into being Lance's wife, doing those things that helped her husband in turn slowly giving up and forgetting about those things that were important to her. She writes that

"The problem is that when a young woman announces her engagement, everyone is quick to roll out the matrimonial red carpet by throwing showers and obsessing over wedding day plans. This helps a bride prepare for the reality of marriage about as much as nine months of baby showers and nursery decorating prepare a gestating woman for the awesome task of raising a child: not at all."

Kristin Armstrong explains that marriage "has the potential to erode the very fiber of your identity" as the wife slowly becomes the person who cares for everything of the husband and has to be willing to make more sacrifices. She fell into the often common problem of marriage for women and one that is often touted to show how marriage is a bad thing for women. I grew up in a traditional family with a stay at home mom and a working father, however I was never taught to be a wife that was to bend to my husband's lifestyle after marriage. I was taught to do those things that I want to do and is a reflection of my potential. As for getting married I did and chose a partner that would give me space to do what I want and also had similar ambitions and outlook in life. That is not to say that my husband is a mirror image of me, we have our differences but in the end we respect each other and encourage each other to do that which makes us happy. I did not have to give up doing those things that make me me. Similarly I don't ever tell my husband to give up a dream he has because of me I will be there to encourage and support him. This does not mean that we will lead two separate paths, there is always some give and take so that we can be together but never at the expense of each others happiness. Kirstin writes that if she were to do it over again, she would not have completely given up those things that make her and define her. As women we do not have to sacrifice our identity for our husband to make a marriage work, by doing that we only make it worse for ourself and also for our husband, as he thinks that we are doing it out of our own volition. In a marriage it's important to assert your own worth and identity and to let the other know when something bothers you or when you are not happy. A marriage really thrives well with good communication, and expressing feelings. A healthy marriage should be equal and loving for both individual, not one sided.

Teaching women how to dress in Baghdad

I recently came across an article in the NY Times, "Mannequins Wear a Message for Iraq's Women" about a display put in a shopping area in Baghdad that was meant to teach women how to dress themselves.

On a raised stage between two shops, four mannequins in Western dress, their blond hair peeking out under colored scarves, stood amid crepe-paper flames. To one side was a banner featuring lust-crazed male ghouls; behind the mannequins, images of eternal suffering.

And at the foot of the stage was a scripture from the mosque.

“Whoever fills his eyes with the forbidden, on judgment day God will fill them with fire.”

The display is meant to show women how to properly dress themselves. Those that do not dress to a certain standard i.e. the abaya, a black cloak that covers the body, which the clerics there believe is what is Islamically sanctioned, then they are committing a sin. It is also meant to frighten women into dressing in a specific manner, to protect herself from men's lustful looks and to protect her from hellfire, the punishment for showing her body. What's interesting about the display is that all the mannequins are dressed in a very conservative manner, long dress, arms covered as well as hair but it is not the abaya. In other Muslim countries this form of dress would be considered acceptable by religious leaders. However in this Shi'a area of Baghdad, the abaya is the proper Islamic dress. The approach of teaching women how to dress as well as the comments made by men and women in the interviews presents an all too common sentiment about women's dress in the Muslim world. Women are taught repeatedly that they must dress a certain way, cover your head, cover your face, cover your body. The reasons given for it are two: one, it is mandated by the religion; and two it is a protection against men looking at them lustful, men can't help themselves if women dress in a way that reveals her body. What is scary is how myopic Muslims are when reading their own texts and religious mandates. What is often not discussed is that the Qur'an mandates that believing men and women dress modestly, guard their privates, and lower their gazes. It is compulsory for women and men, not just women. However the emphasis on the men to lower their gaze and to not harass women is never made or even taught in society. Why is there no display that shows how men will be punished in the hellfire for looking at women and committing other sins? This partial and near sighted view of modesty in the religion is sad and causes more problems. This emphasis on women to cover up even more by wearing the abaya so that men will not lust after them or harass them only gives men the right to do that to women who are not dressed in this manner, even if she is dressed modestly. This harassment is then forgiven because the woman was asking for it, she should know better and cover up more. No wonder, non Muslims see Muslim men as controlling and misogynistic. The equity and fairness that is prescribed for both gender is never carried out, it's always the woman's fault.

Four mannequins in Western dress in the Kadhimiya neighborhood. Text accompanying the display, put on by a mosque, had an uncompromising message: Men who look at women in such dress become voracious monsters; women who wear it burn through eternity.

Hypocrisy in the Muslim world

I hate hypocrisy and I hate double standards, and most people are afraid to point these out when they see due to fear of retaliation, that is why I was glad that someone had the boldness to call it out. Veena Malik, a Pakistani star spoke out against the double standard against women that exists in Pakistan. A cleric on a talk show shamed her for appearing on the Indian show, Big Boss and wearing short dresses. For the cleric, Ms. Malik misrepresented Pakistan and Islam, and should be shamed for her actions. Ms. Malik on a talk show defended herself and lashed out against the comments made by the cleric, saying that she does not represent those things, and that the clerics are always ready to condemn the behavior of women and not the true injustices committed against them. While the cleric might have had a right to express his viewpoint about what he considers immoral, the need to highlight this issue when there are more pertinent issues in the country shows the double standard of the society. Men in the entertainment industry are never ridiculed or slut shamed, while women quickly become the targets. Ms. Malik points out that women are considered soft targets because they never speak back since they don't want to not bring more attention to themselves in this regard. Also in Muslim societies women become the carrier of honor, and their every action is scrutinized, a misstep is considered a point of dishonor. The good things that a woman dose is discounted and she is thrown under the bus for a misstep or for speaking her mind. The weapon of shame and discrediting woman are powerful tools used to silence dissent, a way to keep women subservient. Ms. Malik and others like her (e.g. Mukhtar Mai) who speak out instead of taking the abuse or retreating in the face of shame are needed to give women more courage to speak out and also to show the men that we are not to be taken lightly. Those that purport to speak out against immorality and injustice should do so against everyone who commits them, not just women. By targeting their women, the Pakistani men show their real cowardice. Why not go after those men that rape and throw acid on the faces of women, maybe they are afraid.