|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We must move beyond
the hijab
Fareena Alam
The Guardian
29 November 2005
It looked like Imperial College had lost its liberal bearings: a ban
on hijab at one of Britain's foremost universities would have set a
dangerous precedent (College
security ban on hijabs and hoodies, November 24). This
caused significant distress among British Muslims. But the agony
could have been avoided had the report been more accurate: the
college has only banned clothing that covers the face, preventing an
individual from being identified - something the hijab does not do.
An Imperial spokeswoman told me: "We are absolutely not banning
people who wear the hijab because the headscarf does not cover the
face. We welcome diversity at Imperial College and hijabs, turbans
and other items of clothing that represent this diversity are very
welcome."
If Muslim women's dress is going to make news on a regular basis,
then it's about time we got our terminology straight. Generally, the
term hijab refers to "modest dress", and this is interpreted
differently depending on cultural context and one's approach to the
sacred law. In Britain, the hijab usually refers to the headscarf,
which covers the hair and often falls down around the shoulders. The
niqab is a veil that is drawn across the face, usually leaving the
eyes visible. The jilbab has nothing do with covering the face or
hair. It is a long, loose gown that does not show the shape of the
body. In many traditional Muslim societies both men and women wear
jilbabs (or jalabiyyas when referring to men's clothing). The
Taliban "popularised" the burqa, a shuttlecock-like garment that
envelops the entire body including the face. The burqa is peculiar
to certain Muslim cultures and is certainly not a feature of British
Muslim life.
Having said that, Imperial's decision seems both ill-conceived and
badly timed. By referring to the London bombings to explain the need
for greater security, they fail to mention that none of the 7/7
attackers covered their face, hid behind a niqab or even a hood.
While the college's statement embraces diversity, it would have
served its own interests by acknowledging the current sensitivities
around Muslim religious dress. A consultation with campus Muslim
organisations would have made the announcement less susceptible to
the ensuing hyperbole and alarm.
For most, the choice of religious dress reflects a spiritual
commitment. Most Muslim women don't fixate about it; they just make
their decision and get on with it. Both the pundits and the pious
need to get beyond the superficialities of cloth. The hijab is one
way Muslim women choose to express their spirituality. It is neither
the sum total of their identity nor does it indicate a uniform
understanding of Islam. For some Muslim women, dress has become a
powerful political symbol and an emblem of resistance to a dominant
culture that objectifies women's bodies. Inadvertently, the hijab
lobby has fallen into the same trap.
No one is free from cultural baggage. Nobody is a value-free zone.
So many British women feel forced to look physically attractive.
Studies show that overweight and scruffy women aren't as successful
in their careers. Is that fair?
For most, the hijab is based on choice. Our liberal values are
surely flexible enough to take this in stride. You don't have to
love it to acknowledge someone else's freedom to wear it.
Fareena Alam is editor of Q-News,
the Muslim magazine |
|
|
|
|
