Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, May 12, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document The meaning of freedom

by Economist.com

Thanks to Ivan Bailey for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149827

In every corner of the Muslim world, female attire is stirring strong emotions

The meaning of freedom

IS THIS all because of me? At once bemused and indignant, the potential first lady of Turkey demands that her compatriots stop judging her, and her spouse, on the basis of her appearance. "My scarf covers my head, not my brain," insists Hayrunisa Gul, whose husband Abdullah is foreign minister and aspires to be president.

Yet if there is one big reason why the candidacy of Mr Gul—whose elevation by parliament has been vetoed by a court, triggering a political crisis and an early election—sparks strong emotions, it is the silk fabric that frames Mrs Gul's expressive features. "I am a modern woman, I can hold my own with foreign leaders and their spouses," Mrs Gul (pictured above with Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands) told your correspondent this week. Nor does the tall, loquacious mother of three—a more lively figure than any of Turkey's recent presidential spouses—favour a draconian regime of the Taliban kind. "I used to drive Abdullah to work and the children to school," she says. "So I couldn't imagine living in a country where women cannot drive."

But the challenge which Mrs Gul's apparel poses for Turkey's strict secularism is more than imaginary. Until now, neither she nor the wife of any other top politician in the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party has been welcome in the chamber of parliament, the presidential palace or any military premises—because as devout Muslim ladies, they cover their heads. The idea of a scarved mistress of the presidential residence, guarded by soldiers trained to uphold secularism, delights some Turks and enrages others.

In almost every other part of the Muslim world, controversy over female headgear is growing. Turkey and Tunisia are at one end of the Muslim spectrum; both ban female civil servants, as well as students in state schools, from covering their hair. One Turkish judge was nearly assassinated after decreeing that teachers could not wear scarves even on their way to work. But in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the rules go the other way. No woman may appear in public with more than face and hands exposed.

Not even that was allowed in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, which mandated the burqa, the most extreme form of female covering. In today's Iraq, meanwhile, a big fissure in the Sunni resistance movement pits al-Qaeda-minded thugs who want women to wear gloves and the niqab (which differs from the burqa only in having slits for the eyes) and milder sorts who allow the simpler hijab, which covers hair and neck.

A clash over female attire is intensifying in neighbouring countries too. Just now, police in Iran are busy with their annual spring campaign against "bad hijab", prowling parks and stopping traffic to enforce dress codes. This year's drive is the strictest for a decade. Thousands of women have received warnings; police cars have been parked outside shopping malls, scrutinising every customer; vehicles with improperly clad ladies at the wheel have been impounded. The crackdown, which also targets men in short sleeves or with extravagantly gelled hair, marks a reversal in a relative relaxation of dress codes which had occurred under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime. The manteau, or coat, which women are supposed to wear to hide the shape of their bodies has been getting shorter, as have the trousers underneath; and some women have sported jeans and lipstick under chadors covering their upper body.

Whether the current campaign will have any enduring effect on the determination of Iranian women (and fashion designers) to interpret the rules creatively remains to be seen. But there are many Muslim countries where rows over headgear have already taken a toll in blood.

In Pakistan last year, an assassin shot dead a provincial government minister, judging her gauzy head covering not Islamic enough. In January a clash between Tunisian police and Islamist rebels left 12 dead. The rebels said they were "defending their veiled sisters against oppression", a reference to the fact that Tunisia's president dismisses the hijab as an alien form of "sectarian dress" and has sent police to toy shops to seize dolls with scarves.

Among most Muslims, who live between such extremes, two broad trends have emerged. One is a general movement towards more overt signs of piety, including "Islamic" attire. Within the past two decades, modern forms of head covering have become standard fashion in countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Sudan and Yemen, replacing both traditional country scarves and the exposed coifs that were inoffensive to an earlier generation of city dwellers.

On the streets of Cairo, the Egyptian capital, headscarved women form a very visible majority. In the Egyptian countryside, where women used to work the fields uncovered, veils are now universal. Even gloves are not uncommon. Wearing the hijab is now so popular that it has ceased to be a statement, says Hania Sholkamy, an Egyptian anthropologist. "In fact, it is getting hard to shop for what used to be ordinary clothes," she says. "Islamic dress is cheaper and more available."

The other trend is an undercurrent of rebellion against sartorial rules of any kind. Trendy women in Saudi Arabia have taken to sporting slimmer-fitting abayas, while embellishing the traditionally black over-garment with bold strips of colour. The fact that Iranian authorities must still, 27 years after the Islamic revolution, forcibly impose dress codes suggests a persistent urge to challenge them. In cities as far apart as Damascus, the Syrian capital, and Casablanca, Morocco's commercial capital, some women accompany perfunctory head-coverings with heavy make-up, while others compete with the skimpy attire that is often seen in Arabic pop videos.

Yet the stern secularism of Turkey and Tunisia also meets resistance. Veiling, which a decade ago was confined largely to the tradition-bound poor, has made a middle-class comeback in both countries. In subtle defiance of a ban on scarves for official identity photos, some Turkish women erase their hair digitally and replace it with a wig-like substitute.

In less rigid Egypt, pious women have filed lawsuits against anti-veil rules imposed, for example, by state-run television networks. One judge overruled the ban applied by a private university against the face-concealing niqab, on the grounds that personal freedom counts more than the university's right to ascertain the identity of its students. When Egypt's culture minister casually told an interviewer that he personally considered veiling a backward practice, the ensuing public outcry forced him to recant. When its minister for religious affairs, who pays the wages of mosque preachers, stripped niqab-wearing employees of the right to preach, provincial bureaucrats declined to obey.

Different views on female apparel reflect differing readings of Islam's holy texts. One passage in the Koran, cited in support of the hijab, reads as follows: "Enjoin believing women to turn their eyes away from temptation and to preserve their chastity; not to display their adornments (except such as are normally revealed); to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to display their finery..."

A minority of Muslims would argue that female modesty does not necessarily imply covering one's head. Another school cites oral traditions from the early Muslim community to insist that an ordinary hijab is not sufficient covering.

Egypt's grand mufti, under pressure to clarify the issue, obliged recently with two rulings. One stated that modest dress, including hair covering, is an Islamic duty. The other fatwa declared full-face veiling to be permitted—but not obligatory. That may satisfy some people, but it will not please either those zealots who think establishment clerics are too soft—or those devout believers who think God does not mind very much about their hairstyle.

Comments 1 - 17 of 17 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #39856 by CJ on May 12, 2007 at 5:40 am

 avatar"Lets kill people who dress wrong" The Islamic meme strikes again!

Related and interesting article on the BBC about ladies swimming in Saudia Arabia. Making a public splash in Saudi



Other Comments by CJ

2. Comment #39862 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 6:01 am

 avatarYet again, religious beliefs are sowing division.

Other Comments by Logicel

3. Comment #39883 by Rtambree on May 12, 2007 at 7:16 am

Even the MCC at Lords Cricket Ground eventually allowed women to be members.

It didn't happen overnight, but it will happen.

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #40002 by Machoduck on May 12, 2007 at 3:55 pm

 avatarThe burqa and niquab are quite inhuman, as they totally unporsonalizes the wearer...

For the sake of all the other kinds of headwear, I think the women could deal with that as they liked. If you find it uncorfortable, ugly depressing and so on, don't wear it. If you want to wear it to show cultural and religious belonging, then wear it. I don't care what people wear on their heads as long as it is an act of free will and it doesn't hurt anybody...

Other Comments by Machoduck

5. Comment #40100 by WeeWullie on May 13, 2007 at 5:29 am

 avatarResponse to Rtambree.

What is the connection between female membership of the MCC and religious dress-codes?

Are you equating the overthrow of oppressive religious dictates with the acceptance of women into Western male social clubs?

Are you trivialising the travails of down-trodden women in the Islamic world?

Are you equating Western males with the hyper-intolerant mullahs of Islam?

Etc etc.

Other Comments by WeeWullie

6. Comment #40104 by pewkatchoo on May 13, 2007 at 5:48 am

 avatar/religious_nutter_on/ But religion is the basis of all morality! /religious_nutter_off/

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

7. Comment #40106 by Russell Blackford on May 13, 2007 at 5:57 am

As always you have to love those warm, cuddly traditional beliefs and values - such as the value of attempting to suppress women's sexuality.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

8. Comment #40109 by arildno on May 13, 2007 at 6:16 am

The hijab could have been acceptable if it were not for the underlying ideology for wearing it.

In blunt terms, a woman has a duty not to entice a man to get a hard-on by looking at her, because he then has the right to put it into the enticing object. And thus the woman would be damaged goods for her husband and/or clan.

As long as this idiotic, barbarous ideology is the underlying thinking of the majority of Muslims, they do not have sufficient moral maturity to decide over how they should be clad at all.
Hence, there is nothing wrong in forbidding them from wearing clothings like the hijab.

Other Comments by arildno

9. Comment #40115 by Robert on May 13, 2007 at 7:13 am

 avatarThere's a case for dress codes at school and in the workplace. But I don't see why women shouldn't be allowed to waar modest headscarves if they want to. Turkey is wrong on this one - as is France. Imposing a dress code that forbides any kind of religious clothing at all is almost as authoritarian as dictating that women should cover themseleves up.

If a Muslim woman feels that pressures on women to wear sexy clothing are more oppresive than traditional dress she may have a point. The question is whether it is her choice rather than one imposed by the mullahs.

Other Comments by Robert

10. Comment #40116 by arildno on May 13, 2007 at 7:17 am

Dress codes in work-places are made in order to maximize the profit at that place, for example by not scaring away the customers.
That may be a perfectly acceptable reason, in contrast the the sex-obsessive reason behind the veiling of women in Islam.
So your analogy fails.

Other Comments by arildno

11. Comment #40122 by Mikado on May 13, 2007 at 7:57 am

Maybe the right way to deal with this is to approve it because it makes the Muslim women look like early Christian nuns.

Other Comments by Mikado

12. Comment #40147 by MAS2007 on May 13, 2007 at 10:57 am

 avatarWhere is the male Islame ic equivalent?

More to the point is one should not be stoned for liking another human. If you must be barbaric, please stay out of society.

Other Comments by MAS2007

13. Comment #40151 by arildno on May 13, 2007 at 11:05 am

There is a male equivalent, sort of:
It is that apron they wear in order to hide a penile bulge.

Other Comments by arildno

14. Comment #40161 by Rtambree on May 13, 2007 at 12:55 pm

There's some residual double-standards for gender & dress in the west, the last vestiges of our common Abrahamic ancestry...

1. It is acceptable for men to be barechested in public, but not women.

2. Nudity is much more heavily censored in western films than violence. Blow her to bits, behead her, impale her, but for God's sake, don't remove her top.

3. The most common marriage ceremony in western countries is the father of the bride "handing over" the bride to the groom. Sure, it's symbolic, but Muslims would approve. Also, the white of the wedding dress represents virginity - crucially important for women, but not at all important for men (origins due to concealed ovulation).

4. Catholic Nuns wear a habit. So do Amish and some puritanical Christian sects. It's not just Muslims.

5. Promiscuity in women is still largely looked down upon by westerners. We have no such qualms with the male equivalent. There is no derogrative term for a male slut - it's the complimentary "stud".

We're ahead of the Muslims, but we've got a little bit to go too.

Other Comments by Rtambree

15. Comment #40229 by denoir on May 14, 2007 at 12:10 am

 avatar
2. Nudity is much more heavily censored in western films than violence. Blow her to bits, behead her, impale her, but for God's sake, don't remove her top.


That's actually a rather odd American thing and not really representative for the rest of the west. I suppose it has to do with America's puritan heritage and traditions.

I've often been amazed at the absurdity of for example CSI where they show a mutilated tortured female body but place meticulous care on covering up breasts and genitalia.

In Europe it's the opposite - sex is ok on screen while violence is not.

4. Catholic Nuns wear a habit. So do Amish and some puritanical Christian sects. It's not just Muslims.


Yeah, but that's self-imposed. It's different when the state forces you to do it.

Other Comments by denoir

16. Comment #40230 by Bonzai on May 14, 2007 at 12:21 am

>>1. It is acceptable for men to be barechested in public, but not women.<<

In Canada it is legal for both men and women to walk around topless, so it is acceptible, at least in the eyes of the law.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #40235 by Corylus on May 14, 2007 at 1:03 am

 avatarI'm really tempted to draw a little speech/thought bubble between those two women in the picture, connected to both of them, saying the same thing.... "What the f@&K is she wearing on her head??"

Generally though, I would say the whole business of covering up to prevent lustful thoughts is ill-conceived. What the eye does not see the mind supplies: and inflates. After all, full-blown nudity can be totally unerotic.

Other Comments by Corylus
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: