This question is asked for sever
reasons, amongst them are the differing claims of Muslim women that is a
choice, and a requirement. If it is required why would some make the claim.
This must be examined.
Womens’ magazine Cosmopolitan decided it was
important to ask this question on July 4, 2016:
While Islam as a religion
often comes under heavy scrutiny for its oppression of women, given many wear a
hijab around their face or a burqa to cover their full body, isn't it
worth hearing how the women themselves feel?
We think so, which is why this
Reddit thread, which invites women who do wear a
traditional garments to cover themselves up either fully or partially in public,
was so interesting to read. How does it feel to wear it? Is it a choice or is there pressure from within their family or their
community? Do they feel sidelined in public because of their burqa?
Sadly, this article talks about
how a woman feels, addresses the head scarf (hijab) only as a family tradition,
but never explores if it is required by Islam. It is as if the brief article asks
the question fairly from women who like and hate the hijab. In this it appears
unbiased, unless you ask why they addressed the question about pressure from a
family versus a religious requirement. The article in truth never addresses who
or what places the requirement on the family. Is it not Islam that places this
requirement or choice on a family? What does Islam say about the Hijab? Is it a
choice?
The Quran states in 33:59 that
Muslim men must tell their wives and daughters to cover-up for their own safety.
Below is the verse. The reasoning for covering pretty much mean if you do not
obey a severe punishment follows.
O Prophet,
tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down
over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they
will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
This is not clearly stating to cover the hair. But notice
the reasoning behind it. If they are not covered, they will be abused. This a
reference to sexual abuse. Who would do the abusing? Considering this passage
was given inside an Islamic community, it would be Muslim men doing the abuse.
This included daughters. So little girls also had to be cautious of men seeking
to sexually abuse them AND WERE TOLD TO COVER THEMSELVES TO KEEP FROM BEING
MOLESTED.
The Quran also says in 24:31:
And tell the
believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts
and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof
and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose
their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands'
fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers'
sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess,
or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet
aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to
make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in
repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.
Some say this stomping was to show cleavage that
their garments did not cover, but the shawl/ head gear draped over them to
provide extra protection. Some say that it is indeed a covering over the hair
because ‘adornment’ is a direct reference to the hair. A slight reference is
made to women stomping so they could show someone their pretty hair, by causing
their cover to slip. This has evolved to a tight wrap of the hair not allowing
any of it to appear in public. Does this seem optional? Is there a choice
given? Remember the statement the above citation states the purpose is to
protect the women and daughters from sexual attacks.
In the Islamic countries like Pakistan the head covering of a hijab can also be a
chador. One official in the Haripur district of Pakistan in September of 2019,
made it mandatory for all school age girls to wear a head covering and gown to
dress "in order to protect them from any unethical incident," and
“necessary to protect girl students from a growing number of complaints of
eve-teasing and harassment."
Here they are saying that school girls’
(ages 5 to 18) hair is tempting men to sexually molest girls, so it is their
fault if this happens, IF THEY ARE NOT COVERED. Of course, if they are, their
word only counts as half a man in a court of law so they can never bring
charges against their molester.
The question of whether the hijab is
mandatory has been a central theme wherever Islam wanders today. On August 7,
2019, Al-Qaeda's Al-Sahab media
wing released a video of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri titled "The Battle of the Hijab.” The
Middle East Media Research Institute caught this, translated it and released a
summary of it to the public within a week. According to this lover of shariah,
western countries are doing everything they can to destroy Islamic women’s
modesty and morals. This is how Islamic women are warned against Western
cultural values. It is deemed as an attack on their modesty.
France has had a law forbidding the displaying of
religion for a hundred years. It is called, Laïcité (Lah-Cee-Tay). They have been fighting to keep
French culture which a hijrah is working to dismiss. France passed a law in
2010
to ban the face veil as part of keeping French culture and Laïcité. Granted
this is not about the hijab, but this is a more restrictive requirement placed
on Islamic women by stricter observance of Islam seen in many Islamic countries.
This law passed
the French Senate with 46 votes and had already passed the upper house of the
parliament in July of that year. Justice Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie stated, “the full veil dissolves a person's
identity in that of a community. It calls into question the French model of
integration, founded on the acceptance of our society's values. Living with
one's face uncovered was a question of dignity and equality."
In the USA the Democratic Party took it upon themselves to lift a 181 year old
law forbidding hats in the House of Representatives so that Ilhan Omar would not have to remove her hijab in order to
serve in her role as a representative of Minnesota. While a hijab is not a hat
it is a head covering. She is one of two Muslim women elected. Rep. Rashida Tlaib does not wear a hijab, so they simply could
have enforced the rule showing that not all Muslims follow this rule. Rep.
Ilhan Omar has made bold statements about her hijab and
her reasons for wearing it. In March 0f 2019, she told Vogue magazine, that
wearing her hijab allows her to be a ‘walking
billboard’ not only for her faith but also for representing something different
from the norm. ‘To me, the hijab means power, liberation, beauty, and
resistance.’
This is the same rule that several
Democrats violated, by wearing hoodies on March 28th, 2012, when
trying to show they were standing with Trayvon Martin who was killed in
Florida.
In 2007, Quebec Canada’s Bouchard-Taylor
Com-mission created recommendations, which became policies
for the province. Amongst them was:
Judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers, prison guards
and the president and vice-president of the National Assembly be prohibited
from wearing religious signs.
This recommendation was for government
employees alone. It in effect banned the Christians from wearing of a cross,
the Sikhs
from wearing a turban, Jew from wearing yarmulkes, or
Muslim women from wearing a hijab to work in a government post. There is no religious
prejudice involved as it does not address any one religion.
Tarek Fatah, a Canadian Muslim “reformist” sees the hijab a
little differently than many do today. He wrote of it:
The fact is that while
the Sikh turban, Jewish yarmulkes and the Catholic crucifix are definitely
religious symbols, the hijab is not. Rather it is a political symbol that until
the late 1970s was unheard of in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Somalia and Nigeria. It was the uniform of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world.
Fatah also made mention
of Ferid Chikhi who lives in Qubec and
agrees with him that the hijab is a political symbol more than a religious one.
Chiki stated,
… the hijab, conceals in
itself the idea, the representation or the thought of a first generic sense
which is ignored by all and which conveys a double meaning: translated in
French or in other languages, this word wants say curtain, separation, hanging
... or even storefront and not dress or scarf that covers the head of
women. He simply referred to a separation of the space into two, the
foreign men to the Prophet's house and that of his women.
Then, history reminds
us, after the death of the Prophet, the male power extended the territory hijab
imposing it as a separation between the spaces of all men and all women. Finally,
at those generally Islamic and not Muslims, citing verses al-Ahzâb
(33 e sura), the khimar is a shawl and djilbab or thaûb are shawls,
worn by the women of the time in these same Arab Gulf coun-tries. They did
not have the function of covering as they would like to make us believe the
head, but the shoulders and the chest.
This
is the reason why some ambiguity exists as to whether a hijab is
required or not. The Quran refers to covering. It refers to shawls and more.
But the specific item of a hijab is not mentioned. It is why Iran has a chador
and not a hijab.
Whether required a woman
is often left without a choice to wear the hijab. Youness Moussaid, left little doubt of
this December 6, 2019 in Bismark, North
Dakota, when school officials
reported the abuse he had done to his step-daughter. His step-daughter was
refusing to wear the hijab and dresses when at school. She snuck in a change of
clothing.
Moussaid in response struck the teenage girl with a
broom stick, causing bruising on the top of her right hand and on the front of
her thighs. He grabbed her hair and struck her head against the wall, causing a
quarter-sized bump.
Moussaid admitted to
this crime. Perhaps he did not see it as a crime, or did not understand females
are considered equals under the law.
The girl now has an
order of protection from her step-father. He faces 5 years if convicted.
Moussaid felt justified by the Islamic social norm he believed exists to demand
his daughter wear a hijab.
Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.
