Permalink

The West And The Veil: Think Again


By G. Willow Wilson
Posted on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:18:46 AM EST
Tags: islam, veil, women, hijab, feminism (all tags)

 

 

Sometimes a picture is not worth a thousand words; sometimes a thousand words are necessary to explain a picture. This one, which ran in the January 28 edition of the New York Times, needs at least that many, and what I will say will merely scratch the surface. 

I was alerted to this picture by my wonderful mother, who, like many non-Muslim friends and family who have spent any  length of time with me in the Middle East, now delights in opening up a magazine or newspaper and being able to read between the lines of reportage dealing with the Muslim world. I get a constant trickle of links to articles or pictures like this one, from colleagues and friends turned citizen journalists, with surprisingly astute commentary on aspects of a certain situation or idea that the writer of the article has missed. It gives me a boost of optimism; if ordinary people are this excited to understand what previously confused or frightened them, there's still hope left. A lot of hope.

What my mother understood, looking at this picture, was the following: while a girl in a headscarf looking at a display of lingerie is meant to appear as a contradiction (the accompanying article suggests that the increase in veiling in Egypt is a social and religiously cosmetic phenomenon), it isn't. Why? Because the hijab is not interchangeable with a nun's habit. It is not a western symbol, and cannot and must not be interpreted through a western social lens.

Books and pictures tell us as much about the people who read or look at them as they do about the intent of the author or the reality of the situation he or she describes. When non-Muslims look at this picture and cry "Contradiction! See, she's only pretending to be pious" I look and them and see a worldview irretrievably tangled in the idea that religion and sexuality are incompatible. They simply don't have the tools to understand that the hijab is, for Muslim women, a symbol that separates public and private life; that at home a veiled woman takes her headscarf off, and has no qualms donning a little lingerie with her husband. Hijab is not a rejection of sexuality. Of the three major monotheistic traditons, Islam places by far the fewest restrictions on the intimate life of a married couple; making love incurrs God's blessing regardless of whether or not the intent is to conceive children. Many Islamic scholars, including Al Ghazali, have pointed out that no children were conceived in the Garden of Eden; so during the brief time when humankind was in a state of perfect innocence, the purpose of sex was simply pleasure. Between a married couple, pleasure is perfectly licit. If you are a man and you see a woman in a headscarf, it doesn't mean that she rejects sex. It means she rejects sex with you. 

This photo was taken in downtown Cairo, on a street that runs between Tahrir Square and Talaat Harb Square. That particular street is lined with women's clothing stores that display both all-encompassing robes and lingerie in the same window. They are not a contradiction. They are arranged that way on purpose. Non-Muslims routinely fail to realize that there is a private world of Islam that they do not see, and will in all likelihood never see, because for most modern Muslims 'private' still means private. But if I were walking down Shera' Talaat Harb with a camera and came across this scene, I would like to think that rather than interpreting it according to my own agenda, I would keep an open mind, and wonder whether--just perhaps--this was a clue that there were things I still had to learn.

Other Articles By G. Willow Wilson (bio):
  • Can Sufism Resist Wahhabism (link)
  • How Can One Choose To Be a Martyr? (link)
  • The Lost Jihad: Love in Islam (link)
< Philly Muslim Hip Hop | Adda-fication: A New South Asian Group Blog >

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Tags: islam, veil, women, hijab, feminism (all tags)
Display: Sort:

The West And The Veil: Think Again | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Post A Comment
Love the photo(none / 0) (#1)
by Samaha on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:43:51 AM EST

Yes, the western world tends to be rather ignorant to the sexual liberties that Muslims are granted compared to other monotheistic faiths.  Of course with the soaring birth rates in the region (and even here in the states) it is hard for some to understand that yes, family planning is fine with Islam.

However, so are we as Muslims.  How many books are out there about proper Islamic sexual relations?  Have you ever read any of them?  I don't think I've laughed so hard in my life and all books by men.  Don't ask me why, but my mother gave a book to my Sister and her new husband, which had a significan section on sexual relations and that particular book also explained to my newly Muslim brother in law how it was okay for him to beat my sister.

Also, while Egypt may have this great liberty of lingerie shops and I'm sure that many Middle Eastern countries do, we have to remember that in stricter Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia where women are not to be in mixed company and where lingerie stores were staffed with men - lingerie shops posed problems.  While Saudi Arabia has now made a lingerie law in which only women can work within them (women in SA are restricted to where they work and how much they work), I had heard recently that lingerie parties have been outlawed (you know - like the tupperware parties, where they sell you tupperware, but with lingerie).

Now, I think that a larger problem that we have as Muslims and one of the reasons that non-Muslims don't know how liberal Islam is with sex - and a non-selfish liberal at that, is that we just don't have these discussions with non-Muslims.  My best friend is American, non-Muslim, but I was shocked to find out that my Muslim peers just don't have non-Muslim best friends.  If we don't have that, we don't have the intimacy needed to have these discussions.  Especially if we are worried about our piety being questioned.



[ Reply to This ]
The incomprable Sheikh Nefwazi(none / 0) (#6)
by G. Willow Wilson on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 12:49:40 PM EST
I have found exactly zero modern texts on sex in Islam that I like--by hardliners, moderates, mystics, or liberals. They're uniformly terrible. I shudder to think what this means. However, one can't forget the Perfumed Garden, which frankly puts the kama sutra to shame. (I find the KS to be such a con. It's all about men. It suggest ways to get women to put up with sexual advances, but not ways to make them happy.) The PG, on the other hand, is much more gender-balanced and emotionally sensitive. There are a lot of medieval texts like it--there's one whose title I forget that contains a Bedouin woman's advice to her daughter on her wedding night, which, aside from being fall-down hilarious, is totally stereotype shattering--but the licit erotic literary tradition seems to have ground to a halt in about the 18th century. We're missing out.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]




About that NYT article...(none / 0) (#2)
by fruitchaatarian on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 08:21:04 AM EST
Could you share whether there really is "a new battle" beginning over the veil in Egypt?  I have no doubt that such symbols may be, um, wrapped up in national politics, but I see anything solid in the article indicating that this was significantly different or new.  Just the same old line recycled.

[ Reply to This ]
You're more or less right(none / 0) (#7)
by G. Willow Wilson on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 12:58:43 PM EST
The veil has been a political issue in Egypt since the 80's. There has been a very sharp rise in the number of women who veil over the past 3 or 4 years...today I'd say about 80 percent of Egyptian Muslim women wear some form of headscarf. (The author of the NYT article puts it at 90, which I think is a little high.) Four years ago it was probably just over 50 percent. But politically there really hasn't been anything new aside from that hubub over the comments of that minister who refered to hijab as 'archaic' (or something of the sort), also mentioned in the article. But there have been no new laws passed or movements formed centered on veiling.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]




Top comments(none / 0) (#3)
by dawood on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 10:42:02 AM EST
from G and everyone else. I thought it was an amazing picture - and thought of pretty much the exact same points as raised in the post upon seeing it.

[ Reply to This ]


Excellent article(none / 0) (#4)
by Irving on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 10:46:46 AM EST

Once more, we are in your debt for exposing western media bias, and for explaining Islam to those whose stereotypes replace intelligent inquiry. Thank you, Dear Sister :)

 

Ya Haqq! 



[ Reply to This ]


Loved this line...(none / 0) (#5)
by Maleeha on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 10:49:25 AM EST

"If you are a man and you see a woman in a headscarf, it doesn't mean that she rejects sex. It means she rejects sex with you."

So true. Samaha also brings up good points. A lot of Muslims themselves dont know how liberal Islam is about sex within marriage, and certainly are unaware of the emphasis placed on pleasure for the woman and not just the man. And further, we often dont have close enough relationships with non-Muslims to discuss these things.



[ Reply to This ]
A pertinent hadith...(none / 0) (#9)
by uzair on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 07:54:37 PM EST

I came across this a few weeks ago. The first part is what I was interested by, but the rest is pertinent to this discussion:

"Three things are counted inadequacies in a man:

 - firstly, meeting someone he would like to get to know and taking leave of him before learning his name and his family

 - secondly, rebuffing the generosity that another shows to him

 - and thirdly, going to his wife and having intercourse with her before talking to her and gaining her intimacy -- satisfying his need from her before she has satisfied her need from him"

(Daylami) 

BTW, I noticed this article quotes that hadith -- perhaps a good place to look for an open-minded discussion?



[ Parent | Reply to This ]




nine parts of desire(none / 0) (#8)
by sarah on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:58:13 PM EST

the idea that sexuality can exist beyond the merely functional and be a dionysian celebration almost is really liberating. islam is truly the most sensual of the religions- a religion that says yes to life!

the only qualm i have is the significant historical sexual license men have been given within the religious setting of marriage that governs sexual relations- from mut'a, to polygamy, slavery, misyar, age of consent and dissolution of marriage.

your right- the western conception of the 'orient' is informed by its own problematic history with sexuality- either victorian repression (where the east was a place of harems and hashish) and its rebellion- the sexual revolution (where the east became a place of repressive prohibitions).

revealing analysis of the 'eye' of the picture and its unconscious motivations. 



[ Reply to This ]


you've made quite the stir(none / 0) (#10)
by faried on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:05:48 AM EST
It happens(none / 0) (#11)
by G. Willow Wilson on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:15:25 AM EST
At least they're thinking.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]




How do you ....(none / 0) (#12)
by shausha on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:52:38 AM EST

justify: " it doesn't mean that she rejects sex. It means she rejects sex with you." ?

Where is the logic in this? If you follow this logic through then for this to be true the opposite must also be true and that any woman who appears to be of muslim descent not wearing a headscarf must want sex and with me. <sic>

I don't know you, your heritage, your upbringing, your moral values or even your ethical calues but your assumptions of western logic are astounding. I haven't even attempted to follow any links that may tell me more about you and give me an understanding of why you said what you did.

Secondly and maybe my upbringing makes me different from "other" westerners but I have never equated a headscarf with a nun's habit. And I was raised in Catholic boarding schools so if anybody is to be indoctrinated I'd be a class case.

What should have been a good article turns out to be more mass produced pulp that presumes to belief the collective 'we' all think and believe the same thing.



[ Reply to This ]


assuming much?(none / 0) (#13)
by joe T on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:10:25 AM EST
I couldn't find the NYT article to go with this picture, so I don't know how true this is:
"while a girl in a headscarf looking at a display of lingerie is meant to appear as a contradiction"
Because if it's not meant to appear as a contradiction (and we only have your word that it is), it's a hell of a racist assumption to put upon the entire "non-muslim" world.

I'm a non-muslim and didn't find anything contradictory with this picture. The NYT could have intended it as a picture that shows that muslim women aren't that different to the rest of us. To show how even though they wear headscarves, they're not uptight cold bitches with sand in their vagina. Basically, to promote understanding of other cultures, not highlight differences or contradictions. Without the accompanying article, there's no way to tell for sure what they intended. You simply decided, based on your own opinion, that "non-muslims" would find it a contradiction, which isn't true.

Oh, and "But if I were walking down Shera' Talaat Harb with a camera and came across this scene, I would like to think that rather than interpreting it according to my own agenda" - unlucky. You interpreted the NYT's publication of this picture entirely to suit your own agenda.

It's a good article and one I happen to agree with, but the tone and the logical fallacies aren't winning you any more "non-muslim" friends.

[ Reply to This ]
Telling(none / 0) (#14)
by G. Willow Wilson on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:52:10 AM EST

It's telling that you didn't read the article that went with this picture, even though I linked to it in my post. The article could not have been further from "Muslim women are just like us". If it was, I would have written an entirely different post. The thrust of the article was that the veil is a cosmetic, purely social phenomenon and is often worn without regard to its religious implications. I certainly agree that this is true in many circumstances. The picture, then, is meant to support the argument of the article by saying "See? She's wearing a veil but she's clearly not all that religious, because she's looking at lingerie." If that's not what it's meant to do, why run that particular picture? Why not run a picture of a woman in a veil buying groceries?

Next time, read the supporting materials before you comment. They're usually important.  



[ Parent | Reply to This ]




The West And The Veil: Think Again(none / 0) (#15)
by hork on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:36:26 AM EST

What garb do men wear to reject sex with women they aren't married to?

 

 



[ Reply to This ]
Excellent question Hork(none / 0) (#16)
by G. Willow Wilson on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:10:29 AM EST

Depends on who you ask. The dress of conservative Arab/wahhabi Muslim men is almost identical to women; they also wear concealing headscarves and long robes (though typically white rather than black). From behind, you almost can't tell conservative Muslim men from conservative Muslim women in Egypt, where I live; especially among the urban working class.

However, there's a lot of hypocrisy about male dress in the Muslim world. Plenty of men would throw fits rather than see their sisters or wives in revealing clothes on a beach (for instance), but have no qualms donning teeny tiny Speedo bathing suits that most American men wouldn't be caught dead in. This is technically unacceptable according to Muslim law, which requires that men observe modest dress as well, but see if they care. 



[ Parent | Reply to This ]




The West And The Veil: Think Again | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Post A Comment

Display: Sort: