As a Muslim woman, I have often been asked if I would ever consider “covering up”. In my late teens and early 20s, my response was almost always a headstrong and “feminist” NO. I was motivated by my belief that Islam meant more than just your outward appearance. I also felt that such a decision must be about my choice and my spirituality. I did not believe that one should be forced by family or society to comply. Ironically, the reasons why I chose not to wear one as a young woman — personal choice, feminist ideals and human rights — are the same reasons why I would consider wearing one now!
I recently read Snow by Orhan Pamuk. The story is set in a small town in Turkey and revolves around a journalist/poet who comes to the town to cover the local elections and investigate the truth behind the claim that young women have been committing suicide because they were forced to remove their headscarf.
Quite coincidentally, on the day that I completed the book there were reports of the ongoing campaign by women’s organisations in Turkey to remove the headscarf ban. At present, women are not allowed to wear a headscarf in universities and if they do, they are forcibly removed from the campuses. As a result, many Muslim women have either refused to go to university or have left Turkey to study elsewhere. (The phrase “educate a woman and you educate a society” comes to mind.)
I am not sure if the majority of the women in Turkey want to wear a headscarf or not. But you have to wonder about this law — Turkey is a secular state with a population that is more than 90% Muslim. This law denies these women the fundamental right to choose. And yes, there are myriad reasons why women have chosen to wear the headscarf — a political symbol used by political parties in Turkey; an enforcement by fathers, brothers and husbands; a commitment to their faith; or a response to feeling as if their rights as women are being violated. Whatever the reason, women must be given the right to choose.
It is assumed that Turkey needed to enforce the head-scarf ban to allay fears of Islamic fanaticism (post-9/11) so close to Europe, and to prove that it had control over any Islamist developments. Unsurprisingly, Turkey has been waiting for more than a decade to be accepted as a member of the EU and thus has to play its cards really well. It is probably the country’s poor economic situation more than the Islam factor that has made the EU membership issue a bit difficult — but I do believe that its largely Muslim population has played a significant role.
The new ruling party believes that the lifting of the ban is a women’s rights issue. Other groups such as the judiciary, business and political parties want to uphold the ban as they fear the secular state slipping into an Islamic state and will lead to Turkey being “less modern”.
An organisation in Istanbul set up to assist headscarf girls’ rights said: “It’s not an issue of modernity, but a question of what modernity should look like. The face of the modern Muslim woman is framed in a headscarf; it is, in a telling moment of irony, a form of freedom … women have every right to participate in the modern world, and the headscarf is a symbol of that participation.”
If a “feminist” (or should I be using “gender activist”?) can burn her bra to make a statement, then perhaps wearing a headscarf should similarly be acknowledged as the Muslim feminist takes centre stage.
Then again, rather than trying to pacify Europe, maybe Turkey enforces, through its constitution, the complete separation between religion and state. As a secular individual in Turkey, looking around at the islam dominated societies the punctuate the middle east, and how discrimatory, repressive, and morally repugnant they are, according to secualr thought, I know I would prefer a complete separation between religion and state institutions.
The foulard controversy has finally reached our shores! Thanks for crying foul to the ‘ayatollahs of secularism’, Ferrial!
To some I’m known as a convertible (scarf goes up and down as I please) and to others they just do not get it. I wear when I want to out of choice and vice versa.
My reason as you put it above is because I should be judged not by my appearance but by who I am. Outer appearance can be there one day and gone the next but my ethics, morals and values will remain.
I am always amazed that governments ban some simple things and so set them up as a rallying point.
Perhaps Turkey should be trying to encourage a Middle East Union (vs the EU) as they might have more in common there.
Ferrial, don’t you think that removing the headscarf ban would remove the freedom of women who do not want to wear it? Considering that Turkey is 98% Islamic, it is highly likely that women will be unable to avoid public censure in this regard, especially since the governing party is strongly Islamist.
Ther personal reasons you advance for wearing the headscarf all seem to be about making a political statement. Isn’t this precisely why secularists are resisting?
Should the fact that the headscarf is prescribed by a religion that clearly places less societal value on its women than on its men not be a clue as to its true symbolism? If so, it is less a symbol of faith than a social symbol of oppression and could not in all good conscience be worn by women in protest demanding freedom of choice. In this instance, it describes a form of religious Stockholm syndrome; surely the victim has a right to choose to stay with the kidnapper and be happy under his spell?
@Will – you have raised an interesting point that touches on the issue of democracy and minority rights(which perhaps is a longer debate). A referendum was held in Turkey a couple of years ago where 72% of the people who voted were in favour of denouncing the headscarf ban.
@ Grant – In many interpretations of Islam, dress code for men is prescribed and in many cases enforced. Personally, I am not certain what value there is in prescribing a dress code, but if people want to wear a specific dress as an outward reflection of there spirituality, then that is fine. But, your argument is wrong. Not allowing the wearing of the headscarf is a reduction in personal freedom. It is in fact contradictory to the very idea of the ‘secular state’ which is supposed to extend freedom and choice. The ban dictates what one can wear. I am certain that women forced to go to university without a scarf, feel oppressed and excluded. I am very happy for Muslim women to decide what they should do – including of course unmasking and chalelnging patriachy – but are you comfortable with that? Without assuming too much about your stance , I generally recoil against anyone on a civilising mission, dictating what people should do because people need saving and direction. A different form of ‘kidnapping’ – to use your word. Please tell me I am wrong, but I am reading your comment as an expression of that ‘civilising mission’.
@Grant – Yes, religions (not just Islam) have been USED to oppress women and the disempowered. It is a challenge to divide what is the religion from what is cultural practices.
The assumption that there isn’t a single woman (amongst millions) capable of voicing her OWN opinion – as they may be victims of ‘religious Stockholm syndrome’ – is a bit disconcerting.
Similar comments have been incorrectly used to describe collective identities – including cultural, class, gender, political, etc. It is complex and cannot be seen as a homogenous entity. hence the various reasons why women would choose to wear one.
Ferrial, I am all for Turkish people’s right to be the kind of society they want to be. But let us not kid ourselves: allowing headscarves will effectively remove the freedom of the minority who do not want to wear headscarves and is a step away from secularism. I am reminded of the Roman senate who decided it would be unwise to force slaves to wear distinctive garb, lest they realized that they actually outnumbered the Romans. Allowing headscarves will be a victory for those who want to see Turkey return to Sharia law.
@ Ebrahim and Ferrial – I am certainly not on a ‘civilising mission’. I am in fact all for less ‘civilisation’, particularly of the religious kind, and far more freedom.
I am simply suggesting that the reality of the headscarf is that Muslim women have grown up in a faith where they have been exposed to it from birth. There is societal pressure to comply from the outset. I simply ask, therefore, what kind of protest can it be to wear it when you are in fact capitulating to oppressive societal pressure and not breaking away from it?
Turkey may be a secular state forbidding the wearing of the scarf and in so doing legislating a certain loss of ‘freedom’ but I suspect the real reasons behind people wanting to wear it is the same reasons Catholics never have a guilt free day in their lives – childhood and societal indoctrination.
Why not let the wind blow through your beautiful hair, show a pair of shapely ankles and experience real freedom instead of demanding the freedom to comply with oppression; terms which frankly seem to cancel each other out in my book (and hence my reference to the warped behaviour of those suffering from Stockholm syndrome)?
The same goes for the men, Ebrahim, and there are certain liberties and freedoms that, in the interests of progressive, harmonious society need to be kept in check for the greater good. Germans, for example, should not consider the right to wear the swastika as claiming a ‘freedom’. That particular society has determined that the symbol is destructive and even if 90% wanted to wear it, those who stood against it would be correct to do so.
I have been to Turkey many times. To see it change from a secular to a religious outpost for Islam would be a tragedy equivalent to that playing out in America where radical Christianity has seized power and grows stronger by the day. The particular religion involved is irrelevant.
The secular state has proven to be the most stable and offers the truest freedom to its citizens. Lets not undermine that.
“A referendum was held in Turkey a couple of years ago where 72% of the people who voted were in favour of denouncing the headscarf ban”
I venture to suggest that the 72% were not women seeking the right to personal freedom/expression.
It’s amazing how a piece of cloth on a woman’s head is deliberately interpreted in such earth-shattering ways: “I have been to Turkey many times. To see it change from a secular to a religious outpost for Islam would be a tragedy equivalent to that playing out in America where radical Christianity has seized power and grows stronger by the day.”
By allowing women the freedom to dress as they please, Turkey would create “an Islamic outpost”? How does the argument stretch from one to the other? Why can’t women just be allowed to wear what they like? If they are Islamists, secularists, or whatever other -ists, judge that by what they say or do.
And the argument that if the headscarf ban were lifted, it’s not real freedom because Muslim women have been socialised to wear a headscarf and hence their freedom is compromised by their upbringing… well, in that case, human beings can never be free, can we? Most of us are socialised to believe that it is wrong to have sex with our parents. If we then never do have sex with our parents and, in fact, believe that it is wrong to do so, will you say that we are just slaves to our upbringing and bowing to social pressures and the only way to truly express our freedom is to do the deed? That would just be a plainly ridiculous argument. When you extend the argument to the headscarf issue, it is as ridiculous.
“The freedom to comply with oppression” as you put it, Grant, can by extension include things like obligatory education, or for that matter, any laws that exist.
You and I might think its great to “let the wind blow through your beautiful hair” but why should you, a man, insist that there is something wrong with a woman who doesn’t think that that is great (or great all the time).
This is one of those issues where the arguments on both sides – those that insist that must cover their heads and those that insist they should not be allowed to – sound so very similar.
@ Grant – The issue is that you are telling women what to wear and what not to wear. I am not sure about many things, but I am certain that in a democracy one can decide what one wants to wear. But, let me leave before you tell me not to wear red socks, or whatever.
Dear Na’eem – frankly I personally couldn’t care less whether Turkey’s women decide to wear or not wear their headscarves. What I care deeply about is that it is a victory by a religious lobby over a secular government law. I view it in the same light as I would a victory by those crazy American creationists demanding the banning of evolution teachings in school and the local Christian lobby getting Deon Maas fired from Rapport for daring to write about Satanism. It is the winning over of freedom and logic by indoctrination and superstition and I could never support that.
It is the religious flexing their muscles in a constitutionally secular environment and that is the thin edge of the wedge and history has shown that no good can come of it. Ask the Afghans under the Taliban, the Saudi’s under Sharia law, ask the Sudanese under The Lord’s Army, ask the Irish under the Catholics and Protestants. It all starts somewhere and religious symbols carry huge power under those conditions. It is simply the first step in the wrong direction for Turkey if a secular state is what they want to end up with; those who passed the law know it only too well. Mustapha Kemal Atatürk knew it only too well.
As for your frankly ludicrous double negative example of having sex with your parents, there are perfectly good biological reasons why those who did it died out. It turns out it is a poor genetic survival strategy due to the promulgation of deadly recessives and thus becomes an obvious evolutionary advantage to those who do not behave this way. No society and no religion needed to sort that one out.
And if the headscarf were just a piece of cloth on somebody’s head, there would not be such an outcry. It is a symbol and symbols have meaning. In this case, most of the secular world (I do NOT mean Christian world – big difference) recognise the symbol as one of gender oppression; I can see how this would be contested when you are a practising Muslim and I am sensitive to that so lets agree to disagree there.
In a very real sense, I support your notion of freedom to choose to wear what you like when you like; I just understand that certain symbols ultimately erode all freedoms and are thus worth clamping down on regardless of how hypocritical it is when viewed analytically from a freedom of choice point of view. I believe open display of religious symbols falls neatly into this category.
I dunno… this argument makes me scratch my head. I will lie under a train to defend the right of a woman to dress how she pleases, but when I see women veiled top to toe in black, I cannot help feeling a sense of helpless outrage and indignation. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but that’s how I – as a woman, a ‘westerner’, a feminist and an atheist – feel. But, at the same time, I am also keenly aware of how difficult and hurtful it must be for these women to be subjected to dirty looks, suspicious glances and tut-tuts from people, like me, who don’t ‘get’ why they dress this way. In recent years, I’ve made an effort to connect with heavily veiled women (even if it’s just exchanging a warm smile, or some light chit-chat and gossip in a supermarket queue), if only to remind myself that prejudice stinks, that sisterhood rocks, that being judgmental or patronising is amoral, and that a heavy curtaining of black fabric doesn’t mean who’s behind the drapes is ignorant, oppressed, miserable or unfriendly. In fact, in my experience, the opposite usually applies: I’ve heard many a wicked, confident wisecrack and chuckle floating out from under a black veil, and had excellent conversations with obviously educated and wordly women. Like I said, this issue makes me scratch my head.
If 75% of the population voted that a woman should be stoned to death in public for being in the presence of a man that she is not related too, should that then become law?
The reason I ask this question is because I believe Turkey has placed in law, a series of fences to make sure it keeps it secular nature. It is surrounded by extreme islamic states, where the secular minority has no option but to conform to the religious law, no choice in the matter, as each of the fences drop, so it moves more and more towards a religious oppressive state.
I know and understand that the unbanning of the headscarf, will not move it there immediately, but it is then one fence closer, especially with a religious majority that want to live under sharia law. Sometimes the majority is not right.
Grant, your logic is warped! Allowing people freedoms to do this that or the other is completely the opposite of banning people from doing this that or the other. Don’t you get that? If you do, then how can you compare allowing women to dress as they like with banning of the teaching of evolution or with what happened to Deon Maas? Can you not see how silly your argument is? (You make it sound as if the alternative to a ban on headscarves is to make it compulsory. And you make it sound as if that is the move in Turkey. It is not!)
Indeed, the correct parallel to make is the religious fundamentalist fervour that leads to bannings of journalists and teachers on the one hand with the religious fundamentalist fervour (even if it is called ‘secularism’) that leads to a government dictating to people what they can or can’t wear, on the other. Add to that the fact that Ataturk’s reason for banning the headscarf had less to do with religion and women’s rights and had everything to do with his understanding that Turkish women at the time were embarassing him and his cronies when they had to deal with Europeans – by wearing headscarves. Made him look “barbaric”, he said.
As for the ‘symbolism’ of the headscarf, it seems that it is mainly fundamentalists who imbue it with the great symbolism and meaning that you do: either Muslim fundamentalists or secular ones like you. Most Muslim women just want to do their thing without their heads representing what you insist they must.
By the way, does the same ‘symbolism’ attach to African women who wear headscarves in the normal course of their lives? What about nuns? Orthodox Jewish women? Will you call for headscarves to be banned in South Africa – for Muslim, Jewish, Christian and African women? Do you think that would be the right thing to do in this secular country?
A very good, interesting article. It’s always nice to see the perspective of a Muslim woman as opposed to the ubiquitous views of angry, white men who are just ignorantly opposed to anything Islamic.
Banning Hijab and a Muslim woman’s right to choose is not extreme secularism…it’s anti-secularim. To ban a fundamental freedom such as a religious duty (for a Muslim country)is pretty much a violation of a basic human right. What happens to Sikhs with their turbans in Turkey? Or other minorities such as Jews? The ridiculous argument that a lady who chooses to cover up will lead to an overhaul of government and an Islamic State, thus forcing non-veiled women to cover up, is simply too ludicrous to even acknowledge seriously. Anyone who knows anything about Islamic history will understand that Islam’s glory days encompassed the great traditional, classical pursuit of knowledge that encouraged pluralism, tolerance and respect for human kind and led Europe into its renaissance period.
Turkey has already lost too many bright minds because of this inhumane law. Many of its brightest students are now studying in other, more tolerant and truly secular countries and I think the Turkish leaders have realised that this abuse must stop because it is to the detriment of the country’s future.
Many Turkish women just wear wigs to school and work because of this nonsensical law. They’re still covering up their hair anyway: http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=95492
It’s amazing how Turkish “Secularists” are so aggresively opposed to their fellow countrymen having the right to express their religious identity, yet Muslim women in the US, UK, Australia and in most other Western nations can freely wear their hijab, thus being free to acquire an education.
Essentially, the argument is: Muslim women cannot wear the hijab because if a majority do, then they will force other Muslim women to wear it. Therefore we must *force* women not to wear it to protect our freedom to not wear it. See how ridiculous it is! It’s just infantile.
Once women have the “choice” to cover, we’ll see what happens to those who don’t choose to “cover” once the old bastards back in the ‘hood get hold of them.
Like this is news to anybody.
I don’t know if there is a polite way to ask this. Why would any adult educated women prescribe to Islam which allows wife-beating, stoning rape victims and was founded by a child rapist?
No other “religion” has such roots or demands. None.
It would seem to any rational person that the headscarf issue is a moot point when taking in the larger view. By the way try not wearing a scarf in Mecca.
So the honest question is why remain a muslim women anyways? I know that Muhammad demands the murder of anyone that leaves islam. That alone for me would be reason to get out. While you can.
Na’eem – Thanks for the heads-up about my warped logic, I sometimes think you might be right. Your parental sex example was, however, pretty warped as well as far off the mark so I might be in good company
Let me try this another way. There are certain issues that have interfaces. A good one is the freedom of speech/the banning of hate speech interface. At this interface, both sides can and are often argued. Freedom to say as you like can be claimed but the banning of speech that incites hatred can also be upheld in the interests of harmonious existence. So we have freedom of speech on most things but there are a few areas where this is restricted in the interests of peaceful co-existence. We have to put boundaries on total freedom to prevent its abuse.
Onto headscarves. I do not see the issue as the government of Turkey prescribing what clothing people may wear. It is not a clothing issue at all. It is a religious symbol issue. To wear the headscarf is to openly proclaim your religion and devotion to it. With the rise of militant Islam on its borders, Turkey is probably worried that this will signal an increased religious radicalisation of its own country and ultimately fear becoming a religious state like Iran of Afganistan.
Because of the numbers involved I have no doubt that they will ultimately lose the fight and as a secularist who is opposed to outward practise of religion (what good has ever come from it?), I find that sad indeed. I can see how others would see increased religious devotion as progress but I cannot in good conscience agree.
So again there is an interface: The right to wear what we like, when we like against the wearing of symbols deemed by that particular society to be potentially inflammatory. There will always be a valid argument from both sides because both sides actually do have a strong case.
My particular view comes from my aversion to organised religions; the source of so much suffering, misunderstanding and division in our volatile world. It does not, as somebody inferred, come from being white, angry or anti-Muslim. I could quite happily apply the same argument about the ridiculous display of Roman torture and execution devices around the necks of Christians in the form of the crucifix. It’s the modern day equivalent of stringing a little electric chair or a syringe labelled ‘lethal’ around your neck and proclaiming deep love. Warped indeed!
And if I were not white would my argument carry more weight? Confused…
Beth, would any adult, educated woman not indoctrinated from childhood prescribe to any religion is actually a more valid question. I wouldn’t single out Islam there…
“The ridiculous argument that a lady who chooses to cover up will lead to an overhaul of government and an Islamic State,”
Forget about Turkey – the Archbishop of Canterbury now say it is inevitable that Britain will have to adopt Sharia law:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+%E2%80%99unavoidable%E2%80%99%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do
it is also easy to talk about this from South Africa protected by our constitutional democracy, a deep and strong understanding of multiculturalism, that is constantly being discussed and is always being debated, as well as having no real problem of extremism within islam. Once again, in the middle east, the context, and the surrounding states paint a very different picture, whether you look, at Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Jordan in fact every country in which Sharia is the dominant law. I can understand fully why secularists are exceptionally worried about it.
To exclude the discussion from the context of the area in which it is happening is just a blind way to view it. In South Africa, much like in America, and other multicultural democracies, of course, the argument for complete religious freedoms is correct, but in areas in which religious extremism abounds….
Adams´s weakness on Turkish history is partly corrected by Jeenah pointing out that legal restrictions on dress date back to 1920 or so; to that I would add that the main obstacle to Turkish EU membership is neither its Muslim population nor its economic woes, but its human rights record – in particular its ongoing military occupation of northern Cyprus (an EU member state).
I suggest that women who fantasize about the veil to go and actually live in a country like Saudi Arabia…pretty soon your romantic little notions will fly out the window…
@ Will and everyone else
It is interesting to note that according to a study done by Rankin and Aytac (2008) over 61 % of all Turkish women cover their heads and even more surprisingly while the majority of Turkish citizens oppose the headscarf ban, they also emphasize that they do not support a state ruled by Shari’a law (traditional Islamic law based on the Qur’an).
Let’s stop equating Islam with fundamentalism and comapring Turkish people to Arab countries since the Turkish context is very different. Might I also add that true secular principles would pursue tolerance, not exclusion.
What you have written in 2008 seems to have blossomed into reality in Norway of all places. i recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who is engaged to a Norwegian women who told me that indeed the feminist movement in that country has adopted wearing the headscarf to express their freedom and right to expression, regardless of their religious convictions.