Saving Muslim Women from the Oppression of the Headscarf, by Killing Them

by Guest Contributor Joesph Shahadi, originally published at Vs. the Pomegranate

I never intended to write about the scarf/veil/hijab/niqaab. Like a lot of people who write about the Middle East and North Africa (Muslim and otherwise) I roll my eyes at the Western preoccupation with the scarf, which seems to dominate the discourse. The Islamic practice of covering seems to excite the imaginations of both Judeo-Christian/nationalist/conservatives and (largely) white/western/feminists, an unlikely alliance that occurs from time to time around representations of women (as in pornography, for example). I will admit that I do not understand this preoccupation… I am not a Muslim so I have no religious or cultural investment in covering one way or the other. For me, the scarf is just clothing. This may be because many of my Muslim neighbors in Brooklyn cover to varying degrees and I see them going about their lives, just like everyone else. When you are standing behind a veiled woman in line at the supermarket and you see her trying to keep her kids quiet with one hand while she organizes coupons with the other, the whole thing seems pretty ordinary, at least in my part of the world.

As far as I can tell, I have only one neighbor who goes about fully covered, while others wear their scarves in very different styles, depending on their preferences, home countries and cultures. It is very common to see Moms with their heads covered while their little girls are bounding around in jeans and Dora the Explorer t-shirts, but there are a few little girls with their heads covered as well. Two or three summers ago I was walking down the street and a hijab-wearing 11 year old girl went whizzing past me on a Razor scooter, scarf and dress flapping, face split with a giant grin. Despite the wide range of styles, these women and girls all seem to socialize together and I have seen zero indication of the isolation and division that are often assumed to be part and parcel of the practice of covering. I know there are issues with the scarf in Islamic cultures, and it is not my intention to minimize them, none of my female Muslim friends and colleagues wear it and some have spoken against it. But my assumption is that any intra-cultural issues around the practice of covering can be addressed by the women it impacts directly, so I feel no pressing need to climb on to my white horse with my American flag clutched between my teeth.

So even when French President Sarkozy floated his wrong-headed hijab-ban I never thought I’d write about the scarf. It is annoying that so much of the conversation, not to mention the ban itself, is based on perpetuating Islamophobic and Orientalist stereotypes (even among people who should know better) but again I thought, “Not my fight.”

And then Marwa Sherbini was murdered.

Sherbini was an Egyptian woman living in Germany who sued a white German man for calling her a “terrorist” last year because she wore a headscarf. Last week the man, identified as “Axel W.” attacked Sherbini, who was 3 months pregnant, and stabbed her 18 times, killing her in front of her 3 year-old son and husband, who tried in vain to protect her. Incredibly, the attack took place in a German courtroom, where Axel W., Sherbini and both of their families were gathered as W. appealed the 750 euro ($1,050) fine that resulted from Sherbini’s suit. In the chaos that ensued a security guard shot at Sherbini’s husband when he tried to stop W from killing her because he assumed her husband was her attacker. Her brother Tarek told an Egyptian television station, “The guards thought that as long as he wasn’t blond, he must be the attacker so they shot him.” According to the BBC News, “German prosecutors have said the 28-year-old attacker… was driven by a deep hatred of foreigners and Muslims.”

Yeah, no kidding.

So I find myself writing about the scarf after all. About how little it matters to me how Muslim women dress and how crazy I think it is for people who have no connection to the practice of covering to obsess over it. About how funny it is that participants in a culture in which women of means willingly and enthusiastically paralyze their facial muscles criticize the hijab/niqaab with a straight face (pun intended). And further, how such a (to me) bizarre practice as voluntary facial paralysis can be presented as “empowering” with no irony whatsoever. Who needs the Taliban?

It is easy to consider each little racist and ethnocentric test balloon floated by European governments in the last few years, like the ridiculous Italian measures to “safeguard” Italian culture by outlawing “foreign” foods or Sarkozy’s misguided efforts at outlawing the veil in France, as mere blips, but Sherbini’s murder reminds us of the old Orientalist and Islamophobic hatreds simmering just beneath the surface of European society.

Marwa Sherbini took advantage of the court system of her new country to defend her rights under its democratic system. These are the values and behaviors that Europeans say they want in their Arab and Muslim minorities. And she was murdered for it.

Here is a link to the BBC News article about Sherbini’s murder. And here is a link to the Huffington Post’s coverage of the aftermath of Sherbini’s murder in Egypt (fair warning: the comment thread on the Huff article is nauseating. It takes exactly three comments for someone to mention Danny Pearl AND 9/11…)

UPDATE:
Our friends at Muslimah Media Watch have written a great article about Marwa Sherbini’s murder. Here is the link to that post, written by Sobia Ali.

UPDATE:

Safiya has written a response to the UK Guardian article melodramatically titled “The Burqa is a Cloth Soaked in Blood” on her great blog Outlines. Here is the link to her post, “How Do You Soak Yours?”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Indigo Jo Blogs on 15 Jul 2009 at 10:45 am

    Soaked in blood indeed…

    Rahila Gupta, in today’s Guardian, delivers a confused ramble about the issue of “choice” in wearing or not wearing the hijab in the West and in Saudi Arabia and Iran:

    I believe it is misplaced for women to prioritise their race o…

Comments

  1. Abu Sinan wrote:

    I loved this post Joseph. I really appreciate it in the fact that you come from a Christian Arab background and still address the issue.

    As I said on your blog, as a person born in Germany, this act should come as no surprise to any German or European.

    I saw the writing on the wall, literally, a few years ago. Walking in the suburbs of Berlin I saw a lot of nasty stuff spray painted on the walls directed at Muslims and Roma. Seeing how the far right has gained a larger percentage of votes recently I think we need to be ready for MORE violence, not less.

    Europe, on the whole, is going to be a nasty place to be if you have brown skin or attend the wrong religious place of worship.

  2. Yusuf Smith wrote:

    I wrote a reply to the same article as Safiya:

    Soaked in Blood Indeed

  3. Yusuf Smith wrote:

    Salaams, Abu Sinaan:

    I regard all this as typical of mainland Europe’s tendency to resist accepting people with differences. They have always been persecuted – Muslims in Spain, Gypsies and Jews pretty much everywhere until the Germans murdered most of them, and now Muslims. The leopard doesn’t change its spots.

  4. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

    as a former hijabi, it’s amazing how obsessed people are with the hijab, like you said in your post. But it’s unbelievable that German hijabi got stabbed in the courtoom, poor woman. RIP.

    Now, here’s another issue that many people (especially WHITE dudes) are obsessed with, regarding hijabis. There’s that concept that hijabis HAVE to be modest, polite, pious, pure, and religious. I always got annoyed when Muslims and non-Muslims (especially white males) were shocked when they heard me cussing and making sexual, crude jokes, while I was dressed in a modest, loose-fitting dress with a hijab around my head.

    Hijabis are human beings and they should dress how they want, act how they want, and practice Islam how they want. I don’t give a fuck if a hijabi likes to get drunk or have sex, I’ll help them sneak behind their parents’ back if they ask me to.

    Hijabis aren’t nuns. They never took a vow of celibacy. They just happen to wear hijab because they want to!

    People need to get over it.

  5. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Yusuf,

    I would have to take exception with the term you use “mainland Europe”. Does this mean you are excluding the UK and Ireland from these issues?

    The term “mainland” when used by the Brits or Irish tends to be when they want to exclude themselves.

    Ireland and the UK have very serious problems in this camp, as the recent election gains by the BNP would show as well as a long history of race riots and issues.

  6. Terrie wrote:

    What I find fascinating is that no one goes after Jewish or Christian women who cover their heads. Among Christians, in particular, it tends to go hand in hand with “women as religiously subordinate.” Maybe because they’re more of a minority within their religions.

    It does kinda prove that the objections are based on a dislike of Islam, and not that particular aspect of it.

  7. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @DIMA,

    Your comment risks making this into a religious argument for or against the hijab.

    The hijab is worn for many reasons, both culturally and religiously. The religious funtion is modesty.

    It is indeed an issue if the person wearing it claims to be doing so to be modest and then acts immodestly.

    If the person wearing it does so for cultural reasons, then that is a different reason, but I hope everyone realises whether they like it or not that if you are a hijabi then people will hold you to a different standard.

    Also, and I have heard this from hijabi women themselves, that hijabis who wear the hijab and then act poorly make it harder on them to claim that it is a religious obligation.

    Think about it, if Muslim women say their religion demands that they wear hijab to be modesty but everyone sees all sorts of people wearing it who are NOT modest, then it then detracts from their ability to claim the right to wear it.

    You are right, hijabis are not nuns, but with the way things are today they will be looked at by non Muslims as a representation of what Muslim women are all about.

    You might not mind seeing hijabis getting drunk, spitting, cursing and sleeping around, but these actions certainly WILL make it harder on those hijabs who want to wear their hijab and have it serve as an outward sign of their devotion.

    I dont know how many times I have had Westerners come and talk to me about some “hojabis” (term used in Muslim circles for Muslim women who wear hijab but act in a very immodest manner) and wonder if the hijab is supposed to be about modesty, how can these women wear it and then do the stuff they do.

  8. B wrote:

    I’m stumbling over this one a little bit:

    The Islamic practice of covering seems to excite the imaginations of both Judeo-Christian/nationalist/conservatives and (largely) white/western/feminists

    Aside from the inaccuracy of the label ‘Judeo-Christian’ in the first place, conservative Jews wear head coverings, too.

  9. Safiya Outlines wrote:

    Great piece and thank you for the link love.

    Your title reminds me of this cartoon:

    http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/ccc.py?mode=single&start=76&search=david%20low%20hitler

  10. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @B,

    Jewish headcoverings are not as overt as the Muslim hijab/niqab/burqa. Aside from Sephardic Jews I saw in Israel and other places in the Middle East, I have never seen observant Jewish women completely cover their hair. Often a wig is used instead of an obvious cover.

  11. Joseph wrote:

    @DIMA @Abu Sinan
    Can we at least agree, for the purposes of this thread, that modesty is interpreted very differently by different people, including among women who cover? There are definitely places online where Muslims debate the issues you both alluded to (American Bedu for e.g.) but I am not sure this thread is the best place for them. The larger point, that the scarf is adopted for many reasons, both cultural and religious, and that it is nor necessarily an indicator of religious piety, is well taken.

    @B
    Why inaccurate? Please say more. If my collapse of different categories blurred important differences, I apologize, it wasn’t my intention. The US Right Wing self -describe as Judeo-Christian and it was those people that I meant to describe, not conservative Jewry, some of whom also cover. Is that more clear?

  12. Emily wrote:

    Exactly.

    I just wrote about the connection between Sherbini and France’s burqa ban on my own blog– it never ceases to amaze me how completely caught up people are on the veil–hijab, burqa, anything. They’re obsessed with symbolism that they can’t quite understand, but when it comes to real women’s lives– women like Sherbini– they fail to connect their own prejudices to this sort of violence. They don’t ask women what *they* think, and what *they* experience daily, and they don’t question that there may be things that are much WORSE for women than the burqa. Things like Islamophobia and murder.

  13. Ziggy wrote:

    AbuSinan wrote: “Aside from Sephardic Jews I saw in Israel and other places in the Middle East, I have never seen observant Jewish women completely cover their hair.”

    I have seen this in Golders Green and other parts of North West London.

    Anyway, just wanted to say: thanks for a great article Joseph. I’d actually already read this on your blog, glad to see it here as well. The more people who get to read it, the better.

  14. Kavita wrote:

    I loved this post! Thank you for describing how really normal and everyday a variety of different head coverings are even right here in America (if BK still counts as America, that is!) As a woman who often covers my hair for spiritual/personal reasons, I am really astounded by the reactions and projections others place on my headwrap. It’s such a great example of “othering,” where the “norm” doesn’t think about its own choices at all, but ascribes all kinds of difference and assumptions to my choice. We really aren’t all isolated or oppressed.

    And @ Abu Sinan,
    Many Hasidic women in Brooklyn completely cover their hair with a head scarf.

  15. Matt wrote:

    I have to agree with B in comment 8.

    Generally, I appreciate the article. My biggest complaint is actually that another portion seems awfully generous to Europe. “It is easy to consider each little racist and ethnocentric test balloon floated by European governments… as mere blips..” The Italian example mentioned is happening in conjunction with several murders of Romanis. The Italian courts ruled that “everyone knows gypsies are thieves.” And plenty are being deported for simply being Romani. It’s not remotely easy for me to imagine it’s a blip.

    But Judeo-Christian is a terrible phrase. Perhaps it came from genuine attempts at ecumenicalism, but it’s nothing more than a way for Christians to ignore Jews and antisemitism (and for others to ignore the oppressed position of Jews in the US).

    And, while it’s true that even the most conservative hair coverings worn by Jewish women here in New York are less noticeable than the headscarves many Muslim women wear, they’re not invisible. And their companions tend to also give them away.

  16. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Matt,

    I dont have a problem talking about “Judeo-Christian” especially in this context.

    What I find odd is that there is a front against Muslims and Islam that is an unusual matching and pairing of groups that would normally be opposed. Ie Jewish pro Israeli groups and far right pro-Israel Christian groups, who in their ideology, besides being “Zionist” Christians, are also “anti-Semitic” Christians, in that their ideology and goals are VERY anti-Semitic.
    Their end goal is a complete destruction of the Jewish people. All Jews will convert and those that dont will be sent to Hell.

    Why would any Jewish group ally themselves to such a monsterous idea? It is a choice to will come back to haunt these groups in the future.

    Strange bedfellows indeed. I always thought it strange that so many Jews groups would work so closely with far right Christian groups that have, as their goal, the end of the Jewish people.

    Besides, what needs further investigation is the term “Judeo-Christian” and what it means anyways. It is a VERY exclusive term that I dont think applies to all Christians and all Jews, rather some Christians and some Jews.

    When people talk about “Judeo-Christian” here in the West they are not talking about Yemeni Jews or talking about Ethiopian Christians.

    They are specifically talking about most white Western Christians and mostly white Western Jews.

    So yeah, when one looks at what “Judeo-Christian” means in the West, it fits in here just fine.

  17. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Joseph,

    I agree which is why I pointed out that the original comment, especially framed how it was, would almost certainly lead to a discussion about what is, or isnt, hijab.

    The comment, as well as my response, takes away from what the thread is all about. Sometimes I find it all too hard to take from biting the bait!

  18. Joseph wrote:

    @Matt
    When I write “It is easy to see…blips” I mean that is how they are usually described in the mainstream (and frankly, within a lot of alternative) western media. Much like your point about the “lone wolf” analogy in violence against Jews (which is incidentally also used in crimes against Arabs and Muslims in general and el-Sherbini in particular) western media refuses to connect the dots between the rise in violence against its Arab and Muslim immigrant populations and the renewed popularity of right wing politicians who decry them in many counties throughout the continent. So the assumption is that each incidence of violence is a mere “blip” and not a growing phenomenon. With this post I was not celebrating that notion, I was calling it into question.

    Re: “Judeo-Christian”. Again, this is not my term. I am reproducing it here to describe a politically powerful fundamentalist Christian power base within US politics who use it to describe themselves. If that was not clear, I am sorry. I do not cosign the implications suggested by its use.

  19. JL wrote:

    @Abu Sinan

    “Think about it, if Muslim women say their religion demands that they wear hijab to be modesty but everyone sees all sorts of people wearing it who are NOT modest, then it then detracts from their ability to claim the right to wear it.”

    That’s false logic. Some women might wear hijab for reasons of modesty, while others might wear it as an act of religious devotion, and others might wear it as a cultural symbol. Obviously, these categories (and any others that exist) can overlap, but the fact that they don’t ENTIRELY overlap doesn’t invalidate them, or invalidate the agency and rights of women who choose to wear hijab.

    To make a (far from perfect) analogy: I wear a one-piece swimsuit, when I swim, because I find them more useful for serious workouts (and think it’s silly to buy another one for occasional recreational swimming), and also because I like the aesthetics of racing suits better than those of bikinis. There are other women who wear one-piece bathing suits because they feel that bikinis are too immodest. I am not a particularly modest person by societal standards. If I make an off-color joke, or kiss my boyfriend, or something else “immodest”, while on the beach in my one-piece swimsuit, does that mean that the perspectives of women who wear such swimsuits for reasons of modesty have now been invalidated? Off course not. What do my motives have to do with their motives? Does it change their agency, their ability to wear what they choose for reasons of their choosing? No.

    Of course, this is still ignoring the fact that people, including women who wear hijab, interpret modesty differently, and also that someone who prefers modesty in one aspect of their life may not prefer modesty in all aspects of their life. Someone who prefers modesty in dress may not prefer modesty in language, for instance, or behavior.

    “You might not mind seeing hijabis getting drunk, spitting, cursing and sleeping around, but these actions certainly WILL make it harder on those hijabs who want to wear their hijab and have it serve as an outward sign of their devotion.”

    And yet, when a woman wearing a cross necklace gets drunk or sleeps around, I don’t hear claims that THEIR behavior diminishes the ability of cross necklaces to serve as an outward sign of the devotion of Christians. So it seems to me that if there is a problem here, it is that society has a double standard, rather than that not all women who wear hijab behave in the same manner.

  20. Tracey wrote:

    @Terrie: So, so true. As a matter of fact the most sexist, demeaning, dehumanizing comments I have ever read came from sites about and encouraging Christian women to headcover. So much so I have pretty much decided I want nothing to do with it. Not to mention they can be pretty victim-blaming in their assertions that women dress to be harassed and don’t deserve respect if dressed a certain way or in a certain occupation. They have no problem whatsoever saying that pants are largely responsibly for the sluttification of women (seriously).The sexism on these sites surpasses anything I’ve read.
    I can not even write about her murder. It seems people are interested in protecing Muslim women, but not in ways that matter. People will line up to “protect” them from coverings, but really it is about protecting their own sensebilities. They often care very little about working to fight racism, discrimination and bigotry, and are all to quick to blame on religious beliefs what would be DV in any other situation. Then there is the whole talking about someone as oppose to talking with them. If she had been killed in court, stabbed over a dozen times by a Muslim man she was taking to court for harrassment after he berated her for not wearing hijab, it would probally be spun as an honor killing or proof that Muslim women need protection from Muslim men. It would be spun as a symbol of the systematic problems of Islam and the need for a veiling ban b/c no woman should be forced/feel pressured to wear such a thing. It would get international press, even in courts those poor Muslim women are not safe. And had the Muslim man been visibly of color, I’m sure the guard would have shot the right person.

  21. B wrote:

    @Joseph – I apologize for being vague, I didn’t intend for my comment to only convey half of what I was thinking. Matt in #15 covers it pretty well. The only Jew I can think of who is a proponent of the term “Judeo-Christian” is Dennis Prager, who truly seems to have more in common with right-wing Christians than anything remotely resembling Judaism. “Judeo-Christian” not only obscures differences between the religions, but it also voices the idea of supersessionism – the idea that Judaism was reformed and replaced by Christianity. From your explanation of what you were trying to convey, it would be much more precise to say, “The US right-wing.”

    Terrie in #6 voices something that was swirling in my head, (although I’m going to disagree a little), which is that the treatment of the headcoverings worn by Muslim women is different in flavor than the treatment of Modern Orthodox and Hasidic Jews (both who wear full hair coverings, although in my experience, you find it with more consistency in the Hasidic – only a handful of Modern Orthodox women I’ve met wore them). The differences definitely suggest to me that it’s not the hair coverings themselves so much as it is antisemitism and Islamophobia, and unfortunately, neither the right-wingers nor the liberal feminists are free of either of those.

  22. Seattle Slim wrote:

    “The Islamic practice of covering seems to excite the imaginations of both Judeo-Christian/nationalist/conservatives and (largely) white/western/feminists.”

    What are the author’s thoughts on Ni Putes Ni Soumises? Granted, they cover a large number of issues affecting Muslim women, particularly in France, but they are also against the pressure to wear scarves. The group was started by French Muslim women as well.

    I understand that they too have gotten a lot of flack for their stance.

  23. Seattle Slim wrote:

    I’m seeing a lot of “anti-semitism” and “Islamophobia” being thrown around when mentioning people who may not agree, and I’m wondering if it’s getting into that catch-all “that’s racist” territory that, in my opinion, can be thrown out at times when it couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Like I mentioned in the last thread about this, not everyone is Islamophobic. It could be a matter of psychology (nature/nurture) that has little to do with intolerance of other cultures. For example, a woman who has been raised all her childhood and adolescent life by a single mother who touted independence from men and so on, with possible feminist inclinations, could be against all hijabs on women because of how she was raised. It then would not be as much as an Islamophobia issue, but more of what could be explained, or perceived, as an anti-male issue.

    This is why I asked thoughts on Ni Putes Ni Soumises. What happens when the indignation or the opposition to the hijab is internal?

  24. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @JL,

    I think the problem here is that Muslim bashers dont use a real sense of logic. I am not agreeing with the way they look at things, but it is fact. I have heard it on talk radio, I have heard people from people who have issues with Muslims. “How can a hijab mean the women is modest when you see so many women in hijab acting in ways that are not modest?”

    Anyway, I dont want to go off on that track.

    I do find it interesting that you write “And yet, when a woman wearing a cross necklace gets drunk or sleeps around, I don’t hear claims that THEIR behavior diminishes the ability of cross necklaces to serve as an outward sign of the devotion of Christians.

    That hits to the core of the issue. Why is every action done by a Muslim considered a direct reference to their religion when Christians, Jews, Buddhists ect are not held to the same standard?

    It all goes back to the false logic you talked about, supported by the way things are covered in the Western media. We might not like it, but that is the way it is for the moment.

    Case in point is the recent murder of an abortion doctor. If the killer was a Muslim no one would have thought twice about wondering why Islam causes people to do such things, or what is wrong with Islam? Why didnt anyone wonder what in this person’s Christianity caused this murder?

    I guess we could say the same thing about reports coming from Israeli soldiers who participated in the recent attack in Gaza about war crimes they witnessed and how rabbis incited them to violence using religious scriptures. It is ALL TOO COMMON for things to be pointed out about Muslim Palestinians and how what they do as individuals must somehow say something about Islam, yet no one would dare say the same thing when Israeli soldiers themselves are clearly talking about committing war crimes.

    A double standard and the media is in large part to blame!

  25. Slush wrote:

    I don’t think there’s such a “western obsession with hijabs.” It seems that there is not only a near universal obsession with hijabs, but a near universal social practice of ordering women around about what they wear on a much broader scale.

    I think the swimsuit analogy is actually pretty good because in fact we all have our own regional and international debates about what women should be wearing whether it’s a head covering or how short your shorts can get before they evaporate. White westerners want to tell Muslim what to wear, and Muslim leaders want to tell white women what to wear – but lacking the power to do that, they just condemn it.

    And it’s hardly new. Remember how you used to be a slut if your ankles showed? That wasn’t so long ago even in this great nation of scantily-clad freedom-lovers.

    What I’d really like to see is for men to shut the hell up and be forced to worry about what they themselves are wearing instead of using clothes to control women.

  26. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Seattle Slim,

    You write “could be against all hijabs on women because of how she was raised. It then would not be as much as an Islamophobia issue, but more of what could be explained, or perceived, as an anti-male issue.”

    Sure, but when a person concentrates completely on these issues ONLY as they apply to Muslim women then that is where the racism is seen.

    If they have a problem with headcoverings naturally they’d have an issue with Jewish women who cover, Hindu Indian women who cover, Amish women. If it is a woman’s issue they’d have major issues with much of the far right Christian movement in the USA.

    When they center the criticism on JUST Muslim women then it is clear that there is more involved than just women’d rights issues.

    Besides, here in the West there is a major issue with Western feminists wanting to dictate to non Western Muslim women what is best for them! I guess we could coin it Western Feminist Colonialism gone amuck.

    Western European people, feminist or not, do not have the right to dictate what non Western women and Muslims should do.

    Even Western feminists have a problem with the idea that they know better than what the “natives” do.

    “The Angry Arab” quotes a story then adds his own diatribe about how one particular feminist group has completely wrong Muslim women and WoC.

    “That is why it was so discouraging to learn that the Feminist Majority Foundation has lent its good name — and the good name of feminism in general — to advocate for further troop escalation and war. On its foundation Web site, the first stated objective of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s “Campaign for Afghan Women and Girls” is to “expand peacekeeping forces.” First of all, coalition troops are combat forces and are there to fight a war, not to preserve peace. Not even the Pentagon uses that language to describe U.S. forces there. More importantly, the tired claim that one of the chief objectives of the military occupation of Afghanistan is to liberate Afghan women is not only absurd, it is offensive.”"

    Please don’t say that the Feminist Majority has a good name: it has a dirty name that will forever be associated with the name of George W. Bush and his colonial war in Afghanistan. Of course, the Feminist Majority would not support a war against a white country to “liberate” its women because the Feminist Majority is a racist organization that believes that brown and black women should be bombed from the air in the name of their “liberation.”

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/07/feminist-majority-colonial-and-racist.html

  27. Slush wrote:

    @Abu Sinan

    “That hits to the core of the issue. Why is every action done by a Muslim considered a direct reference to their religion when Christians, Jews, Buddhists ect are not held to the same standard?”

    Exactly. I totally agree.
    And I can tell you (and you already know) why that is, but it’s not a justification.
    It’s the same thing that happens to every minority group, that their status as a member of that minority group is used to explain what they do or why, while the same reasoning is never used to explain why white men do things that white men do (or, in a different context or a different country, why black men or Arab men or any given dominant majority does what they do).

    Maybe it’s worse this decade for Arabs and Muslims than for other people, but I’m not inclined to think so, and that’s maybe just an old oppression-olympics question. I think more accurately it’s worse for Arabs and Muslims lately than it used to be in the 90s or before. But I have no evidence around that at all so I won’t try to defend it as anything beyond a hypothesis.

  28. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Abu Sinan,

    Thank you! I think your response is such a great litmus test for one should they be against the hijab. It’s a question everyone could ask themselves when discussing the hijab. Appreciate the answer.

  29. Matt wrote:

    Ie Jewish pro Israeli groups and far right pro-Israel Christian groups, who in their ideology, besides being “Zionist” Christians, are also “anti-Semitic” Christians, in that their ideology and goals are VERY anti-Semitic.

    Abu Sinan, I think, first off, that you’re not all that familiar with these groups. There’s no denying that there’s plenty of right-wing, Christian, Evangelical antisemitism in this country. And, like many Jews, I have basic problems with the very notion of evangelism whether or not it’s accompanied by supercessionism or rapture ideology. But (1) that’s not the basis for most Evangelical support for Israel. Instead, it’s really almost entirely premised on a rejection of supercessionism. And (2) the Jews who ally with them for various reasons have their reasons. Some honestly believe that ecumenicalism is a better strategy than confrontation for combating antisemitism. Others simply agree with the evangelical Christians they ally with. Of course, it’s always possible that (3) some Jews are trying to ally with those who would otherwise be threatening, in the hopes of not offending and provoking a more explicitly antisemitic response.

    This is part of the problem with the term Judeo-Christian. It erases the constraints placed on Jews by antisemitism, and instead simplistically equates Jews with powerful Christians. Used on the Right, it simply ignores Jews and antisemitism. Used on the Left, it first denies Jews the right to define their own experience and then implicitly suggests threats (like “you’d deserve it, given your chosen allies”). It actually surprises me more Jews aren’t right-wingers at this point. But, umm, have you noticed that we’re not?

    (Oh, speaking of Jews who do cover their heads, there have even been Brooklyn and Israeli Jews spotted in die Yiddishe Burka.)

    @Joseph, I’m glad you’re not advocating a view of “blips.” There is nothing simmering beneath the surface, but plenty roiling at full boil. Btw, ICare (which stands for “Internet Centre Anti Racism Europe”) is a scary place to visit.

  30. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Matt,

    If you think I am not familiar with the pro Israel, Christian Zionist groups you’d be wrong. My brother was a part of them for years. He was more pro Israel than David Ben Gurion.

    These far right religious groups are sold on Israel almost exclusively based on their “end of times” doctrine. You can hear it in their speechs and read it in their materials. Of course they aren’t so open about it when it comes to their discussions and interactions with Jews. I mean think about it. Can you see John Haggee walking into a meeting at a local synagogue or Jewish American group saying “the only reason we support Israel is because we want to bring about the end of the world, we want Jesus to come back and throw you all into hell if you dont convert to OUR brand of Christianity”? Of course they’ll bang on about Israel “being the only democracy in the Middle East” or that “Israel is just like us (they are not) but that isnt what it is all about.

    Jewish groups who work with anti-semites to battle anti-semites are missing the boat dont you think? One only need look at some of the comments by leaders of the far right religious movement in the USA to figure out that. Even Jerry Falwell, the next thing to the messiah to many of these people, once stated that the anti-Christ is alive today, that he is a male Jew. It is sad that in the spirit of “Never Again” these groups are selling their souls for what they view is most heplfull now no matter who they have to get into bed with!

    These Jewish groups are kind of making a bargin with the devil here. The idea being that they’ll work with these anti-Semitic far right religious groups because it is to their advantage now. They need them NOW and the thinking is that since their religious dogma is garbage it is something that they wont have to worry about. It most certainly is a deal with the devil and the Islamophobia that often comes with it is obvious. The platform of these far right groups is as anti Islam as it is anti Jewish.

    As to Jews covering, I love it when I see it. It is one of the reasons why I am so fond of the Sephardic Jewish communities I have visited. Of course my background is European, visiting Sephardic communities always reminds me that as Jews and Muslims…….we are natural brothers in religion. Not the foes some want us to be.

  31. Slush wrote:

    When/how did this become a discussion about Israel and Zionism?

  32. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Slush,

    It headed that direction when Matt took issue with the term “Judeo-Christian”. Both Joseph and I pointed out the meaning of that term in this discussion and today’s society.

    Off it went from there.

  33. Matt wrote:

    Abu Sinan, as I said, there are plenty of evangelicals of the kind you say. I’m not saying Falwell isn’t antisemitic (as well as gross in any number of ways.) Or Billy Graham (who clearly was very blatantly antisemitic) or Pat Robertson. But, there are also other evangelicals. (Not all of them are even pro-Israel.) Evangelism in the US is a movement of some 50,000 people, after all. And some of them are younger.

    For example, if you check the CUFI website, it’s plain as day there:

    The Bible commands us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6), to speak out for Zion’s sake (Isaiah 62:1), to be watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem (Isaiah 62:6) and to bless the Jewish people (Genesis 12:3). These and so many other verses of the Bible that have one overriding message– as Christians we have a Biblical obligation to defend Israel and the Jewish people in their time of need.

    Of course, Hagee has some terrible views about Muslims, queers, and a variety of other groups. And even some views that, as a Jew, I wish he didn’t have. But the Jews who have worked with him have found that his Christian Zionism (that’s another term I have a problem with — I’d prefer to talk of allies or wannabe allies) is sincerely based on those more respectful beliefs. And those Jews think continued ecumenicalism and engagement is the best approach to dealing with evangelism.

    I don’t think it’s appropriate for any of us to say their experience is wrong or to make demands of them based on our not sharing that experience. If I find reason to blame Hagee for his views about Jews, I’m not going to defer to others, but I’m certainly not going to criticize Jews to the point where they become the focus of my criticism.

    (With that, I’m going to stop with this discussion of “Judeo-Christian.” I think it was necessary, but I think it’s run it’s course, and it’s not the focus of the story.)

  34. Matt wrote:

    when Matt took issue with the term “Judeo-Christian.” Both Joseph and I pointed out the meaning of that term in this discussion and today’s society.

    Actually, I wasn’t the only one who was troubled by it. And it seems Joseph took a different position than you did.

  35. Titanis walleri wrote:

    “What I find fascinating is that no one goes after Jewish or Christian women who cover their heads. Among Christians, in particular, it tends to go hand in hand with “women as religiously subordinate.” Maybe because they’re more of a minority within their religions.”
    It may be in part because there aren’t any Christian equivalents of the various Muslim theocracies that plague the Middle East (well, not anymore, anyway)…

    “Why didnt anyone wonder what in this person’s Christianity caused this murder?”
    Plenty of people did, actually. Granted, most of them were atheist and/or liberal bloggers…

  36. JL wrote:

    @Abu Sinan

    Ah, I see. You weren’t advocating the views that I argued against in my previous comment, you were just stating that they exist and do influence the debate.

    In that case, though, I think it’s a better idea to raise awareness of the double standard, rather than to criticize individual women who wear hijab for doing things that can play into right-wing talking points (are there any of us who DON’T do anything that plays into some right-wing talking point?).

    Sure, all the awareness-raising in the world is not going to persuade your standard Limbaugh-derivative talk radio host. But I think there are a lot of moderates and well-meaning liberals who are simply confused, and aren’t conscious of applying a double standard. I think that THEY would benefit from a raised awareness of what they are doing.

  37. Yonah wrote:

    Cosign Matt on “Judeo-Christian.”

    Just want to put that out there, along with the fact that many of the Orthodox women I know cover their hair with snoods and teichels, I’d say about half and half with wigs. That said, whoever thinks the average sheitel isn’t obvious is being very kind.

  38. Yonah wrote:

    Also, great article, Joseph. Love the title, and especially the second paragraph.

  39. Joseph wrote:

    @ALL
    B and Matt wanted more clarification about my use of the term “Judeo-Christian”, which is totally fine, and I provided it. No big deal. Yes, B, you may be right “US Right Wing” might have been more efficient. I just wanted to indicate that a large, powerful part of that Right wing use a version of Christianity to justify all manner of politically reactionary nonsense… and those “Christians” do view themselves as the inheritor of the designation “chosen people” from the Jews. I don’t agree. And I completely understand why a Jewish person might take exception to the sentiment. You get no argument from me.

    I am not interested in debating about Israel in this thread, Marwa el-Sherbini’s murder didn’t have anything to do with Israel and it was my intention with this post to draw attention to this crime. I am not the mod, I am only the author of this post, but if this thread devolves into a pissing match over Israel I’ll be really mad.

    A woman is dead.

    The US press have completely ignored her murder.

    This space is one of the few where we might discuss the implications of this crime. So please, do not derail that potential discussion.

    @Slush
    “I don’t think there’s such a “western obsession with hijabs.” It seems that there is not only a near universal obsession with hijabs, but a near universal social practice of ordering women around about what they wear on a much broader scale.”

    I disagree. The hijab has been a focus of the western discourse on the Middle East since first wave colonialism. In the Middle East the Hijab is nowhere near as compelling an issue. And in fact, many ME feminists openly mock their Western sisters preoccupation with the way they dress. When you describe covering as “ordering women around” you are overstepping and speaking for women who are capable of speaking for themselves. It is enough to say, “I would not like to cover”, which is a perfectly reasonable sentiment. But then, no one is making you, are they?

    @Slush
    “Maybe it’s worse this decade for Arabs and Muslims than for other people, but I’m not inclined to think so, and that’s maybe just an old oppression-olympics question. I think more accurately it’s worse for Arabs and Muslims lately than it used to be in the 90s or before. But I have no evidence around that at all so I won’t try to defend it as anything beyond a hypothesis.”

    This… decade? Orientalism, that is-hatred, fear and desire for eastern people and things–is, like Anti-Semitism–a centuries-old dynamic in the West. In fact all Eastern peoples (Arabs, Persians, Jews, Asians, Armenians, Turks, Roma etc.) are the original bad guys of Western culture. The notion, often articulated by African Americans, that it is just “our turn” depends on a purposeful ignorance of that history. Crimes like Marwa el-Sherbini’s murder are merely the latest iteration of that old dynamic.

    For example if you laid 19th century European Anti-Semitic cartoons side by side with contemporary Islamophobic ones, you would see that the representations are virtually identical (there have been studies about exactly this). Whatever else we disagree about, we have this in common: Europe loathes us. In the mind of Europe, Eastern peoples are a human infection. And every so often they try to burn us out. So no, this dynamic is not a phenomenon of the last decade.

  40. luckyfatima wrote:

    Good article. It is indeed sad though that anyone need to be reminded that women who wear scarves are “normal.” But it is reality.

  41. Pheagan wrote:

    Oh jeebus. The thing about the Sarkozy ban, and the regle the l’echarpe, is it actually caused what it was trying to prevent, at least in my understanding. From what I understand, there’s a significant amount of Muslim women who don’t wear scarfs in France, and after the regle de l’echarpe, a lot of women who’d previously not worn it began to wear it as a sign of solidarity. The failure to treat the Islamic cultures in France as diverse resulted in a certain diversity being lost as multiple cultures came together due to oppression. As in America, France has created exactly what it was afraid of. And I think with the Sarkozy ban, this trend is going to continue.

  42. Joseph wrote:

    @Yonah
    “That said, whoever thinks the average sheitel isn’t obvious is being very kind.”

    Ouch. I might not put it so pointedly but I agree with you and others that female Hassidim (who wear wigs and long dark hose) are very conspicuous. As a New Yorker and further, a Brooklynite, I see both populations–covered Jewish and Muslim women– very often. There are plenty of significant differences, and I wouldn’t want to flatten those, but in the broadest sense they are similar. While I don’t think the nation is as obsessed with shetls as they are with hijab I have heard many disparaging remarks about Jewish women who cover here is New York. I think the underlying assumptions are the same: that they are oppressed baby machines who have no agency of their own. Not cool.

  43. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Joseph,

    I wonder if you have any ideas about why we havent heard anything from Western feminists about the murder? She was clearly murdered for a choice that she made as a female.

    Did you read the comment that “The Angry Arab” about the racism of some Western feminist organisation? They have no problem with bombs being dropped on PoC women to “liberate” (from life?) But I dont believe I read anything put out by any feminist organisations regarding the murder of this woman.

    I wish Western feminists would support the right of women to chose to wear or not to wear hijab. Instead they seem to have made up their mind that the hijab, in all of it’s manifestations is oppressive, whether the women chose to wear it or not.

    Kind of an odd position for those promoting women’s rights who would seem to want t0 take them in certain situations. I would have loved to see hordes of Western feminist organisations oppose the burka/hijab bans in France.

    The more choices that women have the better and I find it a disgrace that feminist organisations think they have the right to take stands on situations they know little about and take away the choice of women.

    Something else not address too often is how the police seem to have initially worked on the assumption that the husband MUST have been the attacker. That has everything to do with racist assumptions about violence towards Muslim women.

  44. Fiqah wrote:

    Joseph.

    The notion, often articulated by African Americans, that it is just “our turn” depends on a purposeful ignorance of that history.

    This sentence…

    The notion that it is just “our turn” depends on a purposeful ignorance of that history.

    …would have been just as effective. Just. As. Effective.

  45. Donald wrote:

    Anyone talking about ‘Europe’ or ‘mainland Europe’ as a single entity is generalising to the point of absurdity. Every country in Europe has problems with racism but those problems vary due to the history and
    culture of the people living there. Just as racism in Canada differs from that in the US.

    How bad this is is very difficult to tell but I would suggest that over the last forty years there has been a reduction in racist behaviour and less tolerance of what does occur. As an example I remember the National Front winning seats in local elections in the
    1970s just as the BNP does today. Different name, same policies and some of the same individuals. However the media coverage is quite different. Then the attitude was that they were a legitimate party
    with a valid viewpoint. Now they are a fringe group which are routinely condemned and toleration limited to “Well they have a right to freedom of speech”.

    To suggest as Yusuf Smith does that there has been no change in attitudes for centuries is complete nonsense. A century ago the superiority of the caucasian race was accepted as an obvious fact in
    both Europe and North America. Hitler’s atrocities were a logical outcome of that view, not the complete aberation unique to Germany (or Europe) that some have portrayed. Now such an idea is held by a tiny minority of people who get far more attention than they deserve simply because their views are so offensive to the majority.

    In one sense however racism has always been with us, indeed the persecution of ‘others’ can be traced back to biblical times and across all continents. It appears to be a characteristic of the human race. It is however countered by education – learning about others, sharing space with them whether at work or socially.

    With regard to the murder which initiated this post it is easy to read more racism into it than is really there. The most shocking thing is that court security was so poor that anyone managed to bring a knife
    into the court without detection. I can only assume that the idea is so alien to the average German that it never occured that anyone might try to do so. Similarly the shooting of the husband may have
    involved racist assumptions on the part of the policeman or may just reflect the confusion of the situation.

    Incidently my mother usually wears a headscarf for about half the year – to keep her head warm. Then again she’s old enough to remember when women in England weren’t properly dressed without covering their head.

  46. Joy wrote:

    This is a good piece and it’s good to bring more attention to this tragedy. However, it’s not entirely accurate to say “The US press have completely ignored her murder.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/egypt.woman.killed/index.html

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/31865482/for/cnbc/

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/31877854/for/cnbc/

    The U.S. news media is always getting blamed for something. It does have faults, but not everything makes it to the spotlight and stays for a week – you sometimes have to read further than the twelve stories on the homepage.

  47. Anonymous wrote:

    Yeah, completely lost me and the message of this post with the back and forth Judeo-Christian bickering. Anyway, my one or two cents:

    *I agree that it’s hard for a culture that specializes in face freezing to criticize another for face covering(though not all fully cover their face). Perhaps they are mad simply because Muslims figured out that instead of hunting down animal dung and sperm and chemicals to stop time, you could just save a few million dollars by covering your shit altogether.

    Jokes aside though, I’ve run out of exclamations for articles like these. How a man gets a knife into court, MURDERS a woman in front of her children, and attacks her husband out of some twisted racist reasoning. I’m tired of trying to make sense out of crimes like this, tired of trying to justify tragedies that only enable criminals to strike harder next time, I’m just finished with it. My heart truly goes out to Marwa and her family tonight. and every night, actually, since we as people on a whole have a sick, sad tendency to forget.

  48. Sadface wrote:

    I had heard about that murder only superficially… now I cannot tell if it’s because the coverage was lacking, or if it was because I was caught up with work and had no time or nerves to immerse myself in research on the topic… probably a bit of both.

    Anyway, great article. I feel pretty much the same. I sometimes get the vibe from these discussions that people consider headscarf, hijab etc. something that is worn by uniformly meek, joyless women, and which robs them of all their individuality or happiness, always. That they trot down the street sullenly, fearfully, looking all oppressed and what not.
    That image goes against what I see when I go outside, where there’s plenty of women with headscarves (in Munich), in all sorts of styles and colours, doing absolutely normal things because they are absolutely normal, at least I have no reason to doubt that.
    And if people are worried about their integration, then building up and nurturing a paranoia against their traditional way of dress isn’t going to help them in the least.

  49. Slush wrote:

    @Joseph,

    I think you misunderstood me entirely. I was trying to point out that, although I personally hate the fact, clothes are political everywhere, and cultures all around the world try to control and judge women by what they wear. In contrast to men, who have generally much more power and freedom in that regard. Which is not to say that power dynamic happens the same way everywhere, obviously, but to highlight that westerners being judgmental of Muslim women’s choices is part of a broader pattern, as well as being part of racism and colonialism.

    Which is why I was also pointing out that Muslim men (not all, obviously, but, for example, a number of prominent theocratic leaders) would tell white what to wear too, if they had the power to do it, and why white men are also always telling both Muslim women and white women what they should wear [Sarkozy]. I think all of this discussion has neglected the gender power dynamic involved in a discussion about clothing and religion. It is certainly not only men but also women who are the perpetrators of demands and expectations about what women wear, but it’s interesting how men are never the object of the debate. Funny, women as an object to fight over, who would have thought?

    Similarly, I was not comparing the problem of double standards for Muslims and Arabs this decade to all of history, as if there is no history of anti-Muslim bias before 9/11. I was suggesting that maybe it is currently worse than against other races, but that that hasn’t always been the case. But that’s not as interesting a question to me as the question of power and control over clothing and the expectations of women as to their modesty.

  50. Wendi Muse wrote:

    above seattle slim mentioned french feminism and the french muslim women who are on board. in this instance, could we consider this an example of fighting the fight from within, something we often advocate in the first place? if the ban were not first encouraged by sarkozy but say by feminist groups that include muslim women, would that qualify as valid reasoning to rid women of the veil?

  51. Joseph wrote:

    @Fiqah
    I understand where you are coming from, but I was not making a generalization. I was recounting my own experience.

    Yes. African American friends and colleagues have said “now it is your turn” to my face.

    I agree that it is remarkable–I can’t imagine saying such a thing to someone. And yet I have heard this several times since 9/11. Spoken by people I trust. To. My. Face.

    Still, you are right that I should have been more clear. Re-reading my comment it does seem like I am making generalization. What I should have written was “The notion, often articulated TO ME by African Americans, that it is just “our turn” depends on a purposeful ignorance of that history.”

    I am genuinely sorry if my words were off-putting to you–I think you know how much I value your opinion. But the sentiment itself is off-putting and while it may have been as effective for you reading it to omit the detail that this sentiment has often been expressed to me by African Americans, it would not have been entirely accurate.

    There is more to think about here, I think.

    @Joy
    In a follow up to this post I wrote on my own blog I made the point that while the murder itself was dramatically under-reported the protests it inspired in Egypt WERE reported… because they enabled a pov that is familiar to western audiences: big groups of Arabs/Muslims calling for death to the west. This pov handily inverts the actual dynamic of the crime, re-framing el-Sherbini’s murder as an “incitement” to Muslims to commit violence in the west.

    @Slush
    Your follow up truly reads like a different point to me than your original post. I am certainly not ignoring the gender dynamic here–I am just saying that the way women dress is none of my business. And my assumption is that if Muslim women feel pressured into wearing the scarf that they will respond to that pressure, just as women in the West have done around various issues. If you are wanting to make a general point about the vested interest that different societies have in regulating the dress and comportment of women I can’t really speak to that. I’m more interested in the ways that race, ethnicity, religion and gender are woven together when people discuss the veil.

    @Seattle Slim
    My feeling is that if Muslim women in France make decisions for themselves about whether or not to cover that is one thing, while the involvement of the French government is another. As I said, I am not a Muslim, so I have no vested interest in whether women cover or not. But I object to France, a former colonial superpower whose earlier de-veiling campaign in Algeria, was also justified via feminist rhetoric, but actually made Algerian women much more vulnerable to colonial forces. As a result, many Algerian women collectively assumed the veil as a gesture of resistance.

    @Donald
    Of course the countries of Europe are different from one another. However when former colonial powers embrace anti-immigrant rhetoric and begin to enact policies based on the fear of the very people they went to a good deal of trouble to colonize, it deserves comment. After all, Europe does not have the greatest track record re: eastern peoples, now does it? So you will forgive my skepticism and indulge my interest in connecting el-Sherbini’s murder to the rise of anti-immigrant/Arab/Muslim feeling throughout Europe.

    @Abu Sinan
    Of course you are right. Sherbini’s husband has been an afterthought in the Western coverage. And the fact that he was assumed to be her attacker, when he was trying to prevent her murder, speaks volumes about vulnerable racial, ethnic and religious identities in Europe.

  52. Nate wrote:

    Re weni: From myr eaidng fo ita lot of the push for this came from not whores or door mats. And the current french ban of relegious signifirs in public schools etc is being applied to obvious signs of chistrian and jewish faith. The difference being of course, that the french state doesn’t view (largely) ultradox/evangelical christian and jewish communitities as a direct threat to the security of the republic.

    That state view is possibly still being coloured by the bombing campaigns in Paris back in the ’90s tho. Europe has had a much longer experiance of terrorist action that you guys. For better or worse, that does colour public perceptions and makes it much easy for the state to colour grevience and protest as the act of new eta/red brigade/provos (athrough who could who could argue that back in the ’60s and early ’70s ETa wasn’t fighthing the good fight).

    Just on the ‘all europe is gagging for another pogrom typical of the fascist bastards’ meme. Europe (with the except of the UK) generally didn’t support the invasion of iraq. I didn’t see many million people anti war demos, or riots, direct action (or people putting their life or liberty on the line) happening over on the other side of the atlantic. Angry liberal/anti-rascist blogs notwithstanding.

  53. Feminazi wrote:

    @Abu Sinan
    http://jezebel.com/5313399/womans-murder-raises-stakes-in-headscarf-debate
    Western feminists have definitely been talking about this, just not to the mainstream media. Also, “western feminism” (whatever that means) isn’t one united front, stop generalizing what the “western feminist” stance on this issue is based on ONE feminist organization.

  54. Safiya Outlines wrote:

    Wendi – I’m a bit perturbed by the wording of your question.

    The “rid women of the veil” indicates an underlying bias.

    Also, what do you mean by veil? Hijab, Niqab, Dupatta, Abaya, Burqa or what?

    Finally, if we agree that it is not ok for any group to force people to dress a certain way, then it doesn’t matter what group does the forcing, it’s still wrong.

  55. Joseph wrote:

    @feminiazi
    The link you’ve provided does not analyze el-Sherbini’s murder from the pov of the woman who was killed, which is what I might expect from a “western feminist” site. Merely mentioning her murder as a springboard for criticisms of veiling (always with the threat of angry, savage Arab and Muslim men lurking in the background) without actually asking Muslim women what they think about the practice, hardly counts as a conversation. In the Jezebel article you linked to, there is a slim sentence in which a French Muslim woman who covers talks about how it makes her a target for verbal (and, as we see from el-Sherbini’s example, physical) attack. So, in other words, the French people are so offended by this symbol of her oppression… that they feel compelled to oppress her? That horrible and potentially deadly irony, with a woman at the center, ought to be the focus of this article. As in my response to Joy, who was eager to point out that the US media hadn’t completely ignored el-Sherbini’s murder and then provided links which focused on the angry response of Middle Eastern Muslims to her murder, but not the crime itself, I do not think using her case to justify another endless (and ultimately pointless) discussion of veiling really counts as “media coverage.”

    I appreciate your larger point, but Abu Sinan is right, most major feminist organizations in the west get this discussion completely wrong–not because they do or don’t advocate for (or against) covering, but because nobody ever asks the women implicated in the practice what they think.

  56. atlasien wrote:

    @Nate: I understand your point about Europe-bashing. I think Europe lags behind America in the treatment of internal minorities. But like you say, America invaded Iraq. That’s all on us… not Europe. We’re responsible for more suffering in the Middle East than they are. When it comes to foreign policy, European citizens are currently more responsible than American ones, and we should be humble and learn from that.

    And just in general… I really, really, really hate the term “Western feminists.” Joseph didn’t just throw it out there, he used a couple slashes to make it more specific. Without specifics, I don’t think it should be used at all. Some implications of invoking this construct of “Western feminists”: erasing distinctions between Europe and America, erasing class distinctions in feminism, pretending Latin America and the Caribbean aren’t part of the Western hemisphere, erasing distinctions between women of color feminists and white feminists, and so on.

  57. Joseph wrote:

    @Wendi
    As I said to Seattle Slim, if this were a debate among and between French Muslim women I wouldn’t have much to say about it: I am not French, Muslim or a woman. But involving the government in the process changes the character of the interaction–especially given the colonial history of France’s previous attempts to de-veil Muslim women. (Which backfired by the way).

  58. Fiqah wrote:

    @Joseph: Thank you for clarifying your earlier points.

  59. Abu Sinan wrote:

    I get the idea about generalising “Western feminist” but there seems to be something lacking in the feminist discussion in the West. What is lacking is usually consideration of how the women affected think.

    @Joseph,

    Why do you think most common feminist narratives about the hijab seem to not take into account the views and ideas of the women in question? When they are included it seems to me almost as an afterthought, like they give their diatribe against the hijab and then say “oh by the way, here is a token Muslim or two who support our views”.

    Is this lack of consideration a continuation of the idea very popular here in the West, a holdover from colonial times, that we always know what is best for the “natives”?

    Is it because they lack a nuanced understanding of the issue and societies in question, or is it because if they talked to a lot of the women directly impacted that they might find these women’s views go against their own?

    Personally I find it just as infuriating when some feminist group in the West makes pronouncements about the hijab and demand that these cultures change as I do the religious fanatics who demand that the hijab is forced on women.

    Why approach this from the idea that the hijab is nothing more than a misogynist demand forced upon women rather than an issue of choice for women?

    Personally I think the feminist groups who take a stand on the issue (and I think they do so on shaky ground) should advocate CHOICE for women, empower women to make their own decisions, not be just another added voice telling them what they should, or should do.

    As to the women murdered here, to me she is the perfect Muslim feminist role model. She is a lady who made the choice to cover in a Western country. She made a choice to stand up against a man who was demeaning her as a woman and as a Muslim. She took him to court, used the remedies that the West provides for such abuse and was murdered for it.

    She is a great role model for women and the perfect show piece why feminist organisations shouldnt be agitating against the hijab but should be working FOR a woman’s right to choose either way.

  60. Kavita wrote:

    @ Seattle Slim
    You wrote that: a woman who has been raised all her childhood and adolescent life by a single mother who touted independence from men and so on, with possible feminist inclinations, could be against all hijabs on women because of how she was raised. It then would not be as much as an Islamophobia issue, but more of what could be explained, or perceived, as an anti-male issue.

    I see your point re: Islamophobia vs. an “anti-male” issue, but to me your hypothetical is problematic. For a woman, however she was raised, to assume that “all hijabs” indicate a lack of independence on the part of the wearer is very offensive to me. I am an independent, educated, professional single mother who covers my hair. And I do embracing the womanist in me. My headwrap in fact signifies an independence from men in that I am affirming that I don’t need their gaze on my long hair to feel attractive. As a woman of color, my headwrap also represents a refusal to assimilate to white beauty standards and I find it very empowering. To me, another woman looking at my head covering and assuming to know something about my politics or state of liberation is just ignorant. Maybe it doesn’t come from a place of racism, but it’s stereotyping.

    Now, that is not to say that the hijab or other head coverings can’t be oppressive. Certainly in many situations they are, but it has everything to do with the choice and agency (or lack thereof) of each individual woman, not the cloth itself.

  61. Slush wrote:

    “Why approach this from the idea that the hijab is nothing more than a misogynist demand forced upon women rather than an issue of choice for women? ”

    Because it is the law for women in some places. It is absolutely a misogynist demand forced upon women.

    But — it is not always forced upon them, is the point ‘hijab-choicers,’ for lack of a better name, keep trying to make. And I think that’s a good point – I’m absolutely for choice. And the idea that plenty of Muslim women might think a hijab is worth wearing out of tradition, out of style, out of religiosity, or out of habit, makes as much sense as anything else people choose to wear.

    But the fact that some women have the power or freedom to choose and may come out either way doesn’t undo the fact that many women don’t have that power or freedom. And that’s worth being upset about. Both the free-choice scenario and the misogynist oppression scenario have a great deal of truth behind them, and it’s silly and simplistic to deny one or the other.

    The story of Marwa Sherbini illustrates an even more complicated part of it, because her choice was attacked as part of a racist frenzy from the other side, who expected her not to wear a hijab. The fact that Muslim women are condemned whichever way they decide just clouds the idea that the choice is even really theirs to make.

  62. Matt wrote:

    That’s all on us… not Europe. We’re responsible for more suffering in the Middle East than they are.

    Eh? Last I checked the nations that were actually colonial powers in the Middle East were England and France. And Germany certainly played it’s role. When the Sykes-Picot agreement came around, the US opposed it on the grounds that it was indifferent to the rights of self-determination of the people it affected.

    Not that US policies can’t be blamed, but to assert that kind of ahistorical primacy for the US seems to me as useless as any other irrelevant comparison.

  63. atlasien wrote:

    @Matt: That’s why I used the word CURRENT several times. I am talking about politics today, not 1916 or 1960. European countries certainly used to be the experts at imperialism experts, but they’ve toned it way down since the 1970s. We’re still behind the curve, which implies they’ve at least started learning a lesson that we haven’t.

  64. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Slush,

    You write that the hijab is a “misogynist demand”. On what do you base this on? The hijab is a VERY complex issue dealing with cultural and religious issues. A person who doesnt have a good understanding of the religious and cultural issues involved probably doesnt have the ability to make such a statement.

    That os part of the problem in the West is that the vast majority of people and groups coming out with opinions on the issue do not have the knowledge and experience to do so. Their opinion is not done with knowledge of the religion and cultures involved, rather it is an opinion based almost solely on an idea of the situation view through the prism of their own culture and society.

    That doesnt work and by calling the hijab a “misogynist demand” you are indirectly condemning the women who choose (or not) to wear the hijab.

    A lot of the “upset” coming from some corners are from people who dont have a clue as to what is going on. Western mdeia says that women are forced to wear hijab, Muslim men force them and little back story is provided for context.

    Considering it would take months of education and experience to understand even the basics of the religious and cultural dynamics going on I find it surpising so many people have such a passionate opinion on something they really know nothing about.

  65. Feminazi wrote:

    @Abu Sinan,

    I get your frustration over the lack of perspective used by many feminist organizations that are against the hijab, but I think this problem is one part left-over colonialism and two parts good intentions.

    Most societies where the hijab is predominantly worn are fundamentally un-feminist. And I think a lot of feminists (especially older ones) see in those society parallels to the US pre-feminism. To them, the Middle East needs its own sort of feminist revolution, and they (as outsiders) see the hijab as integral to this revolution.

    This may not be the best analogy, but to them (older feminists- aka the ones who run the organizations) the hijab is the new bra. Think about the bra burnings that occurred during the American feminist movement. They ascribed this sense of constriction to an item of clothing that men expected women to where, and so they symbolically burned them to show that they would not be restrained by men. The purpose of this was not eliminate bras from the wardrobes of women permanently (since I’ve never met a feminist that still doesn’t wear a bra, even if they were present at such burnings). The purpose was to say that they were not going to wear bras for men, but for themselves. Similarly I don’t think many “western” feminist organizations want to eliminate the hijab from the Muslim woman’s wardrobe permanently, but I do think that they feel that a similar movement needs to happen with the hijab- that it needs to be taken off and then put back on because a woman desires to do so, not because men expect it of her.

    I think that “western” feminist fail mostly in that they don’t let Muslim women fight their own fight. They feel that they have to take care of the “others”- and in that their approach is edging on racism.

    Also, you said “they give their diatribe against the hijab and then say “oh by the way, here is a token Muslim or two who support our views””, there is definitely a lot of truth to this, and I think this is because feminists truly don’t respect the practice of wearing hijabi for cultural reason. Because truly, the practice of wearing the hijab (at least, from my understanding) is a cultural practice, because I know many very devout Muslim women who don’t wear any sort of head covering. And to many feminists a cultural practice that is damaging to the standing of women in society doesn’t get a pass just because it’s been a custom for a really long time. (And yes I’ve heard that song-and-dance about the hijab being “empowering” to women, because they don’t have to worry about men objectifying them when they are covered up, and I call BS. If women weren’t viewed as commodities in that society to begin with, then they wouldn’t have to cover up to feel empowered.)

    “Personally I think the feminist groups who take a stand on the issue (and I think they do so on shaky ground) should advocate CHOICE for women, empower women to make their own decisions, not be just another added voice telling them what they should, or should do.” See there are some feminists who advocate choice, but then there are others (like me) who think that some decisions are fundamentally un-feminist- whether it’s a woman’s choice or not. For example, a woman (and a lot are) can be pro-life, and that’s her choice, but that doesn’t make her a feminist, because she is perpetuating the system by which an outsider can control a woman’s reproductive rights. In the same way a woman choosing to wear a head covering perpetuates the belief that a woman’s body/hair/whatever is obscene/tempts men, etc. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t associate or be friends with someone who chooses to wear a head covering, but if they said they were a feminist, I would have a hard time buying that line.

    But really, what feminists think about the hijab is pretty irrelevant to this woman’s murder. Xenophobia is what caused this, not misguided feminism.

  66. SarahNicole wrote:

    @Feminazi: Think about the bra burnings that occurred during the American feminist movement.

    You do realize those never happened, right? That the bra that was part of the slew of items proposed to be burned (and since no permit could be obtained, nothing was in fact burned) was part of a single-day protest against the Miss America pageant in 1968, and was from there blown up by media reports as an epithet to use against feminists, e.g. “those crazy bra-burners.”

    Both Snopes and Wikipedia have nice summaries of this particular process of urban legend-making…

  67. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Feminazi,

    The problem with with looking at the Muslim world through your own prism is that they get a lot of it wrong. This is a common Western issue where they think they can understand or analyse any issue using their own history and struggle.

    This is a racist and sectarian notion that denies the unique nature, religion and societies of the Middle East and assumes that Western models and history will apply equally well everywhere.

    The issues at play in the Muslim world and early US and Western history are VASTLY different and I think it is this attempt to try and understand the Muslim world through a Western prism that is causing them to make some pretty serious issues.

    Think about it…………major Western feminist organisations SUPPORTING Western attacks and occupation in places like Afghanistan? Fundamental mistakes like this will forever taint the involvement of feminists from the West in the Muslim world.

    Pidgeon holing the hijab as nothing more than a sign of male domination will loose them credibility in the entire Muslim world. It just isnt as easy as that.

    Support for hijab bans in places like France by feminists is going to directly alienate the people they think they want to help.

    Muslim women are better off without help like this, it backfires and makes issues for Muslim women HARDER not easier. So the net sum of feminist help for Muslim women, if done like this, will be negative.

    You are continuing to spout the line that the hijab, in itself, must be some sort of male oppression of females. That line WILL NOT WORK with Muslim women or in the Muslim world because it just isnt that easy.

    It wont work because the majority of Muslim women DO view the hijab as something mandated from God, even if they dont wear it. My wife is a Western educated Saudi citizen. She is very devout and doesnt wear the hijab.

    As a Muslim feminist she demands the right to choose to wear it, but as any Muslim woman will tell you, the obligation to God comes before any other label and that the hijab IS a requirement made by God.

    If you or any other feminist approaches the subject with 95% of Muslim women that the hijab, in and of itself, is oppressive, it will shut the minds of the women in the Muslim world.

    Having a choice to wear hijab is one thing, but if you make the argument that the hijab is a male invented tool of domination and oppression you’ve lost the battle for it has ever begun.

  68. Slush wrote:

    @Abu Sinan,

    You may well have exhaustive knowledge of the various traditions and meanings of the hijab, but you clearly could use a little practice listening to women describe the meanings and traditions of misogyny. You could start with reading the three paragraphs beyond my statement that the hijab is a misogynist demand.

  69. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Feminazi,

    You write ” Because truly, the practice of wearing the hijab (at least, from my understanding) is a cultural practice, because I know many very devout Muslim women who don’t wear any sort of head covering.”

    This is false. Almost every Islamic scholar you can quote will tell you that the hijab is a requirement for all Muslim women. Just because devout Muslim women dont wear it doesnt mean it isnt requred.

    Ask these devout Muslim women you say you know if they feel the hijab is required or not. The most common response will be “yes, it is required, and Insha’Allah (God Willing) I will put it on soon”.

    As I pointed out before, my wife is a Saudi who is very devout who doesnt cover her hair. She is very feminist but would never think to deny that the hijab is mandated by God.

    The real issue in the Muslim is not whether the hijab is required by God, it is accepted fact by most. The real issue is whether or not women should have a choice in the issue.

    Most would argue they do have a choice. There is no country in the Islamic world that has a law requiring covering, even Saudi Arabia, although the culture and the religious establishments do push it.

    Even in Saudi you’ll see Muslim women who do not wear the hijab, usually in less conservative areas like Jeddah, but even in places like Riydah. A quick search of Saudi blogs will show this.

  70. Feminazi wrote:

    @SarahNicole, Sorry that was supposed to read ‘wanted to burn…’ I was typing faster than I was thinking, apparently. But still, my point stands.

    @Abu Sinan,
    I agree with you that there is a bit of naivety/heavy-handedness in the approach of western feminists with regards to Muslim women. I think Muslim women need to fight their own battle, it’s personally none of my (or any other non-Muslim’s) business.

    But, “It wont work because the majority of Muslim women DO view the hijab as something mandated from God, even if they dont wear it. My wife is a Western educated Saudi citizen. She is very devout and doesnt wear the hijab.” This confuses me, because from my (admittedly limited) understanding and conversations with Muslim women who eschew the head covering it is debatable whether the hijab is actually in the Qur’an, because the literal word used is covering-khamr, and some more liberal Muslim scholars argue that covering of the head and neck are never specifically mentioned. And from my (also admittedly limited) reading of the Qur’an, I’ve never seen it mentioned. In fact, if I’m recalling correctly it calls for both men and women to be modest. It’s all about your interpretation. And I personally think that over time many male religious leaders have chosen to interpret those passages that mention women and khamr in a way that subjugates women by forcing them to be more modest than men. I’m not opposed to covering, I’m opposed to covering that is unequal. If Muslim men want to start walking around under head covering, then I’d be perfectly fine with it, but because it disproportionately affects women I have some issue with it.

  71. Matt wrote:

    @atlasien, I don’t think Europe is any more enlightened. It’s just that the US is more powerful at present. Actually, the US has laws against US corporations bribing foreign officials and interfering in foreign elections that European nations wouldn’t dream of. The point for me here is to be against systems of exploitation rather than merely against whoever happens to be tops at the moment.

  72. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Thank you for posting about this tragedy Joseph. I still can’t wrap my head around the circumstances behind her death. How could the killer have come into court with a knife? How could she have been so easily killed by him inside a courtroom? And how could the cops have mistakenly shot her husband?? I read somewhere else recently that at least we should remember her for her courage to stand up to racism by taking the perpetrator to court, even though she paid dearly for it in the end. My prayers are with her and her family.

  73. sandeep wrote:

    the killing was shocking for sure. these recent events have indeed prompted me to educate myself more on the history of “yellow fever”, “turban tide” etc. in the united states. As an Indian-ancestry kid with third culture kid background, this stuff matters to me, and my peers. the interesting thing about third-culture is it essentially describes this movement of peoples, that’s recently been allowed to happen more often, and now ugly old-world views bubble up to the surface when confronted with droves of types of folks that perhaps may not be oft-experienced beforehand.

    in a sense, as long as the killer goes to jail, is punished justly, then that’s the full execution of the process. death is something we all face, and the fear of it, be it either by the hand of another or perhaps nature / god / what-have-you, is ever a hurdle. but once you accept & get over the death-hurdle, and then focus on living life… well… then we just have to accept the fact that some of us WILL die at the hands of others with horrible views. a powerful source of solace is the thought that they WILL be punished as per the laws of the land. at least one expects.

  74. msf wrote:

    Feminazi wrote: “Most societies where the hijab is predominantly worn are fundamentally un-feminist. And I think a lot of feminists (especially older ones) see in those society parallels to the US pre-feminism. To them, the Middle East needs its own sort of feminist revolution, and they (as outsiders) see the hijab as integral to this revolution.”

    And this is a PERFECT example of Western feminists getting it wrong. Many countries where the hijab is predominantly worn have very active and long-standing feminist movements, and would be dismayed to know that there Western sisters do not acknowledge or recognize us and our actions. Outsiders saying that “we need a feminist revolution” and not bothering to look into past and current Muslim feminist movements is effectively silencing us, when they should be supporting us. And some of the most vehement feminists I know wear the hijab (though I choose not to). It’s just that we tend to focus on issues like education and economic opportunity, or reform of family status laws, rather than a piece of cloth.

  75. msf wrote:

    By the way, I understand that feminazi was, with that statement, attempting to characterize the views of some, not necessarily herself. And I do think it’s wrong to paint all Western feminists with one brush. (Guess what–some “Western” feminists are Muslims too!) Many posts I’ve read on blogs like Feministing, Broadsheet and Feministe do, actually, “get it,” and represent increasingly gloablized and diverse world views.

  76. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    Co-signing what kavita said! Especially this part:

    “To me, another woman looking at my head covering and assuming to know something about my politics or state of liberation is just ignorant. Maybe it doesn’t come from a place of racism, but it’s stereotyping.

    Now, that is not to say that the hijab or other head coverings can’t be oppressive. Certainly in many situations they are, but it has everything to do with the choice and agency (or lack thereof) of each individual woman, not the cloth itself.”

  77. Donald wrote:

    @Joseph
    You illustrate the sort of misunderstanding I’m getting at. ‘Europe’ is not the sakme as ‘former colonial powers’. Fewer than half the current states of Europe ever had any colonies at all. The middle east was colonised by just two – Britain and France and that was after the Ottoman Empire was dismembered after WWI. Germany’s colonial empire, which lasted only a couple of decades, consisted of a couple of small colonies in Africa which have no connection to anything Islamic. Ireland was a British colony and Greece was part of the Ottoman empire until the late 19th Century to name just a couple of states which were never colonial powers.

    So when the French government sets up a committee to examine the constitutionality of banning the islamic veil it has absolutely no connection to a bunch of sectarian thugs threatening Roma migrants
    in Northern Ireland.

    I agree with you that the history of European governments on racism has been atrocious just like that of the US. Also there are modern politicans everywhere who exploit the fear of any convenient others to divert attention from their inadequacies.

    However I am convinced from what I see in Britain that the general trend is towards more tolerance just as the modern US is less racist than in the 1950s. The rise you are seeing is a reflection of selective
    reporting and possibly a temporary peak in incidents. After all a year or so ago all the fuss in the British media was about how we were being swamped by Polish immigrants. Then last autumn there was a panic about them all going home and who was going to bring in the harvest.

    I probably ought to point out that recent anti-arab/islamic sentiment was imported into Europe from the US with its ‘War on Terror’. It is not even an issue across the large parts of Europe where immigrants from arab and muslim countries are almost unknown.

  78. Joseph wrote:

    @Donald
    “However I am convinced from what I see in Britain that the general trend is towards more tolerance just as the modern US is less racist than in the 1950s. The rise you are seeing is a reflection of selective reporting and possibly a temporary peak in incidents.”

    I am glad that you are convinced. it must be terribly comforting. I’m not. Let me be clear: I have been all over Europe Donald. And, if you don’t mind my saying so, your… lets go with “Utopian”… view of the level of tolerance in Brittain and elsewhere on the continent does not reflect my experience. And the notion that the US imported Orientalism and Islamophobia to Europe is completely, utterly backward.

    So, to sum up your position: these incidents are just “blips” after all! And they are actually being OVER reported. And this unpleasant violence is just temporary, so don’t worry. And these incidents were all carried out by lone wolves anyway. And there is no connection whatsoever between the rise in anti-immigrant violence and right-wing anti-immigrant legislation.

    Right.

    Thank you for playing Donald.

    @Slush
    If you are going to engage on a thread that touches on Islamic religious and cultural influences and expressions then it is ridiculous to discount the knowledge shared by actual Muslims. And the intimation that Abu Sinan isn’t listening to you because you are a woman is manipulative and grotesque: It is you who are not listening to him. Or any number of female Muslims who have commented so far. I get that this issue is difficult for you to understand because it falls so far out of your cultural tradition… but that is exactly the reason to question your own knee jerk responses to it and LISTEN to what the folks whose tradition it is, are saying about it. Okay?

  79. Safiya Outlines wrote:

    Reading through this, I’m getting very tired of the assumption that Islam is the only oppressive thing going on in Muslim Majority countries. Most Muslim majority countries have secular governments.

    Have a look at the Amnesty International website and take it from there.

  80. Slush wrote:

    @Joseph, I haven’t in fact made any comments that assert my knowledge of Islam or Muslim culture, or what Muslim women want or should do, because I certainly don’t know. I did state that the hijab is the law in some places. If that’s incorrect, please prove it.

    I interjected because the presumption in this thread that you or Abu Sinan knows what it’s like to be a Muslim woman, by virtue of being either Muslim or of middle eastern descent, is also ridiculous. It betrays a complete ignorance of power dynamics between men and women. Power dynamics which, although quite different from the ones I am most familiar with, are most certainly present.

    I’m not trying to say that because I am a woman I know what Muslim women think, because I very strongly believe that is not even remotely the case. I have mainly, repeatedly, been trying to point out the complexity of reality that keeps getting ground out when people argue their perspective. Some Muslim feminists that I know do think the hijab is oppressive and sexist. Others think it’s just fine. Others think it is the right thing to wear and wish that more people agreed with them. Some don’t think about it at all (actually, they probably do because there’s so much frenzy around it, but they don’t talk about it). I figure that all of those, not one of those, represent truth.

    Because even as Abu Sinan talks about what is Muslim faith or what do Muslim women believe, he’s still only talking about the Islam that he knows, not all of Islam, because as either of you would be quick to point out, it’s hardly monolithic. I kind of assume he’s trying to describe what many might call the mainstream, but I wouldn’t know anyway. Which I don’t say to discredit his authority in the least, but just to point out that he might speak the truth, and at the same time someone might contradict him and also speak truth.

  81. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Slush,

    I have no problem listening to women and I resent your implication that I have a problem with listening to women. This is an issue that ONLY Muslim women will be able to solve and I am tied of seeing some in the West thinking they can dictate to Muslim womem the parameters of their struggle and what they need to do. It is a holdover of colonialism and is VERY close to overt racism. Sorry if I think Muslim women actually know more about their struggle and what they need than outsiders from the West. Sorry, if as a Muslim with a lot of experience in the Muslim world, I am able to suss what will work and what wont in the Muslim world.

    Your reaction is why I dont think feminists from the West will have any luck in the Islamic world. You cannot get past your own experiences and your own definitions. Sorry to tell you, your own experiences and the experiences of the feminist movement dont have must practical use in the Muslim world and your “meanings and traditions” have no relevence in the Muslim world.

    Until you realise that you’ll just keep spinning your wheels. The Muslim world is NOT the West and the fight for women’s rights in the Muslim world will be almost completely unique and different from the Western fight for women’s rights. You cannot impose your ideas, thoughts and narratives to the situation.

    @Feminazi,

    The “naivety” you talk about in the approach of Western feminists to the Islamic world is not just “naivety”. I think that is a too kind word for what is happening. I think their actions are almost illadvised to the point of being terminal in hoping to get some sort of working relationship going with women in the Muslim world.

    They cannot hope to approach issues in the Muslim world, whether it is hijab or anything else, from a secular Western view and hope to make any different or attract support from Muslim women.

    Also, when Western feminists try to get into conversations/debates with Muslims over what is, or isnt Islamic or in The Qur’an they will ALWAYS LOOSE. It will be seen as an attempt by Westerners to try and change a religion that they have little knowledge of.

    Your statement about something not being in The Qur’an is a good example of how Western feminists are going to REALLY screw things up in the Muslim world if they try to debate religion or touch religion in any way. No one, not even the far right Saudi scholars will say there is literal wording in The Qur’an telling women to cover their hair.

    I can sit here and debate The Qur’an, what is or isnt in it, Hadith, different understandings of the different madhab (schools) within Islam, Fiqh, opinions of various Islamic scholars and the like. I wont because it is counterproductive and a waste of time because:

    1. 99.99% of Westerners do not have a good enough understanding of Islam and the way things work to be able to come up with a valid and compelling RELIGIOUS argument that Muslims will buy.

    2. The idea of anyone from the West trying to come and teach Muslims Islam is just offensive to almost every Muslim. If we wanted an imposed Islam from outside sources we’d all move to China and become part of an “Official Government” mosque there.

    3. Countries with a colonial past will ALWAYS be suspect in the Islamic world, the US, France and UK especially.

    4. Anything that a Western feminist touches in the way of Islam will almost be automatically suspect and actually HARM any movement they are trying to help.

    Western feminists need to completely remove from their heads the idea of trying to debate Islam or to tell Muslims what is or isnt Islam. It is the LAST thing you want to do if you actually want to help Muslim women.

    Leave the religion comletely alone if you hope to have any chance of working in the Muslim world. Leave the religious fight to the Muslims. It is a battle you cannot and will not win and it will destroy anything else you might want to do in the Muslum world.

    Feminists from the West should either provide support for Muslim women’s groups as they ask for it in the way they ask for it, or leave the Muslim world alone. Stop thinking that everything coming from the West, no matter how good the intentions, will help.

    @Donald,

    I have lived in the UK for several years. Given the level of race riots and bad race relations in the UK I find it amazing anyone can point to the UK and talk about rising levels of tolerance. I guess the BNP, recently seen it’s best polling ever, rode this “rising level of tolerance” into their elected seats?

    @Safiya,

    Is it interesting that non Muslims continually want to dictate to Muslim women just what their priorities should be? If one listed 20 items of concern for Muslim women the hijab might not even be on it, or maybe at the very bottom of it. Let’s talk about education, healthcare, domestic violence, inheiritance rights, property ownership, the right to choose your own spouse, the right to work in any field you want.

    If people want to help they should listen to Muslim women……..not dictate to them!

  82. Kavita wrote:

    @ Feminazi:
    “I’m not saying that I wouldn’t associate or be friends with someone who chooses to wear a head covering, but if they said they were a feminist, I would have a hard time buying that line.”

    LOL, really, you’d still be friends with me? What an honor. But I think I might pass.

  83. Joseph wrote:

    @Slush
    “I interjected because the presumption in this thread that you or Abu Sinan knows what it’s like to be a Muslim woman, by virtue of being either Muslim or of middle eastern descent, is also ridiculous.”

    No. I haven’t. In fact, I have said exactly the opposite of that. The entire point of my essay was that I have no investment in the practice covering and neither does anyone else, except for the women who have a religious and/or cultural relationship with the practice. And that includes you.

    But the fact that you’d say this proves my point: you are not listening. If you look again, you will see that I am writing about the (to me) strange preoccupation non-Muslims have with the veil. I am not advocating for or against it because… why would I? It has nothing to do with me.

    For whatever its worth, I have not noticed Abu Sinan assuming to speak FOR Muslim women about the practice either… he is speaking ABOUT the theological and/or cultural elements of this practice, which he is eminently qualified to do.

    But if the fact that he is a man is a problem for you, why focus on him? Why haven’t you engaged with any of the Muslim women who have also posted similar comments to his? As I’ve said, I appreciate that this practice is very different from what you are used to. But the longer you post on this thread the less I believe you are really interested in learning about what it means for the people who do it. If you just want to argue for its own sake then I wish you wouldn’t. Because there is no point: your objections will not stop women who want to from covering or make women who don’t, adopt the practice. But by placing your aggrieved sensibilities at the center of this conversation then you are taking something that other people do, for various reasons, and making it about you–a quintessentially western gesture.

    I want to be clear: I am not attacking you Slush. I am asking you to begin to question your own relationship to this practice. Why do you care how Muslim women dress? If your answer is that you think the scarf is symbol of oppression then how do you answer the women who wear it who say that its not?

    If the only way you can make your point is to ignore Muslim women, then I think it is a poor sort of feminism you espouse. And while you assume gender is your priority, it is actually unresolved feelings about Islam and/or Arabs that motivates you. I am asking that you look at that.

  84. Slush wrote:

    Sorry, I still don’t agree. I think plenty of Muslim women have in fact already solved the hijab question, in terms of finding ground they are comfortable with, but I also think that social justice struggles depend on external allies.

    The argument here seems to be that the social justice struggle against the hijab was mainly invented by western feminists who don’t really understand it, not by Muslim women at all. I think there’s a lot of truth to that. It’s been discussed quite frequently on racialicious, at least. But it’s not the whole story, because there are also a lot of Muslim women who do see it as a social justice struggle that they are fighting.

    So saying it’s up to them and I shouldn’t speak up about it is kind of like saying white Americans have no role in fighting racism in the US, or men have no place in feminism. I just disagree with that. I think it’s good for outsiders to listen and echo what they hear, so that it gets bigger and more attention. And it’s very important for them not to dictate or make assumptions. It is also super complicated because Muslims are demonized in the west, and so that’s always how it’s interpreted. I also speak up against that demonization all the time. But that doesn’t mean I think people who are victims are therefore beyond reproach. Within that victimized community, like everywhere else, are people who are disempowered or oppressed, and I don’t see why we should just let that slide.

    I agree that white/western feminists have co-opted and reinterpreted a situation without trying to understand or be allies in the right way, which is typical of white people in a lot of cases. But that’s not what is happening in any of this discussion, as far as I can see. I’m personally not trying to speak for anybody, I’m trying to reflect the varied opinions that I hear, and voice my support for each of them, and try not to do it at the expense of someone else.

  85. Abu Sinan wrote:

    @Slush,

    You seem to have got things backwards. If YOU make a claim it is up to YOU to prove it. You cannot claim something and then sit back and tell others to disprove you. That just isn’t how things work.

    There is NO Muslim country in the world that has a law written that requires the hijab. NOT ONE. There are some, like Turkey, that actually BANS the hijab from government run institutions by law. Not even in Saudi Arabia is there a written law requiring women to cover their head. It is a cultural and religious understanding, but there is no law. That is why in Saudi, the most conservative Muslim nation in the world, you will still see some women who do not wear the hijab. It is optional for Western women and some Muslim women choose not to wear it as well, but as I have said before, usually in less conservative areas of the Kingdom.

    No one here ever claimed to know what it is like to be a Muslim woman (except the few Muslim women posting). That is a misunderstanding on your part that I don’t think anyone else had. What I do claim is that as a Muslim who has lived in and traveled in the Middle East, as well as being a Muslim, I might just have a better than average knowledge of what the cultural, societal and religious issues are at play, never mind I have actually taken university courses concerning these issues as well as the fact that I actually speak Arabic and can read listen to local media and talk to local peoples.

    What you have written here certainly seems like you are trying to cookie cutter your understanding of the Western feminist narrative on women in the Muslim world. What almost everyone else here is saying, including Muslim women, is that you cannot do this.

    You can say that some Muslim feminists you know think the hijab is sexist and oppressive, and no doubt there are some. What I am trying to point out to you is that this is NOT the majority view amoungst women in the Islamic world. Not only that, the hijab itself is just not that big of an issue for Muslim world, as “Safiya” (a real live Muslim woman) pointed out herself. There are many issues much more important than this, so why does the West, and in particular feminists, make such a big deal out of something that Muslim women themselves will tell you isn’t that high on the priority list, if it is even on it at all!

    Did you ever think that because of your obvious feelings about the hijab you’d be less than likely to make friends and talk to Muslim women who really feel that the hijab is a requirement of their faith? People tend to attract people who think like they do. You think the hijab is misogynist, so you’d probably be friends with people who think the same way. Speaking about myself, my wife doesn’t wear hijab, nor do two of her sisters. Her mother and oldest sister do. Our family friends are a mix, so I get perspective from all different directions concerning this issue.

    As to Islam being a monolith, it isn’t. But there are some things that one can safely say about all Muslims. We don’t like to be taught our religion by people outside of our faith and we will resent anyone who tries to meddle in our affairs or try and “correct” our understanding of our faith. Even scanning the world’s media since 9/11 will have taught that to anyone.

    Bring your outside narrative to Muslim women’s issues and it will fail. Probably the biggest lesson any feminist who deals with Muslims should learn is to not address the religious angle at all. It is a loosing proposition.

    If the REAL agenda here is to help Muslim women……….I suggest those who claim to want to do so listen a bit more to Muslims and learn more about Islam, but DON’T try to impose your views on this issue. It wont work.

    When Safiya wrote that “I’m getting very tired of the assumption that Islam is the only oppressive thing going on in Muslim governments” you should take that as golden coming from a Muslim female and if you were interested in Muslim women want to follow up on it instead of banging on about the hijab which is mostly a Western obsession and almost a non issue in the Muslim world.

    As it has been pointed out here already, when the hijab is made an issue by the West it tends to RAISE the number of women in the Muslim world wearing it, not lower it. Since 9/11 here in the USA I have known many Muslim women who put the hijab on and EVERY ONE of them did so AGAINST the wishes of the male members of their family. Similar instances have happened all over the Muslim world. It is kind of hard to claim that the hijab is only a sign of male domination when Muslim females often choose to wear it AGAINST the wishes of the men in their family.

    It just goes to show you that a cookie cutter understanding of the situation wont work.

    The hijab is really a non issue to Muslim females, feminists from the West need to accept and deal with that. If these same feminists want to help Muslim women talk to them and ask them what they need. Do not assume you know what their issues and priorities are. The hijab issue that has been taken on by some in the West is nothing more than an outright assumption that they know what Muslim women need. They dont.

  86. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Mod Note

    I am closing the comments on this thread, as I just caught up with them and I am fairly disgusted at the conversation.

    But before I do:

    1. The people speaking the loudest on this thread are not Muslim women.

    2. I see a lot of assumptions being applied to whole groups of people.

    3. We seem to have real problems staying on topic.