The Hijab
I recently posted on the To wear or not to wear a hijab and received a comment from a woman who does wear one. Her comments are from the coal face and thus worth reposting on this coal face.
Hi Kev, Just a minor correction: the spelling is “Muslim� for a believing servant who follows the religion of Islam. Also, please note that the majority of terrorist attacks are performed by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Tamil Tigers are certainly not Muslim yet are generally Hindu. In relation to the wearing of the headscarf, people can perceive it as they like. When I leave the house wearing my ‘hijab’ (and yes I choose to wear it!), I am letting everyone know that “hey I am a Muslim�. Nothing more, nothing less. People can draw their own opinions on me, discuss how they feel sorry for me, discuss how “hot� I must get in summer, etc. The bottom line is Kev, it is a requirement in our religion, and despite all secondary reasons about modesty, we believe as Muslims, that God has requested this for all pious women. Don’t forget that Orthodox Jewish women cover their hair (often donning wigs instead), and also Christian nuns wear head coverings. Mary mother of Jesus also covered her hair (just look at any painting or statue!). I recently travelled to Europe and viewed first hand many old paintings by which women wear covering their hair. And sure, as you said, people often change and “assimilate� after generations. In Australia, with the rush of Muslim migrants, you can already note that many Muslims are losing their religion (hence many women are no longer are wearing the hijab that identifies them as Muslims). But they are still Muslim. We all want to live together in peace. It is just a small group of so-called Muslims that make it hard for the rest of us. And Kev, I do despise the actions of some of my extremist brethren. They are disgusting. They should never associate their actions with Islam or being a so-called Muslim. VNI replied
VN Thanks for commenting. Muslem was a typo as I spelt it correctly eight times in the body of the post. Still, it’s bad editing and I apologize. You’re right about not all terrorism being instigated by muslims. The Tamil Tigers are still active but an unfortunate fact of life is that as they don’t attack us they slip below the radar. I do have a friend who is the last of her line courtesy the Tamils. Her parents and brother were slaughtered on the alter of extremism. On your wearing the hijab. It is your choice and I have no problem with that but while it becomes a public debate then some thought and comment from people outside the religion is reasonable. I’m not sure that the muslim woman who decide not to wear the hijab are neccessarily losing their religion. I’m of the opinion that religion needs to move with the times to reflect changing society and maybe they are simply adjusting their dress standards for this reason. It is common for people coming into a new society to change to the dominant norms. When in Rome…. You quote Nuns and Mary, mother of Jesus, as doing similar but the Nuns, in Australia at least, no longer wear habit, let alone a veil and I suggest if Mary were alive today her dress may be more in tune with todays society than one that prevailed two thousand years ago. I was closely involved with the arrival of Greek and Italian peoples coming to Australia after WW2 – my parents even sponsored some. Their matriarchs dressed as they had for centuries in the rural areas of Italy and Greece but view thier grand daughters today…little Miss Aussies all of them. You are obviously educated and confident so do as you believe and do so with my blessing (as if that matters) but watch your daughters and their daughters and tell me in years hence that it isn’t so. Having said all that I still believe there are woman who wear the hijab, not for the most noble of reasons, but for the most ignoble – subjugation. I note that you despise the actions of some of your extremist brethren and can only suggest you do more of what you have done here. Say it often in a public arena and tell your friends to do like wise. It is calming on a troubled day. God bless
Facebook
Twitter
The hijab, burkha etc have more to do with tribal tradition that the Koran, same as the ubiquitous dishtowel and fanbelt and even the fez. Let’s face it, fifty years ago if a bloke went outside without a titfer he’d be looked at as some sort of weirdo or communist, but the odd thing with Islam is that there’s more adopting the more visible (and atavistic tribal) symbols of the faith than shedding them. Seems all a little anti-progressive to me.
Thats a blatant lie. Hijabs have nothing to do with Islam, and such garments (including chadors, mantoos et al. ) are not mentioned in the koran. The koran tells women to dress modestly and ‘draw their veils around their bosoms). A far cry from hijabs etc. Hijabs were invented in Iran in the 1970s as a sign of opposition to the Shah and to the West. So perhaps this woman is indulging in some ‘taqiyya’ – an Islamic doctrine allowing Muslims top lie in ‘defence of Islam’. Sanctified dishonesty, in other words.
The Italian and Greek community never tried to shove their ideas down our throats or replace our laws and social mores with their own. And the terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka are performed by the Tamil Tigers? So? At least they keep it within their own area, unlike Muslims who bring their 7th century mumbo-jumbo with them whereever they go.
Dee,
I’m with you. I wasn’t aware of how old the hijab was or wasn’t – are there any links or references?
The difference between the Greek/Italion mob and the current batch is very plain, isn’t it? VN, of course, is a product of her time and I doubt if ‘lying’ would cover her comment. Maybe lack of knowledge of circumstances outside her own life and whereas I’m more than happy to pursue the rights and wrongs of the males I’m slower to attack the victims. She believes, or her words suggests she does, and that’s fine but I did mention that I expect her perspective to change over time and I think it will.
I’m also very concerned about the alacrity with which some in our Western society remove christion symbols in fear of insulting newcomers. They come here..they change, not us.
I took this from a report by Amir Taheri:
THIS IS NOT ISLAM
New York Post August 15, 2003.
“In the United States, several Muslim women are suing airport-security firms for having violated their First Amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers.
All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.
That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.
This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi’ite community.
In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. (A casual visit to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.)
Sadr’s idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shi’ite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon.
Sadr’s neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah’s regime. When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands.
In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that “scientific research had shown that women’s hair emitted rays that drove men insane.” To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.
By the mid 1980s, a form of hijab never seen in Islam before the 1970s had become standard gear for millions of women all over the world, including Europe and America.
Some younger Muslim women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab was an essential part of the faith. (Katherine Bullock, a Canadian, so loved the idea of covering her hair that she converted to Islam while studying the hijab.)”
Shame on you Kev – a Muslim flutters her veil at you and you let your ghutra go pear shaped.
First off, let me suggest you may spell the word for a follower of Islam any way you want. The word is a phonetic rendition of an Arabic word that does not use our letters. Likewise there is no correct spelling for Islam’s holy book – you will find it spelt Koran and Qu’aran. A trifling matter I know…
The major problem I have with Islam; and VN touches upon it, is that Muslims believe the Koran is letter for letter the word of Allah.
Therefore, Muslims have to accept the book’s contents – there can be no picking and choosing as to which parts are to be followed/believed. Thus, it is a nonsense for VN to claim she despises the actions of some (odd way to put it!!) of her extremist brethren. Those despised brethren are merely doing what Allah, via the Koran, has commanded them to do. Terrorists, deviates, extremists or perverters of Islam they are not – followers of the Koran they are.
At this point, Muslims are prone to claim the Koran has been incorrectly translated, the Sunnahs have been quoted out of context etc, etc. I maintain this is rubbish, as there is never a claim that the “peaceful” parts of the Koran have been mistranslated etc.
Christians would be in a similar bind if God, via the Bible, said he had made the world flat and those who believed otherwise were to be hanged.
As a general note, I cannot see Islam ever living in the present. It is mired in the seventh century, and will remain there for as long as its followers insist on believing everything in the Koran is the word of Allah – immutable and unchallengeable.
HRT,
I’m the old fashioned type. Never attack a lady and if you do, do so with temperate language. I have always put the Muslims more in the 15th century and group them with the extreme right Christian religious fundamentalists, noting however that the Christians are a little light on blowing up disbelievers. Even they have moved from the 15th century and today they only bore and annoy us with their weird shit.There was a time when the vast majority of Christians believed the word of the Bible was the word of God and, as you say, immutable and unchallengeable. The Gutenberg press changed all that along with education. The people had books and all could read and question. I bet the Priests of the day were cranky that they no longer had the monopoly on books and the various interpretations that evolved with education of the masses.
I alluded to the generational change that will have VN’s daughters view things differently. Education will be the catalyst, however I can’t see the Imams happily giving up the role of turning men and women into missiles and haters thus I believe we will have to force it on them…as in Iraq and more locally, in due course, in Indonesia.
I think it’s a war and VN is a civilian. The professional soldier in me says leave the civilians alone and attack the soldiery and their Generals.
Dee,
Thanks for the reference. How many times have we witnessed a recent idea becoming holy writ? The history of the politics of religion is abound with these new-becoming-old ideas.
Greetings Kev,
I think I will stay with the seventh century:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4341604.stm
Cheers,
HRT
Yep. Definitely looks more seventh than 12th or 15th