The Attack on Hijab or the Mind
 

When we seek to counteract any form of attack initiated by the Kuffar upon our Deen, the most dangerous of responses is to become defensive by making reasoning that emanates from our mind. This will only weaken our stance as Muslims and ensure that we do not refer to the reasoning given in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which fits in with the Western agenda to divide the Muslim from her reference point; the Qur'an and Sunnah

As the Muslim Ummah all over the globe witnesses the military attack being waged upon her lands, she must be ever mindful of the ongoing intellectual attack against her Deen. In fact the West has undertaken a very strategic plan to degrade and demoralise Islam and the Muslims. At the head of this assault is the age-old notion of Islam's lack of liberty, freedom and its oppression of women. The most infamous of which is the somewhat unoriginal yet predictable 'attack on the veil'. And although this line of discourse may be a little dated, every Muslim should clearly understand the extent of its effects and its use in the present political climate.

This age old attack is currently being used to fan the flame of hysteria against Islam. Questions have arisen once again; is Islam oppressive? How does it oppress the woman? Is the Muslim woman's dress appropriate in the West? How should the West liberate her? Thus the wheels of this discussion have been set in motion once again, seeking not only to defame Islam but even more specifically to erode the very identity of the Muslim woman. The West has worked arduously to nurture a host of concepts, which fundamentally contradict the Islamic viewpoint on life with the aim of replacing the concepts of Islam, which characterise the Islamic identity.

When we look to the history of this attack, we will find such campaigns in the past were spearheaded by so called Islamic 'thinkers' who sought to propagate ideas such as modernism, secularism, the spirit of Islam and the emancipation of the Muslim woman. Examples of such individuals who happened to be highly acclaimed in Britain in the 19th century are Amir Ali and Qasim Amin. Amir Ali in one book discussed how the 'purdah' (Islamic dress) contradicted the true 'spirit of Islam' while Qasim Amin proposed that the fate of the Muslim woman was to be no more than that of a slave and that covering in the Islamic dress was a clear illustration of male domination and the female insignificance. A glimpse at the legacy of such 'thinkers' reveals that their absolute devotion to the West, especially Britain lead them to propagate the view that the abandonment of Islam and the Islamic values were to be the salvation of the Muslims and the Muslim woman. In the past, this attack was part of a substantial intellectual war against Islam, which the kuffar resorted to in order to facilitate their plans of destroying the Uthmani Khilafah.

This infamous attack against the 'veil' has, in this century, been recycled and in the last 18 months the Muslim woman has witnessed a systematic and concerted attack against the Islamic dress. Ever since the West launched its war on Islam (also known as the 'War on Terrorism') there has been much said about the 'burka' and its oppression of the Muslim woman, it symbolising her inferior position in society and the west has boasted of its 'Unveiling of Afghanistan'. Those involved in this overt campaign include high profile political and public figures such as the U.S first lady Laura Bush and the British Prime Minister's wife Cherie Blair who commented openly in a press conference, "Nothing more I think symbolizes the oppression of the woman than the Burka." They have been joined by others in their demonisation of the Muslim woman, which was highlighted by the French presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Penn's statement concerning the wearing of the Khimar and Jilbaab 'It is good, it protects us from the ugly Women'.

This excoriation of the Islamic dress code for women has been matched by leading Western journalists such as Polly Toynbee in her article "Behind the Burka" that appeared in the Guardian:

"The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably disgusting to be seen. It is a garment of lurid sexual suggestiveness...it turns them into cowering creatures demanding and expecting violence and victimisation...More moderate versions of the garb have much the same effect, inspiring the lascivious thoughts they are designed to stifle."

It is in fact with these same lines of attack that the Muslim Ummah in the world around, can interpret events that have even unfolded in their own lands. The most recent of which is the 'Miss World' beauty pageant that was to be hosted in Nigeria in 2002, which in turn caused a host of events to unfold, the most prominent of which seemed to be the outrage on the international scene of how Islam viewed the woman. The hypocrisy, which was clearly demonstrated at such a time, seemed to go unnoticed. A beauty competition which has in fact become a western institution within itself, in the case of 'Miss World', was not under the microscope as to its obvious degradation of the woman to a mere body (and whose thoughts were secondary, if at all relevant).

At such a time the world debated how the Muslims in Nigeria hated women, citing the example of the recent stoning verdict that had been passed over a case of fornication by a young Muslim woman in Nigeria. Coupled with such examples as well as the debate of women in Afghanistan and their apparent 'unveiling', the rulers of the Muslim world took it upon themselves to distance themselves from these realities. They purposefully promoted the western ideals of personal freedom being prevalent in our lands by putting forward Muslim women who seem to have liberated themselves from such notions of covering and embodied everything modern. So examples such as Meraj Khan who works for an NGO in Peshawar, has in recent weeks been used by both the western and Pakistani media to present the face of a liberated 'deveiled' Pakistan versus Hijab clad sisters in the North West Frontier Province who seem to have no names or identity, and resemble the women of Afghanistan pre 'liberation' are commonplace. This can now be put against the backdrop of home grown beauty pageants in Malaysia, the evident westernisation of the wives of all the Premiers in the Muslim world, the booming fashion industry in India etc giving us a clear insight into the way the West has effectively demonised the Muslim woman in her normal attire and made her something who, if not extinct, is alienated and unwanted in her society.

These are just some examples of the recent vilification of the Khimar and Jilbaab, the modern day 'Attack on the Veil'. In addition to such public statements, many Muslim women who cover in accordance with the Shari'ah face on a daily basis a barrage of comments and criticisms regarding their Islamic attire, these range from shows of sympathy for the 'poor oppressed covered woman' to abuse and threats hurled at the woman who dares to cover in the Western society.

Post 9/11 Muslims living in the West have witnessed an onslaught against the Islamic identity and a blatant policy of integration; calling upon Muslims to embrace the decadent values of capitalism, and to abandon the pure concepts of Islam. This call is designed to bring about a new European-Islamic identity, an amalgamated individual who calls himself a Muslim by belief, yet detaches that belief from life's affairs and instead adopts the Western views on life whether related to marriage and family life, clothing, education or politics. This was highlighted in a statement by the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw; "As British Muslims and their European counterparts become more and more integrated into the fabric of our democracies, we may over time see the emergence of a distinctly European Islam" (Oct 2002).

It should be known that the Muslim woman has not been spared from this conspiracy of the integrationists. The quest to see the Muslim woman truly integrated into the Western society is a quest to strip her of her distinct Islamic identity and to distance her from Islam. The overall aim of such an attack has resulted in the obvious and apparent frustration that is being felt by Muslim women in the West, who are desperately fighting a view that is continually presented of her, thereby almost having to justify her identity. As will be highlighted later on, this is itself a no win situation for her, as her attempts to assert that she is not 'stupid' or voiceless, are ignored and the same old stereotypical, tired depictions of her and 'that veil' are churned out on documentaries, and drama's verging on the ridiculous if not laughable image of her, which harp back to a time where the suntan lotion and the fake beard were a valid substitute to depict the Muslims as a whole.

The Western capitalist society values and holds sacred the ideals of freedom; personal freedom of an individual, to do as he or she pleases, to wear what he or she desires, to behave as he or she sees fit. The West regards itself as the pioneer of freedom and the liberator of the woman, shown clearly by the arrogant words of G W Bush at his 2002 State of the Union address (in reference to operation 'Enduring Freedom'); "We went into Afghanistan to free people, because we believe in freedom…. Today (in Afghanistan) women are free..."

The Western nations pride themselves on the fact that their societies are a place where the woman is given the freedom to make her personal choices of how she treats her body or her own personal property. However, Western societies are plagued with a culture dominated by sex, which promotes a degraded view of the woman as a commodity and formulates the predominant view of the woman as an object to satisfy the desires of men.

While the illusion of freedom deceives her, the Western woman is restricted and dictated by an economy driven capitalist society so that she becomes another lucrative source of revenue. Her own personal freedom coupled with the freedom of millions of men to purchase images of her, generates within the pornographic industry in the U.S. an incredible $8 billion per year and in the U.K. an estimated figure of £5 million from the sales of pornographic magazines alone. The Western woman mistakenly believes that nobody dictates her appearance, enjoying freedom of individuality and expression, dressing purely as she wishes without restriction. In reality she remains imprisoned in a perpetual state of inadequacy. The wishful notion that with enough time, money, effort and will power she can achieve aesthetic perfection, an impossible standard of human appearance, which she wishes to attain, serves to bolster the market economy. Every aspect of the woman's appearance is dictated by the multi-billion dollar fashion and beauty industry, seasonal fashion trends coercing her to pursue a particular look, a look that in actuality has been constructed by others (predominantly men) who ensure that her desire to achieve 'the look' and spend in its cause is terminal. This quest to be 'beautiful' earns the U.K. cosmetic industry an annual revenue of £8.9 billion while the U.S equivalent grows by 10% each year thanks to the woman's 'freedom' to look as she pleases, as long as she is tall, weighing at least 20% less than what her height requires, has flawless skin, immaculate hair and the most up to date clothes.

In the West, the acceptability of the woman's appearance is only determined by the societal view towards her, a view which depicts her as an object, whether in the home or in the workplace. There are numerous cases in which dismissal or disciplinary action has been taken against female employees who refuse to wear skirts in the workplace; the travel company Eurostar has attracted much attention over its stance on the 'Skirt Vs Trousers' debate. As appearance is paramount, unless the woman accentuates her appearance (in this case her legs) her position remains unacceptable.

The belief that the woman is free of oppression and truly liberated is therefore a farce, as she is rather bound and subjugated by the capitalist economy and can only aspire to meet the standards which are in reality set by men.


The Hijab: A symbol of oppression and denial of freedom?

So the 'veil' or 'burka', as Cherie Blair described, is deemed by the West to be a symbol of oppression and denial of the personal freedom of the Muslim woman, negating her individualism, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in The Independent with reference to Muslim women alludes to the idea that when covered, she is "denied the right to be attractive in public places".

The fact that this call of freedom and liberation is a principle pillar of the campaign against the Muslim woman's dress is in itself very significant. The Muslim woman is told that when she covers, she allows herself to be oppressed and rather than asserting her personal freedom, she enters into a state of insignificance and backwardness. It must be very clear to Muslims that this attack has been undertaken with very calculated and specific outcome in mind and is not merely a wrangle over a piece of clothing. Rather the attack on the 'veil' is a call to the Muslim woman to embrace the 'sacred' freedoms, which the Western woman is thought to be so fortunate to have been granted. She is told to accept that she is a free individual who has the right to dress as she wishes without restriction in order to "express herself".

However this attack on the veil is a direct attack on the Islamic concepts about life. The Muslim woman submits to her Creator as does the Muslim man and as does all of His (subhanahu wa ta’aala) creation. The Muslim woman decisively acknowledges that she was created with needs and instincts and like every other human being is limited and in need of guidance to regulate her life. For the Muslim woman this guidance, which is from none other than her creator Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala), extends to every aspect of life, including how she dresses in public. The Western model of personal freedom will inevitably lead both men and women (Insaan) to submit to their own whims and desires or to those of others and such ideas are rejected by the Muslim. It is the decadent value of freedom that allows the woman's status to be reduced to a mere commodity which when 'traded' serves the economic interests of multibillion dollar diet, fashion, cosmetic surgery and pornography industries to name but a few.

This freedom sold by the West is therefore unacceptable to the Muslim woman as it is this very ideal, which also makes it permissible for a man or woman to commit fornication, adultery, nudity, and brings the human being to a level even below that of an animal. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) says in the Qur'an:


'Have you (oh Muhammad) seen him who has taken as his ilah (god) his own desire? Would you then be a wakil (disposer of his affairs) over him? Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle; nay, they are even farther astray from the Path' [ Al-Furqan: 43].


The success of the attack

Thus it can be clearly seen that the objective of the assault on the Khimar and Jilbaab is to rid the Muslim woman of the thoughts of Islam, which preserve her unique identity as a servant of none but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala). For this attack to be victorious it must conquer the minds, the thoughts and views of those whom it targets, it must successfully pass the Western views to the Muslim woman, eroding her Islamic mindset. In even a more sinister manner, it actually dupes her into believing that she has not in any way abandoned her Islamic belief, only accepted the idea of personal freedom i.e., she has the right to choose for herself what is right or wrong and has the choice of what she should and should not do. In actuality, she adopts the belief that she is not bound in life by her obedience to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala), and fundamentally chooses to disobey Him (subhanahu wa ta’aala). To foster such a view is to violate the Islamic Aqeedah, as Islam is based upon the fundamental tenet of sovereignty belonging to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala).

Therefore the campaign to defame the Islamic dress code has achieved its desired outcome if the Kufr ideal of freedom is accepted. Unfortunately such successes of the 'Attack on the Veil' may go unnoticed if the true objective of the attack is unclear. The triumphs over the Muslim woman's mind, with regard to her view of covering can in essence be categorised as follows:

'To cover is to deny individual liberty and accept oppression'

The first victim of this attack is the Muslim woman who accepts the idea that to wear the Khimar and Jilbaab is a symbol of oppression. The Muslim sister who is led to believe that she is a free individual who is at liberty to display her beauty, to express her individuality and must therefore reject any notion of having to cover up. It is understood by such an individual that the order (hukm) to cover is a suppression of the individual freedom and expression and is unacceptable to the Muslim woman of the 21st century. Such a woman has chosen to join the ranks of the much degraded Western woman, lowering her status to a mere commodity and all the while remaining deluded, believing she is liberated.


'It's my personal choice'

The second victim of this attack is the Muslim woman who is led to believe that she covers, as a show of her personal freedom and it is her 'democratic right' to do so. Many Muslim women may seek to cover in accordance with the Shari'ah, but have taken on the understanding that they have the right and freedom of choice to make the decision to cover or not. An example of this is the response of some Muslim organizations in Britain who commented in response to Cherie Blair's statement by saying: "Wearing a burqa is a women's choice that should be respected, but we agree that there should be no coercion."

In addition to this, in Turkey, where the wearing of the Khimar(head dress) has been banned in government and public sector buildings since 1997, women have actively pioneered campaigns to change the law. A closer look at the situation reveals that the Muslim woman has become confused regarding the fundamental reason for covering. A leader in the campaign and a member of the Turkish parliament is Sister Merve Kavakci, who in an interview, rather than clearly stating that to cover is a hukm (order) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala), explained that her decision to cover in parliament was a test of democracy; "In the twenty-first century, they must allow us this freedom." She further stated that her right to wear the headscarf was guaranteed by the constitution and international law.

Once again such views regarding the covering are in complete conformity with the Western concept of personal freedom and their advocates have fallen prey to the kuffar agenda. The view that the Muslim woman has personal freedom in exercising her choice to cover (or not to cover) at leisure is wholly acceptable to Western observers. For example the U.S government promotes the democratic right of individuals to wear 'religious' clothing (explicitly mentioning the hijab) in government buildings as well as recreating the image of the 'all American' family (who just happen to be Muslim) by producing an advert depicting the 'mom' serving breakfast in a headscarf. It can also seem that there is no ban in many Western states (bar France) on the Khimar, though these are the same nations who have attacked the 'burka' and hailed the 'unveiling' of Afghanistan and Algeria as great liberations. In this instance it becomes clear that such an attack is not simply against the garment worn by the Muslim woman as in some cases it appears to be completely 'acceptable', rather it is against the very reason motivating her to wear it. If she were to cover based on the concept of personal freedom, then her reasoning to do so is on par with that of the Western woman who wears a miniskirt. [please see The lure of Secularism ]


'I cover but it's fashionable too'

The third type of victim is the Muslim woman who covers as a statement of individualism and even allows for the covering to be affected by the Western view of fashion. Many Muslim women feel that that they need to justify or defend the fact that they wear the Khimar and so seek to make covering more acceptable to Western eyes. This view was epitomised by an article in the Independent newspaper on how the 'hijab' could be fashionable. The article included statements from Muslim sisters explaining how covering and at the same time following fashion is "definitely possible" but just required more consideration and effort. Another example is a recent television documentary in which Muslim women discussed the idea of making the 'Burka' more fashionable and giving it a '21st century edge'. Such discussions seek to bring common ground to the issue of the Muslim woman's dress and Western values. The concept of following fashion is part of the Western culture of consumerism and is largely dependent on the sense of inadequacy, which has been instilled, in the Western woman. The necessity of following fashion, possessing the latest item of clothing, the right shoes or the right handbag is implicit to the Western woman's struggle to meet the societal standard of beauty and acceptability. The motivation to cover for the Muslim woman is the desire to obey and please none but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala), and is in complete contradiction with the desire to attain a specific appearance based on the trends set by the fashion industry. To discuss the divine hukm (order) revealed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) in the context of the man made, superficial and pretentious concept of 'fashion' is most definitely an insult to the rules of Islam.


'We cover to preserve modesty and to prevent men from gazing at us'

The fourth victim of this attack is the Muslim woman who responds in a defensive manner, by justifying from her mind why it is that a Muslim woman covers her 'awrah. She will argue that by wearing the Khimar(head dress) and Jilbaab(outer garment), it helps to prevent men from staring at the woman because she is not displaying her charms in an explicit manner that the Western woman is compelled to do in order to fit in with the status quo. Or it is argued that wearing the Islamic dress preserves the modesty of a Muslim woman.

When we seek to counteract any form of attack initiated by the Kuffar upon our Deen, the most dangerous of responses is to become defensive by making reasoning that emanates from our mind. This will only weaken our stance as Muslims and ensure that we do not refer to the reasoning given in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which fits in with the Western agenda to divide the Muslim from her reference point; the Qur'an and Sunnah. The hikmah (wisdom) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) cannot be used as an illah (reason) for undertaking the action, because the result of the action may yield the hikmah or it may not. Thus in the case of the wearing of the khimar and the jilbaab there is no Shari'ah illah (a divine reason given by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala). This is something which itself is not determined by the opinion of anyone who feels it must have a reason. Rather, we accept the fact that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) gave us the guidance of the Qur'an and Sunnah as a Rahma to His slaves to govern their lives, and give them repose. It is therefore an accepted fact if He (subhanahu wa ta’aala) sometimes chooses to give a Shari'ah illah (reason) for His (subhanahu wa ta’aala) rulings and sometimes a hikmah, neither of which are reasoned by the human mind but both are accepted as stated in the textual evidences. So for a Muslim woman to say that she covers to preserve modesty is inconsistent, because the measure of modesty can vary from person to person and from country to country. Since the measure of modesty can vary, the argument she has taken invariably means that the Islamic dress code can be changed according to the change of time. So this form of discussion only seeks to dilute the pristine identity of the Muslim woman and her view of the Islamic dress. Rather what is the correct view is that the only reason we cover is because it is a command from our Creator, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala), regardless of whether such an action yields the prevention of men from gazing at the woman or not. No other reasoning is necessary or given in the Qur'an for why the Muslim woman is obliged to cover her 'awrah.(see : Islam : The Correct Criterion )


Conclusion

The Muslim woman submits only to the restrictions, the commands and prohibitions of her Creator. She acknowledges that the Muslim man and woman are not free, but rather restricted by the Shari'ah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala).

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) says:


'We made for you a Shari'ah, so follow it, and not the fancies of those who have no knowledge' [ Al Jathiya: 18].

When the Muslim woman leaves her home in the khimar and jilbaab, she does so as an act of worship to none other than her Creator, her Rabb, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala). The attack on the veil is an attack upon the Muslim woman's worship to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala), an attack on the fact that she seeks to adhere to the Hukm Shar'i and not to the kuffar values of capitalism.

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) has legislated what is Halal and what is Haram, and He (subhanahu wa ta’aala) has legislated that the covering of the Muslim woman is Fard (obligatory).


"And let them draw their khimar (head scarves) over their juyub (necks and bosoms)" [TMQ An-Nur: 31].

And He (subhanahu wa ta’aala) said:


"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloak (jilbaabs) all over their bodies." [ Al-Ahzab: 59].

So the only reason for covering is the fact that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) commanded it of the Muslim woman and in fulfilling the obligation she obeys Him (subhanahu wa ta’aala) and gains His pleasure and abundant reward in the hereafter. Adopting any other, Western inspired, reasoning for wearing the Khimar is unacceptable and lends support to the 'Attack on the Veil', each time a Muslim woman allows her Islamic motives for covering to be affected by the Kufr concept of personal freedom, she allows the attack to achieve success. She herself falls prey to the oppression that the Capitalist ideology can only manage to achieve leaving the woman feeling that her only redeemable attribute is her outward makeup, which will then define her worth in society.

The Muslim Ummah at large should be astute to the attack unfolding in front of her very eyes. An attack whose origins lay in those first attempts by both Muslims and non-Muslims to distort the Islamic way of life by attacking the Islamic concepts about life. Such concepts about the Muslim woman and her attire were cleverly manipulated then, and we see that the West sees the benefits of such an attack once again. And so the remodelled, repackaged 21st century attack on the veil was born once more, and has a new host of victims. A new generation of Muslim women living in the West trying it's hardest to retain their honourable Islamic identity. A generation who are holding to rope of Islam by understanding what it asks of them and not shying away from this regardless of the consequences. These are whom it seeks to enrapture with its decadent notions of 'liberation', 'individualism' and 'choice'.

O Sisters of this Noble Ummah! You must shun the Western concept of freedom, which calls upon you to abandon your obedience to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala), only to become enslaved by the greed and the desires of man. When you look to the Western woman, you should clearly see her misery and inferior position in society, which has resulted from the capitalist ideals of freedom, and you must reject such Kufr. When you cover in the Khimar and the Jilbaab, it is only for the sake of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) and not because you have personal freedom of choice. Do not seek to pollute the pure reason for following the order of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) as He (subhanahu wa ta’aala) says:


"It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any say in the matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into error." [ Al-Ahzab: 36].

O Sisters! Safeguard your identity as Muslim women by preserving and retaining the purity of the Islamic thoughts and never adopting the thoughts of kuffar. Rather view your noble position as it is seen through the eyes of your Deen, this being your obedience to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala) without exception. And work hard for the Khilafah State, which will bring justice to humanity and which will surely also seek to liberate the Western woman from her blind subservience to Capitalism.
 

 Shazia Akhtar

Further Reading

The Honour of the Woman