HEJAB

Hijab

There are many version of Hijab from Burkha to Head Scarf. There are many reasons for wearing them.

I think any full length Hijab must be banned. It is not just an imposition on freedom but also a security risk. It is the perfect disguise for criminals. There are recorded instances of men wearing Chador to escape police. Just for those reasons both Burkha and Chador must be banned.

Now there is also "ro rari". That is not a security risk. However it is an imposition on freedom when forced on women. In Islamic societies Muslims force women to wear it. We see this in Iran. We also see it in Europe where families force it. A father or brother; even a mother may force it on their daughter. A ban gives a perfect way out for kids to get out of this. Therefore I say ban it for kids under 18. Permit above 18.

Divaneh you don't make sense Sir!

and believe me I am not taking advantage of your chosen username. You are saying that Hijab is imposed on muslim kids. How about Islam itself? How about other faiths? How about Christianity or Judaism if you will? Aren't these faiths imposed on their kids by their religious parents? Don't you see that if you want to go down that route I suppose you have to ban all religious teachings by parents until the child has reached, in your scheme of works, the age of choice? Is this what you are suggesting?

Is it the fault of the children (or their parents) who are born to a religion? Why such hostility is shown towards religion is beyound belief. And ironically most of such hostility comes from the latter day followers of another religions that began with Marxism/Communism/Leninism/Stalinism/.../ and now as in this article is manifested in its latest Iranian incarnation: Hekmatism.

And what good have they brought to humanity ?

 For an Islamic democracy

Princess jaan

You state: 

"I choose side with the victims of coercion (because I know they exist) "

Your argument is very strong and irrefutable. It is based on a concrete analysis of concrete people (Muslim teenagers) in concrete places and situations (wanting, like any Western teenager, to be like all other teenagers and by extension assimilate into the main-stream culture, risking their lives by taking off their Hijab a few streets away from home, etc.)

In every single Western country we have examples of fathers or brothers having murdered their daughter / sister for not wearing Hijab. Maybe it is not as difficult as I thought to prove the coercive nature of veiling. I think if a social worker asks the fundamentalist Muslim men what they would do if their daughters went out unveiled, they would not hesitate to respond that they would kill her. Also, it is very easy to interview the teenagers with forced Hijab and find out what they really think about it or find witnesses for the scene of their unveiling away from home.

You speak of “all those who blindly call for the Women's right to choose.” I think the problem with them is having adopted an abstract approach to veiling and having looked for a universal solution. Such abstract approach (instead of a concrete analysis of a concrete situation) is shared by Azar Majedi, with the opposite outcome.  I believe there is no universal solution to the issue of Hijab.

I wonder if any of those “pro-choice” people on this site would be affected by your convincing argument as much as I was, or maybe even a little bit? :-).   

For Iran, Getting rid of the Mullahs and Mullah-hood as a parasitic and unproductive layer of society should be the first step.  In Islam, one does not need an intermediary to pray to God.  And I remain a proponent of choice and unveiling of women through continual debate and media campaign and education.  But even there, we have to wait and see the context. We’ll probably have to have different approaches for different parts of Iran and for its different institutions.  

Thanks for the exchange.

Cheers,

Azadeh

Azadeh jaan

I agree with you that in more traditonal societies, where wearing the veil is much more common place and a fundamental change of culture has to take place, your suggestion is a lot more sustainable.

However in Western democracies, where we are dealing with these cases in minorities, I think the law should side with victims who are coerced into wearing the hejab.

We both know that enforcing the hejab on women does not only happen amongst the underaged. I personally knew of Turkish girls in Germany (in their late teens and ealy 20s) who would leave their parents home in full hejab, only to take it off a couple of streets further because they wanted to assimilate and be part of the society they lived in. (Remember in such cultures it is not acceptable for a girl to leave the parents home until they marry often a candidate of her parent's choice, who also reinforce the same mentality.)  I can imagine the kind of beating they would get, when they are discovered by their male relatives for not wearing the veil in public. In a Muslim household the authorities of the fathers, brothers and husbands sometimes exceed that of the law of the state.

So to all those who blindedly call for the Women's right to choose, I say how about the rights of the victims we know exist? It might be true that I cannot prove that they have not arrived at the decision of the wearing the veil by themselves, but the same argument holds for the other side. The difference between someone like me, who advocates the ban and those who oppose it, is that I choose to side with the victims of coarsion (because I know they exist) and they choose to advocate choise at any cost, however misled their understanding of that choice might be. 

Divaneh aziz, couldn't agree more

And here is what I wrote in another blog on the subject,

//iranian.com/main/2011/apr/cant-wear

"Just entertain this idea for a sec, will you...

Don't you think putting this time and effort in educating the very small minority of people would have yielded better result without alienating some Muslim community and heel the rift? Isn't this law really to appease the hard core write then really to deal with such small group of folks who are not hurting any one by their action??"

And again believing time and effort could have resulted much more affective in combating women's oppression by education rather then criminalizing the behavior that may very well be out of their control to begin with.

What do we expect will happen to these women who are forced to wear them, a good likelihood that they will be banned by their masters (husbands and fathers) not to step out on the streets limiting even more exposure they would have otherwise have to a more open society.

Mehrdad

آیا حجاب باید ممنوع شود؟

First of all Hejab is different than Neqab.  So my answer to your question is NO . ...... Also I wish that you've not chosen such a misleading picture for your blog.  I have already stated my opinion on wearing Neqab on the other blog and I am against it.  

I, however, support the right of a woman to choose Hejab as well as her right to not to.

Having a simple scarf on your head or not does not change anything in your daily life. We have many educated women both in the middle east as well western countries and as a matter of fact throughout the entire globe who have chosen to observe Hejab......... Scarf can be seen as an accessory to the daily clothing of a muslim woman with out interfering with anything that she does.... These women are no where even close to your assumptions of them. They actually see themselves to be highly liberated and modern in all aspects.........They have their own reasons to wear it and they should be respected rather than being insulted.  It all depends how a woman wants to approach this. It is almost similar to nun who might choose to wear the habit ....... Did you know Britain banned nuns for many years?  When a nun in habit first appeared back in Britain she was seen as a barbarian. 

Now is Mulsims turn ..........

Dear Mehrdad

I admire your devotion to personal freedom but we are seeing two different things in here. You see it as a choice of clothing and I see it as a symbol of women suppression. I have seen Western girls marrying Muslim men and choosing to wear hejab. That is choice, even if they do it for the man. Most Muslim women have never had the choice.

I agree with you that girls in the West are influenced differently and perhaps sexualised too much. Each culture educates its people differently and in that they are all the same. We however have to measure these cultural behaviours with their outcome. It is not difficult to observe that those societies who strictly impose hejab are amongst the most backward societies where women's contribution to the society and its future is limited to having sex and producing babies. Hejab has made them objects that are properties of men. This is in sharp contrast to the liberated women in the West. To summarise, I am not against people's choice of clothes but think Hejab needs to be challenged, hopefully through education.

Dear Princess

You state: 

“I would argue that whether they regard covering themselves as dignified or not is beside the point, until it is proven that they have arrived at this decision of their own accord and not through years of indoctrination by their male relative.”

We know that they have been indoctrinated by either their male relatives or their own indoctrinated mothers. But how do we “prove” this fact and prove it to the Muslim women themselves? Indoctrinated people do not know and do not accept that they have been indoctrinated. What is the method you propose to obtain the evidence for or against these women’s free will?

I think the solution would be for a democratic and laic State to allow women to wear what they want (except the mask) and set up a permanent consciousness raising campaign as part of its Ministry of Women’s Affairs to inform women of their human rights in the media, the schools and places of work as well as centres / shelters for women who want to escape their family environment that forces them to veil. Campaigning against the ideas of Gheyrat and Namoos and divulging their fascistic nature is a must.

The alternative would be to pass a Law forbidding all kinds of covering. The only model I can think of is that of Reza Shah. Is this model appropriate in a democratic State? That’s a question that needs to be addressed.

Cheers,

Azadeh

SamSam, whatever bro, whatever.

.

Hojjati

"If you like Chinese women, go for it."

My praise of chinese women was not "Sexual" & 4 better or worse I never dated one ,yet for you to manage to extract sexual innuendo outta that comment shows you need to chill out a bit :) . & as for Iranian men screwing Iran I totaly agree but take note that the same men were given birth, nurtured, raised & educated in their most impressionable years by no other but their own Moms who tweaked in them the basic rations of an ommatie mindset. So in short what screwed Iran is not based on gender but ideology of ideologue slaves of left & right regardless of gender.

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

Chinese women are also usually slim

Another benefit for Iranian men who value slim women more.

That seems to be true SamSam

However every comment does not need to end with insulting Iranian women. If you like Chinese women, go for it. What Iranian women do not need is getting insulted by Iranian men who have screwed up Iran.

Chinese women are the embodiment of "female self-pride"

Women around the world should take note & follow the lead of "China woman" for full emancipation. From personal observations I find Chinese women as assertive, strong, pragmatic, independent, realists, focused, proud,  take it by the horn type who take no shit from men be it in bussines, politics or family life.

Take every major city in North America for example and in every single one you find the most vocal , take charge politician to be a China woman called olivia wong or victoria chang or fang or ming. Be it your average chinese restaurant or the multi national conglometers across Hong Kong, Taiwan & from Asia to Europe & America , it is mostly the all active take charge China woman who is calling the shot at home & at work. When China woman talks, the china man listens & I have seen it many times over. 

Wether its the product of the gentle Chinese male & tolerant china culture or wether its the strenght of china woman the fact remains that this model should be copied & exercised by women elsewhere, specialy by our own omar o ommatized soghra kobra and even more by the so called intelligentsia solution makers who want to free them. The irony is that most of these so called liberators(ommaties themselves) are the fiercest defenders of status quo paradigm of shaikhak icons, culture & literature be it social or lingual.  

I always encourage my little girl to find & hang around with more chinese girls in her school and its already paying off in her positive self initiative outlook on her chores.

Cheers!!!

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

Does anyone know...

what the statistics on these women is?

What precentage are college educated, for example.

I have never seen a masked doctor; but then again, it may be just me.

( I am not drawing any particular conclusion from it. As all my questions usually are, this one is also an innocent question :-)

Yours,

Ali P.

With all due respect Divaneh Jaan,

"Hejab reduces a woman to a bag and is a tool to separate her from the society"

Many on the other side of the isle could and would argue the lack of Hejab in its extremer case, semi nudity, will reduce a woman to a bag of sex toy and it is a tool to separate her from humanity by making an object from here.

Both statements above could in fact bare truth to it, of course depending on one's point of view. But what I believe, we are striving for is a personal choice and personal freedom as long as it does not hurt others. And as such freedom to hejab should be as protected as freedom to dress in a colorful and open form.

Lastly to those who invoke brainwashing at childhood to hejab, unless they can argue that the opposite does not apply, their argument lacks logic.

One can not force their will on other adults regarding a personal choice and still advocate freedom for all.

Mehrdad

Azadeh jaan, This sentence

Azadeh jaan, This sentence of yours reveals a very subtle yet important point:

"I would go even further and say that in Koran, Allah does not speak to women directly, but tells men to tell their wives (and I think other female relatives) to cover their head and chest, which proves that men are behind the choice of Hijab."  

And I completely agree with it.

On the rest I agree with Ms Majedi. The point is, unless Muslim women manage to achieve a somewhat equal status with their men in terms of decision making power inside and outside their homes, any so called "choices" they make must be taken with a grain of salt. I would argue that whether they regard covering themselves as dignified or not is besides the point, until it is proven that they have arrived at this decision of their own accord and not through years of endoctrination by their male relative.

You porbably know better than I do that the concept of the veil - be it the burkha or other forms of hijab - stems from such archaic cultural notions as namoos and qheirat and does not much have to do any religious concept.  It's just that the poor women are made to believe in the myth about it being part of their religion. 

A more balanced but condescending response Ms Azad.

Ms Azad

The problem with your line of thinking (and more so in Ms Majedi's case) is that you assume a superior moral status to the rest of the world. Here is a n example:

"You and I know that these women are degraded and covered sex objects, but most of them do not experience Hijab as degrading. They believe that what their husbands tell them is for their own good. They feel that they have chosen to obey God’s decree. This is their lived truth. "

How do you know that women who are under hijab are degraded whereas those who are revealingly clad are dignified? If you have uncovered a source of knowledge (and not a mere belief) that can prove your claim why don't you share it with the rest of of the world instead of keeping it secret between yourself and Ms Majedi? What is your lived truth?

The answer is that you don't have such knowledge otherwise it would have been known and accepted worldwide instead of remaining private between you and Majedi. You and Ms Majedi like your muslim sisters, believe that wearing hijab is degrading in the same way that your muslim sisters believe that not wearing hijab is degrading. You and your muslim sisters are the two sides of the same coin: believers in a faith.

I must, however, commend you in exposing the dark side of Ms Majedi's Hekmatist agenda (what I described as Pol Pot like edicts) - after all, Communism and Nazism have a common root: Fascism.  

For an Islamic democracy

...

Azadeh jan I'm in complete agreement with every single paragraph in your reply, except the last. Here's a brief intro into why, (with apologies to rafigh Majedi for the off-topic "intervention"), cheerio

//www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_...

As an instrument of working class rule, the
state in first stage of communism is labeled, in what has proven to be an unfortunate
turn of phrase, the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Hal Draper has
demonstrated that "dictatorship" meant something very different to Marx
and his contemporaries than it does to most of us.26
Marx did not use this concept to refer to the extra-legal and
generally violent rule of one man or a small group of men. Before Hitler
and Mussolini, the meaning of "dictatorship" was strongly influenced by
its use in ancient Rome, where the constitution provided for the
election of a dictator to carry out certain specified tasks for a
limited period, generally in times of crisis. It was in opposition to
Blanqui's elitist views on the organization of the coming workers' state
that Marx first introduced the expression "dictatorship of the
proletariat," and by it he meant the democratic rule of the entire
working class (including farm laborers), which made up the large
majority of the population in all advanced countries.

Dear Azar

I agree with the truth of what you have written, especially when it comes to the absence of a real choice by Muslim women regarding Hijab. I would go even further and say that in Koran, Allah does not speak to women directly, but tells men to tell their wives (and I think other female relatives) to cover their head and chest, which proves that men are behind the choice of Hijab.

However, while I totally agree with banning niqabs / masks as representative of a violent ideology, I do not agree with forbidding the right of Muslim women to wear Hijab (covering their head, leaving their faces uncovered to be recognized as a person of a certain gender with specific facial traits.) The question of being forced to wear Hijab among ordinary and non-Islamist Muslim women is a grey area that cannot be supported by the lived experience of these women. You and I know that these women are degraded and covered sex objects, but most of them do not experience Hijab as degrading. They believe that what their husbands tell them is for their own good. They feel that they have chosen to obey God’s decree. This is their lived truth.

Your article is general and covers all democratic societies. I, on the other hand, while writing this comment, am thinking only of Iran, of a future democratic and laic Iran. In such a society, women must have the right to cover their head if they wish to. If we don’t agree with their men telling them what to wear, then we cannot do the same thing in reverse by telling them Not to wear what we believe to be degrading. Don’t you think that many young girls and women in the West wear clothing that you and I consider degrading to women? You might say they are not forced. I argue that the Media, the fashion corporations and peer groups exercise cruel coercion on many young Western women. Are you going to suggest that the degrading clothing that these women wear should be forbidden as well? Consistency is part of fairness.

Your solution, i.e., forced elimination of Hijab, is dictatorial and does not value women as people who could change their outlook and beliefs through education in a democratic and laic society. In a future democratic Iran, women who wish to go to university and work outside of the home while wearing hijab, will be exposed to influences that they could not receive otherwise.

The only hypothetical situation that justifies the banning of Hijab is if all Muslims in a specific society become fundamentalist Muslims.

T here is no security risk on the part of the women who cover their heads. Women who wear hijab are not mutilating themselves. There is no physical harm to anyone coming from covering the hair. You cannot equate covering hair with Sati. I know enough about Marxism to remind you that you need to make a concrete analysis of a concrete situation (Lenin). Your argument is general and does not consider the social context of a concrete society.

(Proletarian)Dictatorship is part of the dark side of Marxism, which shows its face without our even realizing it. Dictatorship is against human rights and women’s rights, no matter what kind of dictatorship it is and no matter what good intention is behind it.

And in case you don’t know my opposition to Niqab / mask, here is the link to the related blog:      

//iranian.com/main/blog/azadeh-azad/masks-niqabs-are-not-everyday-public-clothing 

Cheers,

 Azadeh

Excellent article

Thanks Ms Majedi for your insightful article. Hejab reduces a woman to a bag and is a tool to separate her from the society. Those who think it is a personal right don't seem to realize that it is imposed on women in the first place. If a free woman in adulthood chooses to cover herself then that is free choice. A woman who was pushed into the hejab at the age of 8 or 9 by her parents is deprived of any choice. As you have clearly stated it is the responsibility of the law to deal with such abuses.

کافر همه را به کیش خود پندارد

صلاح شما نیست که خود را نخود هر اشی بکنید. با نخاع نمی‌شود در مورد شقیقه قضاوت کرد.

CoP and RG

CoP

Clearly you have a one sided view of personal freedom. In the same way the the anti-Islamic republic of Iran violates personal freedom of its female citizens by imposing hejab on them the French government is violating the freedom of their Muslim female citizens in exercising their personal freedom in wearing the dress of their faith.  

RG

I wished I had not read the article in full or as carefully as I did, perhaps then I could have come up with a milder criticism of its contents. You are clearly offended as you see a fellow communist being criticized despite her liberal leftist pretnetions. Pol Pot's (an agrarian communist) reference was to highlight Majedi's Pol Pot like edicts (now you read her artcile carefully: "this must be banned and that must be forbidden and so on ...") which lead to cleansing of his country from what he saw as her enemies.

For an Islamic democracy

جریان فلان چیز به شقیقه.

الجوابل مستدل فلکافرون!

سوالی برای خانم ماجدی

من در یک اجتماع مدرن و سکولار زندگی‌ می‌کنم که در آن خانمها مجازند در صورت تمایل با حجاب در اجتماع شرکت و یا به ادارات مراجعه نمایند. در کودکستان محلّه ما، هر روز صبح، خانم معلم از کودکان پنج یا شش ساله می‌خواهد که بایستند، دست خود را روی قلبشان بگذارند و سوگند وفاداری به قانون اساسی‌ این کشور را آدا نمایند. لطفا بفرمایید که به نظر سرکار این عمل نوعی "تعرض به حقوق کودک، آسیب رساندن به شخصیت و رشد کودک" محسوب میشود یا خیر؟ ممنون میشوم اگر جوابتان مستدل باشد.

Controversial if....

Other than security concerns, concept of self-abuse brings another perspective to analysis of hijab in the context of individual freedom and rights.

Self-abuse can be the case that legal interventions with one’s choice are justified. However, comparing act of wearing a dress as a symbol (of repression), to a self-destructive behaviour still can be controversial and far to fetch. As you have mentioned in your article, it should be seen in a broader context and not as one single behaviour. 

Very informative article on this topic, thank you.

 "Salman farsi", For Allah's sake, please, for once, at least read the article before attacking it because you dont like the writer! Then please make sure your comment make some sense. I mean  what have  "liberal left", "agrarian reform", "pol pot" got to do with each other , let alone with the contents and topic of  this article?

 "Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Personal freedom?

think again. The very concept of hejab is a violation of freedom and an insult to human dignity. And how come all you islamists call yourself traditional persian names and defenders while your very existence has proven to be contrary to that? 

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Shamless inarticulate assualt on personal freedom

Majedi's so called secular pretention is a sample of what the so called liberal left have up in their sleeve if they get a chance to run a society. Thank God for the voices of reason in the west and the east that make the chances of them executing their Pol Pot like edicts, as offered by Majed, nil. Their agrarian communism has been tried and failed its test. 

 For an Islamic democracy

Excellent article in defense of Women's Right

Very interesting.  You have covered all angles of this issue in your blog.  Thank you.

Thanks, Ms. Majedi

Very insightful and convincing!