Origins of Hijab

Hijab alienates Muslim women from the mainstream, at least in the western societies. It pushes them to the periphery, creates a ghetto-like environment for them and cuts them off from the normal social interactions and friendships, closing many doors of opportunities that would otherwise be available to them including in the labor market.

#23 Dost ji..right on...often another issue very similar to hijab is sikh turban...most sikhs who wear turban in US/Canada/france etc used to wear it since they were 10 year old and then migrated to West...80% of them give it up but the ones who keep it they did not start wearing it to make in your face statement towards western people. Most of these are genuinely religious people who have been unable to change inspite of living here for decades. Imagine a Sikh who comes cleanshaven from India and starts wearing Turban as a reaction to make a benign political statement ..well..he will fall in the same in your face category.

``M.B.Z.Isphahani on June 24, 2004 6:30am PT``


This has to be Benz Zakar of yore/CNN days ....


So you are hiding/active here now ... :)

Mr. gill: suppose Karen Armstrong is accurate (and I have found her accurate in everything I checked). All this veil business is then nothing more than aping the west...... of the 9th century AD.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmed is funny.

Gill is qouting you Quranic ayah which are clearly mentionin hijab, and he still finds karen armstrong reliable.

Some people...

Huh? …granted, beating wives is a bad idea … but what’s wrong with concubines and slaves?

…what’s next? banning cigarettes, tariffs on european sports cars, expensing stock options? What’s a man, cursed with refined tastes, to do in this day and age? Watch temptation island and that $#%&ing bachelorette? ? I hope not! ... man ... talk about cruel and the usual punishment ...

… btw, what about your post on sex? You can’t renege now … you know ...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dullabhatti, kaurasach:
Something similar took place among the sikhs during the eighties. Some, who had shorn their hair and had come cleanshaven from India, grew long beards and started wearing turbans. This was less frequently out of religious introspection and more frequently out of identifying with the sikh political movement back home. Their assuming of these identies was also regarded as a political statement at that time. There was also significant pressure from the community, such as restricting Sikh Society executive positions to turbaned sikhs with unshorn hair. More recently, there have been attempts to amend the gurudwara act to restrict voting rights to turbaned sikhs. The normal practice among clean shaven sikhs here is to have a small beard and wear a turban over shorn hair while visiting the gurudwara on Sunday.

dost-mittar,

As a member of a first-generation community, can you please tell me what`s wrong with an `in-your-face` attitude? And I am asking this as in-your-face as possible :-)

A discussion that was between I think Vertex and another about exactly this issue on the previous Hijab board was quite informative. Needless to say, I think he was spot-on. The crux of his argument was that in-your-face expressions of `otherness` is part and parcel of this culture, so that alone is an insufficient reason to question the Hijab.

This leads, of course, to your `dar-ul-harb` statement, which is rather uncalled for. The implication being of course that the Hijab is in fact an expression of political hostility, rather than assertion of identity or the perceived fulfillment of religious obligation. There is a world of difference, the difference only being bridged by projected sentiment which is more an act of hostility towards the Muslim community rather than one emanating from it. Such sentiment should not be pandered to.

There is hypocrisy at work (which I am not accusing you of, btw) when those who suggest that the Hijab will somehow lead to ghettoization yet express a sentiment that those who wear it at work, etc. are being condemnable social miscreants. Here, by not being ghettoized, they are being offensive, and the only solution is to have them either ``conform`` (or rather, to placate) or to ghettoize. It`s no doubt a nice position to occupy for those who wish to be antagonistic...

escapist: on Quranic ayah - been there, done that. have reminded people on chowk many, many times on chowk to read the full Quran, and to use their common sense when reading it, rather than quoting isolated ayahs as if the Quran was a chemistry book of forumulas.

have reminded them of the above so many times that am fed up of reminding them. I think muslims take off their brains as well as their shoes when they start talking religion. That is the conclusion I have reached after three years of scientific research on chowk.

KauRay: Two of my best mates are turbaned. We all immigrated about the same time. I took it off after few years they stuck to it...many times they had discussions whether to take it off or not...not very religous in the traditional sense....it is more a cultural thing for them...older they get more chances to stick to it...but as you said both of them are more successful than me...in fact quite an accomplishment for both.
idhar asiN kuttay khasi karday rehnday aan.:-)

KauRay: Two of my best mates are turbaned. We all immigrated about the same time. I took it off after few years they stuck to it...many times they had discussions whether to take it off or not...not very religous in the traditional sense....it is more a cultural thing for them...older they get more chances to stick to it...but as you said both of them are more successful than me...in fact quite an accomplishment for both.
idhar asiN kuttay khasi karday rehnday aan.:-)

dostmittar: thanks for pointing out sikh example after 1984 incidents...I was to add that in my first post today but had to get away quickly so left it out...not only in Canada/US, in Punjab also there was a wave to keep beards and turbans amongst sikhs in 80s..most of it was political sentiment and have faded as quickly as it came...this Hijab wave is very similar to that...it is a political statement of defiance if particularly excercised by groups of people...(individual might have genuine reason of her own.).

Hiding face behind hijab for the sake of avoiding lustfully gazing men is no longer valid in the western societies where more and more Muslim women are turning to hijab, more for in-your-face political statement than avoiding to be lustfully looked upon. The standards of beauty, sensuality, sexuality and lust have moved away from face to other body parts in the west, at least. Yamila Diaz-Rahi would still be lustfully looked upon by men in her two tiny piece swimsuit wether face covered with hijab or not. My hunch is that like obese anti-abortion activists by the roadside every Sunday, the bodies behind most of hijaban converts are such that they do not induce lust even without hijab, except may be for Urdu poets who restrict describing beauty and lust to the facial parts. So the reason to wear hijab on the first place is no longer valid.

dost-mittar #various
The year the Southern Baptists distributed pamphlets on occasion of Diwali, calling Diwali a `a festival of darkness` because `devilworshipping ignorant Hindus` celebrated it, that was the exact same year we made it a point to put up a bright lighted sign outside, spelling out `Happy Diwali` to the general public.

Sometimes individuals feel that boundaries have to be drawn which others can not violate. A hijab as setting up a personal boundary need not be a bad thing. However, if it is a part of a wider agenda, like an across-the-board insistence of a community on glorified isolation, then boundaries like hijab are not a good thing. It all depends.