“Hijab” literally means “barrier”. It flows from the emphasis on marriage in Islam – the Qur’an describes a husband and wife as each other’s “garments” – giving each other intimacy, warmth and protection. The idea of hijab is to maintain the exclusivity of that relationship, such that the degree of physical intimacy and exposure is limited in all other interactions between men and women. In this way the aim of hijab is to de-emphasise sexuality in public interactions, whilst encouraging sexuality in private ones. The hijab has elevated women to the peak of respect and has saved a woman from disgrace and humiliation, given her a chance to be treated like an honourable human being and not a mere sex object for the lustful desire of bestial miscreants.
Hijabis a Divine imposition calculated for the maintenance if Islamic human fibre. This fibre remains intact and develops only with spiritual purity. Without Hijab spiritual purity and progress are impossible-unattainable goals. Thus spiritual and moral purification are the goals of hijab. When the Qur'anic law of hijab is abandoned 'ri'jz' (filth and immorality) becomes the order of the day. The catastrophic consequences of immorality, moral filth are too glaring and prevalent to require any elucidation. Every intelligent person will acknowledge that the physical diseases stemming from promiscuity and the ascendance of vices pertaining to sexual misconduct are the direct products of hijab abandonment.
It is important to remember that whilst the hijab has recently been associated exclusively with Islam, the idea of modest attire for men and women is referred to in the Judeo-Christian tradition in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as well as many other religious and cultural traditions (e.g. Sikhism and Rastafarianism). In many parts of the world, from villages in Italy to Indian suburbs women cover themselves in similar ways that Muslim women do. For many Muslim women wearing the hijab marks a rejection of a world where women have to endure objectification as sex objects. It helps them to enjoy a sense of their own (special) privacy and personhood.
Wearing the hijab can also be seen as a challenge to the power of corporations and advertising. The French philosopher Alain Badiou, responding to the banning of hijab in French schools, makes the point that the headscarf law is a pure capitalist law in that it orders femininity to be exposed. He suggests that, by banning all reserve, women are brought into the market paradigm and are forced to display their bodies as merchandise. He further asks the question: “Is it not even more mean and petty for a woman at school to act as a sandwich board for a corporation than as a follower of God?” Indeed it is true that while the Western feminist movement campaigned over many years for the right of women to be uncovered in public this “right” has quickly been appropriated by the forces of capitalism and consumerism. So much so, that we are at a point in time where much unhappiness, depression, eating disorders etc are directly attributable to the pressures on women to be seen to be sexually attractive. Clearly such expectations and consequences are oppressive to women. Prevailing cultural norms mean that young girls are robbed of their childhood as their clothes reflect and emphasise female sexuality; and older women are made to feel irrelevant (or relevant to the extent that they can maintain the appearance of being younger).
The recent row in French ban on wearing hijab publically is a much long conspiracy against Muslim minority which had started there in early 60’s. The fabricated narrations spread through the Zionist media against Muslim world lead to much confusion and chaos, which ultimately gave rise to notion that Islam is oppressing women. The arguments have resurfaced when, on 22 June 2009, at the Congrès de Versailles, President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that the Islamic burqa is not welcome in France, claiming that the full-length, body-covering gown was a symbol of subservience that suppresses women's identities and turns them into "prisoners behind a screen." A parliamentary commission of thirty-two deputies and led by André Gerin (PCF), was also formed to study the possibility of banning the public wearing of the burqa or niqab. Here is suspicion, however, that Sarkozy is "playing politics in a time of economic unhappiness and social anxiety." On January 25, 2010 it was announced that the parliamentary committee, having concluded its study, would recommend that a ban on veils covering the face in public locations such as hospitals and schools be enacted, but not in private buildings or on the street. Muslims have been the primary targets of hate crimes in France and throughout Europe since the 1960s, but France's Interior Ministry does not even count anti-Muslim crimes, as it does with anti-Semitic crimes. France'sNational Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) has documented hate crimes committed against Muslims in 2002--including letter bombs and the torching of mosques, but notes that these examples "fall well under the real number" of racist crimes committed against Muslims. Since 1994, more than 100 girls have been excluded from French state schools for wearing such veils. In half the cases, courts have subsequently overturned the decision.
Surprisingly there is a ban on wearing hijab in a number of so called Muslim countries (directly or indirectly controlled by western forces). As per the Wikipedia, currently, Tunisia since 1981 and Turkey since 1997 are the only Muslim countries which have banned the hijab in public schools and universities or government buildings, whilst Syria banned face veils in universities from July 2010. In other Muslim states such as Morocco, there has been some restriction or discrimination against women who wear the hijab. The hijab in these cases is seen as a sign of political Islam or fundamentalism against secular government. After the recent uprising in Middle East the air is expected to change.
Banning hijab is banning modesty and decency. There is no doubt that those behind it have the fervour of a crusader. There is something profoundly hypocritical in banning Islamic religious symbols in the name of secularism and gender equality--while the French government continues to subsidize private education for that other globally influential misogynist religion, the Catholic Church, at a higher rate per pupil than public schools.
Women, in western societies, are taught from early childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness. They feel compelled to pursue abstract notions of beauty, half realizing that such a pursuit is futile. When women reject this form of oppression, they face ridicule and contempt. Whether it's women who refuse to wear makeup or to shave their legs, or to expose their bodies, society, both men and women, have trouble dealing with them. In the Western world, the hijab has come to symbolize either forced silence or radical, unconscionable militancy. Actually, it's neither. It is simply a woman's assertion that judgment of her physical person is to play no role whatsoever in social interaction. Wearing the hijab has given freedom from constant attention to ones physical self. Because appearance of women is not subjected to public scrutiny, her beauty, or perhaps lack of it, has been removed from the realm of what can legitimately be discussed. No one knows whether her hair looks as if she just stepped out of a salon, whether or not she can pinch an inch, or even if she has unsightly stretch marks. And because no one knows, no one cares. Feeling that one has to meet the impossible male standards of beauty is tiring and often humiliating.
Hijabis a Divine imposition calculated for the maintenance if Islamic human fibre. This fibre remains intact and develops only with spiritual purity. Without Hijab spiritual purity and progress are impossible-unattainable goals. Thus spiritual and moral purification are the goals of hijab. When the Qur'anic law of hijab is abandoned 'ri'jz' (filth and immorality) becomes the order of the day. The catastrophic consequences of immorality, moral filth are too glaring and prevalent to require any elucidation. Every intelligent person will acknowledge that the physical diseases stemming from promiscuity and the ascendance of vices pertaining to sexual misconduct are the direct products of hijab abandonment.
It is important to remember that whilst the hijab has recently been associated exclusively with Islam, the idea of modest attire for men and women is referred to in the Judeo-Christian tradition in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as well as many other religious and cultural traditions (e.g. Sikhism and Rastafarianism). In many parts of the world, from villages in Italy to Indian suburbs women cover themselves in similar ways that Muslim women do. For many Muslim women wearing the hijab marks a rejection of a world where women have to endure objectification as sex objects. It helps them to enjoy a sense of their own (special) privacy and personhood.
Wearing the hijab can also be seen as a challenge to the power of corporations and advertising. The French philosopher Alain Badiou, responding to the banning of hijab in French schools, makes the point that the headscarf law is a pure capitalist law in that it orders femininity to be exposed. He suggests that, by banning all reserve, women are brought into the market paradigm and are forced to display their bodies as merchandise. He further asks the question: “Is it not even more mean and petty for a woman at school to act as a sandwich board for a corporation than as a follower of God?” Indeed it is true that while the Western feminist movement campaigned over many years for the right of women to be uncovered in public this “right” has quickly been appropriated by the forces of capitalism and consumerism. So much so, that we are at a point in time where much unhappiness, depression, eating disorders etc are directly attributable to the pressures on women to be seen to be sexually attractive. Clearly such expectations and consequences are oppressive to women. Prevailing cultural norms mean that young girls are robbed of their childhood as their clothes reflect and emphasise female sexuality; and older women are made to feel irrelevant (or relevant to the extent that they can maintain the appearance of being younger).
The recent row in French ban on wearing hijab publically is a much long conspiracy against Muslim minority which had started there in early 60’s. The fabricated narrations spread through the Zionist media against Muslim world lead to much confusion and chaos, which ultimately gave rise to notion that Islam is oppressing women. The arguments have resurfaced when, on 22 June 2009, at the Congrès de Versailles, President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that the Islamic burqa is not welcome in France, claiming that the full-length, body-covering gown was a symbol of subservience that suppresses women's identities and turns them into "prisoners behind a screen." A parliamentary commission of thirty-two deputies and led by André Gerin (PCF), was also formed to study the possibility of banning the public wearing of the burqa or niqab. Here is suspicion, however, that Sarkozy is "playing politics in a time of economic unhappiness and social anxiety." On January 25, 2010 it was announced that the parliamentary committee, having concluded its study, would recommend that a ban on veils covering the face in public locations such as hospitals and schools be enacted, but not in private buildings or on the street. Muslims have been the primary targets of hate crimes in France and throughout Europe since the 1960s, but France's Interior Ministry does not even count anti-Muslim crimes, as it does with anti-Semitic crimes. France'sNational Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) has documented hate crimes committed against Muslims in 2002--including letter bombs and the torching of mosques, but notes that these examples "fall well under the real number" of racist crimes committed against Muslims. Since 1994, more than 100 girls have been excluded from French state schools for wearing such veils. In half the cases, courts have subsequently overturned the decision.
Surprisingly there is a ban on wearing hijab in a number of so called Muslim countries (directly or indirectly controlled by western forces). As per the Wikipedia, currently, Tunisia since 1981 and Turkey since 1997 are the only Muslim countries which have banned the hijab in public schools and universities or government buildings, whilst Syria banned face veils in universities from July 2010. In other Muslim states such as Morocco, there has been some restriction or discrimination against women who wear the hijab. The hijab in these cases is seen as a sign of political Islam or fundamentalism against secular government. After the recent uprising in Middle East the air is expected to change.
Banning hijab is banning modesty and decency. There is no doubt that those behind it have the fervour of a crusader. There is something profoundly hypocritical in banning Islamic religious symbols in the name of secularism and gender equality--while the French government continues to subsidize private education for that other globally influential misogynist religion, the Catholic Church, at a higher rate per pupil than public schools.
Women, in western societies, are taught from early childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness. They feel compelled to pursue abstract notions of beauty, half realizing that such a pursuit is futile. When women reject this form of oppression, they face ridicule and contempt. Whether it's women who refuse to wear makeup or to shave their legs, or to expose their bodies, society, both men and women, have trouble dealing with them. In the Western world, the hijab has come to symbolize either forced silence or radical, unconscionable militancy. Actually, it's neither. It is simply a woman's assertion that judgment of her physical person is to play no role whatsoever in social interaction. Wearing the hijab has given freedom from constant attention to ones physical self. Because appearance of women is not subjected to public scrutiny, her beauty, or perhaps lack of it, has been removed from the realm of what can legitimately be discussed. No one knows whether her hair looks as if she just stepped out of a salon, whether or not she can pinch an inch, or even if she has unsightly stretch marks. And because no one knows, no one cares. Feeling that one has to meet the impossible male standards of beauty is tiring and often humiliating.