MASTER OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

POLITICAL DYNAMICS OF THE MENA REGION

2020/2021

The Hijab and Muslim Women in a Western Society

Margarida Rosa - 96782

Professor Giulia Daniele
Index
Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 3
Muslim people in the West: Discrimination, Islamophobia and Hate
Crime……………………………………………………………………… 3
The use of the veil………………………………………………………… 5
Perspectives from the West................................................................ 5
Perspectives from Muslim women…………………………………. 6
Do Muslim women need saving?.......................................................…….. 7
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….... 8

2
Introduction

Post 9/11, most western nations have seen dramatic increases in bias motivated
discrimination against Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim. In part, this is due to
the fact that those who are covered, in particular, are readily identifiable. Yet it also has
to do with the controlling images of Muslims, women, and Muslim women that render
the latter especially attractive and available targets.
The purpose of this work focuses on the study of the effects of the use of the hijab by
Muslim women in western societies. For that, the perspectives of both Muslim women
and western people will be analyzed, through articles, interviews and studies that expose
the difference in the way they look at the veil and the feeling it conveys to them.
For many years, Muslim women have been viewed by Western society as vulnerable
and in need of constant salvation or rescue for their country and culture. It is through this
discourse that the militarization of Muslim countries by the West is often justified and a
particular mentality in the western population is cultivated. This is also one of the main
focuses of this work, which has the purpose of bringing attention to this existing problem
and trying to make a difference by showing diverse perspectives to the topic.

Muslim people in the West: Discrimination, Islamophobia and Hate

Crime

Prior to the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington DC in 2001, Muslims
were not generally recognized as frequent targets of racially or religiously motivated
violence. They were considerably outstripped in the United States by violence directed
toward African Americans, Latinos, and Jews, for example. However, since September
2001, this has altered. The reaction was instant. As many as eight homicides were
connected to racially motivated, reactionary violence in the United States within 24 hours
of the attacks. Hate crimes erupted in most major cities, ranging in severity from verbal
abuse to graffiti and vandalism to arson and murder. The FBI was investigating more than
40 probable hate crimes related to the terrorist attacks by 18 September 2001; by 3
October, they were examining more than 90; and by 11 October, the number had risen to
145 (Perry, 2013). By mid-October, the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Southern
California had documented 800 occurrences worldwide, and by mid-November, the ADC
(American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) had recorded over 1100 cases.
Ideologies and images that mark the Other, and the borders between self and Other, in
such a way as to normalize the related disparities, are foremost among the motivational
elements creating bias-motivated violence in general (Perry, 2013). The explanations for
these disparities, as well as ethnoviolence, are found in the cultural realm. Because it is
this collection of discourse that articulates superiority/inferiority connections, it creates a
climate favorable to openly racist behavior. In line with an essentialist understanding of
racial classification, the overriding ideology is that of inscribed traits, wherein ‘the
stereotypes confine them to a nature which is often attached in some way to their bodies,
and which thus cannot easily be denied’ (Young, 1990, p. 59). The New Racism tends to
observe such traits in cultural terms rather than biological terms, but it nevertheless views
cultural borders as relatively stable and immutable, resulting in a similar essentialism.
Stereotypes that separate the racialized Other from white individuals are thus based on

3
what are considered to be racial minorities' distinguishing characteristics. They aid in
distinguishing white from non-white. Rather than being a question of skin colour or other
characteristics, ‘white' could be a metaphor for western or non-‘Third-World-looking'
individuals (Hage, 1998). The latter are to be feared, ridiculed, and loathed for their
difference as recognized in the popular psyche. Almost invariably, the stereotypes are
loaded with disparaging associations, suggesting inferiority, irresponsibility, immorality,
and nonhumanness, for example. Consequently, they provide both motive and rationale
for injurious verbal and physical assaults on minority groups. Acting upon these
interpretations allows dominant group members to recreate whiteness as superiority,
while punishing the Other for their presumed traits and behaviors. The active construction
of whiteness, then, exploits stereotypes to justify violence.
When it takes to Muslim women in specific, the Paz and Kook’s article (2020) shows
that one of the most prominent issues mentioned regarding the meaning of the hijab in
their lives is its role as a stimulant of fear, antagonism, and hatred. The hijab serves to
signify them both as the ultimate ‘other’ as well as subordinate, vis a vis the men within
their communities, and vis a vis both sexes outside their community. All the women stated
that they experienced discrimination in their everyday encounters with society and
reported numerous incidents in which this discrimination took on violent – either physical
or verbal – forms.
As the women shared their stories of their lived experiences of racism and Islamophobia,
it became clear that these were patterns that they had all encountered as the result of being
marked as Muslims through the practice of veiling. While these expressions of
Islamophobia are aimed at the general Muslim female population, their impact, however,
on refugee women is unique. The refugees live in a state of constant vulnerability. Simple
actions, such as going to the mall, quickly become fraught with fear, due to the possible
extreme consequences of a confrontation, and also due to the lingering effects of post-
traumatic injuries.
Most women explained that while they want to be active as both the nationality of the
country they live and Muslim, they face discrimination in schools, workplaces, state
offices and in public open spaces. Furthermore, the interviewees often felt unable to fully
respond to these hate crimes due to their vulnerable and unstable political status. Their
sense of vulnerability and fear that their reaction would somehow harm their status, or
their asylum request was a theme mentioned in most interviews (Paz & Kook, 2020).
Discrimination and racism, in the public sphere as well as in encounters with official state
representatives, constitute a huge burden for these women, rendering their daily activities
very difficult and heightening their existing sense of insecurity due to a precarious legal
status. When society expresses racial violence towards refugee Muslim women due to the
external symbols of their religion, they are not only targeting the women’s identity as
members of the other religious group, but also their identity as women. This
discrimination cannot be reduced to its three constitutive parts: religion, gender, and legal
status. It is the intersection of refugee women’s socially subordinate status as refugees,
compounded by the discrimination against their other marginalized identities – gender
and religion – that results in the uniqueness and intensity of both verbal and physical
violence they experienced.

The use of the veil

4
Perspectives from the West

First of all, in order to understand what is the West’s perspective on the veil and on
Muslim Women who wear it, differences in policies on veiling in countries need to be
viewed in the context of citizenship regimes, the nature of relations between the church
and the state, policies regarding religious communities, the type of anti-discrimination
laws prevalent in that country, notions of gender equality, and the ways in which the act
of veiling is framed in the public sphere (Shirazi & Mishra, 2010). Highlighting policy
differences on veiling in various European countries, Kiliç et al. (2008) observe that while
France, Turkey and some German federal states have banned veiling in public institutions,
it is left to the heads of schools in the United Kingdom to decide whether students can
wear the veil to school.
In fact, the subject of veiling and its place in the educational system, particularly in the
European setting, has been the focus of intense debates, in the light of religious rights,
human rights and secularism. The recent French and Turkish bans on the wearing of
Islamic head coverings in educational institutions can be located in the context of the
‘debate on discrimination and multiculturalism’. On a related note, Michela Ardizzoni
(2004: 647), after studying the phenomenon of the resurgence of the veil among Muslim
schoolgirls in French public schools, argues that there is a ‘need to acknowledge the
existence of a hybrid identity that is neither completely French nor North-African and to
re-create a space for the female body to express this identity’.
Caitlin Killian (2003), in her study on veiling in France, explores how Muslim immigrant
women from North Africa view themselves and the veil in French society. Killian points
out that these women have also adapted to French culture because they use a distinctly
Western discourse of individual rights and personal freedom to support their position.
In another article that provides a comparative perspective on veiling and Muslim
integration in the United States and France, Killian (2007) explains the different meanings
and implications of the veil in the two countries by referring to their varying historical
and socio-political environments. For instance, she highlights the important differences
in the meaning of secularism in the two countries. While the separation of church and
state in the United States implies that the state cannot privilege any particular religion and
should not interfere in this arena, in France, on the other hand, secularism implies an
absence of religious symbols in public spaces and institutions (Killian, 2007). While
immigrants in the United States are generally not expected to assimilate in the areas of
religious and cultural practice, French society expects immigrants to integrate by adopting
French behavior and cultural values (Killian, 2007).
In the case of the United States, the hijab has become a symbol of American Islamic
identity (noting that the process of ‘re-Islamization’ has strengthened after 9/11 with an
increasing number of young Muslim adults assuming a public Islamic identity). In fact,
certain similarities can be identified between the American and British contexts. As in the
United States, Islamic veiling remains unregulated in Britain, despite the largely negative
perception of Islamic apparel in mainstream British society (Kiliç, 2008). Similarly,
Saharso and Lettinga (2008: 473), in their analysis of the regulations and public debates
on veiling in the Netherlands between 1999 and 2006, find that while ‘Dutch policies on
the veil still display a multicultural tolerant tradition of citizenship, the shifts in the public
debate suggest this tradition is under pressure’ and may be moving towards a ‘civic-
assimilationist type’ model. They observe that, over the years, public debates on veiling
5
are increasingly associated with ‘concerns about social cohesion and national identity’
rather than being a matter of ‘religious freedom versus public neutrality’ (Saharso and
Lettinga, 2008: 471). Thus, Europe is responding to the perceived threat of Islam with
moves to roll back multiculturalism and promote monocultural homogeneity. Attempts at
forced assimilation are being made through several measures, including modification of
citizenship laws, introduction of integration tests for citizenship applicants, introduction
of clothing and conduct codes for Muslim men and women.
While different countries follow different approaches towards immigrants, a common
element in many Western societies is intense scrutiny of various forms of Islamic veiling
(Shirazi & Mishra, 2010). For instance, while France and the United States follow
different approaches to dealing with Muslim minorities, policies in both nations
discourage veiling, either by banning the practice directly (France) or by failing to protect
the rights of those who veil (United States). Another common element across Western
societies remains the Western media’s portrayal of the veil as a symbol of religious
radicalism and patriarchal power.

Perspectives from Muslim Women

As we could see previously, in the post-9/11 climate, the hijab – a highly visible
manifestation of being a Muslim woman – has stereotypically been framed in Western
countries as a threat to notions of integration and national cohesion, and as a visual
embodiment of gender oppression and gender inequality. Media discourse and political
rhetoric about Islamist extremism are often illustrated by the image of a Muslim woman
in niqab and hijab. While the hijab has elicited political and public debate, little attention
has been paid to the perspectives of the women who wear it.
In Ayala Paz and Rebecca Kook’s article (2020) interviews were conducted to Muslim
women and religious reasons were always stated first when asked about the hijab. In light
of their religious piety and their commitment to Allah’s demand not to be exposed, many
women feel that the hijab allows them to integrate into society while preserving their
modesty and religious identity. Hence, the hijab emerged as both empowering and
liberating by allowing the women to leave their home and enter the public space. It
enables integration and mobility, which are doubly important to these women due to their
excluded status as refugees.
Thus, donning the hijab was, for most women, a deeply considered and deliberate action
which they saw as an act of piety, but which also facilitated their presence and physical
mobility in the public space. For some women, the hijab also represented freedom of
choice. In contrast to popular Western perceptions, wearing the hijab was experienced by
some as an expression of active agency, as a tool of political resistance against the
attempts to silence them, and as an expression of independence, expressed in the control
they demonstrated over their bodies and the choices in their lives (Paz & Kook, 2020).
Both in the West and in Islamic societies, Muslim women’s bodies are regulated through
patriarchal social rules on the one hand, and secularist reforms on the other. Whether the
veil is a mandated form of dress for women (as in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan),
or outlawed in secular public institutions in countries (like Germany), the effect is
essentially the same. Practices of regulating women’s bodies are imposed by state
authorities and thereby challenge the political and spiritual autonomy of Muslim women.
They are unable to make reasoned choices about their bodies (Zine 2006). In this way,
6
wearing the hijab is viewed by some women as an empowering and liberating act that
represents a feminist stance towards resisting Western hegemony and its attempts to
control the female body.
An additional way in which the practice of veiling contributed to their sense of
autonomy and empowerment came up when discussing the meaning of freedom. The
hijab challenges the dominant Western understanding of freedom, and thus for many
women, wearing the hijab constituted an active stance of resistance. Their freedom is not
limited by wearing the hijab, but rather by the norms of Western liberal society, that
defines a ‘free woman’ as a woman who is free from religious observance.
The women discussed the hijab in the larger context of the notions of ‘choice’ and
‘freedom’; notions which in the Western liberal worldview are associated with the idea
of individual autonomy and independence, that privilege the independent liberal subject,
while negating the possibility of any other forms of selfhood (Mahmood 2006; Nussbaum
2000).
In the article from Anderson Al Wazni (2015), when being asked whether they felt that
their identity as Muslim women who wear hijab challenges or contradicts mainstream,
Western images of empowered or feminist women, all participants stated that they do feel
that the hijab may challenge Western images of empowered or feminist women, but that
it is not necessarily in contradiction to Western values of female empowerment and
feminism. Similar to the responses received about whether one identifies as a feminist,
several participants endorsed equality of the genders and female empowerment but felt
rejected by feminist movements as a whole.

Do Muslim women need saving?

The use of feminism as a means to justify the West’s assumed superior model of
democracy and freedom, particularly in regard to Eastern nations with high
concentrations of Muslim followers, has been a feature of Western international relations
beginning as early as the 19th century and into the 20th century (Ahmed, 1992).
Throughout North Africa during the colonial period, the British and French utilized the
rhetoric of Western people saving Eastern women to justify imperialism and repressive
control of Eastern states (Ahmed, 1992). Abu-Lughod (2014) described the justification
for imperialism and military occupation of Muslim countries through the exploitation of
Western feminist imagery.
The invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks had severe
and at times a debilitating impact on the Muslim community abroad, as well as within
America. The image of the Muslim as terrorist was quickly picked up by the media, and
while Muslim males were no more favored, the image of the veiled Muslim woman
became a symbol of oppression and violence (Haddad, 2007). During the Bush
administration, George W. Bush (2001) himself referred to such Muslim women as
“women of cover.” First Lady Laura Bush stated in her radio speech on November 27,
2001, that “civilized people” were horrified by the treatment of women and children in
Afghanistan and “the world the terrorists would like to impose on the rest of us”.
Although she was not referencing the practice of hijab specifically, the image of Afghan
women who were forced to wear the burqa under the Taliban became associated with
“women of cover.” Muslim Americans quickly found themselves in a sociopolitical
setting where the average Muslim, and particularly veiled Muslim women, had to defend

7
themselves against the notion of Islam as oppressive and aggressive. This stereotype of
Muslim women prevails, despite the fact that Islamophobia, hate crimes, and acts of
violence appear to be on the rise, and are increasingly directed toward Muslim women
who wear burqas (Al Wazni, 2015).
The image of the hijab as the symbol of oppression and violence against women by the
hands of the uncivilized Muslim man became the rallying point not only for American
politicians, but for contemporary Western feminists as well. Although the hijab has
repeatedly been dismissed by feminist efforts as both degrading and subjugating to male
dominance, the reclaiming of the Islamic practice of the hijab as a Muslim women’s
movement of solidarity and affirming the Islamic religion and identity as liberating and
not oppressive, is an emerging trend amongst American Muslims (Ahmed, 2011). Haddad
(2007) reported that Muslim women born and raised in the United States were
increasingly wearing hijab as "an iconic symbol of the refusal to be defined by the
Western media and war propaganda since 9/11" in a study of second-generation American
Muslim communities (p. 254). Many Muslim women in America believe that American
feminists are complicit in imposing their ideals on “other” women, and that Western
representations of the hypersexualized and exposed woman are incompatible with Islamic
teachings and exploitive of women. That is not to say that Western feminist movements
are not evolving to become more inclusive, as evidenced by emerging third wave and
nonwhite feminist thought. So-called third-wave feminists are advocating for what
Snyder-Hall (2010) called choice feminism, which “views freedom not as simply the
‘capacity to make individual choices,’ but rather as the ability to determine your own life
path” (p. 256).

Conclusion

Debate on the Muslim veil, as a signifier of both identity and racism, have occupied a
central place in the social sciences since the 1990s. One side views the veil as a symbol
of submission and subordination, while the other views it as a symbol of resistance against
growing racism and Islamophobia, with the veil an over-determined sign of ‘otherness’.
So, what can the West do to handle the issues of Muslim women, cultural relativism, and
problems of differences in opinions?
Firstly, considering the voluntary practice of hijab from a place of feminist thought,
choice, and self-determination may lead to the prevention of implicit bias against Muslim
women socially and politically.
Secondly, one should consider what feminists should do with strange political
bedfellows and observe closely on what agenda is one supporting and why they are
supporting it (Abu-Lughod, 2014). We should be vigilant about the rhetoric of saving
others because of what it betrays about our attitudes.
Thirdly, accepting difference does not mean that we should resign ourselves to
accepting whatever goes on elsewhere as “just their culture.” Instead, it seems to me that
we have to work hard at recognizing and respecting differences— but as products of
different histories, as expressions of different circumstances, and as manifestations of
differently structured desires (Abu-Lughod, 2014). We should want justice and rights for
women, but can we accept that there might be different ideas about justice and that
different women might want, or even choose, different futures from ones that we envision
as best?
8
 Another thing we have to be most careful about is not to fall into polarizations that
place feminism, and even secularism, only on the side of the West. It is unsafe to accept
cultural opposition between fundamentalism and feminism comparing it as opposition
between Islam and the West.
In conclusion, there needs to be more open mindedness to understand complex aspects
of traditions. The standards and the perspectives need to change.

Bibliography

Abu-Lughod, L. (2014). Do Muslim Women Need Saving?. Ethnicities, 15(5), 759-777. doi:
10.1177/1468796814561357.
Ahmed, L. (1992). Women and gender in Islam: Historical roots of modern debate. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press. Ahmed, L. (2011). A quiet revolution: The veil’s resurgence in from
the Middle East to America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Al Wazni, A. (2015). Muslim Women in America and Hijab: A Study of Empowerment, Feminist
Identity, and Body Image. Social Work, 60(4), 325-333. doi: 10.1093/sw/swv033.
Ardizzoni, Michela (2004) ‘Unveiling the Veil: Gendered Discourses and the (In)Visibility of the
Female Body in France’, Women’s Studies 33: 629–49.
Haddad, Y. Y. (2007). The post-9/11 “hijab” as icon. Sociology of Religion, 68(3), 253–267.
Hage, G. (1998). White nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. Sydney:
Pluto Press.
Killian, Caitlin (2003) ‘The Other Side of the Veil: North African Women in France Respond to
the Headscarf Affair’, Gender & Society 17(4): 567–90.
Killian, Caitlin (2007) ‘From a Community of Believers to an Islam of the Heart: “Conspicuous”
Symbols, Muslim Practices, and the Privatization of Religion in France’, Sociology of Religion
68(3): 305–20.
Kiliç, Sevgi (2008) ‘The British Veil Wars’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State
and Society 15(4): 433–54. Kiliç, Sevgi, Sawitri Saharso and Birgit Sauer (2008) ‘Introduction –
The Veil: Debating Citizenship, Gender and Religious Diversity’, Social Politics: International
Studies in Gender, State and Society 15(4): 397–410.
Mahmood, Saba. 2006. “Feminist Theory, Agency, and the Liberatory Subject.” Temenos 42 (1):
31–71.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. “The Future of Feminist Liberalism.” Proceedings and Addresses of
the American Philosophical Association 74 (2): 47–79.
Paz, A., & Kook, R. (2020). ‘It reminds me that I still exist’. Critical thoughts on intersectionality;
refugee Muslim women in Berlin and the meanings of the hijab. Journal Of Ethnic And Migration
Studies, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/1369183x.2020.1757417.
Perry, B. (2013). Gendered Islamophobia: hate crime against Muslim women. Social Identities,
20(1), 74-89. doi: 10.1080/13504630.2013.864467.
Saharso, Sawitri and Doutje Lettinga (2008) ‘Contentious Citizenship: Policies and Debates on
the Veil in the Netherlands’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society
15(4): 455–80.
Shirazi, F., & Mishra, S. (2010). Young Muslim women on the face veil (niqab). International
Journal Of Cultural Studies, 13(1), 43-62. doi: 10.1177/1367877909348538.
Snyder-Hall, C. (2010). Third-wave feminism and the defense of “choice.” American Political
Science Association , 8(1), 255–261.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Zine, Jasmin. 2006. “Unveiled Sentiments.” Equity and Excellence in Education 39 (3): 239–252.