Religious Fundamentalism is Not Feminism

With anti-Muslim bigotry on the rise and a president in office who promised to make America safe again by halting Muslim immigration, progressives rightly want to make room in their liberal spaces and movements for Muslim women. Many Americans rightly celebrated the election of the nation’s first two Muslim, female officials, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, as representative of a new era in American politics in which minority communities will finally enjoy the visibility and institutional power they have long deserved. But as we commend the tenacity of these women, it is important to remember that celebrating adherents to minority faiths and celebrating orthodox interpretations of those religions are two very different things.

The recent feminist impulse to embrace religious head coverings, namely the hijab, in the name of “intersectionality” and interfaith tolerance is perhaps well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided. While liberals justly criticize religious conservatism when it comes from right-wing Evangelicals, they often seem to change their tune when it comes to the hijab, a symbol of an orthodox, Sharia law-compliant interpretation of Islam. A common refrain heard from those on the political left is that it is paternalistic and bigoted for the non-Muslim majority to critique the hijab, because it strips minority women of their agency, and that criticizing Muslim women’s clothing is a façade used to conceal xenophobia and prejudice towards Muslims. This is not only false, but also at odds with our values of free expression and liberalism. Although empowered, independent Muslim women may don it of their own free will, the headscarf itself was designed to oppress and enshrine gender inequality in society, and it cannot be separated from its intended purpose. It is a mistake to think that we must shy away from criticizing an aspect of Islamic orthodoxy in order to protect Muslims as human beings from discrimination.

A refrain often heard from women of faith, particularly those from Muslim and Jewish backgrounds, is that, if a woman chooses to cover her hair, it is not oppressive. But this argument misses the fact that all Abrahamic faiths explicitly require women to don veils, and if veiling is a religious requirement, then it is simply not a freely made choice. The Qur’an, for example, instructs women to “… guard their private parts… and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment” (Quran 24:31). In other words, women are not only required to wear a head scarf, but to ensure that it is long enough to cover their breasts as well. If it is written in the Qur’an, it is not elective, but a commandment. It is a common belief among Muslim believers that if Allah has commanded something, the punishment for failing to heed that commandment is eternal torment in hell. If women are told they will burn in hell if they don’t wear hijab, it is nonsensical to argue that they “choose” to wear it. Consent under threat of eternal torture is not consent.

There are also millions of women in the world for whom it is never a choice to wear hijab, but a legal obligation forced upon them by their oppressive governments. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, women who fail to properly cover their hair risk years in prison. These governments use hijab as a tool of gender oppression because they regard themselves as “true” Muslims who implement full, proper Sharia law. These regimes did not pull the veiling law out of thin air — they believe themselves to be implementing the will of Allah in this world so that they may enter Jannah (heaven) in the next. Further, compulsory hijab for women is an extremely effective tool of oppression for these tyrannical regimes because, by covering women, you literally erase them. By hiding the naturally occurring parts of a woman’s body, the intent is to hide her and minimize her existence, because there is nothing more threatening to a patriarchal system than a visible woman in charge of her own body. When you hide her hair or her face from public view, you take away her identity, her power, and her voice, making her easier to manipulate and control.

It is interesting that, when it comes to western women’s issues like electing female politicians or increasing women’s access to birth control and abortion, liberals in the west espouse precisely these beliefs. However, when it comes to Muslim women, these same activists seem to forget these principles and side with the patriarchal oppressor by embracing a garment designed to erase women and their identities.

There are other examples of western, intersectional activists taking a “one rule for me, another for thee” approach to Muslim women’s rights. Hijab proponents often claim that head coverings protect a woman from men’s gaze and lust, thereby freeing them from the societal notion that women must be attractive to men to have value. Internet memes depicting covered women as wrapped lollipops, and uncovered women as unwrapped ones covered in flies and dirt, are often shared on social media sites. Aside from the obvious anti-male sexism of portraying men as flies, this is a deeply problematic metaphor, as it both objectifies women and implies that they are to blame if they are harassed or assaulted. If an entire society adopts the belief that covered women are not at risk of rape, the logical conclusion is that, if a woman chooses not to veil, she makes herself vulnerable to attack, and is therefore to blame if a man assaults her. When coupled with the Sharia mandate that women must have four male witnesses testifying on their behalf if they want to seek justice for rape, the normalization of head covering in Islamic nations institutionalizes rape culture. It places the onus on women not to be assaulted, then requires a nearly unattainable standard of evidence to convict their assailants if they are raped.

Of course, an oft-repeated counter to these arguments is that there is a plethora of empowered Muslim women who wear the hijab. Left-wing activist Linda Sarsour, politician Ilhan Omar, entrepreneur Amani al-Khatahtbeh, Olympian Ibtihaj Muhammad, and many others are cited as examples of liberated women who wear hijab not by force, but by choice. These women insist that neither Islam nor any man has ever limited their rights or opportunities in life. However, this rebuttal misses the point. The number of women who wear the veil of their own free will is irrelevant. What matters is that we, as liberals in a secular democracy, should not continue to celebrate a garment that finds its roots in orthodox Islam as symbols of feminist resistance. Celebrate the accomplishments of the women themselves, but when they don a garment that was designed to oppress, it is our right and responsibility to criticize that decision. As individuals in positions of power, these women should be held to the same standard of accountability to which we hold anyone with such influence, and if they are glorifying a regressive, misogynistic garment invented to hide women from men’s gaze, we can and should call it out. Ultimately, they will still be free to choose to wear hijab if they want, but the hypocrisy should be challenged. That these women are free to express themselves, their faith, and their beliefs is not thanks to any religion or holy book, but one of the many luxuries of living in a liberal democracy. The First Amendment makes hijab a choice. The Quran says the opposite.