(1) Introduction

"In my previously published work, I have consistently objected to the manner in which Muslim women have been portrayed in books as well as the media. On the one hand, they have been represented as oppressed by their religion, typically understood as being fundamentally inimical to women’s social progress. From this perspective, the veil has traditionally been discussed as the most tangible sign of women’s “oppression.”"(1)

[Vreemde opmerking. Religie op zich onderdrukt niet, het zijn de gelovigen - de deelnemers aan een religie - die onderdrukken, met name de mensen die sociaal gezien de macht hebben. En dat gaat wel degelijk ten koste van vrouwen. En de hoofddoek is wel degelijk een symbool daarvoor. Maar het is natuurlijk niet alleen de islam. En het probleem ligt veel breder en gaat over alle symbolen waarmee mensen zo graag willen laten zien dat ze 'ergens bijhoren': kruisjes, keppeltjes, trouwringen, maar ook de emblemen van sportclubs of muziekgroepen. ]

"I do not wish to enter the fray on one side or the other of the ideological struggle for or against Islam. I have no animus against Islam. I was born to a Muslim family in a predominantly Muslim country, and I am proud of my heritage."(2)

[Dat is erg aardig, maar weinig kritisch. Een weldenkend mens kan alleen maar tegen religie zijn - of je er nu mee opgegroeid bent of niet - en dus ook tegen de islam.]

"A reveiling trend that emerged in the past two decades in a number of countries has recently gathered momentum. This trend is sustained by a socially conservative mood that spread over the Muslim world, the dissemination of faith-based literature extolling the home-making vocation of women, as well as a renewed or intensified involvement of men in matters pertaining to women’s dress and deportment." [mijn nadruk] (2)

[En dit illustreert waarom.]

"But today organized efforts are made to resocialize women into the culture of the veil with the help of a whole array of frequently contradictory arguments as well as the apparent consent of some women."(4)

["Some women"? Massa's vrouwen. Ook jonge vrouwen. En ze geeft hier zelf de voorbeelden van de stupide en gevaarlijke situaties waartoe de verplichting tot het dragen van een hoofddoek kan leiden.]

Lazreg wijst op academici en andere groepen die het dragen van de hoofddoek verdedigen.

"The hidden premise of the apologetic approach is that the veil is unquestionable because its wearers purportedly assume it to be so, and as long as they “choose” it, our task as researchers is to reveal its benefits for them. The veil, once again, emerges as a field of struggle, not only between men and women, as it has been historically, but also between native women (opposed to it) and women from non-Muslim cultures, or those hailing from Muslim cultures who support veiling in one way or another. (...) From my perspective, veiling is not reducible to its rationalizations, be they theoretical, social-psychological, economic, or political. By the same token, veiling is not about the “right” of a woman to wear or not wear one kind of veil or another. Rights are political matters ... " [mijn nadruk] (7-8)

"The politicization of the veil — its forced removal or its legal enforcement (as in Iran and Saudi Arabia) — hampers women’s capacity to make a decision freely, just as it also compels them to abide by an intrusive law at the expense of their own conscience and judgment. More important, it contributes to confounding the veil question by defining it unambiguously as religious, even when the religious texts lack clarity and determinacy in the matter. In this sense, the intrusion of the state in women’s lives in support for or against the veil stacks the deck against women and makes them vulnerable to giving undue credence to arguments provided by one side or the other." [mijn nadruk] (8-9)

[Tja, een samenleving dwingt mensen altijd wel ergens toe. Het gaat er om of de argumenten deugen, niet om of het iemands 'vrijheid' aantast. Het maffe is dat diezelfde vrouwen die 'vrij' willen kiezen voor hoofddoel en boerka collectie in opstand komen als andere vrouwen er voor kiezen om op het strand topless te genieten van de zon. Moet je eens zien hoe graag ze die andere vrouwen willen dwingen om dat bovenstukje weer aan te doen. En dan met de slechtste argumenten: dat we rekening moeten houden met hun 'gevoeligheden' - andersom hoeft dat natuurlijk niet -; dat het kinderen moreel corrumpeert - wat blijkbaar nooit een argument is om borstvoeding af te schaffen, en zo meer.]

"Furthermore, I do not intend to characterize veiling as representing women’s “alienation,” “enslavement,” or “subjugation” to cultural norms.(...) I instead approach veiling from an existential-philosophical standpoint that peels away the justifications that women who wear it or intend to wear it usually invoke. This is a delicate endeavor as the risk is great that a woman’s rationale for wearing a veil might be discounted as a form of false consciousness, and her agency dismissed as illusory. As a social scientist, I cannot deny women’s agency or substitute mine for theirs on grounds that I am more equipped to make sense of their motivations than they are. By the same token, mystifying rationalizations are not necessarily expressions of false consciousness or “agency.” However, agency is not a free-floating capacity independent of the social framework within which it expresses itself; neither is it above questioning." [mijn nadruk] (9-10)

[Wat zegt ze nu eigenlijk? Ze weet toch dat die hoofddoek wel degelijk verplicht wordt om vrouwen te onderwerpen aan mannelijke waarden en normen. Ze weet toch hopelijk ook dat het feit dat iemand zegt dat zij vrij kiest met een zak zout genomen moet worden. Waarom is 'vals bewustzijn' of 'illusie' hier niet gewoon een mogelijkheid? En waarom is het zo raar dat een buitenstaander het soms beter weet dan de betrokkenen?]

"I respect the woman who, after studying religious texts, concludes that it is incumbent upon her to veil herself, or that without a veil she would be living in a state of sin. I would, however, doubt her commitment to the veil if she has simply followed the opinion of others — men or sometimes women of religion — about the religious meaning of the veil."(11)

[Ook over de eerste kun je je twijfels hebben. Waarom zou je respect hebben voor iemand die religieuze teksten als leidraad voor haar handelen neemt? En hoe kun je vaststellen dat ze niet gewoon de mening van anderen volgt?]

"The open letters that follow are offered as an invitation for greater reflection on the reasons for which women are reclaiming the veil as a constitutive part of their identity, defending it, and describing it as a means of “liberation.”"(11)

[Geen kritiek op dus, maar een uitnodiging om wat meer na te denken over. Tjonge jonge, wat zijn we weer aardig en tolerant.]

(15) Letter one - Modesty

[Allerlei verhalen vanuit de interviews. Het zijn vooral vrouwen die dochters verplichten om de hoofddoek en zo te dragen als ze borsten krijgen of ongesteld worden. Dat leidt tot eindeloos veel beperkingen voor die dochters. En hoe je het ook wendt of keert: het blijft onduidelijk wat het dragen ervan te maken heeft met bescheidenheid. Ze stelt dat de koran vaag is op dit punt. Zwak argument, zoals altijd, omdat religie niet gelijk staat aan het heilige boek van de religie. Religie is vaak vooral 'geloofsgemeenschap', een manier van samenleven met allerlei regels die volgens de mensen met macht dan zogenaamd in de koran staan.]

"Instead, with the onset of her menses, the biological clock ticked for her at age thirteen, and the veil fell like a curtain on her childhood. Mina’s wistful description of her interrupted childhood brought back to mind the countless prepubescent girls I have observed over the years in small towns or poor neighborhoods in large cities. They would be lively, joyful, but as soon as they reached an age when they were made to wear a hijab, they would lose the spark in their eyes and become more self-conscious and less spontaneous. I suspect that the veil makes them at once more aware of their changing body and of the social limitations that such change entails for them as girls." [mijn nadruk] (18)

"In other words, modesty as a rationale for wearing a veil hangs on a concept that is so elastic as to be meaningless. Conceivably, a woman could dress any way she wishes as long as she does not display her breasts or wear makeup."(23)

"A Muslim woman is not more modest than another woman for wearing a veil. Modesty is not reducible to the veil."(23)

"Men’s desire is the root cause of veils that cover the body and face, such as the Afghan burqa — veils that obliterate a woman’s physical self. She must bear the body she was born with, just as a convict must bear the ball and chain. Concealment of the body is thus a form of punishment as well as an apology for having been born female, when it is not a means of redemption." [mijn nadruk] (28)

"The woman who makes her prepubescent daughter wear a headscarf tightly wrapped around her neck violates the texts referring to modesty and thus does harm to her daughter. There is no religious or moral ground on which to justify the forced induction of a girl into the culture of veiling. When she wraps a scarf over her young daughter, a mother conveys to her the belief that her body is an object of shame or special concern for others. She cultivates in her daughter the denial of her body; she inculcates in her psyche and emotions her natural inferiority. And this is done at an age when the little girl is vulnerable and expects her mother to defend and protect her from harm, psychological or physical. By contrast, the mother who voices her concern when her teenage daughter gives in to the reveiling trend is exercising her duty as a parent to enlighten her daughter about the historical and symbolic significance of her act, which far surpasses its indeterminate religious meaning. She may not succeed, but she will have tried." [mijn nadruk] (29)

"Social contempt for the female body thus turns into women’s resentment of their own bodies. Consequently, women act as if they were disembodied." [mijn nadruk] (33)

"Wearing a veil is not simply a personal act; it is a social convention. Consequently, it is not possible to claim that veiling is a voluntary act comparable to deciding between going out shopping or staying home. Even though veiling involves willful compliance, it always takes place in a social context and responds to social norms. Social pressure to conform obscures the stated purpose of the veil, modesty." [mijn nadruk] (36)

[Dat is een duidelijke conclusie.]

(41) Letter two - Sexual Harassment

"A number of women take up veiling because they feel that this is the best way to ward off men’s advances. They accept the notion that the veil “protects” women, and they think that men who are not their relatives share in this understanding of the function of veiling. Although there are men who value veiled women and treat them with deference, many do not. Discussions with women reveal a serious situation that underscores the gap between ideology and real life." [mijn nadruk] (41)

"The question is, if women know about sexual harassment in spite of the veil, men who are advocates of veiling must know about it too. This situation of mutual belief in the veil as protection from sexual harassment when women as well as men know that it is not is perplexing. It is as if women and men are complicit in sustaining a farce at the expense of a woman’s dignity and sense of autonomy. Why maintain this illusion of the veil as a shield against sexual harassment?"(43)

"What her example suggests is that sexual harassment in the absence of laws that prohibit it has no bounds, and to expect that the custom of the veil, even if infused with a religious meaning, makes it stop is a flight of fancy."(44)

"I frequently wonder why it is necessary to engage in these games and invest a great deal of energy in them that could be directed to more useful endeavors. Why cannot a man just accept that a woman need not be veiled, just like he is not? And if a woman’s veil is a symbol of modesty that protects her from sexual harassment, why do men not show modesty in their behavior toward women by refraining from harassing them?"(52)

[Ook een duidelijke conclusie. Voor de hand liggend. Mannen met macht zijn vaak opdringerig naar vrouwen toe, hoe ze ook gekleed gaan. "Als er maar een gat in zit," en zo verder, dat soort respectloos geklets.]

(53) Letter three - Cultural Identity

"In the post–9/11 era, experimenting with the hijab (because for many it is an experiment) has emerged as an increasingly attractive method for women from Muslim communities in Europe and North America to display pride in their culture."(54)

[Wat is dat eigenlijk, 'trots zijn op je cultuur'? Waarom zou je trots zijn op een cultuur of op de dominante religie ervan? Is dat een andere manier om jezelf wijs te maken dat je ergens bijhoort of juist niet bijhoort? Cultuur en religie lopen hier al gauw door elkaar heen.]

"The reveiling trend in Europe and North America emerged as an outgrowth of a movement that started in the Middle East in the 1980s. The rise of new fundamentalist movements among young men eager to revive and restore old practices sparked discussions as well as concern about what it means to be a Muslim, to live one’s life as a Muslim man or woman. The veil appeared one more time as a marker of difference from the globalized cultures of the “West.”"(56)

[Maar gingen die mannen zelf hoofddoeken dragen? Nee, ze eisten van vrouwen dat ze dat deden. En daarmee versterkten ze de bekende man-vrouw machtsverhoudingen weer eens opnieuw. Nee hoor, zeggen de vrouwen dan, wij wilden dat zelf. Yeah, right. Wat deden die mannen dan om hun identiteit te versterken en te stellen tegenover 'het Westen'? Hun baard laten staan?]

"This incident convinced me, if I needed convincing, that the veil is a man’s affair before it becomes a woman’s." [mijn nadruk] (57)

"As I walked away from this scene, I wondered why any woman should wear a veil that would help this man or anyone like him assert himself over her."(59)

[Dat is wat ik bedoel.]

"Yet banning the veil is as much a political act as is mandating it. Turkey (like France or Germany) is thus on a par with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Each sees the veil as standing for religious identity. Women are held hostage equally by radical secularists and Wahabists, Islamists and Shi’i Muslims. None of them trusts women with the capacity to decide for themselves how to manage their bodies and whether to wear a veil." [mijn nadruk] (60-61)

[Dit is - we zagen het al eerder - een erg slechte redenering die twee heel verschillende dingen gelijkschakelt. Iemand opleggen om iets te doen is al anders dan iemand opleggen iets niet te doen. De staat is er voor iedereen en haar vertegenwoordigers - zoals ambtenaren en politieagenten - moeten dus een neutrale uitstraling hebben, zou een argument kunnen zijn. Maar het belangrijkst argument is uiteraard dat de staat / de samenleving de invloed van religieuze groepen wil beperken, vooral als die intolerant en fundamentalistisch en vrouwvijandig zijn.
Je kunt als samenleving sommige dingen nu eenmaal niet tolereren en dus niet aan individuen overlaten, maakt niet uit man of vrouw. Je kunt niet met alle gevoeligheden van mensen rekening houden, vooral niet als die religieus gemotiveerd zijn. Waarom zou Harvard - zie het citaat hierna - de planning voor het sporten zo moeten maken dat rekening gehouden wordt met islamitische vrouwen die niet samen met mannen willen sporten - terwijl ze wel samen met mannen in de collegezaal zitten? Onbegrijpelijk dat Harvard tegemoet kwam aan het verzoek van die islamitische vrouwen. Je hoeft ook geen gebedsruimtes aan te bieden, vind ik. Als jij wil bidden, nou, dan is dat jouw probleem. En, nee, dat is niet hetzelfde als ruimtes maken voor vrouwen die willen kolven of hun kind de borst willen geven.
Ze noemt zelf ook het voorbeeld van abortus en dat een vrouw hierover moet kunnen beslissen. Maar zelfs dan geldt dat een samenleving die hier welwillend tegenover staat grenzen zal stellen: een vrouw mag er niet voor kiezen de zwangerschap af te breken als ze bijvoorbeeld acht maanden zwanger is. En daar zijn dan ook goede argumenten voor.
Het is naïef om zo te roepen dat vrouwen zelf wel kunnen beslissen of ze een hoofddoek willen dragen, want ze leven niet als individu maar in een context. We komen dan weer op de kwestie van de "vrije keuze" die vaak niet erg vrij is. In feite zegt ze verderop en in brief 4 hetzelfde. Dus waarom hier dit soort opmerkingen maken?]

"Is the reduction of Muslim culture to a garment the only way to force respect from Western nations? In thinking that it is, women in reality ask for sympathy on the grounds of religious diversity, while at the same time demanding special treatment that increases their difference from others in a way that marginalizes them. Are they not demanding that their colleagues treat them differently from other workers? In January 2008 Harvard University rearranged the schedule of the Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center on an experimental basis to set aside hours for women. The move was a response to a petition from Harvard’s Islamic Society and the Women’s Center. The point is not that Muslim women, the beneficiaries of the change, should not have a space of their own. Rather, it is the reason provided for it, namely, the protection of “modesty” — an old justification for veiling — and feeling “uncomfortable” (clearly for religious-cultural reasons) about exercising in the presence of men that is objectionable. Presumably these students take courses alongside males and would not think of demanding sex-segregated classes. Furthermore, there is exercise gear that does not reveal a woman’s shape. What appears to be a successful act of cultural identity assertion should not obscure its less evident meaning: it sanctions practices and customs that are usually presented as religious and that have harmed women. Harvard gave its official stamp of approval to a revivalist trend that is contested by many women throughout the Muslim world." [mijn nadruk] (63-64)

"The veil remains the least elevating and most politicized custom, which does little to move women forward toward human freedom." [mijn nadruk] (65)

[Vind ik ook. ]

(67) Letter four - Conviction and Piety

[Het argument 'uit overtuiging' raakt natuurlijk aan 'vrije keuze' en is even zwak. ]

"The full extent of Anissa’s turn to the veil raises the issue of women’s agency. If a woman like Anissa invokes “conviction” but uses this term to mean that she convinced herself that she should follow the veiling trend, she exercised her agency to conform to an outward trend, not an inner certitude. Thus, social conformity trumps religious duty, and the external side of conviction is substituted for its internal, substantive side." [mijn nadruk] (74)

"If agency signifies acting under one’s own power, it follows that Rabi’a’s decision to don the hijab was that of a free agent. But if agency means making decisions in full knowledge of one’s motivations and the consequences of one’s acts, after weighing the pros and cons and considering alternatives, then Rabi’a’s choice was not free. There is not enough space in this letter to engage in a philosophical discussion of the differences between free will and agency, or whether will is ever free. Nevertheless, and even though Rabi’a’s case may not be representative, it clearly demonstrates that conviction is as shaky a justification of veiling as convenience, or pleasing one’s husband." [mijn nadruk] (86)

"In the end, conviction when used as a political instrument to fight for the “right” to be veiled is harmful to the women who look for respect outside of a quasi-religious custom. Furthermore, it should not obscure the fact that a number of young French women resigned themselves to the hijab in order to put an end to battering by a father or brother, or sexual harassment in a ghetto, and to be able to go to school in peace." [mijn nadruk] (93)

"That male advocates of the veil are not bothered by this but are satisfied by the outer signs of piety is an indication that their goals are not to promote women’s spiritual needs, but to increase the material visibility of Islam through the hijab at the expense of both women and their religion. Indeed, seeing a veiled woman for these men is more comforting than advocating for social justice or equality." [mijn nadruk] (95)

[Een waar woord.]

(97) Letter five - Why Women Should Not Wear the Veil

"My previous letters have shown how justifications for wearing the veil are often more mundane than religious. There are a number of reasons why women should not wear a veil. These include the need to recapture the historic role that women have played as agents of change; doing away with the physical and psychological effects of veiling; awareness of the effect of the veil in the workplace; and demystifying propaganda that portrays women’s desire for progress as mimicry of the “West” and thus an offense to their culture and religion." [mijn nadruk] (97)

[Een en ander wordt nog verder uitgewerkt. Ik kan er trouwens nog wel een paar meer verzinnen. Zoals de weigering mee te werken aan seksvijandigheid en in het algemeen de weigering mee te werken aan onderdrukking door mannen, door religie, door de staat.]

"The state supervision and control of women’s dress and bodies is not only humiliating but also inhumane. No man has the right to dictate to a woman what color or length of dress she should wear. This is the most blatant abuse of power."(100)

[Slecht geformuleerd. 1/ De overheid bestaat niet altijd en overal alleen maar uit mannen. 2/ De eerdere kwestie dat Westerse landen soms terecht en goed beargumenteerd bepaalde kleding als boerka' s verbieden. 3/ Het zijn vaak vrouwen die andere vrouwen via sociale druk dwingen bepaalde kleding te dragen. Ze heeft er zelf vele voorbeelden van gegeven waar het de hoofddoek en zo betreft.]

"It is up to women today to make the next step and put an end to the politics of the veil by simply not wearing it as many women did in the 1950s and 1960s. It is women’s obligation to history to forge ahead as agents of social change and complete the work started by the previous generation." [mijn nadruk] (101)

"The veiled women I grew up with, including my mother, frequently complained about the heat trapped in their full white veils. The women wearing black veils, socks, and gloves suffer even more, as the black color absorbs the heat of the sun instead of reflecting it. The Afghan burqa, which covers the face with its gridlike woven pane, and the niqab, which leaves only a slit for the eyes, are equally inconvenient in hot weather, in addition to being difficult to manage: the long dress usually bunches up against and between the legs, preventing a woman from taking long steps or running." [mijn nadruk] (103-104)

"A veil is neither comfortable nor convenient."(105)

"Perhaps a more compelling reason for not wearing a veil is its unrecognized psychological effect on its wearer. In the long run, a hijab makes a woman feel removed from her environment."(105)

"The hijab induces in its wearer a sense that biology is destiny, and destiny is making sure that the body is not seen in its contours. A woman must repress her body. However, repressing the body is tantamount to repressing the self." [mijn nadruk] (106)

"This makes it difficult for women (as well as men) to develop a realistic sense of the other gender."(106)

"The psychology of the veil is not confined to Muslim women — it also affects non-Muslim women. In France, many non-Muslim women reacted with unusual verbal violence during the headscarf controversy."(108)

"They fail to appreciate how veiling and nudity partake in the same phenomenon: the reduction of women to their sex. If advertising in the West thrives on depictions of naked or semi-naked women, it also finds fertile ground in representations of women with hijabs in Iran. (...) The pictorial representation of women for political propaganda objectifies women just like advertising in Western societies does: one by covering, and the other by exposing women’s bodies." [mijn nadruk] (108-109)

"Since the world of work is organized on the principles of merit and competence, not gender, the hijab has the symbolic effect of diminishing the importance of formal equality in the workplace. Through the hijab, the working woman, the professional, implicitly expresses her gratitude for working alongside men and apologizes for entering a traditionally male space. (...) A woman who wears a hijab at work contributes to a vision of social life that leads to gender segregation."(109)

"It is not impossible that some men may secretly be angered by a colleague who has given in to the reveiling trend."(111)

"The West has traditionally represented a twofold challenge in the Middle East: a horizon on which to fathom or rethink one’s self, and a negative limit-case, a sort of antiworld of temptations that one should worry about. Women bridge the two challenges in the minds of advocates of the veil. (I have found it intriguing that advocates of veiling, especially neofundamentalists, use the best technology Western countries can offer in promoting their views, as exemplified by the cell phone, DVDs, laptops, and the Internet. These are technologies that make readily available the very temptations that the veil is supposed to protect women from. Yet such groups wish to protect women from the West.)" [mijn nadruk] (112)

[Religieuze gelovigen gebruiken inderdaad kritiekloos alle technische middelen om hun religie te promoten. Dat is altijd zo geweest, denk aan wat er gebeurde met en na de boekdrukkunst. Maar die technische middelen zijn nooit neutraal en worden door anderen ingezet om dingen te doen of te promoten die in strijd zijn met religies.]

"A woman who expresses freedom in her deportment is defined as one who mimics the West."(113)

[Lekker gemakkelijk, ja, zo gaat dat.]

"Solidarity based on the revival of customs that tied women down to centuries of domesticated life is no solidarity at all. It is the same old story."(114)

"When men prohibit women from wearing the hijab as a strategy with which to fight other men, they are also guilty of disrespect for women as human beings."(114)

[Nee, dat is dus niet hetzelfde en een slecht argument.]

"Imagining the West as a corruptor of women overshadows the far more threatening role that the West plays as an enabler and defender of conservative politics in the Middle East."(120)

"I suspect that coming to terms with women, accepting their humanness, also means that a man must accept himself as a fallible human being, one among many, who cannot demand any power of oversight over how a woman should dress or groom her body. A man’s absorption in the details of a woman’s relation to her body is an assault on her dignity. It also violates her freedom of conscience, as her body and mind affect each other. We oppose brainwashing as a violation of conscience, so why can we not oppose the straightjacketing of a woman’s body in a myriad of rules that specify whether a woman should pluck her eyebrows, wear stiletto heels, or visit the grave of a loved one? Such rules are a constant reminder that a woman’s body does not belong to her, and by implication she does not belong to herself. This is hardly conducive to a woman’s sense of autonomy." [mijn nadruk] (121)

[Het is een vage uitdrukking, vind ik: 'mijn lichaam is van mij'. Het is niet zo simpel, er is altijd een sociale context bijvoorbeeld bij wat je letterlijk laat zien (opmaak, kleding, etc. of sexting), bij seks, bij abortus, bij euthanasie, bij ziekte. En dus is er altijd regulatie.]

Hierna volgt tekst die vooral de conclusies nog eens samenvat.

"The veil has been tantalizing to Muslims and non-Muslims, including intellectuals. Attempts to present it as a tool of empowerment of women rest on a dubious postmodernist conception of power according to which whatever a woman undertakes to do is liberating as long as she thinks that she is engaged in some form of “resistance” or self-assertion, no matter how misguided." [mijn nadruk] (126)

"Cultural relativism should not obscure the real effects of veiling on a woman’s psyche as she lives out her concrete existence. Nor should it make palatable the massive and essentialist conception of gender difference that the veil embodies, for this would mean agreeing that the veil is divinely ordained — a sacralization task that eludes sanction from social science." [mijn nadruk] (126)