Invisibly Visible or Visibly Invisible –Veil and Women’s Right to Self Determination -By Atiq Bin Ishtiaq

About Author:

Atiq Bin Ishtiaq is pursuing his post-graduation at IoBM Karachi and is an avid advocate of women’s empowerment and gender equality. 

Social Media was exploded couple of weeks back when a women in Lahore was allegedly refused for admission in a renowned university for wearing a veil. Folks from both sides of argument see it as a challenge to women’s rights in the country. Veil is not a reason for debate for the first time, but is increasingly keeping intellectuals busy in determining its place in modern societies. 

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy initiated a parliament act in his tenure regarding ban on “veil” (concealment of the face in public space) and “Hijab”, a full body covering. His stance to the act was that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person which is both a social hindrance and a security risk within a society where facial expression and body posture is necessary for communicating. The key argument is that it encroaches on individual’s freedom. When it comes to the modern perception of ‘freedom’, society as whole has penetrated the ideologies of religion. What has changed in the past century or so that people are questioning millennium-old practices? It was an abomination in the United States to openly declare homosexuality if we go back 50 to 60 years, but now it is considered an anti-human sentiment to speak against it. Same goes for the Islamic law and the basis behind it. 

As time progresses and ‘freedom of expression’ is on the rise, with a catalyst of the new-age social media, rulings like Hijab – the Muslim veil – have stirred emotions that only reveal themselves through anonymity provided by the internet. It is not completely a direct opposition to Islam, but anything that portrays rigidity in terms of appearance has received strict criticism. As countries are intervening more on what they call ‘barbaric’ laws, subtle topics like the Hijab are surfacing to counter the arguments on women empowerment. The directions toward global sentiments have taken the route of complete un-regulated freedom of choice. And what better way to advocate freedom than to use the historically-oppressed women as a subject. 

----"Public perception of a veil has been so damaged by the global media, that even a working-class female, who is in complete control of her life, is considered ‘oppressed’ if she is wearing the Hijab."

Majority of the new world believes in women’s right to wear whatever they please – something that holds an indirect contradiction with the principles of Islam. A country like Saudi Arabia has rigid rules that are perceived to be anti-feminist, but perhaps one country should not be the focal point of attention to judge a following of more than a billion lives. Women that have embraced the Hijab have strictly opposed the fact that they are oppressed. In fact, it is argued that empowerment comes from ability of a human being, not how they look. In the age when women are portrayed as objects – with popularity given to those who look good in revealing clothes, we have forgotten female contributors to society that will be remembered for their achievements rather than how they look. In my opinion, it is completely relevant to consider freedom of expression as humanitarian basis for evaluating a certain group. That is the sole reason why no woman should be questioned on why she is wearing a veil. Yes, being forced to do something goes against basic human rights, and the society we live in today makes sure we cannot be forced to wear anything we do not want to.

While people present arguments of states with poor human rights track record, they tend to forget countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, where the question of a woman’s hijab is never the point of discussion. In fact, this trend of secularism is often accepted in countries like these, while a country as ‘forward thinking’ as France has banned the veil in public. So it begs the question, France can be considered a more backward country than many of the states that are majorly practicing Islam. Public perception of a veil has been so damaged by the global media, that even a working-class female, who is in complete control of her life, is considered ‘oppressed’ if she is wearing the Hijab. 

This hypocritical ‘freedom’ that has been subconsciously embedded in our means of entertainment has ruined any sort of difference that goes against what first-world countries portray as a humanitarian right. If a woman, by her will and thought process, embraces something as openly rejected as the veil, it is a form of strength that can truly define women empowerment. Of course, not all the world holds mild Islamic practices as ‘backwards’, as countries like Australia openly defend a Muslim woman’s right to wear a veil. 

It is important to understand how desensitized we have become when thinking about only our perception of what’s right and what’s wrong. Only when a voice of reason through media that can defend an ideology on equal footing appears, we can safely say that there is a basis for judging years of practice on principles set by the modern world.