Convince me the hijab has nothing to do with Islam

[Safe-Keeper]

OK, so with the latest Norwegian trademark Tempest in a Teapot (read: debate on hijab-wearing police officers), one particular argument was thrown about a lot - that since there's no requirement in the Qur'an to wear the hijab, it should not be considered a Muslim custom but rather a political statement. This strikes me as an exceptionally odd argument and smacks to me of special pleading.

The argument seems to me to be that if something is covered by Holy Books, it's part of the religion, and that otherwise, it's a political statement. What this would mean is that the following beliefs have nothing to do with Christianity, but are rather political statements:

• That Mary was a virgin (the original scriptures merely say she was 'young').
• That the forbidden fruit was an apple.
• That God wants us to rest on Sundays (try Saturday).
• That people celebrate Christmas to celebrate the birth of Christ (Christmas is covered nowhere in the Bible and originated with pagans).

You can probably add countless more to the list.

A similar argument is made for the circumcision of little girls: "Oh, but that's got nothing to do with Islam, it originated as an African tradition!". Not only would this kind of logic mean that Christmas has nothing to do with Christ because it originated as yule, a distinctly pagan tradition, but if you travel down to the regions where this kind of thing is committed, guess what? They say they do what they do because they're Muslims.

So can someone please convince me that when Muslim women wear hijabs, it's because they want to make a political statement or {insert other arbitrary excuse here}?

 

[geni]

So can someone please convince me that when Muslim women wear hijabs, it's because they want to make a political statement or {insert other arbitrary excuse here}?

Islam is not a monolithic single religion but rather a bunch of closely related ones. The more liberal ones do not require the hijab. In such cases wearing the hijab in a non muslim society becomes a political statement that not only does it say "I am a muslim" but also "I am not ashamed of being a muslim".

 

[volatile]

"Muslim" does not describe a homogeneous set of universal beliefs, just as "Christian" or "Buddhist" do not describe a homogeneous set of universal beliefs.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The religious and the cultural are conflated (not sure if that is the word I am searching for, but it will do) all the time. Giving presents on December 25th is "part of" Christianity, even though it was taken from the culture of the people where that christianity was introduced.

Likewise, I think female circumcision was a traditional practice in areas that later became predominantly muslim. The practice was absorbed into the religion, and the religion helps to perpetuate it.

The Koran prescribes "modest dress" - and the form of dress this refers to will often depend on what was considered modest dress at the time Islam was introduced. I don't think there is anything more repressive per se about a culture that considers showing the hair to be immodest than a culture that considers showing the thighs, for example (very short skirts), to be immodest. However such dress proscriptions can be used by one sex to control the behaviour of the other - and that is where I have a problem with it.

 

[Merko]

The hijab is indeed the Muslim equivalent of the Jewish kippa. Which, incidentally, is also not mandated anywhere in the Torah. Christians have their crusifixes, I guess.

Unlike niqabs or burkahs, I don't think there's any good argument against allowing people to wear their hijabs. Unless they're modeling for a shampoo company, or something.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Thanks for the info, all. Oh, and Merko's last sentence made me snicker.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The religious and the cultural are conflated (not sure if that is the word I am searching for, but it will do) all the time. Giving presents on December 25th is "part of" Christianity, even though it was taken from the culture of the people where that christianity was introduced.

The present thing is much more a modern development. It used to be a time of drunken revelry. Why do you think the puritans banned it?

 

[I Ratant]

The present thing is much more a modern development. It used to be a time of drunken revelry. Why do you think the puritans banned it?

.
Not because of the "drunken".
It's the "revelry" that got their goat, a Puritan being someone who is upset that someone, somewhere, is enjoying life.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

• That Mary was a virgin (the original scriptures merely say she was 'young').

Just to clarify a minor point: the Gospels of Luke & Matthew do in fact say that Mary was a virgin.

The authors of these gospels relied on a probable mistranslation of an Old Testament passage from Isaiah (the passage explicitly mentioned in Matthew).

In the Greek Bible, the word used in the Isaiah passage was parthenos which really means virgin as we understand the term. However, in the original Hebrew, the word was almah which could have meant a young woman of marrying age or a servant or handmaiden (and was used in other places when it could not possibly have been referring to a virgin).

ETA:

• That people celebrate Christmas to celebrate the birth of Christ (Christmas is covered nowhere in the Bible and originated with pagans).

People do indeed celebrate Christmas to celebrate Jesus' birth. The Nativity is indeed covered in two (conflicting) stories in Matthew & Luke. Neither give any indication of the time of the year or talk about Christmas trees and wassail and caroling and stringing out electrical lights and so on, but I don't think anyone asserts that they do.

Many Christian holidays were chosen to displace "pagan" celebrations (or to hide within them).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry to go on about this--but facts are facts.

• That the forbidden fruit was an apple.

Trouble is, when you're painting a picture of The Fall, you can't paint a "fruit" without making it one fruit or another. I don't think "apple" enters into any theological significance. (And I would imagine more careful religious folk would refer to it as the "forbidden fruit"--at least, I've never heard the term "forbidden apple".)

• That God wants us to rest on Sundays (try Saturday).

The word sabbath originally meant something like "to cease". That different religions and sects use a different modern delineation of which day that is doesn't make one absolutely more correct than others.

I think orthodox Jews (probably the closest to the original practice) use Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown. (Not actually Saturday, by modern standards.)

Most Christians don't adhere to the prohibition of work on whatever their sabbath day is anyway. Instead it usually just means they're obliged to go to church that day.

 

[Nogbad]

The hijab is indeed the Muslim equivalent of the Jewish kippa. Which, incidentally, is also not mandated anywhere in the Torah. Christians have their crusifixes, I guess.

Unlike niqabs or burkahs, I don't think there's any good argument against allowing people to wear their hijabs. Unless they're modeling for a shampoo company, or something.

Christian women are supposed to cover their heads in Church and until relatively recently in Christian society a woman would cover her head with a scarf when outside. Just look at old photographs.

It is a ME thing about women and hair. It is not specifically Islamic but they are more old fashioned about it in some (not all) Islamic regions.

In Europe Muslims were relatively relaxed - many came here to get away from this sort of thing. There is however an identity thing going on and some young women are donning these things for political reasons in the West. It is inevitable that there will be this sort of reaction when there is friction. However, more young Muslims are not interested in this than are. A vocal minority always hit the headlines.