The scarf, chadar , veil, hijab, burqa, niqab are all in fashion, so to speak, in the West. Notions of multiculturalism, assimilation, integration, identity and rights, are being bandied about by prime ministers, bishops, muftis, mullahs, feminists and Islamists. Philosophies of religion, secularism, politics, culture, freedom, fetishism, and commoditization are in the air. Now fears of clash of civilizations, violence and terrorism are all the rage. Enter Sheikh Taj al Din al-Hilali, an Islamic mufti based in Australia, with a remarkable statement about women who are raped. “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it… whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab , no problem would have occurred.” Bloody metaphor apart, he is in effect saying that “immodest” women “are asking for it”.
This is a chauvinistic variation on the theme that somehow it is women and not men who are responsible for rape because it is women who provoke, instigate or encourage men to violate them. In Pakistan this philosophy is formally embodied at the highest level of the state and constitution in the Hudood Laws. Under these laws – universally recognized as being highly discriminatory and unjust – a woman who has been raped but cannot prove it by providing four male witnesses is automatically charged with and punished for adultery on the basis of her own confession that sexual intercourse has taken place.
This is unjust and hypocritical. Sheikh al-Hilali must know that the incidence of rape in Australia, or in any other Western society where women are like “uncovered meat” – is no higher than in “Islamic” societies like Pakistan where most women “cover” themselves in the scarf, chadar , veil, hijab or burqa . Indeed, most women who are raped or gang-raped in the rural or urban areas in Pakistan are not violated because they were “uncovered meat” but despite it. Rape here is less a result of wanton lust as it is of notions of vindictiveness or honour. Nor indeed is it the case that “if she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred”. In most rural rape cases, “covered” women are kidnapped from their chardevaris at gunpoint and brutally raped for a variety of reasons. Similarly, there is no evidence that working uncovered women in the urban areas are more liable to rape than their “covered and secluded” counterparts in the urban or rural areas. In fact there is no evidence that the incident of rape is higher in the “uncovered” and secular West than it is in the “covered” and Islamic “East”. Indeed, there is a striking similarity in the way both societies have sanctioned sex and provided a safety valve for raging hormones. In the West, extra-marital sex is the norm while in the East notions of more wives than one at any given time, mistresses and “temporary” wives are a fact of life.
The issue of the veil for Muslim women in the West is as much a political issue as it is a cultural or religious one. If secular Western culture hasn’t ever had any problems with the pristine religious habit of the Christian nun, there is no reason for it to be agitated or provoked by the Muslim hijab or niqab unless it is threatening in some way. Nor does the secular West frown on a manifestation of separate identities – in fact it flaunts the multiple identities of its citizens – in its midst, unless the separation proclaims an unfriendly and exclusivist political statement. That is why it is only in the current environment of civilisational distrust, anger and hostility, which is rooted in the politico-imperialism of the West and the politico-religious response to it from third-world Islam, that such issues have cropped up. In other words, the recourse to the hijab/niqab by Muslim women in the West is seen as an overt statement of political resistance and defiance rather than as a sign of innocent cultural separateness or group identity. This also explains why dogged practitioners of secular Westernism are inclined to respond with aggressive counter statements (cartoons of the Prophet, pbuh) or state policies (as in France) to reassert their collective national and state identities.
In the final analysis, therefore, while the political and civilisational context is still overpowering, such issues can only be resolved on the basis of the unique consensus within each nation state. If France were to outlaw the veil, for example, Muslims must obey French laws or leave France, just as when Saudi Arabia ordained the veil or hijab for all women, including Westerners, the choice was to obey the law or leave the Kingdom.
Similarly, while Pakistani society accepts a flexible dress code for local and foreign women, it objects to displays of nudity or licentiousness. Therefore foreigners should be advised to acclimatize to local sensitivities. Equally, if most Western societies are able to live with the hijab but not the head-to-toe niqab, Muslims should not shout about an identity crisis or loss of freedom.