Islamic Head Covers in Organisations
This is an examination into weather Islamic head covers of any form must be allowed in institutions and organisations. The rationale used here also applies to niqabs and burkhas worn for Islamic reasons (note that they can be worn for cultural reasons too, as in Middle East, in which case, the rationale used here does not apply).
I have given serious thought into whether to publish this post or not; especially given the possibility of ostracism of the entities that I am associated with. But since this is an issue concerning workplace, and because inaction will not solve this, and because the only two possibilities currently in discussion are to either to allow it or to ban it — both non pragmatic solutions to me — I find it necessary to publish this post which I believe contains some pragmatic points.
The summary of this examination goes thus. Islamic head covers are inncuous. For this reason, there is no place for this practice in institutions and organisations. However, because forced changes do not last and because her conscience could be violated, prohibiting Islamic head covers isn't pragmatic. Instead, the practice must be allowed, and then an environment must be created for her to understand the innocuousness of the practice and discard it herself.
Now, here is a descriptive analysis of the issue.
The primary reason why any form of head cover is disallowed in most institutions and organisations is the uniform code, which is their right.
Some say that a head cover cannot be a violation of uniform code because it is a separate clothing entity worn with the uniform. They say so because they do not understand the significance of uniforms, which is primarily to ensure uniformity among participants in terms of clothing (which cascades to other aspects as well). Therefore, an additional piece of clothing violates the very purpose of uniforms. Even a jacket or a turban makes the person visually different from the rest of his batch mates.
But exemptions can be made to the uniform code on sensible grounds. Jackets and sweaters worn during cold weather have some rational to be exempted from the uniform policy. Religion too can be a valid reason — to protect the violation of conscience. Also, the visual difference rising from the wearing of religious objects isn't inequality, because equality does not mean elimination of differences, but acceptance of differences with no privileges.
However exemptions on the basis of religion remains valid only to the extent that the practice is not innocuous. The question therefore is whether Islamic head covers are innocuous. To answer this question, we must first deconstruct this practice.
Islam and Head Covers
Since the practice is claimed to be a religious practice, it is imperative to introspect the claim. The Qu'ran verse often put forth as the instruction to wear head cover is sura 24:31,
Tell the believing women to lower their eyes, guard their private parts, and not display their charms except what is apparent outwardly, and cover their bosoms with their veils and not to show their finery except to their husbands or their fathers or fathers-in-law, their sons or step-sons, brothers, or their brothers' and sisters' sons, or their women attendants or captives, or male attendants who do not have any need (for women), or boys not yet aware of sex. They should not walk stamping their feet lest they make known what they hide of their Ornaments. O believers, turn to God, every one of you, so that you may be successful.
Qu'ran indeed instructs women to cover their bosoms with their veil or head cover (as some translations say). But the reference to a head cover does not infer the instruction to wear one, but only the existence of one in the context. The gist of the verse is to cover the bosoms — not to wear a veil or head cover, which just happens to be a prop to cover the bosoms. The mention of the veil or head cover is because of the circumstantial context of Qu'ran, which is an oral revelation to Muhammed, where the context of such revelations are rooted in local cultures. When instructions are given to do something, the props mentioned in the instructions will be those that the people already have or have easy access to. Women from that geography wore a head cover or a veil, making it the obvious prop to cover the bosoms.
For further clarity, imagine that you are creating instructions for students to learn effectively in a class room. One of the instructions is to write down important points from the lecture in a notebook. Now fast forward 10 years where students take notes on digital screens. How ridiculous would it be to tell students of that time to take notes using a paper notebook instead of a digital screen simply because the instruction says so? The gist of the instruction was to take down certain points so that it can be referred to or revised later. The prop of notebook and pen was mentioned simply because they were the standard ways of taking notes when the instructions were created.
Therefore, that Qu'ranic verse does not ask women to cover their heads; it only asks women to cover their bosoms.
Purpose and Inference
Now, if the logical interpretation is wrong, and the illogical interpretation that the reference of a head cover does indeed infer the instruction to wear one is right, then it is important to investigate the Islamic practice of covering head.
One can find in sura 24:31 that most of those to whom a believing woman is allowed to show her charm are merely named (husband, father, brother, etc.), but not explained why; except for one group which is both named and explained why.
...male attendants who do not have any need (for women), or boys not yet aware of sex...
...male servants provided they do not have manliness, or such children who do not know of women’s nakedness
...old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex...
From this, we can establish that it is sexual interest that forms the criteria for who can see her charm and who cannot. While Islamic head covers give some men a sense of possessiveness over their wives and daughters, its true purpose, whether effective or not, is to inhibit men from sexualising her and/or sexually assaulting her[^assault]. She is allowed to show her charms and finery only to those who is morally allowed to have sexual interests on her (like her husband), and to those who is not expected to have any sexual interests on her — such as her father, father-in-law, brother or males who do not have sexual need or competence.
The effectiveness of this, along with the effectiveness of burqa as a prevention to sexual assault is questionable because there are cases of sexual assault and even sexual slavery of Muslim women who have worn burqas. Once can argue that burqa clad women doesn't show the definition of their bodies and therefore reduces the change of arousal in men seeing them. Considering this true for the sake of the argument, one must understand that a sexual assault need not always root from the sudden arousal of a person, but also from long desire of an sexual experience, in which case the recognition of a woman and conducive surroundings will suffice for an assault. The argument is also dangerous because its constant invocation in the political space might just irk some idiots from the opposite side to sexually assault a woman in burqa just to prove the point wrong. A fanatic claim can result in sexual assaults. However, the effectiveness is not of any relevance here.
What is of relevance is the inference of the practice. Those Muslim women wear Islamic head covers must realise that they are inferring through their practice that men around her are perverts sexualising her, and will sexually assault her if she removes her head cover. In the case of a Muslim girl child wearing an Islamic head cover, the inference is that men around her are paedophiles — an inference of greater gravity.
All such inferences are inaccurate, and in Muslim girls, such inferences can change her outlook towards men and influence her social skills. Consider a girl child who hasn't even hit puberty and is unaware of what sex is, wearing an Islamic head cover to protect her sexually. Consider a teenage female student in a class who believes that if she doesn't wear her Islamic head cover or burqa, males there are going to sexually assault her.
Now, even if you ignore that part of the issue — because you'll be reminded not to be worried about their social skills — you cannot ignore the innocuous inference of the practice, where a second party is the victim. A Muslim girl/woman clad in an Islamic head cover in —
- a class infers that her batch mates are sexual attracted to her and will sexually assault her if she doesn't cover her head and neck.
- an office infers that her colleagues are sexual attracted to her and will sexually assault her if she doesn't cover her head and neck.
- a front office welcoming guests infers that guests are sexual attracted to her and will sexually assault her if she doesn't cover her head.
It is for these inferences that the practice of wearing Islamic head covers is innocuous. The fact that Islamic head covers are easily wearable and removable, and yet this is not removed in a private space makes this inference worse.
Most men do not realise the innocuousness of Islamic head covers, but soon they will; and when that happens, some men could be insulted, some would be disappointed; others would be cautious, because it is normal for a man to stay away from women who thinks or infers that he is a threat to her, especially sexually; and will limit his interactions with her to the minimum.
Women will realise this inference too; and those who have a father, a brother, a lover or a husband, will feel the same uneasiness when they realise that a woman wearing Islamic head covers around their men, insinuates that they are a sexual threat to her.
One might argue that women who wrap their sari tails over their other shoulders do so for the same reason, and therefore, they carry the same innocuousness. There are many reasons why a woman would dress like that, only one of which is to prevent gaze. And such use of sari tail isn't the default or prescribed way of dressing, and is used only when she already feels a bit uncomfortable with the surrounding men. Her action is a response. So there is no false inference.
One might also argue that women who were modest dresses do so for the same reason. Modest dresses may inhibit sexual arousal in men, but the primary reason why anyone wears modest dresses is to satisfy their own sense of shame that has been nurtured culturally. To prove that, calculate the probability of a woman who generally dresses up modestly to wear so called un-modest dresses regularly, just because she wore them one day and no one raped her. The answer is that it is highly unlikely.
If anyone further wonders whether women covering bosoms shouldn't be allowed in institutions and organisations because this act too is prescribed in Qu'ran for the same reason as head covers are prescribed — to prevent being sexually assault — and therefore carries the same innocuous inference, no, they must be allowed to cover their bosoms. Firstly, the Qu'ran is referring to covering the already clothed bosoms with the head cover. Secondly, women are habituated to cover their bosoms for modesty or to cover their shame; not for the protection from sexual assaults; which could be a side effect, but not the cause. The second point can be proven too, by pondering of the probability that a woman would go topless just because once she did and no one raped her. Zero.
The Rule
Someone in charge of an organisation or an institution cannot be indifferent to the innocuous inferences of Islamic head covers, because he or she also bears the responsibility of on-premise culture and environment.
Because the practice of wearing Islamic head covers roots from the fanatic (or illogical) interpretation of the Qu'ranic verse to cover the bosoms, and because this practice is an indoctrinated practice eroding women's privilege of commanding their own sexuality, and because stupid and dangerous ideas about the safety of women is inculcated with this practice, and because covering head for Qu'ranic reason carry an inaccurate inference about men in the group, there is no place for Islamic head covers in institutions and organisations.
But that is not to say that one must prohibit the use of Islamic head covers in institutions and organisations for the following reasons:
- Most forced changes do not last. Sometimes they aggravates the problem. Prohibition of Islamic head covers is of this nature because of its religious pedigree.
- A Muslim woman above a certain age (say teenage) is already indoctrinated into believing that wearing Islamic head covers is a religious practice. Therefore, she experiences a violation of conscience when barred from wearing her Islamic head cover.
- Almost all Muslim women who wear Islamic head covers wear it because of their habituation; not with its innocuous inference. They may not be even aware of the innocuous element of this practice.
- Older Muslim women wearing Islamic head covers have cultivated a sense of perceived personal space over years of covering the head and neck. Prohibition of these garments on Qu'ranic grounds will violate this perception: not something that must be done by force.
That is not to say that the practice must continue for the above reasons. The practice is innocuous. So, the pragmatic way is to allow this practice for the above reasons, and then facilitate the inhibition of this practice without causing a violation of conscience or a sacrifice of self esteem.
In other words, let the women wear their Islamic head covers in a culturally fit manner, thereafter mandate an anti-fanaticism class or discussion for those girls, teaching them that Qu'ran does not ask anyone to wear head covers but only cover their bosoms, and that the practice of wearing Islamic head covers has an inaccurate and innocuous inference about men.
There are few reasons why I am confident that Muslim women themselves will leave this practice.
- A mind capable of thinking can come to terms with not wearing Islamic head covers. Most Muslim women who are indoctrinated into believing that Qu'ran or Allah has asked them to wear head cover, are breaking their cerebral and intellectual slavery and coming out of their indoctrination, and thus also from such compulsive and innocuous dress codes.
- Almost all women who are used to the practice of wearing Islamic head covers do so primarily because of the habit of using it; not because of Qu'ranic reasons. I know this because of two reasons:
- Any cognitive process is an expensive and hard process, and we tend to take the easier way. While wearing Islamic head covers, women are more likely to grab and wear them because of the habit of dressing up like that rather than remembering every time they dress up that Qu'ran has asked them to wear it. So, changing this practice is more of changing a physiological habit (or muscle memory) and less of changing the faith system of the individual itself.
- There are cases of Muslim women with Islamic head covers wearing body hugging garments that can be termed as "hot", "sexy" and "provoking". It will be brutally ironic to see Muslim women wearing such dresses and then cover their head and neck to not sexually provoke men. The ideal reason then, for the wearing of Islamic head covers, is habituation.
- There are many Muslim women and Islamic organisations across the world, campaigning for the eradication of the practice of Islamic head covers. The struggle has started from within.
I empathise with the plight of most Muslim women, who are stuck between a side that demands their adherence to ornamentalism1 and fundamentalism, and the other side (including their own rationality) that wants them not to be. Then, there is the politics of hijab that makes it worse for them. I hope that by not mandating the prohibition of Islamic head covers and giving them room to think freely and retrain their outlook per common sense, they can make up their mind and bring the change from within.
Accusation
Nothing is perfect, so nothing is beyond criticism, even religious practices; especially when the goal is betterment.
I can be accused of Islamophobia for my position on Islamic head covers. But I can ignore such labels since it is a common tactic to accuse or label someone as something unpleasant, when his or her positions are not aligned with the accusers'. It would be far productive for those who don't agree with my position to engage in a logically tenable counter arguments. That would correct me too, if I were wrong.
But again, what is productive for someone entirely depends on what his goals and incentives are. If they are to protect certain political interests, vote bank, or to advance one's image among a particular section, or to advance religious fanaticism, then perhaps accusing me of Islamophobia is indeed a productive act.
Some Clarifications
While my position is to allow Islamic head covers and then educate those wearing it on its innocuousness and grooming them to end the practice, some institutions and organisations have outright banned it. This section gives some clarifications in that context.
Some institutions and organisations forces Muslim women to publicly remove their hijabs and burkhas at the gates. Removing such garments requires women to adjust their existing clothings and grooming; therefore some privacy is warranted. If the prohibition cannot be reversed, a better arrangement is to allow them to enter the institution in these garments, and let them use private spaces such as grooming rooms or wash rooms to change into the prescribed dress code.
Some ask for the prohibition of all religious objects such as threads worn around the wrists or necks, if Islamic head covers are prohibited in the name of uniform code. This can be valid only if these practices and articles are innocuous.
Some argue that education and employment is denied when Muslim girls do not come to school, or Muslim women quit their jobs or refuse a job offer due to prohibition of Islamic head covers. Well, no authority has denied education and employment to these women in the name of religion. It is far easier to do so by denying admissions or jobs in the first place than to offer them these and get into a battle of discipline compliance. Instead, it was the women themselves who decided not to participate due to their inability to comply with the discipline of sans Islamic head covers.
Free choice is another argument made in favour of Islamic head covers in institutions and organisations. In any other context, this argument is sensible. But in this context, this argument is pretty frivolous because, in the case of a child, the practice of wearing Islamic head covers is an indoctrinated practice; wearing it cannot be considered as a 'free choice'. And in the case of a grown up who converted to Islam (thus not indoctrinated), there is uniform code to adhere to. Free choice is vetoed by that groups' code of conduct. Consider a student coming to an institution or an employee coming to work swimwear and claiming that it's his or her choice!
Choice is subject to certain circumstances; and the circumstance here is an institution or organisation with a prescribed uniform set as part of their fundamental right to run them. Therefore, if such bodies have prescribed a uniform for their participant, their fundamental rights supersede non-absolute fundamental rights of a person. Add to this the innocuous meaning of the practice of wearing Islamic head covers.
Some argue that barring religious practices and articles in institutions and organisations is against the idea of inclusiveness and pluralism. I agree; but only to the extent that the practices and articles are not innocuous, in which case, barring any student is not in the name of religion but due to the practices of such innocuous acts. Inclusion must happen in fair terms; not by submitting or mutating oneself.
-
The idea that a woman (or a man) from this religion should look this way and this way only. ↩