The current happenings within Iran are particularly ugly. Dozens of women are seen burning their Hijab in the name of liberalism (“democracy” and “freedom”).
The madness doesn’t stop there. They seem to also be receiving support from apparently “religious” women and men (who evidently completely miss the symbolism entailed by such an action).
And all of this goes way beyond just Iran and its current rulers.
Local Liberal-Modernists Against the Hijab
The Hijab would of course be repulsive to liberal-modernists. It encapsulates an entire worldview surrounding segregation of the sexes and an entire array of gender dynamics which are completely incompatible with the role assigned to women within a secularized society.In fact, even when a woman’s Hijab does not conform to Islamic laws and regulations, it still sends signals so strong that they’re able to destabilize the very foundations of a society which has become gynocentric due to decades of cultural feminism.
RELATED: Ikhtilāṭ: A Critical But Neglected Islamic Prohibition
It is thus natural that, even within the Islamic world, the liberal-modernists and reformists stand in opposition to it. They feel a particular deep-rooted resentment towards something that they themselves describe as being “just a piece of cloth.”
Anyway, as we began with Iran, let us focus a little on this country.
Let’s start with some simple truths. The Hijab was so strongly ingrained within pre-modern Persian culture that when Persian men witnessed unveiled women in places like the Ottoman Empire they were utterly bewildered, to the extent that they would even doubt the Islam of these Hijab-less women.
Afsaneh Najmabadi (Iranian historian and self-styled “Muslim feminist“) writes in her book, Women with Mustaches and Men without Beards: Gender and Sexual Anxieties of Iranian Modernity (p. 134):
The uncoveredness of European women and the coveredness of Iranian women were repeatedly signaled in the eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Persian travelogues as something that connoted a difference in the sense of being-in-the-world. Iranians not only reported uncovered women in Europe as a sign of difference but also expressed anxiety when they saw women with uncovered faces in cities of the Caucasus, in Istanbul or Cairo: these cities with overwhelmingly Muslim populations were no longer or would soon cease to be Muslim and would become Europeanized. The production of the veil as a key marker was also achieved by Europeans’ frequent interrogation of Iranian men about “their women’s veil.”
RELATED: The False Teachings of the Feminist Dogma
This is probably how the average Muslim male felt in much of the Islamic world. But fast-forward to today and see how swift and erosive liberalization is. Rather than encourage the wearing of Hijab, the descendants of those very same men are now assisting their daughters in burning the Hijab.
Like in other places, “local” liberal-modernists began to criticize the Hijab in Iran from the later part of the 19th century.
Another point worth noting is that the Babi and Baha’i religious reformists also opposed the Hijab, which goes to show that religious reformism is just another extension of liberal-modernism.
Najmabadi continues (p. 134):
By the mid–nineteenth century, in the writings of a number of modernists, most prominently Akhundzadah and later Mirza Aqa Khan Kirmani, this sense of difference had been translated into the veil as a sign of societal backwardness. This translation was in part informed by the Babi (and later Baha’i) movements and in particular by the spectacular and fablized public unveiling act of Qurrat al-‘Ayn.
But Persian men and women continued to respect the Hijab. The proof for this being that Reza Shah (a secular dictator) had to impose the kashf-e hijab decree during the ’30s, officially banning the Hijab.
Reza Shah was an admirer of Atatürk, and despite never formally outlawing it within the public space, Kemalism’s detestation of the Hijab is well-known.
RELATED: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: The Man Who Tried to Destroy Islam
Afghanistan’s “emir-king” Amanullah Khan was another admirer of Atatürk. He went as far as publicly parading his wife, Soraya Tarzi, without Hijab as part of his “modernization” drive.
The average rural and conservative Afghan did not appreciate any of this. Khan was thus removed from his throne by Habibullah Kalakani and his men. Kalakani had launched a mass revolt because of Khan’s views about women, especially in relation to mandatory female education.
Then there’s the Arab world.
Egypt’s Qasim Amin (a liberal-modernist close to Mohammad Abduh) who, at the end of the 19th century, wrote books about how the liberation of women could only be achieved through banning the Hijab.
Then you have Huda Sha’arawi, also from Egypt and yet another admirer of Atatürk. She is the woman responsible for the country’s modern feminist movement. During the ’20s she publicly removed her veil (though her “Hijab” was never really correct to begin with).
And again in Egypt there was the secular dictator Nasser, who was well-known for his stance against the Hijab.
In fact even the late Nawal El Saadawi, one of the most vile modern feminists to have ever emerged from the Arab world, was also an Egyptian.
Of course, with the Arab world, all of this was not restricted to Egypt alone.
Mohamed Talbi for example, Tunisia’s reformist “intellectual,” was infamous for his hostility towards the Hijab.
We could easily list countless examples of liberal-modernist intellectuals and rulers, often but not always hiding behind reformism, who adopted a proactive stance against the Hijab.