UNVEILING THE MEANING OF VEIL

The image of veiled women have recently become highly visible in the national media in Indonesia, and even published as the headline pictures. While some of these women wear fashionable scarves and leave a bit of hair showing at the top, others cover not only their hairs completely but also their faces. Nevertheless, there is something in common between them: they are suspects of particular crimes. From Malinda Dee who is suspected for Citibank embezzlement and fraudulent case, Nunun Nurbaiti and Yulianis who are involved in high profile bribery case, to Afriani Susanti who is charged for drugs case that eventually led her taking nine lives away, all appears in different style of veil. Veiling in this context is seen by many as a mere attempt of covering their shame if not gaining public sympathy, as the suspects only wear it once they encounter legal troubles. This trend incites criticism of some Muslims who consider this conduct as a kind of religious offense. 
As a matter of fact, Islam did not invent or introduce the custom of veiling. Veiling is a pre-Islamic in origin; it had existed in the region prior to Islam – in Hellenic, Judaic, Byzantine, and Balkan cultures (El-Guindi, 1999). As an occasional custom, however, veil has not been institutionalized until Islam adopted it. Many Muslims associate veiling with women’s protection based on their interpretation of Qur’an surah al-Ahzab 59, wherein female believers should cover themselves so that “they will be recognized” as free women instead of slaves and therefore “not be abused”. In this regard, Fatima Mernissi (1985) explained that the medieval Muslim scholars like Imam al-Ghazali perceived female sexuality as both active and destructive, a perception which in the end underlies the idea of control over women’s bodies. For this reason, women are required to cover their bodies, to be secluded, and to be protected by male relative (mahram) in order to avoid sexual harassment and to prevent social disorder (fitna) within Muslim society. Absurdly, nothing is to be imposed on men in this matter. 

Furthermore, veil has played an important role in the construction of Muslim women’s identity as they encountered Western colonizers at the end of the nineteenth century. Leila Ahmed (2005) observed how the new discourses concerning the veil emerged in Egypt during the British colonial domination in a way that it became a powerful signifier not only for gender but also for nationalism and culture. At that time, the colonial narrative had associated veiling with the backwardness and inferiority of Islam, wherein unveiling is regarded by contrast as the sign for modernization and advancement. According to Ahmed, various meanings of veil at present are derived mainly from the three master-narratives that developed since the colonial era.

First, the colonial narratives that perceive veil as the symbol of inferiority of Islam vis-à-vis the superiority of Western moral order and civilization. Some elements of this narrative have been reiterated, for instance, when the burqa is used as moral justification for United States’ war in Afghanistan. Second, the westernized local elite’s narratives about veil as backward practice that must be abandoned to achieve women emancipation, which is deemed as the key for progress and modernity. The Turkish ban on headscarves in public institutions, for example, is part of its attempt to westernize and modernize the nation. Third, the Islamic counter narratives that affirm veiling as an essential part of Islamic dress, a way of embracing modernity and feminism within the framework of the divinely ordained order. This narrative is reflected, for instance, in the adoption of new style of veil by the Islamist movement in Egypt. Since the 1970s they introduced their innovative construction of Islamic dress (al-ziyyi al-Islamy), which in fact does not represent a return to any traditional dress, nor does it has any historical precedent.

Unsurprisingly, the veil becomes a major site of ideological struggle between the forces of traditionalism and modernity in Muslim countries, and a yardstick for measuring the emancipation or repression of Muslim women (Mir-Hosseini, 2007). In the case of Iran, the secular regime under Reza Shah enforced unveiling in their attempt to modernize the country and consequently punished anyone wearing veil in public. On the contrary, the Islamist regime afterward imposed veiling on its female citizens and punished whoever not wearing it in their assertion of what they regard as authentic religiosity. The meaning of veil becomes a subject of debate between the Islamists who perceive it as a divine mandate for protecting women’s honor and dignity, and the feminists who perceive veil as a patriarchal mandate for denying women’s right and autonomy over their own bodies.

An Iranian cleric Morteza Motahhari, among others, had shifted the spirit of women’s seclusion in the Islamic jurisprudence into the spirit of protection by arguing that the main purpose of veiling is not to exclude women from the society but to facilitate their participation and to protect them from being treated as sexual objects. Later on, an Iranian intellectual Ali Shari’ati turned the meaning of veil from a symbol of tradition into revolution, which endorsed women to wear it to show their confrontation toward the Shah’s regime. The same discourse inspired Indonesian Muslim women to veil in their opposition against Suharto’s authoritarian regime, who initially banned the headscarves in schools and government institutions. In this context, veil becomes a powerful symbol of resistance against dictatorship and repression.  Veiling also became a symbol of anti-colonial resistance during Algerian fight for independence in 1950s.

Nowadays, veiling may become an expression of one’s cultural identity, religious commitment, political statement, or taste of fashion. Veiling may also stands for one’s resistance against sexism, stereotype and prejudice within society. Some women wear it for functional reasons, for instance in order to avoid sexual harassment, to access particular employment/education or to save the cost of attire. Some others wear it as a resistance to the commodification of women’s bodies or to the hegemony of Western values. Many women simply wear it to preserve their female modesty and acquire religious piety. Thus, being pregnant with multiple meaning, veil cannot be arbitrarily assumed as a signifier of women oppression. Hanna Papanek (1982) even considered burqa as a liberating tool because it allows women to participate in public sphere while observing their moral stipulation of avoiding contact with strange men. As a social being, it is natural that humans are guided by socially shared standards, religious beliefs, and moral ideals in choosing what they wear.

Veiling can be a form of oppression if it is imposed by the authority, but it can be liberating if it is worn out of one’s personal choice and conscience. Compulsory veiling will only lead to a hypocrite religiosity, put the burden of social order unfairly on women’s shoulders, and divert people’s attention from the more important task of the state such as providing social justice and welfare. On the other hand, the ban of veiling will only confine women in their homes instead of endorsing them to participate in public activity and integrate within broader society. Worse still, the ban violates women’s rights to practice their religious teaching and limits their access to education and employment. Most importantly, women have to give the veil a new meaning continuously in accordance to the developing context. Mufti of Marseilles Soheib Benceikh for instance, asserted that the objective of veiling is to protect women, which has specific context in times of its revelation. If the prescribed means does not achieve the objectives, then Muslims have to seek for the new way. Today, he argued, the ‘veil’ for Muslim women is education that guarantees women’s future and preserve their dignity.