This is why the origins of Hijab are both classist and sexist, had written about this long back, read here (firstpost.com/india/new-zeal…)
@tishasaroyan Why do you think carving out a different identity is "sexist" or "classist"?
@tishasaroyan Your article is based on thoughts of another feminist woman, not necessarily Islamic history, which is too vast.. i'll skip this one.
@tishasaroyan “It is time for Europe to shower prizes on the women who decide to agitate in favor of the veil in their countries, because they are forcing that country’s citizens to reflect on the real meaning of freedom and consumerism.” - Fātema Mernissi, Why Does the Veil Scare Europe?
@tishasaroyan Stick to history, u cannot attack islam and get support from muslims at same time.
Hi Ruchika. Let me state right at the outset that I, like many, have been an admirer of your insightful analyses of important historical events and how they pertain to the present day. The way you are able to wade through the haze of incorrect interpretations, bust myths and set the record straight is beyond admirable. Here, however, I believe for whatever reason, you have chosen to take a deliberately provocative, and worse, an intellectually dishonest and borderline Islamophobic stance on hijab that is founded upon faltering premise after faltering premise. Please allow me to expound... Premise 1 - Hijab leads to Muslim women (exclusively) becoming the "active identity bearers" of Islam. That is simply not factual. The requirement to wear hijab is preceded by the need for all men and women to maintain modesty and humility in dressing and manners. No (historical or intellectual) exposition on hijab can claim to hold water if it does not account for the significance of modesty that precedes the mere act or requirement of wearing hijab. Therefore, it is modesty that forms the bedrock of the Muslim identity. Furthermore, Islam places the burden of identity on both women and men. Whereas Islamic etiquette requires women don the hijab, it similarly requires that men follow their own purdah i.e. dress from the waist down at all times when in public, wear dressing that does not draw attention to their body, lower their gaze. That last part is incumbent upon all men and women. And that leads me to... Premise 2 - No hijab meant that Muslim men had the tacit license to molest non-hijabis An utter falsity. The Battle of Uhud transpired in the year 625AD. Between an estimated 625AD and 629AD, Surah Noor was revealed to the Prophet. It said: "Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. That is purer for them." That is the Holy Quran, the highest authority for Muslims, laying out in no uncertain terms that the Muslim man must lower his gaze and guard his chastity at all times. What you make it sound like in your tirade of an article is - 'No hijab means molestation is okay'. You write: "It (hijab) legitimized the street as a place to commit zina with the “uncovered women”. Hence, a woman’s body came to be considered in Islam as essentially naked/vulnerable without a jilbab." "...considered in Islam", you somehow write with a straight face. Again, to really drive this crucial point home, Islam says 'Men, lower your gaze i.e. Do not leer at women (no matter how they may be dressed) and protect yourself from zina (fornication)'. What you write - 'No hijab meant a license to commit zina'. That degree of uncontextual, irresponsible and plainly twisted interpretation of a seminal moment in the history of a religion is unbecoming of anyone purporting to be an intellectual, let alone a historian worth her salt. Premise 3 - Hijab was mandated for the free Muslim women and not the slave women with the implicit goal of creating a social hierarchy It almost seems here as though you have compensated for the shallow, and arguably, nonexistent, understanding of certain important historical nuances by needlessly applying modern definitions of inequality faced by women. Anyway, back to your article: "It (hijab) also sharpened class difference. The aristocratic women could wear jilbab (and not be harassed) but slave women were not to wear it (and could be harassed).", you posit. An example of important historical nuance that I alluded to earlier - it was neither out of a desire to create a social hierarchy nor (most certainly) to make slave women susceptible to harassment that they were ordered to dress visibly differently from the free women. Firstly, the slave women were required to perform chores that simply could not be performed were they to wear hijab or jilbab. It would inevitably act as a hindrance in the performance of their duties. +++
The original post is very much out of context and your quote tweet lacks the basic understanding. One should not oppose something which has religious significance without understanding the logic behind it. It has nothing to do with classism or sexism, it is purely spiritual. Please educate yourself before concluding anything.