Polemics On Veiling Egyptian Women In The Twentieth Century Essay, Research Paper
Introduction
“.. so much energy has been expended by Muslim men
and then Muslim women to remove the veil and by
others to affirm or restore it ..” (Ahmed 167).
This paper explores these efforts in two specific stages: the first and the last
thirds of the twentieth century. Through an analysis of some of the various
arguments on the veil, I will try to induce some general characteristics of the
debate on the issue and on women during these two specific periods of time.
The starting point will be Kasim Amin’s “Tahrir el Mara’a” (Liberation of
Woman) and the counter argument of Talat Harb’s “Tarbiet el Mara’a wal
Hijab”, (Educating Women and the Veil). The debate between those two
protagonists which has become a “prototype” of the debate on the veil
throughout the century (Ahmed P. 164). Malak Hefni Nassif’s and Hoda
Sha’arawi’s attitudes towards the veil represent an interesting insight to two
different interpretations of the hijab issue by feminist activists that prevail
throughout the century. The whole synthesis of this early debate is then put
in juxtaposition to the debate later in the century as represented by the
avalanche of literature on the topic in the seventies, the views of some
famous sheikhs like Mohammed Metwally el Shaarawi and others, and the
heated debate initiated by the Minister of Education’s decree of 1994 to
prevent school administrations from imposing the hijab on girls as part of the
uniform.
The Early Debate
Kasim Amin’s Tahrir El-Mara’a (Published 1899)
It may not be an exaggeration to say that Amin’s “Tahrir al-Mara’a” was one
of the most controversial book in Egypt’s modern history. It has ignited a
strong debate and prompted more than thirty reaction articles and books
either to defy or assert his argument against the veil (Ahmed P. 164).
The ideas of the book were not totally new, they echoed the writings of some
writers like Mariam al-Nahhas (1856-1888), Zaynab Fawwaz (1860-1914),
Aisha al-Taymuriah (1840-1902), and Murqus Fahmi’s (a Coptic lawyer)
four act play “Al Mar’ah fi al-Sharq” or (The Woman in the East) (Badran P.
19). Yet, Amin’s book double-scored for coming from a Muslim judge and
for his overt proposal to unveiling women’s faces. His words were not the
only challenge to the existing notions of the hijab, it was his caliber as a
Moslim judge that has vocalized his call to unveil women and gave his book
importance.
After an introduction loaded with emotional phrases on the degradation of the
Egyptian woman and an exaltation of the European woman, the book is
divided into four sections: “Educating women”, “Women’s veil”, “The
woman and the nation”, and “Marriage and divorce”.
Amin starts his argument calling for the “Hijab Shara’ei” stating that the
Hijab in its form then (covering the face, the hair and the whole body) was
not mandated by the Shari’aa. He further adds that he was not calling for the
“extreme” of the West which “makes the woman liable to seduction” (Amin
P. 65). The argument against the veil is in two sections: The religious section
which is mainly text interpretation and some Hadith that prompt women to
cover the hair and the whole body except for the hands and the face; and the
“social” (practical / everyday life) perspective. The later section includes
“social” ideas such as the inconvenience for women with their faces covered
to dwell in business, to testify in courts or to get engaged (as the groom
should see her face first). Furthermore, he argues that unveiling would make
women watch their behaviors as they could be recognized and hence their
reputation would be at stake if they did any wrong. Still, from the practical
“social” point of view, the flimsy bourqo’ (face cover) used was more
tempting as it makes the viewer curious to see what was intended to be
hidden. He further argues that, if women are imprisoned in the hareem (part
of the house where women are secluded), then even if they did not commit
any shameful act, it would not be due to any virtue in them, but to the fact
that they did not have the freedom to do otherwise.
Amin accuses the veil of being a barrier to women’s development and
education (P. 85), arguing that it deprived her from interacting with the
society and learning how to live. He illustrates by comparing the ignorant
peasant with the elite urban lady who can speak French and plays the piano,
and concludes that the ignorat peasant would be more capable of coping with
the difficulties of life than the elite urbanite due to the seclusion of the latter.
Talat Harb (1867 – 1941)
In his introduction, Talat Harb states that the main purpose of writing his
book was to defy Amin’s argument against the veil. Harb was called “father
of Egypt’s economic independence” and has established the first national
bank in Egypt in 1920. So when someone in his caliber – though it was early
in his career – writes a book, his prestigious position would place heavier
weight to his argument.
In the introduction, he states that the majority of those who read Amin’s
book have denounced its ideas, and then declares the now common notion
that liberating women is a Western imperialist conspiracy. He ends the
introduction with a note that Kasim Amin would not have such hideous goals
in mind, that he wrote his “notorious” book out of a mixture of good will and
misjudgment. Yet at the very end of the introduction, Harb implicitly accuses
Amin of plagiarism saying that the ideas of his book were published earlier in
Turkey and India.
The book is divided into two main sections: “The woman and her role in the
society” and “What moral qualities should the woman have”. In the first
section he states that “women are inferior to men in perception and senses”,
that she has a different “calling” in life than the man (she for the private
sphere, he for the public sphere), and that she should not do men’s job. He
ends this section with the results he perceived out of liberating women in
Europe (immorality, drunkenness, casual relations..). Then he devotes the
biggest section of the book defending the veil (from page 60 to page 105)
concluding that the current veil is not good enough and that women are
wrongly doing their best to show their beauty from behind the veil.
He starts his argument against unveiling with a compelling statement on the
importance of morality, fidelity and modesty. Then he moves on saying that
Hijab is the best assurance for these wonderful qualities, defying Amin’s
religious argument with a different interpretation of the same text the former
had used (same text used by Ashmawi and Tantawi later in the century). At
the end, he puts a logical question: What is better for women to veil or to be
immodest? The question answers itself.
Harb uses the holy text as one source for convincing the reader, he had many
other sources such as a “scientific” research done in Europeby a German
scientist that proved that the German women betray their husbands seven
times in average, the Belgium six times, the British five times … (Harb P.
63). So, if unveiling is to emulate the West, here is the corruption and
deficiencies resulting from the absence of veil. Harb uses the same (social)
practical argument used by Amin yet with different anecdotes, for example
he says that mingling with the other sex will make the woman compare her
husband to a stranger with possible unfavorable conclusions on the first.
Harb laments that the society was much better before the migration of
foreigners attaching their existence with the introduction of legalized
prostitution and the call for unveiling women (Harb P. 97).
Malak Hefni Nassif (1886-1918)
Nassif was the daughter of a follower of Mohammed Abdou and one of the
early female teachers for five years before she got married to a tribe leader in
Fayoum. After marriage, she realized that she was a second wife, the
discovery was distressful to her, and she seems to have experienced chronic
depression as expressed in her words to May Zeiada (El-Gabri P. 11). Nassif
used to send articles to newspapers advocating women’s rights specifically
against polygamy – reflecting her personal experience. In 1911 she sent a
petition to the people’s assembly (was read by a man, as she was not allowed
as a woman to speak in public). The petition included ten recommendations
asking for more education for women, access to mosques, having women
enter the fields of medicine and education, full participation in public life, and
legal protection for women in marriage and divorce. All recommendations
were rejected, yet at least that was a feminist voice heard in the People’s
Assembly (although through a mediator).
Nassif’s position on the unveiling was firm opposition. She does not base her
argument on text interpretation as did Amin or Harb. She follows the “social”
practical line introduced by Amin arguing that although religion did not
mandate the woman to veil, nor that the veil was the proof of modesty, she
refuses unveiling on the basis of the immaturity of the society and the
immorality of some men. She believed that the major interest of the women
who unveil was to follow the fashions and not to seek education as Amin had
argued (Ahmed P. 180).
Hoda Sha’arawi (1879-1947)
Sha’arawi comes from an upper-class Egyptian-Circasian family. She was
forced to marry her cousin at the age of nine while he was nearly the age of
her father. At the age of thirteen, she left her husband because of his return
to his first wife. In her early twenties, she accepted to return back to him,
after he promised not to return to his first wife again. Sha’arawi liked to
stress the Western influence on her character and that she had “created”
herself by reading French books and socializing with French women like
Eug?nie Le Brun (Ahmed P. 178). Early in 1909, Sha`arawi with the support
of Princess Ayn al-Haya Ahmed, approached the Cairo University with a
proposal to hold a lecture for female audience at the University hall to be
given by her friend Margret Cl?ment. The topic was a comparison between
the European and the Egyptian woman including a discussion on the veil.
King Fou’ad (then Rector of the University) agreed. The lecture was a
success and was followed by others. Nassif was one the speakers invited
then.
In 1920, Sh’arawi was elected president of the Wafdist Women’s Central
Committee (WWCC) and in 1923, she and other WWCC members created
an independent feminist group called The Egyptian Feminist Union (EFU)
after receiving an invitation from the International Alliance of Women for
Suffrage and Equal rights (IAW) to attend its conference in Rome where they
made their first public declaration of their program. The EFU philanthropic
activities included a dispensary for poor mothers and children, a center for
instruction in domestic arts, a handicrafts workshop, and a daycare center for
the children of working mothers. In 1925 the EFU founded L’Egyptienne ,
the first explicitly feminist journal in Egypt (Badran P. 102). L’Egyptienne
was in Frenche, later in 1937, they issued al-Misriah in Arabic. These two
papers formed a channel for the EFU agenda which mainly included family
laws and education for girls.
While Badran argues that unveiling was never part of the formal agenda of
the EFU (P. 23), Sha’arawi was one of the first women to declare her
denunciation of the veil and to take it off in a theatrical dramatic act in 1923
upon her return from the (IAW) conference in Rome.
Both Sha’arawi and Nassif represent what Laila Ahmed terms as “two
divergent voices” (Ahmed P. 174) within the feminist voices on the veil:
Sha’arawi was a voice connected with the western culture through readings
and friends and consequently advocating Western ideas; Nassif was a voice
representing indigenous ideas, influenced by Mohammed Abdou rather than
western writers, wrote in Arabic rather than in French, and raised issues that
are totally indigenous such as access to mosques.
The Debate Late in the Century
The issue of the veil was not resolved with the unveiling of most urban
women during the middle decades of the century. The issue is back on the
foreground as of the seventies. One basic difference is the definition of hijab
(the veil): early in the century it meant covering the face and keeping women
in the house. Later in the century, hijab meant covering the hair and the
whole body, only showing the hands and face, and not necessarily limiting
women to the private sphere. The new hijab has become, as Macloed puts it,
a symbolic resolution of women’s dilemma of having to work, and feeling
guilty about it. (Macloed P. 120) The earlier version of the hijab is now
called “Nikab” and is adding a new dimension to the controversy on the veil:
a veiled women like Nabila Hassan, the reporter of Akher Sa’a (an Egyptian
magazine) investigating the world of Monakabat treats it as a mysterious alien
world (Akher Sa’a 8/12/92). Preachers and sheikhs, specially on audio tapes,
consider it as a double score for a woman to be monakaba though not
mandated. Opposition Islamic groups found a golden opportunity to attack
the government for not allowing monakabat to university compasses.
The Wave of the Seventies
In the seventies, Egypt witnessed what was described as a revival of
indigenous Islamic values. Some of the reasons given for that include: the
defeat of 1967, the collapse of Nasser’s Arab nationalist dream, the waste of
the Yemeni War (1962-67), the failure of Nasser’s socialist contract, Sadat’s
insecurity vis-?-vis the leftists and encouragement of the Islamic current
declaring the new label of “Dawlet el Ilm wal Iman” (The State of Science
and Faith), the petro-dollar coming with its agenda, the economic crisis and
the rising inflation rate, and the sense of corruption caused by the open door
policy “Infitah” which enlarged the gap between the rich and the poor. All the
above made people seriously consider returning to religion, the only solid
ground available after all these changes and disillusions.
As women are the bearers of culture, an avalanche of books was published
outlining what is to be expected from a true Muslim woman. Hijab was the
hottest issue, it is a tangible aspect of faith, so it should be a starting point for
any true believer. Following is a summary of the ideas shown in some books
from this period
Because of Malak Hefni Nassif’s opposition to unveiling, her ideas were
re-published in 1976 by a writer called Abdel Aal Mohamed El Gabri. The
writer selects what to put in the book, and comments on what she says,
putting attractive titles that would appeal to a conservative reader such as
“The Corrupted Morals of the Educated Women”, though what is written
under this title does not denounce educating women but simply differentiate
between learning sciences and being morally disciplined. He would also
attract the misogynous type of a reader by a chapter entitled “The
Misbehavior of Women” in which she criticizes some qualities that may be in
the woman’s character such as ignorance or snobbery.
Ni’mat Sidki wrote her book “El-Tabarruj” in 1975, she argues that God has
punished her for immodest dress and use of make up by an inflammation in
the gums. She writes: “I am a sinner deserving this punishment and more, for
the mouth which God has disciplined with illness and pain wore lipstick and
did not command the good and forbid the evil…” (Hoffman-Lad P. 29-30).
Sidki resorts to Harb’s interpretation of holy text concluding that God forbids
women from displaying their bodies to preserve the society from the harms
of “el-tabarruj” .
In 1978, El-Gohari, in a book dedicated to Hassan el Banna, the founder of
the Muslim Brother’s Group, illustrates that Hijab means covering the
woman’s beauty (Ziena) and segregation from men. He puts two conditions
for women’s education or work: sex dichotomy and women’s veil (El Gohari
P. 43). El-Gohari asserts that there is nothing to argue about as far as the
Hijab is concerned, women should veil, period. He quotes a Hadith cited by
Fatema that when the Prophet was asked which is best for the woman, his
answer was that “She should not see nor be seen by a man” (El-Gohari P.
44). (The same Hadith was discredited by Fahmi Houeidi in Al-Ahram article
in 1996). He dedicates the biggest part of his book to denouncing women’s
work and mixing with men.
El-Bahi starts his book in a way similar to that of Talat Harb, the first half of
the book is dedicated to denouncing the Western woman, drawing an image
of a society rife with homosexuality, pre-marital sex, infanticide and adultery.
The second half targets the feminist agenda articulated by groups during the
first half of the century such as equality in inheritance, in taking her opinion
(al shoura), in marrying without a “wali”, in having a judge to effect divorce
and polygamy, and equality in testimony, concluding that Islam does not
butter women with hypocrisy, but gives them all their due rights, and hence
there can never be more rights to claim.
The avalanche of such conservative ideas and the prevalence of the veil has
alarmed secular feminists like Nawal Al-Saadawi who published in 1972 “El
Mara’a wal Gins” (Women & Sex) denouncing the conservative ideas that
“disguise” itself in religious jargon (Researchers of El Maraa Al Gadida,
1995) . In another booklet, she argues that since rural women who constitute
80% of the population are never veiled, then, according to the conservatives’
logic, this majority of women are corrupt and immoral, a conclusion that can
not be true (Hoffman-Ladd P. 35). In 1996, Al Saadawi published a short
story in Al-Ahram newspaper, allegedly a true story of one of the cases who
came to her as a psychiatrist, the story implies that the veil and the rigid
patriarchal family authority lead to psychological distortion and sexual
repression. Though, she never says these words, the story is full of
metaphors implying the idea. The protagonist is a veiled girl who dreams of
Noah arch leaving her out crying and agonizing her doom. The girl would fall
in love for a Pharoanic statue and the story ends with her throwing the statue
away and falling apart. Whether it is a true story or not, it carries
Al-Saadawi’s message and counter argument against the veil. The story was
refused by all publishers and seems to have reached Al-Ahram after a long
struggle.
Prevalence of the conservative ideas of the seventies books made the veil
question become as best described by Fadwa El Guindi’s statement: “A
woman in public has a choice: either looking secular, modern, feminine, and
passive (hence very vulnerable to indignities), or becoming a religieuse (a
Muslim Sister), hence formidable, untouchable and silently threatening” (El
Guindi P. 87)
Mohammed Metwali el-Sha’arawi
el-Sha’arawi is a popular Islamic thinker and vigorously promotes the veil in
its modern sense. In 1980 he argues in his book “Al Maraa Kama Aradaha
Allah” that when the woman is not veiled, she is displaying her beauty
seducing those who can not afford to marry. Since those young men can not
marry and have for example to wait till they finish their education, they will
have to resort to sin to fulfill this desire. Hence, women’s unveiling pollutes
the society and leads to immorality. He further argues that when the woman
takes the veil, she protects herself from being compared to a younger or a
more beautiful woman, and if the husband does not see any other woman but
his wife, he will desire no woman but her. (Hoffman-Lad P. 31). So,
according to el-Sha’arawi, women’s veil preserves the family and protects
the whole society – nothing can be more important, and the price is not so
expensive in comparison.
Defying an argument that Hijab was introduced by the Mamluk to protect
girls from being kidnapped, he says that even if this is the case, we still need
to protect the girls from being kidnapped in the streets of Cairo by veiling
them (Hassan, Akher Sa’a).
The same argument that a female’s dressing code is responsible if she is
kidnapped or raped is echoed at an Al-Shaab article on 12/13/92, and later in
Al Ahram on 5/16/97 by Abdel Wahhab Metawei in Barid El Gom’a, in reply
to a mother’s problem whose daughter was raped because of her immodest
dress.
Sound Tracks Sold in front of Mosques (1997)
Sheikh Kishk, died few years ago, starts his tapes with a prayer containing
“Ostor Awratena” (God to cover our weaknesses / pudenda), the word
“awratena” is a loaded term as the translation indicates, and whether he says
it or not, the word has a notorious connotation with a woman’s body as
explained in the vernacular section. He laments the good old days when
things were cheap, when women stayed at home and obeyed their husbands,
comparing it to women who (in a sarcastic tone) want to have the right to
divorce themselves. Kishk puts four pre-requisitions for women to go to
heaven: to pray five times a day, cover her hair, cover her pudenda, and
obey her husband. He does not tell where he got this combination from, most
probably, it is an outcome of his speculations. Kishk’s theatrical
performance, audio dramatic effects, overwhelms the audience, leaving no
chance to question his sources.
Wagdi Ghoneim, in a tape entitled “Solouk El Okht El Moslima” (The
Behavior of the Moslem Sister), starts off the tape with a quotation “Every
new innovation is Bida’a, and every Bida’a is from the Satan”, the new
innovation he is referring to is women’s unveiling and leaving the house. That
was just the introductory phrase. He then moves to the name of the tape: he
says that he had wished to call the tape (The Behavior of the Veiled
Woman), because “unfortunately” there are women who are still unveiled,
and hence, are unworthy of advice. The tape is well focused and logically
constructed (in contrast to Kishk’s which moves from one topic to the other)
on the expected behavior of the veiled woman and her language in the street,
in public, in family occasions, with neighbors, in means of transportation and
at work. The number of do’s and don’ts reached at the end of the tape is
alarming, one feels like the preacher wants to control and put constraints on
every single move or word of the woman. His justification to these
constraints is that the veiled woman is an “ambassador” of Islam. This way
he overweighs small errands and everyday activities turning them into
representation missions that should strictly follow complicated protocols. The
word “awra” is again used extensively, every unveiled woman has her “awra”
seen by strangers. Even the veiled who is not orthodox enough, leaving her
neck, ears, a part of her legs or arms seen, has her “awra” seen by others.
This way every part of the body, except the hands the face is “awra”, the
power of using the word is in its connotation with sexual organs, it may be
acceptable that the arms be seen but if they are as sacred as the sexual
organs, then letting them to be seen is a big crime.
The hijab in Schools and the Nikab Universities
In 1994, Dr. Hussein Kamel Bahaa’ El-Din, Minister of Education, fueled
the battle on the veil with decree No. 113 preventing school administrations
from imposing the hijab on girls. Given the symbolic importance of the veil,
the decree mobilized many writers attacking or defending the Minister’s
position.
What made things more difficult was a fatwa issued by an-Al Azhar
committee denouncing the Minister’s decision and considering it as an assault
on the religious teachings. The thread was picked by the government’s
opposition, and papers like Al-Ahrar came out with titles like: “The Volcano
of Anger sweeps Egypt because of the Minister’s decree .. Parents beg to the
Minister to have Mercy .. The Minister is appealing to the lime lights with his
decree …” (Al-Ahrar Sept. 5, 94).
The whole issue was turned into a political issue, it was not a matter of
wearing the veil or not, the Minister’s decree did not say that girls should not
wear it, he said that parent’s approval should be obtained first. Yet, given the
political tension between Islamic groups and the government, the decree was
considered as an aggression on the later’s domain specifically within the
administration of the schools which impose the hijab sometimes on girls who
are six years old.
The Minister had earlier problems when he insisted that “Monakabat” are not
allowed inside university campuses unless they show their face to security.
This decision has stirred the many of opposition groups who took it into their
shoulders to write the story of any Monakaba who was denied the right to
get into campus with great sympathy in their papers.
Abdel Azim Ramadan, a historian with many publications, takes part in the
debate. In an articles published in “October Magazine” on September 4, 94,
Ramadan took the Minister’s side, against the fatwa. He starts (a bit on the
defensive) by saying that he was a graduate of Al-Azhar, is indebted to this
educational institution and has nothing against it whatsoever. Ramadan treats
the Azhar fatwa as a political act inciting the people against the Minister and
embarrassing the government, putting a precedence to counterfeit any other
minister’s decision and threatening the government’s autonomy. For the rest
of the article, Ramadan tries desperately to put the veil issue in its place as a
personal religious decision, arguing that it is only one aspect of religiosity that
can not substitute the other aspects, he reiterates that the decree did not
prevent girls from wearing the hijab, it just prevented the administration from
imposing it by putting the condition of the parent’s approval. Finally, he
argues that the Islamic groups’ opposition to the decree is because they want
to have the authority to impose a dress on girls that would even transgress
the parent’s authority.
On August 24, 94, and within the same context, “Akher Sa’aa” presents a
book review of “The Responsibilty of the Muslim Woman in Structuring the
Family and the Society” by Mohammed Bahy el Din Salem. The title of the
article (written in a big font) was “All Religions have called for the Hijab ..
Unveiling is due to Ignorance of the True Teachings of the Religion”. The
book as reviewed by the article is full of quotations from the Bible, the Old
Testament and of course the Quor’an, concluding with what is in the title.
Saied Ashmawi and Tantawi (August 1994)
Within the great commotion caused by the Minister’s decree, Saied Ashmawi
wrote in Rose-al-Yousef an article declaring that the Hijab is not mandated
by Islam, interpreting three Qur’anic verses: Ayet El Hijab, Ayet El Khimar,
Ayet El Galaleeb, and some of the Prophet’s Hadith, and concluding that the
hijab phenomenon is an expression of politicized Islam and is being used as a
tool by the leaders of Gamaat Islamia. Tantawi, then Grand Mufti of Egypt
replies advocating Hijab interpreting the same verses, and denying its
connection with whatever is called “politicized Islam” as he puts it. The
debate goes on, but unfortunately ends up with the two sides discrediting
each other, and that was the sad end of the debate.
Ayat El Gelbab:
O ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the
Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time,
unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited,
enter, and when your meal is ended, then disperse,
Linger not for conversation. Lo1 that would cause
annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of
(asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth.
And when ye ask of them (the wives of the prophet)
anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is
purer for your hearts and for their hearts
Ashmawi interprets this verse as binding only to the wives of the prophet and
not to any women. It even does not include the concubines he took giving the
Hadith told by Anas Ben Malek that when the Prophet married Safia ben
Yehia, people knew that he is taking her as a wife not a concubine when he
veiled her (put a curtain is the literal translation). Tantawi argues that
Ashmawi’s interpretation is wrong and that the Hijab applies to all women, it
is a religious doctrine (Hokm Share’ie)
Ahmed, Leila. Women and Gender in Islam. Cairo: The American University
in Cairo, 1992.
Amin, Kasim. Tahrir El-Mara’a. Cairo: Oriental Library, 1899.
Ashmawi, Saied. “El-Hijab Lais Farida.” Rose-al-Youssif 6/13/94 1994:
22-25.
Ashmawi, Saied. “Al-hijab Lais Farida Islamiah.” Rose-al-Youssif 6/27/94
1994: 81-83.
Ashmawi, Saide. “Lagnet el Fatwa el Shara’ia bel Azhar Gheir Share’ia.”
Rose-al-Youssif 8/22/94 1994: 28-31.
Badran, Margot. Feminists, Islam, and Nation. Princeton, New Jersy:
Princeton University Press, 1995.
El-Bahi, Mohammed. El-Islam Wa Itigah El-Moslima El Moa’sira. Cairo: Dar