by Faten Hijazi
–USA–
Growing up in California, my American identity has been constantly challenged. Strangers tell me to “go home” and call me oppressed, backwards, or uneducated. I have been spat upon, yelled at, and chased off the road. Why? Because I look different. I am a practicing American Muslim woman who chooses to wear a headscarf.
Faith itself is a choice, and my decision to cover my hair is an extension of that choice. I make this choice consciously, because I want to, because it makes sense to me, and because I find happiness in it. Wearing a headscarf is not about making a statement; it is an extension of my wardrobe. If it symbolizes anything, it is my freedom to dress as I please and I could care less how other women choose to dress.
In the U.S., my cultural and religious beliefs are often frowned upon. I work as a lead design engineer and am currently working toward my MBA. Aside from a small piece of fabric used to cover my hair, I look like everyone else. Yet that small piece of fabric somehow transforms into a symbol of convoluted political and cultural statements that I never signed up for.
I often wondered what life would be like if I lived in a predominantly Muslim country. In 2010 I traveled with 23 other students to Turkey as part of an MBA global studies program. The objective was to explore Turkey’s booming economy and the program included visits to businesses and government offices.
Turkey is a democratic, secular republic whose population is 99.8 percent Muslim. I expected my choice to practice my faith and cover my hair would not only be tolerated in Turkey, but honored and dignified. To my dismay, the lack of cultural and religious tolerance in Turkey was more pronounced than in the U.S.
Turkey’s Constitution includes an official policy banning women who cover their hair from attending educational institutions or working in the public sector. The ban applies to teachers, lawyers, parliamentarians, and others working in government buildings. It also impacts students attending elementary school, high school, and university.
In a country where over 40 percent of urban women wear a headscarf, I did not see a single professional woman wearing it. In two of the companies I visited – a bank and a manufacturing plant – I was shocked to find that their policies ban female employees from wearing a headscarf or “other religious symbols.”
Several of our site visits were rather awkward. Outside a major conglomerate, a guard tried to stop me from entering the building not realizing I was part of the MBA group. I was given a “tisk tisk” when I asked an employee if I could use a conference room for a few minutes to perform one of my five daily prayers, something I routinely do in corporate America.
I asked a number of women wearing the headscarf to share their experiences with me. One Turkish woman had received her degree in pharmacology from Ankara University before deciding to wear a headscarf. She moved to the U.S. where she worked as a pharmacist for several years while wearing a headscarf. In 2009 she moved back to Ankara and is now a full time homemaker. She told me that she would like to work, but it is too difficult to find a private hospital willing to hire her. Public hospitals must comply with the ban.
I met a number of young women who were studying abroad and had returned to Turkey for the summer. Their families had encouraged them to work around the ban by studying in places such as Syria, Jordan, Iran, Poland, Britain, and the U.S. One woman explained to me that while she did not agree with the ban, she had no choice but to accept the law and work around it.
Most women do not have the opportunity or money to study abroad. One such woman attended the Duzce vocational training school. Because it was a vocational trade school, she was allowed to wear a headscarf but her limited skill set decreases her career prospects. When asked how she felt about the law she became red in the face and explained that she wanted to be free to practice her religion and dress as she pleased. She said she wished she lived in the U.S. where women are “free” to wear what they want.
The ban is a highly contested issue in Turkey. Over the years there have been several challenges to the ban, including the 2005 case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey in which prosecutors argued that the ban forced students to choose between education and religion and discriminated against women who chose to practice a religion. The case went up to the European Court of Human Rights and the ban was upheld. The Court found that the rules on dress did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights and were “necessary restrictions” to uphold the principles of secularism.
In February 2008, the Turkish Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution allowing women to wear the headscarf in Turkish universities, arguing that women may not seek an education if they could not wear the headscarf. The Parliament voted 79 percent in favor of the amendment on the grounds of equal access to education. However, many supporters of the ban feared the amendment had an alternate agenda of undermining secularism and took to the streets in protest. Several months later, Turkey’s Constitutional Court annulled the amendment arguing that it was against the founding principles of the Constitution.
In contrast to Turkey, there have been several legal cases in the U.S. where women took their employers to court for not allowing them to wear a headscarf and won. Discriminating on the basis of dress or religion is not tolerated by the U.S. legal system and is seen as a form of employment discrimination.
I am dumbfounded that it is easier to wear a headscarf in the U.S. than in a predominantly Muslim country. How is it that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s right to dress according to her religious beliefs whereas the Turkish Constitution denies that very same right?
I believe the differences between Turkey and the U.S. and can be traced back to a historic understanding of how the countries were founded.
The U.S. was founded on religious freedom. The First Amendment protects the right of an individual to hold and express religious beliefs. Today, despite post 9/11 hysteria and politicized religious misunderstandings running wild, the legal system and American society at large still understand the importance of protecting an individual’s right to expressing his or her beliefs. In the U.S., freedom to practice religion is cherished.
In contrast, Turkey was founded on dismantling a religious empire. Turkey was the center of the Ottoman Empire, which upheld Islam as its state religion. The Ottoman Empire spanned Southeastern Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa, and Islamic values and practices were deeply rooted in the Ottoman identity. “Ottoman” and “Muslim” were inextricably linked.
When Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded Turkey in 1923, he wanted to nationalize the country around a new identity that was void of recognizable religious practices to ensure the empire did not return. In Turkey, freedom to not practice religion is cherished, even if it is at the expense of those who do wish to practice.
In my experience, many people are afraid of the headscarf because they do not understand it or worry about what is says of their own choices. With increased dialogue, something as trivial as a small piece of fabric may no longer be so threatening and scary.
The need for dialogue and to recognize differences while seeking to understand shared values is important in an increasingly global world. A friend of mine once said that true faith is when we leave our exclusivity and celebrate our sameness. Let us leave our exclusivity and reach out to others who may have chosen a different path. Let us seek to understand shared values before rushing to judgment. Let us work together and increase dialogue so that fear and assumptions are replaced with compassion and understanding.
And when that happens, when we can understand and value our sameness, I have no doubt we will come to a place where we can not only tolerate but also appreciate our differences.
About the Author:
Faten Hijazi works as a project lead for a semiconductor company where she is responsible for the design and delivery of engineering solutions. She received her bachelor’s in computer engineering with a minor in mathematics from San Jose State University and is about to receive her MBA from Santa Clara University. Faten serves as a youth group counselor for high school girls in her local community. She is passionate about working with young women to develop confidence and self-respect. Faten’s family immigrated from Palestine and she has lived in California since she was a few months old. She lives in Santa Clara with her husband.
The immediate reaction of many Americans to countries that limit the individual’s right to express his or her religion is that they are somehow less free. But that’s not true. The challenge of any free society is to protect the rights of all, not simply to protect the rights of the individual. Every society runs into this problem: Why do some states and cities in the US prohibit cigarette smoking?
A secular society has the right to say that you cannot impose the symbols of your religion, much less your practice of religion, on the rest of society. So religion can be practiced freely at home, in private gatherings, in houses of worship, etc. But religion cannot be practiced in the public sphere. This is a compromise that respects both sides of a difficult debate. I am offended by crosses, stars of David, headscarves, and all the other outward expressions of religion to which we are subjected in public life.
If this kind of restriction is troubling, consider the life of the atheist in the religious societies of both West and East. In the US, the world stops on Christmas. The pledge of allegiance includes a reference to god. The justice system is filled with references to god. In the scheme of things, I would suggest that not having the right to wear a headscarf is small in comparison to the daily affronts faced by atheists.
Dojero, I do not understand how a woman’s choice to wear a headscarf is an imposition of her religion on society? Is it really the same as practicing religion in the public sphere? Or is it similar to the many churches, mosques and temples that dot our cities and towns?
Thank you for starting off this important conversation. Welcome to The WIP!
Is Islam a Religion or a Political Ideology? This is the essential question. Atatürk wanted to separate his country from becoming an Islamic country, look what is happening in Iran, Pakistan. Once a country is declared Islamic it has to adhere to the Islamic law. After that there is no place for a written constitution or freedom of choice.
The head scarf is only one part of it which smacks of gender politics. when i see an orthodox Jewish woman in her wig covered head to toe, totting several children behind her, i see gender politics. When i see a woman in ‘Gungat’ in India, which is also a veil, is again gender politics. Yes America has freedom of religion as part of its constitution, but when the writers wrote it, they were only talking about the various offshoots of Christianity. America too will turn into a Christian nation if we let the extreme right take over the country. Then we will not be very much different from Iran. Just different set of codes, Christian codes.
Ms. Hiyazi has all the rights to wear what ever she wishes to, she need to be prepared for people to judge her for her choice. Same way when i see a girl wearing next to nothing on the subway, i have already formed an opinion of her. When i see a man wearing his jean way too low and showing his boxers, I have already put him in a bracket. And at the end of it, when i see an orthodox person, i am well aware that he/she thinks i am going to hell for belonging to the wrong religion.
The responsibility of the government is to protect the people. Smoking is banned because it is harmful for everyone, not just those holding a cigarette. But seeing my neighbor wearing a headscarf will never give me cancer. In fact, it makes me smile because I am always glad to see a woman confident enough to make a choice even when she knows it will be challenging.
As for boxes, people simply don’t belong in them.
Women always are the victims of any disputes. Let them wear whatever they feel fit. Don’t force them to wear or take off their scarf. It is a personal choice. Ban it when the piece of fabric stops women from breathing or controls their freedom. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been badly criticized for forcing women to cover their hairs, but some European countries should also be criticized for banning women to wear scarf.
It is good to judge women according to their personalities and achievements and not how they look or wear. Give them the chance to follow their dreams not to be banned from joining collage only because of their dress code.
Thank you Faten for such wonderful and inspiring article. Many thanks to countries, organizations, communities and individuals that have the courage to promote women to be themselves.
Sorry for the delay in returning to this thread. But thank you, Kate Daniels, for the welcome.
There is a significant difference between a public religious display and the practice of religion in a closed building.
In the US, people seem oddly unaware of how profoundly religion is pressed on the general public. Displays of religious belief are everywhere. But rather than making for a free society, this culture and legal system has developed one of the most religious societies in the world.
Smoking is not banned only because it is harmful to others. The US has many, many laws that are intended to protect people from harm that might result from their actions without hurting others. Consider, for example, seat belt laws. Wearing a seat belt protects only the wearer, who is not free to decide not to wear one. And make no mistake, there are far many people who hate wearing seatbelts and who wouldn’t wear one if it weren’t required by law.
Your personal reaction, Heidi Zirtzlaff, to seeing a woman in a headscarf seems to me to be entirely beside the point. My own reaction to seeing a woman in a headscarf might be exactly the opposite of yours, but that wouldn’t be cause for a ban any more than your reaction is reason not to ban. If we as a society agree that the imposition of religion contradicts the desire for a secular state, then the headscarf should be banned.
Most Americans don’t believe that the state should be secular, and that is perhaps why they find it difficult to understand people from countries that do cherish that ideal.
Thank you for such an insightful article. The link between historical events and current political ideologies is an important one. It saddens me that Muslims have more freedoms in non-Muslim countries than in countries governed by Muslims, but that is the sad reality. I suppose it is a legacy of the colonial oppression and fractured political histories in the Muslim world.
I have a bone to pick with supporters of the ban however. The idea that one person’s wearing the headscarf imposes their religion on anyone else is ridiculous. She imposed the headscarf on herself. Who decides what constitutes a religious symbol? By banning headscarfs and crosses I feel like we are imposing an extreme version of secularism on those who choose to live in a way that identifies their faith.
dojero mentioned that a reaction to seeing a women in a headscarf is besides the point and wouldn’t be cause for a ban, but then what is the basis for banning outward symbols such as a headscarf? their comment is also ironic given that their original words were “I am offended by crosses, stars of David, headscarves, and all the other outward expressions of religion to which we are subjected in public life.” I think the point Heidi was making is that the headscarf has different meanings to different people, and to prevent some people from making a choice about their appearance because other people disagree with them seems fundamentally wrong. It is agonizing to me that these bans are also enforced in places that claim to hold so dearly to freedom of speech. You could apply the same arguments to that discussion, and yet they find a different outcome.
The people who want to impose bans on religion act like someone else’s expression of religion somehow imposes on their “freedom”. If they are not prevented from practicing how they choose or living the way they choose, how is their freedom curtailed? And if the only way to have “freedom” is to not have to be reminded of the way other people live, then we should probably all be living on our own little islands.
I don’t mean to be vitriolic, but to compare dealing with religious references in the public sphere with being forced to choose between your beliefs and providing for your children just seems silly to me. Many people agree that the U.S. is hardly the model secular society it purports to be. And yet we uphold many freedoms in the interest of humanity regardless of the intersection of God in public commentary. You may prevent someone from governing according to religious law on paper but you cannot prevent them from believing in a sense of right and wrong that may come from their religious upbringing. A free society is one in which we tolerate and celebrate our differences, not one in which we are all the same.
It’s surprising, but this in an odd way restores some of my recently lost faith in the US. While we may have been founded on the freedom of religion, we are far from proponents of it – as many have pointed out. Having worked in the NYC Law Dept, I saw the words “In God we trust” emblazoned above every judge in every court room. It’s on our money. It’s in our Pledge. With that being said, it is amazing that we have yet to impose such a ban with places like France and Turkey leading the way. With 9/11 behind us and with the surge of intolerance in mind, we still are able to stand behind the millions of practicing and religious Americans.
The ban is just as counterproductive if it were to be reversed – that is to say, if the headscarf was imposed on us and we were forced to wear it. That would take away my right of expression and my feeling of individuality. To force women who CHOOSE to wear the burka, the hijab, whatever to not wear it is equally as restraining and constraining.
Furthermore, once you ban a headscarf, you are compelled to ban: crosses, stars, the Om symbol, churches, mosques, etc. It’s all religious expression. The list never ends. Once a government does not let one group practice its religion, they cannot allow another group to openly practice either. Censorship begets censorship. If it’s in the name of freedom, then all must be “free”. This can only happen if all are allowed to express themselves in the manners in which they see fit.
Also, who says that the atheists are the ones who should prevail in the public sphere? My beliefs are just as important. Why take away my rights and my freedoms just so another group feels included when you have now excluded me?
And if gender politics is the way in which many interpret this, one may as well eliminate skirts. Women in the US for years were not allowed to wear pants or shorts to school or work. If that’s not gendered politics, I don’t know what is. The list simply continues.
With all of that being said, there is so much room for improvement. Simply educating people will do the trick. Unfortunately, this is much easier said than done, but, with articles like this, perhaps we may be able to come a bit closer to an informed understanding.
It seems to me that the word freedom is being bandied about with insufficient context. When the word is used by Americans, it apparently means the freedom of the individual to do as he or she pleases. I don’t get the feeling that it considers the social consequences of such unfettered individual freedom.
This issue helps to illuminate a core difference between France and the United States that dates to the founding of the post-monarch systems in both countries.
Americans believe that the individual’s right of free speech is more important than the society’s right to live free from the imposition of a religious culture. It’s wrong, I think, to say that a secular society is supportive of atheists. It is supportive of a society that does not permit religion to be a part of the public sphere. There are many reasons why that is important. History shows that religion has been imposed upon people in virtually every country that has not aggressively supported secularism. That’s been true in countries with a majority of Christians, Hindis, Muslims, and Jews (and others). Even today, Italy routinely succumbs to the pressures of the Catholic Church, the US routinely imposes Christianity on its people, Israel exists as a Jewish state, and, of course, the Middle East has many examples of Muslim states.
We shouldn’t look at a headscarf ban in isolation. We should look at it in the context of a world that is besieged by religious states that fight wars in the names of their religions.
I’m really happy and excited to see such great conversation!
I think critical to this discussion is to develop an understanding of “religious symbols”. What makes a headscarf a “symbol” rather than a choice of conservative dress (irrespective of religion)? Is covering one’s hair some sort of “optional” religious practice that can be pushed to the weekend?
Dress is and always will be a reflection of what society values as “proper”. Hundreds of years ago, many women of all faiths covered their hair because that was the societal norm at the time (important: one does not need to be Muslim or a nun to cover her hair!). Last century, wearing a skirt above the knee was considered outrageous. The point is, norms of dress change and will continue to do so.
I cover my hair because it is a part of my value system and what I deem “proper”. Indeed my value system is derived from my faith – and there is nothing wrong with that. I respect other people’s value systems – whether it is derived from religion or not.
Wearing a headscarf is not about showing the world I am Muslim. It is not a public display of my faith. It is about wearing clothes that are comfortable *for me*. In the same way I am not comfortable wearing shorts, I am not comfortable showing my hair.
When I was in the 10th grade, my English teacher walked us through an exercise. She asked the girls in class what price we would be willing to walk around topless. The price started at $100. A couple of girls agreed to the starting price but most felt uncomfortable. As the price went up, girls eventually changed their decision. The price eventually reached $1,000,000 until I was the last girl standing. Finally my teacher asked me what price I would be willing to make this concession. I replied I did not think my body was sale. If I was comfortable walking topless, I would do it for free. Price was not the factor. Now it didn’t bother me that some of my girl friends agreed to walk topless. That was their choice and they were entitled to it, just as I was entitled to mine.
I share this story because I would like to make a point. The headscarf is not some sort of “optional” expression of my faith. It is core to my value system regarding dress. If I was forced to take off my headscarf in public – I would simply stay at home.
Now that would be a shame.
Thank you, Faten Hijazi, for joining the conversation about your article.
I admit that I’m now not certain about your perspective regarding the wearing of the headscarf. You ask the question, “What makes a headscarf a “symbol” rather than a choice of conservative dress (irrespective of religion)?” That suggests that wearing the headscarf is a fashion statement. If that’s true, then it becomes difficult to object on the grounds of religious/secular concerns. But suppose that the Jewish person who wears a yarmulke makes the same claim? Is the claim credible? This is akin to the college student who gets caught smoking peyote and claims that it was because they were practicing a Native American religious rite.
You later say that “The headscarf is not some sort of “optional” expression of my faith. It is core to my value system regarding dress.” This suggests that wearing the headscarf is indeed a part of your religious practice. So I take this to mean that you believe that you cannot properly practice your religion without wearing the headscarf. This is again akin to the Jew who believes that his religion requires the wearing of a yarmulke.
If we can agree that wearing the headscarf is indeed a component of the practice of religion, then we can talk about the practice of religion in daily public life and whether that is appropriate for a society that wants to be free from religion. If we want to talk about wearing the headscarf as though it is not connected to religious practice, then the conversation changes completely.
My point throughout this discussion has been that the wearing of the headscarf as a part of the practice of one’s religion brings the practice of that religion into the public sphere. In my view, a public sphere free from the practice of religion is better than one that permits such practice. This is because I believe that in most societies in which religion is practiced, there is a dominant religion that holds sway and ultimately this results in the imposition of that religion’s values on to the rest of the society. When that happens, the society finds itself less truly free. So in the United States, I think life is less free than it is in France, for example, in this regard. People who don’t practice Christianity in many parts of the US find themselves outcast by the communities in which they live. Life on the east and west coasts is very different than life in the midwest and southern areas of the country in this regard.
On a personal level, you say that if you were forced not to wear the headscarf, you’d stay at home. I agree with you that would be a shame. But I don’t find that unfortunate result to be a convincing way of deciding how society should function. I could easily say that if people insist on practicing their religions in public by wearing headscarves and yarmulkes, then I will stay at home. But that would be a shame too.
Dojero, thank you for comments.
I apologize if I was not clear. Wearing a headscarf is indeed a religious practice – the practice of dressing conservatively. My point is that historically, Islam does not have a monopoly on this.
There seems to be an assumption that religion can be successfully “removed” from the public sphere without negative impact to the adherents of that religion. There indeed is an impact, and that was my point about staying at home. Staying at home has nothing to do with the choices *other* people make. It has to do with me not living consistently with my beliefs. According to my beliefs, I am unable to enter the public sphere without covering my hair.
I do not believe religion can be successfully “removed” from the public sphere. Instead, I would rather see a society where differences are celebrated rather than shunned.
Faten Hijazi: I think you have brought our discussion to an excellent conclusion, and I want to thank you for your contributions. I think we can agree to disagree about the fundamental questions: Should religion be removed from the public and can an effort to do that be successful?
While I would answer yes to those two questions and you would answer no, I’m happy to have had the opportunity to discuss them with you and others here.
Thanks again for your article and comments.
Personally i am in totally agreement with dojero. And there is a factual fallacy in saying ‘Islam does not have a monopoly on this.” Most parts of the Islamic world outside of Arabic peninsula did not dress conservative in its pre-Islamic times. also only after Constantine moved towards catholicism (for political reasons) did conservative garb come into the picture in the western world. The laborers used to cover their hair for practical purposes. Also the word conservative is very relative. Just take India where i am from, the south of India which remained relatively untouched by invading from the middle-east still practice dress code that might be considered im-“proper”, like the Hindu women from the south of India never cover their hair, and the Hindu women from North consider covering their hair “proper”. Until 60 years back, women in some states in the south went topless and covering up was considered improper. Until the Wahabi money started pouring into Indonesia, the Indonesian Muslims did not cover up the way they do now. There was no need to cover up because there was no desert sand to contend with. This goes for most of Africa too. I just felt the need to point this out.