Is the Western perception of the hijab as a symbol of oppression justified?

Is the Western perception of the hijab as a symbol of oppression justified? By Cody Mitchell This paper was first submitted as an undergraduate essay in 2019 at the University of New England Since the early years of European contact with the Muslim East, hijab, in general, and the veil, in particular, have been seen by Westerners as symbols of the Islamic degradation and oppression of women. Leila Ahmed, ‘Veil of ignorance: have we gotten the headscarf all wrong?’, Foreign Policy, iss. 186, 2011, p. 40; Greer Litton Fox, ‘“Nice girl”: Social control of women through a value construct’, Signs, vol. 2, no. 4, 1977, pp. 806-808; Chris Allen, ‘“People hate you because of the way you dress”: Understanding the invisible experiences of veiled British Muslim women victims of Islamophobia’, International Journal of Victimology, vol. 21, no. 3, 2015, pp. 288-291; Helen Watson, ‘Women in the veil: personal responses to global process’, in Islam, globalization and postmodernity, Akbar S. Ahmed and Hastings Donnan (eds.), London and New York, 1994, p. 141. Interestingly, this perception has arisen almost exclusively without any input from Muslim women (or even Muslims in general) and without any attempt to understand why women who choose to veil do so. This essay seeks to critically examine this Western perception in an attempt to determine (1) whether it is reasonable and (2) from where it originates. It opens by giving some context to the Islamic understanding of the veil and outlining the meaning of hijab and how these terms will be used in this paper. Secondly, it briefly judges whether the perception is warranted based on Qur’anic hijab and modesty prescriptions and related later hadith and interpretive (tafsir, or exegesis) writings alongside commentary by later Muslim scholars. In this regard, the Western view seems to be more influenced by later writings, which often carried noticeably more prejudiced attitudes than Qur’anic verses. Third, this essay examines two potential origins – both historical and contemporary – of the Western view of the veil and its subsequent intolerance toward Islam. Historically, it outlines the basic argument presented by Leila Ahmed that Western imperialism and Eurocentrism (coupled with what she calls ‘colonial feminism’) were in a large part responsible for this mistaken perception. Leila Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam, New Haven & London, 1992, p. 151. Further, it explores modern secularism as a potential perpetrator of this stereotypical modern Western view of Muslim women and the veil. Taking representative examples from France, Turkey and Germany, it concludes that – in these cases – more secularised nations tend to be less tolerant of women wearing the Muslim veil and to perceive the veil as an instrument of subordination and religious oppression. Thus, both colonial imperialism and modern secularism appear to be sources for this particular Western view of Islam and the veil. Finally, the essay advocates an appropriate response to the Muslim veil for Australia today. The responsibility for this approach lies in part with Australian Muslim scholars and clergy and also with Australian leaders. The former must return to the Qur’an as their ultimate source of authority in an effort to clear modern Islam of its more patriarchal elements as developed in later traditions. Australian leaders, on the other hand, in an attitude of religious tolerance, must refuse to stereotype the veil as a necessarily oppressive symbol without making sincere efforts to properly understand the reasons women choose to wear hijab. Before evaluating this perception, a clarification of this paper’s usage of the terms hijab and the veil will be beneficial. Strictly speaking, the word hijab does not mean simply ‘veil’, although it is often used in that way. According to Emi Goto, it is a noun originating from the word hajab (a verb, meaning to cover, seclude or hide) and refers to general standards and principles of modesty (in clothing and conduct) for Muslim women. Emi Goto, ‘Qur’an and the veil: context and interpretations of the Revelation’, International Journal of Asia Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, 2004, p. 282; Note that hijab is related to the term Purdah and is often used interchangeably with it. However, while the words are similar in meaning, hijab is more exclusive to Islam and, thus, will be used in this essay: Cited in Anon., ‘Purdah’, Encyclopedia.com, 2004, unpaginated, https://www.encyclopedia.com/sports-and-everyday-life/fashion-and-clothing/clothing-jewelry-and-personal-adornment/purdah#1G23403500397, accessed 31 August 2019; Hanna Papanek, ‘Purdah: Separate worlds and symbolic shelter’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 15, no. 3, 1973, p. 189. The word actually only appears in the Qur’an several times. Ibid. The veil, on the other hand, is the type of clothing used by Muslim women and can take many forms. Depending on later interpretations of the Qur’an and hadith, what actually constitutes the veil is greatly variable (with the headscarf being one of the more liberal forms of the veil). Watson, ‘Women and the veil’, p. 141. There are numerous other words in the Qur’an or other traditions that are used to describe clothing. Take for example qina, which means simply ‘veil’; jilbab, a type of clothing the meaning of which is still open for interpretation; and rida, for an ‘outer garment’. Papanek, ‘Purdah’., pp. 281-286. This can make accurate discussion on Muslim dress principles quite complex. However, for the sake of simplicity, this essay will simply refer to hijab as the overarching Islamic principles and standards of modesty (i.e. ‘religious modesty’). Watson, ‘Women and the veil’, p. 141. It will examine the Western perception of hijab in general and the veil (as the most common manifestation of hijab) in particular. After an examination of the relevant passages, the perception that the Qur’an subordinated women through its establishment of hijab and seclusion seems totally unfounded. As Derayeh has observed, beyond core Islamic beliefs, the relevant Qur’anic passages leave much room for varied interpretations. Minoo Derayeh, ‘The myths of Creation and hijab: Iranian women, liberated or oppressed?’, Pakistan Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, 2011, p. 3; Jen’Nan Ghazal Read and John P. Bartkowski, ‘To veil or not to veil? A case study of identity negotiation among Muslim women in Austin, Texas’, Gender and Society, vol. 14, no. 3, 2000, pp. 399-400; Watson, ‘Women in the veil’, pp. 146-147. This is particularly true when approaching the question of hijab and veiling. As the purpose of this section is to particularly address the Qur’anic teachings on hijab, it will leave the examination of hadith and other traditions and exegetes until the next paragraph and will mainly focus on the core teachings and interpretation of the Qur’an itself. Surahs 24 verse 30-31 and 33 verses 32-33, 52-53 and 59 are traditionally where the practice of veiling is believed to have begun; however, the word hijab itself is only found in two passages relating to women: Surahs 19 verse 17 and 33 verses 53 and 55. Mostafa Hashem Sherif, ‘What is hijab’, The Muslim World, vol. 77, nos. 3-4, 1987, p. 154; Goto, p. 281. The former verse is recounting a story of Mary the Mother of Jesus and is not a prescription. The later outlines the expected conduct in interacting with Muhammad’s wives when guests were invited to his house (or came of their own accord); but, interestingly, this only applies to the prophet’s wives, not to other Muslim women. Ibid., p. 284; Haleh Afshar, Islam and Feminisms, New York, 1998, p. 13. While interpreters disagree as to the extent to which the prophet’s wives needed to be secluded and veiled, it remains clear that verse 53 and 55 apply only to them. Sherif, ‘What is hijab?,’ pp. 155-157; Goto, ‘Qur’an and the veil’, pp. 282-286. Thus, hijab, strictly speaking, was not instituted for all Muslim women via the Qur’an. Sherif, ‘What is hijab?’, p. 160. What is clearly commanded, on the other hand, is for both men and women to ‘restrain their eyes’ and to observe self-restraint in order to protect their chastity. The Qur’an, 24:30-31, J.M. Rodwell translation. Women should also ‘let their veils fall low’ around them in order to protect themselves from being molested. The Qur’an, 33:59, J.M. Rodwell translation. The exact interpretation of these passages is contested. Read and Bartkowski, ‘To Veil or Not to Veil?’, pp. 399-401. However, regardless of whether or not the Qur’an’s commands are universal and women from all times should veil themselves completely, it seems apparent that the general concern of the Qur’anic prescriptions is for the safeguarding of modesty (for both men and women) and for the protection of women from harassment. Papenek, ‘Purdah’, p. 305; Afshar, Islam and Feminisms, pp. 200-201. Wadud argues that it is these principles (particularly that of modesty) that are the real concerns of the message of the Qur’an. Amina Wadud, Qur’an and Women, New York, 1999, pp. 9-10. Therefore, she argues, the Qur’an promotes ‘culturally and economically determined’ manifestations of modesty. Ibid., p. 10. Attempting to resolve the numerous debates among Muslim scholars as to the universality of veiling and seclusion is beyond the scope of this essay; however, it is clear that the overall message of the Qur’an in this regard is in terms of the protection of the virtue of modesty for both men and women. Consequently, it cannot be argued that the Qur’an necessarily endorsed the subordination of women through hijab, the veil or seclusion. While Qur’anic hajib prescription did not seem to have been initiated out of a desire to subordinate women, the later interpretations and traditions surrounding veiling demonstrated a shift from the aim of protecting the status and safety of women to protecting men from women. Some traditions agree with the more positive readings found in the Qur’an. For example, one tradition (recorded in Ibn Sa’d’s al-Tabaqat al-Kubra) explains the reasons behind the revelation of Surah 33 verse 59. Evidently, Medinan men were known to regularly molest female slaves and sometimes mistook free women (sometimes even the wives of the Prophet) for slaves and harassed them also. Cited in Goto, ‘Qur’an and the veil’, p. 281. In this context, so the tradition relates, Allah commanded free women to distinguish themselves from slaves by covering most of their face (excluding one eye) and wearing different clothing from female slaves. Cited in Ibid., p. 281. This agrees with Surah 33 verse 59 regarding the reason for covering, although not necessarily in the extent of the covering. The Qur’an, 33:59, J.M. Rodwell translation. In later traditions, however, a different attitude is apparent. Al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi and al-Razi saw female beauty as a cause of fitna (‘temptation…seduction, enchantment or disorder’) for men. Cited in Goto, ‘Qur’an and the veil’, pp. 290-292; Anon., ‘Fitnah’, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, unpaginated, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e665, accessed 31 August 2019. Thus, to protect men from temptation, women were commanded to cover their beauty. Cited in Goto, ‘Qur’an and the veil’, p. 290-292; Watson, ‘Women and the veil’, p. 144. In most cases, the commands of hijab were interpreted to apply to all women, but scholars like al-Qurtubi and Ibn Taymiya held a more consistent view, arguing that women who were not attractive or were menopausal were not required to wear the veil. Goto, ‘Qur’an and the veil’, p. 291; Read and Bartkowski, ‘To Veil or Not to Veil?’, p. 408. This exemption also applied when women were in the presence of men ‘who have no natural force’. The Qur’an, 24:31, J.M. Rodwell translation. Ultimately, however, the chief purpose of the requirement to veil shifted from a need to protect women, to uphold modesty and to distinguish free women from slaves to the desire to protect men from the temptation of female beauty. Goto, ‘Qur’an and the veil’, p. 292; Read and Bartkowski, ‘To Veil or Not to Veil?’, p. 399; Afshar, Islam and Feminisms, pp. 14 and 199-200. This attitude is summed up aptly in a statement by Mutahhari, who argues that the reason for the exclusivity to females of the command to veil is ‘because the desire to show off and display one’s self is a particular trait of women.’ Quoted in Derayeh, ‘Myths of Creation and hijab’, p. 11. He says that it is the nature of women to wish ‘to capture hearts and imprison the male.’ Quoted in Ibid. This view is echoed by Muslim philosopher Abdul A’la Maududi, who sees the ‘urge for the display of beauty’ as a trait that is particular of women. Abul A'la Maududi, Purdah and the Status of Women in Islam, n.p., 1991, p. 107. While not necessarily directly corresponding with a desire to oppress and subordinate women, this kind of reasoning certainly leaves the possibility of justifying such subordination wide open. Therefore, since the revealing of the original Qur’anic prescriptions, the institution of veiling has shifted from one arising from a desire to protect the status and safety of women to one in which all women were seen as temptresses and seductresses to be hidden from the view of men. Historically, the perception of women’s subordination under Islam and the association of the veil with this oppression has developed in a large part through the lens of European supremacism. In her influential book Women and Gender in Islam, Leila Ahmed makes this point strongly. Her argument is complex and, thus, will only receive a preliminary overview here. Over the centuries, Ahmed argues, confused stories of Muslim culture and its practices were carried into the West – almost exclusively by Westerners and from a Western perspective. Ahmed, Women and Gender, p. 149. A combination of factors – including a Social Darwinist racist ideology and a Eurocentric worldview – caused a reaction against, in particular, Islam’s unique customs and traditions surrounding women (most of all, those of veiling, strict segregation and seclusion). Ibid., pp. 150-153; cited in Papanek, ‘Purdah’, p. 315. ‘Colonial feminism’, or a modified, contradictory form of feminism serving as the ‘handmaid’ of imperial colonialism, was yet another factor that brought about a sharply negative view of Islam’s treatment of women by ignoring the faults (in terms of women’s status and rights) in European society and highlighting those in Muslim culture. Ahmed, Women and Gender, pp. 150-155. Thus, women (and Islam’s treatment of and attitude toward them) were considered the key to correcting the backwardness of Muslim society. In this context, the veil (under which Muslim women were ‘buried alive’) came to symbolise the subordination and oppression of women in Muslim culture. Quoted in Ibid., p. 154. Lord Cromer, in 1908, wrote that he saw Islam’s treatment of women (particularly seclusion, segregation and veiling) as evidence of the ‘complete failure’ of the Muslim social system. Quoted in Ibid., pp. 152-153. This Eurocentric supremacism, made all the more potent by a lack of understanding (or, rather, a lack of will to understand), in large part brought about the Western perception that the veil, in particular, was evidence of Islam’s systemic subordination of women. Today, some examples of case-law seem to suggest that Western perceptions of the Muslim dress-code, and particularly the veil, are strongly connected with the level of public secularism. In general, more strictly secular nations like France and Turkey appear less tolerant to the public wearing of the veil. In a 2006 article, Imen Gallala outlined responses and decisions by French and German courts and the European Court of Human Rights when faced with cases involving the wearing of the Muslim headscarf. Imen Gallala, ‘The Islamic headscarf: an example of surmountable conflict between shari’a and the fundamental principles of Europe’, European Law Journal, vol. 12, no. 5, 2006, p. 595. She concluded that these decisions were heavily variable based on the constitutional ‘Church and State’ relationships (i.e. the level of national secularism). Ibid., pp. 593 and 595. For example, France has a historically strong tradition of strict public service and constitutional ‘neutrality’ and, as a result, religious people have often found themselves excluded from public offices. Ibid., p. 596. Conversely, Germany, which has a more cooperative relationship between church and state, has generally had more tolerant rulings regarding hijab based on freedom of religion. Ibid., pp. 597-598. Alongside secularism, gender equality has often been used as a basis for banning the use of the veil; however, in the case of Germany (with its more openly neutral and less secular outlook), decisions have tended to be less likely to stereotype the veil or headscarf as an oppressive symbol. Anastasia Vakulenko, ‘“Islamic headscarves” and the European Convention on Human Rights: an intersectional perspective’, Social & Legal Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, 2007, pp. 187-189; Gallala, ‘The Islamic headscarf’, pp. 597-599. More strictly secular countries (like Turkey and France), on the other hand, have proven less understanding when addressing the issue. Ibid., pp. 187-189. In the case of Sahin v Turkey, for example, religion (in this case, Islam) was perceived as a threat ‘to the principles of secularism and gender equality’ and, consequently, the judges ruled that the veil ‘appeared to be imposed on women by a religious precept that was hard to reconcile with the principle of gender equality.’ Ibid., pp. 191-192. In this case, a lack of appreciation of (and empathy toward) religion (the result of strict secularism) caused the concept of gender equality to be gravely over-simplified. Ibid., p. 193. In contrast, the German Federal Constitutional Court decided that the ‘veil could not…be reduced to a symbol of the social oppression of women’ and ruled in favour of a female public servant’s right to choose to wear the veil. Gallala, ‘The Islamic headscarf’, p. 599. A similar variation can be seen (taking Germany and France as examples) regarding both veiling at school and veiling in the public service. In both cases, Germany appeared more sympathetic and tolerant, whereas France was more strict. Ibid., pp. 596-598 and 602-603. Thus, taking the cases at hand, it appears that countries that are more secularised generally have less tolerance toward hijab and tend to view it as a necessarily oppressive religious institution – one difficult ‘to reconcile with the principle of gender equality’. Vakulenko, ‘“Islamic headscarves”’, p. 193. In terms of Australia’s response (both culturally and legislatively) to the veil, political leaders and Muslim scholars must work in collaboration to ensure a balanced and sympathetic social outlook is adopted. Gallala proposes that a distinction be made between Islamic faith (‘the body of universally held doctrine’) and Muslim law (or shari’a) founded on the later traditions of the Islamic faith. Gallala, ‘The Islamic headscarf’, pp. 606-607; Farida Shaheed, ‘Controlled or autonomous: Identity and the experience of the network, women living under Muslim laws’, Signs, vol. 19, no. 4, 1994, pp. 1001-1004. A distinction must also be made, as Shaheed notes, between the adjectives Muslim and Islamic. The former is describing something initiated by ‘those who adhere to’ Islamic faith but is not necessarily Islamic (being something that is initiated divinely). Ibid., p. 998. As this essay has demonstrated, the rationale for the veiling and seclusion of women (and general hijab) and the cultural attitude demonstrated in later traditions, exegetes and commentaries were often at odds with the more positive reasoning and outlook exhibited in the Qur’an. Afshar, Islam and Feminisms, pp. 2-3. Thus, it should be a project of Australian Muslim leaders to recover the attitude and logic of the Qur’an in this regard in an effort to remove any excuse for a negative perception of the Muslim hijab practices in Australia. This return to the Qur’an, coupled with a willing spirit of dialogue, will be one significant step toward mutual religious understanding and a correct perception of the veil. The other step will be a concerted effort by Australian leaders, culture, parliamentary and religious, on a great number of fronts. In a general sense, they must strive for a satisfactory level of shared respect and religious freedom. More specifically, lawmakers and other leaders must learn from the examples of France, Turkey and Germany and seek to create a public sphere characterised by open impartiality, where all worldviews are heard and can be respectfully debated. Gallala, ‘The Islamic headscarf’, pp. 598. At least, this means that legislators must make a great effort to understand the experiences and beliefs of those with whom they are dealing – in the case at hand, with Muslim women. If Australian Muslim leaders and other Australian leaders can work together within an attitude of cooperation and mutual understanding, Australia will be well equipped to deal with the significant challenges that the clash of cultural traditions will inevitably cause. To conclude, this essay has examined the Western perception of Muslim hijab (particularly of the veil) as an oppressive symbol in light of Qur’anic teaching; later exegetical and historical Muslim works; and two potential origins of this perception (contemporary and historical). It found that, firstly, the perception is unfounded if one honestly and impartially analyses the relevant Qur’anic passages; however, later, more patriarchal, readings and exegetes of the Qur’an by Muslim scholars, as well as hadith histories, present a different attitude and more patriarchal reasons for the establishment of hijab. Secondly, this essay argued that imperialism and what Ahmed calls ‘colonial feminism’ alongside – in the cases analysed – modern state secularism are both sources for this perception and the subsequent intolerance displayed toward the wearing of the veil by Muslim women (or, in the case of secularism, the display of any religious affiliation in certain contexts). Ahmed, Women and Gender, p. 151; Shaheed, ‘Controlled or autonomous’, p. 1002. The main limitations of this essay are three-fold. Firstly, the discussion on the Qur’an and later traditions was extremely restricted in terms of depth and scope. Nevertheless, it attempted to provide at least a generally true representation of the attitudes of the sources. Secondly, the discussion on the secular influence on Western perceptions of the veil was also incomplete. While the cases given were representative of their respective countries, there is much room for further research into the case-law of other nations beyond those studied. The final major limitation of this essay is in its inability to explore the extent to which women in Muslim countries are permitted the choice (whether at a national or familial level) to wear, or refrain from wearing, the veil. This essay has been written, for the most part, with the underlying assumption that a woman’s free choice is coupled with the relevant factors under examination; however, it is recognised that this may not necessarily be the case. Ultimately, it advocates a tolerant, understanding approach to Muslim hijab wherein the experiences, realities and beliefs of Muslim women are taken into account. It also argues that Muslim scholars must consider rethinking their emphasis on extra-Qur’anic writings and return to a more Qur’an-based Islamic attitude. A combination of these factors will lead to a more religiously tolerant society in which there is healthy respect and cooperation between religions and the state in an effort to appreciate the real experiences of Muslim women. About the author: Cody Mitchell completed his undergraduate degree in history and political and international studies at the University of New England. He was the 2019 winner of the James Dolan Memorial Prize in History and a 2021 Vice Chancellor’s Scholar. He is also a graduate of Monash University. Cody has a Diploma of Musical Theatre and two Certificate IVs (in Liberal Arts and Science respectively). A long-time writer, Cody launched the History’s Page website in 2015 (after several years of development) and was an Australian Commonwealth Correspondent for the YourCommonwealth.org site. He has also edited for—and published dozens of articles on—The Daily Declaration. Bibliography: Primary: The Qur’an, J.M. Rodwell translation. Secondary: Afshar, Haleh, Islam and Feminisms, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Allen, Chris, ‘“People hate you because of the way you dress”: Understanding the invisible experiences of veiled British Muslim women victims of Islamophobia’, International Journal of Victimology, vol. 21, no. 3, 2015, pp. 287-301, https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758015591677, accessed 22 August 2019. Anon., ‘Purdah’, Encyclopedia.com, 2004, unpaginated, https://www.encyclopedia.com/sports-and-everyday-life/fashion-and-clothing/clothing-jewelry-and-personal-adornment/purdah#1G23403500397, accessed, 31 August 2019. Anon., ‘Fitnah’, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e665, accessed 31 August 2019. Ahmed, Leila, Women and Gender in Islam, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1992. Derayeh, Minoo, ‘The myths of Creation and hijab: Iranian women, liberated or oppressed?’, Pakistan Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, 2011, pp. 1-21, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/docview/1037878761, accessed 24 August 2019. Fox, Greer Litton, ‘“Nice girl”: Social control of women through a value construct’, Signs, vol. 2, no. 4, 1977, pp. 805-817, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173211, accessed 23 August 2019. Gallala, Imen, ‘The Islamic headscarf: an example of surmountable conflict between shari’a and the fundamental principles of Europe’, European Law Journal, vol. 12, no. 5, 2006, pp. 593-612, https://heinonline-org.ezproxy.une.edu.au/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/eurlj12&i=593, accessed 22 August 2019. Goto, Emi, ‘Qur’an and the veil: context and interpretations of the Revelation’, International Journal of Asia Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, 2004, pp. 277-295, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479591404000245, accessed 22 August 2019. Odeh, Lama Abu, ‘Post-Colonial Feminism and the veil: Thinking the difference’, Feminist Review, no. 43, 1993, pp. 26-37, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1395067, accessed 23 August 2019. Papanek, Hanna, ‘Purdah: Separate worlds and symbolic shelter’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 15, no. 3, 1973, pp. 289-317, https://www.jstor.org/stable/178258, accessed 23 August 2019. Read, Jen’Nan Ghazal and Bartkowski, John P., ‘To veil or not to veil? A case study of identity negotiation among Muslim women in Austin, Texas’, Gender and Society, vol. 14, no. 3, 2000, pp. 395-417, https://jstor.org/stable/190135, accessed 21 August 2019. Seggie, Fatma Nevra and Sanford, Gretchen, ‘Perceptions of female Muslim students who veil: campus religious climate’, Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 13, no. 1, 2010, pp. 59-82, https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320903549701, accessed 23 August 2019. Shaheed, Farida, ‘Controlled or autonomous: Identity and the experience of the network, women living under Muslim laws’, Signs, vol. 19, no. 4, 1994, pp. 997-1019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3175010, accessed 23 August 2019. Sherif, Mostafa Hashem, ‘What is hijab’, The Muslim World, vol. 77, nos. 3-4, 1987, pp. 151-163. Maududi, Abul A'la, Purdah and the Status of Women in Islam, n.p., Kazi Publications, 1991. Vakulenko, Anastasia, ‘“Islamic headscarves” and the European Convention on Human Rights: an intersectional perspective’, Social & Legal Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, 2007, pp. 183-199, https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907076527, accessed 22 August 2019. Wadud, Amina, Qur’an and Women, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999. Watson, Helen, ‘Women in the veil: personal responses to global process’, in Islam, globalization and postmodernity, Ahmed, Akbar S. and Donnan, Hastings (eds.), London and New York, Routledge, 1994, pp. 141-159. Winter, Bronwyn, Hijab and the Republic, New York, Syracuse University Press, 2008. Cody Mitchell 9 Cody Mitchell 8 Cody Mitchell 1