Monday, October 24, 2005

More on the Hijab: Why Does the Hijab Provoke a Strong Emotional Reaction in non-Muslims? ...



In response to a previous post titled "On the Hijab ...", Mr. George Carty has asked me in his comment why the hijab provokes such a strong reaction in non-Muslims. I have attempted to give an explanation at the comments section of the "On the Hijab ..." entry, but Mr Carty is right in noting that my reply is comprehensive enough to warrant a separate entry, so here is my reply.


To understand why the hijab provokes such a strong reaction in non-Muslims, especially Western non-Muslims, one must consider the history of Europe. It may be noted, as I have noted in my original posting, that Mary, mother of Jesus (peace be upon him), preferred to wear the hijab, as can be attested by the fact that virtually all portraits of the blessed lady have depicted her with the hijab. At some point in history, Christian women got rid of the hijab, even though portraits of Mary (may God be pleased with her) continued to depict her with the hijab. The hijab, which was originally meant for all women, became confined only to a select group of women called the nuns. It was the historic battle between the Church and Science during the European Renaissance that finally helped to make the hijab so unpopular in Europe.

Everyone knows about how the Church was a great impediment to the progress of Science. The reason for this unfortunate conflict was the injection of Greek philosophy into the Bible centuries before the Renaissance even started. A significant portion of this Greek philosophy was unscientific and simply nonsense, but the upholders of the Church, unaware of this historic reality, sought to uphold the Bible as sacrosanct and thus vehemently opposed anything that was opposed to their set beliefs and patterns of thinking. In the battle between the Church and Science, the latter emerged victorious. While this victory paved the way for scientific progress and technological advancement in Europe, it also ensured the separation of the Church from the State. The Church, having thus lost its influential power, became an object of attack by the upholders of Science. Atheism became increasingly popular and morality levels plunged. Religion became "unscientific", faith became "blind", and secularism became the new religion of the European. Practices associated with religion became unpopular and frowned upon. One of these practices is the hijab, which, because of its association with nuns, became a symbol of oppression reminiscent of the oppression of the Church to advancement and progress. Thus, the woman who wears the hijab came to be considered as backward, conservative, or fundamentalist.

A very different story is found when one considers the history of Islam. It is important to note that while Christianity did away with the hijab, Islam did not. At the same time, while Christianity found itself at odds with Science, Islam found itself to be the impetus for Science. While Christianity lost its alliance with the State, Islam presented a framework for the establishment of the State. Thus emerges the modern Muslim woman, smart, confident, educated, and professional, with her all-too-conspicuous hijab. The European non-Muslim fails to come to terms with this combination of qualities because history seems to tell him, "There is something terribly wrong with that combination". Hence the strong emotional reaction.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the Muslim woman in that cartoon needs more sleep :)

Fayyaz Khan said...

Wa alaikum us Salam,
Thank you sir, for your compliment and your comment.

thabet said...

"Atheism became increasingly popular and morality levels plunged. Religion became "unscientific", faith became "blind", and secularism became the new religion of the European.

I am not sure this is completely accurate. Christianty was taken seriously by the likes of Newton. In fact, Christianity was taken more seriously by 18th-century Europeans than their intellectual predecessors like Hobbes or Grotius. Perhaps it is fairer to say a specific form of religion -- Catholicism as embodied by the Church -- is what clashed with "science" (though this too is slightly skewed into a modern myth -- e.g. Galileo had his supporters inside the Church too).

assalamu 'alaykum

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Newton a Unitarian?

Fayyaz Khan said...

Wa alaikum us salam ... Newton had proposed a deterministic universe which was governed by mathematical laws. Experiments done in those times were in agreement with Newton's theories, at least up to the precision that those experiments could attain. Newton thus believed that it was God who had set the mathematical rules for the physical universe and it was God who initiated this mighty clockwork. To that extent, I agree with your observation that religion was taken seriously by the likes of Newton. But my point is that the current trend of atheism/secularism/humanism that has pervaded Europe has its roots embedded in the historic clash between the Church and Science. Christianity may have been taken seriously by 18th-century European intellectuals, but that was because they were trying to reconcile Christianity with Science. They ultimately failed because the Darwinian "theory" of evolution paved the way for a Godless universe.

Fayyaz Khan said...

As an afterthought, I think I should add that a lot of people today consider the Darwinian concept of creation of Man as entirely false and not based upon scientific evidence. Please see my post titled, "The Unscientific Myth of Darwinian Evolution and the Qur’ān ..." for more details.

JDsg said...

George wrote: "Why did the Americans spend billions of dollars rebuilding Western Europe, rather than keeping it weak and dependent..."

Several reasons: First, the US is made up primarily of the sons and daughters of Western Europe, no matter how many generations removed. It would have been politically unwise not to have helped Europe to rebuild. Second, the US factory system was fully intact after the war and needed new markets in order to fully utilize their capability. So a strong European market was in the US's economic interests.


"...and opposed the extension of Soviet power there by supporting two-bit anti-Communist dictators..."

In Europe? I know the US supported numerous anti-communist dictators in other regions of the world, such as in Latin America and eastern Asia (hence the quotation, "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard," attributed to both FDR and Truman).