COMMENT Malaysiakini’s news report ‘Union wants hijab option for Muslim MAS crew’ and the request by National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia for female crew of Malaysia Airlines to be “given the option to observe Muslim dress code” begs for analysis.
A "hijab option" is not the same as "Muslim dress code". The latter is problematic in its various implications. A dress code is like a uniform at work. Comply or face disciplinary action.
Why is this hijab option open only to females I ask? Consider if a male crew member wants to spot a beard, collar-length hair, headgear with a long flowing shift, open-toe sandals or decides that green is the right colour for his spiritual dress option.
But that is not going to happen as we know that there is more emphasis of dress of Muslim females but not males. My reluctant observation is, Malaysia is still a gender traditional society in so many ways where gender stereotypes are visible but unquestioned.
The stereotypes of how men and women are differentiated in manner of dress for example is informed by the cultural gender norms and ideology that permeate our society, the institutions, organisations and social networks in which gender relations and stereotypes are embedded, our inter-personal/acquaintance relationships and how we understand the information for ourselves.
I am sharing an analysis I had developed in 2008 for UN Women, a United Nations organisation dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. I had put much thought into it then and the analysis to me, remains current.
‘Islamic dress’ a recent vintage
Dressing in any manner considered as modest is contextual, cultural and voluntary. The importance attached to an "Islamic dress" for Muslim women is of recent vintage.
The Quranic stories pertaining to modes of dress or covering has a historical context. Veiling was introduced into Arabia from Syria and Palestine. Its use existed among some classes in the towns and as a symbol of social status as was its use among Greeks, Romans, Jews and Assyrians.
Throughout the Prophet Muhammad's lifetime, veiling and seclusion were observed only by his wives. Veiling was initially restricted to the women in the Prophet's family in order that they may be recognised as such in public in order to command respect and not be harassed (Quran 33:59).
An account of this case was the harassment of a group of Medinans ("the hypocrites") who would abuse the Prophet's wives and then claim that they had taken them for slaves (see Musnad of ibn Hanbal).
This practice was subsequently not limited to the wives of the Prophet and voluntarily adopted by women in that period as arguably a symbol of class to signify morally upright women. Veiling was arguably accessible to all women who wished to be veiled as it invites respect.
Respect was the rationale, the "veiled meaning" in these Quranic texts. Respect for women should include respect for the wearing of any particular dress if that is what women have chosen as a mark of their identity and self-expression as a Muslim and as a woman.
In some Muslim societies, due to the cultural or rural practice of sexually segregated public space, women adopt a particular mode of dress deemed "Islamic" by the standard of that community, including women, to enable them to "carve out legitimate public space for themselves" and public space is by this means being redefined to accommodate women.
The adoption of an "Islamic or Muslim dress" howsoever defined by a community and by women, do not declare women's place to be in the home but, on the contrary, legitimises their presence outside it. The matter of concern is, the compulsion to dress in a particular way by legislation or rules of conduct/dress codes or the reverse, a law to prevent a form of dress worn as a part of a woman's identity to a group. In such a case, that legislation or rule should be prohibited.
The Human Rights Committee (ICCPR) in its General Comment 28 in addressing regulations or legislation on women's dress, stressed that regulations of clothing to be worn by women in public involve a violation of a number of civil and political rights including Article 26 ICCPR (non-discrimination), Article 7 ICCPR (if corporal punishment is imposed in order to enforce such a regulation), Article 9 ICCPR (when failure to comply is punished by arrest), Article 12 (if liberty of movement is subject to a constraint), Article 17 (all persons have the right to privacy without arbitrary or unlawful interference), Articles 18 and 19 (subjecting women to clothing requirements that are not in keeping with their religion or their self-expression; and lastly Article 27 (when the clothing requirement conflict with the culture to which the woman can lay a claim).
Workplace policy vs private choice
I do not think Malaysian women as a whole are required or compelled to observe one particular mode of "Muslim dress" in order to carve out a legitimate public space for themselves as women in the public space. It is not an issue from the days of the fledging women's movements pre and post independence. Being in the public sphere is a given.
I recalled an incident in a justice coordination meeting in Wardak, Afghanistan in 2013. It was in the chief judge's new office, the old office, ruined by the impact of a blast at end December 2012.
He had a screen by the door, providing privacy to his office. I sat near that door with my team and in jest, said that perhaps I should be speaking from "behind the curtain" (the veiling) as the medieval fiqh scholars demanded. We actually laughed about it and he asked for the screen to be removed.
A woman friend in Yemen who earns a wage in the public space, shared that she wears the hijab and niqab (face covering showing only her eyes) because of harassment by males. She did say that this has not stopped male harassment and she tries to avoid walking past congregations of males on her way to work.
I said to her in jest that if a woman is in a sack, she would still face harassment from males. Her reply in jest was if a dog was in hijab and niqab, males would still harass it, thinking it was a female. But she added that wearing the hijab and niqab is a choice. There is no workplace policy in Yemen on this. I cannot say that this is the experience of all women in Yemen, but there is that context.
We should ask ourselves, where are we in context on dress for women? The next relevant question is whether Muslim women staff of MAS as a group has the right to invoke freedom of religious expression in being allowed the hijab option.
That to me is a policy question where religious preferences may be considered as one factor in making a determination but not the primary determinant. The problem is, we may not have a consensus on the religious requirement of dress for Muslim females as a workplace policy as opposed to her personal (private) preferences.
We should have room for discussion.
SALBIAH AHMAD is a lawyer interested in Islamic reformation, peace and justice.
A "hijab option" is not the same as "Muslim dress code". The latter is problematic in its various implications. A dress code is like a uniform at work. Comply or face disciplinary action.
Why is this hijab option open only to females I ask? Consider if a male crew member wants to spot a beard, collar-length hair, headgear with a long flowing shift, open-toe sandals or decides that green is the right colour for his spiritual dress option.
But that is not going to happen as we know that there is more emphasis of dress of Muslim females but not males. My reluctant observation is, Malaysia is still a gender traditional society in so many ways where gender stereotypes are visible but unquestioned.The stereotypes of how men and women are differentiated in manner of dress for example is informed by the cultural gender norms and ideology that permeate our society, the institutions, organisations and social networks in which gender relations and stereotypes are embedded, our inter-personal/acquaintance relationships and how we understand the information for ourselves.
I am sharing an analysis I had developed in 2008 for UN Women, a United Nations organisation dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. I had put much thought into it then and the analysis to me, remains current.
‘Islamic dress’ a recent vintage
Dressing in any manner considered as modest is contextual, cultural and voluntary. The importance attached to an "Islamic dress" for Muslim women is of recent vintage.
The Quranic stories pertaining to modes of dress or covering has a historical context. Veiling was introduced into Arabia from Syria and Palestine. Its use existed among some classes in the towns and as a symbol of social status as was its use among Greeks, Romans, Jews and Assyrians.
Throughout the Prophet Muhammad's lifetime, veiling and seclusion were observed only by his wives. Veiling was initially restricted to the women in the Prophet's family in order that they may be recognised as such in public in order to command respect and not be harassed (Quran 33:59).
An account of this case was the harassment of a group of Medinans ("the hypocrites") who would abuse the Prophet's wives and then claim that they had taken them for slaves (see Musnad of ibn Hanbal).
This practice was subsequently not limited to the wives of the Prophet and voluntarily adopted by women in that period as arguably a symbol of class to signify morally upright women. Veiling was arguably accessible to all women who wished to be veiled as it invites respect.
Respect was the rationale, the "veiled meaning" in these Quranic texts. Respect for women should include respect for the wearing of any particular dress if that is what women have chosen as a mark of their identity and self-expression as a Muslim and as a woman.In some Muslim societies, due to the cultural or rural practice of sexually segregated public space, women adopt a particular mode of dress deemed "Islamic" by the standard of that community, including women, to enable them to "carve out legitimate public space for themselves" and public space is by this means being redefined to accommodate women.
The adoption of an "Islamic or Muslim dress" howsoever defined by a community and by women, do not declare women's place to be in the home but, on the contrary, legitimises their presence outside it. The matter of concern is, the compulsion to dress in a particular way by legislation or rules of conduct/dress codes or the reverse, a law to prevent a form of dress worn as a part of a woman's identity to a group. In such a case, that legislation or rule should be prohibited.
The Human Rights Committee (ICCPR) in its General Comment 28 in addressing regulations or legislation on women's dress, stressed that regulations of clothing to be worn by women in public involve a violation of a number of civil and political rights including Article 26 ICCPR (non-discrimination), Article 7 ICCPR (if corporal punishment is imposed in order to enforce such a regulation), Article 9 ICCPR (when failure to comply is punished by arrest), Article 12 (if liberty of movement is subject to a constraint), Article 17 (all persons have the right to privacy without arbitrary or unlawful interference), Articles 18 and 19 (subjecting women to clothing requirements that are not in keeping with their religion or their self-expression; and lastly Article 27 (when the clothing requirement conflict with the culture to which the woman can lay a claim).
Workplace policy vs private choice
I do not think Malaysian women as a whole are required or compelled to observe one particular mode of "Muslim dress" in order to carve out a legitimate public space for themselves as women in the public space. It is not an issue from the days of the fledging women's movements pre and post independence. Being in the public sphere is a given.
I recalled an incident in a justice coordination meeting in Wardak, Afghanistan in 2013. It was in the chief judge's new office, the old office, ruined by the impact of a blast at end December 2012.
He had a screen by the door, providing privacy to his office. I sat near that door with my team and in jest, said that perhaps I should be speaking from "behind the curtain" (the veiling) as the medieval fiqh scholars demanded. We actually laughed about it and he asked for the screen to be removed.
A woman friend in Yemen who earns a wage in the public space, shared that she wears the hijab and niqab (face covering showing only her eyes) because of harassment by males. She did say that this has not stopped male harassment and she tries to avoid walking past congregations of males on her way to work.
I said to her in jest that if a woman is in a sack, she would still face harassment from males. Her reply in jest was if a dog was in hijab and niqab, males would still harass it, thinking it was a female. But she added that wearing the hijab and niqab is a choice. There is no workplace policy in Yemen on this. I cannot say that this is the experience of all women in Yemen, but there is that context.
We should ask ourselves, where are we in context on dress for women? The next relevant question is whether Muslim women staff of MAS as a group has the right to invoke freedom of religious expression in being allowed the hijab option.
That to me is a policy question where religious preferences may be considered as one factor in making a determination but not the primary determinant. The problem is, we may not have a consensus on the religious requirement of dress for Muslim females as a workplace policy as opposed to her personal (private) preferences.
We should have room for discussion.
SALBIAH AHMAD is a lawyer interested in Islamic reformation, peace and justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.