When the prime minister of New Zealand donned a Hijab in solidarity with Muslims shattered by an act of terrorism, she set a new high for expressing her care and concern for a community ostracized and discriminated in the West primarily because of the dress they wear.
Following their leader, entire New-Zealand erupted in solidarity, with women of this tiny country rising above the prejudices by donning a dress which is banned in many western countries.
Not just the Hijab, Azaan was telecast live, parliament opened with Quranic recitations and prophet Muhammad (SAW) was quoted by the prime minister. There was a display of love, sympathy and care for the Muslim community in entire New-Zealand.
Jacinda Ardern though hailed for courageous display of love in the times of hate, was criticized by many liberals and so-called ‘Hijabaphobes’ for wearing a garment seen as a ‘symbol of oppression’.
Their argument primarily being, ‘if an elected prime minister chooses to signal her virtue by wearing a Hijab—- she will appear to be endorsing the Hijab as the official and correct public costume of Muslims women’.
A Hijab in its various forms marks out a member of Muslim community quite distinctly. With the turmoil that has engulfed the Muslim world, there have been large-scale immigrations into the West and these include Hijabi women too. Hijab is just a benign piece of cloth that covers head or face of a Muslim woman.
It is invariably voluntary, its degrees vary and its acceptability varies amongst Muslim women. There are just two Muslim countries in the world where Hijab is dictated by the state, in other 48 Muslim countries women are free to have it or not to have it. The message is clear in Quran too, ‘No compulsion in religion’.
So, if a liberated Muslim woman brought up in the East or West, by choice wears a Hijab, we have no option but to respect her choice. Ibtihaj Muhammad, an American woman athlete chose a Hijab, participated in Olympics and won a medal.
By what standards is she regressive and backward? Similarly, educated women all over the world who choose to have a Hijab do that out of their own free will. Who will compel them to have it or not to have it? I’m not here to advocate Hijab for Muslim women but I’m here to advocate her right to wear it, her right to exercise her choice.
The world has changed in its dynamics and composition. It has become heterogeneous and there is merit if it becomes inclusive. Islamophobia is manifested by Hijabophobia and signals the new apartheid that has engulfed the world. When Hijab is banned or loathed upon, the argument is “it is regressive and backward”.
The garments of a nun, a monk, a Rabi and a Sikh do not look regressive and backward. These do not invoke any fear or condemnation. The liberals go on to say, ‘Muslim women are oppressed and we want to rescue them’. But, the fact of the matter is that a Hijabi woman is either verbally abused , physically assaulted , arrested or fine is imposed on her. So, here they end up with suppressing the very same woman they want to rescue and liberate.
A free independent woman in France is put behind the bars for donning a Hijab. A woman out on a beach in a Burkini with her family is humiliatingly arrested for wearing something the authorities do not like. It is pure bias and discrimination against the weak and the vulnerable.
The western world has yet to understand “They are us’ so beautifully demonstrated by Jacinda. It has yet to come out of a cocoon, it has built around its race, color and values. What may be religion for me may be oppression for you.
A Hijab does not harm an onlooker. There is no shame if a woman chooses to cover. Yes, there is shame if based on a bundle of lies, a war is thrust on a nation whose resources you want to control.
There is shame if powerful few converge on a tiny territory like Syria and mercilessly bombard its women and children; and to escape death and destruction when they land up on the alien shores they are humiliated and mocked for the dress they wear.
The right to wear a dress of ones choice is a fundamental right and needs to be respected by all. In the garb of women’s liberation, this right should not be violated.
When AR Rehman was trolled for what his daughter chose to wear, he answered the trolls by a picture that spoke more than what was needed. He showed three women of his family, one fully covered by a face veil, other covering her head and another one displaying her hair-summing up his respect for the dress choice of women in his family. This all he trapped in a single frame….and trolls fell silent!