Introduction: In the 20th century, Muslim men and women have put in a lot of effort to either remove or affirm the veil. This paper will explore these efforts in two specific stages: the first and the last thirds of the century (Ahmed 167).
Through an analysis of various arguments on the veil, I will try to identify general characteristics of the debate on the issue and on women during two specific periods of time. The starting point will be Kasim Amin’s Tahrir el Mara’a (Liberation of Woman) and Talat Harb’s Tarbiet el Mara’a wal Hijab (Educating Women and the Veil), which represent a prototype of the debate on the veil throughout the century (Ahmed P. 164). Malak Hefni Nassif’s and Hoda Sha’arawi’s attitudes towards the veil provide insight into two different interpretations of the hijab issue by feminist activists that have prevailed throughout the century.
The whole synthesis of this early debate is put in juxtaposition to the debate later in the century, represented by the avalanche of literature on the topic in the seventies, the views of some famous sheikhs like Mohammed Metwally el Shaarawi and others, and the heated debate initiated by the Minister of Education’s decree of 1994 to prevent school administrations from imposing the hijab on girls as part of the uniform.
The Early Debate
Kasim Amin’s Tahrir El-Mara’a (published 1899) ignited a strong debate and prompted more than thirty reaction articles and books either to defy or assert his argument against the veil (Ahmed P. 164). The ideas of the book were not totally new; they echoed the writings of some writers like Mariam al-Nahhas (1856-1888), Zaynab Fawwaz (1860-1914), Aisha al-Taymuriah (1840-1902), and Murqus Fahmi’s (a Coptic lawyer) four-act play Al Mar’ah fi al-Sharq or (The Woman in the East) (Badran P.).
19. Yet, Amin’s book scored double points for coming from a Muslim judge and for his overt proposal to unveil women’s faces. His words were not the only challenge to the existing notions of the hijab. It was his caliber as a Muslim judge that vocalized his call to unveil women and gave his book importance. After an introduction loaded with emotional phrases on the degradation of the Egyptian woman and an exaltation of the European woman, the book is divided into four sections: Educating women, Women’s veil, The woman and the nation, and Marriage and divorce. Amin starts his argument by calling for the Hijab Shara’ei, stating that the Hijab in its form then (covering the face, the hair, and the whole body) was not mandated by the Shari’aa. He further adds that he was not calling for the extreme of the West, which makes the woman liable to seduction (Amin P.).
The argument against the veil is in two sections: the religious section, which mainly involves text interpretation and some Hadith that prompt women to cover their hair and the whole body except for the hands and the face; and the social perspective, which includes practical everyday life ideas. The latter section discusses the inconvenience for women with their faces covered to engage in business, testify in courts, or get engaged (as the groom should see her face first). Additionally, the author argues that unveiling would make women watch their behavior as they could be recognized, and hence their reputation would be at stake if they did anything wrong.
Still, from a practical and social point of view, the flimsy burqa (face cover) is more tempting as it makes the viewer curious to see what is intended to be hidden. The author argues that if women are imprisoned in the harem (part of the house where women are secluded), then even if they did not commit any shameful act, it would not be due to any virtue in them, but to the fact that they did not have the freedom to do otherwise. Amin accuses the veil of being a barrier to women’s development and education (p. 85), arguing that it deprives them of interacting with society and learning how to live. He illustrates this by comparing the ignorant peasant with the elite urban lady who can speak French and play the piano and concludes that the ignorant peasant would be…
