Having come across some of Marnia Lazreg’s previous work on Algerian women’s history etc, I was actually somewhat surprised to see her take on the veil in this book. I’ve only skimmed through it a bit and haven’t actually read it, so I should postpone my judgment. But I have to admit, the central anecdote in her preface, about her getting injured in that incident with the boy and her mom made me feel weird about the premise of her whole project. That said, I’m increasingly convinced that personal experience can’t be dismissed easily and should be taken more seriously in any discussion (There’s of course feminism’s legacy in “the personal,” which is political). The question I guess is how exactly to translate the personal to generalizable interpretations, but I’m queasy about any generalizations.

Re. veil as an issue: It’s older than early 20th c. Muslim feminism (as a comment above suggests). It’s probably true that it’s not just an issue but an obsession for both non-Muslims and Muslims, but the non-Muslim Western obsession has a particularly long history (See for e.g. Mohja Kahf’s excellent book Western Representations of the Muslim Woman)

@Sobia: Re. “As a psychologist I can tell you Freud is not taken as seriously in the academic world as he is in the pop psychology world”

Actually, it’s kinda funny that Freud is taken far more seriously in the academic theory world i.e. humanities, than either popularly or in psychology.

I’m not implying anything.

@ Rochelle

I’m not against the use of anecdotes and personal stories.
I am against their misuse and reinterpretations by so-called experts of Islam who are hiding their – very often islamophobic – agenda.
Hope it’s clear enough that time!

But you’re against using anecdotes or personal stories? I don’t get it.

Thanks for your suggestion but I am a part of the Muslim circles in my community and I make sure like others that I my voice is heard, AND I definitely don’t hate my community if that is what you are implying. Like many others, I’m just tired of the focus on a Muslim woman’s body when there are more pressing issues to discuss like domestic violence or sexual abuse. As a women I don’t want to be the sum or absence of a headscarf.

hi Sobia!
I’d really like to reply to you about the anecdotes and stuff but I think our discussion is unfortunately a bit useless, because we have no common basis. It would be more fruitful to take it up once you read the essay first by yourself. If you live in France, I’d be happy to send you my copy of the book by post.

@ Rochelle:

Thanks for the reference. Though I’m personally more interested to hear what muslim feminists have to say about themselves – instead of always referring to some experts. In this respect, Zainab al Ghazali’s books are very interesting.
http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b2627.html

@ Laila:
I’m sorry to hear that you feel pressured to wear the veil. I don’t know if this would reassure you, but I feel myself pressured not to wear it. I think both of these situations are disgraceful.
About your criticism of the topics discussed in Muslim circles, I would suggest to be a part of it and to bring the topics you judge more relevant to be discussed in a mosque. It’s a bit like Indymedia’s motto: “don’t hate the media, be the media”. Don’t hate the circle, be the circle!

One point the author brings up is sensory perception … I’ve noticed when I wear hijab out to the masjid my hearing isn’t as crisp as it is normally with my ears uncovered. While I don’t think the argument is exceptionally a good one (and it won’t matter at all to those that are wearing hijab to to religious conviction), it is something that made me wonder.
She also argues that’s it’s hot and not comfortable. It would make your head more sweaty if it’s covered, that’s a given.

“Perhaps a more compelling reason for not wearing a veil is its unrecognized psychological effect on its wearer. In the long run, a hijab makes a woman feel removed from her environment. There is a simple explanation to this drawback: a piece of cloth that covers the ears several hours a day blunts sensory perception. As it is worn throughout the day, the hijab is more physically constraining than the old-style veil, which in the past was worn only outside the house and for relatively brief periods of time since women did not work outside the homes. The hijab may leave a woman’s face uncovered, but it tightens itself on her head and ears. That some women have tried to fasten their headscarves in such a way as to leave their ears free is an acknowledgment of the hijab’s effect on the sharpness of their sensory perception…” (105-6).

I agree with the author when she says this:
“A woman’s piety can no more be ensured by the hijab than her looks determine her character. To argue otherwise is to reduce faith, a personal matter of conscience, to a formal display of evidentiary signs designed to reassure others, men and the community, that a woman is indeed a convinced and pious Muslim. This clearly opens wide the door to deception and simulation of piety that make it more difficult to distinguish authenticity from acting. That mail advocates of the veil are not bothered by this but are satisfied by the outer signs of piety is an indication that their goals are not to promote women’s spiritual needs, but to increase the material visibility of Islam through the hijab at the expense of both women and their religion” (95).

If it is more an issue for non-Muslims than why do so many Muslim countries restrict Muslim women to wear it, like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Sudan. Somalia, Indonesian and many other places? Why are their so many books and articles published by Muslims on it? Why is it in some Muslim circles the sole topic discussed concerning women (my mosque is so obsessed with veiling). If it’s not an issue than why I am like many others stilled pressured to wear it ?

I disagree, It’s not only an issue for Muslims its an obsession.

This is not really the case. Have a look at the books in ENGLISH and maybe. Have a look at the books in English AND since 9/11 and yes this will definitely be the case. But the veil as you know is not a new topic, and it is not one confined to western authors. It has been problematized by muslim women feminists since the early modern women’s movements in the 30′s. I seem to remember this book being a good one about it in english: “The Other “Awakening”:
The Emergence of Women’s Movements in the Modern Middle East, 1900-1940″ by Ellen L. Fleischmann

And its not like the issue has gone away. How could it with france wanting to ban it, Iran forcibly imposing it, and the Sudan flogging people for not wearing it? Whether you like it or not (and I don’t, but I have to face facts) the veil is a politicized issue.

“But if a writer solely rely on them to make strong and conclusive statements, it’s basically intellectual dishonesty. ”

How so? Could you expand on the intellectual dishonesty bit? I haven’t read the book so am not sure how she presents the anecdotes therefore it would be clarifying for me to hear how this would be engaging in intellectual dishonesty. I only wonder because in qualitative research we often use interviews and people’s lived experiences. Of course the assumptions we make based on this are relevant to the methodology so I can understand how anecdotes could be misused. They are not meant to generalize to entire populations, rather to provide insight into the lived experiences of those particular people. So I can see that if the author makes assumptions about a whole population of people based on the experiences of a few it could be very problematic.

“Just have a quick look on the amount of books and articles published by people who portray themselves as the rescuers of “poor veiled Muslim women””

Good point. But I’ve seen numerous Islamic books, in Islamic bookstores, on women’s clothing/hijab. Numerous. Which could imply an obsession with the hijab among Muslims as well.

“I quoted him only to refute Marnia Lazreg’s amazingly naive (or pseudo-naive) sentence about the “children’s innocence”.”

Which quote? The only reason I question this is that Freud is not someone to take very seriously. There are only a couple of things he contributed to understanding human psychology one of them being that what happens in our childhoods is important to consider. But most of his theories have no scientific backing whatsoever nor any way to test them. So I guess I’m wondering what work of Freud you are referring to. There may be something I’m missing.

Thanks again for the clarification!