Head Scarf, or Jilbab, Emerges As Indonesian Election Issue

nytimes.com:

The three parties competing in Indonesia's presidential election next week have plastered this city with campaign billboards and posters depicting, predictably, their presidential and vice presidential choices looking self-confident.

But one party, Golkar, has also put up posters of the candidates' wives next to their husbands, posing demurely and wearing Muslim head scarves known here as jilbabs. The wives recently went on a jilbab shopping spree in one of Jakarta's largest markets, and published a book together titled "Devout Wives of Future Leaders.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[Smith808]

What "liberty" does such a ban mean to effect? Liberty against "choice?" Mandating that women CANNOT wear headscarves only follows the same premise by which they MUST. I still do not understand why governments cannot advocate for a message of CHOICE, which, in my opinion, has far greater influence in changing policy and practice in countries where it IS enforced. Otherwise, your ambition becomes blatantly clear -- intolerance of Islam.

Although I am not Muslim, would I be sanctioned for wearing a headscarf? What next...a prohibition of crucifixes around our necks? Please, someone arrest Carla Bruni -- I've seen her wear both.

On that note, I'll be wearing a headscarf today, too. :)

Cheers!

[bismillah001]

From a facebook message a friend of mine (who is a Muslim woman) sent me:

"i havent had time to keep up with the news lately, so i have no idea what's going on in the world right now.. anyway, i think the whole focus on the veil, by both muslims and non-muslims, is so silly. i understand its significance and symbolic status, but muslim women are really not defined by the veil and vice versa. i believe there are more important practices that a muslim should be more aware of, and practise in their daily lives. and i think you'd already know why i think it's silly for others, 'the west' in particular, to focus on the veil. will spare you from reading an entire essay on it lol."

[Rubiconski]

Modesty is an expression of faith and shouldn't be used as a weapon in the west's "war on Islam"...

[twistedrascal]

I'm from Indonesia, and Golkar party are just like the republicans. They will constantly use empty symbolic gestures a.k.a cheap shots, in this case: the headscarf, to get the conservative votes. The party itself is corrupt, extremely pro-monopoly and very secular.
They have been out of power since Suharto's demise and are looking for a way back in.
Indonesia is a great country that is also extremely complex. And if you have paid attention or read Barack's book, you will know that Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world and also very SECULAR.

[FebM]

thats for the inside info..... I hope democracy prevail s

[Pavane]

Thank you. That was interesting.

[Smith808]

By enforcing a non-adornment dress code, the West believes it is “unveiling” private restrictions and unburdening women with the religious and personal consequences of daring to make a choice. My response is, would it behoove any country to make a public declaration respecting a woman’s right to choose her own dam.n clothes? Such a gesture would have a more pervasive and influential effect on making real change throughout the world. Instead, mandating that women expose their hair and their face just plays into the same fundamentalist dichotomy of restriction – you can/you can’t. To me, this just exposes a broader ambition to attack Islam rather than address any true concern for a women’s right to express herself, whether through faith or fashion.

[Kenji]

Good post!

[fbr79]

You don't understand that choosing clothing is not the only option women in these societies don't have, and it is a symbol of what is expected of muslim women, i.e. subservience.

[Kise S.]

Oh really? i dont remember my sister forced to wear it by my father or uncle, it was actually my father who said dont wear it, but she wanted to wear one by choice, so stop your lies, and go ask people about

[MarcusT]

"these societies" Just a thought but what might you possible think might be wrong with this thinking?

[GZLives]

Are you familiar with the pros and cons of parental notification when it comes to abortion? One of the cons is what do you suppose would happen if you had to ask your dad - the very person who impregnated you ? How would that go ?

In a fundamentalist home, although the State law may dictate that its her choice, the reality is she might not have any choice and it would be welcome if she had a foil for cover ... the law of the land. That way, she wouldn't have to go against her family. It has nothing to do with attacking Islam. It has to do with understanding the dynamics that really exist and not some fantasy illusion.

[longtimegone]

If "it has nothing to do with attacking Islam...", why create a far flung analogy implying that the Muslim male is akin to an incestuous rapist? I suppose that, to you, represents "the dynamics that really exist"? You've taken transparency to the next level.

[Smith808]

I do understand your perspective -- as I said, one interpretation of the ban is that it recognizes the realities of defying tradition and expectation if choice were really just a personal matter without consequences. Still, it is up to that particular religion to redefine it's own practices. It's much easier to address "clothing" as a symbolic gesture of intolerance than it is to address violence and judicial disparity against all women on a humanitarian front. A "ban" is still a dictation that overrides "choice," whether or not you believe it can immediately take effect. The best way to effect change is not to employ the same stringency against that which we intend to "liberate." Why not, as a nation, advocate for the fundamental principles of a woman's right to choose and promote a message of tolerance? This would have a greater, more profound impact on ideology and help shape new interpretations of religious expression.

I argued with a friend today who believes that such a ban would improve the conditions of 9 out of 10 women -- The 10th, even if she chose to wear one, would sacrifice her will for the greater good of the other 9. In my view, the ban still takes the right to choose from every single one of them.

Although your analogy addresses the consequences of making a choice, it is premised on the idea that choice exists. It would be a very different argument altogether if there wasn't such a right.

[Rubiconski]

Great post! thx :)

[Smith808]

By enforcing a non-adornment dress code, the West believes it is “unveiling” restrictions and unburdening women with the religious and personal consequences of daring to make a choice. My response is, would it behoove any country to make a public declaration respecting a woman’s right to choose her own damn clothes? Such a gesture would have a more pervasive and influential effect on making real change throughout the world. Instead, mandating that women expose their hair and their face just plays into the same fundamentalist dichotomy of restriction – you can/you can’t. To me, this just exposes a broader ambition to attack Islam rather than address any true concern for a woman’s right to express herself, whether through faith or fashion.

[RJII]

to often for me, the islamic women in scarf issue lends itself to a bunch of men BS. I kinda hope the other non wearing scarf wife's party wins.

[iblogleft]

My grandma wore one when it got windy...

[whoa20]

Islamization MUST STOP! It is taking the world by force and I hope this hijab party is defeated!

[bismillah001]

You obviously know next to nothing about Indonesia. Please stop commenting.

[Smith808]

American ignorization MUST STOP... get out of your house.

[Rubiconski]

LOL...

[MarcusT]

You are rather scary. Is this an example of forced moronization?

[zees]

the headscarf should be an issue when it is forced by stupid men. if a woman wears it of her own choice or takes if off, or refuses to wear is b/c she has had made her OWN decision, then really who cares? i know plenty headscarved women who are super educated, work, and don't judge or care how a person dresses. its about themselves not anyone else. It should be about what is IN a woman's head and NOT what is on it.

[canfemlib]

My guess is that in Indonesia, its far more political than strictly religious, in the same way the "moral majority" in the US is more political than religious. It's an anti-west and conservative statement.

[MarcusT]

Bingo!

[MED1025]

Yes. its a distraction from the economy and environmental issues. Good think our politicians wouldn't do something like that ......
Some things are universal.

[bismillah001]

No, much of it is simply fashion; it's not very political. The majority of Indonesians are Muslims, and the attention to the wives wearing/not wearing jilbabs has to do with creating an image of "family values". If you saw some of SBY's (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the current pres) tv commercials, I think it would be clearer. This is not Iran, where the hijab has been ultra-politicized by the state.

[whoa20]

Islam is a political system

[Ametista]

So is Christianity. The Pope is the world's most powerful politician. I am an agnostic...just pointing it out.

[Nonpartay]

IMHO, the scarves are always more about a political statement than a religious one. There is no requirement in the Qur'an for women to cover their heads or their faces. In fact, Muhammad said women should NOT do so! So it's a man-made addition to Muslim teachings. It's always interesting to me how the man-made additions are usually put on the women. Women do better and have more rights under Islam than they did before Muhammad, but it's obviously not good now when, as I have heard tell from those who experience that life, the main conversation among Muslim women is whether or not to wear a headscarf. Isn't there anything more important in life? What difference does it make whether or not a woman's head is covered? Seems to me it's just a way to keep them from being too attractive so they won't tempt the men. But what does that say about the men?

[bismillah001]

Do you talk to Muslim women, or just about them?

[MarcusT]

While in Turkey female university students are fighting for the right to wear their scarves in school.

[Hammerofthor]

Funny thing, only Muslim ladies are required to wear all that cloth in that hot climate. Other ethnic & religious groups (Chinese, Murut, Dayak non-Muslims) may wear shorts, t-shirts, whatever. Change has gotta come.

[MarcusT]

Actually no one is required to wear anything. "Change" would be good. Starting the western levels of education.

[fbr79]

Required by society is just as strong as required by low in this situation. Stop insulting people.

[bismillah001]

Women are not required to wear hijab in Indonesia, aside from possibly 1 or 2 localities. Possibly.

And people wear heavy clothing in the heat normally. You'll see people wearing hoodies in the dead of summer. They're pretty conscientious about getting tanned/cancerized.

"Change has gotta come"? lol.. What are you talking about?

[MiriamMaf]

That's so cool! all this focus on muslim headscarves is only bringing the issue of a woman's choice to wear it (in countries where she has the choice) and who has a say about it (noone but her, of course).

Loved Jon's segment on Sarkozy the other night (i'm so please Kristen Schaal is a correspondent!) i digress...

the author has the name of the headscarves wrong, it is Hijab.

[MarcusT]

the author has the name of the headscarves wrong, it is Hijab

No, he's right. It's a big world.

[bismillah001]

In Indonesia they call it "jilbab", which is also an arabic word for it.

[MiriamMaf]

fair enough.

[bismillah001]

By the way, I've really enjoyed your comments on here & the 'Muslim Chic' story. Always good to actually get a sister's perspective on issues conerning her!

[Retrofuturistic]

There's no difference between a Muslim woman wearing an hijab and acting virginal (and thus superior to others less "pure") and an American woman wearing a big honking cross and acting virginal (and thus superior to others less "pure").

It's all about controlling women (and especially their sex lives), not "permitting" them to make their own choices, and getting them to participate in their own domination.