In an era of growing Islamophobia in the West, visibly Muslim women often find themselves at the centre of anti-Muslim rhetoric. The headscarf, once a simple expression of faith, heritage, or fashion, has become a politicised symbol, frequently used to push narratives of oppression and sensationalism.

In her latest opinion feature, Huddersfield Author and Educator Dr Sarah Hussain challenges these stereotypes, exposing the contradictions in Western attitudes towards modest dress and questioning the selective outrage directed at Muslim women.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Kirklees Local TV (KLTV). We encourage open discussion and diverse perspectives; however, KLTV remains impartial and does not endorse any specific viewpoints presented. Readers are invited to engage respectfully and critically with the content.

By Dr Sarah Hussain –

With growing Islamophobic trends in the West, visibly Muslim women, in particular, are the centre of anti-Muslim rhetoric, with the head scarf and modest dress sense being a point of sensationalism. This can be seen in media representation; images of visibly Muslim women are used deliberately as propaganda.

Headlines are used to depict the stereotypical image of an oppressed victim, forced to cover up, in need of saving by Westerners. Furthermore, the symbol of the headscarf has become an easy target for the xenophobes. This has led to an increase in hate crimes, resulting in Muslim women feeling afraid to travel alone in public places. Whether the piece of cloth is worn for religious intent, to preserve heritage, as a revolutionary act or simply as a fashion statement, if it is the Muslim woman wearing the head covering, then the assumption is that she is not of sound mind and must have been forced.

It is acceptable for the fashion model to wear it on the French runway or the Victorian English woman to wear it in the cold, but if the Muslim woman wears it, she must have been ‘forced’; her intellectual capacity undermined! When an image of a Muslim woman wearing a piece of cloth over her head is used on social media posts, the comment section comes alive, filled with xenophobic remarks such as, ‘Take that towel off your head’ or ‘Make Britain white’, an unusual sense of insecurity awakened by the sight of a head covering.

However, this impulsive hatred does seem to be aimed solely towards visibly Muslim women, the practising Christian nun exempt of the same hostility. This brings about the question of why a visibly Muslim woman bothers people so much in the West?

Could it be because she challenges the very same notion surrounding oppression that they have been indoctrinated into believing? How can this woman forced to put a piece of cloth on her head be educated and articulate? Wasn’t she supposed to be a victim? This visibly Muslim woman is not savable and thus poses a problem for the racialist as she challenges the stereotypical depiction of a subservient woman the West wants to portray. How can they justify their bigotry if there is no ‘barbarian’ to save? You can be openly intolerant and oppose the head covering if you can prove she is oppressed, but how can you claim to ‘civilise’ a woman who is willing to protest to protect her right to wear it? To them, she is a conundrum.

The racialist seeks out those women from the East who are opposed to wearing the headscarf to try and justify their civilizing mission. If they can show that Muslim women are indeed oppressed, then they can justify their ‘white saviour’ narrative; including invading other countries under the guise of trying to liberate them, a narrative we associate with a history long ago, and yet a line of argument the modern-day racialist seems to repeat.

When presented with an articulate counter-argument from the visibly Muslim woman, they say, ‘But what about those women forced to wear it in…’, repeating a country they heard mentioned in sensationalist headlines, not acknowledging the real-life struggles faced by these women due to Western exploitation of raw materials. Capitalism is a major cause of gender inequality and yet Western patriarchy is ignored; to them, only black and brown men can be guilty of misogyny. They pick and choose which social justice cause suits them, only siding with the so-called ‘victim’ to try and push their imperial agenda, lacking true integrity.

The informed visibly Muslim woman, whose mind is decolonised is silenced, her voice made small by being associated with Islamophobic rhetoric, as they purposely parade the woman of the East who has assimilated to Western norms, putting her on a temporary pedestal to enact all their imperialist rhetoric; a puppet willing to say whatever needs to be said in order to seek approval from her modern-day colonial master. The wider public was influenced by this figure; further scrutiny was evoked against the so-called oppressive man of the East.

The racialist is only able to comprehend their viewpoint, unable to fathom an alternative opinion beyond their own moral compass, drowning in privilege, believing their view to be superior.  To them, it is not acceptable for a woman to wear transparent clothing at an award ceremony, but it also bothers them to see a modestly dressed Muslim woman. The Western ethnocentric belief they have the authority over moral dress code. What is the acceptable moral dress code according to them? Is it the old modest Victorian English woman or the modern-day bikini-wearing pop icon? Why did the bear stomach of an Indian woman wearing a sari bother the memsahib? Why is it unusual to cover your head when you go out in the same way you wear a coat? And, why is it not acceptable to just walk around naked? If a woman from the West dresses modestly, then it is deemed as classy, but if the woman of the East covers herself, it is viewed as regressive.  The contradiction is deafening.

The imperialist has always believed he has superiority over what is morally acceptable and in the West people conform to these standards. However, the visibly Muslim woman is not susceptible to such changeable values. She is aligned with her own set of values not influenced by societal ideals and holds integrity to what she believes in. For the Muslim woman who wears her head scarf with religious intent, she wears that cloth to show her pride of identity in being committed to her creator, a reason beyond human comprehension if you do not believe in a higher being. For the Muslim woman in the West who wears her head scarf to preserve her heritage, she understands that holding on to that piece of cloth is a reminder of her ancestors, whose lands were colonized; the head scarf a revolutionary act to show she will never forget her roots, holding on firm to her ancestral lineage. And for the Muslim woman who is a modern-day influencer, changing her style every day; she laughs in the face of the xenophobe as many young girls aspire to dress just like her.

There are many reasons why a Muslim woman chooses to wear a head scarf and to only present a one-dimensional ‘victim’ narrative aims to diminish the diversity of female voices around the world. Whilst these women stand together against growing Islamophobic trends, their voices are vast and unique. Although the racialist endeavours to undermine her value, the visibly Muslim woman understands that her worth is not dictated by Western ethnocentric views and their hatred of her only motivates her to stand firm in her conviction.

By Dr. Sarah Hussain

A proud visibly Muslim woman.