Veilitude

By: Prof: Abdullah Ali Ibrahim

From what the late Fatima Ahmed Ibrahim narrated is that she was “masking”, that is, covering her face but not her eyes, when she entered the Khartoum market in around 1952 to print the “Sawt Al-Mara” (Woman Voice) magazine at the Al-Istiqlal Newspaper Press. I wrote about this in my book “Fatima Ahmed Ibrahim: A Beautiful World” to show the late woman’s misery for the sake of women’s cause, and even her resourcefulness. She wore the hijab not out of contempt, but to break into the den of masculinity from behind a veil. The generation following Fatima did not understand this meaning about her, and they thought her austerity in dress was reactionary, that is, they are away from the meaning. I called Fatima wearing the mask veilitude, meaning determination behind a veil. Its explanation in this ancient word:
I was watching a television program that showed the mood of African-American women behind their wearing of wide-brimmed hats with extravagant designs and colorful colors. I heard one of them say that when she wears her hat, she feels deep inside that she is truly a lady. The program editor called this mood from behind the hat “HATITUDE.” It is a word made up of HAT, meaning hat, and ITUDE, which is mood, attitude, and determination. Accordingly, African American women wear the hat to feel higher in humanity and prestige.
After I finished watching that program, I wondered whether it is correct to say that the spread of the voluntary hijab among Muslim women in our time is what could be called VEILITUDE, from “veil,” which is veil, and “tude,” which is determination. That is, it is a revolutionary mental and emotional state that simmers in the souls of Muslim women and pushes them to seek equality, fellowship, and respect from behind a veil.
I had read an article by the late Dr. Edward Said in which he mentioned a speech he heard from an Egyptian during his visit to Egypt. The Egyptian said that the hijab is a form of intelligent self-expression in a miserable time. It is clear that he left aside here the issue of the origin of the hijab in the male concept of decency. Like the aforementioned look of the Egyptian, it brings us closer to studying the science of fashion politics. It is a science that analyzes the connotations of a certain dress code by looking at the specific political, social, and economic facts in a certain culture, time, and place.
I listened to a Muslim female researcher from Niger analyzing the implications of the hijab for women in her country against the backdrop of developments in which women occupied more than a few leading positions in the labor market. The researcher explained how the woman wanted these women to gain the respect due to those in her position by erasing her body as a woman. It is the body that men flock to in a work environment that is not protected by sexual security laws. The hijab was an alternative to these laws.
I did not find in the science of fashion politics an eloquent example of it like what I read about the Zabastian movement. It is the armed Mexican revolutionary movement that was demonstrated by the indigenous people of the country, called the Red Indians. The movement wants to extricate them from their historical weakness under the descendants of the Spanish conquistadors who came to the new lands in the fifteenth century. The left was fascinated by the movement’s leader, Commander Marcos, a professor of philosophy, who wore a mask with only the eyes and cheeks visible from his face. About two years ago, the press reported that Marcos and a masked group of his supporters were heading out in a procession from their remote jungle to the capital, Mexico City. The procession traveled two thousand miles and crossed 12 states on a road that was intended to be winding so that most people would understand the pain of the Native Americans and their determination to end their historical defeat. One hundred thousand Mexicans welcomed the demonstration in the Mexican capital.
Among the press coverage of this demonstration, I found very significant references to the face, the mask, and the veil. A Mexican official who negotiated with the revolutionaries said that Mexico is a country steeped in tyranny, so that the revolutionaries there were always forced to hide their identity so that they would not appear and fail. As for Commander Marcos, he said that they did not originally want to be stammering, but the Native Americans are a people without a face and they took up arms to impose their will.
Over time, the mask became a symbol of the “historical absence” of Amerindians from Mexican politics. Addressing the country that agreed to negotiate with him, Marcos added: “You forced us to wear a mask, but we forced you to listen to our grievances by the force of our absence behind a mask.” Perhaps the most telling thing I have read about the Mexican mask policy is a woman’s statement about Commander Marx: “He wears all our faces because his face has ” lost behind a mask.”
I found in the woman’s last statement what came to my mind about the voluntary hijab of Muslim women, especially those in the chador. I turn my face away from women wearing chadors whenever they block my path, out of shame. They and I disappear together whenever our paths cross. In analogy to the saying of the red Mexican Indian woman, the veiled Muslim woman wears all our faces because she lost her face from behind a veil.
Perhaps the hijab is not just a symbol of women’s oppression, as is popular leftist theorizing. It is rather VEILITUDE. This is a description that includes more than just persecution. It is oppression and resisting it at the same time.