We must move beyond the hijab


It looked like Imperial College had lost its liberal bearings: a ban on hijab at one of Britain's foremost universities would have set a dangerous precedent (College security ban on hijabs and hoodies, November 24). This caused significant distress among British Muslims. But the agony could have been avoided had the report been more accurate: the college has only banned clothing that covers the face, preventing an individual from being identified- something the hijab does not do. An Imperial spokeswoman told me: "We are absolutely not banning people who wear the hijab because the headscarf does not cover the face. We welcome diversity at Imperial College and hijabs, turbans and other items of clothing that represent this diversity are very welcome."

If Muslim women's dress is going to make news on a regular basis, then it's about time we got our terminology straight. Generally, the term hijab refers to "modest dress", and this is interpreted differently depending on cultural context and one's approach to the sacred law. In Britain, the hijab usually refers to the headscarf, which covers the hair and often falls down around the shoulders. The niqab is a veil that is drawn across the face, usually leaving the eyes visible. The jilbab has nothing do with covering the face or hair. It is a long, loose gown that does not show the shape of the body. In many traditional Muslim societies both men and women wear jilbabs (or jalabiyyas when referring to men's clothing). The Taliban "popularised" the burqa, a shuttlecock-like garment that envelops the entire body including the face. The burqa is peculiar to certain Muslim cultures and is certainly not a feature of British Muslim life.

Having said that, Imperial's decision seems both ill-conceived and badly timed. By referring to the London bombings to explain the need for greater security, they fail to mention that none of the 7/7 attackers covered their face, hid behind a niqab or even a hood. While the college's statement embraces diversity, it would have served its own interests by acknowledging the current sensitivities around Muslim religious dress. A consultation with campus Muslim organisations would have made the announcement less susceptible to the ensuing hyperbole and alarm.

For most, the choice of religious dress reflects a spiritual commitment. Most Muslim women don't fixate about it; they just make their decision and get on with it. Both the pundits and the pious need to get beyond the superficialities of cloth. The hijab is one way Muslim women choose to express their spirituality. It is neither the sum total of their identity nor does it indicate a uniform understanding of Islam. For some Muslim women, dress has become a powerful political symbol and an emblem of resistance to a dominant culture that objectifies women's bodies. Inadvertently, the hijab lobby has fallen into the same trap.

No one is free from cultural baggage. Nobody is a value-free zone. So many British women feel forced to look physically attractive. Studies show that overweight and scruffy women aren't as successful in their careers. Is that fair?

For most, the hijab is based on choice. Our liberal values are surely flexible enough to take this in stride. You don't have to love it to acknowledge someone else's freedom to wear it.

· Fareena Alam is editor of Q-News, the Muslim magazine


· The Response column offers those who have been written about in the Guardian an opportunity to reply. If you wish to respond to an article in which you have featured either directly or indirectly, please email response@guardian.co.uk or write to Response, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. We cannot guarantee to publish all responses, and we reserve the right to edit pieces for both length and content