Religion, attire and women

Of the various furores I have witnessed in the media recently, the one I find most troubling is the outcry surrounding gymnast Farah Ann Abdul Hadi’s attire.

While it is heartening to see the barrage of public support coming in for the gymnast, it is also infuriating to know that there are people in our country who think it is just and right to humiliate publicly a woman for what she chooses to wear.

That the said woman had just won a gold medal for her country in her sport was secondary to the attire she donned.

The outrage against Farah Ann’s outfit was that it was exposing her “aurat”, which is a violation of Quranic instruction that applies to both women and men.

Assuming a photo of a Muslim male athlete in Speedos were to be posted online, do you think there would be any fuss at all about him exposing “aurat”? Most likely not.

So what gives? Is it that Muslim men are so perverted that they can’t see past the physical?

It is easy to dismiss these people who shamed Farah as trolls and perverts, men who are so depraved that they focused on her body rather than her achievement.

But what if it was not Farah Ann or the photo of her that was posted but instead a gymnast of a different ethnicity and/or religion? Would the remarks have been different?

For one, she might not have been condemned for exposing her “aurat” because as a non-Muslim, she does not have to adhere to Islamic guidelines.

Yet because this gymnast is in a leotard, there would still be people of various backgrounds condemning her for showing too much skin and objectifying herself. So the condemnation is still there, sans the religion factor.

To put the blame squarely on men would be to miss the underlying issue that needs to be addressed. We live in a patriarchal world where women are considered as secondary to men.

In many cultures around the globe, women are expected to adhere to prescribed ideals and notions of womanhood. A core tenet of womanhood is the notion of honour.

Patriarchy places much value on a woman’s honour – her respectability, her family’s honour and obedience to her father/husband/master/god. A woman’s honour is so precious that even a small act of disobedience is enough to cause great ruin to patriarchy because with tarred honour, her value is reduced.

Operating within this patriarchal framework, a woman is a possession that must be protected so as to not reduce or lose her honour, which by now should be clear is tied to her sexuality.

The more intact or pure a woman is sexually, the greater her honour and her value.

Which is why, no matter where in the world you go, you will find people policing women – their bodies, dressing, actions and so on. Hillary Clinton was the subject of a media ruckus in 2007 for supposedly showing some cleavage and Serena Williams, despite being a tennis superstar and world’s No. 1, receives inappropriate attention for the way she dresses on court.

Thus, even though Farah Ann made the personal decision (and from a sportswear point of view, probably the logical decision) to dress the way she did when she won the gold medal, being a woman was the only permission people needed to judge based on her dressing.

That she was Muslim brought on the religious perception and the societal expectation of her to adhere to the guidelines prescribed to Muslim women.

For the people who condemned her, the choice of dressing is black and white – either you cover your “aurat” or you don’t, with those who choose not to being at the wrong side of the faith. As a Muslim woman exposing her “aurat”, she had ruined her honour and devalued herself.

The terrifying part about this group of people is that they also hold on to the belief that since they are on the right side of the faith, they are inherently right and, therefore, have the right to “school” Farah Ann, resulting in the public act of righteous outrage.

What to them is justified righteous outrage is in actuality a vile attack of public shaming.

And it is this behaviour that I find most unsettling – people who think it is acceptable to attack a person who does not conform to their interpretation of religious doctrine. – June 21, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.