Final Draft

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

23 February 2015

Analyzing the Two Texts “The Muslim woman” by Abu-Lughod and “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering” by Haysan Haydar

            The issue of the veil on Muslim woman is a very controversial topic. Many people argue that it is oppression and sexist while others see it as a foundation of everyday life. There are two authors who argue for the first claim but argue for it in different ways. In the chapter from her 2003 book Body Outlaws, “ Veiled Intentions: don’t judge a muslim girl by her covering,” Maysan Haydar argues that the veil, that many Muslim women wear, is a choice and not oppression put on them by men. She wrote this text almost right after 9/11 when most Americans were frightened toward Muslim women who had this garment on. The sense of isolation by these women prompted Haydar to respond to these misconceptions and reveal to the general American public that the veil is a way of life for these women and is not to be seen as an oppressive tool. She also describes how Western values are out of sync as compared to the Middle East which creates a disconnect between the two cultures. She tries to patch this relationship by evoking a sense of unity and togetherness by the way she approaches this touchy topic. However, in her 2006 online scholarly article, “ The Muslim woman,” senior anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod writes during the Iraq War and argues that the image we have of veiled women are problematic because they limit our ability to accurately view them for who they are and also it creates a false divide between “us” and “them.” She additionally tries to make her readers realize how there are different social paths to change in the world. Through the use of definition, rebuttal, and ethos both authors try to change or broaden their audiences thinking. Due to Abu-Lughod’s harsh and authoritive tone and limited audience (Western Feminist) her argument makes Haydar’s piece most likely more persuasive to her broad audience and the ability for her to connect to them on a more ethical and emotional level.

            Abu-Lughod and Haydar both try to clear up the misconceptions about the veil throughout their pieces but do so differently. The use of common day language benefits Haydar in creating a better connection with her selected audience as compared to Abu-Lughod who wrote for a very narrow and specific audience. This paper will show how Haydar’s argument is more effective through the use of redefinition, rebuttals and ethos as compared to Abu-Lughod’s who’s sophisticated and educated diction pertains to a more educated audience.  

In Haydar’s and Abu-Loghod’s pieces they redefine how Americans should look at a Muslim Women with their veil and also argue that even though the veil may seem like an oppressive tool, the Western idea of “freedom” is skewed. Many people in the United States were afraid of Muslim Woman after September 11 and the constant judgment of Muslim people persists today. For example in Haydar’s piece, the misconception of “freedom” is constantly skewed to the person’s point of view as the lady on the “New York City bus.” She saw the “jilbah” the woman was wearing and configured that she was being oppressed by her religion and stated that at least she “, got to be free.”  Her statements reveals how people in general do not take the time to learn the reason behind wearing the veil but are easy to draw an assumption rather quickly. This exact statement is what most likely prompted Haydar to write tis piece because she is trying to clarify how many Muslim women are not oppressed but rather they are their own person. She uses a personal narrative of her personal interests of , “karate,” and “skateboarding” to illustrate how she, herself, is not oppressed by the veil. The “shocked faces” that looked at Haydar when she expressed her love for normalcy emphasizes how judgmental people really are towards these women that they do not believe they have hobbies that are similar to theirs. Their exact expressions were possibly a driving force to make Haydar construct her piece. Similar to Haydar, Abu-Lughod also redefines the, “burqa,” to her audience to help them realize the cultural significance behind the use of the garment. Many women in different places in the Middle East are not required to wear a, “burqa,” for example in Bedouin. Women, “cover their faces in certain contexts… don’t veil for younger men,” this example of the women in Bedouin illustrate how their decision to veil in certain situations enables them to be free and assertive in their own life’s. The use of a real day example builds her ethos with her audience because she showed and redefined the image for them inside their heads.  

Both authors use rebuttals to contradict and oppose the opposition’s way of thinking to get heir points across. First off, in Haydar’s piece The West and The Middle East both believe in, “modesty,” but each side interprets the word in a different way. Haydar inserts how the veil to the Muslim culture keeps the women in modest form and respectable but also enables the women to be free from unwanted attention. But in contrast Western society believes that freedom is enabled by wearing whatever he/she choses to wear as long as it is, “modest.” The different interpretations creates a tension between both societies because Their, “priorities are out of line: American women spend hours getting ready for strangers.” This quote emphasizes how too much attention is put on image alone and not on the most important aspect of every human being: their heart. The ability to see the person fully rather than a sexual object is more essential to Haydar and the Muslim world. The rebuttal highlights how despite the different clothing appearance by the Muslim culture they have a right to express themselves and keep their morals intact because they can keep their beauty for treasured individuals as compared to the Westerners.

In Abu-Lughod’s piece she argues for the same intention Haydar does and utilizes rebuttals to reveal how pity toward the Muslim women can be hindering to them. She argues that we stray away from trying to save these women because the very thing we are trying to stop we are imposing on them. Everyone in the world has a different way of thinking and acting but is up to us to be, “aware of different paths in this world.” The claim by Abu-Lughod reveals the tolerance and patience we need to have and preserve to be able to understand one another’s culture. The rebuttal of what we should not be doing towards these women exemplifies how Abu-Lughod believes that the continual visualization we gather from the media disables, “us,” from obtaining the ultimate goal: unity.   

She argues for a different interpretation of freedom between the two cultures. She states how, “Our,” image of the Middle East Women is problematic because it creates a divide between, “us,” and,”them.” This divide restricts us from being one and being united due to our entitlement of, “us,” being superior and the “oppressed” Muslim Women as being, “inferior.” The inability of, “us,” to see their side create this divide and this is why Abu-Lughod most likely wrote this piece toward Western Feminist to slowly but surely break down this divide by trying to listen to one another’s view on things

One major difference between these two authors is how they support their claims with ethos. Haydar uses many personal anecdotes and the overall piece is a personal narrative as contrasted with Abu-Lughod’s piece it is more researched based. The anecdotes creates many overgeneralizations onto her audience which makes her general American public to question her creditability as compared to Abu-Lughod her research solidifies her claims more effectively. Despite the overgeneralizations put onto her audience Haydar’s ability to connect to her audience enables her to connect to them more substantially and at a more personal level. The every day language employed by her allows anyone to read her piece and reconsider his/her previous thoughts about veiling.

The cultural significance of these two authors pieces is to change, not only local, but also the global perspective on how people view the “veil” many Muslim Women wear. The veils are not merely a disguise; but are a way for these women to express themselves as a whole person rather than being judged by their physical attributes.  The quicker the misconception is erased the better society will be due to the fact that many people will respect these women more and become more tolerant of their practices. I, for one, did not realize that the “veil” was a choice purposed to these women but rather due to the media and “our” intolerant views I shunned the idea of concealing a women’s beauty. But due to these texts I was able to see the misconception I had and I was able to reconsider my judgments and place myself into their situations. Both authors argued for tolerance but connected to their audiences differently. The ability to use everyday language and the personal narratives by Haydar enabled her to connect to her audience more likely than Abu-Lughod due to her higher vocabulary and strict division between the “superior ideology” versus the inferior ideology.” The ability to relate to her audience makes her audience to continue reading, but despite that, the use of overgeneralizations limited Haydar’s ability to unanimously win over her whole audience.    

Works Cited

Abu-Lughod, Lila. “The Muslim Woman.” Eurozine.nv. 2006.Web. 14 January 2015.

Haydar, Maysan. “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering.” Viewpoints. Ed. W. Royce Adams, 7^th ed. Boston, Wadsworth, 2010. (183-88).