• For Al-Saji, what problems do translations like "veil" and "foulard" present?
-
The problems that are presented due to translations like the “veil” and “foulard” are that the “foulard” is only acceptable if worn a certain way. The western perception of a “foulard” is for covering the neck and shoulders; however, as Al-Saji puts it, once it becomes “Islamic,” the familiarity of the clothing and the concept of covering is automatically perceived as an unfathomable idea that could be harmful to Muslim women as well as the French nation. The idea that the “foulard” should have a religious aspect, especially once associated with Islam, is automatically threatening. This is not only due to the general anti-Islam rhetoric so prevalent in the world post-9/11 but also because, in the eyes of the French, how could they allow a Muslim and colonised practice to seep into French society? It was simply too “dangerous” or beneath them to allow such a thing.
This highlights another issue with the translation, as “veil” evokes an imperialistic representation of Islam, thus negating the hijab, burqa, and niqab’s religious significance and purpose for a woman in Islam, and, importantly, the difference between them. The umbrella term “veil” simply does not encompass how different each item is.
Furthermore, the commonly thrown-around notion that women who wear the hijab are oppressed or a symbol of “regressive” gender practices, especially in the West, assumes they must be being forced to wear this. As Al-Saji says, the “veil” “metonymically stands in not only for Islam but for the putative gender oppression of that religion.” This harmful association between “veil,” “Islam,” and “gender oppression” is one that is used to regulate Muslim women in the West by “saving” them from this so-called sexist religion. However, it is clear that the French decision to make laws about what these women wear is, in fact, what is rendering them voiceless and without bodily autonomy, not the wearing of the Islamic covering itself.