To veil or not.
(Apologies for this being late... my internet connection was down all night)
I think one of the key things that Westerners don't understand about Islam is that it is just as highly interpretive as Christianity. There are many forms and nuances that are not apparent. The Quran and hadith actually validate women's position within the Umma. Although they have lesser rights of inheritance and must submit to their husbands (including accepting beatings (but only when demanded) and additional wives), this is no different from Christian writings (including the bible). Islamic feminists (and I don't agree with Mojab that this is such an oxymoronic label) take comfort in the Quran and hadith, because they see the dignity accorded to them. Shari'a, however, is often very oppressive to women. This is not the word of God or Muhammad, but the interpretation of men who sought to validate their control over their society. In fact, in regards to veiling and seclusion, Muhammad only required his wives to observe the practice. This is all down to interpretation, as we can see territorial differences between Islamic countries as to the extent of required hijab women perform whenever they enter the public realm.
Veiling is very often a choice for women. I think most would agree that choice is a key factor in the "justness" of the veil, as well as what issues inform that choice. Many Iranian female scholars have said that the veil allows them to participate in the Umma, as they can safely operate within the system without fear of reprisal (providing the hijab is properly observed). In most Western societies, should a woman dress in a provocative manner, she is subject to the same invasions of her person and surrender of her body to the public domain, as evidenced by catcalls and public gropings. Obviously, I think women should be allowed to wear whatever dress they choose in public, without fear of attack, but these are the sad universal patterns.
Many Islamic women don the hijab to proclaim their cultural identity. It is imbued with nationalism, cultural pride and a defense against the incursions of Western culture. Islam is certainly not unique in using it's women to proclaim cultural values, as women (or their bodies) have been used as national and cultural metaphors for generations. Veiled women are often demonstrating their inclusion in the Umma and see the veil as a tool, as evidenced by recent opposition to French and Belgian laws against veiling in public schools. After all, what is the rejection of the veil if not a rejection of difference and non-Western ideals? This is further proof of white men rescuing brown women from brown men (which allows them to ignore their slights on white women, for they don't have it as bad). Although different from veiling, the U.S. condemned the treatment of Iraqi women and demanded that 25% of the parliamentary seats be allotted to women, while ignoring that only 11% of congressional seats are held by women. In fact, conditions for Iraqi women have deteriorated significantly since US invasion three years ago.
Yes, there are oppressions invloved with the veil. We need only look at the burkha in Afghanistan or even the higher percentage of female casualties in Islamic (and some Hindu) areas following last year's tsunami, many deaths attributed to women being hampered by hijab in their efforts to escape destruction. But the veil can also be emancipatory. The Egyptian feminist movement at the close of the 19th century was divided between those who wanted to free themselves and those who wanted to retaliate against Lord Cromer and his anti-Islamic docrtines. There are no simple answers to the veil, for it is a complicated object. Is it so different from the corseted form of the Victorian woman, the bound foot of the Han woman? No. They are all manipulations of women's bodies that are both used by and against them for a variety of means. I know personally, I would feel more liberated in hijab than I would posing on the cover of FHM or Maxim.