LAHORE, Dec 13: Those hoping for yet another dissection on the religious merits of the hijab were left disappointed, but Dr Faeghehs Shirazi’s stimulating lecture on ‘The history of the veil’, ably illustrated by a slideshow that navigated across eras and continents, opened minds and sparked off lively debate at the Foreman Christian College on Thursday.

The visiting Iranian-American scholar from the University of Texas at Austin left no stone unturned in her quest to demonstrate the so-called “semantic versatility” of the veil and its meanings when viewed in different cultures: from a symbol of oppression to a sign of piety, a tool for eroticism, as well as its powerful political significance over the years and right till the present.

“I’m not here to say hijab is good or bad, that those who wear it have some problem or that those who don’t wear it have a problem,” she began, in an attempt to dispel any lingering notions that she intended to proselytise in favour for or against an item of clothing that continues to divide opinion around the world.

(As a point of note, Dr Shirazi herself eschewed the veil and instead adopted a scholarly look, in full length skirt and sensible cardigan).

The tone of the lecture was set from the first slide, which depicted portraits of Jesus as seen through different cultures and in different times, including a black Jesus, Japanese Jesus, and female Jesus.

“Everyone sees him in his own image, culture and grace. Thus, his face has been interpreted and re-interpreted over and again,” she said.

Turning her attention to the Western world, Dr Shirazi examined how the veil is, in equal measure, both romanticised and lampooned in Western popular culture. Her pictures demonstrated how the “exotic value” of a veiled woman has been used to sell products from Reebok shoes to contact lenses, and –- controversially -– pornography.

A still photograph from ‘Playboy’ magazine taken at the time of Gulf War brought the audience, a good proportion of whom were veiled women, into a stunned silence.

Dr Shirazi herself condemned the image as an example of trampling on other cultures’ sensitivities, and resumed her presentation with images of the varying forms of hijab within the Islamic world.

From the full length chaddar of Afghanistan to the simple hat worn by Chinese Muslim women, Shirazi’s work awakened the audience to heterogeneity that exists in what is often wrongly perceived as the monolithic “Islamic world”.

“People dislike being told to forget their culture, and they rebel against it,” she said. Among the more striking images, most of which Dr Shirazi photographed herself in her worldwide travels, were of Jordanian women who covered their mouths but not their hair, and the Muslim women of Djibouti who cover their hair, but, viewing the chest as a non-erogenous zone, leave their chests bare. “…and who are we to judge who is a better Muslim?” asked Shirazi.

On the political side to hijab, Shirazi noted that women in Tunisia had chosen to express their protest at French colonisation by wearing black hijab -– the traditional colour of mourning, and that in her native Iran, hijab had been used as a political tool by leaders with scant regard for their citizens’ wishes.

“During the Shah’s time, hijab was outlawed in the name of emancipation, and some women stayed at home in shame, fearing their hijabs would be ripped off by police. What kind of emancipation is that?,” she asked, adding, “After the Islamic revolution, hijab was enforced by the Ayatollahs, and today people rebel against that.”

There were, she implied, no easy answers to the questions that vex society today, and Shirzai offered material for both the pro- and anti- camps. “At the end of the day, a woman who wears hijab is veiling her scarf, she’s not veiling her brain,” she said, but later added, “nor does emancipation come in a piece of clothe.”—Issam Ahmed