Ba mu da matsala da ƙasashen da suka haramta sanya tufafin KKK, kayan sojojin Nazi, ko tutar Confederate a bainar jama'a ba? Fatanmu shi ne ba mu da. Amma me zai faru idan mutanen wata ƙasa, kamar Faransa, suna ji game da hijabi irin yadda muke ji game da tufafin KKK, Nazi, da Confederate?

Do we have a problem with countries that ban people from wearing KKK garb or Nazi uniforms or Confederate flags in public? Hopefully not. But what if the people of a country — like France — feel about the hijab how we feel about KKK, Nazi, and Confederate dress?

Wannan ba hasashe ba ne. Wannan kusan abin da masu akidar boye addini (secularists) a Faransa, Jamus, da sauran wurare ke bayyanawa, watau cewa hijabi yana wakiltar musu nau'in zalunci mafi muni, kuma ba ya da muhimmanci abin da Musulmi ke cewa hijabi yake nufi, fiye da abin da 'yan Nazi ke cewa alamar swastika take nufi. Abin da ke da muhimmanci kawai shi ne abin da hijabi ke wakilta a gare su, da kuma ga al'ummarsu baki daya.

This is not speculation. This is more or less what secularists in France, Germany, and elsewhere argue, namely that the hijab represents to them the worst kind of oppression and it doesn’t matter what Muslims say the hijab means any more than what neo-Nazis say the swastika means. All that matters is what the hijab symbolizes to them, and to their society at large.

Musulmi ya kamata su yi tir da wannan bayanin. Amma hakan zai bukaci wani abu mai zurfi fiye da cewa "Ya kamata in sami 'yancin sanya duk abin da nake so." Wannan hujja ba za ta sa kowa ya canza ra'ayi ba, balle ta kawar wa masu akida ta sakuwa kai tsaye ra'ayinsu mara kyau game da hijabi.

Muslims should contest that characterization. But that would have to involve something more substantive than “I should have the freedom to wear whatever I want.” That argument is certainly not going to move anyone, much less disabuse the secularists of their negative attitudes toward the hijab.

Ba ya isa a ce "hijabi zaɓi ne" saboda masu tsattsauran ra'ayin sakulare ba sa jayayya da hakan a zahiri: suna ganin hijabi wani ɓangare ne na tsarin zalunci na maza da ke mulkin mata, kuma suna ganin mata Musulmi sun nutse sosai a cikin wannan tsarin har ba sa ma fahimtar cewa ana danne su ta hanyar lullubi duk da zaɓin da suka yi na sanya shi da ganganci.

Insisting that the “hijab is a choice” is equally ineffective since the secularists don’t really disagree: they believe the hijab is part of a larger system of patriarchal oppression and that Muslim women are so steeped in that system that they don’t even realize that they are being subjugated by means of veil despite their conscious choice to wear it.

Ta yaya Musulmi za su iya yin tattaunawa mai amfani da wadanda ba Musulmi ba game da hijabi? Amfani da misalin Maryam budurwa lokacin magana da Kiristoci zabi ne da ya bayyana a fili.

So how else could Muslims engage in a productive dialogue with non-Muslims about the hijab? Using the example of the Virgin Mary when speaking to Christians is an obvious choice.

Ya kamata mu yi amfani da wasu misalai na tarihi. Bayyana tsiraici da suturar zamani ba tare da kunya ba, bayan haka, sabon abu ne mara kyau. Ya kamata mu tattauna tasirin tsiraici da jima'i a wuraren jama'a a kan halayen mutane da hankalinsu (watau zukatansu da tunaninsu).

We should draw on other historical examples. Modern bare-all dress, after all, is a recent aberration. We should discuss the effects of nudity and the sexualization of public spaces on people’s behavior and their psychologies (i.e., their hearts and minds).

Me ya dace a fahimci muhimmancin rufe jiki da kuma adon da mutum yake yi da masana'anta a matsayin wani abu da ya keɓanta da ɗan Adam kaɗai? Musulmi suna dogara ga ilimin mu game da Adam da Hauwa'u, amma ko masu ra'ayin boko suna yarda cewa dabbobi ba sa rufe jiki kamar yadda mutum yake yi. Dabbobi ba sa amfani da masana'anta don ɓoye jiki da kuma ɓoye sifofin jikinsa. Masu ra'ayin boko suna girmama hankali na ɗan Adam, wanda shi ma wani abu ne da yake raba ɗan Adam da duniyar dabbobi. Ya kamata a fahimci rufe jiki haka kawai, a matsayin alamar ɗan Adam.

What about the significance of covering up and adorning oneself with fabric being uniquely human? Muslims of course draw on our knowledge of Adam and Eve, but even secularists have to admit that animals don’t cover in the same way. Animals don’t use fabric to hide the body and obfuscate its contours. Secularists certainly celebrate human reason, which is another distinguishing factor that sets humanity apart from the animal kingdom. Covering the body ought to be understood similarly, as a mark of humanity.

Amma ko da masu tunanin sakulare suna son yin amfani da dabi'a su ce "tsiraici ya fi dabi'a", kamar yadda dabbobi suke nunawa, ya kamata mu duba yadda ko a cikin dabbobi lamarin ba haka yake ba. Ku duba al'adun saduwa da yadda namiji da mace suke yin ado da shiga rawa da motsi mai tsari domin jan hankalin juna. Ko a wajen dabbobi, saduwa ba wani al'amari ne na jikoki biyu tsirara suna haduwa su yi jima'i kawai ba. A'a, ko dabbobi suna daukar "tufafin" juna da muhimmanci sosai: launi, kauri na gashi, tsari mai sarkakiya na launin fata, da sauransu. Ko dabbobi suna damuwa da bayyanar waje da siffa cikin tsari da hikima. Kuma akwai nau'ika da dama da mace, musamman, takan boye kanta daga maza ta kuma sa kanta ta bace, domin namiji ya yi kokari sosai "ya tabbatar da kansa" kafin ya ci nasarar zuciyar abokiyar zamansa. Amma a yanzu wasu mutane suna ganin cewa cire tufafi ko tona jikinsu ta wasu hanyoyi, daukar hotunan jikin, da "daidaitawa" a manhajar soyayya ta waya, shi ne kawai abin da ake bukata kafin su fallasa kansu ga kusanci da dukkan hadarurruka da ke tattare da shi.

But even if secularists want to invoke naturalism and claim that “nudity is more natural” as demonstrated by the animals kingdom, we should consider how even that is not exactly the case. Look at mating rituals and how males and females will adorn themselves and will participate in intricate dances and movements to attract the other. Even for animals, mating is not some brute affair of two naked bodies coming in contact and copulating. No, even animals take each other’s “clothes” very seriously: coloration, thickness of fur, intricacy of pigmentation pattern, etc. Even animals are concerned with externalities and form in a deliberate and even sophisticated way. And there are more than a few species where the female in particular will hide herself from males and make herself scarce so that the males have to work extra hard to “prove themselves” in order to win over their better half. But apparently, some humans think that stripping down to their skin or baring their bodies in other ways, taking pictures of said bodies, and “matching” on a smart phone dating app is all that is necessary and desirable before exposing themselves to intimacy and all its vulnerabilities.

Kuma game da fasahar gaba fa? Idan ka duba gaban salon tufafi na gwaji, za ka ga abubuwa da yawa masu tuna da hijabi. Tabbas rufe fuska da gashin mace wani sashe ne na wasu daga cikin waɗannan salon. Idan al'adu da al'ummar Yammacin Duniya suna ci gaba akai-akai, babu shakka salon yau zai tsufa gobe. Haka yake tafiyar "ci gaba" mara ƙarewa, kamar yadda ake gaya mana. Idan mata a yau suna karkata zuwa ga tufafi marasa suttura da nuna gashinsu, to ma'ana ce cewa za a canza zaɓi kuma yanayin zai juya. A wannan yanayin, tufafin Musulunci ba su zama abin mamaki ba a cikin wannan yanayi mafi girma.

And what about futurism? If you look at the cusp of experimental fashion, you will see much that is reminiscent of the hijab. Certainly women covering the face and hair is a part of some of these fashions. If Western culture and society is continuously advancing, undoubtedly the styles of today will be obsolete tomorrow. Such is the endless march of “progress,” we are told. If women today are inclined to skimpier outfits and brandishing their hair, it serves to reason that preferences will shift and the trend will reverse. In which case, Muslim dress is hardly out of place in that wider context.

Waɗannan misalai ne kawai a takaice, amma kowanne daga cikinsu yana iya jagorantar zuwa tattaunawa mai zurfi game da muhimmanci da ma'anar sutura, kuma kamar yadda na ci gaba da cewa, irin wannan tattaunawa ita ce ya kamata a yi: a matakin ma'ana da dabi'u. Ambaton kalmomi marasa ma'ana kamar "’yancin zaɓi" yana hana wannan tattaunawa, yana lalata ta, kuma yana sanya Musulmi a cikin matsayi na rashin nasara. Lokaci ya yi da za mu canza dabarunmu.

These are just brief examples, but each one has the potential to lead to thought-provoking discussions about the significance and meaning of dress, and as I keep saying, that’s the level of discussion that needs to happen: on the level of meaning and values. Invoking empty notions like “freedom of choice” forestalls that discussion, sabotages it, and puts Muslims in a losing position. Time to change our strategy.