你问的是：对于那些禁止在公共场合穿戴三K党、纳粹制服或邦联旗帜的国家，我们是否有问题？希望没有。但如果像法国这样的国家的民众，对头巾的看法如同我们对三K党、纳粹和邦联服饰的看法，又该如何？

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?

这不是猜测。这与法国、德国及其他地方的世俗主义者的论点大致相同：在他们看来，头巾代表着最恶劣的压迫形式，而穆斯林对头巾含义的说法无关紧要，正如新纳粹分子对纳粹十字符号含义的说法一样。在他们看来，唯一重要的是头巾对他们以及对整个社会象征着什么。

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.

穆斯林应当反驳这种定性。但这需要的是比“我有权穿我想穿的衣服”更有实质内容的论证。这种说法肯定无法打动任何人，更不可能让世俗主义者消除对希贾布的负面看法。

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.

虽然坚持认为“戴头巾是一种选择”同样无效，因为世俗主义者其实并不真正反对这一点：他们认为头巾是更大的父权压迫体系的一部分，而穆斯林女性深陷于这一体系之中，以至于即便她们是出于自主选择而戴上面纱，也没有意识到自己正是借由面纱而被压制。

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.

我们可以用 Hijab 作为例子，讨论 Muslim 与非 Muslim 之间富有成效的对话方式。使用圣母玛利亚的例子与基督徒交谈，显然是一个很自然的选择。 Wait, I need to correct that: I should translate the user's text faithfully into Simplified Chinese, and the text is a question, not a statement. Here is the faithful translation: 除了圣母玛利亚的例子，穆斯林还能如何与非穆斯林就头巾（hijab）展开富有成效的对话？用圣母玛利亚的例子与基督徒交谈，显然是一个很自然的选择。

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.

我们应当借鉴其他历史上的例子。毕竟,现代的裸露着装只是近来的一种偏差。我们应当探讨裸露以及公共空间的性化对人们行为和心理(即他们的心灵与思想)所产生的影响。

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).

“那么，用布料遮盖身体、以衣饰装扮自己，这一行为所具有的意义，又当如何理解呢？穆斯林自然会借鉴我们对亚当和夏娃的认识，但即便是世俗主义者，也不得不承认动物并不以同样的方式遮蔽身体。动物不会用布料来遮掩身体、模糊其轮廓。世俗主义者固然推崇人类的理性，而理性正是将人类与动物界区分开来的另一个显著特征。遮盖身体，理应同样被理解为人性的一个标志。”

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.

但即便世俗主义者援引自然主义，声称“裸体更自然”，并以动物界为例，我们也应当思考，即使是动物界的情形也并非如此。看看交配仪式吧：雌雄双方如何装饰自己，如何参与复杂的舞蹈与动作来吸引对方。即便是动物，交配也不是两具赤裸身体相互接触、随即交合的粗鲁之事。不，即便是动物，也非常看重它们的“衣着”：毛色、皮毛的厚薄、斑纹的精致程度等等。动物对外在形式的关注，是一种有意而且相当精巧的方式。还有不少物种，尤其是雌性，会躲避雄性、刻意让自己不易被找到，使雄性必须格外努力地“证明自己”，才能赢得它的伴侣。然而，似乎有些人认为，脱去衣物或以其他方式袒露身体，把这些身体拍成照片，在智能手机的交友应用上“配对”，就足以构成亲密关系，而且是人们所期望的，然后便毫无保留地暴露于亲密关系及其所有的脆弱之中。

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.

而至于未来主义呢？如果你审视实验性时装的前沿，会发现其中有许多让人联想到希贾布（hijab）的元素。女性遮住面部和头发，确实是其中一些时尚风格的组成部分。如果西方文化与社会在不断进步，那么毫无疑问，今天的风格明天就会过时。人们常说，“进步”就是这样永不停歇地前进。如果今天的女性倾向于更加暴露的服装，并且乐于展示自己的头发，那么顺理成章的是，偏好会发生转变，潮流也会逆转。在这种更广阔的背景下，穆斯林的着装其实并不格格不入。

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.

这些只是简短的例子,但每一个都有可能引发关于服饰的意义与内涵的深入讨论。正如我一再强调的,我们需要的正是这样的讨论:在意义与价值的层面展开。诸如“选择自由”之类空洞的说法,会阻断这样的讨论,破坏讨论的进行,并使穆斯林处于不利的境地。是时候改变我们的策略了。

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.