You cannot judge a woman by her tudung. Similarly, a durian looks lethal, and stinks; but when you prise open the thorny exterior, the pale yellow, creamy flesh is heavenly.
The tudung. A fabric, cut from cotton, silk or synthetic fibre, serves as a scarf, except for the purists of religion, who want every strand of hair to be covered.
Today, in Malaysia, the tudung is no longer a piece of cloth. It has become a symbol of morality.
Would you say that a person who wears the tudung is more religious than one who does not?
Would you equate the tudung with morals? Some conservative Muslims appear to think so.
Why did some Muslims become livid when the tudung were sold in a nightclub? Did they think good girls should not be in "bad" places, like nightclubs?
When you think about it, in the years before the tudung was made a fashion statement by enterprising celebrities, it was sold in Jalan Chow Kit, just a stone's throw from the back streets where ladies of the night, transgenders, pimps and drug pushers ply their trades.
From an ordinary garment to a morality meter
Today, the tudung has been elevated from an ordinary garment to a morality meter.
On Feb 26, celebrity, actress and TV presenter, Noor Neelofa Mohd Noor (photo), clashed with Muslim conservatives, when she launched her latest range of tudungs in Zouk, one of Kuala Lumpur's trendiest nightclubs.
Her range sold out within minutes. These tudung were not cheap and she made another business killing. She should be commended on her creative choice of venue and her business acumen.
Two days ago, activist and co-founder of Sisters-in-Islam, Zainah Anwar, was featured in the 2018 Annual Harvard Law International Women's Day Portrait Exhibit. The exhibit features the contributions of 25 women, from around the world, whose voices have been instrumental in law and policymaking.
Back in Malaysia, Neelofa, the young entrepreneur with a flair for capturing Malay women's imaginations, was crushed by the conservatives.
The Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association president, Musa Awang, warned that Neelofa, the event organiser, and even the guests who attended the tudung and turban launch, could be charged with insulting Islam, and for bringing disrepute to a symbol of the religion.
Really? How?
Perhaps, it was the gyrating tudung clad women that upset their conservative sensitivities. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
The women were not scantily clad, nor were they stripping to music. Many of my elderly aunts, in their kebaya, made deft moves doing the joget or the ronggeng, at Malay weddings. These were the days when the Malays were "allowed" to dance, and knew what it was like to have a bit of harmless fun.
If the tudung is a symbol of morality, how would you explain the behaviour of the tudung clad women who steal, abuse their own children, beat up their maids, steal other women's husbands, sell their bodies, and those who are violent, like Kiki, the steering lock road-rager (photo above), or the woman who threw shoes at some innocent person over a parking fracas, or the immigration officer who kicked some Bangladeshi workers as she was questioning them?
The tudung became the standard, almost compulsory headdress for Malay women, when the trend to make Malays more religious took off in the early 1980s.
Today, it is almost de rigueur, for the majority of female Malay civil servants who wish to progress in their careers. Even Malay companies, which undertake government contracts, will enforce a "must wear tudung" policy at work, in case a government officer should drop in, unannounced.
Last week, when the conservatives expressed their outrage, an unrepentant Neelofa said that it was difficult to please everyone.
As we know, tudung, together with halal food, goods and services, are a multi-billion ringgit global business.
Surprisingly, the day after her defiant stand, Neelofa buckled and apologised. Had they put pressure on her, by attacking her mother?
Did Neelofa backtrack because she feared?
If only the bigots and nationalists had targeted the mother, current wife and son, of Nazri Aziz, the tourism minister whose crude and offensive remarks towards Robert Kuok embarrassed Malaysians.
Did Neelofa backtrack because she feared that various pro-government bodies and companies would drop her wares? Was her apology based on financial considerations?
Neelofa should not have apologised and given in to the bigots, as she had done nothing wrong.
What message is she sending to other Muslim women? How will Muslim entrepreneurs, who have a flair for creativity, feel about her U-turn?
Currently, talented graphic artists, cartoonists, writers, filmmakers and songwriters are being stifled because those in power fear that the Malay mind can flourish, if it is allowed to.
The bigots are also afraid that the lifestyles of the privileged Muslims, who are often found in Zouk, are being displayed to their less fortunate urban and rural cousins.
Would Muslims have cared if the durian, the King of Malaysian fruits, and a bread-winner for some Malay villagers, had been sold in Zouk or any other nightclub?
One does not judge a woman by her tudung, nor would one want to elevate a piece of cloth to a barometer of morality.
The case of Neelofa and her tudung in Zouk is another non-issue, pumped up by Umno-Baru.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.