Susanne Schröter is Director of the Frankfurt Research Center Global Islam at Goethe University.

Among other things, she is involved in the scientific advisory board of the Federal Agency for Civic Education, in the Hessian Integration Conference and in the Hessian Prevention Network against Salafism.

Her most recent book, “Allahs Karawane”, was published by Beck-Verlag, in which she deals with the variety and diversity of the Muslim faith.

Alexander Juergs

Editor in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung.

  • Follow I follow

Ms. Schröter, the hijab has been a coveted fashion accessory for some time now, well-known brands advertise with models wearing a headscarf.

How did the headscarf become "cool"?

The clothing industry is geared to demand.

In Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, my research has already observed the emergence of a prosperous, dedicated Islamic fashion industry at the beginning of the 21st century.

There were already catwalks with veiled models.

In western countries, this trend can be observed with a delay of ten to fifteen years.

How do you assess this development?

Is the enthusiasm for Muslim fashion a sign of tolerance?

Those driving the hype surrounding Islamic fashion were invariably members of fundamentalist groups, who at the same time mobilized against women who did not veil.

In Indonesia, a campaign was launched from these circles to criminalize clothing that could attract men.

Depending on the interpretation, this already includes tight jeans or a T-shirt.

In Western countries, too, Islamic fashion is not an emancipatory approach, but rather a very patriarchal one: women should demonstrate their modesty and at the same time be nice to look at for men.

However, the perception of the hijab has changed significantly: while the headscarf used to be seen as an instrument of oppression, today it is often interpreted as a symbol of female self-assertion.

The theological and historical context of the headscarf and Islamic clothing is anything but emancipatory.

Women should hide their charms because only then can they be protected from sexual violence: that is the justification that is still given today.

Conversely, an unveiled woman is blamed for sexual abuse.

Muslim women from conservative families are also subject to compulsory veiling in Germany.

They are insulted as godless and dishonorable if they defy the veil regulations and have to reckon with repression up to and including physical violence.

If you think about that, it seems rather absurd to interpret the headscarf as a symbol of female empowerment.

I'm not saying that every woman who wears a headscarf in Germany was forced to do so.

In a free society like ours, women who come from liberal families can choose to do so of their own accord.

I have no objection to this, but I would like to point out that this freedom does not exist for many women.

Do you see the danger that the hype surrounding hijab and co. will also create a breeding ground for Islamism?

The Western hype surrounding the headscarf is based on a lack of knowledge of the context.

Non-Muslim women in particular are fascinated by the exoticism of Islamic fashion and feel cosmopolitan and tolerant when they stylize it as a sign of liberation.

Unfortunately, they are promoting a very conservative form of Islam, which means coercion and oppression for many women.

I would advise looking at the desperate resistance actions of women in Islamic countries, who face draconian punishments if they remove their headscarves.

But isn't it also a step forward for young Muslim women that the headscarf is no longer frowned upon, because it allows them to live a religious life and be a strong, successful woman at the same time?

The argument that women wearing headscarves only want to live out their religion is being put forward by fundamentalists.

The large Islamic associations also represent this position.

However, one would have to ask what understanding of Islam is behind it.

Liberal and secular Muslim women do not wear a headscarf.

And progressive Muslim theologians do not consider this to be obligatory from a theological point of view either.