The debate over the hijab in the West is no longer merely a discussion about a piece of fabric covering a woman’s hair. Behind this simple covering lie deeper questions concerning freedom of religion identity equality integration secularism and the limits of state intervention in a person’s life. In some cases the hijab has moved from being a personal religious choice to becoming a full political legal and social issue.
The Hijab in the Mirror of European History: When the Virgin Mary Covered Her Head
Here a paradox emerges that deserves reflection: the image of a woman covering her head is not foreign to European religious history. The Virgin Mary appears in countless paintings icons and statues with her head covered just as nuns in different Christian traditions wear head coverings. Therefore the question is not merely about the existence of a covering on a woman’s head but rather the meaning society gives to that covering when it is worn by a Muslim woman.
Giuliano Amato Opens the Question: Why Does the Judgment Change When the Woman Is Muslim?
In Italy this issue entered the political debate directly. During the Italian parliamentary debates in 2006 former Italian Interior Minister Giuliano Amato spoke about the difference between the hijab and covering the face. In the official record of the Italian Chamber of Deputies Amato indicated that the female religious figure closest to the sentiments of Italians the Virgin Mary appears with a head covering that does not hide her face. The purpose of his remarks was to distinguish head covering from completely covering the face.
As for the statement later circulated on social media saying: “How can you ask me to sign a law banning the hijab while the Virgin Mary appears in our paintings and statues wearing a head covering?” it should be treated as a formulation summarizing the idea expressed by Amato and not as a literal quotation documented in this form in the parliamentary record. What is confirmed in the official record is that he spoke about the Virgin Mary’s head covering and the distinction between it and covering the face.
Hijab or Niqab? The Distinction That Changed the Course of the Debate in Italy
This distinction is extremely important because the debate over security and identity verification differs legally and practically from the debate concerning a woman who wears a hijab while leaving her face visible. A woman who covers her hair without concealing her face does not in itself prevent identification of her identity while covering the face raises different issues related to identity verification in certain places and circumstances.
But the greater question remains: if head covering can be part of European religious heritage when associated with the Virgin Mary or with nuns why does it become a different issue when worn by a Muslim woman?
From Italy to Quebec: When Religious Symbols Become a Political Issue
Canada may be one of the countries that most clearly reveals the complexity of this issue. On the one hand the Canadian state officially affirms that freedom of religion and equality are fundamental rights and on the other hand the clothing of Muslim women has become a political and legal issue on more than one occasion.
In Quebec the issue entered a clearer stage with Bill 21 on state secularism which was adopted by the National Assembly in 2019. The law imposes restrictions on the wearing of religious symbols by certain public employees while performing specified duties. Among the categories covered are teachers police officers prison guards prosecutors and judges. It also contains provisions concerning uncovering the face when providing or receiving certain public services.
The law does not simply state that “the hijab is banned for Muslims.” Rather it establishes restrictions related to religious symbols and certain public positions. However its social and political impact has been the subject of extensive debate particularly because the hijab is one of the most visible religious symbols in the public sphere.
Bill 21 in Quebec: Secularism Between State Protection and Freedom of Belief
Here one of the most sensitive points of the debate emerges. Even when the wording of the law is general and does not mention Muslims by name the question that arises is how these rules affect people who wear visible religious symbols and how a balance can be achieved between the principle of state secularism freedom of belief and equality before the law.
Research materials published by the Department of Justice Canada indicate that Muslim women have faced increased scrutiny in legal and public spheres because of wearing the hijab niqab and burqa and that Muslim women’s religious clothing has repeatedly become a subject of politicization.
Here it is necessary to distinguish between two completely different matters: criticizing Islam as a religion or discussing religious rules on the one hand and targeting or discriminating against Muslims because of their religion on the other. Freedom of expression includes debate and disagreement but turning a person into a target because of their religion or religious appearance enters a different area concerning discrimination and hatred.
Quebec 2017: From the Debate Over the Hijab to a Crime Targeting Muslims
The issue did not remain within Parliament and the courts. On January 29 2017 an attack took place at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City and resulted in the deaths of six people. This crime became one of the most painful events in the history of the Muslim community in Canada. In January 2026 the Canadian government commemorated the ninth anniversary of the attack and reaffirmed its commitment to combating Islamophobia and hatred.
But the issue does not concern only major collective events. In June 2025 Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia reported an incident involving a Muslim woman in a public library in the city of Ajax who was assaulted. Her hijab was forcibly removed and the attacker attempted to set it on fire. This incident reveals something different. A political disagreement over a law or policy can be debated in Parliament and the courts but when disagreement moves from paper to a woman’s body and her hijab becomes the reason for an assault the issue becomes a matter of personal security and human dignity.
America Before the Supreme Court: Can a Muslim Woman Lose Her Job Because of Her Hijab?
The United States offers a different legal example. In 2008 American Muslim teenager Samantha Elauf applied for a job with Abercrombie & Fitch in Oklahoma and was wearing the hijab as part of her religious practice. The company refused to hire her because of a conflict between the hijab and its clothing policy.
The case reached the United States Supreme Court under the name EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch. In 2015 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by a vote of 8 to 1. The Court held that an employer could not make an applicant’s religious practice a factor in an employment decision in order to avoid providing a religious accommodation even when the applicant had not used a specific formal request to ask for such accommodation.
America and Quebec: Two Different Models for Dealing with Religious Symbols
Between Quebec and the United States a clear difference appears in the way the issue is addressed. In Quebec there are legal restrictions on wearing certain religious symbols in certain public positions while in the United States there is strong federal protection against religious discrimination in employment as demonstrated by the Samantha Elauf case.
This shows that the West is not a single legal bloc when it comes to the hijab. There are significant differences between countries and even within the same country. Therefore caution is necessary with the simple statement that “the West is fighting the hijab” because reality is far more complex than that. At the same time that legal restrictions exist in certain places judicial decisions and legislation elsewhere protect Muslim women from discrimination because of wearing the hijab.
When the Hijab Becomes a Visible Identity That Cannot Be Hidden
But the social question remains strongly present because a Muslim man who practices his religion at home can often hide his religious identity from his social surroundings if he wishes while a woman who wears the hijab carries her religious identity visibly before others. In some cases this can make her more exposed to discrimination harassment or hatred. The debate over the hijab then no longer concerns the law alone but also what happens in the street at school in the workplace on public transportation and in public institutions.
From Law to the Street: When Does Disagreement Become Islamophobia?
Islamophobia does not appear only through explicit attacks or direct hatred. It can also appear through stereotypes that make religious appearance a reason for prejudging a person. It can also appear when the hijab is automatically treated as evidence of extremism rejection of society or refusal to integrate.
At the same time defending a Muslim woman’s right to wear the hijab does not mean rejecting state laws or ignoring public security requirements. Likewise criticizing Islam or discussing some of its practices does not automatically mean hatred of Muslims. The problem begins when the person herself becomes a target because of her religious identity or when stereotypes are used to justify discrimination against her.
When the Veiled Woman Becomes a Political Symbol Instead of a Human Being
Here a deeper point emerges. In some forms of discourse the veiled woman may be reduced to a symbol instead of being viewed as a person with her own personality experience and independent decision. In one form of discourse she may be portrayed as necessarily a victim and in another as a symbol of extremism. In both cases her right to define herself is taken away.
A woman may wear the hijab because she believes it is part of her religion another may wear it for cultural reasons and a third may choose not to wear it. Freedom of religion does not mean that all Muslim women must make the same decision but that a personal decision should not automatically become a reason for discrimination.
From the Virgin Mary to the Muslim Woman: The Question That Has Not Ended
That is why the image of the Virgin Mary returns to the debate. If head covering is present in European Christian history it cannot historically be described as an element that is entirely foreign to Western culture. If the law seeks to regulate the concealment of the face for reasons related to identity verification that is a different issue from simply covering the hair. And if the state wants to impose neutrality in certain public positions the legal question becomes: Which positions are covered? What is the objective? Are the restrictions precise and proportionate? And are they applied to different beliefs according to the same standard?
But if a Muslim woman becomes the target of an assault humiliation or denial of employment simply because she wears the hijab then the issue enters a completely different area. The area of discrimination and hatred.
Can a Muslim Woman Be Different and Equal at the Same Time?
From Italy to Canada and from the United States to the rest of Europe and North America the issue appears in different forms but the fundamental question remains the same:
Can modern society respect a human being even when she does not resemble it?
It is not necessary for everyone to agree with the hijab. It is not necessary for everyone to embrace Islam. It is not necessary to prohibit debate about secularism security or integration. What is necessary is a genuine space for disagreement without disagreement turning into exclusion. Women’s freedom does not mean that others decide on their behalf what they should wear just as secularism does not necessarily mean erasing religion from the public sphere. Pluralism does not mean that people must share the same beliefs but that different people can live together under rules that guarantee fundamental rights and protect human beings from discrimination.
From Italy to Canada and America: The Hijab as a Real Test of Pluralism
At precisely this point the hijab becomes a test that goes beyond the hijab itself: a test of societies’ ability to apply the principle of equality when the different person is visible to everyone.
The question is not only: Does the law allow the hijab?
But the deeper question is: Can a Muslim woman wear her hijab and at the same time remain a full citizen with full rights without being reduced to her religion or judged through her appearance?
This is precisely where the real debate about Islamophobia begins not as a word used to silence criticism nor as an accusation against everyone who disagrees with Islam but as a specific problem that can be identified when religion or religious appearance becomes a basis for discrimination hatred or violence.
From the Virgin Mary to Quebec and to the United States Supreme Court the issue appears to be the same at its core:
Do we respect human freedom only when a person’s religious choice is familiar to us or do we respect it as well when it is different from ours?
Discover more from المنتدى الدولى للصحافة والإعلام GFJM
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
