Abstract
For much of 2022, Iran was gripped by widespread protests led by women who openly challenged the regime’s authority, particularly its compulsory veiling laws, following the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody. Women around the globe came around and showed solidarity with the women in Iran. However, in non-Islamic countries and societies, one can still make out many prejudices and stereotyping connected to the question of whether and to what extent veiling is mandatory for women according to Shārīe’ā law. Is wearing the hijab a choice, or rather, an essential religious practice that religious Muslim women need to obey? Is the requirement of Muslim women to veil just a means of patriarchal oppression? What do the Islamic legal sources say about it, and how can we reconcile veiling with the traditions and rules of non-Islamic societies? While the case of France—with its strict ban—is relatively straightforward, the question of the constitutionality of potential hijab bans in Germany is unlikely more complicated due to the cooperative relationship between the state and churches in Germany.
The Islamic veil, known as hijab, niqab, or burqa, has been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny in various parts of the world, raising complex questions about religious freedom, cultural identity, and social integration. With significant Muslim populations and diverse sociopolitical landscapes, France and the United States offer contrasting perspectives on the place of the veil within their respective societies. France has implemented specific laws, such as the 2004 law banning conspicuous religious symbols in schools and the 2010 law prohibiting the concealment of the face in public spaces, which have sparked considerable controversy. On the other hand, the United States has embraced a legal framework that prioritizes religious freedom, allowing individuals to freely express their religious beliefs, including the choice to wear religious attire like the hijab.
By comparing cases across several countries, this Article ultimately reveals a common lesson: absolutist approaches to religion—whether in the form of fundamentalism or uncompromising secularism—ultimately erode the freedoms they claim to protect. Although this Article adopts a comparative approach, it does not aim to be purely descriptive. By examining how France, Germany, Egypt, and the United States regulate Muslim dress and religious expression, this Article ultimately advances a normative claim about the relationship between state power, secularism, and minority religious rights. Comparative analysis reveals that legal regimes justified in the name of neutrality, security, or social cohesion often produce similar exclusionary effects, regardless of constitutional structure or political tradition. Across these diverse legal systems, restrictions on Muslim religious expression are frequently framed as exceptional or necessary, yet in practice they reflect deeper anxieties about national identity, social conformity, and the visibility of Islam in the public sphere. Taken together, these case studies suggest that ostensibly neutral regulatory frameworks can disproportionately burden Muslim communities, obscure the role of cultural majoritarianism, and normalize unequal treatment under the guise of legal universalism. By foregrounding these patterns, the Article argues for a more critical assessment of how claims of neutrality and public order operate in contexts of religious diversity.
Recommended Citation
Mohamed ‘Arafa, Veiled Justice: Secularism and the Hijab Across Democracies, 49 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 693 (2026).
Included in
Accounting Law Commons, Administrative Law Commons, Admiralty Commons, Agency Commons, Agriculture Law Commons, Air and Space Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Banking and Finance Law Commons, Bankruptcy Law Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Civil Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Common Law Commons, Communications Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Computer Law Commons, Conflict of Laws Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Construction Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Disability Law Commons, Disaster Law Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Education Law Commons, Elder Law Commons, Election Law Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Estates and Trusts Commons, European Law Commons, Evidence Commons, Family Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Gaming Law Commons, Government Contracts Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Housing Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons, Insurance Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Psychology Commons, Law and Race Commons, Law and Society Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, Legal Biography Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, Legal Writing and Research Commons, Legislation Commons, Litigation Commons, Marketing Law Commons, Medical Jurisprudence Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, Natural Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Nonprofit Organizations Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Organizations Law Commons, Other Law Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, Privacy Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Religion Law Commons, Retirement Security Law Commons, Rule of Law Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, Second Amendment Commons, Secured Transactions Commons, Securities Law Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons, Taxation-State and Local Commons, Taxation-Transnational Commons, Tax Law Commons, Torts Commons, Transnational Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, Water Law Commons, Workers' Compensation Law Commons
