Veiled Justice: Secularism and the Hijab Across Democracies

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.