ARTICLES
- Home
- Articles
The Hijab Obsession and Misplaced Inclusivity
Does inclusivity mean adapting institutions to individual needs, or ensuring that everyone has equitable and just access to services without sacrificing system efficiency?
Introduction
A facebook post [1] on the hijab went viral last month. A Malaysian woman, who was about to give birth at a government hospital, insisted on wearing the hijab into the operation theatre (OT). Staff resisted, emphasising the need to wear the OT cap for health and safety reasons – it is standard procedure. However, a cap was not enough, the patient preferred a hijab. Eventually, an OT-appropriate hijab worn by medical staff was given to her and the matter was resolved.
This resolution was hailed a moral triumph by online comments as it “takes care of the aurah”.[2] Notably, the woman herself stated in her post, “jangan jadikan alasan sakit sebagai greenlight untuk kita dedah aurat (don’t let your illness be a greenlight to expose your aurah)”.
What is surprising is not just the insistent request, but how it is celebrated as a moral triumph, without considering patient safety and sterile procedures in OT.
The patient’s insistence on her personal comfort raises an even bigger question – how well do we understand the concepts of inclusivity and justice in the context of the public service, particularly in the healthcare system? Does inclusivity mean adapting institutions to individual needs, or ensuring that everyone has equitable and just access to services without sacrificing system efficiency?
Inclusivity is not a Personal Privilege
Globally, inclusivity is achieved through the principles of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI). DEI aims to ensure that marginalised groups have equitable access to resources and services. In the context of the healthcare system, this means ensuring that facilities are designed to treat patients with disabilities. It also means eliminating gender bias and discrimination which hurts treatment quality and providing equal access to healthcare for the poor. Equitable access to healthcare is a fundamental right. How is the wearing of hijab in the OT a fundamental right?
Framing the hijab narrative into an issue of “rights” shows a misinterpretation of inclusivity—where the priorities of the healthcare system are being reshaped solely to meet personal demands that have no clear basis for equity. Denying a person medical treatment because of her hijab is discrimination. Asking her to take off the hijab in the OT for health and safety reasons is not.
If we allow such a claim, where is the limit? Can a conservative man demand that only male doctors treat him? Can a patient request that nurses dress in a way that aligns with their religious values? What if someone refuses treatment simply because the doctor treating them is of a different gender or religion? As public health systems succumb to the entitlement of individual demands, inclusivity ceases to be about fairness—it becomes personal privilege at the expense of professional standards and service efficiency.
Safety and Efficiency Are More Important than Scarves
Hospitals and operating theatres have strict protocols specifically designed to ensure patient safety and treatment efficiency. The usual scarves worn in daily life are not designed for the operating room environment because they can be a breeding ground for bacteria, increasing the risk of infection for both patients and medical teams. In addition, emergency situations demand quick access to patients without hindrance from inappropriate clothing, while professional standards require that patients and medical personnel adhere to strict procedures for mutual safety.
This obsession with the hijab in OT only highlights misplaced priorities in society. Why are we so fixated on the hijab in OT when more critical issues—such as medical negligence leading to maternal mortality, limited access to specialist doctors in rural areas, and patients’ rights to receive dignified treatment without gender and social class discrimination—are often overlooked?
This obsession distracts from the real problems that demand urgent reform in the healthcare system.
Islamism and the Aurah Obsession: When Religion Becomes a Tool of Social Control
The issue of wearing the hijab in the operating theatre is not just about “individual wishes”, but a symptom of an Islamisation project that has succeeded in making the hijab an undisputed symbol of Muslim identity.
In reality, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) has always been flexible in emergency and maslahah (public interest) situations, where aurah can be set aside for the sake of safety and well-being. Throughout Islamic history, medical treatment has never been subjected to rigid aurah restrictions—because the preservation of life has always been prioritised over symbolic compliance. Yet, why has the hijab become an uncompromisable issue in all circumstances, including illogical settings like the OT?
The answer lies in the phenomenon of modern Islamism and patriarchal religious control. Since the wave of Islamisation in Malaysia from the 1970s onwards, religion has been politicised to enforce collective identity based on conformity, rather than fostering a deep understanding of Islamic teachings. The hijab and aurah have been weaponised as social control tools, not just within the sphere of worship, but as a moral standard that dictates public perception of a woman’s piety and worth.
As a result, the obsession with the hijab has now exceeded rational religious priorities. Aurah is treated as a matter of moral policing and patriarchal reinforcement, rather than a balanced, nuanced Islamic legal framework that considers context, necessity, and well-being.
Patriarchy, Misogyny, and the Systemic Control Over Women’s Bodies
This hijab obsession is not just a symptom of conservatism; it is a manifestation of deep-seated patriarchal and misogynistic control over women’s autonomy, bodies, and religious agency. However, this control is not enforced solely by men, but by a system where both men and women participate in dictating what women must wear, how they must behave, and how their morality is judged based on clothing rather than character.
How patriarchy and misogyny play a role in the aurah obsession?
Firstly, it is a moral policing of women. Women who do not conform to aurah restrictions are often seen as less pious, less deserving of respect, or even morally corrupt.
Secondly, women are enrolled as enforcers of patriarchy. Many women also reinforce this system, acting as moral gatekeepers who shame or pressure other women to conform to religious dress codes.
Thirdly, the hijab becomes a symbol of moral hierarchy. Women who wear the hijab are often seen as morally superior, while those who do not—even if they are practicing Muslims—are treated as lesser.
Fourthly, it forms diverging standards. While women are compelled to adhere to modesty in every possible setting, men are not subject to the same rigid expectations—reflecting the double standard in gendered religious obligations.
The result? Women are pressured to conform to religious symbols that serve patriarchal expectations rather than Islamic flexibility. In an OT, a woman’s health and safety should take precedence, yet the aurah discourse has been manipulated to place hijab compliance above all else—including medical professionalism, logic, and even the patient’s own well-being.
The Misuse of DEI to Justify Majoritarianism
The issue of headscarves in the OT is not a matter of real rights or inclusivity. It is a manifestation of an Islamisation project that successfully transformed Islam into an external identity marker and a strict social control mechanism.
When DEI is misused to fulfill the demands of the religious majority, we see how true inclusivity is abandoned in favor of performative religious piety. The obsession with aurah has trumped more pressing issues, such as safety, medical efficiency, and equitable access to healthcare.
Instead of worrying about hijab in the OT we should be addressing more pressing questions: how can we build a mature, critical, and progressive society if we continue to be trapped in an obsession with performative religiosity over logic, equity, and justice? How do we break free from a mindset that subjugates our reasoning capabilities to superficial conservative religious dogmas?
End Notes
[1] https://www.facebook.com/share/p/196ZNuKsK3/
[2] Aurah [or aurat] in Malay is derived from the Arabic عورة, which means intimate parts. These are parts that must be covered by clothing. What constitute the intimate parts, however, were debated by classical Muslim scholars. Other than the obvious sexual organs, scholars discussed on parts that generate sexual arousal in the members of the opposite sex – which are subjected to cultural norms and shifts in moral standards.
Nurhuda Ramli
Nurhuda Ramli is a Malaysian researcher specialising in Islamisation, gender, and political thought. She is an Arabic linguist and the co-founder of Jurnal Sang Pemula, a youth collective focused on humanist Malay intellectual discourse. Her work critically examines the intersection of religion, power, and epistemic control in contemporary society.