In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

The Garment of TerrorismAzadeh Moaveni

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
The Making of a Salafi Muslim Woman: Paths to Conversion 
by Anabel Inge.
Oxford, 320 pp., £16.99, May 2018, 978 0 19 088920 3
Show More
by Rafia Zakaria.
Bloomsbury, 160 pp., £9.99, September 2017, 978 1 5013 2277 8
Show More
Show More

On​ a warm summer evening last June, Rachida Serroukh took her 11-year-old daughter to an introductory evening for new pupils at Holland Park School in West London. Sometimes called the ‘socialist Eton’, the school is one of the few well-performing comprehensives in Kensington and Chelsea, a borough whose stark social and racial inequalities have occupied national attention in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. Serroukh, a single mother of three who had attended the school herself, was delighted that her daughter had got a place. Part way through the evening, a staff member took Serroukh aside, told her that the school did not allow face veils on its premises, and asked her to leave via a back exit. Serroukh later asked to see the school’s formal policy and discovered there wasn’t one; her presence had been enough, it seemed, to bring one into being on the spot. She decided to sue for discrimination.

Britain is one of the last major European countries without a legal ban on the face veil. While there are the same concerns here about the integration of Muslims as there are across Europe, consecutive UK governments have preferred to avoid the spectacle of burqini arrests on the beach. Until the late 2000s, this light touch meant that Britain had a reputation as the safest, most welcoming part of Europe for Muslims. European women who felt they could no longer practise their religion freely on the continent sought religious refuge here. In The Making of a Salafi Muslim Woman, Anabel Inge’s rich portrait of the small but growing British Salafi community, one woman describes her move to Birmingham as a ‘petit hijra’, or small migration, the same term used for a believer’s move to an Islamic state, in an echo of the Prophet Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina.

All that fell away in the aftermath of the 7 July attacks, which prompted a dramatic shift in the Blair government’s attitude towards integration and in its interaction with Muslims. ‘British values’ began to be evoked: integration no longer cut it. The wearing of the headscarf, historically never something politicians had worried about, rose to become a national policy concern and was seen as not only un-British, but as a state security concern. In 2015 David Cameron called on institutions to devise their own ‘sensible rules’ about face veils, and Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, promised that schools would take a firm lead. He declared that ‘our liberal West values’ must be protected and added that ‘the Muslim community needs to listen’ because British society has come a long way ‘to ensure that we have equality for women’ and ‘mustn’t go backwards’.

Boris Johnson feigned a similar devotion to common sense when, in his new column for the Telegraph, he described Denmark’s recent ban on the face veil as a mistake, but in the process likened Muslim women who wear it to ‘letterboxes’ and argued that schools, presumably like the one in Holland Park, had the right to ask women turning up like ‘bank robbers’ to remove their veils. Johnson referred casually to burkas, the tent-like covering worn almost exclusively by women in Afghanistan, with a grille for the eyes, when he meant the niqab, the familiar face veil with an eye slit. Johnson’s comments and his refusal to apologise for them embedded him comfortably in the headlines for days, looming over a country that now finds itself arguing about Islamophobia, burqa/niqab nomenclature, and Muslim women’s oppression.

The belief that the face veil was a marker of extremism didn’t come from empirical research showing that women who wore them were more likely to commit acts of violence. In fact, in its research into what pushed young people towards extremism the Brookings Institution discovered that the opposite was true, finding evidence that one factor was living in an environment where the veil was aggressively policed in public spaces. In European societies where Muslims remain an underclass, as Rafia Zakaria writes in her slim but formidable volume Veil, forbidding women to cover themselves without offering any ‘concomitant welcome into European public culture’ was a dangerous course.

The Brookings study discussed Francophone political culture as it has evolved in France, Belgium and Tunisia (a former French protectorate) – all countries where veil bans are, or have been, seen as important. Olivier Decottignies, a French career diplomat, called the research ‘surprisingly shallow’ and argued that veil bans were a symptom of extremism, not its cause. The real culprit, he claimed, was Salafi Islam, which ‘was hardly a French export’. Salafism is a puritanical strain of Sunni Islam that emerged in the Arabian peninsula in the 18th century, arriving in Europe in the 1980s as a projection of Saudi soft power. It is often blamed for present-day Sunni extremism, though it is almost impossible to say precisely what constitutes Salafism, since so many of its tenets overlap with orthodox, conservative Sunni Islam. It is usually simply said that Salafis are theologically averse to shades of grey and tend to anathematise their enemies.

The story of how face veils became a regular sight on European streets cannot be disentangled from this history, but even Muslims themselves wrestle with how to make sense of it. The wearing of face veils causes dismay to many older Muslims, those who arrived in places like London’s East End in the 1950s, eager to prosper and to retain the cultural Sufi Islam of the Subcontinent, and who now see their British grandchildren walking the streets proudly in Saudi-style thobes and niqabs. As the numbers wearing the face veil multiplied in the 2000s, so did fears about the thoughts of the women under those folds of fabric. Inge found that nearly all of the Salafi women she followed in her research decided to wear the face veil against the wishes – sometimes despite the threats – of family members, who saw it as too extreme, too Arab, too rebellious. Officials often argue that Muslim women are too submissive to challenge extremist views even within their own families. But women who wear a garment that annoys their families, that provokes regular verbal abuse and leads to their being pelted with food in public are something other than submissive. Of the 23 British women Inge studied, nearly all said they were regularly the target of abusive comments, five reported bananas or eggs being thrown at them, five had been shoved or tripped up, three had been followed, two had been spat on, two threatened with violence and one had had her veil ripped off.

Why would any young European woman decide to wear a face veil in the 21st century? The appeal, argues Zakaria, who chose to cover her face as a girl in Pakistan, often lies in a quest for belonging, the ‘drug of approval and approbation’, often administered by other women. Inge arrives at a similar conclusion. In the highly competitive ‘Islamic marketplace’ of contemporary Britain, where multiple sects vie for followers, Salafi women’s long robes and face veils buy acceptance in tight-knit and by all accounts cliquey religious circles, and send a message of non-conformity to society at large. But not all Salafi women cover their faces, and not all women who cover their faces are Salafis. Muslim women who are Deobandi or Tablighi, the two biggest Sunni denominations in this country, are increasingly doing so too. If you were to ask them why, they might tell you that they are reclaiming a lost practice, that it is an active choice and is spiritually directed. Their parents might tell you this is rubbish, and that Saudi Arabia has ruined Islam in this country just as it ruined it in Pakistan.

While women’s intentions in wearing face veils are unknowable, Theresa May’s government has decided to assume the worst. She has continued to follow the policy outlined in 2015 by David Cameron, who argued that citizens who failed to espouse ‘liberal values’ – gender equality as defined by women’s visibility – were ‘providing succour’ to violent extremists. That year had seen high-profile terror attacks, whole British families leaving the country to join Isis, and a Sun cover that claimed that ‘1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ had ‘sympathy for jihadis’ – quite enough to make a face-veiled Whitechapel housewife look like a threat. But recasting the face veil as the garment of terrorism, Zakaria writes, ‘dictates that Muslim women are all in possession of cruel intentions, each of them secretly marching towards jihad, guilty or not, but never innocent’. It places everyone who wears a face veil – ‘the kindly Muslim mum, the shy Muslim wife’, the stoic Muslim grandmother and the Saudi royal at Harvey Nichols – on the spectrum of militant violence, as incubators, enablers or fellow-travellers.

The UK government explains its growing preoccupation with Muslim women’s attire as an example of ‘safeguarding’. Monitoring a young woman who starts to wear the veil for signs of radicalisation is safeguarding, just like removing children from families that support extremist ideology is safeguarding, just like protecting children from paedophiles is safeguarding. This policy underpins Ofsted’s recent clumsy intervention in the debate about the age at which Muslim girls should be allowed to start wearing the simple headscarf. This seems a problem for parents to decide if there ever was one, but last November the current head of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, told school inspectors to question Muslim primary schoolgirls wearing them, to decide whether or not the headscarves were sexualising pre-pubescent girls.

Ofsted received a letter signed by more than a thousand faith leaders and teachers calling the recommendation ‘kneejerk, discriminatory, and institutionally racist’. Within a month Spielman backpedalled, saying that Muslim girls would not be questioned at school, but then in February she backed a primary school headteacher in East London who had banned the headscarf. Headscarves on little girls provoke a perhaps understandable uneasiness in people who have limited experience of living among Muslims. They used to provoke discomfort in me, until I had occasion to spend time with Muslims far beyond the confines of my secular, Westernised, upper-class background, after which I realised that for a great many families far more socially representative than mine, the headscarf secured girls and women access to public space, and therefore to education. But the Ofsted hijab row was never really about safeguarding. It was about the way the state felt obliged, now that it had conflated Muslim conservatism with extremism, to nudge the community towards liberalism.

There is a necessary debate to be had about gender equality among Muslims. Britain’s largely South Asian Muslim community is highly conservative in a way that often makes life unbearable for some of its young women, and to a different and less immediate extent, for young men. There are suffocating proscriptions around marriage, problems with forced marriage, domestic violence, stark double standards in the treatment of daughters and sons, and taboos around confronting and reporting sexual abuse. (Many of these behaviours are imported from South Asia, and interestingly, rejecting them has encouraged young people to seek religious knowledge and identity from urban, Mecca-trained imams.) But the possibility of shedding this atavistic conservatism while retaining religious values has been lost in the acrimony, fear and mutual suspicion that now grips the Muslim community.

Is it feasible to encourage people to reconsider inherited patriarchal tendencies while diagnosing these same patterns of behaviour as pathologies that lead to bombings and beheadings? The An-Nisa Society, which supported Muslim women in the family, publicly broke with the government in 2009, claiming that the Home Office had used engagement with it as a way of surveilling women. Other grassroots groups were obliged to shape their work around extremism, even when it had nothing to do with their remit. The possession of Home Office funding became divisive and eventually a taint. The government also cut ties with swathes of mainstream Muslim organisations in cities across the country, often citing their attitudes towards Israel or Western foreign policy. It began to promote a small group of reformers it felt represented the right face of ‘British Islam’. These reformers, often women who claimed they were lone grassroots fighters in the battle against gender fundamentalism, stirred great resentment, especially after it emerged that some of their speeches and tweets had been produced by the Home Office itself. The fragile conversation within the community around women, families and equality, already contending with entrenched resistance, collapsed entirely.

The Ofsted headscarf row took place in this context. The handful of Muslim activists who supported Ofsted’s stance claimed they were being intimidated by Islamist critics; these critics, who were often non-veiled women, asked why the activists were repeating clichés about Islam and publishing their concerns in notoriously Islamophobic newspapers. Muslim parents said no one had spoken to them. The teachers who wrote to Spielman argued that many Muslim girls were simply copying their mothers and asked whether Ofsted would also be questioning young girls who wore ‘lipstick or stilettos’? Hijabs are no different from lipstick and stilettos, in the sense that it is the observer who assigns them meaning: the kitten heels or lacy tops worn by a little girl at a private school in St John’s Wood whose mother works in fashion would be judged differently from the same clothes worn by the daughter of a cleaner attending a state primary in Stepney. Such garments might be worn out of edgy chic, maternal fatigue or ‘could be interpreted as sexualisation’. We would be in the realm of The Handmaid’s Tale to think it’s the state’s role to find out.

The battles around the veil and face veil, as well as the public discord over whether the freedom to wear one can ever be a ‘British value’, stand in marked contrast to the cheerful embrace of the headscarf by commerce. There is no data on the number of Muslim women who wear it in this country, but the ever growing ‘modesty market’ seems to indicate an increase. Vogue reported on the ‘Cool New Generation Redefining Modest Style’ at London Modest Fashion Week, a corollary to London Fashion Week that is now in its second year. Liberty joined forces with a British vlogger to demonstrate how to tie a turban with one of its patterned scarves. Debenhams now stocks headscarves. Major brands from Zara to H&M and Topshop feature hijabi models in their advertising and produce hijab or ‘modest’ collections. What fashion is belatedly recognising as a growing market has long been evident to scholars like Harvard’s Leila Ahmed, who documented the resurgence of the veil across the West and the Middle East in her prescient 2011 book A Quiet Revolution. The ‘new veil’, as Ahmed calls it, signifies not piety but identity – it is now a garment that challenges everything from anti-Muslim racism, structural discrimination and even cultural patriarchy, and stresses transnational Muslim identity.

For millennial Muslim women in the UK, the veil, for political, inherited and aesthetic reasons, denotes cultural opposition. Anyone who has spent time around young Muslim women while being charged to monitor veil-wearing as a possible sign of radicalisation – as academics like me are under the government’s Prevent duty – realises that consumerism and peer pressure are the most important factors in the adoption of the headscarf. Teaching at Kingston University in South-West London, where Muslim women form a sizeable percentage of the student body, I noticed that some Muslim girls start their first year unveiled, only to discover that hijabi fashionistas are the ruling clique on campus. They return for second year wearing a headscarf or turban. Hijabs are cool, just like beards are cool, just like Muslim piety is cool; wearing them gives meaning to a perplexing, unjust world and lends the wearer a coherent, dignified transnational identity (global Muslim rather than reviled national ethnic British Pakistani or British Bangladeshi). It is the language of multiple rebellions: against keep your head down, ‘coconut’ parents; against the state that views your religion as a security problem; against a press that delights in your racist humiliation.

One of the most successful arguments Isis used to recruit young Muslims in Europe is that their home countries won’t tolerate their dual identities as European citizens and Muslims. In this, as in so many things, the extremist group understood Muslim millennials’ attachment to outward symbols of their faith better than policymakers did. Isis whispered: come here and dress as conservatively as you wish, cover up, you can still be feminists, you can still have agency, here no one will measure your worth and strength by how much skin you show and how good your hair looks. All of these influences on Muslim girls, particularly the social anxiety that makes them cling to the markers of Islam even as they are secularising their lifestyles, means that the stigmatisation and banning of any kind of veil doesn’t seem likely to be useful. Despite this, more than half of the UK population now supports a full ban on face veils in public spaces.

As Rachida Serroukh discovered that evening at Holland Park School, the pretext for banning the face veil will increasingly be security, because safeguarding is eminently ‘sensible’. But people tend not to want to change their behaviour when they feel they are being punished. And when it comes to the face veil, Inge points out that the severe limitations it imposes on public interaction often make women give up wearing it anyway. Timothy Winter, dean of studies at Wolfson College, Cambridge, coined the term ‘Salafi burnout’ to describe such a phenomenon. He believes that the faith of such believers, driven by worldly insecurities and confusions, is ‘liable to vanish as suddenly as it came’. His concern is that, in the meanwhile, their radicalism is disruptive to the majority of Muslims. There used to be prominent British Muslims, like the Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi, who acknowledged the concerns on all sides of these debates and tried to maintain a semblance of a public discussion. But at present, even she – perhaps the most people-pleasing Muslim to hold high office in this country – is shunned by her party and disparaged in the newspapers for having links with ‘extremists’. Today there is virtually no debate about equality between Muslim men and women, or between Muslim Britons and the rest of society. In the meantime, Serroukh is asked by Holland Park School to leave by the back exit and remain invisible.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.