veiled4allah: the 40' square of fabric that threatened an entire nation veiled4allah: the 40' square of fabric that threatened an entire nation
I find the moves in France to ban hijab to be profoundly worrying and disturbing.All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 10, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: veiling. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: wear hijab, muslim women, women wear, vast majority, salaamu alaykum, people, hijab, women, France, france, should, muslim, Muslim, muslims, islam, Muslims, state, think, Islam, french, French, because, woman, wear, see
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
Confused about veiling? Read 'Why Do You Dress Like That?'
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with veiling
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: veiling
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: veiling
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: veiling
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: veiling
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: veiling
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: veiling
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title the 40' square of fabric that threatened an entire nation (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) veiling (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Yes, it is sad. If only this generation of Catholics in the USA knew that in years past, women's heads had to be covered to be in a church....as a child, I always thought the beautiful lace scarfs were something we could wear all the time every day. The head covered was also stylish in the 1950's in the US with women sporting scarfs everywhere....our country's media influence is what is causing women to be half-clothed. I have even complained to Time Warner because on the AOL website, there are nothing but "beautiful" women and gossip to lure our teens and children to use AOL as their internet server. Young girls in this country are growing up with less self-esteem if they are not beautiful or have the latest fashions. Schools do try to enforce dress codes or get them to wear uniforms, but the girls learn to be "sexy" to be in style. This is the fault of the media. Sex sells, they think. Well, the USA had an economy before the "sex blitz" of today....what to they think stirred the economy then? When I was a child, little girls wanted to play with baby dolls. Now, the dolls are CIA Barbie and dolls with sexy outfits to buy and change. We can vote out a president. We can protest wars. We can do things to change our governemt, even though the process is slow. But what can we do to make the media in this country show some decency? Many parents bar their children from certain television programs. But because of the necessity of both parents having to work in the USA now to support the family, the children are often left alone. The wants and greeds of corporate America to sell sell sell, thinking that is the only way we can survive by providing jobs is a monster which has gotten bigger and bigger and totally out of control. It is up to parents to lead their children to modesty and moderation. But with the TV screen and the internet, immodesty amongst our population grows. It's funny, because the center of fashion used to always be influenced by the French....it would be interesting if they could make the salwar kamees and the veil become popular! The virgin Mary always dressed like that and no one thought anything about it!Peace
Subject: Re: the 40\
It must not become some kind of secular fundamentalist state.Hear, hear! Perfectly stated. This is very disturbing, and I hope it does not become a trend.
Subject: Re: the 40\
As salaamu 'alaykum,You are right to be alarmed about this. As hard as it is for many of us to hold on to our deen in permissive western environments, to have the governments litterally forcing people to disobey their Creator is alarming and saddening. Our emaan is so weak it doesn't seem we are ready for such challenges. But of course Allaah does not put a burden on us that we can not bear and Allaah (swt) is in control so we remain optimistic and we continue to struggle.
Are you sure about saying that enforcing hijab is wrong? On what basis is it wrong? Do you believe a "woman's basic autonomy" is an unbreachable right? So if a woman wants to go topless, the government cannot disallow that and enforce "shirt"? If you believe in this woman's (or man's) personal autonomy thing so much, does that mean that abortion should be legal on demand in an Islaamic society? Does that mean that using drugs/alcohol should be legal?
Maybe you can clarify your point and convince me -- but I think enforcing basic standards of decency in public is a role of government authority -- and for people who believe in the Qur'aan and Sunnah -- nothing less than hijab would be considered as meeting the basic standard of decency in public.
Salaam,
Abu Noor al-Irlandee
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Salams,The Prophet didn't institute a punishment for failure to dress a certain way (for either men or women as far as I am aware). Furthermore how could this be enforced on non-Muslims as it is a religious prescription? ie. "Tell the believing women..." (24:30-31 and 33:59)
Maryam
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Brother - Like some others, I think that you are attempting to read too much into what I have written. Hijab is not a minimum standard of decency. Covering the awra is the minimum standard of decency. The government may set and enforce a law against "indecent exposure" - not covering the awra. Because that is something that causes harm. However, hijab is something different. First, as sister Maryam has pointed out, if hijab was to be enforced by power of law, why then did not the Prophet (sAas) or the salaf do it? They did not. When they saw people who were improperly dressed, they merely advised them to dress properly, they did not arrest them or beat them. That is the example that we should follow.More to the point, every individual has a basic autonomy in choosing what they will do. They can choose for good or they can choose for evil. That is the very test that Allah SWT has given us. If all our actions were forced on us, of what value would they be? We did not intend to do them for the sake of Allah SWT and we would not get the reward of it. As long as the actions are not harming another person (and the failure to wear hijab is not a harm as long as the awra is covered), then we can only advise and exhort others to come to the way of Allah, we cannot and should not compel them. Does that make it clearer?
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
As salaamu 'alaykum,All of a woman's body except her face and hands is part of her 'awra. I don't know any major scholar who has held differently.
There is the "lesser awra" which is what a woman can expose to only other women or to her mahrams, but I do not know any basis by which one would say this is the standard for what she can expose to the general public and still be 'decent.'
Salaam,
Abu Noor al-Irlandee
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\
I am sorry if my use of terminology was not clear and confused you. I am referring to that part of the woman's body that must be covered before all people except her husband. That is what I meant by awra.If you wish to introduce into the religion something that the Prophet (sAas) did not do, namely forcing women to wear hijab on pain of legal punishment, you can do so. I however, will refrain and will instead follow his example and that of the salaf by merely advising and exhorting women who do not wear hijab.
Is that clear enough now?
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
As salaamu 'alaykum sister,I am still confused about your use of awra because you said that one could be forced to cover their awra but could not be forced to wear hijab. If there are men around, their is no difference between these two things. Everything except the woman's hands and face are part of her awrah -- so this would mean enforcing hijab would be ok.
As to your point about whether the Prophet (saw) enforced the hijab under threat of punishment, I don't know. From the hadith I do know on the subject I think that he simply told the women that Allaah had commanded them to cover certain parts of their body and they did. This was the beautiful thing about the sahaba and the sahabiyat and the way the Prophet (saw) had taught them Islaam.
I will research the issue further, inshAllaah. Do you know of a hadith where the Prophet (saw) saw a woman who was not covered and did not do anything? That would help us well.
Salaam,
Abu Noor al-Irlandee
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I said that I used the word "awra" in my earlier comment to mean that part of a woman that only her husband can see. Go back to the comment and replace the word "awra" with that phrase. Do you understand it now? Surely that can't be the real source of confusion.The reason that I mentioned the awra (as defined above, OK?) is that I think we would all agree that viewing the awra of people is harmful to children. Adults know to look away or what to do, but children do not. Thus, to protect children, a law could be made requiring people to cover their awra. However, there is no harm to children if women do not wear hijab, since children are allowed to see a woman without hijab. The point I was trying to make before we got distracted into semantics is that an uncovered head is not harmful while an uncovered awra is (don't forget, awra is defined as I mentioned above, for the purposes of this discussion).
I would then have said that there is no evidence either of punishment for people uncovering their awra in public but one could argue that the maslaha (common good) required such a thing. And then I would have asked you what your basis is for calling for a legal punishment for things that are not harmful. I was not going to insist on my idea but was going to use it to draw a comparison and contrast with your idea. However, we got distracted by semantics before we got that far.
Perhaps you were confused what the basis of my argument was, and if so I apologize, but the way you phrased yourself was not at all clear.
Oh, and if you're looking for examples, there is of course the well-known hadith about Asma bint Abu Bakr (rAa), when the Prophet (sAas) told her to cover everything but her face and hands (hmm, no threat of arrest here).
I also assume that you do not mean to single women out for punishment when they violate any prohibition in dress, even ones that are not harmful, and that therefore you would also support enforcing prohibitions such as on men wearing silk, red clothes, or trailing their garments (a study of such hadiths as Sahih Bukhari Book 72 #731, Sahih Muslim Book 24 #5200, Sunan Abu Dawud Book 32 #4055, and other similar reports fails to turn up any threats of arrest either).
I am really curious if you honestly believe that every person who violates any religious prohibition should be brought up in court if they fail to correct it, whether or not any harm is being done. If you have evidence that the time of the Prophet (sAas) and the salaf (rAa) was like this, you should surely bring it forth.
I want to ask you something else as well. Do you agree that people should not take on themselves the authority to punish and harm others unless Allah has granted them that authority? That if there is no grant of authority from Allah to punish, people should refrain from doing so? Isn't an injury done wrongfully to another person not only a sin but a crime? Isn't a ruler or judge who wrongfully punishes an innocent person guilty of abusing his authority? If so, wouldn't you rather refrain from punishing where there is doubt, out of fear of transgressing the limits that Allah has set, than go ahead and injure people knowing there's a chance it might have been proved to be done wrongfully?
Again, this is what I had been going to say except that we got stuck on this definition of the awra and both got entrenched in defending our positions instead of moving forward.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
As salaamu 'alaykum***My comments are the ones between the asterisks.***
I said that I used the word "awra" in my earlier comment to mean that part of a woman that only her husband can see. Go back to the comment and replace the word "awra" with that phrase. Do you understand it now? Surely that can't be the real source of confusion.
***I now think I understand what you are saying, but I still think it is misleading to use the term ‘awra’ without specifying which type of ‘awra’ you are referring to. ‘Awra is a term which changes based on the circumstances, depending on whether a woman is with only other women or only with close family, or is around strange (not closely related) men. I actually think an accurate and careful use of the term in the context of our discussion would help make my point clearer and make it clear why I have problems with your position.***
The reason that I mentioned the awra (as defined above, OK?) is that I think we would all agree that viewing the awra of people is harmful to children. Adults know to look away or what to do, but children do not. Thus, to protect children, a law could be made requiring people to cover their awra. However, there is no harm to children if women do not wear hijab, since children are allowed to see a woman without hijab. The point I was trying to make before we got distracted into semantics is that an uncovered head is not harmful while an uncovered awra is (don't forget, awra is defined as I mentioned above, for the purposes of this discussion).
I would then have said that there is no evidence either of punishment for people uncovering their awra in public but one could argue that the maslaha (common good) required such a thing. And then I would have asked you what your basis is for calling for a legal punishment for things that are not harmful. I was not going to insist on my idea but was going to use it to draw a comparison and contrast with your idea. However, we got distracted by semantics before we got that far.
***I do realize that it is apparently your theory that any Islamic punishments or sanctions carried out by the government have to be ones that involve maslaha. I am not sure I agree with this as a general statement (I tend to think I don’t ...) but I know I don’t agree with it the way that you put it forth. There is no doubt that there is harm in having women walk around with their hair or legs uncovered. While men could (and should) look away, it is obvious that most men will not which is why Allaah (swt) orders women to cover themselves and doesn’t just leave it up to the men. Of course, saying most men will look does not mean that they are not sinful, they are for sure sinful and responsible for their own looking. I do not see the basis for saying that a woman showing her hair is not harmful but showing her breasts is harmful. According to Allaah (swt) both are part of her nakedness and should be covered. Why don’t you just say that men should look away from the woman’s breasts just like they should know to look away from her hair. That is why it is important to note that for me as an unrelated man, a woman’s hair is part of her ‘awra.***
Perhaps you were confused what the basis of my argument was, and if so I apologize, but the way you phrased yourself was not at all clear.
***I’m sure I wasn’t. Please forgive me. I am neither a scholar nor extremely articulate, but I hope I am sincere.***
Oh, and if you're looking for examples, there is of course the well-known hadith about Asma bint Abu Bakr (rAa), when the Prophet (sAas) told her to cover everything but her face and hands (hmm, no threat of arrest here).
***I believe this hadith is weak.***
I also assume that you do not mean to single women out for punishment when they violate any prohibition in dress, even ones that are not harmful, and that therefore you would also support enforcing prohibitions such as on men wearing silk, red clothes, or trailing their garments (a study of such hadiths as Sahih Bukhari Book 72 #731, Sahih Muslim Book 24 #5200, Sunan Abu Dawud Book 32 #4055, and other similar reports fails to turn up any threats of arrest either).
I am really curious if you honestly believe that every person who violates any religious prohibition should be brought up in court if they fail to correct it, whether or not any harm is being done. If you have evidence that the time of the Prophet (sAas) and the salaf (rAa) was like this, you should surely bring it forth.
***That’s a good point. I think you misunderstand my point. I have not said whether I think that a woman failing to wear hijab should be punished or how it should be punished. I didn’t see any basis for the idea that one could enforce some laws on modesty but could not enforce hijab. You, helpfully, have at least proposed a basis, but I have not been convinced with the idea that what a woman may display to children or other women she should be able to display in public without being against the law of the government (although I think you still believe this would be haraam). So I assume you would agree under that standard that a woman (or a man) could not wear shorts above the knee, or a bikini or such things under threat of being dragged into court (as you like to put it).
As to the issue about men and prohibitions on their actions, again I am not clear what the government should do. There is no doubt, however, that the government would recognize such things as unlawful. All jurists recognized selling haraam items to people for haraam uses as being not only haraam, but recognized the contracts as being not even recognized by the State. Do you think that the sale of alcohol to people for individual use or the sale of lottery tickets could not be outlawed by the government? If you think the harm in such things is clear, I again submit to you that the harm in having women or men uncovered is just as clear.
If you want to differentiate here between Muslims and non-Muslims that would be more interesting.***
I want to ask you something else as well. Do you agree that people should not take on themselves the authority to punish and harm others unless Allah has granted them that authority? That if there is no grant of authority from Allah to punish, people should refrain from doing so? Isn't an injury done wrongfully to another person not only a sin but a crime? Isn't a ruler or judge who wrongfully punishes an innocent person guilty of abusing his authority? If so, wouldn't you rather refrain from punishing where there is doubt, out of fear of transgressing the limits that Allah has set, than go ahead and injure people knowing there's a chance it might have been proved to be done wrongfully?
***Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. This argument is important but in the end it proves too much. First of all, Allaah has given the authority to the legitimate ruler to regulate certain activities. I think your theory of the Islaamic State being basically libertarian is true in some ways, but ignores the fact that the main purpose of the Islaamic State is to establish the limits of Allaah and to amr bil mar’uf wa nahy an al-munkar. To enjoin the good and forbid the evil. As the prophet (saw) said IF you see an evil change it with your hand. The state is able to change with its hand. It has that authority from Allaah. Of course, if the way one changes with one’s hand ends up causing more harm than good one shouldn’t do it. So if at a certain time or stage one feels enforcing hijab by the government would cause some women to hate Islaam or hate hijab and it would not be worth it, the government should consider that and hopefully would use other techniques.
Again, I am not saying that the state would necessarily be forced to enforce hijab. And no one has suggested what technique the state would use in enforcing hijab or anything else. I just want to be clear at this point that the idea you seem to be promoting that it is none of the state’s business or that it would be always wrong for the state to enforce hijab is not correct as far as I can tell.
And Allaah (swt) knows best.***
Again, this is what I had been going to say except that we got stuck on this definition of the awra and both got entrenched in defending our positions instead of moving forward.
***I hope this post from me has moved forward the discussion as well. I find your argument thought provoking and I know you have maintained it on a consistent basis so I wanted to understand it a little better. Please forgive me if I have insulted you in any way and if the discussion has resulted in any bad feelings or separation of the hearts of the Muslims then we should stop it right now. ***
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Al-hamdulillah! I think we are finally starting to get somewhere. Please know that I am not a scholar either and sometimes I express myself poorly or get fixed on one thing or another and confuse the meaning of what I was saying.I am not opposed to being more specific in the use of the word "awra", but I am have just been trying to explain to you the sense in which I used it and that we continue using it in that sense for the duration of this discussion for the sake of consistency.
I think that despite the way I managed to mangle what I was saying, you did get at the essential point I was trying to make, and that gives us a basis for further discussion. I hope that you will bear with me while I try to find the right way to continue explaining myself.
You are right that I believe that there is a difference between a sin (doing something that is religiously prohibited) and a crime (doing something that is legally prohibited and punishable by the state) in that the two are not synonymous. I believe this because it appears to me through my readings to learn about the Sunna and the early community of Islam that there is in fact a difference, because not everything that is religiously prohibited was made legally punishable by the state. That would require, as we call it these days a police state, and I don't see any evidence that that is how Islam was implemented. When I look at this and I try to understand it, I feel that those things that have been made legally punishable by the state are those which cause harm to others, while those things that do not seem to have been legally punished by the state are those things which harm only the self. That is my understanding and way of organizing in my mind what I have read and learned. And that is where what I said comes from.
Inshallah, I will come back later (I have to go offline for awhile) and try to continue responding to you. However, I just wanted to make one quick point as an aside. You suggested that the woman's hair and her bosom were equivalently or equally to be covered or not covered. That I do not think is true. I have seen a difference of opinion among the scholars concerning the exact extent of what the woman must cover in front of everybody but her husband (the whatever-you-want-to-call-it awra). Some of these views state that the woman's upper chest is part of this and others do not. Depending on which school of thought that you follow, the upper chest is something that must not be seen by children or other women, while the hair is clearly OK to be seen by them. They fall into two different classes. I don't understand exactly how you are hoping to equate them.
Inshallah, more later.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
As salaamu 'alaykum,Alhamdulillaah I am glad we have moved to a more positive tone of conversation.
I look forward to your other points.
To be clear on the issue about hair and 'bosom' again this relates to the term 'awra.
It should be obvious to all of us that there is nothing harmful or evil about a woman's hair. Nor is there anything evil about her breasts or any other part of her body. The harm results from the effects it can have on those who view it depending on their relationship.
So that's why there are different 'awras. What is harmful for me to see of my wife is not the same as what is harmful for me to see of a stranger on the street, or of my sister.
The differences depend on whether there is a danger of the person being sexually attracted, and whether that would be harmful or not.
So, you can say that there is a difference between the hair and the chest with regards to whether a woman or child can see it. That's true. But with regards to the woman's 'awra in public -- where there are non-mahram men around there is no difference. They are both part of her nakedness.
You can argue that because it is alright for another woman to see my wife's hair that means it is not as big a deal if a strange man sees it as if they were to see her chest. Although that makes sense to us in the context of living in a society where most women (although the percentage is decreasing) cover their bosom while most do not cover their hair, I don't think that it is automatically true. I think the Islamic exception for woman or relatives relies on the fact that they are not likely to be sexually attracted to other women, rather than the idea that the hair is not a sexually attractive part of the body.
By the way, we see again that even following these definitions, Islaam is much more modest than present day American society which would sees nothing immodest about men showering completely naked in front of other men or women in front of other women.
Salaam,
Abu Noor al-Irlandee
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I think we are still talking past each other. I am sure that it is my fault for not clearly explaining myself.Brother, before we go on, be sure to look at the picture at the top left of the veiled4allah page. That is me and that is how I dress when I go out from my house. I believe 100% that hijab is a religious obligation in Islam. I have worn hijab since I accepted Islam four years ago and have worn niqab for nearly two years. I believe that all Muslim women who are sincere about their deen should strive towards hijab as part of obeying Allah's commands and that a Muslim woman who does not wear hijab is falling short in this area (just as a Muslim woman who doesn't fast during Ramadan is falling short in another area). I have written a number of articles on my website about the rules of hijab and its importance in Islam, as well as articles about the jilbab and the niqab.
We are not disputing either the religious obligation of hijab, nor its benefits, nor its importance. We are discussing only whether the state has a right to enforce hijab. Once again, I am sure that it is my own poor ability to explain myself if I have come across as doubting or denying any of what I wrote above.
I simply do not believe that the harm we are talking about here raises to the level that women should be forced to wear hijab and punished by the state for failing to do so. I think that should be reserved for more serious harms. Where the harm does not raise to that level, I believe that each person can, should, and must, have the freedom to choose right and wrong for themselves, because that is what Allah put us here for. The use of force is the line at which I stop. I already explained why I choose to stop there, out of fear of Allah.
I hope this can start to make my position clearer. Otherwise, we are still talking past each other and not being able to understand how each other sees things. Again, my fault.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
As salaamu 'alaykum,While I agree that we are somewhat talking past each other, I do think I underestand mostly where you are coming from. I have tried to understand completely and so I have harped on a few technicalities, and I know that is annoying but I wanted to try and make sure I was clear about your position. So the fault was not yours. (Maybe I can blame it on my being a lawyer).
My main point I want to get you to see is the fact that something is sinful and disobedience to Allaah is a real harm. It is a real munkar. If one looks in the Shariah one will see that real munkars done in public should be addressed by the ruler or the society at large.
Before you seemed to be arguing that if something didn't 'affect others' there was no real harm. I think any munkar done in public definitely affects others.
If you are arguing that it doesn't rise to the level of harm where it should be 'punished' by the State, then that's a different argument. As I said earlier, the government in working against any harm or munkar has to balance the negative effects of doing so and if it doesn't feel the harm is big enough to justify the negative effects, it can and should adopt other means beside 'punishment.'
Allaah did give us the ability to choose right and wrong but that doesn't mean that no one else should interfere. In fact we have a duty to encourage our brothers and sisters (in humanity, not just in Islaam) to do better. In the end each individual will be accountable to Allaah, as you are stating.
So, the only real point of difference that I think lies between us is that I think the State has a right to enforce religious obligations in the public sphere. If we look at prayer for example, we see that all four schools of thought agreed on this point and did not feel it was usurping any right that Allaah had not given. In fact, they saw it as part of the duty of the state to enjoin good and forbid wrong using physical force. (to complicate matters slightly I again don't think one can say hijab is just a religious obligation. For sure it is, but I think it is a standard of decency ordained by Allaah.)
Again, does this mean the State should do this for every single issue? No. Whether hijab is one depends on many other factors involved in the society. I wouldn't want to say generally either way.
Please forgive me if any way you thought I was questioning your own personal obedience of Allaah or position on hijab. That was furthest from my mind. While I hadn't read through your articles (at least recently, I think I did a while ago) even I am perceptive enough to realize where someone named Al-Munaqabah is coming from on a personal level.
Salaam,
Abu Noor al-Irlandee
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I do think you understand my position pretty much although the way it appears when you depict it isn't always the way I understand it. I feel as though I am saying things that have a very different meaning to you than they do to me and so what is clear to me becomes confused to you. I also think that this is in part my own fault because I am not saying things right or am grasping at words that don't mean what I am trying to express, or using a word in one place with one meaning and in another place with another meaning. I too have a legal background (I'm a certificated paralegal) and I do tend to get overly abtruse in my arguments sometimes. In fact, we do sound just like two legal professionals arguing with each other and thinking that we disagree over the essentials because we disagree over the wording. LOL.Perhaps I should have used the word "injury" instead of "harm". "Injury" carries the sense of a real concrete damage. You talk a lot about the harm done to men if they see a woman's hair, but I can't imagine that you think that is equivalent of harm done to a child through being exposed inappropriately to sexuality.
The point that I keep coming back to is that if the state were to try and control every action that could possibly have harmful actions, it would end up as some kind of totalitarian monstrosity, policing citizens' every action.
I absolutely agree that members of society should exhort and encourage each other towards the good and away from the bad. In fact, that is their moral obligation. They should take action when they see a wrong being done. But I think that there are some things that should be left to the members of society to correct and not given the power of the state. Those are two different things because the state has the power of force and violence.
Quite frankly, if the society is not able to maintain itself as a moral and righteous entity through mutual admonition and nasiha, the government will not be able to inculcate such morality and righteousness by force. You cannot force someone to believe or to be good if they are not willing. You can only try to control their actions. The more immoral and unrighteous a society is, the more actions the government has to control. And what exactly has that accomplished? Does it really help if every woman has a hijab on her head if the men still have jahiliyya in their hearts?
That is why I think that "injury", a term connotating a real, quanifiable damage, is a good place to draw the line. Even in an unrighteous society, we can and should try to prevent injury and damage to others (we could list the essentials of life, faith, lineage, intellect, and property, the daruriyyat, to start with as what needs to be protected from injury and damage). But the harm done to a man because he has difficulty lowering his gaze or to a person who doesn't pray, that's on a different order.
BTW, how exactly does one enforce the salat? As a woman, I usually do not pray in the masjid; I assume that women are simply exempt from this enforcement unless we are going to be spying in peoples' homes to see whether they do or do not pray there. Are we going to keep a tally at the masjid of which men do and don't attend and then seek them out to find out if they have an excuse? Because it is perfectly halal for a man to offer the regular salat wherever he might be and not in the masjid if he has a reason (such as not being able to get to the masjid). As far as I can tell, the only prayer that could reasonably be enforced is jumu'a. And there's more going on at jumu'a than just the salat itself. While I agree that your statement is correct about what the madhhabs have said, I don't really see how it would work in practice (or that there is any evidence of it being carried out that way, for that matter).
Subject: Re: the 40\
Jazak'allah khayrin sister for your comments...I have been thinking all day about what I would write here as a comment, I can go on and on all day about it since I'm here in France and watching ridiculously biased debates about this on TV again and again, and being treated time after time in an outright rude and discriminatory manner with no recourse. The mindset against hijab is incredibly deep-rooted. You can't reason with these people, you just can't.I've gone on antidepressants recently, and one of the major factors contributing to my depression is my experience as a hijabi in France...and I'm not even Arab.
I could go on and on, really I could, I have so much to say about this subject I could fill up a whole website about it by myself, but I won't. It just reinforces my bitterness and I want to stay on the Siratul Mustaqeem by remaining hate-free.
I will say this: who do we have to thank for this situation? The list would be long, but high up on it would be the Maghreban immigrants who come here and inflict all kinds of jahiliyya abuses on their families in the name of Islam. Domestic violence, and other forms of oppression including forcing hijab on their women.
The excuse for banning hijab is to "protect" those girls who are forced by their families to wear it. And they are forced in many cases, we have to admit it. Now obviously this isn't an excuse for the government to come running to their rescue with passion and zeal, obviously they have ulterior motives. But so-called "Muslims" here are feeding the powers that be this excuse, they're selling out honest Muslims by the quarter-kilo with their heedlessness of their religion.
Look at the prison inmate lists...everyone's named Muhammad, Bilal, Huceine, Karim. Go to the sections of town where all the Arabs live and smell the stench of urine, wade through the garbage in the streets, observe the dilapidated buildings...but hang on to your handbag or portable phone, and don't dare park your car around there, because it'll be stolen in the blink of an eye by one of your brothers (sisters?) in "faith". All the gangs are Arab (with a smattering of Asian faces among them). Who are all those cuties wearing the barely-covering-the-pubic-region jeans and the babydoll tshirts trolling for gang members? They are named Fatima, Samira, Aicha...
So when I'm asked "Why do they hate us?" that is what comes to mind.
Where do you sort out a mess like this? Colonisation breeds economic disaster breeds jahiliyya breeds hatred for Muslims, reinforcing the "need" to control those savage Islamists...over and over again. It's maddening to watch this happen.
I wanna go home, ya Rabb. In the meantime...pass me my Prozac (and my hijab) please. I take small comfort in the fact that the government is paying for my meds.
Fi amanillah
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Let me correct myself...after reading a column in The Nation online, I was reminded that the World Health Organization ranks France with the best health care system in the world (see http://www.who.int/whr2001/2001/archives/2000/en/press_release.htm).So, correction: I take ENORMOUS comfort in the fact that the government is paying for my antidepressants.
My DH has reminded me (after hearing the latest installment of my daily rant about hijab) that even if it's just for the health care, being here just might be better than going back to the States.
Ok well, that's arguable but I'll buy it for now. And so, if life here is going to stress me out that much, I intend to thoroughly and gleefully enjoy my paid-for health care, right down to the last happy pill. Vive la France!
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\
Salam Sis. Zafira,May Allah strenhthen you in your eeman, protect you give you wisdom InShaAllah.
Having the courage to wear the hijab in such an Intolerantly "allegedly secular" Fundamentalist country as France must be one of the toughest test for you. I pray that Allah makes it easy on you InShaAllah.
I just wanted to quickly comment on some of the points you mentioned.
>I will say this: who do we have to thank for this situation? The list would be long, but
>high up on it would be the Maghreban immigrants who come here and inflict all kinds of
>jahiliyya abuses on their families in the name of Islam. Domestic violence, and other forms
>of oppression including forcing hijab on their women.
However true the above statement may (or not) be, I think it is foolish to even, give it any credence.
Since these alleged "forced veiled" girls they want to save from the "oppression" of hijab, are living in France, and are 2nd and 3rd Generation French of Maghreban origin, therefore fully protected by the existing French law.
The full weight of the law applies to them, and if anyone didn't want to wear anything, nobody could force them to do so. This is nothing but a weak, "straw man's argument", they set up for an undefendable case of state "oppression".
There may well be isolated cases of ignorant people "forcing" women to wear the veil, but I fail to understand how you can "force" anyone in a western country and in France in particular to do that, the opposite seems to be the norm (the state forcing women to un-veil in France).
Concerning the dilapidated areas in which these "Arabs" live in France, this is the result of years of Government policies to keep the "cheap immigrant labour" imported generations ago to clear the rubbish and build roads, as the lowest ranks of society, living in run-down "ghetto-like" areas (a little bit like the US and other countries).
Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of "Arabs" are very poor people in France, unlike the biased view portrayed in the western media of rich "sheikhs" bathing in wealth (a very, very small minority from the Gulf area) most of these "Arabs" occupy the lowest echelons of society.
I am sure if you went to any run-down area in a major city in the world, it would not be safe/pleasant being there or leaving your car there regardless of where the "natives" came from or what there religion was.
As a side note, the Ghettos where the "Maghrebans" lived used to be the worst of the worse, which the "state" conveniently forgot and ignored, were crime, drugs and all kind of nastiness was rampant without anybody, outside, realy caring much about them.
Containment in those areas was the rule, and initimidation and harasment for those who ventured outside the "limits", common behaviour.
The police only ventured there to harass the locals, with needless brutality and ID checks, therefore perpetrating the alienation felt but those stuck in there (witness the constant mini riots that occur there regularly).
A few years back there was an Islamic "ressurgence" and a few people started to clean up their streets, and trying to give the local youth a "better" hope in life, by teaching the noble morals that are part of our religion.
This quickly pricked up the ears of the "Civil Society" as very dangerous, they didn't mind young "maghrebans" dieing of drug abuse, crime and doing other nastiness, but as soon as they saw them trying to straigthen up and abide by some of the tenets of Islam, they started slandering and trying to "legislate" away this "undesired tendency" to practice their "backward religion".
There are other cultural and historical variables that affect the complex relations between Islam and the french "Culture", but none should excuse, this outrageous trampling of a very basic human right. The right of a woman to wear what she deems fit, and freedom to practice one's religion.
These laws, and pathetic excuses of "dialogue" (they never really talk with the people concerned, they just argue between themselves), are nothing more than another assault on basic human rights for "muslims" for whatever local excuse they may use.
Here it happens to be about the "little scarf" that bothered them too much.
It is nothing more than "state racism" trying to be sugar coated into "fighting for women's right". May Allah open the eyes of the sincere people.
I am sure there are many decent people (muslim and non-muslim) who are appalled by this behaviour, but we should always be careful not to "throw the baby with the bath water" when examining these situations. I am sure increased hostility and false arguments will spread to other countries, in attempt to drive wedges between people, where none existed before.
One has to keep using one's brain, critical judgment, and common sense to face this and future challenges, so that at least the truth is not veiled to those who seek it.
I am sorry I went on for so long, please forgive me if I was not helpful or mistaken.
Salam (Peace)
Traveller
Subject: Re: the 40\\
The excuse for banning hijab is to "protect" those girls who are forced by their families to wear it.I don't buy that excuse. In any society, parents make certain decisions for minor children, including how they should be clothed. In many cases this will be determined by the parents' values, religious or otherwise, and will be against the will of the child. The only basis to interfere in parental decision-making in this area is if the child or others are being harmed. Therefore, the French law is tantamount to saying that wearing hijab is harmful to a child, which I think is indefensible in light of the variety of religious principles by which parents of all religions might choose their children's clothing.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
I agree with you totally Jonathan, but the French see it very differently. The culture here is very unique in that it is so aggressive regarding body exposure and also in the way that you are pressured to keep up with the latest fashions and trends. If you don't do as everyone else does, you are really regarded as "on the fringe" and everyone mistrusts you as being antisocial, sad, deranged. It's hard to get this across to people who haven't lived here, it's really in the atmosphere.Plus we can't forget that the law is for public schools only. Of course as I said, this is where it starts, it's the breeding ground for future hatemongers and intolerants...but by attacking the schools with it, they can restrict the debate to that and not address problems with intolerance outside of school (which there are many, I can attest to it). They can pretend to concern themselves for minors who they say otherwise wouldn't have the "protection" the government so "benevolently" wishes to offer.
There is a long tradition here of exploitation of renegade Muslim women who come and cry that they've been abused in the name of Islam, and in return they get all kinds of sympathy and publicity...and what a coincidence, they get French passports and social funding too! This is just an extension of that kind of "cultural colonisation" that the government wishes to perpetuate since they lost the legal colonisation of Algeria.
To my knowledge, cases of forcing hijab *do* exist, but they are few. Of course they don't nail the fabric down on the girls' heads, but they do make life miserable for them when they don't wear it. HOWEVER, there are FAR more cases of parents forbidding, punishing, even beating their children for *wanting* to wear hijab.
And then of course there are hordes and hordes of people that simply don't care, but when you grant funds to some girl with an Arab name to write a book on how happy she is that she's free of those terrible Islamists, and then put her on TV to toss her silky hair and flash her fiery eyes and denounce the veil, this country just goes ga-ga over stories like that, and they eat it up. (This is a true story, want a copy of the book?) And when they pit this "nana" (chick) against the head of the Muslim womens' advocate group on TV, the nana wins every time, because she's so vibrantly convincing and heart-wrenching, and and the people are brainwashed not to even wish to explore Islam to see what it really *says* about modesty.
It all boils down to two things: the human body as public property in this culture (sans exaggeration), and the false propaganda against Islam as being so "barbaric" that no one should bother verifying what Islam really says about anything. Once you pick up that Quran to investigate, you are branded as a defector to the terrorists, so they've pretty much guaranteed that no one will dare do so even out of the mildest curiosity.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\
To my knowledge, cases of forcing hijab *do* exist, but they are few. Of course they don't nail the fabric down on the girls' heads, but they do make life miserable for them when they don't wear it.Then the people who do this should be punished, but banning hijab outright is far too sweeping a remedy because it makes no distinction between women who are forced to wear hijab and those who do so as a personal expression of faith. "Zero tolerance" approaches such as the hijab ban tend to treat the symptoms rather than the disease. If schoolgirls' peers are abusing them for not veiling, then the problem is with them and not with the girls, and the remedy should focus on punishing them and/or changing their attitude rather than removing the girls' freedom of choice.
Another problem with laws like this is that they leave no middle ground between total assimilation and religious fanaticism. The community to which I belong - the American Jewich community - includes a subset called the "modern Orthodox" who abide by Jewish law and maintain outward signs of practice (such as modest clothing) while participating in the larger society. Measures like banning hijab in public institutions will foreclose this option for French Muslims; if this atmosphere becomes pervasive enough, they will have to choose one or the other. I can't see the profit in this.
I guess it's hard for me to understand the French concept of laicité, given that I come from a country where the constitutional system values free exercise of religion as much as it does separation of church and state.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I posted a response to this comment but it's gotten lost in cyberspace, I'll try to sum up what I said.1) Here is laïcité in a nutshell: The creation of a "perfectly neutral" public space in which no reference, visual, verbal or otherwise, is manifested at anytime. Naïvely, they believe that if you hear, see and speak no religion, no one will ever have conflicts about it and everyone will live in peace, love and harmony.
What is the real result? Creating bigots and hypocrites, who are unable to conduct peaceable inter-group relations, practise tolerance and understanding, or demonstrate basic communication skills with someone who is different in any way, shape or form. No one can think differently, believe differently, or look different. They are seeking to create the Borg. (Or should we write that "Borgue"?)
2) The suggestion has been made that if we Muslims don't like the heat, we should build our own schools and fend for ourselves. Look carefully at the catch-22 of that...a huge disenfranchised underclass is expected to raise money they don't have, obtain building and zoning licenses that no municipal leadership wants to give them, and somehow manage to get state certification for teachers. But oops...the majority of these teachers are not permitted state licensing because they want to wear hijab in their training and that is forbidden of course! And if we hire only male teachers, they have gone through secular training, and additionally we will be penalized for "discrimination" against females! So build our own schools, how exactly?
There is no profit in this whole situation for society. It's deliberate provocation in an attempt to "radicalise" us once and for all so they'll have an excuse to really eliminate Muslim influence in all aspects of community. They'd rather bend over backwards to do that, then spend a little effort to understand and involve Muslims in a sincere dialogue.
Subject: Re: the 40\
"It must not become a place where people are not free to practice their religion"France's laws are not up for grabs for people to modify because they feel it discrimates against their desire to show their penchant towards a specific religion.
Most French citizens perceive of the veiled woman as an aggressive statement, a negation of the human appearance of a woman. No one in France would force a woman to "reveal" the more feminine parts of her body - turtlenecks exsit, lots of us wear ankle length skirts, etc. There has never been a law, code or custom in France to dictate how to dress. We do have that freedom, that is why you do see women entirely covered and veiled on the streets today. .
Fine, no problem, for women out in the public. But, the young girls in school? First of all, it's hard to believe that they have not been brainwashed, or coerced or worse - threatened -into wearing the veil. At a time when a child is discovering who she is, to have her appearance so severely "veiled" - ears covered =lessened hearing, hair covered =denied femininity, reduced periphereal vision...the French people believe that this is not good.
This is their right, to control what is the acceptable norm in THEIR public schools.
This is not about choice, this is about obeying France's laws. Up for grabs, the law? No.
Up for a public debate? Yes, and that is what happens in a democratic country. The laws will be changed if the elected officials, reflecting the ideas of their counsituents, put forth their convictions to get rid of the law in France stating that it is illegal to wear prominent religious signs or symbols.
But you won't find this at present because the majority of the French do not want this, especially and rightfully those defending the rights of a woman.
A veiled woman is a negated woman, perceived by macho men to be a potential sexual temptation to them. Let the Muslim men learn to control themselves! Let the muslim woman learn to be modest without becoming an enrobed statue.
Thank goodness and people's gradual awakening awareness of the threat of this veiled movement and provocation in France!
France will not become a Muslim country where women are back in the 7th century, relegated to serving men and their desires and rules, killed when they so call, "dishonor," a family, seen as a threat to weak men.
Vive la France, la république française et sa liberté de résister à la CETTE pensée musulmane !!!
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Your attitude is both astonishing and saddening to me. I wonder if you really want Muslims in France at all. If not, do you wish that they would be removed? There is a name for countries that want to exclude people because of the religion that they practice and "democracy" isn't it.Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
You see what I have to deal with? Total ignorance, no desire to learn what Islam actually says and doesn't say about veiling. No willingness to hear out the point of view of Muslims who choose to veil. Just condemnation and bigotry. If the République were so "laïque" (secular) then why does the whole country close down for six religious holidays...And regarding the schools, that's where it starts. Get a young girl to despise (and remain ignorant of) her religion, then she'll graduate rejecting it, pursue her career rejecting it, walk, talk and breathe rejecting it. She'll be the human resources director who refuses to hire veiled women because of her ignorance and encourage others to refuse them too. She'll be the teacher rejecting hijab in universities...and then condeming veiled women for being "ignorant". She'll be the passer-by who verbally attacks veiled women. She'll be the doctor that treats a veiled patient coldly so she'll go find another doctor and get out of her office. She'll be the shopper that cuts in line in front of a veiled woman, considering her nothing. She'll be the clothes retailer only picking out the tightest, most inappropriate styles to sell so women can't be as modest as they'd like (and it's not just Muslims complaining about the micro-style cut of the clothes here).
Oh, and by the way, her marriage will never succeed because she and her husband will BOTH cheat on each other...everyone does in this country, you can't deny it. It's Peyton Place here, or worse.
In short, you get them young, and raise them with your own sad mentality, and they carry out all the verbal and psychological abuse, and oppression, that the society wants them to. Who's the one subject to others' desires?
A lousy turtleneck ain't gonna solve the problem, p'chere. Social justice, tolerance, and a mature attitude will.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\
Bravo, sister Zafira!! You tell 'er.Alice, I'm Muslim and veiled and proud of both. And there isn't a thing you can do about that. If that's a problem for you, tough luck. You can make all the justifications you want, but when you go around insulting complete strangers, telling them you hate their religion and asserting that you want to put restrictions on them because of something that somebody else did, that's bigotry. You are a bigot. And Zafira and I have better things to do than listen to you further.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
France will not become a Muslim country...Ah yes, the old trope of the "Muslim hordes" taking over poor little Europe. The sheer amount of ignorance in that post -- if I were not so cynical already, it would be astonishing.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Exactlly...now imagine facing that attitude on a daily, constant basis, everywhere you turn, in public, on TV, the newspapers...it's so draining, it's incredibly demoralising. It's so anger-provoking that you can start to understand why there are extremist elements among the ummah that allow themselves to overreact. When you're bombarded with hate, how much energy have you got to fight to keep the hatred out of your *own* heart?May Allah Ta'aala protect us and grant us His nasr.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
From my own feelings when facing harassment and prejudice I can only agree with you sis.When will people learn that injustice will always breed resistance? They themselves are causing the radicalization of Muslims that they so fear, on a scale that would never have existed without their own actions.
Subject: Re: the 40\\
I have been reading with horror some of the remarks. Then I came to yours. At last some common sense and real knowledge of the problem. France is a lay country and this is included in the constitution. All public servants have an obligation to abstain from revealing their political, philosophical and religious beliefs to users.The rules are clear, they were there from the start (the nineteenth century). The current debate has come about because some (not all) islamic groups want to force the French republic to conform to their ideas. The French President set up an independent commission to study the problem and they recommend that the law be firmly and clearly re-stated since some people (a minority)
do not understand it. The evidence heard by the commission has revealed some appalling practices : veiled women whose HUSBANDS refuse that they be examined by male doctors in hospitals (even if the woman is pregnant and needs emergency treatment); some female students demand to have a female examiner when they have to sit a viva.
A new law is necessary in France to ensure complete neutrality where it existed (and where religions coexisted peacefully) until a minority of a minority began to try to change the laws of the country to suit their own agenda. The law on neutrality in public places in no way affects a person's right to believe whatever they want in their private life.
And as for Zafirah, I have never read so much hate. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Beth.
PS I enjoy your blog which is usually informed and intelligent.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
Dear Beth - In America we are accustomed to the rule that we are free to exercise our religion as long as it causes no harm to others. The rule in France seems to be that you can only exercise your religion where no one can see it. It's amazing that you don't see this as at all oppressive. Really amazing. A country that forces people who don't agree with the ruling ideology (in this case, secularism) to hide their differences is not very free by American standards. Your closed-mindedness is very sad.Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
Well Beth, I appreciate your remarks, I'm sure you've given the readers of this thread (if there still are any) much food for thought.I appreciate the opportunity to receive correction, we all make mistakes, so please accept my apologies for what might have offended you. Perhaps one day if you are ever discriminated against because of your religion on a consistent and regular basis, you just might be able to understand how this "hate" as you put it (I call it anger, many would say justifiable) could be provoked in a person.
I can assure you of two things: The justifications the French have for the secular system are completely unintelligible for people outside of France. I'm glad you summed them up here so that people can see for themselves the mentality that is causing so much "hate". But as I said...I think readership of this thread is down to nil, sorry.
Second: Punishing an entire population of 5 million people with an insulting and discriminating piece of legislature, because of a few cases of abuse which are cases of *domestic violence and NOT Islamically justified*, is flat out wrong and the world knows it.
Thanks again for your comments and do stop back again, we have much to learn from your telling commentary.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\
It's unsurprising that France is going to take steps to ban the hijab.Lacisme is much more harsh on public displays of religion, than say American secularism (which is essentially a form of 'controlled secularism' to use the words of Martin Marty), or even English secularism which, generally, shows an indifference.
European, and in particular French, secularism is anti-religion. It is this form of secularism which has a rooted in the Muslim world, especially the Maghreb. It is essentially anti-clericalism. Perhaps it has something to do with their experience with the Church?
The interesting thing, of course, is that wild claims of "oppression" against Muslim women who wear the hijab; when, in most instances, Muslim women are donning the cloth to re-assert their own identities. We saw this in Egypt. And among UK Muslim women too, especially from Pakistani cultures. In other parts of the Muslim world, the opposite seems true.
The main point, especially for Muslim men, is to remember that modesty or sincerity comes from devotion to God; it cannot be imposed by the forearm of the state, which, in any case, is counter-productive to inducing such a state. The legal system of a country often reflects the moral-ethical outlook of the society.
Salaam
Subject: Re: the 40\
Possibly of interest: the Chief Rabbi of France has publicly opposed the hijab ban. This is the sort of coalition of religious minorities that European Jews and Muslims should have, but all too rarely do.Subject: Re: the 40\\
The main Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, French church leaders oppose this ridiculous law as wellsee:
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-12/09/article05.shtml
Muslims are just "normal" people, with as many varied views as any other human grouping.
Unfortunatly, all the positive statments and actions are rarely reported or worse twisted and too often spun out of context, in the mass media.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
It's comforting the leaders have spoken out, but what are they recommending to their people? The important thing is seeing this kind of tolerance in the society at large, and it seems to be going the other way.I'm also concerned that these leaders are speaking out, especially the Chief Rabbi, so that Tariq Ramadan will look that much more anti-semitic and intolerant. Then they can say "Look how we support the Muslim women while Ramadan tries to cut our people down."
Ramadan made no such "anti-semitic" statements as such...he was merely pointing out that Muslims such as himself aren't the ONLY ones who speak out in interest of their communities. This, because he himself is accused of it, and that's a bad thing, a serious accusation in a society that doesn't want to allow Muslims to *have* interests or people defending them. But again, if you're not here listening to the French and catching the nuances of the conversations, the context, and knowing how the media operates here, that's not going to come across in translation when you read it on Islam Online.
I sure do wish that there was a good interreligious coalition but it seems a long way off.
I'm sorry, I know I ramble on full of angst, but honestly this issue is the real bain of my existence, I'm so keyed up about it and I've had it up to *here*.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\
I'm also concerned that these leaders are speaking out, especially the Chief Rabbi, so that Tariq Ramadan will look that much more anti-semitic and intolerant. Then they can say "Look how we support the Muslim women while Ramadan tries to cut our people down."Maybe some people will use it that way, but I doubt that's what the Chief Rabbi had in mind; he wasn't one of the intellectuals that Ramadan mentioned and his concerns aren't really with the secular intellectual sphere. If I had to guess at his motivation, he's probably more worried that Orthodox Jewish women who wear head coverings might be harassed.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
This is where that European Jewish-Muslim coalition would be benefical, we can only wish.I am confused about the effect of this legislation on the Jewish community. It would supposedly bar the wearing of the kippah for men, and headcovering for women. However, I don't have the impression that the kippah is obligatory at all times in public as hijab is for Muslim women. I also notice that "less ostentatious" forms of headcovering are fine. The Jewish women I have seen here wear wigs or hats and they seem fine with that, I don't know what the obligation on them actually is.
It's been suggested that Muslim girls, for school purposes, wear bandanas on their heads. This is rejected, along with the wig or hat idea, because it does not meet the requirements of our covering. But if we could legally secure our covering, certainly it would seem to make Jewish womens' covering easier as well.
It's another instance where Muslims seem directly targeted, because our version of covering, being the most obvious, is the one labelled as being "ostentatious" whereas I don't hear of the Jewish types of covering included in this description.
On the other hand, hats are forbidden in public schools, so I don't know what Jewish students do instead. Enough of them seem satisfied to leave off their covering. I would like to see both Muslims and Jews wear their covering in the form that is enjoined on them by their religions. I also wish I could talk with people from the Jewish community about this, or anything else for that matter...as I mentioned before people separate themselves out of fear and mutual suspicion, and that is what lets the government get away with such discrimination, divide-and-conquer style.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\
Here's a report on intolerance against Islam in France to help put the hijab ban in context (source)"Intolerance towards Islam" under Scrutiny by France's CNCDH
Le Monde, November 24, 2003.
In a recent study, France's Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme (CNCDH --National Consultative Commission on Human Rights) acknowledges the existence of anti-Muslim discrimination in the country, and provides some details of its signs.
By Sylvia Zappi
One ought to speak of phenomena typical of "intolerance towards Islam", instead of Islamophobia. But the string of violent events, such as hostile reactions to the debate on Islam's place in French society, is very real indeed. Such are the conclusions of a study drawn by the Commission national consultative des droits de l'homme (CNCDH), which should be published in its March 2004 Annual Report. Le Monde has acquired a copy of the report.
According to France's CNCDH, for several months now acts of violence have been aimed at Muslim religious symbols, while "hate books" and certain mass media have targeted Islam. The CNCDH, an organization providing policy analysis to the Prime Minister, is made up of representatives from public administration and different associations [French NGOs according to the 1901 law]. Faced with recent racist acts, it has sought to determine whether a specific type of discrimination is now affecting Muslims in France.
The study was drafted by Sarah Benichou, former vice-president of SOS-Racisme [an anti-racist association founded in 1984]. Its results were harshly debated during a CNCDH assembly on Friday, November 21. Some associations, like the Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitie entre les peuples (MRAP-- Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples), or the Ligue des droits de l'homme (Human Rights League) were critical of the first version. In their view, it tended to deny the phenomenon of "Islamophobia" and explained it through the international context that blames Islam itself for this stigmatization. Strongly amended but eventually validated, the study's final version recommends using the term "Islamophobia" with "utmost precaution". Among the other reasons evoked, there is an insistence on preventing any amalgam between the terms "Arab" and "Muslim" when the current expression of intolerance in France is most often confused with an anti-Maghrebin racism.
For the first time, the CNCDH has nonetheless highlighted the specifics of anti-Muslim racial discrimination. The authors have sought to define this emerging phenomenon. What the latter points to is "unreasoned fear and total rejection of Islam as a religion, way of life, community project as well as culture." This hostility, fed by international events like the Algerian civil war, the GIA (Groupe Islamiste Armé) terrorist actions in France in 1995, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and 9/11, has been "reinforced with the mixed-up use of terms such as Muslim, Islamic, fundamentalist, Islamist and terrorist," the study asserts. These amalgams wield disgrace on anyone who is a rigorist practitioner of Islam by suspecting them of practicing political Islamism.
"GOING INTO ACTION"
The report goes on to portray the acts of violence that have been committed against Islam. According to the authors, they are hard to number since the Ministry of the Interior has never made such discrimination a specific category. Nor are the facts related to discrimination listed by any community organizations, as is done regularly with anti-Semitic acts. However, the study does cite certain "actions", such as anti-Muslim tracts distributed by the far-right, attempted torching of places of worship, verbal or physical violence aimed at public figures linked to Islam, anti-Muslim graffiti and, last but not least, statements made by some celebrities in public.
While awaiting the 2003 statistics, the study lists several examples of serious violence committed in 2002: Molotov cocktails thrown at the mosques of Mericourt (in the Pas-de-Calais region) and Chalons (in the Marne region), on April 25 and 27, and on March 24 against the Ecaudin mosque (in the Rhone region) ; a letter bomb was sent to an association seated at the Perpignan mosque (in the Pyrenees-Orientales), on April 9; an Islamic religious sculpture was profaned in Lyon, on April 24; attempted torching of a place of worship in Rillieux-la-Pape (Rhone), on December 27; anonymous tracts distributed during the presidential campaign [held in April 2002 which had set far-right racist candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen against incumbent president Chirac]. As for 2003, three facts can be pointed to: profaned tombs in the Haut-Rhin region in July, torching of a place of worship at Nancy, and profanation of an Islamic square in the Meuse region in March. These are only examples that, in the CNCDH's view, "fall well under the real number [of racist acts committed against Islam]", especially as far as verbal insults and lighter forms of violence is concerned.
The report brings attention to how certain French Internet sites broadcast explicitly racist propaganda toward Islam. It also highlights speeches made by elected officials, foremost of which is the mayor of Nice, Jacques Peyrat, for whom "mosques cannot be conceived of as existing within a secular Republic", and notes the publicly manifested reticence every time a mosque is built in France. The CNCDH has denounced the "media-inspired amalgams" that explain Islamist terrorism by "singling out Islam as its sole ideological cause". Sensationalist images, headlines and commentary, "demagogic and paranoiac in tone", feed "conspiracy fantasies" and have multiplied over the last few months in the media. The study makes special mention of statements made by Claude Imbert, a columnist from the weekly Le Point, who recently declared himself an "Islamophobe" (see Le Monde, November 5).
Ultimately, the CNCDH considers such hostility toward Islam as "little acknowledged and feebly fought against". It recommends up-grading the course content taught in religion classes at both elementary and high schools, and "is favorable to having places of worship be made more visible". Most of all, the CNCDH stresses the importance of "waging a strong public policy battle against all types of racial discrimination."
Article by Sylvia Zappi, Le Monde, November 25, 2003
Translated for CounterPunch by Norman Madarasz
Subject: Re: the 40\\
They fail to mention acts against individuals...I'm thinking that those are rarely, if ever, recorded.Case in point: my friend who wears niqab...she lived in an apartment building whose other tenants were all non-Muslim. Three days after she brought her new baby home, someone set fire to the door of their apartment. Alhamdulillah they were not harmed in the end, but they were frightened out of their minds and the whole entranceway of the apartment was destroyed.
She and her family are living with in-laws, still unable to find a new apartment (the incident happened about 2 years ago).
Funny how on that particular evening, the three or four dogs normally living in that building didn't seem to be present to smell the smoke and bark.
The police did not pursue investigation of this crime beyond the routine minimum.
By the way, the representative of SOS Racisme (a young man) is often put on TV next to the beautiful anti-hijabi book author...they get along famously and he's lavished her with praise for her progress in women's and Arab rights. Do you feel as nauseous as I do yet? I had to laugh when I saw SOS Racisme cited for their report on Islamophobia, that's the fox guarding the chicken coop for ya. CNCDH did right to point out the faults in that study, but again...what will this do for us people on the street?
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\
Pour les musulmans «libéraux», le port du voile n’est qu’une recommandation, qui doit s’adapter à la société dans laquelle les musulmans évoluent. «Si le voile empêche les femmes d’étudier et de travailler, qu’elles l’ôtent et qu’elles restent pudiques. L’islam n’est pas là pour pousser nos filles à l’ignorance ou au chômage», dit Soheib Bencheikh, grand mufti de Marseille.
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Firstly, this is an English-speaking blog. I am not offering my translation services here. It's not my blog. If you want to go somewhere where I translate, try Yahoo's "muslimah sewing" group...but you'll have to stick to uncontroversial topics such as how to stitch the gussets of your jilbab nice and neat.Secondly, I did not have any say in choosing who this "Grand Mufti of Marseille" would be, no one knows who the heck he is, and I don't think that sticking Western political labels on Muslims such as "liberal" or "radical" furthers peoples' understanding of Islam. If he were qualified as a "Mufti" he'd know that.
It's not Islam that's turning women away from employment and schools, it's the French society's medieval attitude. Islam doesn't change for social trends or political gain. If you don't want to veil, and you want to work, more power to you...it's your FREEDOM to CHOOSE, just as I'm seeking mine.
Now go back to Oummah.com where you belong, dear.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
Well done to the young lady qo referred to Soheib Bencheikh. For Zafirah's information, Soheib B. is regularly insulted on oumma.com.Check your facts before insulting people.
Beth
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\
Beth, how nice to see you do your research, you've definitely put me in my place there concerning Ummah.com. I was hoping that our commentor Fatima would have caught me on it though, really.I must add that if you knew anything about the "Mufti of Marseille", as my husband and every other honest Muslim here know, you'd rather be praise or defend anyone who accepts his totally unqualified fatawa.
I'd rather be wrong about a website than have an inhumane, totally oppressive attitude towards an entire race and creed of people that you share this earth with. But the choice is yours, and I thank you again for your corrections and your input and look forward to you further enlightening us.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Ok my comments are not appearing correctly...what I was saying about the "Mufti of Marseille" was that, basically, if you knew what needed to be known about him, you would absolutely not be defending him or anyone that cites him, ever, anywhere. My comment may have sounded "hateful" to you, but I said it with knowledge, there's no lack of proof for his incompetencies.Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Salam Sis Zafira,Please do not despair of the eerie silence in here, it is out of utter shock and dismay at what passes for "democracy" and "freedom" for Muslims in France.
My understanding, is that the French Government started by "requiring" the various Muslim groups and various charities in France to form a "State sponsored" head organization. Then the French government "imposed" on this new structure a few personalities that they wanted (state appointed imams) as "leaders", and denied the Muslims a truly representative leadership.
Finally bringing these "state appointed" figureheads to the forefront, and trying to ram it down the throat of Muslims and non-Muslims, as the representatives of Islam in France.
Call them Grand Muftis, Grand Vizir, Caliphate or the Pope, doesn't change much to what they are in the eyes of the Muslims on the streets.
Nothing new here, really, than a logical extension of the "Cultural Imperialism" to creating a French Islamic "Church" that they can control and is happy with any scraps it is given, rather than dealing with the realities on the ground.
Ultimately, these clumsy and vain attempts at "muzzling" the Muslims in France will only back fire. The Muslim are well aware, they are being denied the most basic rights of "democracy" and "freedom" the state alleges is defending.
This “veiled” law is not only about hijab in school but more insidiously they intend to ban any veiled Muslim women in the Civil Service (The biggest employer in France!). That means no doctors, no dentists, no lawyers, no policemen, no teachers, no social workers ....etc jobs, for all those "adult" women who wear it out of religious convictions.
(The health service is, in the majority, state owned in France)
Ahh the sweet taste of true freedom...I can not imagine an international "Human Rights" court honestly upholding this discrimination, but then when it comes to Islam, common sense flies out of the window rather quickly...
Islam is such a popular scapegoat these days that you could probably assign to it whatever ludicrous insanity and enough people will end up believing it...The real veil is on their heart.
Since the right wing government in France is trying to compete with the extreme right wing parties (openly racist), they are all ganging up on the "usual suspects".
Democracy without "real knowledge" is nothing more than blind oppression.
Those who seek, have a chance of seeing through the fog (of war?), but the vast majority of the population are at the mercy of the pre-digested “prêt-a-penser” mass media circus, that passes for “news”.
You can only talk to those who genuinely want to listen. If they have “veiled” their hearts, you can’t really help them, and you shouldn’t waste your time or health with them.
May Allah help you, lighten your load, and make it easy for you Sis Zafira.
Subject: Re: the 40\
For al-Muhajabah, Zafira and Traveller : Let's get a few facts straight. Nobody in France is against Muslims living their faith openly. Muslims are more later arrivals in France than Jews or Christians and therefore had fewer mosques whereas the christiancommunity and the Jewish community had churches and synagogues going back centuries. Under the law that separated church and state (1905), buildins for religious purposes were no longer to be funded by the state. The first Muslims to sette in France were poor immigrants who could not afford to finance their own mosques. Many city councils in France have found ways and means to get around this law and are contributing to the refurbishment of existing buildings or to the construction of new buildings so that the Muslims can have their places of worship.No one has anything against women wearing a headscarf, but once again it is against the law to wear it in schools and if you are a public servant. These laws on strict religious, philosophical and political neutrality are known to one and all. You can wear it (the headscarf - some women even wear burkhas) anywhere else : in the street, in a restaurant, café, wherever. Schoolchildren who are Muslims or Jews are allowed to be absent from school for main religious holidays (Eïd el Fitr,Eïd el Kebir, Mouloud, Yom Kippour). The holy month of Ramadan is always celebrated on French radio and televsion. The French authorities have taken steps to ensure that the ritual sacrifice of sheep for Eïd el Kebir takes place in the best possible conditions. Canteens provide an alternative when pork is on the menu and have done for years. All this goodwill and adjustment to the Muslim presence has been sapped by the behaviour of those who refuse to accept the laws of the country. They have made life difficult for the vast majority of Muslims who wish to live their professional, private and religious lives in peace.
As for the French government "ramming a Muslim council down the throats of the Muslim community in order to muzzle them", the Muslim community was left to draw up its own lists and elections were held in the mosques. A majority of members emerged who are close to the Muslim Brotherhood and who are partly to blame for this hysteria over the headscarf. The French state did not get a forelock-tugging, subservient Muslim council.
Soheib Bencheikh is one of the finest theologians around, but he
pulls little weight because he is open-minded, tolerant and aware that for the first time in its long history Islam is having to come to terms with being a minority religion and that it also has to come to terms with the wider world. Tarik Ramadan still has a long way way to go and remains very ambiguous. I would rather have Soheib Bencheikh any day.
And finally Zafira, your remarks about the Maghrebans shocked me. And as for suffering from discrimination, yes, a lot of people do, but the Muslims are not the only ones. Indeed, a lot of Muslims have seized the opportunities offered by France and have succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of their parents. Best wishes and hope you get off the Prozac soon!
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Beth, I encourage you to learn more about America. Perhaps you don't realize how alien the French way is to Americans. In America, it's the opposite of in France. We don't have government-approved clerics and the like (no establishment of religion) but we do permit people to practice their religion freely as long as they aren't harming anyone (free exercise of religion). To an American who is accustomed to these rules, the French way is, as I said, alien. And for those of us whose religious practice involves dressing in a manner that is distinctive in today's society, the French rules are not acceptable. If I were to go to France, I would be locked out of certain basic parts of citizenship (today public education, tomorrow who knows what) because I happen to believe that my hair should be covered in public. I wish you could understand how it feels to be excluded because of something that you believe when that belief is not harming anyone.Subject: Re: the 40\\
>>The first Muslims to sette in France were poor immigrants who >>could not afford to finance their own mosques. Many city >>councils in France have found ways and means to get around >>this law and are contributing to the refurbishment of existing >>buildings or to the construction of new buildings so that the >>Muslims can have their places of worship.My husband is an architect and a witness to case after case of legal troubles with mosques. It's not as simple and friendly as you make it sound.
>>No one has anything against women wearing a headscarf, but >>once again it is against the law to wear it in schools and if you >>are a public servant. These laws on strict religious, >>philosophical and political neutrality are known to one and all. >>You can wear it (the headscarf - some women even wear >>burkhas) anywhere else : in the street, in a restaurant, café, >>wherever.
These laws are essentially unfair. It's easy for Americans, British and other citizens who enjoy true freedom and pluralism to see this, but the French just won't open their minds. Religious dress does not interrupt this neutrality. No one is donning scarves to get "in your face" and provoke arguments, or proselytise. We veil so that parts of our body are not seen and we can go about our business, period. Personally I don't feel I'm in a "neutral" environment when someone's midriff and pubic bones are exposed by the low-cut jeans that are in fashion either.
You may get legal acceptance of someone going around with veils and burkahs (I hope you don't mean the afghani kind, no one dares wear them here), but you invite harrassment, society is very unaccepting and does it's maximum to make you feel unwelcome. Why does this happen...because they are very poorly equipped for pluralism, since they are not exposed to it all their formative years, because of this insistence on "neutrality". This "neutral" atmosphere literally breeds ignorant, intolerant people.
>Schoolchildren who are Muslims or Jews are allowed to be >absent from school for main religious holidays (Eïd el Fitr,Eïd el >Kebir, Mouloud, Yom Kippour). The holy month of Ramadan is >always celebrated on French radio and televsion.
This is simply untrue, the "celebrations" on radio and television. And I'd prefer to have my basic rights (including hijab) granted, and accepted as normal in society, rather than having some kind of consolation prize of faint acknowledgement in the media (far from a celebration). The fact that we get vacation for our celebrations is great, but not sufficient to constitute the fulfillment of our rights and our place in society in the spirit of true tolerance.
>>The French >authorities have taken steps to ensure that the >>ritual sacrifice of sheep for Eïd el Kebir takes place in the best >>possible conditions.
They nearly cancelled it a while back, until the Muslim community had to go so far as to threaten to do it in the streets without permission, having no other recourse. Again, I don't see the cooperative spirit you are trying to portray. The facts you state have these holes in them. I'm here, living and seeing these things, if I thought they were sufficient I wouldn't have any reason to disagree with you, why tire myself out like this?
>>Canteens provide an alternative when pork is on the menu and >>have done for years.
They do not meet halal standards, period.
>>All this goodwill and adjustment to the Muslim presence has >>been sapped by the behaviour of those who refuse to accept the >>laws of the country. They have made life difficult for the vast >>majority of Muslims who wish to live their professional, private >>and religious lives in peace.
My life isn't made difficult by those wishing to practise Islam in an authentic manner. If the "vast majority" want to lay aside their authentic practises of Islam, that is their freedom to do so, but we are talking about the rights of people to openly practise their religion to the extent they see is right. The "vast majority" doesn't define limits for me or anyone else.
>>The French state did not get a forelock-tugging, subservient >>Muslim council.
There are many, many Muslims who would strongly disagree.
>>Soheib Bencheikh is one of the finest theologians around, but he
>>pulls little weight because he is open-minded, tolerant and >>aware that for the first time in its long history Islam is having to >>come to terms with being a minority religion and that it also has >>o come to terms with the wider world.
Again, many would strongly disagree. It's not up to him to make Islam convenient to practise in this society because the society doesn't approve of the Islam that some wish to practise. This is all subjective, again, and not reperesentative of people who think differently from him. "Majority rules" isn't the issue. Minorities have rights, rights that harm no one in their exercise, and they will be upheld despite what the "vast majority" wish to make compromises on.
>>Tarik Ramadan still has a long way way to go and remains very >>ambiguous. I would rather have Soheib Bencheikh any day.
You are free to your choice, as I should be to mine.
>>And finally Zafira, your remarks about the Maghrebans shocked >>me.
My apologies...your remarks shocked me as well. Try to understand, you get immigrants coming in, tired of making sacrifices to uphold their practise of Islam because of all the harrassment they get and difficulties they face...and they they are upheld as the "model" that should be forced on others who see differently. You must not know Marseille very well if you are shocked by me describing the ghetto conditions they live in. Would you understand better if I told you that I get harrassed by these people of my hijab, my embrace of Islam (I am not Arab), my practise of Islam that is correct as I understand it? Their willingness to "assimilate" to French society is what makes the French so repulsed by Muslims who see Islam differently. Then I'm seen as extreme and pigeonholed as a "radical" when all I am trying to do is live my life as a Muslim in peace. So of course I'm going to be offended when the French society and government sees them as the norm and me as the exception. It is not an excuse to take away my religious rights.
>> And as for suffering from discrimination, yes, a lot of people do, >>but the Muslims are not the only ones. Indeed, a lot of Muslims >>have seized the opportunities offered by France and have >>succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of their parents.
These are the ones who were willing to "assimilate" into society and lay aside certain religious practises. That is their right. Now, let's open up the realisation of Muslims' dreams for those Muslims who wish to keep these practises. Let's not define "assimilation" to exclude those who happen to wear visible signs of their religion (while otherwise not harming anyone or interfering with anyone's business). That is what this discussion is about, in essence. That is what religious freedom really is.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\
And as for Zafirah, I have never read so much hate. You should be ashamed of yourself.Err...it's called "the hate that hate created." It's quite simple, really.
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Your point is very well taken Laura, but I still take exception to what I said being labelled as "hate". I may be empassioned, and have a bit of a sharp tongue, but I'm no hater.I pointed out things, in no uncertain terms, that are less than pleasant to have to listen to. If you were to visit me and take a tour of the places I was talking about, you'd completely understand where I was coming from. It's "culture shock"....or more accurately stated, "post-colonial shock". And "shock" isn't a strong enough word for what you experience when you observe the state in which this so-called democracy is keeping its Muslim constituency. Think "third-world conditions".
But as I alluded to somewhere in this thread, the Muslim community has to help itself instead of expecting red carpets to be rolled out for them. This allusion was taken by our friend Beth and twisted to suit her desire to accuse me of racism. (By the way, I'm happily married to an Algerian, and I have a beautiful daughter by him, Beth, so please don't talk to me about anti-Arab or Maghreban racism.)
But what you said is right on the money Laura...hate causes hate, and it's the initial hater that is responsible for the monster he creates.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\
I'm sorry that I was misunderstood, so here is the quote from one of Zafira's earlier posts which upset me :Look at the prison inmate lists...everyone's named Muhammad, Bilal, Huceine, Karim. Go to the sections of town where all the Arabs live and smell the stench of urine, wade through the garbage in the streets, observe the dilapidated buildings...but hang on to your handbag or portable phone, and don't dare park your car around there, because it'll be stolen in the blink of an eye by one of your brothers (sisters?) in "faith". All the gangs are Arab (with a smattering of Asian faces among them). Who are all those cuties wearing the barely-covering-the-pubic-region jeans and the babydoll tshirts trolling for gang members? They are named Fatima, Samira, Aicha...
I'm afraid I did not understand this too well and as she sent Fatima packing, I'm afraid the comments seemed ...... well, racist. However, Zafira has explained what she meant so that's cleared up,
and she also lives in Marseille, which is in a region of France where the extreme right has strong roots.
Secondly, I didn't think I had said anything disparaging about the United States, so I was a little surprised at being told that I should learn more about the US. It was because there were comments which showed that people did not understand the historical background to what is going on in France at the moment that I sought to try to explain some of it, to help people understand. However, judging from the thread Aaargh! my attempts haven't been successful.
I would just like to add that in the nineteenthirties, the Minister for Education reminded schools that the wearing of religious and political signs in schools was no acceptable. at that time the problem was with the extreme right and their rabid anti-semitism and extremist Catholic groups. So it's an ongoing problem and other religious groups can be concerned.
On the other hand, for how long is "colonialism" going to be an excuse ?
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Oh, Beth I understand where the French are coming from, I just don't agree with it or find it an acceptable state of affairs. I have been trying to explain why most Americans feel that way, and so have the others who have mentioned it. You see, you value secularism above religious freedom, and Americans value religious freedom above secularism. If you came here expecting that we would change our minds, you're going to be disappointed. I think that what is happening in France is not only wrong-headed (unlikely to have the desired effect) but also wrong (something that should not be done anyway) and I'm going to keep saying so.Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
"If you came here expecting that we would change our minds, you're going to be disappointed" - this is the heart of the matter. I wouldn't seek to change matters. The problem in France is that there is a minority of a minority which is seeking to change the French constitution and the French law.Secularism as you call it does not really translate the notion of laicité whose aim is to enable people of different faiths to live together and to practise their religion freely. The French, the Turks, the Tunisians and in Singapore they just go about it differently. Why is THIS different approach to the separation of church and state so difficult to accept? The Jewish community in France held a Sanhedrin in 1807 and decided to accept the law of the country that they were living in.
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\\\\\
I and others have explained repeatedly why we do not find it acceptable. Please read those comments again. Thank you.Subject: Re: the 40\\
On the other hand, for how long is "colonialism" going to be an excuse ?...that is just about the most amazingly ignorant and flippant comment I've ever heard.
Perhaps you are just unknowing of the capabilities of the people you're dealing with here. So let me inform you. My college major dealt heavily with colonialism and it's widespread effects still as equally relevent today as they were in the colonial heyday. An endless list of scholars, both oriental and occidental, all levels of academia and all points in history, can back this up with all the information you would want.
After you get over the shock of finding out I'm college educated (poor thing, it's not your fault...you've never seen a practising, college educated Muslim, I know you're dumbfounded)...try the following:
Ask a person of African origin when he plans to "get over that slavery issue, it's ancient history, and what's a little third-world debt between buddies?"
Then approach a Jewish person and say, "Hey, lighten up, the Holocaust is over and done with and we're all friends now, right? Besides, you can take your frustration out on the Palestinians now."
Hurry back with your results, I'll be glad to discuss with you further all there is to learn about the collective sociopolitical, economic and psychological effects of colonialism on past and subsequent generations of victims. Best wishes for successful sensitivity training.
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\\\\
Beth, let me quickly correct myself, that last paragraph should read:"I'll be glad to discuss with you further all there is to learn about the collective sociopolitical, economic and psychological effects of colonialism and other forms of mass persecution on past and subsequent generations of victims."
Because that is what colonialism involves, mass persecution, and the world is still in a major disequilibrium because of all three of these issues (colonialism, religious/racial bigotry, and slavery).
This is clearly illustrated by your apparent mentality, and that of French society, regarding people who don't comply to your standards of "normality".
Zafira
Subject: Re: the 40\
"After you get over the shock of finding out I'm college educated (poor thing, it's not your fault you've never seen a practising, college educated Muslim" - how do you know that?"I know you're dumbfounded)..." - and how do you know that?
"... your standards of normality" - and what are they?
Subject: Re: the 40\\
Beth: is that your best response?Al-Muhajabah: No further questions for this witness, Your Honour.