Chappachula, Please note that when I spoke of bigotry and Islamophobia, I was of course referring to the policies of the French Government and not to you. However, if the sight of a Muslim woman in a hijab fills you with fear, then all I can say is that you have some serious issues. Such a fear is indeed irrational, because you are suspiciously eyeing all Muslims as potential terrorists simply because they share the same faith as those that perpeprated the horror of 9/11. And if you can seriously sit there and compare the Muslims of today with Nazis, then I am truly astounded.
Decent Muslims everywhere have repeatedly denounced and repudiated the actions of the extremist few in their midst, yet you accuse them of silently accepting the terrorists, or even of tacitly supporting them. This accusation has been levelled at moderate Muslims everywhere, and no matter how loudly they denounce terror, people such as yourself never seem to hear them and say that they aren’t doing enough. So just what will it take to convince you?
And the hijab is not “a symbol of Islamic terror”, for God’s sake. Only someone with a truly hysterical fear of Islam and Muslims would see it as such. These girls just want to be allowed to do what they believe God has commanded them to do. How on earth does that threaten anyone? Please explain to me how that would disrupt a classroom, or offend anyone’s sensibilities or endanger anyone in any way. The fact is that this proposed law would directly prevent Muslim girls from freely and peacefully practicing their religion. If, as claireobscur said, freedom of religion is not protected under French law, then it damn well should be.
Plenty of real people (including…anecdotal evidences only…a significant part of the muslim population) are really offended by headscarves for various reasons.
What is it about these scarves that people find so offensive? Do you also share this view, or does is not really bother you? And what do you mean by “a significant part of the Muslim population”?
Freedom of religion is protected. What is not, roughly, is the practice of it outside the private sphere. If one can show some public interest in banning a practice (say, ring the bells on sunday is forbidden in some place because it’s a noisy disturbance), the fact that this ppractice is related to a religious activity is irrelevant.
I could say the Republic is supposed to be unconcerned with religions, to essentialy ignore their existence (though I could easily find counter-examples showing that in practice this isn’t really respected).
Also, the public authorities are supposed not to make any distinction on the basis of religion. For instance, IMVHO, alowing the sikh policemen to wear a different headgear, like in the UK, would be, IMVHO, unconstitutionnal, since it would mean that : 1) A citizen’s religion would have to be registered (definitely illegal, if not unconstitutionnal 2) A different regulation would apply to two citizens based on their respective religions.
I’m going to cite the two most relevant constitutionnal elements relevant to this issue :
Article 1 of the french constitution :
“La France est une republique indivisible, laique, democratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalite devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances.”
Article 10 of the 1789 universal declaration of human and citizen rights (which has constitutionnal value) :
“Nul ne doit être inquiete pour ses opinions, meme religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l’ordre public établi par la Loi”
Bad translations :
Article 1 of the constitution : France is an indivisible, ** secular **, democratic and social. She enforces the equality before the law of all citizens ** without distinction of origin, race or religion **
Article 10 of the DUDHC : "Nobody can be harassed/bothered/troubled for his opinions, ** even religious, as long as their expression do not breach the public order established by the law ** "
Oh wait… Me wearing dishdasha and kaffiyeh doesn’t mean I’m covered from top to toe in your fantasyworld of the “bad mean oppressing Arab”.
Then how do you think it looks like? Flashy coloured sleeveless T shirt that looks like bad taste underwear combined with Hawai print shorts and a cowboyhat?
I’m so sorry for you, but I prefer to wear my own traditional style far above anything else I have. Which in any case doesn’t include a looking-like-underwear outfit in flashy colours. I do have cowboy hats though. Made in USA. Just for fun to make my children laugh.
Thank you, Claire. In that case, how does the wearing of the Hijab "breach the public order established by the law "? Or. to put it another way, where is the public interest in banning this practice? I know that there has always been a lot of Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim feeling in France, why is why I believe that “La France ne respecte pas toutes les croyances.”
Sheich Tantawi (Al Azhar president) made the follwing statements about this issue
(excerpts. You must take my translation for what it’s worth).
" if they (Muslim women) find themselves (are) in a non-Muslim state and its rulers want to adopt laws in opposition to hidjab (veil), it is their right (of that state’s rulers to adopt such laws)"
“And I repeat: It is their right and I can not oppose them”.
"I would not allow a non-Muslim to intervene in Muslim affairs. Likewise I would not permit myself to intervene in non-Muslim affairs.”
“When Muslim women conform - in term of shari’a - to the laws of a non Muslim state, they are under the conditions of the one who obligates them (to do this)and therefore they do not bear the responsibility for the situation.”
“Muslim women forced by human law can not fear divine punishment, because of this (force on them).
“A good Muslim can not be criticized for having applied to the law of the country in which he is living.”
You can find reference of acting under force against Islamic Law in Al Qur’an, which confirms Tantawi’s position on this matter.
So if you have friends who doubt about it or who want to defend their postition being in agreement of such hidjab ban, tell them to take Al Qur’an.
They can read for example surat al-bakara (II), 173.
This goes about diet laws and describes being forced to break them in which case one can’t be held responsible for this.
The reasoning of Tantawi is very obviously following the guideline of said surat al-bakara,173. His reasoning clearly is that such a situation can be applied when it comes to other matters, like in this case hidjab. On which many scholars in the past agreed and used it to establish laws and conditions under which Muslims living in non-muslim states should function in accordance with the states laws.
Of course one has there described the situation of being forced “without having the intention to break the Law”. Which leaves a bit of a vacuum for women who believe hidjab is an obligation, yet don’t want to wear it.
Those who are convinced that there is no reference in Al Qur’an to cover themselves should have no problem at all. In addition they can easily use this reference to convince others for supporting their case when it comes to use the French ban to become stronger in their struggle against (in such cases: indeed) misguided and oppressing practices.
Salaam. A
Aldebaran, I understand what you’re saying - many Islamic restrictions are relaxed if one is forced to contravene them. For example, one is allowed to eat pork if the alternative is starvation. So if the law of the land has outlawed the hijab, then Muslim women may consider themselves forced to remove them and can do so without shame, is that correct?
Even if that is the case, (and I’m not totally sure that I agree), aren’t Muslims obligated to oppose this as much as possible before it becomes a law? If they did all they could to maintain their rights but were stripped of them regardless, could they not then say that they had been forced?
I seem to remember that Tantawi made this statement while (or immediatly after) a visit in Egyptia of the french interior minister (who is the one pushing for this law).
Since the egyptian government and Al Azhar seem, for what I gather, to usually walk hand in hand, and given that this intended law raised a lot of hostility in the arab world, I immediatly wondered, when I read that the scheik had made these apeasing comments, whether they were mainly religiously or politically motivated…(I can easily imagine our minister mentionning to the egyptian authorities that some positive statement from a major muslim religious authority could be a nice and helpful gesture).
From what I can make of the article they are talking about students aged 18/19 years and the two in question are from Somalian origin. (As far as I know the burqa from the type that became “famous” for refering to the oppression of women under the Taliban does not belong to the traditions of that country.)
The girls on the picture don’t wear such a burqa but an abaya.
That can be combined with a niqab, a “face veil.” This can be made of a variety of materials and commonly is known in two forms:
The smaller one which is attached under the head covering leaving a space open for the eyes. These are available in different materials and colours and sometimes decorated with coins or decoration in gold or silver. (There exist also such niqab in leather or gold or silver.)
The other version goes over the head covering (and can also be used to cover also the eyes) and sometimes such a face veil is also referred to as “burqa”, (especially when it leaves only two openings for the eyes) which can cause some confusion.
An abaya, worn with or without niqab, differs from the burqa which not only covers women all over but in addition leaves for the eyes only a sort of needle work with some holes in (Sorry, can’t describe it better in English).
If these students want to wear what they see as in line with the religion they follow, what is your objection against them doing it? That they look different then you would like them to look?
Maybe you prefer them to wear jeans or mini skirts? It is quite possible they just do that under their abaya, but still want to follow the rules of modesty in Islam the way they see it.
I didn’t make it from the article that they are forced to do that. But then, my reading of the language is rather poor, so maybe you could point it out to me where it is said that they are forced.
From Muslims who are citizens of non Muslim nations - and are in a position to influence law making authorities - can be expected they give it a try to prevent law making that goes against Islamic commands. Which we have indeed seen in the protest-demonstrations.
I doubt if there are Muslim politicians in France who could have a say in this. (This to say: I have no clue )
clairobscur
I never exclude political pressure on Tantawi. Nevertheless his statements on this matter are in accordance with historical tradition of handling similar cases of conflict between Islamic laws and laws (or even dress codes) in non Islamic nations.
Freedom of religion? France is going fascist? Wait just one cotton-picking minute here. If there is any French bashing to be done around here, I’ll let you know.
France has suggested that 1) children 2) in public schools 3) not wear religious articles 4) while they are actually attending the school.
There are a lot of ways out of this “horrible repression” if you think about it. The one that’s not obvious is “move to Saudi Arabia.”
Again, we are talking about France, not the Middle East or Central Asia. The hijab is not required by French law, so to me it then becomes a parenting issue. Yes, children are influenced by their parents’ wishes, but as any parent of teenagers will tell you, they are also possessed of free will.
Do you think parents should have no ability under the law to influence their children’s type and degree of religious observance? Would you complain if girls wore long skirts and long-sleeved shirts in summer, because you think they are inappropriately modest? Are you going to parent everybody’s children? Do you think Jewish boys are being oppressed by the matriarchy (and believe me, I could tell you some stories about the awesome emotional grip of Jewish mothers) if they wear kippot to school, or even a tallis (prayer shawl), as Orthodox boys do? And horror of horrors, sometimes the fringe is even visible around the hemline!
Believe it or not, there is supposed to be separation of church and state in the U.S. as well, and all religions are protected under the law. Regardless of how much some public figures may blab about God, or how much some Americans may behave as if they believe we are the Chosen People, this is officially a secular state.
I never thought I was the center of the universe, or that America was the center of the universe. I am one of those all-too-rare Americans who has a passport (since I was 19) and uses it. In fact, I was in three European countries just a few weeks ago. I majored in one European language in college and minored in another, have a graduate degree in Russian & East European Studies, and have been frequently mistaken for a native speaker of both Russian and Spanish. I have a job which requires me to deal with foreign nationals on a daily basis, many of whom are Europeans. A large proportion of my friends are European-born, and some very old and close ones still live there. I have visited eight European countries so far, and have lived in two of those for not insignificant periods of time. When I travel, it’s not on group bus tours; nearly all of the time I’ve spent in foreign countries has been spent living with locals, either in university housing or staying with friends.
So although I don’t claim to know much of anything about Denmark or to be an expert on French public opinion, I’m definitely a xenophile, and definitely you’re the first person who has read anything I’ve written on Europe to accuse me of being insensitive to European or any other intercultural issues. And while I haven’t specifically surveyed my European friends on the hijab issue, they (and many of my clients) have frequently remarked that I’m not typical of the Americans they have known.
As for my having attended high school a couple of decades ago, yes, it’s true that it’s been almost 18 years since I graduated, and I don’t remember verbatim what the dress code was at my high school. (I tried to look it up last night, and all I found was a newsletter article reminding parents that due to developments in girls’ fashion, the school felt it necessary to reinforce that midriffs and backs are required to be covered.) However, my younger half-brother just started high school this year, many friends and colleagues have children in public schools, and my stepmother is an attorney with the New York City Board of Education’s General Counsel’s Office, so believe me, I hear a lot about legal issues affecting public school students. Plus I’ve been known to read a newspaper here and there, too.
As mentioned, I don’t remember verbatim what my school’s dress code was, and codes vary widely from school to school, even in the same city. The only debate I remember about the arbitrariness of enforcement of dress codes from my school days was when a boy refused to remove an earring for a wrestling unit of gym class (a unit not required for girls), and complained that girls were not required to do so. Nothing to do with religion at all. I’ve seen no reports of debates regarding whether girls in the U.S. should be allowed to wear the hijab in public schools, but maybe that’s because we’re not trying to pass a national law prohibiting them.
And again, I’ve seen no reasonable or satisfactory answer regarding why the hijab is suddenly a problem in France, while other religious headgear (kippot, and whatever Sikh headgear is called) has not historically been seen as a problem. Both are just as visible as a hijab.
A girl who has reached reproductive age, to paraphrase Britney Spears, is no longer a girl, but not yet a woman. (See above; I’ve not seen any stories in which full veiling of six-year-old girls is being discussed, as I don’t believe that’s the case even in rural Saudi Arabia.) She is reaching the age where she should be in the process of learning to think for herself. Religious observance is one of the issues with which adults, and those in the process of becoming adults, frequently grapple. Deciding to what degree you will respect the choices your parents would like to make for you is part of becoming an adult. Or would you have thought my mother was oppressing my sister when she decided not to let her, at the age of twelve, wear full makeup and miniskirts and tight spandex shirts to school, or have boys in the house unchaperoned?
Again, I’m no expert on Denmark or on public opinion of European Muslims. I believe as a moral matter (I’ll leave discussions of Islamic law to those more knowledgeable), but the whole point is that the state has no business interfering in the private moral or religious choices of individuals. People have to make their own choices about their degree of religious observance, or lack thereof.
Thank God (purely as a figure of speech) for that; my real first name is actually Eve, and believe me, I’ve been teased quite enough for it.
The State of Illinois, where I live, as well as the U.S. Government (for visa purposes) has drawn what I agree is an appropriate distinction. For public purposes such as identification, people must leave their faces uncovered. I seem to remember a prior thread in which it was mentioned that even in Muslim countries where women are allowed to drive, their faces are shown on their drivers’ licenses.
Again, this is a family relations issue in which I believe the state should not interfere unless a bona fide crime is committed. And IMO community relations issues are best addressed by education, not by passing laws which will just further alienate the very sector of the population whose acquiescence is most sought. Aldebaran makes the excellent point that if the hijab is prohibited in public schools, those parents with strong opinions on the matter will just put their daughters in private schools, which will deny the very children French society is trying hardest to reach exposure to the normal behavior of that society. And that doesn’t bode well for the adaptation of an important subgroup of French Muslims into the larger community.
As I understand it, the burka is under discussion in a very small minority of cases. But again, we are talking about parenting issues here. How is a burka any more constricting than a long skirt and a long-sleeved shirt?
As discussed previously, just because you see it that way doesn’t mean that the scarf-wearer does.
As discussed above, we are not discussing six-year-old girls. The hijab is required precisely at the point when girls reach sexual maturity. That doesn’t mean I’m a fan of it myself, mind you, but I’m not going to make that decision for others.
[/quote]
I don’t know what Americans you refer to, but believe me, there is a huge variation in type and degree of religious belief in this country. Believe it or not, George W. Bush doesn’t speak for all of us, or even for a majority of us. Personally, I believe any reference to religious belief by a government official in his professional capacity is completely inappropriate. Our President’s constant references to how “God is on our [the U.S.’] side” really irk me.
I am a Jewish agnostic, and many of my friends are agnostics who were raised either Jewish or Christian; we basically participate in religious observances either during life-cycle events (such as weddings and funerals), or to maintain family harmony (like visiting family for Christmas). The pervasiveness of religious influence on American public life varies somewhat on a regional basis and/or has an urban/rural split, but there are many, many factors that influence it. Hmmmm, on that note maybe I’ll start a poll in IMHO. Or maybe two; one for U.S. Dopers, and one for non-U.S. Dopers.
There have been numerous U.S. court cases regarding the permissibility of the presence of religious activities or symbols in public institutions, the debate over prayer in schools being among the most visible. But I believe most Americans draw a distinction between government support of religion and allowing individuals to undertake personal religious observance in public places.
I read WinstonSmith’s article (davs, WS!), and the gist of it is that the two Somali-born young women always dressed like everyone else before, but started dressing in full robes this year, thus discombobulating the teachers. For now, its being allowed, except that teachers want to see their faces during instructional time and tests. The administration is worried that the practice will spread and it will become difficult to identify students in the halls (I have a hard time sympathizing with this, as it strikes me as very unlikely). The girls have a PE group that is either table tennis or walking, and the school has disavowed responsibility for finding them apprenticeships when they finish school. I hope that is a reasonably accurate summary.
I really can’t understand why they would not be allowed to dress as they wish, in peace. But then I really think the French idea is a terrible one, too. (And perfectly designed to drive a lot of girls into private Muslim schools, where they could be educated to be more, not less, separatist). Personally, if I were living in France, I’d be giving serious thought to starting to wear a headscarf to school myself–and I’ve tried it and disliked it.
“most” a figure of speech? I sure missed the memo on that one. Actually I properly did not. You just pulled an assertion out of your arse and now you’re in head long flight from the fact that you haven’t got the slightest notion what most women want. Well I won’t hold that against you. It’s a tough one. But perhaps the fact that feminist organisations report epidemic depression and widespread suicide in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran when young girls are forced to wear veil, burka and shit me not (they’d probably use scotch tape if they had any), would make you reconsider your “most” assertion by any chance?
Disregarding the fact that we’re talking about children, for whom the finer details of feministic rationale is a city in Russia, that certainly depends on to which extend you think society should be governed by the principles of utilitarism and by individualism. If just one women can find some rationale for it, damn the rest. Is that your line? Well fuck a duck, but this is the human race we’re dealing with. There are weirdoes and whackoes that have rationale from anything to everything including voluntary cannibalism and listening to Britney Spears. Doesn’t mean we as a society should swallow it raw. If the French regard it a misfortune for the girls to wear the religious clothing, who are you to say they are mistaken? Actually I’d say you have taken to wearing you beloved ethnocentrism and brandishing it like a weapon.
Well the French apparently think so. Do you have any argument beyond proclaiming it ridiculous.
No, even was it true. However you don’t think accusations of “hypocricy (sic) and ethnocentricism (sic)” amount to bashing? Or insinuation that it is something which they dabble in regularly? (“something to which the French are no strangers”) Or that individual rights and freedom of expression is something the French has little of beyond pretence? (“France maintains some pretense of individual rights and freedom of expression”). Well do tell me when the bashing begin then, so I have time to send the children away - that’s going to be evil.
Quick let me answer. I know the answer! – They don’t. Stop others from doing perfectly innocent things, I mean.
Undoubtedly I have much to learn on Islam, bad mean oppressing Arabs, women in general and all things Aldebaran in particular. However you will notice I’m sure, that I figured this particular item out myself in the previous post. I just couldn’t restrain myself from the opportunity to call you miss (don’t blame me; I’m human. Weakness is my proudest credential). In any case, I can’t really see mixing an American cowboy hat with your Hijab will do much for your overall fashion expression - not that I’d ever imply your children are anything but laughing with you mind you.
Oh I don’t know about that Bib. Going on this thread I’d say the anti-French feelings are much more prevalent. Also you’d have to have a fair amount of nerve to accuse a nation of widespread negative feelings to a people and religion of which they just took in 8 million. Supposedly the Arabs and Muslims are in France because they consider the French nation superior to that from which they came. Who knows, perhaps the French do so too (oh my! That is ethnocentrism).
No they were not forced, they did it voluntary and considering their age and situation I believe them. Not that that helps them follow school and gym classes on normal conditions. (btw, the article also says they can be banned for it in Sweden. So the French is not alone). You are of course aware that my part was a direct response to Eva whom said it was only a question of the smaller head scarf. Well it isn’t. And yes, these girls are fortunately 18 and 19, at which age they should be allowed to wear whatever they choose in their privacy. In public in they should expect to wear clothes within what guidelines is set up by the community. Dangermoms translation was right on the money (though the “discombobulating” part did discombobulate me a bit). I just included the link to show that the scarf is not the end of the story.
We have no cotton ‘round these parts. Would you consider a barley harvesting minute, or potato digging minute?
That’s it for tonight. I’m sorry to have to put off your spanking till tomorrow Eva, but all this Arab hatred and Islamphobia is really exhausting, and this little wicked boy gotta have his rest. (hej dangermom! De er forhåbentligt ikke onde ved dig I det store stygge Amerika)
Spanking? How paternalistic of you! (And I don’t believe for a minute that you’re sorry.)
Eva Luna, one American who loves France and the French, at least all the ones she’s met so far except for the extremely rude guy at the information desk in the Gare de Lyon, whose job was supposed to be providing information and assistance to travelers such as yours truly. Because we Americans are individuals, and as such, have individual opinions, as do the French…
(Where do you get the idea, by the way, that criticism of one proposed law is criticism of France or the French at large?)
)