It is small piece of cloth, known as burqa or niqab, covering the faces of nearly 2,000 veiled women in a population of five million Muslims in France. Yet it has been contested and debated extensively by French lawmakers, the parliament, and President Nicolas Sarkozy. Just last Tuesday a French resolution was passed by a vote of 434 to 0, banning burqa wearing in public. Is this contested burqa debate really about the "liberation of women," as President Sarkozy claims, or an infringement on their rights?
As an Arab-American Muslim woman, I personally don't wear the veil. I certainly would not wear a burqa or niqab. However, I respect people's choices whether they wear a niqab or pierce their body.
But I understand how much our world has changed post 9/11, where Muslims have become more scrutinized and negatively stereotyped as radicals and sometimes "terrorists." This has also ignited worries in Europe that its three-percent Muslim population are determined to transform their once-tolerant continent into Eurabia, a land where the sharia or Islamic law reigns. But let's not forget that the majority of Muslims are not radical. However, discriminating against them in various forms that infringe on their supposedly guaranteed freedom could radicalize some of them.
Telling Muslims in France -- the largest Muslim population in Western Europe -- that the burqa-style veil is regressive and, as Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie describes it, "harms the liberty of women" who actually choose to wear it, can be seen as a form of cultural supremacy, which only deepens the divide between both worlds.
When France, a former colonizer of parts of the Muslim world like North Africa, bans the veiling of the face, this only gives ammunition to Muslim fanatics and militants to divide the remaining moderate Muslims worldwide and conquer the West. These fanatics argue the West is out to get them and erase their identity in various forms, from invading their lands as multinational forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., to banning the construction of Islamic minarets in Switzerland, to a Belgian resolution banning face-covering veils. Such views are radicalizing some moderate Muslims in an atmosphere where Europe and the West in general are morphing slowly into the ultimate battleground for a clash of civilizations.
Being part of the West, Americans should be concerned about the ramifications of this French ban on face veiling. We are still trying to get over 9/11. The recent Times Square bomb scare orchestrated by a Pakistani-American also reminds us of the never-ending threats from individuals, as well as and sleeping cells, in addition to Al-Qaeda itself.
In order for us to win the battle against radical Islam, the West needs to stick to the democratic values of liberty, equality, and freedom for all. We cannot compromise those values as a result of few militant Muslims' manipulation of religion or use of the burqa and niqab as a cover to commit crimes. We need to build bridges with Muslim men and women by showing them our genuine embrace of multiculturalism. We need to show respect instead of condescending remarks on religious practices that we don't buy but are considered intrinsically part of the cultural fabric of few conservative Muslims who willingly choose to follow them.
While I am not a veil advocate, I made The Colors of Veil, a short documentary on Kimberly King, former US soldier who embraced Islam, rose above societal discrimination to eventually transform her community through her interfaith work. The film won Link TV-One Nation Many Voices Award for best documentary on American-Muslim women. It was popular at many film festivals and was positively featured in the media, including NPR. It allowed Americans to understand and become touched by Kimberly King as a person beyond the veil. We need to support and nurture attempts that allow cultural and religious understanding instead of becoming fixated on changing those who are different from us, just because we believe our way is better.
The French resolution to ban face-covering veils has yet to become a law, but it may not pass constitutional muster in France or in European forums. The Council of Europe, a 47-nation human rights institution, will discuss the burqa issue next month. A Council of Europe commission already said the French ban robs women of their freedom of expression, potentially violating their religious freedoms. The same commission is urging Switzerland to end its ban on the construction of Islamic minarets.
Follow Jehan S. Harney on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JehanPost
I agree with your concern about cultural supremacy. Not only from an intellectual freethinking standpoint do I think this ban is absurd, there is something deep down in my gut that says it's wrong. Why would someone even think of making such a law?
Another interesting angle was put forth by none other than Christopher Hitchens in a Slate article entitled "In Your Face" http://www.slate.com/id/2253493/
Granted, Hitchens would rather slit his own throat than defend anything related to religion - yet he posits an angle I hadn't considered. He is claiming that one isn't allowed to walk around society with a mask (especially into places like banks – the example the snide s.o.b. used). I don't know if there is such a law in U.S. or elsewhere. Can I walk down the street with a ski mask? One commenter on my article said it differs by state and goes back to the days of the KKK.
Regardless, he argues wer're making an exception to law because of religion by allowing burqas. Yet, I think he's using a technicality and working backwards to support an emotional response triggered by the concept of the burqa. Another more practical question is then raised: Can you imagine the amount of fines that will be levied come Halloween?
I dont like th nikab, however, all the arguments for security and protecting women are trying to hide the fear of the invasion of the North Africans into France.....
Should western nations work harder at providing ways to integrate the immigrant? Might be a useful thing to do, but even biblical strictures about kindness to the stranger amongst you do not require that you conform to the stranger's customs in your own land
I would like to point out that there is no such thing as an Islamic Terroist, as much as the media and our politicians tell us it is so. You see, the Qur'an tells us that once someone has intentionally killed an innocent victim, that person is no longer Muslim. That the burqa/niqab are used as terrorist vehicles should tell you that they are definitely NOT religious symbols, they are not instruments of freedom, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are a choice. They are harmful and they should be banned.
We need to focus on the security threat, not specifically from mulsims, but from anyone who wisheds to conceal their identity in public places. That shuld be the core issue. Using the reasons currently being spoken about in the French government, there is agood chance it could befound unconstitutional, as forced repression of religion. Talk only about the national and local security about hiding your identity, regardless of your religion is much stronger internationally. I don't know about french law, but the US has laws about wearing maskes in public. Most jurisdictions have actual laws that prohibit it. You cannot walk into a bank in a ski mask ir wearing a bandana tied around your face. Since the Quoran does not demand it and the majority of mulsim women do not, it cannot be claimed as a religious requirement, its mearly a custom.
But equally disturbing is the Christian doctrine of women submitting to their husbands in all things. It doesn't take a veil to push women into second-class citizenship, but religion in general is very good at doing this in many forms.
One thing that we don't hear about this is, really, consideration for the others around from the *Muslim* community. In the West, whether it's in a Muslim context or not, covering the face under most circumstances, be it with a burqa or a ski mask, *is threatening.* To claim you further don't have to identify yourself even to the police, takes it a step further.
It'd be disingenuous to deny that Islamophobia isn't a big part of all this, but, I say, even if there were no such thing, I don't think it would change the practicalities and what walking around masked actually means in *Western* culture.
Perhaps, here, this is an opportunity for Muslim communities to actually show they *want to be present in and participate in Western societies.* There are real and practical reasons why in a free society, faces count. Faces humanize. (Both ways) Covering one's face generally is a big signal someone's Up To No Good.
We have cultures, too.
Most of the lands that you have mentioned have laws in place that require to dress in a certain way. If the western culture requires women to show their legs from knee down, or to show their cleavage, or to show their shape, uncover their hair etc., they should also formulate laws to enforce that! Moreover nuns or women from the smaller sub-cultures like the Amish should also be banned from covering their hair or figures.
Of-course if they require government issues ids to have uncovered hair (which many states already mandate) it should be consistently applied to everyone.
We need to make sure that we do not compromise our values and freedoms just out of the phobias and prejudices that our political leaders are trying to promote for their gain.
I'm saying here's a chance for Muslims in the West to actually show they actually want to be here. *Yes,* there's cultural pressure for women to show some skin, as I well know, and say, 'Well, no,' to when I darn well please, which is usually. But, yes, there are modesty laws, however minimal. My own religion has no particular nudity tabooes or particular sexualized fetish about it, nor belief that body-shame is a virtue, but we don't consider walking down the street starkers to be some kind of religious expression, either. Bikinis are actually kind of silly, to me: why bother with 'that little strip of cloth.' ...But you bet we have cultural rules about it which are made law.
There's a huge whole lot of latitude in between not going about totally covered and masked, and omitting the token swimsuit: we like this. But that doesn't mean there are no boundaries at all. Perhaps observing those customs actually shows some intention to be part of the society. It's not like we also aren't proud of the broad latitude.
Yes, it is non-canonical within the Qu'ran. But it is culturally significant to many women. I think most debate surrounding the burqa and other coverings has a tendency to be incredibly reductionist. How many women in coverings did the French government actually consult?
Personally I don't how women can stand those things. It's basically a big black tent. How do you not faint in the sun? But that said, if they feel it's a necessary part of their personal identity, that is really not my business - and it shouldn't be her husband's or father's either.
One thing to add though - the issues is not "culturally significant" to women but it is just the way the interpret certain verses of their religious texts (much like men interpreting the beard as a religious requirement and having a separate dress code for men as well). Thus trying to ban it can be taken as an affront to their religion.