After months of controversy, the French Senate recently adopted the law banning the burqa -- the enveloping outer garment worn by women to conceal their bodies from head to toe in some Islamic traditions -- in public spaces. Whether we like the burqa or not, we should recognize that French Parliament violated freedoms of expression, thought, conscience and religion -- a string of fundamental human rights that can no longer be taken for granted in France since the ban.
Both sets of principles are enshrined and protected by our modern constitutions and above all by the European Convention of Human Rights to which France and most European countries are signatory parties. In the United States, these freedoms are likewise recognized by the first amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion. These principles are among the pillars of our democratic societies in which anyone is free to practice (or not) the religion they choose or to express their ideas, irrespective of their absurdity or falsity, without prior approval of the authorities. In a law-abiding nation, the state must not judge the beliefs or opinions of its citizens based on reason, tradition or any other value. As with any other fundamental freedoms, if these civil liberties must be restricted then limitations should be both minimal -- in as much as the circumstances allow -- and strictly motivated by higher interests.
There is little doubt that for the European Court of Human Rights, Article 9 of the European Convention, which protects religious freedom, does not permit adopting general measures aimed at banning religious clothing. The European Court recently reminded Turkey of this in the "Ahmet Arslan and others v. Turkey" case of February 23, 2010. Recognizing this, in May 2010 the French Administrative Supreme Court, the Conseil d'Etat, questioned the legality of a prospective French ban.
The decisive question is whether the burqa is a religious dress, more or less like others, or nothing but an affront to a woman's dignity. Since the debate rightly focuses on women's rights, let's follow the following line of reasoning.
The argument that banning the burqa is about eliminating family or marital pressures placed upon women to wear the burqa against their will overlooks existing laws against such criminal behaviors. The new French law would not remove difficulties in proving that a woman is being forced to wear it. The "burqa law" will, in fact, mostly affect those who freely choose to wear it in clear contradiction to the provisions of the European Convention.
It is nonsensical to suppose that an individual's free and deliberate choice to veil their person violates their own human dignity. The French legislature and government have no legal right to decide what outfit is allowed and which one is in essence violating women's dignity. When they assume this role, they act as moral censors rather than institutions acting impartially for universal welfare.
Besides being illegal, the ban is grossly unfair in targeting one religion: Islam. In spite of certain physical resemblances that would seem to amount to a comparable assault on human dignity, monastic robes are deemed entirely compatible with the values of the French Republic. This discriminatory treatment perhaps explains why a great number of French Muslims, who are in their great majority secular, feel that the ban is unjust.
The provisions of this law will be applicable from spring 2011, after six month of "mediation" and "pedagogy." Thereafter, policemen will have the authority to fine women wearing the burqa.
What will punishing women to be free achieve? If this law was passed to increase social inclusion, it seems likely instead to accentuate the confinement of these women. More generally, it smacks of being part and parcel of a campaign to purge a particular notion of "French" identity of "foreign elements" and this can only foster social strife. These "foreigners" are French citizens; France, as much as the United States, is the result of waves of immigrants over its rich history. Given these constitutional and practical flaws, why has this law happened? The only sensible rationale is one of political cynicism: President Sarkozy and his party understand the political capital in issue. By banning the burqa under a smokescreen of women's rights they renew the support of the anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim right. Meanwhile, their feminist rhetoric disarms an easily divided left and forestalls serious resistance to what amounts to institutionalized xenophobia for party political gain.
In a globalized context of Islamophobia, underlined in the U.S. by the Park 51 controversy, France's ban on the burqa has little to do with female emancipation. The sudden feminism of the French political class can hardly obscure their past inertia in addressing women's causes. Short of ideas and unable to solve real economic and social problems, the current government has proved remarkably effective in finding an eclectic range of targets in order to divert the attention of voters. After journalists, immigrants, the European Union, the Romas and the Muslims, however, even the resourceful President Sarkozy may soon exhaust his reserves of scapegoats and red herrings.
Follow Rabah Ghezali on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabahGhezali
I would imagine it's still permissible to wear hijabs, though.
In that regard: Question number 1. Are women to be obedient to the men of their family, or should they be free to make their own decisions?
In the West, the rule is freedom. While children are generally regarded as owing obedience to their parents, that does not extend to every decision. Indeed, parents who are too controlling or abusive are often taken in hand by the state. At a certain age, minors can declare themselves "emancipated" from their parents. Women can have their own apartments, choose to live (or not) with who they will. Work openly in society.
In Islamic societies, women are not allowed to be outside the care of a man.
Question number 2. Should women be allowed to vote? If so, should they vote for whom their male relatives tell them they should vote, or should they be allowed a different political choice than the males (even their husband)?
Question number 3. Should we even have the idea that we "allow" women to do certain things as they choose, or should we rather have the idea that women have the *right* to do what they choose? Is it up to men to allow or to prevent?
The burqa issue does not stand alone. It is a "cover" issue for many ideas.
Each adult gets to decide, to some extent, what to wear. Some of the choices will be inappropriate. The freedom to wear what one thinks is attractive is the point, not that the choice pleases you or me.
I agree that modest dress is far more attractive than immodest dress. My wife agrees. Immodest dress is like too much perfume--it drives others away, rather than drawing them closer.
Women should be free to dress as they choose. If I don't approve, who really cares? The issue at hand in the burqa is not women's dress in the West, which really is still modest for the most part. The burqa is an extreme which erases identity.
And this problem of erasing a woman's cultural identity is a very real issue in Muslim countries. In Saudi Arabia, a woman out alone can be arrested. Other rights for women there are very much a sham.
And it is the same in several other Muslim countries. The rights of women are suppressed because women are considered as less than men. They are property, not full persons. In court their testimony is only worth half that of a man's testimony.
Just as in America we have to fight the fundamentalist Christians to try to maintain the rights of women, we need to make it clear that we will maintain them no matter what culture is here. Culture is important, but is secondary to fundamental rights.
I cannot emphasis the important of the care of our women, this is a paramount issue with Islam. Under the shari'ah a man can be arrested and charged for not taking care of his family and held responsible if he neglects his duties. Now, with that said, if a wife insists that she would leave the house dressed in a disrespectful manner and against her husband's wishes, if he files in the shari'ah court she could be arrested so things balance out.
I want you also understand, that a woman's income, inheritance is hers and solely hers. Her husband cannot obtain or have this wealth from his wife in a divorce, like in secular world. Many of the rights given under the shari'ah to the woman is gone under secular. A woman's salary is hers and she spends it as she pleases, since the man is totally responsible under the shari'ah for her subsistence.
Unfortunately, there is abusive of women and seem more under secular Muslim countries than is shari'ah compliant countries. Shari'ah allows for more oversight than under secular.
"Now, with that said, if a wife insists that she would leave the house dressed in a disrespectful manner and against her husband's wishes, if he files in the shari'ah court she could be arrested so things balance out."
This statement shows me that you consider women property or on the same level as children..who need to be protected and punished when they act improperly.
A red herring argument regarding monastic robes. The term "burqua", "hijab" or whatever muddies the waters. The ban is about facial concealment, the rest of the garment is irrelevant. The law will not prevent anyone, Muslim or not, from wearing any garment that covers the body, just the face in public. Take a walk through neighborhoods in Paris and you will see all manner of body covering caftans, monastic robes, etc. Many women in France routinely wear hair coverings. Sikh men wear turbans. Nuns (rarely) wear full habits This law affects NONE of that. This law precludes any claim of religious exception for facial concealment in public, and that's it. Who is the one group (or subset thereof) who claim that facial concealment is required by their religion (which it isn't)? A small minority of Muslims. So that makes this "anti-Muslim"? Or perhaps just "anti facial concealment in public"? The latter, I'd say. The law doesn't specify Muslims and could apply to others as well.
The Burqa and the Nijab are used to isolate women from the rest of civilization. To the stricter Muslims, this is what they call "respect" -- isolating their women from the eyes and contact of men and unbelievers. To them there should be no socialization for women. Society is for men only, women remain in the background, a possession, without any real rights of their own. Muslims view men as being unable to control themselves if they see a woman in less than complete covering, and view women as being weak willed, unable to manage themselves in society or make their own choices.
France is firmly committed to womens' rights and the participation of women in society. It sees education for women as a good thing. Women can work, contribute to society openly. France (as well as other western-civilized folk) see the Islamic viewpoint on women as degrading, not as respectful.
Allowing the wearing of the burqa allows the sequestering of Islamic women away from French society -- a denial of their rights and duties as French citizens.
It is not a matter of the right to wear something.
If Muslims would live in France, they will have to choose. Are they willing to become a part of French society, or not? If they choose not to, they should leave.
The Islamic world and the west disagree with this and rightfully so. In the west the freedom to dress in styles to display their beauty is a creation not from the Jewish or Christian tenets but innovations by those who have changed your own scriptures. 1 Timothy 2-9.
Muslim men are no different than any other, they are attracted to women who walk the streets that display their cleavages. And, our tenets don't subscribe into wholesale whoredom and women walking the streets in half nakedness.
A Muslimah could uphold to any land anywhere in conservative dress in hijab, why must should forced to walk out of the house with half her breast showing or her private parts featured in tight pants and short dresses? Now, it seems that you are violating her right to choose in your lands and she being asked to choose nakedness in order to accommodate whom? Me, you, and any strange man for our entertainment?
Is France, England, Spain a land of fitnah (land of trials)? No and not yet! Should a Muslimah who dons a burqa be undressed? How far does should she go to satisfy her citizenry? Half naked women should they be made to cover themselves, why not?
And no one is saying that the woman has to be immodest. Even so, it should not be up to *anyone* to make them "cover up" to Islamic standards or anyone's standards. Yes, Muslim men are men, and if each of them is half a man, they will treat a woman with respect no matter what she does or does not wear. One may choose to give respect even when one disapproves of something being done.
No one says we subscribe to wholesale whoredom. Why do you think so? Do Muslim men think a woman not dressed to their standards is asking to be raped? If so, that is a contemptuous and vile way to view a woman's choice of dress, and it shows an utter lack of self-respect by Muslim men who refuse to exercise self-control.
But the accusation of the segregation from society does not come from me -- it comes from the women themselves who have sought refuge for abuse, from the blogs of Islamic women who describe the mistreatment they are dealt in the name of respect and keeping them in their place.
France has forbidden the covering of the face, the masking of identity, the erasure of the individual. That is appropriate. Women as individuals should not be masked, but should be free and open members of a respectful society.
I know we disagree, but you are honest in your disagreement. For that I thank you.
Question number 1. Are women to be obedient to the men of their family, or should they be free to make their own decisions?
Question number 2. Should women be allowed to vote? If so, should they vote for whom their male relatives tell them they should vote, or should they be allowed a different political choice than the males (even their husband)?
Question number 3. Should we even have the idea that we "allow" women to do certain things as they choose, or should we rather have the idea that women have the *right* to do what they choose? Is it up to men to allow or to prevent?
Umdat al-salik:
m2.3 It is unlawful for a man to look at a woman who is not his wife or one of his unmarriageable kin (def: m6.1) (O: there being no difference in this between the face and hands or some other part of a woman (N: if it is uncovered)[....]
A majority of scholars (n: with the exception of some Hanafis, as at m2.8 below) have been recorded as holding that it is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled [....]
And how would you know that scholars hold the view that a woman cannot leave her home unless her face is veiled? Please enlighten me on this fatwa?
In extreme time of fitnah (trials and tribulations), when a women feels that she is being harassed and gazed at outside the home can done a burqa. America and Euro countries have not reached this stage for Muftis to declare calling it Dar Fitnah (place of fitnah).
The fitnah must Muftis are concerned about is the undressing of the Muslimah and legislation aimed exclusively at Muslims, their dress, their places of worship and wholesale discrimination. This designation could be called but I think not, since the troubles are in non Muslim lands or Bilad es Kafireen, the land of disbelievers. And, since the Muslimeen are residing there, to seek relief, they should return or migrate to Muslim lands.
Many non Muslims hold that not being able to look at a woman in such ways is deranged but the Islamic point as you stated above is that a woman should not be subjected to this harassment outside her home. I concur with this ruling!
In Umdat al-salik, the comment identified with the abbreviation "n" is that of the translator, Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The text Mr. Keller was commenting on was the main text by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the author of Umdat.
It was al-Misri's opinion that the woman was not to leave home with her face uncovered. As you know, this opinion is not now widely enforced in Muslim-majority countries.
If dictating minimums is acceptable, why not maximums?
This is a strong view that is not shared by many others. There some pockets that feel that a burqa is ordered but the Qur'an and ahadiths don't support this view.
If you would visit the Sahara desert, you find men with face veils. This is something that many others don't know. And, in the desert towns, the men are covered completely, while the woman face is exposed. Certainly, they need extra protection from sand and sand storms which are deadly.
If one speaks with the vast majority of Muslimahs from Morocco threw Senegal to Gambia, up to Sudan and threw Egypt on to Pakistan, they will tell you that hijab is not a issue of suppression.
There have been many studies that confer this. And to make a point, how cases of asylum in America or Euro, feature are Muslim women who seek sanctuary from not wanting to cover her body?
If you read Usman Dan Fadio's books, he talks of men required to wear Turbans and women required to wear hijab. There are a few translations of some of his books in English.
His book in jihad and hijrah is the best recorded and gives an incite on year before the heavy colonial push.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6378863.stm
"Robbers in burqas raid gem store ... The pair entered Ramot, Knightsbridge, disguised in burqas and full length robes..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1859310.stm
"Burka Wearing Gunmen Pistol Whip Post Office Manager in failed Robbery Attempt - Manningham England"
"A MALE suspect in a major anti-terrorist investigation in Britain escaped capture by allegedly disguising himself as a Muslim woman dressed in a burka,"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article666149.ece
"Authorities in North Carolina don't know whether they are looking for a man or a woman in the search for a burqa-wearing bandit who walked into a bank... pointed a gun at a teller before exiting with a bag full of money."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3745402
"
Burqa-clad bank robbers stage French post office hold-up "
http://www.news.com.au/world/burqa-clad-bank-robbers-stage-french-post-office-hold-up/story-e6frfkyi-1225827493478
Questions anyone?
You know, they could have just as easily worn a mask.
Doh, didn't think of that did you?
"As Muslim Canadians, we take ownership of and pride in the Canadian values of liberal democracy, gender equality,
As an organization, we feel one of the issues Muslim Canadians face today is the challenge of gender apartheid that is encouraged and practiced in parts of our community and is being promoted by vested overseas interests who have neither the interest of Canada or its Muslim citizens in mind.
Over the last few years we have seen an increasing presence and a disturbing growth of Muslim women concealing their identities behind face masks that are at times called burkas and by others as the niqab or the face-concealing veil.
We, as ordinary Muslim citizens of Canada, feel it is our obligation and responsibility to take the lead in opposing this harmful trend and ask for legislation or regulations that will discourage the growth of this practice.
Misuse of religion for political ends
We believe that the facemask worn by some Muslim women [is about] political symbolism that reflects the contempt of radical Islamist groups for Western civilisation.
Today, the only forces that demand Muslim women to cover their faces are: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Arab World [and Europe], Al-Qaeda, and the Saudi religious establishment.
As a nation, a country and a society, [Canada has] travelled over 200 years to ensure that women are not considered second-class citizens or the possessions of men. We can ill afford to let culture or tribal custom compromise the equality of women.
http://www.iheu.org/ban-burqa-canadian-muslim-view
There is precedence for the burqa in times of fitnah (trials) when the woman and her husband; or woman and her father and brothers feels that outside the home there is fitnah of gazing and harassment of women, this burqa is authorized!
As a general rule, the hijab means the whole body of the woman, except for her hands and face. These are some rulings that should be considered. The thought that a conservative dressed Muslimah is suppress and she really wants to don western style nakedness is nonsense.
There Muslimahs who are just as naked and some cases even more naked in style that any western woman. The rule is clear in Islam how a woman and man for that matter should be dressed outside the home. But, many Muslims now, especially in the west have fallen victim to temptations and have rationalized why they have violated this directive to dress conservatively, don't display your beauty to strange men and so on.
With that said, Muslims in the non Muslim lands must obey laws of that land and if disagree, seek relief by legislation, lobbies and other legal means.
1. I agree that the current styles for western women can be not just immodest but undignified and impersonal, even degrading. So the repression of women can be in tight, revealing clothes just as much as a full burka.
2. In a very hot, humid climate, like where I live, those heavy garments are cruel. Can Muslem designers come up with modest, unsuggestive women's clothes? It seems to me the real immodesty, and tastelessness is in a torso stuffed like sausage into knit casings. Frankly, I don't see how men find rolls of chub in t-shirts all that attractive. But I'm not one.
3. There's more to a woman's dignity than clothing...bearing, smile, attitude matter too.
Many persons have said in this very forum, when discussing this same ban, that Muslims must conform to the customs and cultures of states like France or else go back to a Muslim country. The clear implication is that states have a right to enforce certain cultural norms via its laws; thus France can ban the burqa because it conflicts with "French values". The logical conclusion is that a state like Iran must also be able to enforce the wearing of the hejab!! The problem is that a lot of you are not taking a principled stand against oppression where ever it takes place.
As soon as someone brings a valid point that goes home, some some cyber-fundamemntalist lets loose with Argumentum verbosium, long-winded and so poorly presented argument. The aim is to make everyone forget the original point.
This fallacy is epitomized by famous “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with...."
Some countries legalise narcodics does that mean all liberal countries should do the same? Wearing Burqua covers ones identity and without a visible facial features one will not be part of the norm both from security purposes and the local cultures. If I believed in wearing Burqas I'd live in Yemen or Saudi. You can't be defending extremism to be a democratic issue. As a woman I find Burqas to be self-imprisonment. Pilosophically, your arguement has room for discussion but in day to day lives has no purpose.
I guarantee it with a shred of any doubt that had the Muslim men had to wear this atrocious garb for one day in the smoldering heat, they would burn this garment in a huge bonfire.
The Burkka has no religious significance, it's a veil of modesty so to speak.
Again, it's a mere garment of making women feel less than men.
This is 2010, time to modernize and assimilate.
t tale too long.
Tegardless, article 9 does not provide for unlimited freedom of religious expression.
There are caveats for public safety-- clearly the case in burqa driving, egress into many public places and even some private places etc.
Meanwhile in Holland, ban of burqa may be forthcoming as a part of the coalition plan.
Bravissimo Dutch.
Remember, the ECHR rejected Sharia law as a basis for a political party in Refah v. Turkey in 2000. One of the reasons for the judgment was that Sharia discriminated against women.
Come on, Frank. Try a rational argument.
http://www.shaykhabdullah.com/a-moderate-nation/
NO religion is free to do as it wishes. Devil worshippers cannot sacrifice virgins and if they do, there are consequences. Mormans can't have 5 wives, and if they do, there are consequences. The whole scope of history since the Renaissance has been the battle between personal freedom and religions desire to limit that freedom. And so far, religion has been losing.
We no longer burn witches and even very few Catholics believe that the Pope can send them to Hell at whim. And now the people of reason and little faith have a new opponent. The less than 5% of Muslims who distort their own scriptures to trap women in a prison of fabric. You can wiki the stats on the amount of violence imposed upon women to keep them wrapped up. IT IS NOT A CHOICE NOR SHOULD IT BE ONE!
This is not about religious freedom. And even if it was I would still be siding with the French. Religion doesn't deserve to be "free." People do. If a religion inhibits a persons civil liberty then society must either tame that religion or accept being less free.