Thursday, 09 July 2009 15:46 Umm Harith
Nicolas Sarkozy and Muslims would agree on one thing when it comes to his comments to Parliament about the burqa, and that is he didn't make the remarks that he did in order to start a debate or discussion, he did it with the clearest of intentions, to insult, hinder and ultimately frighten those who are so obviously regaining, without compromise, their Islamic identity.
It is a sign of subjection and is a symbol of "women's enslavement". If one had heard that in isolation one may be forgiven for thinking of the endless enslavement of women whose bodies are used and abused in order to sell the health and beauty products. You may even think of the women who suffer from abduction from their home countries only to be brought over into countries such as France to be prostitutes; women who suffer violence, 400 a year die at the very hands of their spouse, women such as Sarkozy wife, who is an acclaimed former nude model. But he was speaking of a piece of cloth.
The banning of pieces of cloth is not something that Mr. Sarkozy is strange to. Indeed he was the very man as Interior minister who spearheaded the ban of the hijab in 2004 in schools. Has that meant their liberation, have women forsaken their scarf's and thanked Mr. Sarkozy for his championing of Muslim women's rights.
My recent trip to Paris tells a very different story. France does see the subjection of Muslim women and their enslavement, but not for the reasons that the French President has us believe. They are subjected as a consequence of the very laws that seek to "liberate them". I heard of women denied medical help for refusing to take off her hijab at her doctor's surgery, a women refused vaccination for her child for her refusal to remove her "symbol of enslavement"; scores of women bullied and demoted at work for daring to adhere to the Islamic dress and one woman was actually denied entry to a police station to complain of an assault. In essence the French secular state should not preach what it most certainly does not practise.
Mr. Sarkozy would do well to learn from Muslim women about rights. Women had the right to vote, to trade, to education, to be employers and employees well before the so called enlightenment. Was it not Roseau who said that women will always remain intellectually inferior to men?
The reality is Mr Sarkozy - that 20% of your French born citizens are reverting to Islam. Muslims living in France are proud of their pieces of cloth and are increasing by significant numbers every day. My return to Paris having lived there for some years prior was truly eye opening. Despite the attack on the Islamic dress, women donning it were apparent everywhere.
Whilst Mr. Sarkozy is trying to spread fear, perhaps it is he who is fearful of the resurgence of Islam in the hearts and minds of Muslims. His attempt to create a "French Islam" has failed miserably, and his attempt to step up the attack is weak and transparent. What does it say about the strength of your secular values if you feel threatened by a mere piece of cloth?
Showing posts with label burqa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label burqa. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Should the Burqa be Banned?
July 02, 2009
Posted by Shadi Hamid
The issue of the burqa (or the niqab) is one that I've struggled with because it forces us to choose between competing goods. It cuts to fundamental questions of the limits of tolerance and free speech. Mona Eltahawy is a courageous advocate for women's equality and I enjoy her columns a great deal, but I find her most recent piece for the New York Times somewhat perplexity. She advocates a burqa ban because the burqa violates women's rights. I agree with almost everything she says regarding the burqa, that it, in effect, "erases women from society." Agreed. As an American-Muslim, it both bothers and offends me to see women in major American cities with only their eyes showing. The niqab is an affront to the values I grew up with, but, then again, so are so many other things. I do not enjoy the right to not be offended.
Eltahawy also references Soad Saleh, an Islamic law professor who says that the burqa has "nothing to do with Islam" and is, rather, a cultural tradition. Again, I fully agree.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy said recently, "The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” Again, I agree with the first sentence but I'm not sure how the second sentence follows from the first. You cannot justify a ban on something simply by saying that it is a sign of the submission of women. There have to be legal and/or constitutional grounds for implementing such a ban, and, in this case, such grounds do not appear to exist. You could presumably institute or execute laws that prevent men from forcing their wives to do things against their will, but if the burqa is something some women choose to do voluntarily then such injunctions would not be germane.
What is interesting, and rather puzzling, about Eltahawy's article is that it does not attempt to make any real argument for banning the burqa, even though is presumably the intent of her piece. The idea that we can or should ban things we don't agree with is dangerous because it can easily be applied - as it often is - in reverse situations. For example, there have been attempts in Muslim-majority countries to silence minority opinions on the exact same grounds - that a form of expression must be banned because it is an affront to a certain set of norms and values that the majority holds dear.
On such grounds, anything that hints of criticism of Islam in Muslim-majority countries, even those that are supposedly secular, can be made punishable by law. Scholars and commentators have been charged with apostasy and, in some extreme cases, forced into exile for supposedly undermining the Islamic faith (see for instance the case of Nasr Hamed Abu Zayd). The reasoning here operates in parallel to Eltahawy's: Voluntary expressions of speech or faith must be restricted because they come into conflict with societal perceptions of what is "right." It sets a dangerous precedent, then, to go down this path, whether in the name of one set of ideals or another - even if we are convinced, as may very well be, that the one set of ideals is better than the other.
That said, I am more than willing to be convinced that there are indeed reasonable legal and constitutional grounds for banning the niqab, but I have trouble seeing how those might take precedence over the higher principle and constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech and expression.
Posted by Shadi Hamid
The issue of the burqa (or the niqab) is one that I've struggled with because it forces us to choose between competing goods. It cuts to fundamental questions of the limits of tolerance and free speech. Mona Eltahawy is a courageous advocate for women's equality and I enjoy her columns a great deal, but I find her most recent piece for the New York Times somewhat perplexity. She advocates a burqa ban because the burqa violates women's rights. I agree with almost everything she says regarding the burqa, that it, in effect, "erases women from society." Agreed. As an American-Muslim, it both bothers and offends me to see women in major American cities with only their eyes showing. The niqab is an affront to the values I grew up with, but, then again, so are so many other things. I do not enjoy the right to not be offended.
Eltahawy also references Soad Saleh, an Islamic law professor who says that the burqa has "nothing to do with Islam" and is, rather, a cultural tradition. Again, I fully agree.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy said recently, "The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” Again, I agree with the first sentence but I'm not sure how the second sentence follows from the first. You cannot justify a ban on something simply by saying that it is a sign of the submission of women. There have to be legal and/or constitutional grounds for implementing such a ban, and, in this case, such grounds do not appear to exist. You could presumably institute or execute laws that prevent men from forcing their wives to do things against their will, but if the burqa is something some women choose to do voluntarily then such injunctions would not be germane.
What is interesting, and rather puzzling, about Eltahawy's article is that it does not attempt to make any real argument for banning the burqa, even though is presumably the intent of her piece. The idea that we can or should ban things we don't agree with is dangerous because it can easily be applied - as it often is - in reverse situations. For example, there have been attempts in Muslim-majority countries to silence minority opinions on the exact same grounds - that a form of expression must be banned because it is an affront to a certain set of norms and values that the majority holds dear.
On such grounds, anything that hints of criticism of Islam in Muslim-majority countries, even those that are supposedly secular, can be made punishable by law. Scholars and commentators have been charged with apostasy and, in some extreme cases, forced into exile for supposedly undermining the Islamic faith (see for instance the case of Nasr Hamed Abu Zayd). The reasoning here operates in parallel to Eltahawy's: Voluntary expressions of speech or faith must be restricted because they come into conflict with societal perceptions of what is "right." It sets a dangerous precedent, then, to go down this path, whether in the name of one set of ideals or another - even if we are convinced, as may very well be, that the one set of ideals is better than the other.
That said, I am more than willing to be convinced that there are indeed reasonable legal and constitutional grounds for banning the niqab, but I have trouble seeing how those might take precedence over the higher principle and constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech and expression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)