Pak Tea House » Islamism » French Burqah Ban and the Secular Dilemma
French Burqah Ban and the Secular Dilemma
Raza Habib Raja
The recent ban imposed by France on Burqah (Full Veil) is generating a lot of reaction. The orthodox Muslims are expected to oppose it but their opposition is not what interests me. They are one hypocritical bunch of spineless people who are ready to cry foul when something happens in France while being supportive of Taliban oppression in our side of the world. They are more concerned about less than two thousand women who by the way have a choice to leave France and yet hypocritically silent over treatment which Muslim women receive in Muslim countries. A French law is hurting them more and yet far more oppressive and discriminatory laws against women in Muslim countries do not make them move an inch.
However at the same time the recent ban on Burqa has generated a lot of interesting debate on whether the step taken by France is true to the ideals of secularism and liberalism or not? But apart from that even the very concept of secularism particularly the way it is practised in France is under scrutiny. The ban opens a whole new philosophical debate on concepts like religious tolerance, freedom, the meaning of secularism and even liberalism. It is the ongoing debate between those who take liberal and secular positions which interests me and there is a lot of merit in discussing the issue in liberal and secular context.
According to one group, Burqah symbolizes religious oppression of women and is a relic of medieval times and therefore completely out of place in the Western world and particularly France which is a proud secular republic. Moreover they also supplement their argument that if someone immigrant is not comfortable then he/she should leave France. Their argument is further augmented by the fact that France bans ALL explicit religious symbols in schools. In fact in 2004, the new “secularity law” was passed with overwhelming support and a vote of 276 to 20. It bans the wearing of Muslim hijabs, Sikh’s head coverings, large Christian crosses or crucifixes, Jewish yarmulkes, etc.
The opposing group argues that secularism is by its essence separation of state and religion and it espouses religious freedom. If religious symbols and for that matter practices do not infringe upon the rights of others, then these should be allowed. Secularism according to them is not negation of religious freedom in the public sphere but rather separation of religion from the state. When liberalism is also thrown in, then the issue becomes even more critical because liberalism by its orientation advocates freedom provided it is not harmful to others. According to them if a woman is wearing a veil out of her own choice and is not compelled by the society then despite the apparent religiosity of Burqah and its historical symbolic association with oppression in some countries , she should be allowed to wear it. Just because Taliban have forced women to wear Burqah in Afghanistan does not mean that a woman in France is also being forced.
It is an interesting ethical dilemma where both the camps are busy indulging in name calling. If you belong to the former group you are blamed of being illiberal and confused about true meaning of secularism by the latter camp. On the other hand you earn yourself a title of closet conservative if you advocate the other point of view.
I think this debate is one of the most interesting one and needs deliberation without needless name calling. Because it is not just a stupid Burqah ( A confession: I hate Burqah) but the nature of secularism which is under scrutiny.
First I would like to acknowledge and admit that France is a sovereign country and has its own interpretation of secularism. It is fiercely protective about its version of secularism and there is an overwhelming consensus within the population about it. Moreover the French have not intentionally discriminated against Muslims as they have similar yardsticks for other religious symbols also. French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools which was passed in 2004 banned explicit religious symbols Prohibited items included headscarves for Muslim girls, yarmulkes for Jewish boys, and turbans for Sikh boys. However, even then the most controversial element was the ban on hijab. The central issue has always been that Muslims are more sensitive when it comes to their religion. The recent ban and the accompanying reaction also prove the same. Let’s not forget that the ban on full face veil actually affects less than 2,000 women and yet it is evoking a strong response. I do not think that French have discriminated against Muslims intentionally; it is their interpretation of secularism coupled with the fact that a full face veil has been common in those countries where women are treated as a mere commodity. The association of full face veil with oppression of women is extremely strong and may have had a strong influence in shaping up the current bill which bans such veils. Apparently French have their reasons and within the context of their own interpretation of secularism, they have not done an inconsistent thing. So the allegation that they are discriminatory against Muslims does not hold much water
However, having said so I would also like to add that I personally do not agree with French model of secularism though I acknowledge their right to impose it in their own country. I think that secularism has to blend in with liberalism. French model of secularism is not essentially liberal at least when it comes to religious beliefs. I would rather prefer the US model which is liberal as well as secular when it comes to religion. The US bills of Rights and particularly the first amendment are excellent examples of how to achieve a very delicate balance between religious freedom and secularism. I think use of religious symbols provided these do not infringe upon the freedom of others, should be allowed. If a woman is WILLINGLY wearing Burqah, (and in Western countries majority of those who wear Burqah, do so out of choice) then she should be allowed. Yes veil may have been a symbol of oppression in some countries but symbols assume their relevance according to the circumstances. A full veil in Afghanistan may be a forced thing but a veil in USA is less likely to be the same thing. And if a veil is being forced in USA then being an open society with better human right record, the woman has full recourse to law and state’s protection.
Secularism has to blend in with religious freedom and tolerance and only then it can be a true liberal version of secularism. The French brand of secularism will not make the concept of secularism popular and will not work in a pluralistic society. It will rather defame and further intensify the confusions surrounding the concept of secularism. This is not to suggest that Muslim countries have credible record compared to France when it comes to minorities as they fare much much worse but at the same time it does raise a question whether France’s secular model is the optimal approach towards achieving a delicate balance between religious freedom and secularism.
Let’s not forget that French laws have been criticized by Human Rights Watch and other organizations also. For example, the Human Rights Watch had the following opinion about the 2004 French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols:
“The proposed French law banning Islamic headscarves and other visible religious symbols in state schools would violate the rights to freedom of religion and expression. Under international law, states can only limit religious practices when there is a compelling public safety reason, when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others, or when it serves a legitimate educational function (such as prohibiting practices that preclude student-teacher interaction). Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses—which are among the visible religious symbols that would be prohibited—do not pose a threat to public health, order or morals; they have no effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of other students; and they do not undermine a school’s educational function.”
As the globe becomes more cosmopolitan, it becomes even more important to get our balance right. And a correct balance is what underpins liberal secularism.
Filed under: Islamism · Tags: France, religious, secularism, veil
63 Responses to "French Burqah Ban and the Secular Dilemma"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said Ethnically speaking all Subcontinentals are Hindus... - AKB
said How utterly amazing is someone who flees from some... - AKB said UGLY INDIA!!
.
India’s slide leads to an i...
- JB
said Here is the reality and the sooner Pakistanis and... - AKB said DAMN THESE LIBERAL MULLAHS!!
.
Dharun Ravi Sen...
- AKB said @ ahem
I have never seen a bigger idiot than y...
- RajTOO
said Tajender,
you copy and paste machine, do you even... - tajender said rajtoo like anyother brhmnst u have nothing except...
- RajTOO said Tajender is a pure Paki. Just because he copies an...
- ahem
said to rex
Monotheism is inherently totalitarian an...
@Raza: I like the point you are making, but I dunt know what is the need to mention that people who are against the French ban are hypocritically supporting Taliban? I am against the French ban and I am not sympathetic to Taliban as are many others? So why say that?
Mustafa
That statement was about orthodox conservative people, not people like you.
I did not mean to say that everyone who opposes french ban supports taliban
The full-face veil can be argued to pose a security threat.
Any person with a common sense would know that burqah or a veil to cover once face is a security risk, some people in England clad in Burqah have robbed a shopkeeper and got away. Perhaps a tradition of the past in Europe and still present mostly in muslim countries. The enforcement of the law on french citizens is not going to be easy by the police as well. We are looking forward to see the challenge in the European court, particularly when a women citizen right of self determination is in question..
We must not, however, ignore the fact that the current French President is of the hungarian jewish origin and has shifted the french pro arab poster to anti arab or anti muslim one. He was elected with support from the right on the basis of anti immigration and anti muslim posture, raising the question of French identity. He opposes the Turkish entry into Europe and followed a pro Israeli politics. His adviser the so called philosopher Levy advised him to go alone and attack Libya, whose ruler Gaddafi had financed his election, so says Mr Gaddafi’s son. Mr Lev hs appeared on most cable networks including CNN and now his propagandist in the media.
Most experts believe that the new nepolian, who speaks bad french has not got any chance of winning the next election, and are expecting some radical pro right voters on his side. Xenophoby is no way to win the votes the second time. I would have preferred to see the coverage of anti-muslim acts of the incumbent President in the article.
Rex Minor
This BBC overview of French secularism may be of interest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3325285.stm
Quote: “The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: a French citizen owes allegiance to the nation, and has no officially sanctioned ethnic or religious identity.
Although it can be carried to extremes – such as colonial subjects being taught that their ancestors were Gauls – this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive.
School bans must be viewed in this context and are nothing new.
In 1937, the education minister of the day instructed head teachers to keep all religious signs out of their establishments.
This was not controversial – but then the state was confronted with a weak opponent in an overwhelmingly secular society. “
Raza Bhai,
How relevant is this ban to Pakistanis in general? None whatsoever so why worry about it.
Last I read approximately 15,000 to 20,000 in France follow this garb. If they are offended, they should file a petition, challenge such ban with compelling arguments and get it repealed. Doing anything irrational as usual would be to say the least ludicrous.
Democracy is all about, showing reason and strength of numbers, following the reason. Regards.
Veiling the muslim woman (and slandering/intimidating the non-veiled women, both muslim and non-muslim, by calling them sluts) is a major factor in strengthening the reach of islamic fascism-totalitarianism. Fascism goes hand in hand with misogyny. Controlling the woman and her body is a major tool for fascists. Fascism cannot survive without that. Reducing the woman to a prized orgasm-giver (for the warrior male, especially if he is supposedly fighting for some primitive god) and a child-bearing machine (for the ummah) has been and is a major factor in the expansionist “success” of islam. This was tried out “successfully” in Arabia even in Mohammad’s times. And the present-day agents of islam will insist on this “successful” tactic even today.
A muslim woman, especialy a veiled one, is (voluntarily or involuntarily) a major contributor towards the strengthening of islamic fascism.
I hope that women in general and muslim women in particular have the intelligence to understand this. If they don’t have this intelligence and the courage to oppose misogyny (be it islamic or any other) then they are lost and mankind is lost too.
Some muslims are using the liberalism and tolerance of non-muslims to push forward with their 7th century totalitarian agenda. Not all muslims do that but the ones who do it are the more powerful ones among them and the rest are helpless against this slinking advance of islamic fascism. Fascism, especially the slinking one, has to be recognised early and dealt with before it is too late. Liberals among muslims must thank France for doing what they themselves cannot do and will not be able to do when it becomes too late. In all conflicts between liberal muslims and fascist muslims the former have had to run away and concede defeat. The kuran and hadith are generally more supportive of the latter.
you poor pakistani
@ Dasghar
It is not relevent to Pakistan but is relevant for debating issues like religous freedom, secualrism etc and is also relevant to the Muslim world in general I think it is ok if we discuss it from that angle.
Muslims are using freedoms and human rights to end many freedoms and human rights. Muslims are misusing the non-muslims’ tolerance everywhere.
Only the criminal (and in some exceptional cases the sick/feeble) need to hide/cover their faces.
What some 7th century arab strongman and his primitive book say is irrelevant or only a nuisance today. If he could not control his sex passions then why penalize the women of today for that?
The French obviously see the slow encroachment of the burqah just as an Arab in the desert would see the tip of a camel’s nose intruding into his warm tent. To raise the bogey of liberalism in this context is merely a pretense. If burqah is indeed a symbol of religious expression then the French have decreed overwhelmingly (276 to 20) that it belongs with religion in its own separate domain in the privacy of an individual’s life and practice of faith, but not in the public sphere. You can never achieve a full separation of religion and state if religion constantly pervades public space.
Basically, this constant desire of a Muslims to carve a new identity under a different banner separate from the collective identity sows seeds of social unrest and disintegration, ultimately threatening the collective identity of nation and state. It will take sweeping reformation among Muslims, to to step boldly from the medieval to contemporary reality – in France today and perhaps the rest of the world very soon.
Behind the islamic burqah or the burqah-carrier lurks the willy-vile-tricky agent of islamic fascism and misogyny. He is slinking into the public sphere to cause unrest, chaos and violence and take over – and that in the name of human rights (!) and freedom to choose one’s clothing!
[...] French Burqah Ban and the Secular Dilemma [...]
Let’s first resolve to use the term secularism as a placeholder, because outside the context of the Protestant Reformation and its leaders’ rebellion against the the Catholic Church of Luther’s time, the term secularism has no meaning. While the Church of Rome decreed that salvation comes only through the church and the intercession of its priests, headed by god’s vicar on earth, the Pope, the reformers argued that faith is a matter of conscience, a matter between man and his maker (who is of course the maker of the Book) unmediated by the church and its priests. So this called for the state to keep out of the affairs of the church, while it agreed to conform to the moral codes of the church. This is what secularism (although the word rarely ever figures in any meaningful sense) means in the US. France does things differently, and its dispensation which we call secular is anything but what the French call it. According to the French, their state is founded on rationalism (shades of Reformation here) and upon keeping religion and the clergy (a part of the 1st estate) out of the affairs of the state. France has defined its identity in what it sees as universal rational terms. This has no place for any religious sentiment. The HRW is wrong in insisting upon an American version of the freedom of conscience for France. This is simply not the way France works.
Dear Roadrunner, the article admits that France has a different interpretation of secularism and it also acknowleges their right to impose it.
However, like any ideology or idea, it can be put under microscope. Being critical about French secularism, the Human Rights Commission is not essentially denying French the right to impose their versi0n.
I condemn French Ban on burqa, although i think it is exactly what French say — sign of women slavery. But my question to Fellow-Pakistanis is that why they oppose French Ban on burqa made into law by their DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERENMENT when the same fellow-Pakistanis conisder it “ABSOLUTELY WITHIN CONFINE OF DECMOCRACY” to declare Kalima-Reciters as Non-Muslim(Kafir), as done by PPP government in 1974 did???
Just as Pakistan has a right to be ‘Islamic’ so France has a right to be ‘Secular’!
What about religious dresses wore by nuns and priests? Would they ban it too?
The one who associates Fascism with Islam at every opportunity should know that the party of extreme right in France and other European countries are classified as fascist parties and the Le Pen fascist party in France for the first time in communal elections was ahead of the french President sarkoz party.
Mr sarkozy’s actions all along have been to make his Govt. program more palatable to the rigtests, who brought him into power in the last national election.
There are estimated 2000 regular Burqha wearers in France, a storm in the tea cup for Sarkozy.
The author should have also mentioned that the Saudi king has a chateau in the centre of Paris and on top of this many hundreds if not thousands tourist families from the Gulf contries clad in burqah visit Paris on the weekends in summer to show Disney Land to their children and do spend millions in shopping. We are definitely going to witness a long hot summer.
The Parisian muslims are very familiar with Sarkozi during the time when he was the interior minister and called the youth as the scum.
French muslims want as much tolerance from the non muslims as the non muslms want from the French muslims. Rmember equality, no Indian caste system or discrimination on the basis of birth or ethnic divide.
The secular system you guys talk about exist in Europe to the extent that neither the church nor the Govt. interferes in each ohers domain.
The French muslim quarters are still out of bounds for the French police. Let us see if the burqha clad french women challenges the new law in muslim quarters or in the shopping centres near the elysee palace? No one wants to witness again the burning of Paris and Marseilles or any unrest in rest of France. But I am not sure, since the french are the most stubborn people known in Europe.
Rex Minor
Dear rex
I have already said in the article that i do not think that french have discriminated against Muslims and secondly within their interpretation of secularism they have done nothing wrong. However, at the same time, I think that a better way of handling religous sensitivities as well as secular ideals is demonstrated by US model. Moreover if I want secualrism to get any positive publicity in Muslim countries, then french model will be counterproductive.
having said sao let me reiterate that from french’s defination of secualrism, they have NOT been discrimanotary at all.
{{What about religious dresses wore by nuns and priests?}}
This is what is called Islamic pig-headedness. Is the burqa-clad Muslim woman a religious representative like a nun or priest is?
We Pakistanis don’t have any reason to criticize French parliament’s decision, even if it is used to suppress a minority like Muslims. Because we ourselves have made discriminatory laws against minorities, while taking advantage of our democratic majority in parliaments.
But for Civilized World it is really an intrusion into personal matters, which should not have happened in a democratic State.
Can’t agree more Mr. Raja.
Burkha on Swiss Accounts is a real problem and not Barbaric Burkha in Anglo lands. Barbaric Burkha is just identity crises and uprooting enslavement of the natives. It could be start and finally culminates into swiss burkha accounts. India needs to tackle first Swiss account Burkha.
==
It is heartening to note the overwhelming response to the fast undertaken by Anna Hazare at Delhi on the issue of corruption and the Jan Lokpal bill. There is a groundswell of public opinion in his favour since ordinary citizens face the problem of corruption on a day-to-day basis.
It is womb to tomb (birth certificate to death certificate) operating procedure for every Indian. But in the midst of this euphoria, we should not lose sight of the Gangotri of corruption, namely, the black money kept by Indians in Swiss banks and in over 70 such havens.
Domestic black money is a vote of no-confidence in our government whereas black money kept in Swiss banks is a vote of no confidence in the Indian society and country and tantamount to treason. The quantum of illegal funds parked abroad across the world by Indians is estimated at least half a trillion dollar. And of the (Swiss franc) CHF2.8 trillion in Swiss banks, about CHF1 trillion is black money, according to Konrad Hummler, chairman of the Swiss private bankers association (see Swiss Review, August 2009).
In August 2009, CHF1 was nearly the same as US $1. This means there is about $1 trillion of black money in Swiss banks. My studied estimate is of this black money, India’s share could be at least $200 billion, or nearly Rs10 lakh crore, which amounted to 15% of India’s GDP in the last financial year.
That is the reason why Swiss media persons visited Jantar Mantar; to find out how much of this anti-corruption movement will shake their empire. There is a sudden spurt in visits by Swiss ministers and delegations to India, all of whom give interviews, the “openness” of the Swiss system and their willingness to share information provided the Indian government gives them concrete evidence.
Switzerland should be ranked as the no 1 country in corruption in the Transparency International index, but criminality is never associated with white people.
This should be Anna Hazare’s main demand: bring back the illegal wealth of India.
Curiously, Hazare’s fast and associated events are partly supported by members of the National Advisory Council (NAC) that jholawala cabinet without accountability. In other words, the NAC is running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, making the PM as the culprit while as NAC is projected as the “people’s cabinet”.
But this game cannot continue since illegal wealth abroad is an issue that will come into focus sooner or later. That, in turn, will shake the edifice of the carefully and craftily formulated agenda of NAC, because it believes that all the cases on 2G/Hasan Ali will be hidden under the Jan Lokpal Bill.
The bill is important but more important is the implementation of any bill. We have enough powers as of now with the government to bring the culprits to book and give exemplary punishment. But the ruling class is unwilling since politicians, bureaucrats, business magnets, sports people, Bollywood stars — everyone is a part of the system perfected over decades to siphon funds from India to tax havens.
Let us definitely have the modified Lokpal bill but let us not forget the main issue, namely, money in Swiss banks. It is the wealth of mother India and should be brought back. Anna Hazare should demand a parliamentary act declaring all illegal wealth of India kept in foreign banks as belongs to the Government of India. Once this is done, other countries cannot refuse information to us.
From February 1, 2011, Switzerland enacted a law for the restitution of illicit assets of politically exposed persons. This act enabled Switzerland to freeze the assets of Gaddafi and his family. This act will be enforced the moment India passes a law nationalising all assets held by Indians abroad. Second, let the government file a general purpose FIR on the illegal wealth — as was done in the case of Punjab terrorists — and as and when the Hasan Alis crop up, then take it up under the general FIR with other countries.
Let us not forget Swiss loot in the midst of all these NAC-created drama in which a genuine person like Anna has been caught. One only hopes that he does not become part of a famous category enunciated by Lenin as “useful idiots”.
The author is professor of finance, Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore. The views expressed are personal
@Raza Raja
I guess the European Court is eventualy going to get involved if the law is enforced, and decide if the act is a discrimination or not? So far the police has been asked to puruade the Burqah clad wome not to wear the garment in public. As an interior minister he used the police on arevious occasion to suppress the social problems f the youth with immigration backgrond and we saw Paris subburbs were burning.
I have different views on ‘secularism’ and agree with Emannuel Kannt the 18th century German philosopher, who said that morality requires the belief in the existance of God, Freedom and Immortality, because without their existance there can be no morality. Secular Govts are concerned with the affairs of this world, not spirtual and sacred. Let us wait ho the newNapolian is going to wriggle himself out of it?
I guess it would be hard for the Islamic republics to get the approval from its democratically elected parliaments when one translates SECULAR in local languages! But this is another theme.
A good day. Sir.
Rex Minor
PS
sorry for the missing words in spellings!
I understand that people have the freedom to post whatever they like. But can Pak Tea House administration make an exception for hate speech? Those who insult others religion, especially in ignorance and those who attack others beleifs and traditions should be banned from this blog. I refer in particular to the most ignorant indians I have ever seen! Who equate Islam with fascism, and call Islam which means ”peace” a warrior religion. They have not studied Islam and dont have any clue what it is.
I sugest the Pak Tea House admin take corrective action on insulting remarks and hate speech! Thanks!
Much better written than Meera Ghani’s article. Even in the author’s ‘objectivity’ – the somewhat confusing measure.
————–
Mustafa, why are these comparisons between Islam and fascism so out of place? As a believer, you have your own view of Islam, but mustn’t others make their own best judgements?
ANYTHING that claims to be the perfect good must allow others the freedom to see it as the perfect evil. Chances are, such a doctrine is more likely to reflect the latter than the former.
A courageous article, Raza.
Now, just a little while ago something came into my mailbox that was talking about the Very Complicated history of the French in the Arab world . . . off the top of my head, I can’t remember exactly where this came up as I subscribe to lots of different information sources. But the thing is, it mentioned the Imperialist practices to which Arab (Muslim) countries like Libya and the other territories it held were subjected. Pillage was a big issue in this thing I read and the existence of stolen artifacts and the onslaught of ‘collecting’ them was rather apologetically aired. Obelisks and Pharaonic relics were big targets . . . and not only for the French. Go to Rome and there’s a massive obelisk in one of the piazzas there – fascinating story about its erection – the guy in charge (who was it? a Pope I raher think,) had ordered that not a word be spoken as it was pulled up into place by a series of ropes and pulleys, under pain of death, mind you, and one hero noticed that the friction was burning through the ropes and threatened to make the thing fall on the people gathered around, and risking his own life, this fellow yelled out “Acqua alle corda!” meaning, water on the ropes . . . .
I think Edward Said has the bead on Orientalism, and the French are still both fascinated and repelled by the East, typical of an ex-colonial power who dabbled very much in the cultures of others. The coronation of Napoleon Bonaparte was a replica of a Roman Emperor’s and if you look at the paintings of someone like Delacroix, there’s that element of the Mystical East in his work (not to mention, decades later, Matisse’s series of Odalisques.)
The burqua is going to be seen by westerners as a symbol of female oppression, like it or not, freely-chosen or not, because the western mind will see anything a woman ‘freely’ chooses (if it’s not to their liking) as an example of women being brainwashed to the point that they ‘freely’ choose a discriminatory item to avoid negative consequences visited upon them by the males in their family/society. This is hard lesson for someone like me, a member of the generation that championed Feminism in the west, to absorb. In our village, I had to accept that I couldn’t go around without my head covered without bringing shame and disgrace upon my family there. If men came to the house, I had to disappear. Flamin’ hell! But that was how it was, and no amount of Feminist rhetoric or logic could undo centuries of practice. So I was a Good Girl and everybody loved me for it.
An aside, a reputable female journalist here saw a woman walking around the swish Canberra Centre (shopping precinct) in a burqua and wrote an article calling for a ban in Canberra, citing the expected Feminist doctrine. It got a lot of attention, and because we have the much-admired and respected Centre for Islamic Studies at the ANU in this town, there was a lot of flack. They called a public forum to debate the journalist and the upshot was that the journalist got her ass whupped. I didn’t attend, because I thought I had my book coming out soon and knew I would give her a piece of my mind based on the above, but did comment on the net forum (it’s still there!) saying that the burqua woman was probably happy to even be able to get out of the house.
Orhan Pamuck’s Snow scratches the surface of this issue, but it’s never clear exactly why the headscarf girls commit suicide – they say it’s because they want to accept their Islamic identity, but Pamuck does reveal also that they’re treated like cattle in their homes . . . So the choice of resisting the headscarf ban – to me after reading it – is a psychological grappling with the need to conform in the context of a culture that treats them like non-people. A kind of justification of the oppression they must submit to for there is no other way available. Here, we call one manifestation of this maldistribution of power ‘Battered Wife Syndrome.’ A battered wife accepts this treatment and somehow comes to believe that she deserves it and doesn’t speak up because of a bunch of reasons, most of which have to do with how she will be seen. I know, I’ve been there with my ex.
So the French government, in the name of liberty and equality, is still pushing a male-oriented agenda, like it or not. Men are still having the final word on how women behave and comport themselves. (Any female parliamentarian is going to have to do a tightrope job in defending women’s rights and keeping her job. Look what Julia Gillard had to do to get the top job.)
In France, topless bathing is just fine, and has been for 30 years, so who are they kidding? Definez-moi what is female dignity?
Thanks Maryanne Khan for excellent observations!
Maryanne Khan and RHR
Allow me to differ with RHR. While RHR’s article was extremely well argued, Maryanne Khan’s post did not make the same impression.
Given the importance of this general subject, I will take a few minutes to explain why.
In two clear ways, RHR’s piece stood out. One, he recognized the situation as one of an ethical dilemma for the French. One doesn’t have to be French to agree with him on that. Two, he recognized French attempts to address this dilemma in their own way.
Then, in a thoughtful and intelligent manner, he proceeded to describe why and how his own resolution of the dilemma would be different.
Agree or disagree with RHR’s resolution of this French dilemma, one develops respect for his views, and can accept his contributions as worthy of further investigation.
Maryanne Khan, unfortunately, fails in every step.
She displays not the slightest acknowledgement, or even awareness, of the French views of or of French debates and efforts to deal with the issue. Her judgements are summary executions. And they are based, first, on a bit of grand history-making stretching over epochs and across people, involving -
(1) Roman loot of Egypt
(2) French loot of the Arab world
(3) Linking French imperialism to Roman imperialism.
In this historical narrative, Islam and Arab become interchangeable. Emperor Octavian Augustus of 700 years before Islam was born becomes the same as Napoleon Bonaparte of last century. And both of them stand in for those ordinary men and women who like politicians everywhere else do in their own countries, struggle with the issues of running their modern nation – the French Republic. With the drama of ‘water on the ropes’ thrown in for added effect, one almost feels that the Maryanne Khan treats Obelisks and Pharaonic treasures as Islamic treasures, the latter’s forcible seizure the same as questioning the Islamic burqa.
After mandatory nods to Edward Said, Pamuck ,and feminists, Maryanne’s closing is devastating. The entire West is dismissed for its failure to see the burqa as as much a matter of personal choice alone as the Muslim world sees it, and for (mistakenly?) following a different tradition and understanding of female dignity, which allows the existence of topless bathes.
In none of this do the French – whose laws we are trying to analyze – figure anywhere, except as Ex-Romans and would-be Imperialists. No other issues impress themselves upon French people and French politicians except those of imperialism. We might as well be discussing a law passed in Pakistan in protest against French imperialists.
That Islamic markers such as Burqa, beard etc are controversial everywhere, even in the Islamic world, in very Pakistan itself – does not matter.
(Read this interesting recent lament by a Pakistani – particularly the author’s observation about local police marking out those wearing Islamic beards and traditional attires. http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/5270/fear-and-self-loathing-in-pakistan/).
Last word: Unfortunately, from the outside, Islamic public discourse appears to be dominated by far too many Maryanne Khans and far too few RHRs. If that changes, better dialogue between different peoples will become possible.
Dear Progressive right
Maryanne is an Australian and has lived in Europe also for a long period . Her observation are not biased by religion . She is speaking her mind and is being candid on what she thinks. Yes may be she is a little harsh on french but I think that you have to read more of her comments to know her over all position. I have seen her numerous comments and she is extremely intelligent and very much against religous fanaticism.
Now for me this debate is very interesting because of the delimma of how to achieve a right mix of religious liberty with the neccessity to ensure that secualr ideals are not compromised. The article as you have rightly pointed out is philosphical reflection on this mix. France has a different solution while USA has a different solution.
Yes I would prefer US solution because I think first amendment is such a sublime way of achieving that correct balance. Right now i am going through a book titled as “Establishing Democracies” which illustrates the rationale behind US consitution. While formulating US constituion, the authors took particular care of making US a republic where religion would be seperated from State but at the same time religous practices would be allowed if these were being followed willingly and were not infringing the rights of others.
France obviously has a different way of interpreting and they have been pretty consistent with their own interpretation.
It is nice to know that you are interested in this philosphical debate and show sound understanding of this ethical delimma.
RHR, that’s great. The French revolution (that ironically, broke off from Napoleon Bonaparte) and French ideas had a huge impact on the framing of the US constitution. Do write about the book once you are done reading it.
France’s understanding of the separation of religion and politics has been shaped by that nation’s bitter struggle with the Catholic Church. The Church had control over vast estates, public morality, education, etc. until the French Revolution came along and gave it the first blow. In exchange for legitimizing his rule, Napoleon restored the Catholic Church to its place of state religion, educator-in-chief, etc. There followed a hundred year struggle, sometimes overt, sometimes covert, until French Republicans won decisively in 1905 with the legal separation of Church and State. After this, religion was displaced decisively from the public sphere. So intense was this anti-religion feeling that even priests had to dress “en civile” when they left monasteries to go into town (this was true in the 1960s, I don’t know if it’s still enforced).
Given this history, I doubt very much that the French are about to make any exceptions for *any* religious tradition. Some religious garb is more adaptible to modern life than others – for example, a headscarf is fine outside the schoolroom as it does not cover the face, so is an Orthodox Jewish woman’s wig for the same reason (heard this interesting analysis on the radio). But in general the attitude towards excessively religious people is: “If you give them an inch, they will take us back to the dark days of pre-Revolutionary monarchical rule.”
A hundred years ago, it was religious Catholics who were going through what Muslims in France are now going through. French laicite will not tolerate any “mission-creep” from any religion as long as France remains republican. Turkey adopted French ideas of secularism hence the same furore over the headscarf and religious symbolism in that country.
@Sharmishtha
A very good historical context to French model of secularism . Really liked it. Thank you for providing it. Attitudes develop over time and are influenced by particular historical experiences. Those attitudes then become codified in laws.
Regards
Raza Habib Raja
I think banning Burqa by a courageous Sarkozy Govt should be the first act to be followed all across the world especially India
Someone pointed out earlier that if Burqa is banned what about attire worn by Nuns and Priests??
The biggest Difference is that NO BODY COVERS THEIR FACE…Especially with the heat of Terrorism felt all across the globe and very specifically in the Corrupt and Ineptly Governed India, it is extremely important to bring this rule NOT TO COVER THE FACE – be it Burqua or anything else. There are so many acts of terror and theft happening in India every single minute due to this menace.
I personally have nothing against a burqa, a skull cap, a langoti, sacred thread or anything for that matter. All I am for is DONT COVER YOUR FACE IN THIS DANGEROUS AGE when you arent sure your brother is planting a bomb next door.
Raza,
I am sorry to say that this was a pathetic article.
What kind of a liberal can’t get himself to support simple freedoms for people he disagrees with?
Meera Ghani’s article, and her interacts, shine in contrast to yours.
Dear Krash
thanks for the candid feed back. Did you read the article till the end? If you had then perhaps you had concluded differntly. Read till the last paragraph and you will see that may you and I are in agreement.
@ krash
For you convienience I am posting an excerpt from the article because it is obvious that you have not read it till the end.
“I think use of religious symbols provided these do not infringe upon the freedom of others, should be allowed. If a woman is WILLINGLY wearing Burqah, (and in Western countries majority of those who wear Burqah, do so out of choice) then she should be allowed. Yes veil may have been a symbol of oppression in some countries but symbols assume their relevance according to the circumstances. A full veil in Afghanistan may be a forced thing but a veil in USA is less likely to be the same thing. And if a veil is being forced in USA then being an open society with better human right record, the woman has full recourse to law and state’s protection.
Secularism has to blend in with religious freedom and tolerance and only then it can be a true liberal version of secularism. The French brand of secularism will not make the concept of secularism popular and will not work in a pluralistic society. It will rather defame and further intensify the confusions surrounding the concept of secularism.”
So before commenting kindly read till the end…
Thanks Raza,
Indeed I did not read till the end. I gave up after,
“…though I acknowledge their right to impose it in their own country.”
Sorry about that.
Though, I wish you would write in a more concise and direct manner.
Thanks krash
Actually this article was more of a philosphical reflection on the ongoing debate between two camps who call themselves liberals. And that is why i had to present both the views before giving my own conclusion, which is actually identical with yours and Meera’s conclusion.
Meera’s article was a personal reflection and was direct. Yes she wrote it brilliantly and in fact in the comments section I have defended her against BJ Kumar and appreciated her defense when salman Arshad rose a point.
I think that one point few “liberals” who ar4e supporting the ban are missing is that in a country like france women who are wearing Burqah are most probably wearing out of choice. France is not Afghanistan where it is forced on them. I think for such “liberals” desire to look liberal is more important rather than adhering to the spirit of liberalism
RHR, You said : “I think that one point few “liberals” who ar4e supporting the ban are missing is that in a country like france women who are wearing Burqah are most probably wearing out of choice. France is not Afghanistan where it is forced on them.”
Question: Where does the family and community pressure that immigrant communities in the west come in your mental paradigm?
Bkgd: I am a female who spent teen years in India and more than 20 years since in West. I can honestly testify that the familial pressure on immigrant females to conform to retrograde, repressive religious concepts in West is quite high. In west, these concepts carry the additional approval stamp of “oh, look she/they have not forgotten their roots, have not become gora…how respectable they are…what nice, moral women!” By adopting these symbols one gains enormous brownie points for themselves and their families in the eyes of the immigrant community.
Don’t casually brush off this explicit and implicit pressure that immigrant females face
@ jtmh
To some The answer to the point you have made is there in the article above. I acknowledge that in some cases it may be true also. But we really can not know that everyone of them is being “forced” and then they should not be protesting against the ban if it was forced!!The central point is that since in West women have better recourse to law and have much wider and open access to various point of views therefore they are in a better position to leave Burqah compared to a country like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
I think actually the rationale for ban on Burqah is much greater in saudi arabia and I would actually fully support such a ban (though I know that it is day dreaming!!!)
@ RHR:
Just being ideally liberal and supporting the right of everyone and anyone to hold whatever ideology they want to, is not possible if a nation state is to run.
The only reasonable outcome of such idealism is on the lines of the creation of Pakistan: that those who are culturally so different that they cannot live together, should manage their own governing and separate from the each other.
So, if your idealism is to be followed honestly, Muslims literally EVERYWHERE in the world, should separate and create their own little nation states, ideally, or group together if that is convenient.
Do you in reality agree to such a solution to the problems of such a conflict of cultures ?
And how do think this “Great Problem of Muslims” that they cannot live with others if they try to follow their religion completely, should be resolved, ideally and practically ?
to mustafa
To call a spade a spade is not hate-speech.
Fascism, totalitarianism and imperialism have certain criteria, methods and results.
Examining them reveals that this 7th century arab religion is fascistic, totlitarian and imperialistic and arab-hegemonial.
Don’t try this trick of suppressing or silencing criticism by resorting to “hurt” feelings and sentiments. Every genuine criticism hurts someone’s feelings or sentiments (as it must). This “hurt” cannot be and never should be the reason to ban it or silence it.
One reason why this arab religion and its defenders remains backward and become a source of nuisance or indulge in deceit and self-deceit is because the various emotional tricks by its agents and followers to ban/censor or vilify criticism.
@ salman Arshad
Sir did you read the article?
From where have you inferred your comment above, Article is about various models of secualrism in the context of religous rituals
Regards
to RHR
You talk about a correct balance. Does that mean being ambiguous or ambivocal? Ambiguity is not synonymous with correct balance.
Liberal secularism means taking a clear position and not justifying it by using any revelation, god, piety sentiments, holiness feelings etc. and giving no quarter to those who would do that. It does not mean non-violence if it is known that the opponents (in the past) used violence and justifeied it by resorting to some revelation, god, piety sentiments, holiness feelings etc.
If your article is a “this as well as that” then it is not only useless but counterproductive.
Viva
can you tell me what is the ambiguity? Please spell it out!
Respected RHR
I failed to see what your clear position is.
One must in his article bring together various pros and cons – well and good. But at the end of the article one must state or restate his position with utter clarity in minimal words (without those whens and buts).
If it is dangerous in an islam-based society to practise clarity (which indeed is the case) then I have full understanding for you. I know that in societies where fascism has penetrated deep into everything (even in families and marital life, what to speak of parties and politics) and it is backed by some so-called revelation and its monopolists (with their street gangs), honest intellectuals (there are dishonest intellectuals too) have to lead risky lives.
It pains me to see the name-giving homeland of the Hindus (the Sindhu river basin) under the boot of an unflinching fascism exported unflinchingly from Arabia. But such exports need their quislings – they can’t function without them. The face-veil is the flag of this fascism. It is actually an arabic spit in all women’s faces.