French Hijab Ban.

sema sahin · 10-29-2009, 07:22 PM

[SIZE="1"]Though I've known about the hijab ban in France for quite a long time, just the very thought of it makes me want to cry.

Describes my thoughts completely:
"What is the difference, I ask, between forcing the hijab ON (as the West constantly whines about) and forcing the hijab OFF the sisters? Where is the freedom of personal choice? Amazingly, these same societies are perfectly fine with a woman aborting her unborn child (its her body, she can do what she pleases, right?), yet this same woman would be scorned, her rights to education stripped, and other indignations imposed, if she puts a piece of cloth on her head. Could there be a better example of morality turned upside-down?"

This ban is not just in France though...other areas all over Europe, and even MUSLIM countries such as Tunisia, Turkey, and areas of Tajikstan.

random hijab pics:[/img]

tuturututu · 10-29-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

"What is the difference, I ask, between forcing the hijab ON (as the West constantly whines about) and forcing the hijab OFF the sisters? Where is the freedom of personal choice? Amazingly, these same societies are perfectly fine with a woman aborting her unborn child (its her body, she can do what she pleases, right?), yet this same woman would be scorned, her rights to education stripped, and other indignations imposed, if she puts a piece of cloth on her head. Could there be a better example of morality turned upside-down?"

I agree.

**tereg** · 10-29-2009, 07:51 PM

Reading this prompted me to read some material on the context and other commentary on the issue. I came across this: Visiting the Hijab… Again. Nuseiba

I'd like your thoughts about this because I found it quite an interesting read.

hkkmr · 10-29-2009, 08:12 PM

I think the ban is only public schools and sometimes governmental buildings. This is different then the religious mandates which are restrictive to all non-private space.

In France the law is actually all displays of religious affiliation within government run schools. This is more akin to the banning of gang signs and colors in various schools in America.

To compare these bans to sharia is ridiculous. Sharia laws typically enforce mandatory burqa and other attire for women in all public places. Also, there is a good amount of sectarian violence in Islam where certain articles of attire are viewed as important by one sect and not so by another. Often a tolerant nation will ban sectarian dress in order to prevent violence in the streets.

Anyways Islamic and all religious practices have no place in a secular government, and exclusion of religious practices and overt religious expression within governmental spaces is constitutionally legal. The basis of secular society is the non-interference of any religious majority within the government. It is not a podium for religious expression, and this is why religious attire is banned.

As a whole in the history of man, religious groups have always been in opposition with other religious groups and non-religious group, to the point of genocide, enslavement and gross exploitation.

What's the punishment for apostasy again?

YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Apostasy In Islam Carries The Death Penalty

That's right... death. Here's to keeping religion out of government.

sema sahin · 10-29-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I think the ban is only public schools and sometimes governmental buildings. This is different then the religious mandates which are restrictive to all non-private space.

In France the law is actually all displays of religious affiliation within government run schools. This is more akin to the banning of gang signs and colors in various schools in America.

To compare these bans to sharia is ridiculous. Sharia laws typically enforce mandatory burqa and other attire for women in all public places. Also, there is a good amount of sectarian violence in Islam where certain articles of attire are viewed as important by one sect and not so by another. Often a tolerant nation will ban sectarian dress in order to prevent violence in the streets.

Anyways Islamic and all religious practices have no place in a secular government, and exclusion of religious practices and overt religious expression within governmental spaces is constitutionally legal. The basis of secular society is the non-interference of any religious majority within the government. It is not a podium for religious expression, and this is why religious attire is banned.

As a whole in the history of man, religious groups have always been in opposition with other religious groups and non-religious group, to the point of genocide, enslavement and gross exploitation.

What's the punishment for apostasy again?

YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Apostasy In Islam Carries The Death Penalty

That's right... death. Here's to keeping religion out of government.

The reason the punishment for apostasy was death was because it was almost always synonymous with treason. Even many Muslims do not understand this though...Islam is a very misunderstood religion...not by just non-Muslims, but by Muslims also.

Shariah law is unislamic in many cases. There is no reason why a woman should be walking around in a tent if she doesn't want to. Most of the restrictions dress for women under "Shariah" in many countries are not taken from Qur'an OR Sunnah. The burqa is absolutely unnecessary under Islam, and so is the niqab...People do think it is nice to wear though because it was something the Prophet's wives did...but they did it more as a stasis symbol than anything, and has no basis in Islam.

By banning all types of religious dress...a person is not allowed to practice their religion properly. And this...I see as wrong.

hkkmr · 10-29-2009, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sema sahin

The reason the punishment for apostasy was death was because it was almost always synonymous with treason. Even many Muslims do not understand this though...Islam is a very misunderstood religion...not by just non-Muslims, but by Muslims also.

It's does not matter whether or not anyone understand your religion, perhaps you're the one that does not understand your religion. As such the punishment for apostasy is still death and not was. However, in most societies, it is not a enforceable because thankfully the people that wish to do this are not in charge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sema sahin

Shariah law is unislamic in many cases. There is no reason why a woman should be walking around in a tent if she doesn't want to. Most of the restrictions dress for women under "Shariah" in many countries are not taken from Qur'an OR Sunnah. The burqa is absolutely unnecessary under Islam, and so is the niqab...People do think it is nice to wear though because it was something the Prophet's wives did...but they did it more as a stasis symbol than anything, and has no basis in Islam.

By banning all types of religious dress...a person is not allowed to practice their religion properly. And this...I see as wrong.

In some western countries, there is only a ban on religious expression within a governmental school or other governmental buildings typically. I do not agree with the full public bans, but this is just not the case. As some government are a secular institution and cannot promote one religion or another, it's participants cannot overtly display and make these expression when participating in government, either as a citizen, student or employee. This is the interpretation of some governments, by no means all.

You are not allowed freedom of speech in all government functions or government processes. Your practice of religion is not necessarily protected in this location, but neither is a practice of another religion enforced.

Just as you're not allowed to speak out of turn in the Congress or a court room, in some governments, one is not allowed to promote their religion.

In the Muslim nations, there is sometimes a strain of sectarian violence that relates to differing interpretation of Islam. This sectarian violence is sometimes is avoided by the ban of sectarian forms of dress within public areas.

Religious rhetoric as a whole against these bans are typically motivated by deep political motivations and they have no interest in the freedom of others and typically no ethical restraint against enforcing harsh and uncompromising practices upon dissenting groups when they get into power.

Secular society is not here to promote your religion or allow a podium in the government for religious indoctrination. It is mostly to prevent groups from enforcing their practices upon other groups. As a whole, religious practices are not protected in the majority of secular constitution. Religious beliefs are protected, but not practices such as polygamy, killing people for apostasy, animal sacrifice and in some places the wearing of sectarian garb. In most cases, the rules in western society are not in contradiction with these precedents.

In the case of religious garb, it is only banned within the operation of the government and the governmental education system in France, which is a narrow context for your criticism. The criticism being levied against some Islamic nations is that the entirety of a female's day to day life is being restricted without context. Irregardless of their status or choices in life, their dress and expression is restricted. This is fundamentally different then the creation of neutral areas of interaction within schooling and government.

Is the practice of religion being restricted in these neutral areas, certainly in some secular states, but this is not necessarily wrong or improper to the function of a secular society.

In no case is the enforcement of dress upon gender lines and in all areas of life the same nor would such a system of oppression be tolerated under most secular societies.

sema sahin · 10-29-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkkmr

It's does not matter whether or not anyone understand your religion, perhaps you're the one that does not understand your religion. As such the punishment for apostasy is still death and not was. However, in most societies, it is not a enforceable because thankfully the people that wish to do this are not in charge.

In some western countries, there is only a ban on religious expression within a governmental school or other governmental buildings typically. I do not agree with the full public bans, but this is just not the case. As some government are a secular institution and cannot promote one religion or another, it's participants cannot overtly display and make these expression when participating in government, either as a citizen, student or employee. This is the interpretation of some governments, by no means all.

You are not allowed freedom of speech in all government functions or government processes. Your practice of religion is not necessarily protected in this location, but neither is a practice of another religion enforced.

Just as you're not allowed to speak out of turn in the Congress or a court room, in some governments, one is not allowed to promote their religion.

In the Muslim nations, there is sometimes a strain of sectarian violence that relates to differing interpretation of Islam. This sectarian violence is sometimes is avoided by the ban of sectarian forms of dress within public areas.

Religious rhetoric as a whole against these bans are typically motivated by deep political motivations and they have no interest in the freedom of others and typically no ethical restraint against enforcing harsh and uncompromising practices upon dissenting groups when they get into power.

Secular society is not here to promote your religion or allow a podium in the government for religious indoctrination. It is mostly to prevent groups from enforcing their practices upon other groups. As a whole, religious practices are not protected in the majority of secular constitution. Religious beliefs are protected, but not practices such as polygamy, killing people for apostasy, animal sacrifice and in some places the wearing of sectarian garb. In most cases, the rules in western society are not in contradiction with these precedents.

In the case of religious garb, it is only banned within the operation of the government and the governmental education system in France, which is a narrow context for your criticism. The criticism being levied against some Islamic nations is that the entirety of a female's day to day life is being restricted without context. Irregardless of their status or choices in life, their dress and expression is restricted. This is fundamentally different then the creation of neutral areas of interaction within schooling and government.

Is the practice of religion being restricted in these neutral areas, certainly in some secular states, but this is not necessarily wrong or improper to the function of a secular society.

In no case is the enforcement of dress upon gender lines and in all areas of life the same nor would such a system of oppression be tolerated under most secular societies.

I'm sorry, but forcing a woman to remove part of her clothing just seems wrong to me. I really don't care about whatever justifications. What about forcing a woman to remove her pants? You might not think it's a fair comparison, but as a hijabi...I can honestly say that when I am forced to go outside without my hijab (like when my mother makes me on certain occasions)...I simply feel exposed. Not a good feeling.

**Subterranean** · 10-29-2009, 09:45 PM

Personally I think it's wrong that I am "forced" to wear clothes, full stop.

sema sahin · 10-29-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subterranean

Personally I think it's wrong that I am "forced" to wear clothes, full stop.

You're a nudist?

hkkmr · 10-29-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sema sahin

I'm sorry, but forcing a woman to remove part of her clothing just seems wrong to me. I really don't care about whatever justifications. What about forcing a woman to remove her pants? You might not think it's a fair comparison, but as a hijabi...I can honestly say that when I am forced to go outside without my hijab (like when my mother makes me on certain occasions)...I simply feel exposed. Not a good feeling.

But this is simply not the case. The only places where this is prohibited in France is within government schools and maybe some government buildings, and not when you go out in public.

Dress codes in schools is nothing new. See uniform and various other requirements at many institutions around the world.

Deal with it, take your hat off when you walk into a building like some guys too. Your discomfort in a government building isn't necessarily something that is protected.

As much of a rallying cry against oppression your headgear is, it's fairly unimportant considering the actual discrimination that occurs against Muslims in the Western World, as well as much of the actions of Muslims themselves in their neck of the woods.

**Subterranean** · 10-29-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sema sahin

You're a nudist?

You could say I was born for it!

sema sahin · 10-29-2009, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subterranean

You could say I was born for it!

Lol, I guess everyones comfort zone is different.

**tereg** · 10-29-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Another point which was mentioned in the forum and is often overlooked is the diversity among Muslim woman’s dress. For the majority of Muslim women the distinction isn’t as simple as being veiled/unveiled. Hussein discusses her experiences in Pakistan, and their quite similar to mine with the Kashmiris I know. I mentioned above that I don’t have much experience with the hijab and I don’t – in my family and wider community there’s only 3 women who wear the hijab. However, while women don’t wear the hijab, they do veil when the situation requires them to. Most of the women, including my mother, wear shalwar kameez and cover their hair with their dupattas when they need too. Veiling and unveiling is more a continuum of experience rather than a strict dichotomy. There are women who wear hijab and women who don’t, there are some women who fall in between those two positions, some women used to wear the hijab but decided to stop, some don’t wear the hijab but want to, some who don’t at all but wear modest clothes otherwise and not all women who wear hijab do so in the same way. These sound like simple enough points to be making but its a diversity which is often overlooked in debates on women’s dress in Islam. In the end, there are no easy cookie cutter categories to slot in Muslim women. The hijab represents just one aspect of that diversity.

I am quoting this from the piece I linked above, but I'm actually kind of curious about your thoughts about this as well. I'm also curious about the "larger picture" that is hinted at in the piece, that is highlighted by the following

Quote:

Early in the forum Hussein mentions an important point on discussions of Islam. Women are included in the discussion but are routinely sidelined to discuss only the hijab, whereas men are given the space and power to discuss everything else which affects Muslims. Krista at MMW made a similar point when reviewing a forum organised by ISNA. Another point which Hussein highlights is the obsession with the hijab. The hijab continues to be the focal point of the discussion on Islam and women’s rights especially among non-Muslims (Chesler v Wolf, anyone?) While discussion on Islamic feminism should go further than the hijab, Muslim women respond to those writers because our voices should be included within the debate. But the same issues get repeated again and again and it’s difficult to try and move beyond that discussion because so much of the focus is on the hijab. It’s something I’ve encountered here at Nuseiba – I’ve written a lot of non-hijab posts but there’s an equal amount of posts focussing on the hijab. I think I’ve discussed the hijab more on this blog than anywhere else which is a little odd for me sometimes because I don’t have that much experience with it. In the end, the constant focus on the hijab obscures the real issue: challenging the structures which perpetuate the disempowerment of women.

I can't really comment intelligently about any of this because I barely know anything about the subject, but I'm just wanting to learn perspective about what is being touched on here, and perhaps get your thoughts about the validity about what is being said here.

**Subterranean** · 10-29-2009, 10:23 PM

Anyway, I cannot say I agree with this 'hijab' ban in France, apart from on the grounds of health and safety or something like that. I would be opposed to people in positions of some authority in a secular institution having an overtly religious piece of dress however...but it would be difficult for something resembling a hijab to be classified as such unless you were told about it. Even if someone had a plain crucifix around their neck it wouldn't obviously be a religious symbol!

I am against 'children' (with no particular definitive upper age limit) wearing religious attire because it smacks too much of being born into a religion and not having much of an opportunity to actually think of your position on things. This may seem like an inconsequential and hypocritical objection because if children were forbidden from wearing religious attire, it probably wouldn't prevent unscrupulous parents from brainwashing their children, and I'm sure non-religious parents with no attire to represent their views could just as easily brainwash their children...and also, it would arguably contravene the rights of the individual.

Jimbean · 10-31-2009, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sema sahin

[SIZE="1"]"What is the difference, I ask, between forcing the hijab ON (as the West constantly whines about) and forcing the hijab OFF the sisters? Where is the freedom of personal choice? Amazingly, these same societies are perfectly fine with a woman aborting her unborn child (its her body, she can do what she pleases, right?), yet this same woman would be scorned, her rights to education stripped, and other indignations imposed, if she puts a piece of cloth on her head. Could there be a better example of morality turned upside-down?"

You may not understand what I am saying, but our so-called rulers hate individual human beings. That basically sums up what I am able to say on this issue at this time.

Ryu · 10-31-2009, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbean

You may not understand what I am saying, but our so-called rulers hate individual human beings. That basically sums up what I am able to say on this issue at this time.

I don't understand you either, jimbean.

anyway, I'm all for hijabs, if it's women wanting to wear them by choice.

10-29-2009, 07:22 PM	#1 (permalink)
sema sahin Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: the US. Posts: 143	French Hijab Ban. [SIZE="1"]Though I've known about the hijab ban in France for quite a long time, just the very thought of it makes me want to cry. Describes my thoughts completely: "What is the difference, I ask, between forcing the hijab ON (as the West constantly whines about) and forcing the hijab OFF the sisters? Where is the freedom of personal choice? Amazingly, these same societies are perfectly fine with a woman aborting her unborn child (its her body, she can do what she pleases, right?), yet this same woman would be scorned, her rights to education stripped, and other indignations imposed, if she puts a piece of cloth on her head. Could there be a better example of morality turned upside-down?" This ban is not just in France though...other areas all over Europe, and even MUSLIM countries such as Tunisia, Turkey, and areas of Tajikstan. random hijab pics:[/img] __________________ ﴾ لَهُمْ دَارُ السَّلاَمِ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَهُوَ وَلِيُّهُمْ بِمَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ ﴿ "When you see an evil act you have to stop it with your hand. If you can't, then at least speak out against it with your tongue. If you can't, then at least you have to hate it with all your heart. And this is the weakest of faith." Last edited by sema sahin; 10-29-2009 at 09:26 PM.

10-29-2009, 09:45 PM	#8 (permalink)
Subterranean Socionics Knowledge Rank: 30/30: 'Expert' Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: I Transcend geographical boundaries and Time itself Posts: 7,489	Personally I think it's wrong that I am "forced" to wear clothes, full stop. __________________ “Life is peculiar,” said Jeremy. “Compared to what?” asked the spider. – Men Who Play God (1968), by Norman Moss.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-29-2009, 10:23 PM	#14 (permalink)
Subterranean Socionics Knowledge Rank: 30/30: 'Expert' Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: I Transcend geographical boundaries and Time itself Posts: 7,489	Anyway, I cannot say I agree with this 'hijab' ban in France, apart from on the grounds of health and safety or something like that. I would be opposed to people in positions of some authority in a secular institution having an overtly religious piece of dress however...but it would be difficult for something resembling a hijab to be classified as such unless you were told about it. Even if someone had a plain crucifix around their neck it wouldn't obviously be a religious symbol! I am against 'children' (with no particular definitive upper age limit) wearing religious attire because it smacks too much of being born into a religion and not having much of an opportunity to actually think of your position on things. This may seem like an inconsequential and hypocritical objection because if children were forbidden from wearing religious attire, it probably wouldn't prevent unscrupulous parents from brainwashing their children, and I'm sure non-religious parents with no attire to represent their views could just as easily brainwash their children...and also, it would arguably contravene the rights of the individual.