Politics of De-veiling

We must first see what`s hijab, where it came from and what are the impacts of hijab on the culture of a society and then debate on this topic. We see that the hijab culture of Saudi Arabia is such that it can hardly be called any culture. Hijab is in fact a part of Wahabi culture which is a continuation of the culture of the Kafirs of Mecca which was modified according to the funamentals of Islam. Arabs don`t respect women on the basis of their different relationships with the women of them. They see women only with one eye and their eye can penetrate though all kinds of hijabs and pardahs. This is the true characteric of their hijab culture from which and nobody including the prophets could ever escape. They wish to spread the same kind of culture in other parts of the world also and damage their social culture. In muslim countries they`re already been successful in damaging the centuries old family culture which was based on the respect of women from many different relationship angles. In contrast to the family culture, everbody in Wahabi faith is na-mehram except for the real brother of father and they too have many restriction while talking to their sisters or daughters. For this reason they`re fundding many fundamentalist institutions that give education on hijab, and to hide women from namehrams. If hijab culture or the Wahabi culture is allowed to dominate any society then it`ll definately damage the real culture of that society.

I don`t know its just me or other guys have the same feelings that the Hijabi women are getting sexier and more desirable everyday. Hijab may be a fad for now but it is working out pretty well to ravage our feeble hearts. Is that right guys?

``Muslim groups are already unhappy with Britain`s education system, which they last week branded Islamophobic as they called for Britain`s 300,000 Muslim children to be offered exclusive Muslim schools and more single-sex teaching.

The debate mirrors that in France, where a ban passed in March on Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses being worn in schools sparked a bitter row. ``

``Happiness`` is not in the Kismet of ``Muslim groups`` -- apparently anywhere in the world...

nikki: ``I`m a product of India and America...growing up in India i was a part of the society and state that i lived in and subscribed to it`s ways and means...after emigrating to the US i became a part of american society subscribing to its` ways and means...I have integrated fairly well into american society and have thrown in my lot with other americans experiencing all that this society has to offer , both good and bad...of all the immigrant communities it is those from the so-called `islamic states` that refuse to integrate into the society they emigrate to and insist on reaping the benefits only of that society...they are shrill in demanding rights based on religion and they emigrate to countries that are secular in nature...that`s the paradox that i find baffling..it seems they want to have their cake and eat it too..and that`s why last year the twenty five countries deemed a threat to the US were all `islamic` and their citizenry who were not regularized in the US were all deported...As far as France, the French have a right to demand that headscarves not be permitted as long as the law was enacted according to established democratic and legal procedures and those who don`t agree should just take their behind out of there...simple....do in rome as the romans do or leave.... `` --

man u sound like a total Uncle Tom

where did u get this nugget from: ``and that`s why last year the twenty five countries deemed a threat to the US were all `islamic` and their citizenry who were not regularized in the US were all deported...`` ????


``As far as France, the French have a right to demand that headscarves not be permitted as long as the law was enacted according to established democratic and legal procedures and those who don`t agree should just take their behind out of there...simple....do in rome as the romans do or leave.... `` -- tell that the sikhs of france too nikki o wise sage


````I`m a product of India and America`` -- yes, it shows --

Dear mind reader, which of the two thoughts does a `weirdly attired hijabi` woman arise in you? Oh, whatever it may be, since SHE is weirdly attired, its all her fault, isn`t it?

Hey, speaking of weirdly attired people, what statment, do you think, one makes who `wears metal-tipped boots, has sharp green hair that`s shaved at the sides, wears black lipstick, and has tongue + nipple piercing(which he insists on showing)`? Well, I am sorry if it is discriminatory to call such an attire a weird one! (hijab still is weird though, isn`t it)

its all a question of hunger for ATTENTION and ATTENTION -- nothing else ...

a weirdly attired hijabi woman in public -- is making two statements -- one for MEN and another for WOMEN:

to men she says -- I am hungry for male attention -- look at me the weird one -- in the sea of conventionally dressed nondescript unnoticed women -- I stand out like a big boil on the the face of womanhood -- you have no choice but to notice me.....look at me

-- to a woman she says -- look at me -- with my head covered -- and my body in a sack I am more PIOUS than you -- because I cover my beautiful hair with an ugly scarf -- and you don`t....you are a Hair-Hooker -- because you want every male on the street to look at your sinfully sinuous flowing hair -- and salivate inside....I don`t -- I make them turn their head away from me in disgust....so I am a better woman than you ....?

but why...

little they realize -- these repressed brainwashed religious stupidos -- that with that weird unconventional attire -- in Paris, in Washington DC or in Islamabad -- they attaract thousand times more attention -- from MEN -- in one day -- than the conventionally attired sinful women...in their whole lifetime...

Ayesha,

``Please don`t twist the facts to suit your argument. The ban is not just on ``grand display of religious symbolism`` as you say, but all religious symbolism. Moreover, it is not just on turbans, headscarves and skullcaps but does very much include crosses around the neck, etc. ``

I double checked, and ``In public elementary schools, junior highschools and highschools, students are prohibited from wearing signs or attire through which they exhibit ostensibly a religious affiliation.`` Little pendants are easily hidden beneath the clothing, and therefore easily avert the wrath of school officials. In practice, then, the ban is on what I said - those displays of religion which cannot be so easily hidden, which we may as well call `grand` displays on par with the Hijab and Sikh turban.

``And how convenient for you to decide that the wearing of a skullcap is not mandatory for Jews but implying slyly that the hijab is mandatory for Muslims (many would disagree)``

Disingenuous. A good number of those who do wear the Hijab, in particular those who are opposed to this law, do in fact regard the Hijab as mandatory. There is no slyness here. That`s simply how it is. You and I can disagree with them until we`re blue in the face...now, are there any Jews who feel the same way? If not, then you can understand why there is little opposition from them. That was the point.

``... and going on to presume that Sikh turbans are imminently exempt and thus the law is Muslim-specific--very very tenuous argument vertex--you have to do better than that. ``

No, as I said all and sundry in France recognizes the laws as Muslim (in particular North African)-specific. If you want tenuous, then banning the Hijab on grounds of secularism, in spite of the fact that the French govt. heavily funds religious organizations is VERY tenuous. The law as a means of upholding France`s secular traditions (laïcité - allegedly the ``real`` issue here) is a joke.

``This is partially a race relations issue, but it is twisting the facts to call it Muslim-specific.``

Nope, no twisting. Just a realistic look at what`s going on.

``Equally importantly, it is also an issue of women`s rights, which you ignore. Many many Muslim women in France lobbied for the ban--a fact we must not ignore. ``

Why can`t we ignore it? Like I said, the Hijab in and of itself is not a women`s right issue. No more than mandatory dress (i.e. a top, pants) are.

One poll suggested that 49% of Muslim women support the ban and 43% did not. Last I checked, Western notions of ``freedom`` weren`t a matter of a vote. The only opinion that does matter is those who choose to wear the Hijab. At least that`s the way it works with every other issue, why not this one? Personally, as I`ve stated, I think France has the right to do whatever the heck it wants. Just wish they had a coherent reason behind it...and yeah, coming out and saying ``we want North Africans to assimilate into French culture`` is a valid enough reason, no matter how unpleasant it sounds.

Speaking of tenuous arguments, this idea that the ban is being done on behalf of those who are ‘forced’ (or pressured ) to wear the Hijab is a joke. Children are `forced` to do many things...including wearing clothes in general (a no brainer). They`re forced to wear uniforms in some schools even. Hell, they`re even `forced` to get educated. You can`t argue for ``religious`` freedom in once breath, and argue against ``personal`` freedom in another if you want to be consistent. Parents will raise their children as they see fit, and if that means pressuring them to adopt to familial norms, then that’s what EVERYONE does.

Now, there were also feminists who were trying to link the banning of the Hijab with rape in the inner-city ghettoes by Arab brutes, who in fact do harass women who don`t dress ``modestly``. The argument goes that this causes many women who would otherwise not think o fwearing the Hijab to wear it. This is a VERY important issue, however linking it with a ban on Hijab in elementary and high schools is semi retarded though. Personally, I would go after the brutes with a vengeance, not school children who wear the Hijab.

---

hamidm2,

``islamists...should be identified and exterminated before they blow up another tall building or kill more innocent people``

I dunno, secular types of your breed have a knack for inventing reasons to invade countries and `shocking and awing` them to death. Sorry dude, 9/11 is small-time compared to your types. You moaning on about Islamists is like a tiger telling everyone to beware the mouse. It`s just dumb.

Don`t you have a prisoner to rape? Better yet, go to some middle eastern country, set up a check point and start randomly firing at passing cars. Great fun!

It’s hilarious you use nazi analogies, yet you yourself are a closet fascist. When will the hypocrisy and double standards end? Either you’re a godless goosesteper, or you’re all for the freedom fries. Can’t have both, son.

---

soysauce,

``I believe in the right of parents in the privacy of the home and the right of the society in public schools. ``

A fascinating dichotomy.

``I also think there`s something perverse about muslim men living outside of france defending the right of muslim parents in france ghettoizing their children. ``

This is so fascinating. Ghettoization is a much more dangerous, and complex problem faced by ethnic groups from all over the world. France, in particular, has a HUGE North African (mostly algerian) community, and it is largely in ghettos. The idea that the Hijab espouses ghettoization is simply excusing those in the mainstream who would ghettoize these women for wearing somethig on their head. Indeed, many staunch secularists took to the streets citing exactly this - if anything, banning the Hijab from school may cause the Algerian community to take their children out of the public school system altogether and into some makeshit alternatives of pooer quality in the ghettos. NOT a good way to integrate a minority.

As for ghettoization, who`s to blame? If these young women would otherwise like to attend public school, and aspire to take part in society as a whole then they are not at fault. Those who can`t tolerate them are. On the other hand, those who wear the Hijab as a manifestation of a greater desire to isolate and segregate from the larger society are themselves at fault. I would be reasonable and assume you get both types. In the end, though, this has nothing to do with the particular issue, or Hijab wearing in general. In fact, it`s a greater problem.

There is no symmetry between being pressured to wear the hijab and not wear it. Let me give you an admittedly extreme example. If a child would like to go to school wearing underwear only and the parents have no objection, should the state intervene? You argue that a girl choosing to wear hijab in the face of peer pressure is exhibiting greater autonomy of thought. It actually depends on peer pressure versus parental pressure. If she chooses to wear hijab, it may reflect nothing more than greater pressure from the parents. Your examples of iran & french algeria are flawed and products of hysteria. As far as i know, france has not outlawed the hijab from public sphere, only from public schools. The question is whether the greater society or the parents have the right to brainwash children in public schools. I believe in the right of parents in the privacy of the home and the right of the society in public schools.
I also think there`s something perverse about muslim men living outside of france defending the right of muslim parents in france ghettoizing their children.

vertex

.... you are right when you say, ``that this law does indeed target the Muslim community in particular``..................... and it should! ...... islamists (not to be confused with your everyday cultural muslims) should be identified and exterminated before they blow up another tall building or kill more innocent people .............the hijab is a particularly insidious tool used by the homicidal jihadis to draw recruits to their murderous ideology .............. no, i am not saying that all these silly ``sisters`` in abayas and death shrouds are suiciders, but they are not that far off and, certainly, their children are at great risk ................ so let`s stop pussy-footing around the issue and recognize the fact that the hijab is not as innocuous as a poor sikh`s silly turban even though i am hard pressed to understand why a grown man would not want to get a civilized hair-cut ................

I think we should also devail this newly growing Wahabi fundamentalism in our society. Before this fundamentalism people of Pakistan respected each other as brothers and sisters. Pak men never had to hide their wives from their real brothers and fathers., not even from their uncles, cousins and nephews. They all respected the family women like their real sisters and daughters. Even the un-related neighborers and mohallay dars respected the ladies as the members of their own very family. Now there`s a growing education of non-mehram in our society. A women is supposed to hide hereself from her father-in-law and brothers-in-laws living in the same house. This is not the traditionof our forefathers. It`s the tradition of Arabs who look at women with very different eyes. They don`t spare even the small girls of their close friends although in veils and pardah. They propose them for marriage. This is disgrace of humanity.

vertex #8:

Please don`t twist the facts to suit your argument. The ban is not just on ``grand display of religious symbolism`` as you say, but all religious symbolism. Moreover, it is not just on turbans, headscarves and skullcaps but does very much include crosses around the neck, etc.

And how convenient for you to decide that the wearing of a skullcap is not mandatory for Jews but implying slyly that the hijab is mandatory for Muslims (many would disagree) and going on to presume that Sikh turbans are imminently exempt and thus the law is Muslim-specific--very very tenuous argument vertex--you have to do better than that.

This is partially a race relations issue, but it is twisting the facts to call it Muslim-specific. Equally importantly, it is also an issue of women`s rights, which you ignore. Many many Muslim women in France lobbied for the ban--a fact we must not ignore.

``Let`s be clear about one thing--the French ban does not apply to people roaming about in the streets.``

The ban is against any grand display of religious symbolisms in public schools- and currently does not apply to small religious pendants. The wearing of Hijab, Jewish skullcap and the Sikh turban (collatoral damage, if you will) are realistically the only acts affected by this law. The Jewish community has not really protested, but then, the wearing of the Skullcap is not regarded as `mandatory` by them.

Lawmakers admit that the Sikhs, on the other hand, were not really considered. Overtures by some politicians hinted at the exclusion of the Sikh headgear from the law because they argue that wearing the turban is `cultural` and not `religious`, LOL. What a load.

Also, there is talk of expanding the scope of this law. Polls suggest that there is overwhelming support for such an expansion. Needless to say, the scope of the law is not the point of the issue, nor your ``be considerate`` comment.

Any honest commentary on the issue recognizes that this law does indeed target the Muslim community in particular. It`s not necessarily targeting Islam specifically, but rather the inability of the French to tolerate `insufficiently` assimilated foreigners on their soil. Rather than religion, this is a race-relations issue that is Muslim specific. Everyone knows it, so that’s why other communities don’t care enough to protest. Politicians just don’t want to be honest about it (targeting specific communities in laws is a BIG no-no in modern legal frameworks of most Western countries - something the likes of Taliban, Iran and Saudi are heavily criticized for).

---

``there is nothing more disgusting than a suicide bomber with hairy legs .............. ``


...well, there’s always guys like you.

............. next thing you know the ummah in paris will be demanding their own family laws and asking for the right to sacrifice sheep on champs elysee and soak their feet in wash basins aboard air france ..............there is no end to this madness!

....... the politically correct folks seem to be confusing the hijab with a simple fashion statement like pierced nipples ............. it is not ...... it is comparable to the nazis demanding the right to goose trot around the eiffel tower dressed in brown shirts ........... some might say that america allows the clowns from the kkk circus to march around in their funny hats..... sure they do, as long as they have a permit and every cop with a night stick and a bad attitude keeps a close eye on these fools.................. so, if the sisters want to walk about dressed in their death shrouds and veils they should be allowed to do so as long as they are not wearing explosive vests and have shaved their legs - there is nothing more disgusting than a suicide bomber with hairy legs ..............

#3 vertex:

``The idea that we have to be ``considerate`` in how we dress to those who walk around half naked this time of year is a bit hard to swallow. I can tolerate my neighbor (great guy, btw) who wears metal-tipped boots, has sharp green hair that`s shaved at the sides, wears black lipstick, and has tongue + nipple piercing (which he insists on showing). Now, if *this* is considered acceptable....then guess what...they can sure as hell accept a floral scarf around the head.``

Let`s be clear about one thing--the French ban does not apply to people roaming about in the streets. It applies only to public institutions such as schools--where incidentally all forms of religious symbolism have been banned--not just the hijab. So, for example the Christian cross or the Jewish Star of David may not be worn either. Why aren`t the other communities protesting??

If suggested, I would suffer little unease to buy that your were drunk while you critiqued, for you could be mentally retarded too.

``It is precisely this attitude of not letting women speak for themselves that results in women from such backgrounds to take on the hijab so that they may gain a voice``

I don`t think author`s attitude has prevented or suppressed any woman from speaking. Nor do I think a man is forbidden from writing about a woman`s problem from any number of perspectives (``It is baffling how a man can feel so confident in assuming...``). However, this is not what makes me laugh. The author of article seems to stress, vehemently, that there are multitude of reasons behind women observing hijab, many of those do not imply a `non-autonomous` `suppressed` woman etc. And here you are, asserting in one breath, that you knoweth with certainty and precision the sole reason why some women choose to observe veil: ``It is precisely this attitude of not letting women speak for themselves that results in women from such backgrounds to take on the hijab so that they may gain a voice.`` What a case of gross simplification!

Tell us one thing, why do you claim to know what lies in every woman`s breast when she wears hijab? Is it only becuase you are a woman yourself, while author is not (btw, I don`t see where author meant to say he knows what occurs in every woman`s mind). Is this difference so big?

``If a French woman in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or any other conservative country went out in a mini-skirt...``

You seem to have gotten the point there. I totally agree that from my experience Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and many others invariably would not tolerate women in mini-skirts. Yes, these countries are not founded on recognition of individual freedom; at the same time a stimulus of woman in miniskirt is a bit too much to digest, and would not help them evaluate their shortcomings. They have yet to learn respect of opinion and individuality. You are only insisting that France should join the club of these countries. Why the duck should anyone raise eye brows when someone wears hijab in a free country, which I believe, French want their country to be. Afterall the law was not passed in reprisal to intolerance exhibited by Iranians and the like.

But to begin with, there is no need to assume that all proponent of hijab in France are Iranian- and Saudi-like etc.

Well Adnan you seem to have caused a bit of a stir here!!

I find your article to be pretty objective and balanced - its a simple argument for democracy and autonomy.

America is the land of the free, France too claims to be a proponent of democracy, so arm- twisting and negation of rights, or even a ``take it or leave it`` stance becomes invalid in these countries. They must abide by the constitutions they have made - or change them and take it from there.

As for Muslims in the west, they have for the most part, balanced very well, a fine line between religion and the state. Yes the fact that they might not want to compromise their values could be a source of contention for some. But then as trends go nowadays - Islamophobia is sexy!