Politics of De-veiling

jang #48
Correct, I do not see why any number of headscarfs and burkhas, new world or old world, would create a problem in India.

However, if behind the proliferating headscarfs there are a set of religious edicts that an Indian woman may not do certain things(including not getting a school education, as in the case of some Indian Muslim sects), then a proliferation of headscarfs or burkhas is a sign which their fellow Indians must take serious notice of.

soysauce,

When I antcipate a long post, I usually pluck out my handy-dandy word pro and compse the reply in there...just a tip. That`s why from time to time my spelling becomes near perfect :-)

I`ll keep my response brief as wel (er, by my verbose standards)...

``if you agree that the schools ought to have a dress code (which they do, at a minimum requiring that the child be clothed) then they certainly have the right to restrict certain types of clothing.``

a) Private schools, yes - Publically funded ones becmoes a public issue though.
b) Even if I agree otherwise, I would appreciate honesty on the matter as to why it is being done, or a plausable explanation without obvious flaws in logic.


``Just because you aren`t threatened by hijabi culture (which within the modern world could connote extremism) doesn`t mean that others shouldn`t be or aren`t.``

a) If others are fearing without knowledge, and are propogating their reasons for fear with an agenda - then the fear mongering needs to be exposed as a crock.
b) Your comment on education is very true. How sensitive should the immigrent community be? Not any more vigilant than the majority community. The majority community owns no proper argument to cultural continuity when it itself comes from a history of abandoning tradition. But I admit that inconsistancy is always a right, and so is knee-jerk reactionism to the unkown. That`s only human.

``To educated muslims these are extremists who oppress their women``

If this is a slight, then I am amused by it. I would like to think there is no difference between knowledgable and allegedly educated Muslims.

``It appears that`s how you see the native-immigrant relationship which is very relevant to your argument. ``

That is how I see your prescription for the native-immigrant relationship.

#45 vertex, I typed a long reply and tried editing it in the preview pane but it gave me a blank box. This has been a recurrent problem for me and my only choice seems to be post with typos & other errors.
Anyway, I`m not going to retype all that. In sum, if you agree that the schools ought to have a dress code (which they do, at a minimum requiring that the child be clothed) then they certainly have the right to restrict certain types of clothing. Just because you aren`t threatened by hijabi culture (which within the modern world could connote extremism) doesn`t mean that others shouldn`t be or aren`t. If the immigrant wants to be accepted as is, then she has to make the effort to educate. But then muslims themselves are divided over the role of hijab. My experience is similar to jang`s. Where i come from shuttle-cock burkas have popped up among certain communities that see themselves as more pious. To educated muslims these are extremists who oppress their women.
You brought up the master-slave topic. It appears that`s how you see the native-immigrant relationship which is very relevant to your argument.
Re: circumcision versus clitorectomy, one has been around for hundreds of years and hence has come to be tolerated. The other may or may not survive. Only time will tell. You`re expecting the french to jump over their shadows as it were - to live in their future now.

i NEVER saw hijab in india before 1990s (i grew-up right next to, maybe indide, a very large muslim ghetto, so i know what i am talking about. and mumbai has had all kinds of ghettos, sikh, sindhi, bengali, tamil, gujju and marathi etc). when travelling abroad, any dark (i mean wheatish) moon-faced hijabans would invariably be malay. now however, hijab seems to have really proliferated, from airport chai-wali to my local physicians assistant (initially i thought that its a nursing uniform thing but on closer inspection it turned out to be the hijab). how did this happen? before, the only time one would see hijab was when Door Darshan dutifully showed ``Daya Re Madina`` on Eid eve, the whole song had this very sad hijaban in front of a koran. due to these childhood memories, i associate hijab with deep sorrow and boredom.

i suspect the growing children of gulf-returnies has brought back this garment to india. this is cultural imperialism and i expect shivsena to stage a strong protest any day. hindu widows in past wore a pallu to cover their head, but that was because they shaved their head. will a ban-movement against hijab happen in inidia? unlikely, but surely it will be very violent. in many schools, kids wear uniform, but mostly these are private, and muslims (with hijab) go to their own schools. so hijab wont cause any friction there. maybe we will get a Aaj-Tak news anchor or MTV VeeJay in Hijab soon? Anyhoo, india being truely secular (as compared to france) i dont see this EVER being a problem. India being india, however, the hijab may start to deivate with Bandhani Prints, and Zari borders (Like Daler Medndis Pugaree) etc. THAT however may cause friction among the true believers and mere hijabans.

Also, can anyone among the learned here can explain the political statement behind wearing form-fitting clothes along with Hijab, which seems common among US teens of orthodox parents? And why do middle-easterners wear so much parfume? Is it not haram being alchohol based?

thank you, and i will take my answers off-line and happy fathers day hamidm.

vertex,

...you might be interested in reading the article on jilbab ( the next thing the muslimas will be demanding in france).............. http://www.danielpipes.org/

............ the fact of the matter is that the hijab is just a symbol of the islamists insane hatred for western civilization ............ the french simply chose to nip the evil in the bud..........

Folks, (Adnan and Vertex and others too) I am greatly indebted to your disection of the issue for a much clearer understanding. Hamidm2, thanks for your ........... . `........` is like a head scarf that distincts you, alas we must tolerate it!

soy,

``Little girls don`t choose to wear hijab - they are made to wear them. They are a sign that these girls are different - as girls and as girls of a different religion. It`s not simply a fashion statement that is the result of experimentation that will soon fade away to be replaced by something else.``

Come now, soysauce....every girl or boy is made to wear clothes too. And don’t be disingenuous and say that they may not be forced to wear particular clothes. The proper analog would be that they are forced to wear clothes period, and are not allowed by their parents to roam around nude. Of course a parent is going to raise them according to their own moral framework. For some, I repeat some, wearing Hijab becomes an established normative practice. Weather you agree with that practice or not, or weather you want to label it abusive for your own personal gratification is not at issue, nor is it relevant.

As for fashion, you missed the point. If the whole point of fashion is to make onself distinctive, then if it is done through Hijab what’s the problem? Because it’s a religion based distinction? Now, my point was that if France had a history such that it in fact strongly looked down on any kinds of assertion of identity through clothes, then I could understand this as a source for the ban (this ties in with the ‘secularity’ argument). However, no such tradition exists, and indeed on another level distinctive dress is encouraged. I’m not looking for potential problems, which you seem keen on inventing. I’m looking for the origins of the ban. This attempt at an excuse is obviously not it.

As for what the Hijab means, you can impose any meaning you want on it: distinction, solidarity with some other alien species. Doesn`t matter. What are these girls taught? That it is a requirement to dress ``modestly`` and that this is required to fullfill a certain requirement. Abba jee no doubt is walking around with `flood` pants and sports a beard as well for no other reason than `it is sunnah`. Yeah, yeah, it’s done to distinguish one as a Muslim and there`s a 1001 `benifits` they cite, but to suggest that it implies a subversive political ideology that espouses – I dunno, seraptism or something, then you’re out to lunch. I could care less if one agrees or not if these are `requirements` of Islam...but to call it or suggest a motivation for the act that the practitioners don`t...well that is sinister.

``There is no ideology behind them. I have to agree with others here that you`re being disingenuous at worst or conflating things at best.``

LOL, of course there’s an ideology behind them. The ideology is called ‘freedom’.

As for the Hijab, I’m afraid that’s not a matter of debate, but knowledge. I am a member of the community, I know exactly what is being taught and what is not. You can proclaim any kind of deviant desires on behalf of this community, but that only admits to your own desire to have this community persecuted.

``FYI, clitorectomy is not a fashion statement or a sign of rebelliousness either. It`s being branded, literally. Don`t you really know these distinctions or are you arguing for argument sake?``

A re-iteraiton of my last question to you on this topic: why not this if circumcision is allowed? I put aside the `children harming selves` argument for the sake of `circumcision vs. clitorectomy` argument. Why ban one and not the other? And here I am refering to the minor form practiced in the Middle East and not infibulation.

“ It won`t be a smooth process but there have to be gives and takes. I assume you are an immigrant yourself. Do you see the ``natives`` as your masters? If you do, there`s something seriously wrong with that. If not, do you take the north african immigrants to france as fools or cowardly?”

Soysauce, now you’re going on a serious wild tangent here. My point: IF the reason of these immigrants for not protesting the ban is not to rock the boat for fear of what the majority community thinks, THEN they are being rather cowardly. Second point: Long time immigrants, and first geners will have no such fear, nor should the latter even have to think about it. Third point: this obsequious mode of thinking being advocated here by the proponents at assimilate-at-any-cost types is ironically a sign of NOT being assimilated.

“…french people, are not endowed with the extraordinary qualities that you apparently possess of not feeling threatened in the presence of something very different and perhaps even antagonistic to your ideals, of accommodating everyone without receiving much in return, etc.”

As with the Hijab, you have a rather strange desire to project your own thoughts onto other people:

The facts (and I really shouldn’t have to do this) on france…

a) French people have a tradition of pluralism. This applies almost universally. Race, gay culture, religious/non-religious, and the list goes on. Now, you accuse me of coming down hard on the French…I recognize this about them. Okay? Happy?
b) In this tradition of pluralism, they have among other things toleration for mode of dress. Indeed, wear as much as you want, wear as little as you want. It is regarded as a ‘freedom’. On the topic of freedom, they also have a value that all citizens an practice their faith (PRACTICE) ‘freely’ – on an individual level of course. These are ‘personal’ freedoms.
c) They have passed a law that curtail certain personal freedoms. Yes, all across-the-board freedoms are subject to restrictions, but :

i) These laws, although applied across the board were intended to target a group.
ii) The invocation of ‘defense of secularism’ argument is absurd because of past govt. behavior which can only be deemed ‘unsecular’, and indeed the limited scope of the change is utterly irrelevant to France’s secular order which is hardly being undermined.
iii) It’s a sticky situation, but France has managed to get itself into a situation where they are now doing something inconsistent with their core values. Ugly, but hey, it happens. Given this, I only expect them to either attenuate their core values or admit to this inconsistency and correct the conflict by remaining true to their espoused values. This is as pro-French a position as you can get as this is the only logical outcome of the whole episode!!!!!! Now, I’m not really interested in excuses for this inconsistency, or lame attempts at reconciling it for the French (which I must admit, I always feel compelled to shoot down). Merely recognition of what is obvious.
iv) France, in the end, has ultimately the right to do whatever it wants.

Where is the utopia? Where is the coming down hard on France part or impossible expectations of them on my behalf? Calling a spade a spade is easy…people like you only make it difficult when you insist on calling a spade a shovel or a pick axe – and then to boot trying to give strange apologetics as to why this is or rather should be the case!

---

Ayesha,

“You have a remarkable ability to think that others are proving your points when in reality they are doing quite the opposite.”

Example?

“The questions you asked in your last response to me are already answered in my previous posts so you can look those up again.”

The questions were intended to provoke a clarification, which you seem unwilling or incapable of providing an answer for. No, you didn’t answer my questions.

“However, I will end my commentary on this discussion by saying the following: only a man who has no personal experience with either wearing or not wearing the hijab can argue in the manner that you have done, e.g., not recognizing the larger ramifications of the practice and convoluting the argument to make it just that--an argument.”

Or a woman. It’s silly to suggest that this is a women-only thing or that only women can understand this issue. I find it disgustingly hypocritical that you can go on about women who are forced to wear the Hijab, yet show outright support when they are forced to take it off. It is also sad that you fail to even acknowledge that some women choose to wear the thing. I mean, come on. You must not have any contact with the Muslim community to think this. However, I have no doubt you stuck to that rather indefensible position because of your flawed line of argument that sought to distinguish between “freedom to wear” and “freedom to impose”.

vertex,

I have pretty much reached my limit of debating a given topic on chowk with respect to this hijab issue, so I`ll let you have the last word you`re so dying for. Besides, soysauce is doing a pretty great job of countering your repeated arguments.

You have a remarkable ability to think that others are proving your points when in reality they are doing quite the opposite. The questions you asked in your last response to me are already answered in my previous posts so you can look those up again. However, I will end my commentary on this discussion by saying the following: only a man who has no personal experience with either wearing or not wearing the hijab can argue in the manner that you have done, e.g., not recognizing the larger ramifications of the practice and convoluting the argument to make it just that--an argument.

Omar:

What are you like 12??? HAHAHA. I know what an ABCD is. Too bad for u I am not one.

Do you know what a FOB is though?? With your chip on the shoulder attitude and immaturity, you certainly fit the stereotype. And mind you, don`t take this as anti Pakistani behavior coz its not. You would be equally noxious if you were Indian...

#38 vertex
Little girls don`t choose to wear hijab - they are made to wear them. They are a sign that these girls are different - as girls and as girls of a different religion. It`s not simply a fashion statement that is the result of experimentation that will soon fade away to be replaced by something else. Fashions don`t pose any threats. There is no ideology behind them. I have to agree with others here that you`re being disingenuous at worst or conflating things at best. FYI, clitorectomy is not a fashion statement or a sign of rebelliousness either. It`s being branded, literally. Don`t you really know these distinctions or are you arguing for argument sake?
As for the french not living up to their standards and you pulling them up for it, you must think that the immigrants have such low standards that you cannot really expect anything of them. Perhaps the french have a little more respect for the immigrants in that in addition to letting them in they also think that the immigrants are capable of assimilating eventually. It won`t be a smooth process but there have to be gives and takes. I assume you are an immigrant yourself. Do you see the ``natives`` as your masters? If you do, there`s something seriously wrong with that. If not, do you take the north african immigrants to france as fools or cowardly? They are some of the most raucous, most demanding minorities anywhere. As to the french feeling threatened, it is very natural. You ought to realize that most people, and that includes most french people, are not endowed with the extraordinary qualities that you apparently possess of not feeling threatened in the presence of something very different and perhaps even antagonistic to your ideals, of accomodating everyone without receiving much in return, etc. People like you are to be found only in a mythical land called utopia. I have a feeling that you probably don`t believe much of what you say either.
I sympathize with the french because they seem to be trying deperately to find a middle way between pure intellectualism and raw emotionalism.

``............. are you denying that there is no parallel between the hijab and the kkk hoods or the nazi brown shirts?``

I dunno why you`re making the comparison as if you consider it a bad thing...you clearly think like the kkk or a brown shirt nazi yourself. ``Protect the fatherland from the foreign barbarians!!!!``.

You`re a closet fascist, but the thing is you dont` like it when you preceive other fascists from pissin` on your territory. Add delusion and paranoia to the mix, and you have yourself one screwed up person.

`no offence` stuka but u really are an obnoxious prick yourself -- ever heard of the term ABCD stuka aka moron -- yea you`re the guy who thought the marriot in khi is constantly attacked because people think its US owned -- and u apparently work at marriot HQs -- do going stuka, oh i mean `obnoxious prick` u sorry ass loser -- and by the way spell my name correctly stooqa

vertex,

............. are you denying that there is no parallel between the hijab and the kkk hoods or the nazi brown shirts?........... you are right when you say that the ban is islam-specific ....... but that is how it should be .......... it would be silly of the french government to go around preventing the sikhs from making a spectacle of themselves, or trying to stop the mormons from cycling around town in white shirts and black ties - these people might be eyesores and pesky nuisances, but they are not a threat to the french way of life .............. enough said ............ now you can go on and indulge in your silly sophistry trying to justify the cultural practices of an ideology that is a threat to civilization ............

Soysauce,


“Vertex, I have thought more about the points you raised. Personally, I think veiling isolates girls. Peer pressure can be extremely taxing. “

You’re really stretching the argument now. Same can be applied to anything, including say mini-skirts. Muslim girls who don’t wear skimply clothings should be punished as well? How about obese girls, who feel isolated from the “thin and sexy” skinny ones? More realistically, how about skin color, or a thick accent? How about wild hair that can’t be combed into the latest fashion? How about…the list goes on. Come on, peer pressure has nothing to do with it since these girls go to schools with a good size community of people who are at the very least neutral to the Hijab.

I personally think you’re like me, and deep down don’t care either way if they wear the damn thing or not. Give me a favor: don’t come up with dumb reasons not to wear the Hijab and I won’t cite dumb reasons for wearing the Hijab, like some of the women quoted in the article. Deal?


But beyond that, my own bias is that veil is anti woman. I may be projecting my own feelings on the french government action.

But this is the point of the author, that beyond your own personal bias lies the realm of possibility (which many hear laughably refuse to admit) that some of these girls may do it on their own whim. And that in the end, it’s not your “Feelings” that matter, it’s in fact the feelings of these girls. Period. I may feel like you’re an anti-Muslim bigot. Does it mean that your are in fact a bigot? No.

”However, you may be right that the french government may have motivations other than deghettoizing or helping the girls. I don`t think this has been their argument.”

Nope. Their proclaimed argument has been only about ‘secularism’.

“Moreover, their banning the display of all religious symbols negates this line of thinking.”

Not really. Let’s say they ban all ‘sacrificial’ slaughter of animals. The ban may be across the board, but one has to be seriously living in denial to suggest that it’s not a targeted ban. Like I said, can you think of anything analogous to the Hijab in other faith communities? Anything that is recognized as necessary religious apparel, not easily hidden? Sikhs come to mind, but I’m not making it up when I say the French govt. has suggested in excusing them on grounds that the turban is ‘cultural’ and not ‘religious’. Nor am I making it up when I stated that the govt. did not consider the Sikhs when passing the law. Well, gee…what’s one to think. :)


“As i recall, the french muslim opinion on the matter of enacting this law tipped a bit in favor of it and many vocal muslim women were in favor of it as well. “

Sorry, I missed the point…and?

”In sum, I am not exactly sure if there were ulterior motives to this ban other than a fierce adherence to their secularism.”

Don’t see it. How fierce is their adherence to secularism when they at about the same time as the Hijab ban announced an increase in funding for religious organizations, particularly mosques?

In the end, my points are simple and two fold a) This ban is in fact targeted and b) it’s not at all about maintaining France’s secular order when the government itself practices wholly unsecular acts like funding religious organizations. Indeed, if Hijabi school children threaten France’s secular order, it can only mean that it is a hell of a lot more fragile than I thought…rather pathetic when you think about it.

---

soysauce (again),

“Of course you`re expecting the french to be better people than most others and want them to speed up the assimilation of newer immigrants with more accomodation. What`s with ``french masters?``”

French masters describes the way some immigrants would look upon the majority, not the attitude of the majority themselves. I expect nothing of the French other than being honest and avoiding hypocrisy. For example, they tout values and are violating them. There’s no easy way around that. It’s difficult and I sympathize, but I won’t make excuses for them. And you seem to acknowledge EXACTLY what they don’t: this is about the assimilation of immigrants. Then why the previous defense of the ‘this is for secularism’ crap?

“(Is there any nation out there that is doing the right thing most of the time or are they all failing your high standards?) “

What high standards? Expecting consistency with one’s own values is too much to ask for? I’m sorry, you have low standards if you don’t expect the same. Yes, yes, secularism is a “value”. But to suggest that this value is being defended is just absurd given greater violations of state-church separation than a bunch of school children wearing a scarf on their head in public school.

”Clitorectomy and circumcision are imposed on babies. The state has a duty to protect babies from acts that may harm them.”

Whatever. The point was why circumcision and not the former? The answer is obvious.

“Your argument that there`s something sinister about the timing - is there a better time?”

Sinister? No. Peculiar. It took these guys 100+ years to catch on that people were wearing religouns apparel in school? LOL. No, that’s not the case.

“One thing that bothered/bothers me is that apparently there were very few veiled girls attending school which makes you wonder if the law was necessary at all.”

I think overall that may be the case, but when you look at particular schools – we’d call them “inner city schools” in America – they’d have a significant number of students wearing the Hijab.

---

Ayesha,
”If you`re pro the ban, as you say, then I don`t understand why you would go to such lengths to argue for it.”

I think you mean argue against it? Not really. I’ll restate my position with regards to France in particular: they can do whatever the hell they want. It would, however, be very nice if it is done with a shred of honesty. As for going to such lengths, we all get our kicks one way or the other.

Now, on the other hand this issue has led to attack on the Hijab in general. Personally don’t care if someone wears it or not. But if you’re going to attack it unthinkingly, or even suggest that this is a good thing, then I’m sorry – I’m just too weak to resist challenging that notion.

“I completely disagree with you on your first point. And I do maintain that if a religious symbol is hidden from view, it is not violating the ban. And no, one cannot hide the hijab, which is why it is contentious.”

I’ll restate my point: the ban is targeted. In a way you proved my point: citing the inablility to wear religious pendants in class is not at all a good example of ‘others’ who are affected by this law.

“(although I believe it existed beforehand, not in the shape of a ban but otherwise, as an issue for women not being able to enter Islamic centres without it, etc.)”

How is that related to wearing Hijab in schools? Is this an issue? Yes. Is this a relevant issue? No.

“--how it is dealt with is clearly a reaction that the Muslim community could have thought of and deliberated upon by prioritizing the teachings of Islam instead of dealing with it in classic knee-jerk fashion.”

So, in other words the Muslim community should remain silent and obedient to the whims of the majority? What knee-jerk fashion are you talking about? Protesting? That is a KEY way of getting your point across. Pray tell, how should the people who are affected by the law deal with it?

“Lastly, I think you really need to spend some time in societies where women are forced to wear the hijab.”

I can play this game to.

I think you need to spend some time with those women who are forced or compelled to remove the Hijab. And, much to your surprise, they don’t only exist in Turkey or Algeria, but are also prevalent in America, UK, France, etc. It is not pleasant for these women to be reduced down to the scarf on their head. I personally know of several (dozens) cases of women who were told that they weren’t fit for a job because of they way they dress. Perfectly qualified, non- the-less. Yes, they were actually told this (yes, it violates laws in the states – yes it’s possible to sue, but everyone who tried was warned off by their lawyers).

So please don’t go on about the “poor women forced to wear a scarf” routine. Perhaps in the minority of the cases it’s like that, but that is just a minority. In most cases, the hijab is much more salient than you would like to believe.

---

Hamidm2,

“...............your argument is rather disingenuous and the usual islamist attempt at obfuscation and subterfuge ..........”

There is more substance in your ‘...’ then the random words that surround them.

---

Jang,

“vertex, your large number of posts seem to stem from attempting to hold the french to ``higher standard``.

Large number of posts? Well, that’s one way of looking at it…wouldn’t be so many if I didn’t’ get a large number of replies, no? :)

As for holding French to a higher standard, no I don’t think I am. Just trying to call a spade a spade. You just did, so I suppose I have no quarrel with you :)

no one (i dont think) disagrees that the french ban is anti-muslim and a political statement. vertex, your large number of posts seem to stem from attempting to hold the french to ``higher standard``. this law is an attempt by the french to say enough is enough regarding muslim influence diluting frenchiyat. they do it all the time, sometimes protesting McDonald, making Coke more expensive than Perrier (not an easy task) and other sundry things. not a week passes by when we hear of the french farmers protesting against algerian champagne or fake wisconsin brie. and who told you that french are accomodating people at all? they are the most snobish.. i heard an older french lady complain about her algerian neighbor. she said something which sumed up as ``we french love foreign influences from these folks as long as they talk french with correct accent, eat, dress and look like french``.

so in summary, no one, least of all the french, will put-up with ``percieved`` in-you-face stuff. if you want hijab ``in`` like the male circumcision, it will have to come via non-threatning route after long years of strong contributions (like the topiwallas) in various walks of modeern life. i can imagine then the french themselves will hold an exibition in their musee about hijabs, and house of dior will introduce the new fall line of hijabs. so, confrontation without clout (via percieved contributions to the larger society) will merely get the facists more votes. by contribution i mean stereotyping of north-african (or arab) muslims as doctors, lawyers, musicians, professors. so, Dr ben Cohen should be as stereotypical as Dr bin Caliph (or something). See, a win-win situation!

``......... so, it is not an innocuous little piece of cloth that scares the escargot out the french and other civilized people ................ it is the ideology that lies behind it …………it is the ideology that claims to be superior to all others and seeks to destroy anything that is different.............that’s what this is all about, period(s)...............``


Precisely.

vertex,

...............your argument is rather disingenuous and the usual islamist attempt at obfuscation and subterfuge ..........there is absolutely no comparison between a punk kid walking around paris with purple hair and pierced eyebrows and a muslima strutting around in a hijab – one is a juvenile attempt at asserting individuality and the other is an “in-your-face” rejection of everything france stands for.................

............. in effect, the hijaban is saying, “ i reject the french culture, the french revolution, the french way of life.......... am better than you who eat pork and drink wine .............. your women are promiscuous bi&%hes for walking around half-naked with unshaven armpits............... i believe in the islamic way of life - allah is great and to hell with the republic !”...............

......... so, it is not an innocuous little piece of cloth that scares the escargot out the french and other civilized people ................ it is the ideology that lies behind it …………it is the ideology that claims to be superior to all others and seeks to destroy anything that is different.............that’s what this is all about, period(s)...............

Omar Kureshi:

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

Yeah. And your being a product of Pakistan shows as well. No offense mate. but you really are a noxious prick.

jang

I agree that hijab will lose out eventually whether left alone or or not. Those who use it as a fashion statement, the kind that you have mentioned in your post, will jump to the next fad. But for those for whom it is a way of life, it will stick.

jang: ``i keep seeing teen-age girls in malls in hijabs and extreme tight-fitting tops, wunderbras, and low-hug pants lately. urs, its the rest of the stuff getting you all hot, and not the hijab. and dont confuse with the bandana some wear, THAT IS NOT A MICRO-HIJAB.`` -- dude u sound like one perverted old man

ayesha, if vertex disagrees with something and is against it why should that necessarily mean that she must not argue for the other side as well?

#28
Jews have lived in france a very long time and most of the time in ghettos which suggests that assimilation has been slow. Of course you`re expecting the french to be better people than most others and want them to speed up the assimilation of newer immigrants with more accomodation. What`s with ``french masters?`` Most western societies are letting immigrants in which is more than what others are willing to do. Of course they have to wash their past sins of colonialization with such acts but, nonetheless, they ARE doing the immigrants a great favor at the present time. (Is there any nation out there that is doing the right thing most of the time or are they all failing your high standards?)
Clitorectomy and circumcision are imposed on babies. The state has a duty to protect babies from acts that may harm them. What the grownups do to their own bodies is a different issue altogether. I don`t know what minor forms of clitorectomy are. Are these even practiced?
Your argument that there`s something sinister about the timing - is there a better time? Sometime in the future may be? When would it be a good time?
One thing that bothered/bothers me is that apparently there were very few veiled girls attending school which makes you wonder if the law was necessary at all. One answer may be that the recent immigrants are a lot more conservative and this is a warning shot for them. I don`t envy the french on the choices they have to make.

vertex,

If you`re pro the ban, as you say, then I don`t understand why you would go to such lengths to argue for it.

I completely disagree with you on your first point. And I do maintain that if a religious symbol is hidden from view, it is not violating the ban. And no, one cannot hide the hijab, which is why it is contentious.

Even if one accepts your assertion, for argument`s sake, that the issue was forced upon the Muslim community (although I believe it existed beforehand, not in the shape of a ban but otherwise, as an issue for women not being able to enter Islamic centres without it, etc.)--how it is dealt with is clearly a reaction that the Muslim community could have thought of and deliberated upon by prioritizing the teachings of Islam instead of dealing with it in classic knee-jerk fashion.

Lastly, I think you really need to spend some time in societies where women are forced to wear the hijab. These societies, much to your surprise, don`t only exist in Saudi Arabia or Iran but are also prevalent in America, UK, France, etc. It is not pleasant for these women. I personally know of several cases where women take on the hijab just so their fathers and brothers don`t question their every move or non-hijabi women have taken on the hijab within a few days of marriage into a family where hijab is considered a must. So please don`t go on and on about the ``freedom to choose``. Perhaps in a minority of cases it is that, but that is just a minority. In most cases, women are not so free to choose as you would like to believe.

kikkoman (a brand of...you guessed it...soysauce),

“Have you been to france? North african culture has made its mark in french culture - in its cuisine, music, architecture, language & even clothing. But that`s not to say there isn`t racism, which is a different problem entirely.”

Implying that the issue with N.African migrants is one of race relations does not imply that it’s an issue of racism. Racism is more systemic. This, however, is one of assimilation of a community that is rapidly growing and has the audacity to retain it’s culture. Not necessarily in toto, but enough to make your average Frenchmen scared.

Why now? Answer me that. After all this time, why is this law which allegedly is aimed at maintaining France’s secular traditions being footed. For so long pendants, yamakas, and even the Hijab has been tolerated. I think the answer is obvious, and I don’t think the swelling of the N. African community is a non-factor. Similar laws are passed in Germany. They have a huge Turkish minority. There have been talks of the same in UK, but they categorically reject the idea. Same issue, different approaches. Secularism is NOT the issue.

“Should there be a ban on clitorectomy? Jews are allowed to circumcise their newborn boys, so why not? How about under medical supervision? Would that be acceptable? That`s analogous to your demand that the majority reach out to the minority.”

Minor forms of clitorectomy should be allowed if circumcision is allowed. Why not? The “harm” argument is weak at best. There are many harmful things people do. I could argue the same for genital piercings that are oddly enough becoming a fad. Not as ‘harmful’ but sure as hell more ‘harmful’ than not getting it done. But because the major culture tolerates it, it’s okay? Sorry, but that sounds like “jump in lake” syndrome to me.

So, why is circumcision allowed? It’s because the Jews have successfully integrated. But what’s this…they have the audacity to practice something the majority don’t!!! Woa…maybe they’re on to something.

“What if the second generation takes up that practice? Ought that to be allowed? Is that the kind of accomodation you want?”

Yup. When the second generation does it, it’s no longer a question of assimilating to the “masters” desires. Sorry, but this holds doubly so for Western cultures which pride themselves on breaking tradition with previous generations. How much does contemporary Europe have in common with ‘50’s Europe? Victorian Europe? If the indigenous culture is not keen on keeping tradition, or maintaining status quo, and if sub-cultures with values which radically diverge from the mainstream were tolerated, then guess what…there’s really no argument here.

If there were a long standing history against scarves, or even some semblance of a decent tradition requiring NOT covering the head, then I could understand. But those don’t exist in this French culture. Secularism in public institutions would make sense, but not when the govt. funds religious organizations and such displays were tolerated up till now.

While we’re on this chain of what-ifs, what if the french decide Muslim slaughter of goats is no good…or that Friday prayers is just out of whack with French timings, so it should be moved to more reasonable Sunday. What if….anyhow, I think you can see making a mountain out of a pile of scarves is really a poor way to argue.

“You`d have the larger society educated to accomodate the cultural practices of the minorities. Should the french also allow the vietnamese immigrants to eat dogs and learn to accept that even if that goes against their sentiments?”

Well, like you said. They eat horses for God’s sake! This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. This raises two points

a) If the French start eating dogs, does it become okay? And this is important, because as I mentioned before, diverging from established norms is a hallmark of western culture. In this particular climate, such arguments are weak. Now, if the dog was sacred to the French...then you`d have a point. But how many are slaugtered in dog pounds yearly?

b) Why should the vietnamese shy away from eating dogs when the French do something that can be considered equally gross? Because the native French are in the “majority”? What right does that afford them? New commers may not think that way, but that ironically only shows their LACK of assimilation. This is about taking owner ship of your citizenship. If it’s good for the majority, it’s good for you. If you let them stomp on you this time, they’ll do it again. Assimilation is about understanding the system, and using it to yor advantage without malice or ill will or wanton desire to be destructive. It is NOT about adopting the dress habits, sexual habits, etc. of the numerical majority.

Vertex, I have thought more about the points you raised. Personally, I think veiling isolates girls. Peer pressure can be extremely taxing. Whereas the punk-look may be seen as cool, a veil probably won`t be. But beyond that, my own bias is that veil is anti woman. I may be projecting my own feelings on the french government action.
However, you may be right that the french government may have motivations other than deghettoizing or helping the girls. I don`t think this has been their argument. Moreover, their banning the display of all religious symbols negates this line of thinking. The girls may well be denied secular education or any formal education because the parents may withdraw them from school rather than agree to deveiling them. As i recall, the french muslim opinion on the matter of enacting this law tipped a bit in favor of it and many vocal muslim women were in favor of it as well.
I think however that the french government must be foolish to enact this law if it is seen as explicitly anti-muslim given that they apparently bend over backwards not to alienate the 10% or so minorities on other matters deemed important to muslims - position on israel, iran, etc. In sum, I am not exactly sure if there were ulterior motives to this ban other than a fierce adherence to their secularism.

Vertex,
I get the gist of what you`re saying & I don`t agree with it.
Have you been to france? North african culture has made its mark in french culture - in its cuisine, music, architecture, language & even clothing. But that`s not to say there isn`t racism, which is a different problem entirely.
Should there be a ban on clitorectomy? Jews are allowed to circumcise their newborn boys, so why not? How about under medical supervision? Would that be acceptable? That`s analogous to your demand that the majority reach out to the minority. What if the second generation takes up that practice? Ought that to be allowed? Is that the kind of accomodation you want? I cannot, in good conscience, argue that africans in their native lands ought to be discouraged by outsiders from performing their rituals. However, if the french wish to interfere with that practice in france i`d be in complete sympathy.
You & i disagree on the basic premise of whether a child ought to be veiled in a society where that`s very uncommon and which (I believe) harms the child. You`d have the larger society educated to accomodate the cultural practices of the minorities. Should the french also allow the vietnamese immigrants to eat dogs and learn to accept that even if that goes against their sentiments? After all the french eat horse meat, don`t they?
No one is saying that france is a perfect society. But the reach of the law is very limited. It may well lead to ghettoization and problems associated with that for the larger society in the long run. We`ll just have to wait and see. The french may be gambling with this law but it`s a gamble that they have to take.

Soysauce

“In north america, jews were ghettoized, and so were the italians, the irish, the chinese and now the hispanics and blacks from the caribbean.”

In north America, there were signs saying that dogs and members of said communities need not apply. This was not done at the behest of these communities. Integration in this case had to do with the majority accepting the minorities, not the minorities doing something silly as accepting majority dress codes, etc. which no longer exist. And that’s the point…they don’t exist. Assimilation back in those days meant something totally different than what it means today. Bad example.

“Integrating into the mainstream demands of the minority community to eschew in-your-face behavior (IMO, that`s what overt symbols of religion that set the minority apart from the mainstream) are.”

Sorry to say, but that’s utter bullshit. The youth culture of Western countries, for example, is predicated on “in-your-face” behavior. If you tolerate that, then why not tolerate it from other groups? Not to mention other sub-cultures which agitate against the established norms (hippies come to mind). Assimilation does NOT mean abandoning something as salient and irrelevant as a head covering…on the contrary, by making that an issue, it says something about the willingness to tolerate the community as a whole. There is a clear case of double standards here…

And what of those who are born in the country and not immigrants? Again, whatever these people do ARE expressions of American, British, French, etc. culture. Like it or not. You can perpetually think like an immigrant, but that schtick won’t get you past the first-born generation. Your arguments no longer apply.

“It is not as though the majority, in addition to sharing their home, also should put up with behavior/beliefs that are inimical to their values. Hijab is discriminatory of girls and the larger society has every right to demand that there be limits.”

Well, duh, it’s also discriminatory to insist that women not go around topless in most states. Men can. This isn’t about gender differences. Not in the least bit. Nor do I hear similar weak arguments against the sikh turban…discrimination applies to refusing admittance, or limiting the rights of women wrt men. In general, this is an issue. Not related to Hijab, though. Right concern, wrong argument.

“In ANY secular society there are no mechanisms to impose dress code other than that you wear something decent.”

Eh? Of course there is. It’s called the legal system. Evey country has the right to define limits to freedoms as they see fit. EU did not interfere with France for this reason.

“The french law is actually friendly to the girls by preparing them to integrate into the larger society at least during school hours.”

Rubbish. It can frighten them out of the public school system just as well. You also need to define ‘integration’ before you can prepare anyone for it, and how exactly hijab prevents integration without resorting to silly generic arguments.

And this is exactly what I was arguing for. Don’t give me this crap that this is about preserving France’s secular traditions. On the contrary, it is about assimilating the North African muslims, whose culture is not deemed acceptable to the French. French pluralism has met it’s limits. All I’m saying is that the French now understand why Muslims impose dress codes, and all that. Different outcome, similar reasons. Call a spade a spade, you can’t sugar coat this.

---

Ayesha,

“If the pendants are hidden then by definition they are not on display--that is the point of the ban--to do away with symbols exhibiting or displaying religious affiliation.”

That’s a means to an end, the end being the upholding of France’s secular traditions. You can emphasis the display, or the wearing of the items. In this case, it is clearly the wearing of said item that is what the contention is about. Can’t really hide a Hijab under something, can you?

So, as I said, it effectively does NOT ban the wearing of crosses or stars of David. Nor is the wearing of such items regarded as mandatory by the wearers. So, regardless of what the law is for, these groups are not affected – a fact not lost on anyone who spends 5 second thinking about it. That was the original point, remember? This ban is a blanket ban for something that really only affects two communities, one which was admittedly an afterthought. What’s so wrong with that? I actually support France’s right to do this, I just think it’s lame how they are trying to sugar coat it.

“So what? In the UK, a fifteen year old Muslim girl just lost a legal battle to wear a jilbab (an abaya style cloak) to school. She believed it is mandatory to wear that and according to her, her religious rights and freedom to practice her religion was being curtailed by her being denied that right.”

Not familiar with the case. What was at issue, was this a private or public school, and has it been challenged as a Human Rights case? The UK govt. pledged not to do this, so with the political backing in place, if she wanted to she could fight and win the case. UK has alternatives, though, and so I reckon it’s easier to move on to a different school. Anyhow, what’s the point of this?


“How far does one go? Does it stop at the hijab? Does it include the jilbab? There will always be disagreements amongst the roughly one billion Muslims as to what exactly constitutes ``Islamic dress``.”

It varies, doesn’t it? Why is it implicitly better to wear less? Answer than and score some serious brownie points…

Anyhow, I can play this game to. Ban the Hijab in schools, then in the public sector, then acoss the board…woa, when will it end? And with what practice? Maybe sending kids to Islamic school on weekends will be considered ‘forced’ and, woa…we gotta stop that too. Nope, can’t take the Kids to Jumma anymore, some Muslims may be pressuring their kids to attend…woops, gotta stop that too. Wow, I see where this is going (with my paranoia goggles on).

“In light of that, perhaps one must realize that given the deliberately vague instruction perhaps it is not such an important tenet of Islam and that Muslims need to focus on other clearer matters…”

Hooooooold on a second. This issue did not come from the Muslim community. It came proactively from the outside community. That’s something to ponder…it’s an immigrant FOB, with a little bit of uncle-tom/aunt jamaima, and a touch of “yes master, me brownie, me do” spinelessness to suggest we should bend over backward to appease whatever the majority community tells us to do, when they themselves do something quite similar.





“Listen to yourself! To say that the hijab is not just a women`s rights issue is tantamount to saying that denying women the right to vote is not just a women`s rights issue or forcing blacks to attend separate schools is not just a black rights issue.”

Oh, nice rhetoric. Is there symmetry between a woman who chooses to wear a Hijab, and a woman who wants to vote and is not allowed to? Or a black man who, against his desires, not allowed access to quality education? Are there gender issues in Muslim communities? Oh yes…is this ban a consequence of one of them? Nope. Not by a long shot.

Now, I understand everyone needs a poster-girl for a cause, and a wide-eyed, sad looking Hijabi looks like a good one (we call it a ‘cheap shot’ where I come from). Fact is, to reduce the entire issues facing the community to this self-defeating stero-type is kinda weak. May as well pick on other salient aspects of this religio/culture group. You’re trying to say Hijab is guilty by association. Not very clever.

“Of course all of these discriminatory practices affect society as a whole but one would have to have lost all sight of reason to say that they affect all members of society equally.”

When all members aren’t in fact affected equally, then no. The discriminatory practices you mentioned affected the group that that the practices were applied to generally. This “greater” society business is irrelevant since the greater society didn’t feel their pain…in fact it was inflicting it.

“By your own admission, a larger number of Muslim women supported the ban than opposed it. If they are the primary group that is affected by the ban, it is their thoughts that matter most.”

No, they are not. If this was about FORCING all muslim women to wear the Hijab, or FORCING all muslim women from not wearing the Hijab, then you would have a strong point. This law does not at all affect those women who don’t wear the Hijab in any way shape or form. Therefore, they’re not relevant. Nore are other women. This is VERY unlike the case with women voting, or segregation of blacks.

“And please don`t confuse ``freedom`` with the ``curtailment of freedom``.”

Oh boy, here we go…

a) Is banning the Hijab by those who want to wear it not a “curtailment” of “freedom”?
b) Where is this confusion being made by myself?

“One only has to look to societies in which an overwhelming number of women are dressed in hijab, jilbab, etc. and compare the status of women there with countries like France, UK, USA and the results are clear.”

Well, you know, this argument falls flat on it’s face when the Hijabis we are talking about are IN school, and are trying to participate IN the US, UK, French culture as a whole. You can be careless enough to unthinkingly blame the cloth across the board, or you can tackle to real issues BEHIND it and OUTSIDE of it.

This argument gets back up and commits suicide when you realize that elevating the status of women is dependant on education…something that’s being directly affected by this law.

urstruely,

i keep seeing teen-age girls in malls in hijabs and extreme tight-fitting tops, wunderbras, and low-hug pants lately. urs, its the rest of the stuff getting you all hot, and not the hijab. and dont confuse with the bandana some wear, THAT IS NOT A MICRO-HIJAB.

in think hijab will lose-out naturally if left alone..

Whoever thinks the article was motivated by a religious zeal has got it wrong. I do not subscribe to any religion but I think to understand the Other you have to be able to empathise with them. Mocking, debasing and dehumanising cultural practices and identity expressions we happen to dislike does not help foster harmony and mutual understanding. Additionally, those who consider western liberalism to be the final word in human wisdom--something we should all unquestioningly assimilate into- sound no less doctriniare than religious fanatics. Nonetheless, I thank everone who has contributed to the debate. Have learnt from you all.

On the specific issue of veiling I think it is important not to lose sight of the difference between saying A) That veiling is not a sign of subjugation B) That it is not necessarily a sign of subjugation. It is the plausibility of the latter proposition that I have tried to point out. If we hold that the majority in France have a (moral) right to ban a minority practice that they do not approve of then we would probably have to accept also that Islamist regimes have a (moral) right to ban forms of dress and ways of life that are inimical to their values. In both cases, the offical decree would run contrary to the principle of individual autonomy and freedom. The reference I have made to the harm principle in the article was meant to draw attention to the fact that it is not each and every minority practice that I would consider worthy of protection-at least not the ones which clearly bring physical or psychological harm to the individual. However, in many cases both Muslims and non-Muslims can easily stretch the limits of their toleration.

#13 vertex
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.

In north america, jews were ghettoized, and so were the italians, the irish, the chinese and now the hispanics and blacks from the caribbean. Integrating into the mainstream demands of the minority community to eschew in-your-face behavior (IMO, that`s what overt symbols of religion that set the minority apart from the mainstream) are. It is not as though the majority, in addition to sharing their home, also should put up with behavior/beliefs that are inimical to their values. Hijab is discriminatory of girls and the larger society has every right to demand that there be limits. It`s fascism only when france starts demanding that muslim girls not wear hijab at all. In ANY secular society there are no mechanisms to impose dress code other than that you wear something decent. The french law is actually friendly to the girls by preparing them to integrate into the larger society at least during school hours.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

vertex #13 has gone on and on but I will once again dare to counter him:

``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.``

If the pendants are hidden then by definition they are not on display--that is the point of the ban--to do away with symbols exhibiting or displaying religious affiliation.

``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.``

So what? In the UK, a fifteen year old Muslim girl just lost a legal battle to wear a jilbab (an abaya style cloak) to school. She believed it is mandatory to wear that and according to her, her religious rights and freedom to practice her religion was being curtailed by her being denied that right. How far does one go? Does it stop at the hijab? Does it include the jilbab? There will always be disagreements amongst the roughly one billion Muslims as to what exactly constitutes ``Islamic dress``. In light of that, perhaps one must realize that given the deliberately vague instruction perhaps it is not such an important tenet of Islam and that Muslims need to focus on other clearer matters such as monotheism, humility, regular charity and not concern themselves so much with matters of dress, which will necessarily vary from one group of Muslims to the next, given different cultural mores and traditions. It would be far wiser, as some Muslim groups in France suggested, not to protest the ban and focus on strengthening the community as opposed to asserting a separate identity and thereby hampering assimilation.

``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.``

Listen to yourself! To say that the hijab is not just a women`s rights issue is tantamount to saying that denying women the right to vote is not just a women`s rights issue or forcing blacks to attend separate schools is not just a black rights issue. Of course all of these discriminatory practices affect society as a whole but one would have to have lost all sight of reason to say that they affect all members of society equally. By your own admission, a larger number of Muslim women supported the ban than opposed it. If they are the primary group that is affected by the ban, it is their thoughts that matter most.

And please don`t confuse ``freedom`` with the ``curtailment of freedom``. One only has to look to societies in which an overwhelming number of women are dressed in hijab, jilbab, etc. and compare the status of women there with countries like France, UK, USA and the results are clear. Many other interactors through their comments below agree with this. Some like you obviously don`t. When there is disagreement on such issues, the best possible way forward is through a vote.

hijab and the theory of gravity ................

........ based on personal observation and experience, it is evident (to me, at least) that most of the middle-aged women take to the veil once they get fat in the behind and their wired bras loose the battle against gravity ........... over the years i have known many women who, in their younger days, strutted around showing upper and lower body cleaveage and who now walk around in arab death shrouds ............. they have also started attending koran classes and given up sex ................ their husbands have grown hair in their ears and also attend koran classes to eat samosas and look for the answers to the unified theory ..............

............. who is getting screwed by this ridiculous behaviour ?.......... the children, especially the girls ........ they run around with raging hormones, dressed in tight jeans and arab headjobs trying to hide their shame ........... they wet their pants at boy band concerts and then come home to undergo severe penances by debasing themselves in front of an uncaring arab god ........... some of them can`t handle the pressure and become frigid or turn into suicide bombers ............... it is a shame

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!

Tired and old topic. Hijab is a way of coping with modernity. It is part identity when outside ones are being foisted on you, and it is part expression of community (very frightening to those who are stalwart individualists). Still to others, it`s simply a requirement. To others, it`s evil in cloth form.

There is a sickness in the Muslim world, and that`s to discuss ad nausea topics that are deemed relevant to us by others. And let there be no doubt about this - this particular `issue` is not one raised from within. But discuss it we will. I happen to be just such a fool.

If western fashion was all about modesty, would we even be having this discussion? No. Would we be having a similar discussion? Hell yes, whatever the complaint de jour is...we`ll be jumping on it with a jerk knee..

Are there ``real`` gender issues to tackle? Yes. Is this one of them? Nope.

---

Ayesha,

``If a French woman in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or any other conservative country went out in a mini-skirt would we condone her behaviour as free thinking or would we be disappointed in her lack of consideration of societal norms``

Those countries don`t proclaim to accommodate such things. Modern France has no active tradition of dress - dress as you like, and they have no problems. Except for the Hijab, that is. This is about curbing expressions of religious identity that most francoists find scary. Ultimately, it is France`s right to ban the Hijab...but you can`t have it both ways. France then joins the ranks of Saudi, Afghan, etc. in forcing a mode of dress.

Second, the idea of a westerner accommodating conservative Muslim dress codes is laughable. I would wager most, except those who are generally foreign-culture friendly, would be horrified to wear a burkha or even Hijab, and wouldn`t do so without extreme reservations or unless it is absolutely mandatory. Typically, they wear whatever the male dress is - notably just as concealing, but this is a fact that I suppose we can overlook. Male dress...gotta love it...so much for sisterhood. This idea that they would don conservative dress and say ``when in rome`` is quite frankly not characteristic. Simply read or watch the correspondence from any female westerner visiting Muslim countries, and you will catch my drift. I can not think of an exception...

``Similarly, a Muslim living in the West should adapt his/her religion such that it does not raise eyebrows when they venture out. To do otherwise is being inconsiderate and rigid and perhaps people who feel so singlemindedly should make their way to some far away village where everyone else thinks the same as them. ``

Muslims in the west must take ownership of their citizenship, and make their mode of dress irrelevant by making a name for themselves within their communities. People exist in a natural state of ignorance, and ghettoizing (a ``real`` problem with the community) only reinforces this ignorance towards us. People will naturally be inconsiderate towards us otherwise, either out of their ignorance or simply because they deem it fit and affordable not to tolerate us as we are. Nothing comes for free, and if we insist on rigidly following a path, we must understand that their are tolls to be paid on this road we travel.

The idea that we have to be ``consi