Banning the Veil
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-13/banning-veil
France’s lower house of Parliament votes on a proposed ban on face-covering veils. It's likely to become law, but may not survive a court challenge: Religious freedom, women's rights and fears of anti-Islamic sentiment.
Guests
Emmanuel Lenain
spokesman, Embassy of France
Akbar Ahmed
chair of Islamic studies at American University
Jonathan Laurence
associate professor of Political Science at Boston College.
and non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
author of "Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France (Brookings Press"
and soon to be published: "The Partial Emancipation of Europe's Muslim Minorities and the Geopolitics of Islam in the West"
Asra Nomani
former correspondent for the Wall Street Journal
author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam.”
Merve Kavakci
former member of the Turkish parliament
author of a forthcoming book: "Headscarf Politics in Turkey: A Postcolonial Reading"
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Islamic terrorism is born out of the Muslim Religion, and when the average citizen cannot walk down the sidewalk without fear of some Islamic Religious fringe fanatic setting off a bomb to further their crazy agenda, the average citizen should be entitled to at least, have the right to see the face of their killer before they die.
I am from a muslim family but I do not practice. I live in the US and prior to 1981, I lived in France. I strongly approve of the ban. I believe the veil is becoming more a political stand than a sign of religiosity. Your French correspondant is right: the veil denotes more from a tradition. It is not a REQUIREMENT of Islam. Men use it conveniently to suppress and dominate women in the name of the religion which make me upset every time I hear about it.
I know no one wants to say this: The women who believe they have the right to wear it should go live in the countries that honor this tradition period.
We women have fought so long and so hard to be free and this is not a symbol of freedom.
The Islam phobia is bought on by the attitudes and behavior of this kind of fanaticism. I aqm so sorry to have to say this.
A listener from Dallas, Texas
Good morning. Despite the rights of women who WISH to wear the veil to do so as a visible sign of faith and commitment, it seems to me that many of us find it so disturbing because MEN are not constrained to wear any similarly modest--and restrictive--garments as a sign of faith. Men instead appear to be dominating and limiting all women, and women are compelled to bear this burden because, it appears, men lack the discipline to respect and protect women and treat them as being human beings with equal rights under all law (religious or civil). I mean no disrespect by this comment. While one might understand the concerns of French lawmakers and citizens about women's rights or the general culture, however, if each of us wishes to have the right to exercise our faith we must be willing to extend that right to all who are lawfully living among us. Perhaps time and real discussion might be more useful in furthering understanding on both sides than would this law. Have many Muslim women in France spoken publicly about the law?
Unfortunately I am no longer in a place where I can listen to today's very interesting show. However, I wanted to point out that the "problem" of women being forced to wear the full-face veil in France is largely a myth. First, very few women wear it (the estimates are in the low thousands) and most are French converts to Islam. So we are now facing a situation in which French women, who have freely decided to wear the veil, are going to be told by the French parliament, which is overwhelmingly male, what they must do to be liberated. To the extent there are women being forced to wear it, one would think there are other means to address it. Second, the spokesperson from the French Embassy said that these women must be integrated, again an oddity since most are French. But more to the point, the reaction in other places has been that these women rarely leave the house. So, the reality may be that these women would become cut off because of the law.
This is topic is very interesting to me. According to the Queen in Jordan, Islam does not require a Hijab, or head covering. My reading of the relevant passage in the Koran seems to suggest that women are only to cover their cleavage, but obviously this is not followed among many African Muslims.
I have also had several conversations with Muslim Bedouins, who claim that not only should the hair and body be covered, and the face, but the hands and feet of women should be hidden from all males, including family members, starting at the age of 6 or 7. Women who violate this are supposed to be punished severely, at least in some of these more extreme religious enclaves.
A prominent Muslim cleric has also claimed that women's hair gives out invisible rays that drive men insane, so therefore women must cover their hair.
I encourge your panel to consider and respond to the words of neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/ted-science-can-answer-moral-que...
"Who are we to say that the proud denizens of an ancient culture are wrong to force their wives and daughters to live in cloth bags? Who are we to say even that they're wrong to beat them with lanks of steel cable or throw battery acid in their faces if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?"
"Who are we NOT to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well being that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this?"
"I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil. But what does voluntary mean in a community where when a girl gets raped her father's first impulse, rather often, is to murder her out of shame? What are the chances that represents a peak of human flourishing?"
_____________________________________________
Although I always defend freedoms of speech and religion I do not equate either of these with religious (and sexual) coercion and punishment.
I also do not accept the "slippery slope" argument of Mr. Ahmed. The very specific concerns and dangers surrounding use of the burqa are clear. In light of these concerns the burqa cannot be compared to all religious clothing in general - which ARE NOT 1) used by terrorists to conceal explosive devices, and 2) which are not used by men to deprive women of their civil rights and human dignity. To emphasize: no one is interested in (or arguing for) banning the hijab or other expressions of Islam. To do so would be as pointless as banning the Hindu sari or the Jewish tallith.
Clearly if legislation is necessary why not a compromise? The burqa can be worn at home and on the premises of a mosque or house of worship. The burqa cannot be worn in public, off the premises of a private home, a mosque or house of worship.
Those who oppose banning the burqa miss the point. In a modern free society, it is the religion that must accomodate the needs of the society, not vice versa. Too many calls on countries and societies to "understand and respect" various aspects of a given religion, but it is the religious group that must understand that today, I have the right to know who I am dealing with, who I am talking to, and the person's face is the most important part of such recognition.
On another note, I believe that burqa is simply a sign of womens' oppression, a tradition that's so deeply rooted that it's no longer recognized as such.
I think this may have more to do with facial recognition systems being put in place around the world. Veils would allow those they most suspect of potential terrorism to walk around freely, "under the radar" so to speak.
I truly hope this is not the reason, but it would not be far fetched to imagine this scenario. France would feel justified doing anything it could to prevent tactics such as those employed in the French Quarters during the Algerian War; women were routinely the vehicles of terrorism as they were not initially viewed as potential threats.
Why must the veil be considered a restrictive practice in all cases? It's incredibly closed minded to not consider those women who choose to veil and opposed to being "required" to veil by men, as some commenters have pointed out. Ultimately, a rhetoric of modesty is not foreign to other religions within these "secular" countries, including the standards of nuns in the catholic church, for example. Will nuns also be required to scale back their modesty on behalf of modernity? Would certain groups certainly have a problem with that sort of policy proliferating in France? I think the excellent debate in the fight for women's rights is the right to choose... one extremism is simply not better than another. What is the definition of "modernity" that citizens are promoting? When women fought for the right to vote in the United States, the vote was not meant to be a requirement. It was a right to choose to vote that women had fought for. Perhaps the state should reinforce choice in laws of this nature... perhaps protect those women who choose or choose not to wear the veil in a court of law, if such an issue is in fact so important to the public.
Furthermore, it's horrible to suggest that terrorism is limited to Islam. In reality, if we think that eliminating Islam will somehow remove the threat of "terror," we are incredibly naive and mistaken.
I am weary of any law that dictates what women can or can not wear. If lawmakers are concerned about the integration of Muslim populations why don't they target the men who may have more sway in the community?
I fear that these laws will simply force women in conservative families to stay in the house. It will further isolate these communities and prevent integration into mainstream society.
whatever happened to assimilating to the culture of the country you are emigrating to? that is just good manners. you shouldn't have to give up your religion but you do need to assimilate to the majority when you are out in society.
when in rome do as the romans do; if you don't wish to, go back to the culture that you came from. i wouldn't move to a muslim country and wear a miniskirt and tank top in the streets...i would try to fit in with whatever the culture dictates.
Regarding the Founders intent:
The Founders concept of religious freedom DID NOT eclipse personal freedom. Religions, like republics, have neither the "freedom" nor the "right" to compromise the inalienable human rights due each citizen.
My understanding of the use of the veil as outlined in the Koran is that
it is to prevent a woman from being conspicuous in her society. Thus, if
other women veil in Country A, it is wholly appropriate for a woman to
do so. On the other hand, a veiled woman in Western society is, by
definition, conspicuous, and this presumably negates the purpose. If I go to Saudi Arabia, I will be expected to dress according to its standards; the same should be true in Western countries.
To Jonesy, as I pointed out above, most are French converts, not immigrants.
As an ardent feminist, I'm incensed by the constant politicizing of women's clothing. Women deserve self-determination, and here we have people on all sides of the issue wanting to control what a woman decides to put on in the morning. Legislature banning face-covering veils is as oppressive and unconscionable as mandating the wearing of it.
I want to discuss the misquote by Asra Nomani about the Quran sanctioning suicide bombings. I want to ask her if she knows any saying of the Prophet or quotation from the Quran which authorizes suicide bombing. I'll except ignorance about that quotation if there is one, only then will I agree with Asra. Please note three generations of women (before me) were "burqa-free" and "hijab-free", but I support the right of any individual to wear as they please (of course modesty should be considered). The Jews have the right to wear yarmulkha, Sikh males have the right to wear the turban and bangle on their right hand. If we take this slippery slope (as Mr Akbar said) how many government regulations do we need in most of the Western world? We value the freedom of speech and separation of church and state, in this, my adopted great country of USA. Please respond. Thank you.
Great show, thanks Diane!
I do not understand why so many in Europe feel threatened by the veil. I believe the veil issue, as one guest said is "covering" what is really happening in Europe; and that evidently is demographics. Since it is now impossible for reverse the growth of Islam in Europe, government leaders are fighting one aspect of Islam, the most evident: the hijab.
Scholars around the world agree that the face of Europe will soon change.. and who knows.. if that face will be covered in a burqa! I guess going back to my first sentence, it can be frightening for Europeans to see their European identity being merged to becoming a European-Islamic identity.
I fully support the viewpoint of Asra regarding the veiling of women. Today's conversation brought to my mind that there are numerous laws that effect complete religious freedoms, ie: practices that involve animal rituals, as well, clothing laws, ie: we can not walk in the streets without shirts or pants. These laws and the values they represent can be viewed and argued as relative to the culture, just as the relativity of opinions that occur around the veiling of women.
So what? Even if it were only a few thousand as you say above and then take 40% as being the immigrant component, being more than a thousand, it is an " in your face " symbol of female suppression which cannot be allowed in western culture at this point. To most people it is extremely offensive and not evocative of a "woman's choice".
Make no mistake. There are thugs that enforce these silly rules. I was witness to this while at the University of Chicago many years ago when I was part of a student group advocating for Women's rights in Afghanistan and we were physically attacked and our table was overturned by young male Pakistani students. Therefore, nobody can convince me that it is about choice, at all.
Also, as a practical reason, I am sure no country or city would allow anyone to walk around in a face covering ski mask to hide their identity. How is this different?
You're missing the point that the burqa is a widely-known religious requirement for most Muslim women. A mini-skirt is not a religious requirement of any known religion, much less one of such proliferation throughout the world as Islam.
If you were to move to Saudi Arabia you would not be required to wear a burqa if you were not Muslim. You could mostly wear what is considered customary for your religion, so you're really comparing apples and oranges.
biancag, the opposite is happening though. Muslim women today are seen more then they have been before. They are seen in schools, work, driving, shopping centers and on the streets. I don't think the veil is preventing them to do so. I think most westerners just aren't ready to accept that the Islamic head dress is not the repressive male-forced subjugation they want it to be.
I appreciate the diversity of opinions being expressed by the guests on the show. However, I take except to Ms. Nomani's interpretation of the Islamic dress for women. It is very unfortunate when women are forced to dress a certain way--whether it be to wear the hijab or to wear tank tops and shorts because "everyone else is doing it or they should". However, many women choose either of these modes of dress because of their personal views. It sounded like she was saying that all women who wear the hijab/veil/burka were somehow forced to do so. If that is the case, then couldn't a similar argument be made for women who wear all kinds of clothes? Although Ms. Nomani speaks to the importance of pluralism in accepting different views of Islamic dress within Muslim communities, her disregard for women who do choose to wear an Islamic dress strikes me as no different from the disregard displayed by small-minded conservatives for women (and men) who do not adopt an Islamic dress.
I believe the murderers have in mind the part about killing the "infidels"
Sorry, this was to be a reply to Maqbool
Fascinating, complicated topic. I was troubled that only one woman was a guest on the show, however.
The problem I have with this show is that whenever topics concerning Islam are aired you have a wide variety of people with opinions and your panels usually stand from the left and attack those seen as fundamentalist. Why not get a real scholar of the" islamic fundamentals" to tell truth about Islam instead of getting the apologist opinion of people who are against traditional Islam. Islam is based on fundamentals. Wearing hijab is an act of obedience to Allah(God) Which is the first fundamental uponwhich all others rest, anyone who apposes it apposes obedience to God.
Prof Akbar is being disingenuous by pretending that forbidding the veil infringe on liberties. he knows quite well that the veil is imposed by male religious stupidity.
I am a laicard so i m anti christian anti judaic (faith not the people) and unabashedly islamophobic because religions are the best weapon of evil.
Majid-Why do so many Muslims then say that wearing of the hijab is not mandated in the koran and that it is more of a cultural tradition?
Islamic so called fundamentals, legends really, cannot trump the laws of the state. In france they were able to break the neck of catholic power why should they accept the emergence of a muslim one.
when i was in school we sung a beautiful song in french " with the interiors of the last king (tyrant in other version) we will hang the last priest (rabbi, imam, ulema, ecc) .
It is the time to go back to that fundamental: get rid of religion
Before judging the French government, one has to understand French history. The executions of all educated Protestants in France in the St. Batholomew Day's Massacre, the Edict of Nantes, the French Revolution all painfully established a principle that private religious affiliations cannot supplant national identity and loyalty. So, Catholic clergy were often chastised for wearing clerical garb in public. And the virtue of politesse is today far more important than the virtue of piety. Wearing religious garb in public is, consequently, offensive to the traditions of France, going back to the Revolution and beyond. France is not the United States. Here individual rights can supplant public duty. In France to be a citizen brings duties than supplant individual freedoms.
As a French citizen living in the US, I would like to shed a different light to some of the comments on this show. Good or bad, worrying or not, the facts seem to demonstrate with the increasing clarity that:
- across Europe, muslim minorities are asserting themselves and demand additional rights and recognition;
- such demands are quite recent, and much more recent than muslim immigration. 10 years ago, islamic veils in the streets of Paris or Amsterdam were a scarce sight. You see them now everywhere, every hour of the day, although mass muslim immigration dates back more than 40 years;
- based on the proposed French bill banning the Burqa (which follows one banning veils in public schools), as well as numerous laws and trends across Western Europe, it seems clear that a large and increasing number of native Western Europeans reject demands for additional muslim rights and recognition;
- depending on political and personal sensitivities, these rejections are described as xenophobic, islamophobic, racist, bigot, future-fearing or as a way to protect Western society, culture and values;
- political parties and governments try to adapt to this public rejection by proposing laws aimed at containing such rejections while defining new rules for both communities to live by in peace, if not in harmony;
- public rejection and discontent of islamic development in Western Europe will only grow further and lead to more extreme agendas if it appears that laws such as the ban on burqa cannot be enacted.