French Not the Only Offenders on Hijab

re:#194 by MaheshG2
What you say might well happen.
I came to US because i believed my rights as a minority will be much safer than in say UK. I may be wrong. Minorities are always at a risk and democrazy and constitutional freedom are not iron-clad guarantees that a minority`s rights will not be infringed. USA is still the best place to immigrate but after 9/11, i am not so sure.
Sridhar

Tauheed at # 166:

Although I am a little late in responding to your encouraging post, I would say that I did not intend to run a public relationing campaign for a Hindu-Muslim love affair on this site. I was sincere in my post. And I admit that I took lot of encouragement from some of your posts where you were constantly repeating that Islam mandates that we repect all religions.

Subsequent to opening of the media by Government, several programs have been telecast by private TV channels increasing our awareness on other religions and those will go a long way in creating religious tolerance.

Of interest to note were travel programs of this young Pakistani lad by the name of Wajahat Malik. He traveled into interior Sindh where he participated in the Hindu celebration of Holy. The success of the program was a pleasant surprise. None of our Mullas protested. In the next program, this young traveler went to Makran area of Balochistan and paid tributes at a Hindu temple built inside the caves. Again, people admired that. They liked his reaching out the temple bell and ringing it in a typical `Hindu` way.

I keep saying that Pakistanis are very broad-minded people, something that has been lost on some brain-washed Indians under the heavy negative propaganda of their Government and media. Surprisingly, Pakistani Government and media have never been so harsh against ``Hindu` India and `Hindus`. An Indian would not accept that. Hence my constant support to romair`s messages when he writes that Pakistan should open its borders to Indians and let them see the truth.

stuka at # 167:

I just wanted to post this to let you know I read your message with thanks.

We will definitely `battle out` nationalistic matters on relevant topics :-)

Ref Maasanamuthu #31

[On the french action itself, it`s a difficult question. To some extent the larger society has to prevail in some circumstances. After all the competition is between the parent`s rights versus the society`s rights when it comes to brainwashing the child. In public schools the larger society must prevail. However, practically speaking, the incidence of girls wearing the hijab is rather low which makes the french action look spiteful.]

How wonderful! How reasonable!

Now would you care to reconcile that last statement with the actions of the DK that used to cut off the sacred thread worn by brahmins? In what way was the practice of daily worship on the banks of the Cauvery river by a miniscule minority of the 3% brahmin population of Tamil Nadu a threat to Tamil society at large?

And are we to suppose that the statement ``If you see a snake and a brahmin, kill the brahmin first`` is a noble ideology and not an attempt to brainwash (that is a bad term -- you guys have no brains worth talking about) the public?

What? Cat got your tongue?

ZahraJ #190 I dont have any sympathy for your car-ride, and if I had been listening this is what I would have asked him: ``Would your wife go to a church displaying her undoubtedly cute navel?`` It is a tradition in all houses of worship (not just in mosques) to expect some code of dress, and it is not unreasonable to expect people to respect it.

Indeed, it is not just places of worship, but dining places as well that can have dress restrictions. All this is for good reason: so that you dont spoil the atmosphere for other people. Indeed, even tourist books often mention acceptable forms of dress: thus US tourists visiting Europe are often advised in these tourist books to avoid wearing shorts in France e.g., since these are considered an eyesore by the French.

This is common courtesy that people extend to one another. The woman displaying her navel in the mosque was just as absurd as the woman who puts on a hijab in the US when in fact she had never heard of it all her life in Pakistan: both have a chip on their shoulder, and are dressing in ways designed to get them attention. In dressing to get attention in their different ways, both are violating good taste in dress, both are violating consideration for the feelings of other people at that location, and (if one wants to look at it from a reliigious angle) both are violating the Quranic injunction which calls for modesty in dress (which implies dressing in ways that do not attract attention to your dress or to your body).

As for my telling mullahs to go to hell, they are headed that way in any case and I am merely assuring them that they keep up their wicked ways and they will no doubt arrive at their destination soon enough (where the dress code would call for noncombustible clothes to be worn). :-)

Zahra #190 One mistake in my note: In writing I forgot that the problem was not that the any part of the body was being displayed but that your friend`s wife was wearing a pant and shirt to the mosque. As such, she may in fact have been dressed modestly, and my regrets at having overlooked that possibility. In that case, I would probably agree with your friend that the mosque people went too far in disallowing the dress. Also note that very often the mosque maulvi is a direct import from some boodocks in Pakistan, and as such the shirt and pants are probably a culture shock that he will not get over before a couple of decades in this country. I used to go to mosques (and my children would go to Sunday school), but now do that only on Eids. Instead, we have people organizing ``chai time`` in community centers which are typically attended by pakistanis in the US plus a sprinkling of nonpakistanis (bangladeshis, arabs). These are much more interesting since we have good speakers from various backgrounds (american journalists relating their experiences in pakistan, a palestinian family (christian husband, muslims wife) displaying their collection of colorful women`s clothes from different parts of palestine. I might start going to the mosque again as lately I understand some better educated pakistanis have started organizing similar cultural events there.

The principle I think remains true: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. But certainly by now a pant and shirt is considered perfectly acceptable and decent dress among most pakistanis in the US, and by no means should be considered disrespectful in a mosque. So, I went too far in my post in assuming how revealing the dress was. Sorry about that.

I agree. Frenchies are idiots to ban hijab. If muslim women want to wear them let them.

Sridhar #185,

that is a mighty wrong argument to use.

What if the US passes laws calling all non-whites criminals and you start protesting. And a white tells you ``you came to this country because life was better here than in India. If you don`t like the law you shouldn`t have come here in the first place. Even now, if you don`t like the law go back to India.``

_digit #188
Add yourself to a list of chowkies who call others bigotted for disagreeing.

And I am not ``paranoid`` as I have no reason to be. For one, OIC and the famous ummah reveal their own double standards by refusing to admit Indian Muslims into the OIC, though 10% of all Muslims live in India. It is a good thing, because for another, inspite of being a minority under threat, Indian Muslims demonstrate a positive and constructive worldview which is in stark contrast to the incessant whining about humiliation and oppression by famous ``sovereign Muslim`` nations.

There is a statistic which says that 25 odd Subsaharan African countries (which are majority Muslim or have sizeable Muslim populations) have only one pathology lab between all of them. There are more such shocking statistics about this region. The larger, more powerful or oil-rich Muslim countries are too busy getting themselves oppressed and humiliated by Jews, so leave it to the hated West`s institutions to get these statistics to us.

I have heard that France keeps the economy of its former African colonies on a tight leash and this is part of the problem, of which the French public seems to be unaware. Instead of getting het up about headscarfs, it would be better if people who care about Muslims took an interest in what is happening in subsaharan Africa.

harimau #189
Precisely. They cast every disagreement between Muslims and nonMuslims as a great civilisational clash but complain when Huntington postulates the same.

TAhmed: I certainly do not think that you have anything against anyone on this board or any other board on Chowk, laiken to suggest another interactor to visit hell first and then interact or something of that sort is a little formal way of engaging him/her in a ``scholastic`` discussion :) Don`t you agree?

This is a very interesting topic in a way. Keeping in line with a few things that you have brought up, I would like to share with you some observations of a good friend. He is a very rational, vocal but slightly confrontational guy who has a habit of challenging various aspects of religion when it comes to women. He should be in his mid to late 40s and is a father of two girls. I think he grew up here or probably migrated to the United States in his childhood.

He is all out for women`s emancipation and the good stuff, but had to confront many fellow Pakistani Muslims in his mosque on some controversial issues around Hijab. So, one fine evening or afternoon, his wife wore a pant-dress with a short shirt and attended some program in the mosque. The shirt was not long enough to cover her hips. Well, it turned out that a special male caucus was held to discuss the said dress and its impact. Later on, some senior care-takers of the mosque kind of confronted him on that and repeatedly mentioned that a female`s shirt should be long enough to cover her hips and should serve as a double layer. While telling this story, this guy was so ticked off by anything to do with religion that he did not even want to see those people again. His plea was that it was not the business of the mosque care-takers to evaluate women`s garbs. Who had nominated thOse people to police what the female visitors/members of the mosque wore?

Now, this poor guy who had never paid much attention to these little things became real conscious about his wife`s pant-suits. To him everything looked fine. I think that whole episode left a very bad taste in his mouth and he rarely cared to associate with those people again. The mosque care-takers needed him since he held a very prestigious position but he kept them at an arm`s length. He is an extremely well read and brilliant scientist with his own short comings like all of us do; but he told me one thing about people from his own background. I was kind of amused to hear that but I would like to share that...
``Zahra. They simply have rotten mentalities when it comes to practicing and enforcing anything to do with religion is concerned. The worst part is how they read the topic of hijab and modesty. How they make their women take them for gospel truth is even more sickening. Take my word for it. Do Not ever marry a Pakistani Muslim! And, if you ever took that route then do not invite me to attend the ceremony since I`d refuse to congratulate you. Marry an American. You will be better off. `` On the point of Pakistani Muslims, he was very sentimental and firm. I cross questioned to make sure that he meant what he was saying and confirm my own hearing as well.

Somehow, it`s either my fate or luck that all these fiascos(for the lack of a better term) happen to me when I am the driver and am forced to listen to my friends on a long drive.
As I dropped him off, I reviewed and analyzed what he went through over the course of his tussles with the Pakistani-Muslims in the mosque who claimed to be more Muslims than him. I think he would rarely suggest any woman to consider a Pakistani-American/Pakistani Muslim and that includes his own daughters.

....

Sadna wrote:

[The article posted by nasah #94 talks of other religious communities having to face persecutions and massacres even, in the French state`squest to divorce religion from the state.]

Yes…and? It’s odd to think that a minor issue like the banning of the Hijab will be considered nearly as important as the events identified in the article. It also does not answer why the current Government’s sponsoring of religious organizations – a distinctly “unsecular” act. Anyhow, delving into the distant past and drawing analogies about contemporary issues is a weak apologetic device I must say.

[In this case, religious symbols have been banned only in government schools -which means that a girl can put on the hijab the minute she leaves the school gates.]

Nothing in principle now stops the French from passing laws that will support an outright ban. Indeed, there is talk of allowing the banning of the Hijab, or rather “religious symbols”, to prevade in the private sector as well.

[It is hard to see this as an attack on Islam. It is however an attack on Sikhism, since to comply with this law, those Sikhs who have chosen to be keshdhari, will have to violate their own mandatory religious observance. ]

Indeed it is equally affecting Sikhs as well! I would also like to point out that those who do wear the Hijab do consider it a mandatory religious observance. Anyhow, such a ban did not come out of the ether. It was clearly motivated by something. From what I understand the Sikh population is rather small in France…their integration into society is less concerning than the much larger Muslim population. Look, all I am saying is that this is more of a race-relations issue than anything about defending secularism.

[He clearly names Europeans and Jews as some of the enemies who are oppressing Muslims. He clearly says of all 1.3 billion Muslims `we are all oppressed, we are all humiliated`. India has 140 million Muslims, more than 10% of the world`s Muslims. So when he says `we are all oppressed, we are all humiliated` he means Indian Muslims too. So Hindus are the enemies….. ]

Geez…why are we discussing this speech again? Oh well…

It is an act of sheer audacity to interpolate the way you are doing. He “clearly” says no such thing you claim he does. His discussion of Europeans (paragraph 32) is alluding to Muslim preceptions of helplessness – something he thinks is more a state of mind and a self-imposed reality than a fundamental aspect of our existence.

The following paragraphs only clumsily identify “The Jews” as hostile to Muslims (keeping in mind, here he is talking about a collective Muslim community, and their complete and utter impotence to do anything against such a small community). Where you come up with India and the rest is beyond me. You seem to be rather paranoid. You certainly assume too much.

[The fundamental Muslim-nonMuslim divide is implicit and explicit in his words. His exhortations are solely aimed at Muslims being unable to defend themselves in CONFLICT.]

Actually, the common antagonist in his article is the “Jewish” bogey-man – and the absolute inability of Muslims to not only deal with the Palestinian issue, but to defend against any attack on their nations as clearly demonstrated by the American/British attack on Iraq. I will admit, his rhetoric is at times rather childish. But, he’s of the opinion that “rhetoric is good”. Whatever the rhetoric he employs, his conclusions are fair, and I happen to share his concern over our self-imposed irrelevance on the world scene:

41. Apart from the partial unity that we need, we must take stock of our assets. I have already mentioned our numbers and our oil wealth. In today`s world we wield a lot of political, economic and financial clout, enough to make up for our weakness in military terms.

42. We also know that not all non-Muslims are against us. Some are well disposed towards us. Some even see our enemies as their enemies. Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.

43. We must not antagonise everyone. We must win their hearts and minds. We must win them to our side not by begging for help from them but by the honourable way that we struggle to help ourselves. We must not strengthen the enemy by pushing everyone into their camps through irresponsible and unIslamic acts.

44. We must build up our strength in every field, not just in armed might. Our countries must be stable and well administered, must be economically and financially strong,industrially competent and technologically advanced. This will take time, but it can be done and it will be time well spent. We are enjoined by our religion to be patient. Innallahamaasabirin. Obviously there is virtue in being patient.

45. But the defence of the ummah, the counter attack need not start only after we have put our houses in order. Even today we have sufficient assets to deploy against our detractors. It remains for us to identify them and to work out how to make use of them to stop the carnage caused by the enemy.

You are absolutely correct when you say that he mentions nothing of the incompetence of his very audience- perhaps paragraph 44 is as close as he gets. I think the reason for that is painfully obvious…an important point, however it does not undermine his suggestions one bit.

[If George Bush had made such a speech exhorting Christians, you would be howling to high heaven.]

A silly example. George Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. If some tin-pot dictator of a third world nation with a Chrisitan population said a similar speech, I would certrainly not react in an emotionally charged way.

[btw, I donot like the mode of this discussion, I put up arguments/info and you get to simply say rubbish. ]

Well, yes. Your arguments were little more than a “proof by example” rhetoric, and often wandered from topic to topic well beyond the original discussion of the small Muslim protests representing some sort of pandemic Muslim duplicity. I’m sorry, but that’s not my fault. I’m also sorry that I allowed myself to be goaded into such an unfocused “discussion”.

I’ve conceded points to you whenever you made sense. You, on the other hand, can’t seem to see past your bigotry and continue to proclaim the existence of some kind of homogeneous Muslim mindset. Whatever.

The last word is yours if you want it. I’m done.

An article on Chowk and 187 interacts because everyone wants to pussyfoot around one simple statement:

As far as Islamist thugs and their fellow-travelers are concerned, it is one law for themselves and another (the exact opposite, to be precise) for all the others.

Islamic history is full of examples of this.

fuzair #181 The french have indeed historically drawn the line on french culture and not on color of skin. This is in contrast to the color of skin that used to be the big deal with brits who were a lot more sticky in matters of social class and color of skin. Indeed, even today, in francophone africa you will find black africans being more french than the french when it comes to the french language and customs. And of course french culture includes being smartly dressed as well. I must admit falling in love with paris every time i went there.

The downside to this emphasis on culture of course is that the french try to legislate things that would be seen as intrusion on personal liberties in the US or other anglo-saxon countries.

This is not the first time the french have tried to legislate culture - they actually have traditionally had a minister of culture, and one of them (under Pompidou I think) actually tried to legislate english words out of french. Didnt work of course. It will be interesting to see how this hijab legislation plays out.

You are right on the money here Tarek Fatah.

If by chance you want to move South of the border, the

American Muslim community could sure use yor help.

Have been reading your work since the newsgroup days.

Good to see you again here on CHOWK.


Ras H. Siddiqui

re: Hijab and freedom of expression
I am just amused at the way Hijab is being debated here. I respect the muslim woman`s wish for wearing a Hijab but she cannot expect everyone or every nation to respect it or even understand it.
French idea of freedom may be very different from say the American idea. French may be willing to see topless beauties on the beech which certainly does not threaten their sense of Frenchness or freedom but may feel that wearing Hijab puts a woman in a whole different category that does not fit into the French perception of freedom.
In India too, despite having Freedom of religion, proseletysing has never been accepted as a valid form of religious freedom. There are historical reasons behind it. So, the idea of freedom differs in different nations.
Why are the muslims complaining instead of trying to merge with the crowd? Why do they have this compulsion to stand out in the crowd? Surely, a woman`s modesty is not threatened if she does not wear a hijab. Or is it? Quoting the Holy Qoran for things like Hijab is stretching it too far. That holy book was meant for a different place in a different time.

Muslims who choose to migrate to France do so because their own countries have not given them the kind of opportunities in life that France offers them. It does not make sense that muslims should protest against hijab in a country of their adoption when they should be trying to assimilate and become French. If not, they should not be migrating to France in the first place.
Sridhar