French Not the Only Offenders on Hijab

sadna wrote:

[It is precisely a case of mass Muslim duplicity for Muslim protestors elsewhere to protest a head scarf ban for girls in one country and not a blanket education ban for girls in another. ]

That hardly demonstrates a “mass” anything. The few thousand Muslims in Western countries are immediately affected by the Ban, hence I think they show no duplicity…it’s something they don’t want locally, and France’s ban raises that possibility. As for Muslims in Muslim countries, were talking about a few hundreds of protestors. Count. That`s not many.

Out of curiosity, how many people anywhere protested the Taliban’s ban on education/? I recall only a very, very small one here in the West. Yes, perhaps Muslims should have been more concerned about their own backyard. But, according to you nationalist types, I thought we Muslims were not supposed to have a pan-Islamist view of the world…I thought we were only meant to be concerned with our own nations.

[The chauvinists are those who clearly prefer headscarves to education, not those who merely point this preference out.]

This is an obtuse statement. I see no clear choice in protest being made. One issue has clearly been popularized, and those who protest it for the most part are affected by the ban. The other is a tangential issue that lies beyond their realm of concern or influence. Are you suggesting that I shouldn`t be able to protest the actions of my government because I did not protest against similar or worse actions by foreign governments? That`s absurd.


nazarhayatkhan wrote:

[Laws of the land have to be followed. As SRI said, those who can`t do without Hijab, go to a place where Hijab is allowed.]

Hmmm...I doubt your sincerity. If Pakistan were to pass a law making the wearing of Hijab mandatory in school and government institutions, would you suggest that people either accept it or leave the country, or would you advocate some kind of agitating against the law?

Wonderful article by Khaled Ahmed, truly a national treasure for Pakistan. Indian interactors, this is very embarrassing, but where is our own Khaled Ahmed????

No, please no left-wing lunatics like Roy, Bidwai etc. We need somebody deeply educated and literate in all the indian traditions commenting on our nuts like Thackeray, Togadia, Bukhari, Sambhaji brigade etc. The persons closest to this in India are MJ Akbar, Saeed Naqvi, Khushwant Singh and Renuka Narayan.

But I am afraid they don`t quite measure up to Khaled`s deep knowledge and erudition of various indian traditions. I am afraid we are losing this race!!! Where are the damn IITs when we really need them?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-1-2004_pg3_6

Second opinion: What is Muslim extremism? —Khaled Ahmed’s Urdu Press Review

People who think that separate electorates are an Islamic injunction and that Blasphemy Law is justified in Islam will never concede that these are extremist measures. Not even President Musharraf will include these measures in his definition of Muslim extremism

Most of the time we don’t even know what extremism is. If you tell a Pakistani that what Maulana Manzur Ahmad Chinioti does in the guise of Khatm-e-Nabuwwat with the rest of the big clerics in Pakistan, with approval from the rest of the nation, is extremism, he won’t believe it. What the entire nation does to the non-Muslims under Blasphemy Law is extremism written into the statute book, but no one thinks it is extremism. One way to remove this extremism is reform but Muslims don’t feel inclined to go in this direction because reform requires a realisation of error. Muslims don’t think they are in error.

According to “Khabrain” (18 December 2003), the Al Azhar University of Egypt had declared that the Bahai community was not Muslim because they did not accept the prophethood of Muhammad PBUH. In fact they were a mixture of different beliefs and were working for the Zionists.

The Bahais are an Iranian problem, but Al Azhar has chosen to pronounce upon it. (What Iran does to the Bahais is like what Pakistan does to its Ahmedis.) This will not lead to peace among the nations that form the Islamic “umma”. There are other minority communities that are Muslims today but will be forced out of the pale of Islam if this kind of thing goes on. Bahais in Pakistan are a good benign community contributing to the welfare of the nation. It would be tragic if the Al Azhar verdict aroused low passions in Pakistan. Already we have the Ahmedi question on which all Pakistanis suffer from a death wish, like Hitler with regard to the Jews. Iran in its heyday of revolution had suggested to Pakistan that it too declare its Bahais non-Muslims, but mercifully Pakistan ignored the request. (Allama Iqbal in his doctoral thesis on Persian metaphysics rated the Bahais high and took a Bahai-Babi poetess Quratul Ain Tahira into the sphere of Jupiter in his “Javidnama” together with Mirza Ghalib and Hallaj.) The fondness on the part of Al Azhar to declare communities this or that will not help. Pakistan is in deep crisis because of the demand on the part of extremists to declare the Shia community non-Muslim.

According to “Jang” (22 December 2003), Zikri leader Abdul Ghani was driving through Defence in Karachi when two men on bikes stopped him and put a bullet through his dead. He was dead on arrival at the hospital after which the Zikri community in the city came out on the roads and protested.

The Zikri community of Balochistan has been under pressure. Their distinct sufi customs, instead of arousing interest in the diversity of faith, have aroused sectarian passions in Pakistan. Deep down however the passion is not divine but quite mundane. The Zikris don’t vote for the religious parties for obvious reasons and support the secular Baloch parties. Those who agitated for the apostatisation of the Zikris were assuming that this way separate electorates would prevent them from becoming a crucial vote bank in Balochistan politics, proving once again that religion is often used to gain political ends. People who think that separate electorates are an Islamic injunction (together with late Imam Khomeini) will never concede that it is an extremist measure.

Quoted in “Khabrain” (23 December 2003) adviser to Punjab chief minister Rana Muhammad Ijaz said that Muslims were wallowing in backwardness (jahalat) and that good Muslims should now start wearing pants. He said Muslim dress was not liked by anyone in the world and when he went out of the country he always wore pants. He said the mullahs of Islam had given nothing to the world because all the great inventions had come from the Christian world. While announcing that the government would celebrate Christmas officially he said that the maulavis were pulling at one another’s beard. In answer the “maulavis” said that Rana Ijaz was seeking to endear himself to the non-Muslims and thus threatening the country with sectarianism. They said only an illiterate person could think of wearing the Western dress. They said scientific inventions had come from the Islamic scientists in the past. They accused Rana Ijaz of having gone mad.

Rana Ijaz is not far wrong, given the present state of mind of the Muslims. But the likes of Rana Ijaz have never prospered. The first person who began concentrating on the flaws of the believing Muslim was Sir Syed but he was apostatised by most Muslims and survived only because he had British protection. Allama Iqbal also survived because of that but his heresy was less assertive. The principle is: unless you get to know what is wrong with you, you can’t reform yourself. Muslims don’t believe that they are wrong. They rather think that they are being wronged.

Writing in “Khabrain” (24 December 2003) Munir Ahmad Munir recounted that one Haji Muhammad Yusuf of Tablighi Jamaat traded in cloth and boasted that he would work without the curse of bank interest (riba) after which Allah will increase his profits. Members of Tablighi Jamaat and widows invested with him and he gave them returns of up to twenty-four percent. But after his business had taken off the Haji disappeared with Rs 10 crore of his investors and was not to be found again.

The “riba”-less banking has not prospered. Islamic banking is dependent on divine subterfuge. The haji sahib in the case simply leaned on the faith of the common man and was right as a crook to do that. It is possible that he believed in the beginning in the “barakaat” (Islamic Banks have names like “Barakah”) but when he saw that there were none he simply became a crook. The reason is lack of reinterpretation of “fiqh”, not Islam. *

fuzair #46: ``Maybe this is the French govt`s way of forcing Muslims (and Jews, etc) to free themselves from their chains?``

Strange comment.

I thought being free meant one should be able to freely do what one wants to do, i.e. wear a scarf if one wants to and not wear one if one doesn`t want to.

To me this ruling is identical to the ruling in NWFP insisting that no one will be allowed to wear pants to school.

When countries start legislating on clothes, outside the border of their culture, they reach the stage of fanaticism. I think this ruling just goes to prove, what I have been saying all along, i.e. fanatics exist on the secular side as much as on the religious side. Both are trying to, ``free`` people through ridiculous legislations.

Live and let live.....

Romair

Those protesting at the French embassy have no reason to protest at the Saudi embassy. Why should they? They have a certain belief system. One may not agree with it. But they think that Hijab should be worn. So they are protesting its ban in France.

Ah, I see. Interesting logic.

So they are not saying that there should be freedom to choose everywhere? They are saying that Muslim women should wear hijabs. And if they did not protest the rapes of French Muslim women by Muslim men (the issue that probably triggered this in the first place), it implies that raping an errant Muslim woman fits in their belief system?

If they are not protesting for the freedom to choose, then no one is going to attach any credibility to their protests. It is like Hindu fundamentalists who protest in front of Convent schools against their bans on mehendis and bindis, but will be the first to burn valentine Day cards.

tahmed 37,

Muslims are fond of hidng the reality of islam behind generalisations. Islam means peace, it is a religion of peace, but never mentioning about the fact that the reserved place in heaven is only for the shaheed. Then there is the talk of jihad, it is killing of non-innocents, reamaining silent about the fact what kafirs are in islam.
Your so called assertions are also of the same category, you say all religions are essentially same.
Are you ready to post that ``budhism is as good as islam``. You will not post the above quote either because of the blasphemy laws, or it is against your very beliefs.

Well no one on chowk is waiting for your next post. I remain.

sri #49 So you mean you allowed a racist to call YOU names to your face (unless you tell me that you are in fact not one of us third world immigrants to the west). And how did you respond? E.g. did you kick his behind, or take him to court for verbal abuse so you could hit him in the wallet? Or did you just smile and shake your head (the south indian form of agreement) and say ``You got that right, bwana``?

just kidding.

fuzair #46 with 10 per cent of their population muslim - and rising - while the local french population is rapidly moving towards extinction (through negative population growth), i think the french are less worried about freeing muslims from their themselves and more worried about france being reduced to another libya or algeria. (a bit apocalyptic, this scenario - but not too far off base).

Tarek

There is no comparison between Saudi Arabia & France.

Living in one is reasonably close to hell & living in the other is reasonably close to heaven.

Laws of the land have to be followed. As SRI said, those who can`t do without Hijab, go to a place where Hijab is allowed.

_digit #45
`` For the hundreds of protestors elsewhere...I`m sorry, that`s hardly a case of mass Muslim duplicity that some of the chauvinists on this board go on about. ``

It is precisely a case of mass Muslim duplicity for Muslim protestors elsewhere to protest a head scarf ban for girls in one country and not a blanket education ban for girls in another.

The chauvinists are those who clearly prefer headscarves to education, not those who merely point this preference out.

I once had a candid talk with a white nationalist.

`` Immigrants are not just immigrating to western countries. They are also bringing their turd world mexico OR India OR pakistan OR egypt OR somalia OR whatever the turd world garbage dump they are from... ``

A few thousand Muslims protest (vast majority from France and elsewhere in Europe, few small rallies from Muslim states without mandatory Hijab - don`t recall any protests in Iran or SA) , and all of a sudden a whole laundry list is presented to ALL Muslims on what they should have protested...give it a rest people.

It makes absolute sense for French Muslims to go out in the streets and protest, even if they didn`t protest Taliban, and regardless of how they feel about the mandatory Hijab in Iran or SA. They`re French, and the ban is directly relevant to them. For the hundreds of protestors elsewhere...I`m sorry, that`s hardly a case of mass Muslim duplicity that some of the chauvinists on this board go on about.

Anyhow...

malik99,

[How did a piece of cloth become so threatening to the `enlightened civilization` of the Fifth Republic? Has the ``enlightened civilization`` become so rotten at its foundations that a piece of cloth threatens its very core?]

To be fair to the French, I have yet to hear anyone use the term ``enlightened`` with regards to the ban. The claim is that they are trying to sustain their ``secularism`` through the ban, a dubious claim to be sure - but not a very patronizing one in my opinion.

Would you agree, though, that in the end the French have every right to enforce the ban?


ironman wrote,

[Everyone seems to ignore the fact that the french govt. plans to disallow **ALL** religious symbols...including jewish skullcap, sikh turban, hindu tilak and christian cross....So, why is this discussion centered around hijab only???]

For all intents and purposes, the ban is against the Hijab. Aside from perhaps the Sikh Turban, everything else is merely a P.C. ploy since none of the other symbols are perceived by their practitioners as being obligatory to wear. It`s fascinating that after perhaps centuries of the Jewish kippa and Christian crosses being worn, all of a sudden there is this concern for religious symbols? I don`t buy it. This is clearly a race relations issue in the guise of a religion.

[Also, hijab I take it, is black in color. Does the french govt. have any problem with coloured scarves?? No, I`ll bet.]

Any and all scarves worn for religious reasons will be banned. Black, pink, in the image of a French flag...doesn`t matter.

[That statement should bury the `Air` marshalls argument that some women may be donning the hijab out of real modesty.]

They`re doing it out of a sense of religious obligation. Intent was never an issue, anyway...

Re: the banning of the Hijab

Well, you do know that Rousseau, who was French (OK, maybe he was Swiss but I`m pretty sure he was Francophone), did say that ``man has to be forced to be free.`` Maybe this is the French govt`s way of forcing Muslims (and Jews, etc) to free themselves from their chains?

ZahraJ #40: ``Romair:
To your point on Muslims being too lazy to protest...
It`s not necessarily 100% laziness. It`s many things...insensitivity... lack of faith in their respective governments to hear their voice.``

I disagree.

It is laziness. Specifically, it is laziness amongst those who do not support the religious factions. When the religious parties/issues` supporters have something they disagree with, they are always out on the streets. Look at any Muslim country in the world, including Pakistan.

When Jamaat-i-Islami disagrees with something, it can get its supporters out on the streets protesting, in a heartbeat. However, when the anti-JI brigade disagrees with something, it is always too lazy to go out in the streets. It only protests in the comforts of its living rooms.

Those protesting at the French embassy have no reason to protest at the Saudi embassy. Why should they? They have a certain belief system. One may not agree with it. But they think that Hijab should be worn. So they are protesting its ban in France. Why should they protest at the Saudi embassy, when it is enforcing hijab, i.e. it is doing exactly what they want it to do.

The group protesting at the Saudi embassy should be those who think hijab should be banned, or at least not enforced legally. That is the group that is too lazy to protest. Hence there is no one outside the Saudi embassy protesting.

Good Points.

In fact, very valid points. In my opinion, muslims in the muslim country will have a hard time institutionalizing any such norms that will talk about granting women their right to choose because that will mean allowing them to enjoy the basic rights a man is born with.

Not to change the subject, but I was just cleaning my book shelves last night, and came across one book that talked about different religions, their practitioners both men and women. It was extremely sad to read how in 70s some Saudi Princesses were killed by their family men since the women expressed their desire to marry the man of their own choice. No doubt the 12 year old expressed her desire to be a man. By the way, one Princess was killed by her father. It was hard to have her stoned, so she was drowned in the swimming pool.

I would completely agree with the writer`s rationale on standing up when the Muslim Countries violate the basic human rights of their own country women. At that time, the muslim men and women rely on Amnesty International and the rest of the world to go and assist in cleaning up their mess. The rules of the game are very different based on the geography, mindset and philosophy human beings believe in.

With all said, I do believe that those who want to wear a Hijab should have the right to choose vs. being forced to take it off and start getting other emotional and psychological issues. France should learn something from Iran in that regard. The major changes or I should say turbulence Iranians have undergone both before and after the revolution and its impact on their well being should serve as an eye opener. What Afghanistan went through should serve as an eye opener both for the anthropologists and historians in assisting to implement the right steps and steer away from the wrong one.

Romair:
To your point on Muslims being too lazy to protest...
It`s not necessarily 100% laziness. It`s many things...insensitivity... lack of faith in their respective governments to hear their voice. It`s also if you raise a point then you will be eliminated from the scene kind of a fear. It`s having little or no desire to add ``quality`` to their life by contributing to the system they live and breathe in. There is still no definitive resolution to the puzzle.

Rest later,

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that the french govt. plans to disallow **ALL** religious symbols...including jewish skullcap, sikh turban, hindu tilak and christian cross.

So, why is this discussion centered around hijab only???

Also, hijab I take it, is black in color. Does the french govt. have any problem with coloured scarves??

No, I`ll bet.

That statement should bury the `Air` marshalls argument that some women may be donning the hijab out of real modesty.

So...the only ones clamouring are those who don the hijab as a religious item. The others will wear colored scarves.


- - - - - - -


Sometime ago a famous south indian woman writer converted to islam in her old age. She said she felt `protected` in a burqa. During her prime she wrote a few licencious novels and was quite a society figure.

Hey, at age 70 I wouldn`t mind going around in a burqa either. Who wants to flaunt all the wrinkled lumps and rolls of flesh :)

malik #38 Aside from making no sense, your post is an excellent example of the mullah ideology:

a. Nonsense: Your post makes no sense since the discussion is on the the subject of the article - so what else do you expect to find discussed here? Mullah ideology is characterized by stupidity and irrationality.

b. Intolerance and Oppression: You ridicule anyone who agrees with the point of this article as being a slave of the west. This intolerance that you demonstrate is simply a milder form of the gang rape committed by muslim men on french muslim girls who chose not to go around wearing the hijab (the point I made in my earlier post).

It is exactly this mindset that convinces me that the only solution to the mullah mindset is the stick. You people cannot be reasoned with. In my eyes you dont qualify to be muslims anyway - since the mullah mindset represents a repudiation of everything that the Quran stands for.