open Democracy News Analysis - Undress, You're free!, - Comments

David Thompson on "Undress, You're free!"

David Thompson — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:21:36 +0100

Solana, You said: “Safety is good, but how far must you go to accommodate systems that weren't designed for you?” Setting aside the issue of safety (and the potential for subsequent lawsuits), there is a much larger issue here; the issue is one of pragmatic reciprocation versus pretensions to the absolute. One might turn your question around and ask: How far must Western secular democracy go in order to accommodate a belief system that wasn’t designed for us? Indeed, how far must we go to accommodate a theology whose most vocal advocates declare it to be “incompatible” with secular democracy? Accommodation suggests reciprocation, give and take, and some symmetry of values and requirements. Yet the most strident Islamic voices declare no such symmetry exists. Writing on the Islam Online website, the Muslim critic Parvez Monzoor bemoans secular society’s preference for pragmatism over eschatological rapture: “In place of the bliss of the soul, [secular society] offers peace in the city, and for the mystery of the Here-after, it substitutes the promise of the Here-now. Islam holds that salvation of the Soul takes precedence over peace in the city.” http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2004/04/Article03.shtml Well, for those of us who see little appeal in the end of the world amid some divine conflagration, “peace in the city” seems a reasonable objective; indeed when differing faiths occupy the same territory, it’s an imperative. However, Monzoor is untroubled by mere earthly matters, and continues: “As for liberty, the revealed faith of Islam holds that, whatever the contingencies of existence, the moral man is always bound to God's law. Hence, the Islamic tradition knows of no ‘libertarian discourse of rights' against God's revelation and its injunctions.” It is, of course, rather difficult to negotiate for one’s liberties with a person gorged on absolute conviction. Secular rights and the laws of the democratic state must, according to Monzoor, always take second place to the divine imperatives of Islam. Yet Monzoor also insists: “Muslims are fully justified in demanding from the [secular] state whatever political liberties and civil rights that they deem desirable.” Again, an asymmetrical double standard seems inherent to this relationship between literalist Islam and the pragmatic relativity of secular society. This asymmetry might be characterised as self-serving, hypocritical and even parasitic. There is, however, one governmental scenario in which Monzoor insists the laws and proprieties of the state should be adhered to – indeed must be adhered to absolutely: “Obviously, the only exception is the Prophetic regime, which, being under the direct command of God through the revelation, represents a unique - and unrepeatable - instance of God's rule, theocracy…” An Islamic theocracy must, we are told, command “unconditional obedience.” One of the earliest definitions of a secular society (OED, 1846) is given as “the doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future [spiritual] state.” Presumably, an Islamic theocracy is one in which 'morality' is based solely on a very particular belief in supernatural attributes which the unfortunate citizen may not claim to possess, yet which cannot logically (or legally) be refuted. Naturally, the citizen’s view of whether he or she has a “soul” that is subject to such proscriptions is deemed by the ‘Prophetic regime’ to be irrelevant; indeed claims to non-possession of such would presumably be heretical and subject to punishment of some sort by this all-knowing theocracy. The words ‘having one’s cake’ and ‘eating it’ come to mind…

Solana Larsen on "Undress, You're free!"

Solana Larsen — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:35:22 +0100

Reminds me of the kids in school who had a hard time getting permission to sit on the bench during PE class while they were fasting. Safety is good, but how far must you go to accomodate systems that weren't designed for you? Solana

David Thompson on "Undress, You're free!"

David Thompson — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:51:06 +0100

Regarding the acute sensitivities that can be aroused by the hijab, I discovered the following items: “In June 2002, four British judo clubs attended a ‘friendly’ match with several French judo clubs near Paris… A 10-year old British competitor was forbidden from taking part because [she] wore a Muslim head covering with her judo uniform. If she would remove the head covering, she would be allowed to play… All 100 British Participants [walked out] immediately..." http://www.inminds.co.uk/islamophobia-awards-2003.html#judo While cited as an example of ‘Islamophobia’ (and reacted against with some degree of self-satisfaction), this reflexive ‘stand against discrimination’ seems rather misguided and attributes a false intention to the referee and other officials. Surely the issue here is not one of religious discrimination, but of sportsmanship and harm prevention? As I understand it, the dress code during judo matches exists, in part, for reasons of fairness and mutual safety. Accessorising the judogi with scarves or anything else, for whatever reason, is against the rules of the International Judo Federation; partly because it could give an unfair advantage to the scarf-wearer’s opponent, and also because there are strict time-keeping rules governing the disarray of clothing during competitions. And during a strenuous judo match, headscarf disarray seems a likely occurrence. Similar accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ are regularly made in matters of school uniform: “Shabina Begum has been out of her Luton school since September 2002 in a row over her wish to wear an ankle length jilbab gown. Originally, Shabina wore a shalwar kameez to school, but her deepening interest in her religion led to her wearing the jilbab… She said her religious rights and education were being denied… Shabina's lawyer Yvonne Spencer said her client was devastated and would not be returning to Denbigh School.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3808073.stm One has to raise an eyebrow at the notion that being asked to wear a modest, full-length kameez - rather than a modest, full-length jilbab – is somehow a “violation” of the girl’s “human rights” and worthy of a protracted court battle at huge public expense. Scholastic fashion is not what human rights, or indeed the court system, were intended to address. Perhaps we should wait for the first lawsuit brought by a Muslim parent when their daughter is injured as a result of her garments catching fire in a chemistry lab, or as a result of tripping over during a PE lesson, or being choked during a judo match…

Julien Djerzinski on "Undress, You're free!"

Julien Djerzinski — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:11:33 +0100

Just finished reading Azar Nafisi's "Reading Lolita in Tehran", about said English Lit professor and her students in Iran during 80s and 90s. Amazing stuff. A certain online retailer has on it sale at the moment. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/026-3451152-1312426

David Thompson on "Undress, You're free!"

David Thompson — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:52:35 +0100

Elissa & Lindsay, It is difficult not to see many of the proscriptions of Islam as misogynistic. Why is moral responsibility in this matter ‘outsourced’ exclusively to women? If one were to assume that women really are the “source of temptation and evil”, why should this unilateral scenario excuse men from expressing their own responsibilities in a similar fashion? Why, for instance, do devout Muslim men not wear blindfolds, or at least avert their eyes? The mass wearing of blindfolds would scarcely be more peculiar, or suspicious.

Not logged in on "Undress, You're free!"

Not logged in — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:29:58 +0100

Seierstad's the Bookseller of Kabul has a fascinating history of the hijab, which I'd transcribe but have sent to a friend. However - and while by no means comprable in scale - (the Bush government's and Catholic church's) fundamentalist restrictions on abortion rights share the hijab's singular purpose: to control women.

Paul Wilson on "Undress, You're free!"

Paul Wilson — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:05:44 +0100

Lindsay, Mr Soilis is living proof that hatred, exclusion and a closed mind are not the preserve of religions (and as you know I am emphatically secular!). Regardless of any truth in some of his observations (and there is a lot), him and his kind are the enemy of secularism - they give the extremists a reason to fight and the ammunition to fight with. I have some sympathy for France's institutionalised secularism, and it is difficult to criticise the school headscarf ban at the same time as promoting democracy (polls show that it is very popular, even having support from moderate Muslims, and it is much more popular amongst Muslim women that men, which suggest that some women at least see it as liberating.) After all, pure democracy is supposed to reflect the desires of the majority, not necessarily minorities. Minority protection has to be broadly popular to stand a chance of real success in a democracy. In this case it seems that the fear in the French national majority of division and fragmentation, serendipitously co-incides with a minority desire to be free from the restrictions of their minority culture! You are right about submission occurring; obviously in the past it has sometimes been in women's interests to encourage aspects of a patriarchal society - the problem is that once the oppression is in place it is very difficult to remove without support from both men and women. To suggest that women can just take back power whenever they choose without being supported by broad-based activism (maybe even by enforcing secularism) is pie in the sky.

Lindsayinthesky on "Undress, You're free!"

Lindsayinthesky — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:32:37 +0100

Hi g_soilis, I think you will find that the oppression of women occurs in many forms in many societies all over the world, and is not a sole invention of either Islam or the Arab world. Perhaps the oppression of women is more visible there due to the different ways in which it is excercised. Also, in somes ways, for oppression to occur, submission must occur first. The oppression of women will end when and only when women decided to end their submission and retake their power. Lindsay

g_soilis on "Undress, You're free!"

g_soilis — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:42:07 +0100

and in my view theydo well to try and defend their civil society and their values that shine on the rest of the world for decades. After all Liberty is a French invention..... Remember the revolution? I hope all religions are soon banned,and we dont hear any more of these4 lie and their false ideas and hopes. And we will soon see the faces ofthe women that are kept opressed and with no voice for solong by the few who allwed men to impos their perverted ideas on the rest of their societies(the arab societies i mean) So stay away perverted religious hawks. We dont want your hate,your lies or your stealing from our property or resources.

g-greg on "Undress, You're free!"

g-greg — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 23:12:54 +0100

Mister Khan, So you say, Islam is not and will never be compatible with western secularism. In my opinion, that is a good argument against the headscarf : if Islam is not compatible with western secularism, same with the french civilization. So the french, in order to defend themselves, have to fight Islam fiercely in every aspect.

David Thompson on "Undress, You're free!"

David Thompson — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 16:00:27 +0100

Asif Khan's view of Muslims in the secular world is chilling, possibly nihilistic, and does indeed ring loudly of theological colonialism. Asif states that: "The disease of secularism has affected Muslims throughout the world. Islam is seen as being merely a Muslim’s personal matter – limited to their relationship with Allah… Those Muslims who see that Islam cannot be secularised must openly challenge this cancerous thought. Exposed must be the idea that in everyday life man can decide on good and bad, right and wrong using the mind alone, a human tool that is subject to biases, mistakes and contradictions..." Asif goes on to argue that: "The secularism that evolved from post feudal Europe is incompatible with the ideology of Islam and should be treated as such…” But if Islam cannot be secularised and is indeed 'incompatible' with secular society, why would a devout Muslim wish to inhabit a secular world, except perhaps to transform it? And since rational argument and rational choice are apparently to be dismissed as mortal delusions, how is that transformation to be effected? By force? Like all absolutist and socially-proscriptive religions, Islam is based on logical contradictions and practical double standards. (Doubtless logical contradictions and double standards are deemed 'secular' notions and thus irrelevant to the believer; however, this does not make them miraculously disappear.) In this case, the double standard would appear to be "I will use your decadent and illusory freedoms (including this message board) to denounce those same decadent and illusory freedoms", or, more simply put, "Tolerate me not tolerating you."

callabbas on "Undress, You're free!"

callabbas — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:31:18 +0000

Dear asif... You have indeed tried to convey your message in a most assertive way. However I do not agree from your point of view. Though I am strictly opposed to Governments making derogatory remarks about cultures, I also do not link not wearing a hijab to nudity...So as you ahve given the title. Religion always has a two face...Spritual and Political. The Political side stems up and is indeed necessary for chanelling the idealogies in a proper way. If there are no administrators then there is chaos. However one must and must never forget that religion in its every form is an outcome of 'Faith'. And it is this Faith' Alone that propels a person towards the right path. Most contrary to each one of our beliefs, Allah, never commands...he directs. He is a guide. People who shun him still live...People who love him, still face all the troubles...but then it is those who abide by his rules ulmitely lead a disciplined life. The command of the religion is 'Discipline' and not Chaos. Today...People will fall to any grade to Command power and subsequently try to take the reins of power in their own hands and thus in the name of God they are promoting themselves as the new messiah of God. Therefore, I do feel that if someone moves away from a path, is more or less a personal decision and is answerable to his actions only to god and not to governments... Therefore I as a Muslim myself does not feel that extremities and ABSOLUTES should be a way of live...Humanity is must. A girl donning a Hijab and having cruel intentions and motifs is as bad as it could be...though she would be socially acceptable amongst us. Right?? I would welcome any comment from you. Thanks Abbas

WhyNot on "Undress, You're free!"

WhyNot — Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:10:45 +0000

".... {snip long rant} ... Thinking like this has severe impact on a Muslim’s life. Adopting secularism leads to the ridiculous situation of referring to the laws of the Creator in your personal affairs, but to the laws of man in societal issues. This is not acceptable in Islam." Hmmmm.... funny, you know: I'd like to witness your great empathy for "real freedom" if I said I wanted to move to Iran/Saudi Arabia/etc, and said to the population that *my* belief as an atheist tells me that it is simply just *not acceptable* that I'm not allowed to trod with my big gum boots all over your mosques, wearing a G-string. Would you find it "just" that your entire society must topple over its set of values in order to comply with *MY* requirements? Are you saying that 95% of the French population must forsake their way of life and adopt what is "acceptable" to Islam? That Islamic law is the only "right" one, and any other kind of principles should be abolished and/or forced to comply with Islamic law? Errrr.... isn't this called colonialism - what Europeans were so good at for centuries? Good luck convincing ppl, man. What I totally fail to understand is: France is very small place in terms of world population - around the 60 million mark. Muslim religion-run countries must account for at least 10 to 50 times that. So... plenty of room for ppl like you to find the right home, no? The Fr population wants things a certain way, the Muslim countries another. Fine, everybody's happy. Everybody can say "I belong here". No problem, right? We don't go live to Saudi Arabia demanding the government to turn secular to please us, or even to allow us to drink alcohol or eat pork chops, right? So why should you guys turn up here demanding to change our secular system into an Islamic law one? What exactly is *YOUR* problem? Is it a case that you want the obliteration of any other value but Muslim ones (as *you* see them - and hopefully, you're a freak of statistics)? Strangely reminds me of the 11th century Christian crusades.

David Wood on "Undress, You're free!"

David Wood — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:25:56 +0000

Mr Khan, I disapprove of the French ban on overtly religous attire (not just Muslim BTW). However I am very interested to know where in Holy Koran it is stated that the hijab is correct attire for women. My Muslim friend (whom I have to rely on for this since I don't read Farsi Arabic) assures me that 'modest clothing' for both men and women is the only specified guidance on dress. He says anything else is cultural, historical and political not divinely ordained. Message was edited by: David Wood

robirley on "Undress, You're free!"

robirley — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:08:23 +0000

I can empathise more with the ‘microskirt’-wearing girls that you mention. And I believe that brings me closer to understanding President Chirac’s intentions. In fact some of those women walking around expressing themselves so freely are bound by their own cultural pressures and feel they will not be accepted by friends and partners if they ‘free’ themselves of this modern hijab. Outward beauty, especially amongst women, is far too important where I come from. For me societal behaviour is key to this debate. Rather than a growing integrated society I see an ever-expanding cultural gap, spanning all classes. We are all uncomfortable with it and many of us are dealing with it in the most awful ways. To me the solution is the same as for most of the current issues, one must develop society at the most basic building-block levels, and from there, change the world. Jacques Chirac is trying to bring the new generations of French students together. As I’m living in France, though neither French nor Muslim, I can step back from the situation and watch with a scientist’s eye for the results over the next 20 years. I look forward to comparing the situation with my home country, the UK, and expect to find a better-integrated society across the channel. Will I also see that the greatness of the Muslim way of life is in tatters? I hope not. I have a lot of respect for Islam and would like to create the opportunity for it to influence my own culture positively. Asif.Khan01 you are wrong to assume there is no room for integration. Dangerously wrong. Looking at every historical example I can think of, with or without Islam, with or without religion, I can see that integration is the only way to avoid social divide, animosity and conflict in mixed societies. Everyone’s afraid this means they have to be turned into something else. A clone. A Christian. An atheist. It doesn’t. It just means a small amount of compromise on all sides. If the Muslim girls must hang up their hjiab, perhaps the non-Muslims can be asked to study Islam. I think it’s also important to understand a difference between secularism and the local European culture, as the two are not synonymous, even in France.

Undress, You're free!,

asaf.khan01 — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:51:32 +0000

The head of France's Muslim council has urged Muslims to ignore calls to join protest marches against the French government ban on Hijab in public schools. Dalil Boubakeur, chairman of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), has called on Muslims to ignore a march on 17th January. He went on to say, "Demonstrations in the name of religion are very dangerous," and "I ask everyone to be wary of the sirens of political Islam." French Parliamentarians of the current ruling party assert that most Muslim girls are forced by fundamentalists to wear the hijab, meaning they did not wear the hijab freely. For them the ban will liberate Muslim girls. There has been wide-spread condemnation from Muslim and non-Muslim quarters. In the UK, Home Office Minister Fiona Mactaggart said, "In Britain we have a proud tradition of supporting free speech and allowing people to follow their own beliefs. The British way is to support religious freedom. It is tolerant and adaptable. Across the Atlantic the Muslim Students Association (MSA) of the US and Canada is protesting the ban as an infringement upon liberty and religious tolerance. The MSA of the US and Canada (MSA) believes that President Chirac's ban on religious wear.signals one of the greatest setbacks for freedom and democracy in France since it became one of the democratic powers of the world. To deny a woman her God-given right to freely practice her religion does not only constitute a violation of her personal freedom, but it defies the very concept of secularism. Read the rest of this post...