open Democracy News Analysis - Head Scarf Law: Fear of Cloth and a Hatred of Islam, - Comments

asaf.khan01 on "Head Scarf Law: Fear of Cloth and a Hatred of Islam"

asaf.khan01 — Tue, 03 May 2005 17:28:36 +0000

As Muslims we know that the Qur'an is the exact word of God delivered over a thousand years ago to Mohammad, in this time of revelation, God told the 'believers' what he expects from them, so in answer to your 'question' God has the authority to determine what he wants from us and he has set out his criteria, for all to see, in the Qur'an. Cheers

M_7 on "Head Scarf Law: Fear of Cloth and a Hatred of Islam"

M_7 — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:36:25 +0000

Asaf Khan, I want to react to the idea in your last paragraphs. The question if our Creator exists or not is not at all at stake in 'laicity'. It is the judgement on who has the authority to determine what He wants from us, that is postponed. Cheers.

g-greg on "Head Scarf Law: Fear of Cloth and a Hatred of Islam"

g-greg — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:39:38 +0000

... And about the sentence "If you make me choose between breaking the law and breaking the Quran, I'll break the law." : it was not given by some man-of-the-street encountered by chance : it was given by the well-known swiss islamiST thinker Tariq Ramadan.

g-greg on "Head Scarf Law: Fear of Cloth and a Hatred of Islam"

g-greg — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:35:25 +0000

Mr asaf.khan01, I am very glad that our law makes you react so strongly. Frankly, I hope some of you islamiSTS have a heart attack because of it. Your hatred make me think that France is taking just the right option - not tolerance, but active integration, by both demanding and making efforts toward each other. The fact that only 12 muslim girls refused to put off their headscarf must make you sick, doesn't it ? Quite on the contrary of your blablah, most of our french muslims are quite happy. They coolly accepted the headscarf law, they tried every effort to help freeing our hostages, showing a very mature and integrated spirit. On the government's side, efforts will be made to enhance the education level of our imams, so as to further enhance civil peace. The muslim people who feel offended by the headscarf law are foreigners, not the french citizens.

Paul Wilson on "Head Scarf Law: Fear of Cloth and a Hatred of Islam"

Paul Wilson — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:15:42 +0000

Asaf, You have outlined your dilemma very succintly. However, it is very clear that the only way Muslims can live in an environment where law is dictated by religion, is within the confines of a nation state that has this principle as it's founding basis. This can only be justified if the majority of the people in that state agree (and get the chance to re-affirm it regularly via elections) that this is what they want. If they reject it, then religion must go back to playing a supporting role (as socialist, liberal or conservative supporters must accept if their "creed" is not accepted by the majority; until the next election). I have no problem with people choosing an Islamist state, as long as they DO choose it, and it is not imposed by theocratic dictators and supported by theocratic repression, and is up for a new mandate periodically. Unfortunately I just can't see an attempted theocratic regime accepting the will of the people (Iran anyone?), especially if Muslims cannot even accept the laws of a democratic host country when they are in conflict with the "book" law. Hence I feel that a true Islamist state can never be achieved or sustained without dictatorship, and would ultimately fail. In the modern world (to which we all belong, whether we like it or not) secularism (which allows people to adhere to their faith in private and where it doesn't conflict with the law) is the only way to peacefully co-exist. If fundamentalists continue to push for special exception, resentment and conflict are inevitable. ''If you make me choose between breaking the law and breaking the Quran, I'll break the law. Today, they forbid us from wearing veils. Tomorrow, they'll forbid us from being Muslims.'' This is exactly reverse logic - the only way a law could come about to stop people being Muslims is if they DO break the law repeatedly. This is the whole concept of a secular, liberal democracy - adhere to the law and you will be left alone; refuse to accept the rules of the state and you will have to be dealt with for the sake of fairness and stability. Nobody should be above the law, and the law should either be enforced, or democratically modified. Protest is part of that democratic process, as long as it is lawful and doesn't harm any of the parties involved or the wider community.

Head Scarf Law: Fear of Cloth and a Hatred of Islam,

asaf.khan01 — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:42:19 +0000

An official commission in France had recommended the prohibition of any outward show of religiosity in schools. The French commission, led by former minister Bernard Stasi (anagram of Bastard [with leftovers])is translated into legislation with the full backing of President Jacques Chirac. The recommendation/law was due to rising cases of expulsions of Muslim female pupils from state schools who adhere to the Islamic dress code. It is strange to think that perhaps less than fifty years ago girls would have faced expulsion for not dressing modestly. The recent law followed intense debate of what secularism means in France. For over a decade, cases of female Muslim pupils being expelled raged. After a court decision placed the decision into the hands of school authorities. Many believe the issue came to a head, when the French Interior Secretary, Nicolas Sarkozy addressed the Union des organisations islamiques de France, he was welcomed and applauded until he revealed his plan to make Muslim women uncover their hair whilst having their passport photos taken. The audience upon hearing this proposal simultaneously booed and shouted Sarkozy down. After this incident was splashed across the French press and the frosty reception he received was uncovered, a debate began to rage over the place of Islam in French society. Ils détestent l'islam (they hate Islam) Cross-bred man/camel, Chirac launched a commission to look into the headscarf, a discussion he pre-empted by revealing his own views. The commission was an attempt at showing that a decision to ban was not inevitable. Whilst Chirac painted himself as an obstacle to the Anglo-American crusade in Iraq, he was adopting his own domestic crusade. He painted this commission and what it was designed to achieve as a reclamation of secularism from the rising tide of Islam. This is represented by the 10% of Frances population who are Muslim, a number which is rising due to disparity in birth rates. Jean-Claude Imbert, editor-in-chief of the conservative weekly magazine, Le Point and a member of the Stasi Commission showed the commissions anti-Islamic leaning when he declared himself proud to be Islamophobic. Ils craignent les Musulmans(They fear Muslims) France is not alone in its fixation with the Islamic dress code for women. Germany has started to outlaw the wearing of the Khimar (head scarf) for women in the classroom, a court ruled an outright ban: illegal under the present constitutional order, yet it left the decision to ban or not to ban to the individual states, an offer some states have begun to take up. Turkey, recently presented by Bush as the country which exemplified the natural synergy between Islam and Democracy,(yeah right!!) has been a vehement opponent of the Islamic covering. Since its modern inception as a republic under the hypocrite and infidel supreme, Mustafa Kemal, the system in Turkey has taken succour from the Modernity prevalent in the West with all it had to offer. This included secularism as its guiding pillar. The thoughts and systems and all governments that followed had to accept this as the basis for government and society. The Army Generals ensured that those who merely spoke out against this false basis were subject to the full force of the secular order. The Turkish establishment took a firm stand against the outward show of Islam in the public spheres, which the state controlled. The battleground for this, as elsewhere, was inevitably the classroom. Muslim women were given an ultimatum, be educated or as a punishment for going against the secular order remain outside the classroom. The secular establishment looks upon the Islamic dress as a political stand against secularism, and there is no reason why this shouldnt be the case. The recognition that obedience to Allah (Subhanahu wa taala) transcends adherence to Kemalism is just as revolutionary a concept as it was 1400 years ago. Obedience, in this is a challenge to the state and not a mere decision to implement a strict dress code. In those areas of lifes affairs in which the state is represented, any open signs of Islam will not be tolerated in the strictest adherence to Turkeys secularist tenets. It would be best if Turkey does not become a member of the EU. Most Turkish people are still devout muslims, acceptance into the EU would only corrupt those who have thus far avoided it. le sécularisme est irrationnel (Secularism is irrational) Although a number of countries have been singled out for their enmity towards the Islamic dress code for women, they are by no means in an isolated raft far removed from the rest of civilisation. The entire Capitalist West and the governments of what are commonly erroneously referred to as The Islamic States, adhere to secularism to a greater or lesser degree. Secularism shaped the origins of Capitalism. It is not an exaggeration to describe it as its basis. Following a bitter conflict between those who believed that the Churchs influence on society via the state should be maintained and those intellectuals who propounded the view that rationality and reason must be accepted over religious dogma, the matter settled on a compromise which resulted in the following. Neither should religion be wiped out from the lives of individuals yet neither should it be allowed to stop progress. Therefore the Churchs influence was diminished. In the aftermath of this, human beings were placed in the position, which once the teachings of the Church dictated. Despite the fact that some societies adopted this through revolution, whilst for other societies it was a culmination of a more evolutionary series of events, nonetheless western societies settled upon this idea. Although Britain, France, Germany, the US as well as the other Capitalist societies determined the shape of their state via the origins of their history, they still adhere to this idea. Secularism is not about focusing on whether God exists or not, but that this is an individual choice. Those who accept the fact that God exists as well as those who deny God must accept that, in determining the systems and laws that govern the lives of human beings in society must not be determined by God, but by man. That is why Bernard Stasi the head of the blue ribbon commission which was tasked with looking into the issue of the Islamic dress code declares himself to be a Christian!!! Yet this has no bearing on his belief in Frances secular foundations? This is where we (Muslims)trace the in-built contradiction of secularism. The core issue must be whether the Creator exists or not, if he doesnt thats all good and well, but when we know (or believe)that he does, how can we accept to divorce his guidance from society? Would you that we knowingly lie to ourselves? No-one would be willing to do that, Muslim or not. It is only Islam today that stands against the tide of secularisation, as Muslims we do no not accept that Allah (God) is to be relegated to worship in the private realm, but that he laid the blueprint for how Muslims interact in all aspects of life, society and state. This is why the calls to bring back Islam comprehensively today is one shared by Muslims the world over. By Muslim I refer to those who are practicing Muslims. The reaction to this call should not therefore be one of surprise, as its a natural extension of secularism. Our reaction to the choice we are presented as to whether to obey Allah or the secular laws, is best exemplified by the reaction one reporter was given on the streets of Paris, ''If you make me choose between breaking the law and breaking the Quran, I'll break the law. Today, they forbid us from wearing veils. Tomorrow, they'll forbid us from being Muslims.'' Take Care. Asaf