Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

A Look into the Muslim Headscarf Hysteria in France

By Laila Lalami, The Nation. Posted November 24, 2007.


The social controversies over Muslim headscarves and the politics of identity in contemporary France are the subject of a new book, The Politics of the Veil.
Advertisement

"A kind of aggression." "A successor to the Berlin Wall." "A lever in the long power struggle between democratic values and fundamentalism." "An insult to education." "A terrorist operation." These descriptions -- by former French President Jacques Chirac; economist Jacques Attali; and philosophers Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut and André Glucksmann -- do not refer to the next great menace to human civilization but rather to the Muslim woman's headscarf, which covers the hair and neck, or, as it is known in France, the foulard islamique.

In her keenly observed book The Politics of the Veil, historian Joan Wallach Scott examines the particular French obsession with the foulard, which culminated in March 2004 with the adoption of a law that made it illegal for students to display any "conspicuous signs" of religious affiliation. The law further specified that the Muslim headscarf, the Jewish skullcap and large crosses were not to be worn but that "medallions, small crosses, stars of David, hands of Fatima, and small Korans" were permitted. Despite the multireligious contortions, it was very clear, of course, that the law was primarily aimed at Muslim schoolgirls.

The decade-long debate in France over the foulard was marked by three specific controversies. The first erupted in October 1989, when Ernest Chénière, the principal of a high school in Creil, north of Paris, expelled three students: Samira Saidani and Leila and Fatima Achaboun. The reason for the expulsion, Chénière claimed, was that he had to enforce laïcité, the French notion of secularism, in the school. The national debate that followed took place within the context of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the West's confrontation with Iran, on the one hand, and the celebration of the bicentennial of the French Republic, on the other.

At the time that France's attention was focused on three teenage girls with headscarves, the country had more than 3 million Muslims. French-Algerian novelist Leïla Sebbar, writing in Le Monde, qualified the controversy as "grotesque." In the end, the Socialist Lionel Jospin, who at that time was minister of education, chose to let the courts decide the case. The Conseil d'État eventually ruled that students could not be refused admission simply for wearing headscarves, but it also gave teachers and principals the power to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether such signs of religious affiliation were permissible.

The second foulard controversy ignited in 1994 with the same Ernest Chénière. He was no longer a high school principal, having capitalized on his earlier fame and won a Parliament seat as a deputy for the center-right party Rassemblement pour la République, representing the department of Oise. In this new capacity, he sponsored a bill to ban all "ostentatious" signs of religious affiliations in schools. The same arguments were offered up as in 1989, but the political context this time was supplied by the civil war in Algeria. For Chénière and his large and diverse number of supporters, the fight against Islamic fundamentalism in Algeria and elsewhere mandated a strengthening of the secularist state at home.

The third and most recent foulard controversy occurred in 2003, when two teenage sisters, Alma and Lila Lévy, were expelled from their high school in the Paris suburb of Aubervilliers for refusing to take off their headscarves. The Lévy sisters are the daughters of a lawyer who considers himself "a Jew without God" and a Kabyle teacher who had been baptized a Catholic during the Algerian war. The girls had converted to Islam after their parents' separation and had donned the scarves as part of that process. In an interview with Le Monde, the girls' father declared, "I am not in favor of the headscarf, but I defend the right of my children to go to school. In the course of this business I've discovered the hysterical madness of certain ayatollahs of secularism who have lost all their common sense."

That year, a commission led by former government minister Bernard Stasi, which had been formed to study the feasibility of a law on religious displays, held interviews with various specialists. It later issued a report that reaffirmed the importance of secularism to the Republic and suggested a law on "conspicuous" religious signs but also made some recommendations to acknowledge the plurality of religions in France. (For example, the commission suggested the recognition of Yom Kippur and Eid-al-Adha as national holidays.) The sole recommendation that Jacques Chirac took from the Stasi commission was the law banning the headscarf. Wallach Scott writes:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: muslim, veil, france

Laila Lalami, the author of Hope and Other Dangerous Pursuits, is an assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Headscarf only symbolizes the greater threat to European culture
Posted by: Richard House on Nov 24, 2007 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“ There is in France today a pervading hypocrisy that invokes freedom of expression when cartoonists from Charlie Hebdo or France Soir offend Muslim sensibilities but remains stubbornly quiet when a Muslim woman's right to dispose of her body as she wishes is denied.”


According to the traditional Muslim religion I thought it wasn’t, technically, the woman's decision, wishes, or right on how she is to display her body anyway. Hysteria over the headscarf in France is made to seem totally unjustified by the Europeans and exaggerated by media and visiting academics who research a few weeks or months in Europe and then go back to California to write books about what a bunch of hypocrites Europeans are. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not everyone who comes from Morocco and from the Muslim community becomes open-minded and Westernized as Lalami. The majority of Muslims who come to Europe and come out of economic need are fundamentalists. Every year a new minaret arises on the European horizon and along with it comes the legal framework based on the Qur’an. These communities are not integrated into European life as the Muslims who live in the United States are.

The rise of certain Muslim enclaves in Europe has been startling over the last decade as well as the demand by these communities to be able to follow sharia, their own laws in civil disputes among themselves. Many women also wear berkas, some which cover even their eyes with only a small grill to see out of. The problem arises when sharia affects those who are not Muslim when they get entangled in a civil dispute. One case arose when a woman wearing a berka went to a job interview. Of course, the European employee didn’t hire her and of course the Muslim community started screaming about it. It nice to see what kind of person you are hiring.

Live a while here first and decide for yourself if the possibility of a Eurabia exixts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If only... Posted by: Bobsays
» It is nuts. Posted by: Hans B
Islamophobia is not racism.
Posted by: leland61 on Nov 24, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fear and dislike of Islam as a threat to any functioning pluralistic democracy has nothing to do with racism it has to do with a religion that is still living in the 7th century - the Dark Ages. I find it interesting that the same 'leftists' who are so quick to make a distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are so quick to refuse to note the same distinction between anti-Islamism and anti-(name the race)ism. In other words leftist ideologues have the same problem distinguishing between race and ideologies as the right wingers do and even more trouble admitting their blindness.

Disliking Islam on principle has nothing to do with disliking a particular racially identifable group of people. (Ths is putting aside that there are only three 'racial groups' on the entire planet.} Islam is a political/religious ideology which has all of the issues that Christianity had in the 9th century but, for the most part, got over in the period following the cultural, social and religious upheavals of the Reformation, the Enlightnment and the age of the Scientific revolution. Islam still lives in the dark of the 8th century and insists that everyone else live with the same silliness running their lives.

We've already seen how this will play out in the USA with the cabbies in Australia and Minneapolis refusing to take blind people with guide dogs in their cabs, Muslim cabbies at airports refusing to take passengers with alcohol in their packages and Muslim grocery clerks who refuse to check out alcohol and pork.

I grew up in a part of the USA where Christofascists ruled the day. One could not buy a meal or attend a movie or anything else on Sunday because of Blue Laws. I have no intention of allowing Islamofascists (different name same fascist attitude) of telling me what I can check out at a grocery store or telling my friend that she cannot take a cab because of her 'unclean' guide dog.

This is not racism. This is real pluralistic democracy in action. That means your freedom to practice your religious rules ends where my freedom to live my life begins. If you are unhappy with that, find a country where fascism of whatever brand you like prevails.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very well said! Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Islamophobia is not racism. Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Islamophobia is not racism. Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Islamophobia is not racism. Posted by: vasumurti
how about a secular twist to this story....
Posted by: ellie on Nov 24, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could it possibly be that the 'powers that be' are attempting to remove any vestige of personal space and privacy be forcing kids to remove their head-scarves??? think of the problems with face recognition software that is used for surveillance...

remember the case from florida a while back when the Moslem woman wanted to get her driver's license picture wearing her veil???

think about wearing a burka anywhere in the world that has constant surveillance on it's citizens, think about the social impact that would make, a sea of flowing fabric, geez, anyone could be lurking under there!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disliking Isam in Europe is not racism, it is basic survival
Posted by: Bobsays on Nov 24, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Writers like this haven't a clue what it is like in Europe's inner cities. What it is like to live in muslim-majority communities, brimming with terror plots and seething with hatred and contempt for the west and its freedoms. It is not pleasant.

When on top of this women wear not just the veil, but the full burkha, it places a dark, medievil pall over the whole community. It is like the community is in mourning for something (probably the death of freedom).

Keep this in mind: there are many women who make a living writing this sort of drival to claim it is all in our heads, but, just as one woman writer in India found out this week when she was chased out of Calcuta by violent muslim mobs, it isn't a joke. Freedom was hard fought for, and it must be defended: no exceptions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your neighborhood Posted by: Hans B
No Surprise, From Alternet the Hatred Shines More Clear Knowing
Posted by: Turiye on Nov 24, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that in approximately 3 hours fom now, the preceding posters will feel for all that are treated unjustly, just not the persons that practice Islam.
The Bill of Rights; Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.
We have people referring to niqab and abaya as burqa, and every other grammatically incorrect way you charming people have chosen to spell burqa. Burqa are indiginous to Afghanistan. These requirements of completely encloaking a womans body were mad up by mortal men, not even in the Qur'an.
Do you think you all may have been searching for www.FSM.org or per chance www.thegatheringofeagles.org, I thought I was on another site.
Truly enlightened citizens, if the young girls referred to in this article were one of your daughters and they chose a simple head covering it would cause this deep rooted, unavoidable hatred towards all we are suspicious of due to ignorance.
No, Mr. Pluralistic society, because you are phobic due to the choice of religion or head covering they wear, this is not infringement on your beliefs, it is your intolerance towards theirs! Although, my Muslim daughter is blonde and green eyed, dresses like any teenager, she is no threat to you simply because of her clothing. Shameful, shame on all of you.
Deliberating amongst yourselves as thieves in the night are fond of, as cowards are fond of. Do you think all Muslims are Arabs? Do you think Jews are the only Semites?
Sorry, 1st male person that posted, in non-Islamic States, women have every right to do what they care to. You understand, like NORMAL people, not those scary, terrorists that plot murders endlessly while smoking cigarettes, speaking in a language so foreign that even that intimidates you people, disgusting, made more frightening by the pretense of tolerance you pretend exists within your blackened souls. So sad.
The other intolerant, racist saying'OOH, can you imagine how scary would that be if they just wore those,burqa, (not your spelling, due to illiteracy, which are actually niqab and abaya) running around the airport like that'.
If dress according to religious code, albeit most invented by men to keep their women in check, do not, contrary to hate-filled ethnic tyrants, carry bombs strapped to their waists underneath. Europeans, Brits, I cannot say, but the Americans if you ran into woman dressed in full garb, you ran into NOI, and do not even lie about it. With you all, it is also a color of ones skin you are frightened of also. Because I sure as hell know you mean NOI. I am in Paterson, Bronx, Brooklyn, bad parts of Hollywood and this is only worn by tourists and NOI.
I am so surprised at everyone of you. I will not forget your usernames, if trolling I will remember and allow everyone in the room to be aware of closet intolerant bushits.
Thank You. Enjoy your day. Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The condescending tone of this article is wrong
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 24, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The condescending tone the author and other commentors take on France's struggle with the Foulard Islamique is unjustified.

The French experience is not unique, nor are all the arguments tilted against the official French intepretation of the broad social meaning of the veil.

Two examples from contemporary Islamic countries illustrate this point.

Taliban reinstuted the Foulard in Afghanistan to subjugate women and to assert the patriarchal aspects of Islam.

Turkey bans the Foulard for exactly the reasons stated by the French courts: the veil is an expression of Islamic medievalism.

In America, the situation is somewhat different. Our Moslem population is still probably less than that in France and our overall population is almost six times greater.

We Americans live in culture in which religious symbols are more robustly displayed and venerated than in France. We believe in the separation of church and state, French history is marked by long battles between the State and the Church.

Our tolerance of religious symbols worn by Christians and Jews lessens the threat presented by someone wearing a veil.

Conversely, in France, wearing a cross has been a sign of anti-State sentiment. There is no comparable experience in America.

One of my sons, in a very aggressive campaign against the secular atmosphere of his high school wore t-shirts enumerating the constitutionally protected religious activities permitted in school. He received a lot of comments, approving and disapproving, but was never subjected to formal discipline.

In my view, American students wearing the veil in American schools are making a statement similar to my son's statement: these kids have deeply held religious convictions and their study and behavior are motivated by their beliefs.

It appears that the burden of history prevents the French, the Turks and the Afghanis, (among others) from taking this position.

It is hard for me to understand the feeling of threat people in those other countries feel from the institutions that dominate their lives, but the fear is there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with sanaa
Posted by: CJC on Nov 24, 2007 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The level of hostility to Islam combined with a mixture of ignorance and undigested factoids revealed by many posters is appalling.

This is progressive thinking?

Anything ...phobia is a prejudice. Islam is not a race and Muslims, like Christians, cover a great range of skin color.

Different European countries have different Muslim populations and different experiences. The Pakistanis in the UK are not the North Africans in France are not the Turks in Germany.

I thought the article was thoughtful and informative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Little Clarity
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 24, 2007 6:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States is a SECULAR REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY where we are free to worship or not as we see fit until which time it impinges upon the rights of others. That standard applies regardless of what faith, philosophy or culture you adopt or inherit from your family.

This is not the nation envisioned by the founders, who denied the blessings of liberty to women, people of color and others. The freedom we largely take for granted was won, many times via busted heads and protest by people who fought to be included in the mainstream. The trade unionists, suffragettes, civil rights strugglers, the gay liberation movement and many others know of what I speak. American Democracy is a vibrant, breathing thing and is forever expanding. In order to survive and thrive, tolerance and respect is mandatory.

Tolerance and respect for others is under attack from NeoCons, racists of all stripes, and religious fundamentalists of a rainbow of faith systems. Islamists seeking to use our freedom to undermine our open society to serve the goal of establishing sharia law are ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY just as those seeking a Christian Theocracy are-plain and simple.

My quarrel is not with those who choose to practice their faith in a manner respectful of others who do not share their beliefs. If they cannot be tolerant of others seeking first to be citizens of the greater society and committed to the basic tenants of an open civil society then they should not be allowed to immigrate or hold office.

Theocracy and Democracy are incompatible with each other. Anyone seeking to establish a theocracy of whatever brand of religion should be treated as anyone who advocates the overthrow of the government.

It's not about the brand name attached to the religion, it's the arrogant attitude of their exclusive rightness and intolerance of others. That's not hate- that's self preservation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Little Clarity Posted by: JSquercia
Joan Wallach Scott's book
Posted by: CJC on Nov 24, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It always helps to go back to the original text under discussion.
Laicite is an important word in this discussion. Here's what Wallace writes in her introduction (p15)
"Laicite means the separation of church and state through the state's protection of individuals from the claims of religion. (In the United States, in contrast, secularism connotes the protection of religions from interference by the state.)"
This is exactly the same distinction that Olivier Roy, a French professor of Islamic Studies and a prolific writer, made in a talk at Harvard a few weeks ago, Nov 9.

Because in France the political ideology stresses assimilation rather than multiculturalism, which is an American value, expressions of religious/cultural expression such as the wearing of headscarves by girls in school run contrary to assimilation. In the US we pretty much believe in freedom of expression so wearing a headscarf to school is unobjectionible, whereas in France, so it seems, the public school should be a place where everyone is equal and should therefore appear equal.

I think the American and French discourses just go right past each other. It appears to me that the French are worried about difference and the integrity of French culture, while here we're full of anxiety and prejudice from the psychic trauma of 9/11 and fear of terrorism and violence, which some politicians manipulate at every turn.

In Turkey, by the way, the ban on head scarves is in public schools, including universities, and for any female public employee. This ban dates from the mid 1920's when Ataturk was trying to defuse the power of Islam in public life (this is more on the French model of secularism) and also explicitly wanting the citizens of Turkey to be modern and European. The fez was banned altogether and Turkish men adopted what I think of as an Irish kind of hat with a brim only in front that can easily be turned around for prayer (everyone prays with his or her head covered.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The veil is the least of the problem
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Nov 25, 2007 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Muslim women from fundamentalist homes and societies face a great many serious problems, yet all anyone wants to focus on is the veil! This is crazy! If a woman wants to wear a veil, I regard it as her business.

What concerns me far more are things certain fundamentalists do, (often in direct violation of the Qu'ran) like not letting women leave the house without a male relative; clitoridectomy and infibulation; domestic violence; the positively insane punishment of women for being raped; economic discrimination, lack of equal access to education, health care etc.

Yet, everyone works into a froth over the veil. Men can't see them, it goes against all our advertising and sexual display of women's bodies, so it must be oppressive!

Listen: Whether a woman is forced into absolutely no display of her body or forced into displaying it whether she likes it or not, it's still force. Private property or public property is still property! The issue of the veil should be decided by women and ONLY by women and everyone else should butt out.

And if all you can talk about is the veil then please don't tell me how you're doing it because you care so much about the plight of Muslim women. Why don't you go and actually talk to some Muslim women and ask them what THEY want and then support THEIR goals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not about women, it's about schoolgirls
Posted by: Hans B on Nov 25, 2007 2:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is informative but draws the wrong conclusions. In my view Chirac chose the "laicité" justification because he didn't have the courage to simply say that the French State protects young girls against oppressive traditions. The debate was certainly more multi-sided than the author suggests. Among other things, many commentators at the time (both Muslim and non-Muslim) attacked the idea that the veil had anything to do with Islam as opposed to tradition.

I live in France and every single one of my Arabic women friends was in favor of the headscarf ban. And their motivation was never religious, but always the protection of schoolgirls against oppressive traditions. You only have to look at other European countries to see that scarves, when allowed at a young age, can give way to veils which can give way to burkas. I am convinced that the small number of girls who protested against the ban are dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of Muslim adolescents who breathed a sigh of relief - but who for family reasons cannot come out and say so. (The situation in the US is of course different, not only because of the smaller number of Muslim immigrants there but also because of their higher social standing and their coming from countries like Lebanon and India).

Another commenter to this article (CJC) rightly mentions that in France, the principle of immigration is assimilation. You cannot come to live in France and veil your schoolgoing child, any more than you can refuse to learn the language (a big difference with my country of origin, Holland). Other European countries, which unlike France do not grant citizenship to the children of immigrants, tolerate the veil they way they tolerate a tourist's bad manners: "they're not here to stay anyway".

I would add that France also differs from other countries in its view of the State's role as regards children. In France the State sees itself, and is seen, somewhat like a third parent - or, to put it differently, the French State sees children as an important national interest which it has the right to defend. That has many advantages (fabulous day care, subsidized nannies, health care and I could go on) but the flip side is that the State can and does interfere when children are not raised according to nationally agreed principles. You can disagree with that but when you come to France as a parent, at least you know what you're getting into. One thing you cannot do, is force your little girl to wear a headscarf when she goes to school.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Turkey Posted by: Hans B
» RE: Turkey Posted by: CJC
» I too live in France Posted by: bernarda
Enormous state resources?
Posted by: Hans B on Nov 25, 2007 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to post twice but the conclusion of the article is really very strange - and extremely biased.

France does not consent enormous resources to the headscarf ban, wherever could that idea have come from? Banning something is free-of-charge. And France does consent considerable resources to education in ZEPs: approximately 10% more than for "white compatriots".

And as for the accusation of racism, it is idiotic. This law aims to protect young girls against a very real source of oppression: tradition. Is the French ban on excision also racist? Visit France, then visit other European countries. As regards the situation of ordinary Muslim women, you'll see the difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fascism in another form.
Posted by: jacksc on Nov 25, 2007 5:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fascism takes many forms. Think of what they are teaching the children. “You have no rights in this country. We don't care to recognize your right to worship the religion of your choice nor in the manner you choose.” Give them some more time to start burning people at the stake. Or the more modern version, really big bombs dropped from really high up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Veils versus headscarves...
Posted by: mjabele on Nov 25, 2007 6:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there a difference between the two?

I often hear that the reason for Muslim women to wear the veil has to do with "modesty", but if so, why is it that only women must do so? Why not young men as well? Or is there something else going on - some subtle implication that one sex is more weak-minded than the other, more prone to sexual temptation?

I think this may be a large part of the reason why the veil is something Western societies resist, after having campaigned for some time (albeit not entirely successfully) for full equality between the sexes. Whereas we can easily accept a piece of clothing or jewelry that shows affiliation to a particular religion, we find it difficult to accept a piece of clothing which seems to exist specifically based on the idea, whether religiously sanctioned or not, that one sex is inherently more weak-willed than the other.

A headscarf, given that it doesn't cover the face, might fulfill my own personal criteria as a religiously "affiliative" piece of clothing like the yarmulke or a crucifix rather than something signifying the inferior status of one of the two sexes, and I might consequently be willing to accept it. But "cover-up clothing" like the veil or the burqa strikes me as something different, and frankly not acceptable in Western societies increasingly built around the idea, however repugnant it may be to some Islamic believers, of full equality between the sexes.

As another poster pointed out, Muslims who emigrate to Western countries shouldn't really claim any longer that they can't know what they're getting themselves into. If the concept of sexual equality bothers them, they shouldn't come here. It's increasingly become the responsibility of the State in most Western societies to uphold this concept as laid out by statute and legal precedent; Muslims need to realize this, and make their decisions about where to live accordingly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The destruction of the European Jews, and in the future, Muslims and Arabs…
Posted by: JusticeForAll on Nov 26, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that we will never learn. By we, I mean, Homo sapiens. The same “arguments” used against Jews in Europe, which ultimately lead to the Holocaust, and before that decades of persecution and aggression, are very similar to those used against Muslims and Arabs in Europe and in the USA, such as “but they are not integrated….”

Will we ever learn?

Islam like all religions should not be protected from criticism. However, what has been happening for years now, is the biased targeting of Islam and Muslims and Arab culture, and the demonization of a diverse group of people and for what purpose?

I am Arab, a woman, born and raised Christian, my family has lived in the Middle East for more than 1500 hundred years. As Christians we are not forced to live by Sharia, or abide by Islamic law, in fact we are protected as a minority and given equal treatment to Muslims… Actually, we are given more than that. However, I am not suggesting that is all good in every Muslim/Arab country.

Then, I read comments by bobsays et al, or RichardHouse et al and it becomes clear, the racism, the phobia of all that is Muslim and Arab.

I just want a straight forward answer, why can’t Muslim women wear headscarves in France? What is the big deal?

And if for a second you think that you are “liberating” Muslim women by preventing them from wearing a headscarf, and promoting “sexual freedom”, then please think about the consequences of banning Muslims from practicing their religion…..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Crusaders Posted by: moflard