Freedom is freedom. If a woman wants to take off the hijab and not cover her hair then it’s her absolute right to do so and no true Muslim should ever force her to do otherwise. Moreover if a woman wants to willingly wear it then that should be her absolute right too. Banning women who want to willingly wear the hijab is absolute rubbish. I understand that in the West the hijab is viewed as a sign of oppression. There’s a very enlightening post about this on Halalhippie’s blog. Also in the Islamic world there’s an unfortunate great amount of focus on “external religiosity”. Big Pharaoh has a post about it. I know girls who wear the hijab but are absolute whores. I also know ones who dress in revealing clothes but are very decent and wonderful individuals. As such I realize that wearing the hijab doesn’t automatically make a Muslim woman good. True religiosity should come from within and it must be combined with tolerance. France’s law banning religious symbols is absolute rubbish. What’s wrong if a Sikh wants to wear a turban? What’s wrong if a Christian wants to wear a cross? What’s wrong if a Muslim girl, a Christian nun or an Orthodox Jewish woman wants to cover her hair? What’s the basis of implementing such a ban? What happened to the West and its freedom? Is this secularism gone too far? Frankly, I think it is. Surprisingly and to my horror, some Muslim countries have also implemented such laws. Two examples are Turkey and Tunisia. I find this extremely disturbing. If a Muslim woman wants to wear the hijab and willingly cover her hair, she should be allowed to do so as it is her right. Indeed, such laws are absolute RUBBISH!
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Drima, the issue with the hijab is that women that do not cover their hair in Muslim countries are considered prostitutes, woman who “were asking for it” (to be raped, to be violented).
It is same story as, for example, in Argentina when fifty years ago, the women could not use short skirts because if they were raped, the judge ruled that the woman was partly responsible. Now that argument was completely debunked and is subjected to ridicule in Argentina.
Forget about religion. The hijab (as the long skirt) is about machism. Is about the idea that men cannot control themselves and therefore need that the woman “do not provoke them”.
Of course that if you are a woman born inside the “bubble” you will think that it is your right to wear a hijab, and that banning that is taking away your “freedom”. That is just the case that there are women who remain with abusive husbands and think that police intervention is taking away their “freedom”. Just as there are religious Christian women in Argentina who think that all that they need to aspire in life is to get married and have as many children as possible and never open their legs for pleasure.
And the issue of the wigs in the Jewish orthodox women is because the rabbis have declared that the hair excites the men, and that could be dangerous because it can lead to adultery. It is a demeaning way of thinking, both for men and for women.
The hijab is the same. The sympthom of a reppresive culture. The real clash of civilizations is about the role of the women.
What “freedom” a woman can have when she needs to go back to their family and community who think that if she doesn’t cover her hair she is a prostitute? Or when she was 9 she had its genitalia mutilated? Have you ever thought about the relation between a place where 97% of the women have been mutilated (Egypt, for example) and the cultural command to wear a hijab?
The hijab is a threatening instrument for other girls or women who are just about to break out from the reppresive culture.
“women that do not cover their hair in Muslim countries are considered prostitutes”
That’s a big misconception. Only close minded Muslims tend to think that way. It is happening in Muslim countries but not in the big way you describe it. This is especially not true in the case of Sudan. Blaming the woman who doesn’t wear hijab when raped is a sick and disgusting attitude. In the West women get raped all the time even though they never wear jihab but instead dress up in revealing clothes. Regardless of what a woman wears, if a man rapes her then the man should be punished. In order to remedy this problem the woman blaming should stop and men who rape should be punished severely.
“The hijab is a threatening instrument for other girls or women who are just about to break out from the reppresive culture.”
Many Muslim girls don’t view it that way. Many of them decide to wear it on their own even in the west where they’re not forced to wear it by anyone. You and I may disagree with them but why make laws restricting their freedom of choice. If they choose to wear it then they should be able to do so. This is not about oppression. Such laws also apply to religious symbols such as wearing the Cross or Start of David around the neck. It’s secularism gone too far Fabian. your argument isn’t convincing. Even cultural sensitivities aren’t taken into consideration when applying such measures. I don’t believe in hijab much. I think the most important aspect of religiosity is the one from within. It is the freedom and not “freedom” of a woman to choose if she wants to wear hijab or not.
Drima,
It’s true that I am against the Hijab as a concept, as an idea. I have nothing against girls who wear it though nor do I undermine their intelligence. I just believe it is not an obligation and the justifications they give for it are rubbish. Currently, there are 2 main reasons driving women to don it. First, the constant message bombardment that a girl who shows her hair is “less muslim” than the one who covers up. Second, it has become a political statement, a political tocken. Currently Muslims are feling threatened, feeling under siege, and this “symbol” gives them a sense of collectivity. It’s a long topic and the discussion will take pages.
As for the laws in france and turkey..yes I am against tghem..however, certain countries like france have a very special type of secularism not found in other western countries. This special type of harsh secularism is the result of the past history that this country had with religion governing them. So the french position is understandable..however, you notice that such laws can never be applied in the US or the UK for example..these have a different degree of applying secularism.
“Such laws also apply to religious symbols such as wearing the Cross or Start of David around the neck. It’s secularism gone too far Fabian. your argument isn’t convincing. Even cultural sensitivities aren’t taken into consideration when applying such measures.”
The banning of the cross and the star of David was done in France so the banning of the jihad wouldn’t be seen as discriminating against Muslims. But the meaning of a cross or a star of David is completely different than the meaning of the Hijab. It was stupid, but in the end, I agree if that makes people more equal at least in the classroom or at work. At home is a private issue.
Remember, I come from a country (Argentina) where by law all students had to wear a white coat (like scientists) to be equal in class. No differences of religion, social class, culture, etc, etc. I am very in favor of that. It created a people (Argentinians) out of a mix of races and creeds. Nobody wears a Hijab except for the wives of Arab diplomats.
Later I continue, now I must run.
(and there is a significant Muslim community in Argentina). You simply don’t recognize them from another Argentinian, Christian or Jew.
It is secularism gone great.
(and yes, the school system in Argentina was heavily influenced by 19th century French teaching methods)
Personally I agree with Drima. The laws in France forbidding to wear what a woman decides to wear outta religious believes is every bit as dictatorial as forcing it upon women like in Saudia or Iran.
===============================================
Of course that if you are a woman born inside the “bubble” you will think that it is your right to wear a hijab, and that banning that is taking away your “freedom”.
===============================================
Excuse me, Fabian, but you discredit the intelligence of women with that remark.
Tse.
Fundamentalism has gone too far as well, you should see how Hijab is imposed on the girls at the Sudanese Universities.
Girls are not allowed to get through the gates of the public university unless they are wearing Hijab.
I think it is all rubbish, the imposition and the ban of Al Hijab, everyone should be entitled to wear whatever he or she likes.
Tse: why do you think that? Don’t you believe in cultural “bubbles”? Men and women may not see further than what they have been taught. I was not saying that only women can be in a bubble.
Besides, there are still places were even women going to school is frowned upon. Would you say that forcing girls to attend school even if they don’t want to, is also restricting their freedom?
Behind all this, is of course the debate regarding the place of religion in a modern society. And the fact that every religion is contaminated with machist prejudice, so people who follow strictly any religion will end up restricting women’s liberties.
Personally I think that religion and religious signs -and please don’t tell me that hijab is not a religious sign, because the Star of David isn’t one either- should not be present at all in public.
I don’t like the way it is in Israel (women wearing hijabs and wigs), but there is nothing that can be done there (too many fundamentalisms together).
Argentina was able to do it because it was a new country, open to immigration and with a political elite who was not contaminated with the multiculturalist fashion and sure of what they wanted. France can do it too, because they know now what they want and they are very nationalists.
In the end, it is countries with the multicultural fashion who have a problem with integrating minorities.
That was me, btw, I am in another computer.
Fabian
“The laws in France forbidding to wear what a woman decides to wear outta religious believes is every bit as dictatorial as forcing it upon women like in Saudia or Iran.”
Thanks Tse, I couldn’t have said it better.
Fabian, willingly wearing the hijab for many Muslim women is part of practicing their religion. Again whether you and I agree with them or not, it’s part of their belief. Banning them to wear it is restricting their right to practice their religion. This is against the principle of democracy.
I agree very much. I don’t agree with wearing hijab but I don’t agree at all with banning women from chosing to wear it. It’s their choice, not mine or anybody else’s. I think Westerners are too fixated on it and should grow up. I really don’t get their obsession with it. Why don’t they ban it from their nuns or old ladies it if so terrible? And it is utter bullshit that women who do not wear hijab are considered prostitutes. This is only true of the most backward Muslims. It is not the case in Algeria, I know, because many women go without it and have no troubles except in very conservative areas. The same in Lebanon and when I was in Syria (it may be different but that was only two years ago). That is an insult to Muslim intelligence to assert that. Also it is just as much an insult to asert that only a woman living in or raised in a “bubble” would wear hijab. I know many white American converted Muslims who were raised in anything but a bubble that wear hijab because they want to. That is the most condescending thing about the whole debate about hijab, that women who wear it are simply ignorant of its repressiveness, that they are too stupid to chose for themselves and if they do chose for themselves they are stupid. That is the same argument fundamentalists make at the ones who do not wear it. It is foolishness. It is against democratic principals and does not give the individual its due credit.
Nouri
Thanks Drima
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that men are responsible for that.It is where one feels oneself most comfortable with living. Still, to forbid it for that reason I also see as governmental restriction on personal freedom. No matter what the cause of one’s decision - it is still that person deciding it.
Fabian, that thing of a bubble might well be true, but doesn’t this count for every aspect of life everywhere in any given social surroundings? It is ALSO part of one’s decisionmaking
For jews as well as muslims I guess the rule goes that they’re brought up within the rules of their religion - whereas what secular society is pursuing - is to grant children the “right” to decide for themselves, once grown-up, without the religious upbringing in their veins. I think that’s super-the-super-class-A interference in people’s lives because that sorta overtake the parents’ role, and I strongly believe that parents are the ones that want best for their children, and not the gov’t (for whom they are but a statistic and number).
I get 1984 (Orson Wells) nightmares thinking about government interference in personal lives… *oops*
Tse.
One major problem with a Hijab in school is that it creates divisions. It’s basically a statement of “I am, first and foremost, a Muslim - and everything else comes after that”.
But then again, the same thing can be said about other groups with very visible outward signs (like Punks, Goths, Hippies and such).
Personally, I think that a person should not be told what to wear or not to wear when they’re adults (this includes nudism, BTW). But when going to a public school, I believe there should be some guidelines for clothing to minimize artificial differences between the children.
As I understand it, none of these countries forbid the wearing of a headscarf as such.
It is about the display of (certain) religious symbols in certain situations, like when working as a teacher in a state school or when attending a state school. But nobody is forced to work as a teacher for a state school, and there are private schools for those who don’t want their children to be subject to such laws.
A secular state might obviously seek to present the secular common denominator in its schools. Thus ANY religious symbols of importance (aka visible such) might be forbidden. But people have a choice; there are private schools.
A religious state might seek to forbid only those religious symbols that are not its own.
Incidentally, while Germany is not a secular state (the major churches perform functions reserved for the sovereign and the Jewish community has special privileges by treaty with the state), displaying crosses in state schools appears to be illegal these days.
I have no problem with a government making such rules for state schools and even (privately owned) public schools, as long as private schools are a legal option.
Hi there, lots of good points all over…..it’s not the ¤#”! Hijab - %¤#”! ….it’s how we perceive it. Let me ask you, Drima: up here in DK there are some public schools that have “banned” the wearing of “too revealing clothes” ie. bare bellies, mini-skirts, piercings, excessive make-up on …..hold your breath….10-14 yr old girls. Some of them dress like Bratz-dolls, and give old guys like me strange ideas.
Is that a violation of their rights ? It’s not government, but the school boards that decide so. Sadly a few girls of that age have been raped by ….hold your breath again …gangs of young immigrant (Muslim) boys who’ve been taught that “they ask for it”.
In the perfect world a woman can wear the full ni8aab, the hijab, a bikini or nothing at all ANYWHERE, wihtout any man interfering.
Thanks for linking to my Hijab-rant by the way. It’s a long and fruitful discussion.
“I have no problem with a government making such rules for state schools and even (privately owned) public schools, as long as private schools are a legal option.”
Andrew, many people can’t afford the luxury of a private school. The law is against the principles of democracy.
Halalhippie, tough questions dude! I guess this comes to the idea of freedom. If a girl wants to walk around naked on the street and she’s not allowed to then is that a violation of her rights? No, I don’t think so. I believe that is a crime in some European countries since it’s considered public indecency if I’m not mistaken. I wouldn’t want to see a young girl walking naked on the street as that would defintely give me weird ideas. However how is a girl wearing the hijab supposed to harm you. It’s the thought “oh the poor girl is getting oppressed” that bothers Westerners. As Nouri said, even some white women who converted to Islam choose to wear it willingly as they believe it is part of practicing their religion. One is about indecency or being a little like “ooh hey look at me look at me. I’m so sexy” and the other is about practicing an individuals belief. As for any supposedly Muslim person who thinks “they were asking for it”, he should be slapped on the face and burnt alive… Ok no wait that’s a little too harsh but hey you get the point.
PS: BTW people I’m against the burka and nikab as I believe no woman should have the right to conceal her whole body and hide her identity.
“BTW people I’m against the burka and nikab as I believe no woman should have the right to conceal her whole body and hide her identity.”
Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaa…. yep, Drima
Take away women’s lib. (nice mirror-example, btw)
Tse.
tsedek, I think Drima is thinking of, like, Saudi-Arabia where a woman is _required_ to cover. She has no choice.
Drima: “how is a girl wearing the hijab supposed to harm you. It’s the thought “oh the poor girl is getting oppressed” that bothers Westerners” most likely. As I mentioned in my own rant, equality is a “holy cow” up here.
But, if I look in the mirror and listen to the dark voice inside me, I think it comes down to envy. If I flaunt richess ( expensive clothes, fancy car) among poor ppl, I’m disrespecting them. If a person openly displays religion among mostly non-religiuos ppl, it’s saying “My values are better than yours” I don’t know , it’s all so mix up. individual belief, political statement, immigrant culture.
I think that the reason behind the banning of these religious displays was for the prevention of trouble between groups and to prevent religious based discrimination. It wasn’t to oppress the Muslim girls, it was so that they could concentrate on teaching lessons rather than breaking up fights.
“It’s the thought “oh the poor girl is getting oppressed” that bothers Westerners”
Maybe because in the end it is right. They are being oppressed.
The power of the communities makes the thought of disagreeing with them too costly for the young girls. That is where the state comes in, to lower the costs in pursue of the common good.
Actually, there is no way you can reject a ban on hijab and coherently defend a ban on a burka.
Religious symbols must not be present at school. I was given a star of David at my Bar Mitzva (when I was 13) by my friends, but I used it below my cloths in school.
Hey, it is not even a Muslim thing! There are examples of every religion impossing dressing codes. And yes, some people live in a bubble. It took civilization hundreds and hundreds of years to reach the conclusion that religion belongs to the private sphere. The problem here is that because of increased interaction (immigration-emmigration), masses of people who were outside of the process of secularization have come to very secularized countries, and because of the the memories of the Second World War, these societies have chosen not to “impose” their way of life like they had done before, and instead collect people “as they are”.
It was wrong, and some societies are reverting to the previously larger role of the state in upholding the values of a modern society, including secularization. To see this as “restricting the liberties” is to forget where we came from, and the years of religious oppression that came before modern society.
I am totally against the wearing of hijab in public, just as I am against some religious community ruling that women should not go to school. If you want to know what the state is for, that IS one of the functions of the state: to educate people to create a secular nation in public, and let them do what they want in private.
i agree with everything fabian is saying.
The idea of the HIJAB is oppressive to begin with, so when you have an oppressive element brought about by religious- based law and culture, and extreme social pressures of course your gonna have people who wanna wear the Hijab.
It may not even be because of that at all, it may be because the women feel a closer connection to their religion.
That’s fine, however, The Hijab, is designed to attract attention away from the men, who can’t keep their dicks and hands to themselves, so they blame and rape the women who draw “attention” to themselves when they dont wear the hijab or burka.
What everyone fails to mention is that the Arab cultures are quite fond of slavery, and have enslaved somebody/some thing in one form or another throughout the history in that region.
Now, i agree that a woman shouldnt be wearing a mini-skirt and all that, but isn’t that freedom too?
If these men are so conscious about their faith, a REAL test would be to have a woman walk around naked in front of them and they don’t yell at them, rape them or advance towards them. BUT PEOPLE DONT TALK ABOUT THAT.
THE MEN ARE NEVER AT FAULT IN THESE COUNTRIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES. thats the truth, especially in muslim countries and african countries as well.
The idea of the hijab is control, suppression and oppression. It’s not ABOUT THE SPIRITUAL UNION WITH GOD, because if it was, the Hijab wouldn’t be necessary, Which it shouldn’t be anyway.
That’s what the West points out, the hypocritical elements in that. But the West is very hypocritical and discriminatory as well (dont wanna forget that) Like those Bratz dolls.
How are women equal, when they are forced to marry, forced to obey every man in their lives (father then husband), and always supposed to be happy, excited and ready to perform every time their husband comes home from work?
Their isn’t freedom in that. DOES IT MAKE YOU ANY LESS MUSLIM TO QUESTION YOUR FAITH, AND WHERE YOU COME FROM?
“Andrew, many people can’t afford the luxury of a private school.”
That isn’t and shouldn’t be a problem for the government.
People can make up any sort of faith which requires them do do or wear basically anything. But that doesn’t mean that rules for state schools must take these customs into account.
If a religious community is very small, their opinion won’t be taken into account when making the rules anyway.
And if a religious community is big enough to become a significant political force, it is certainly big enough to fund their own schools. Private schools do not have to be financed by parents. Anybody can finance them. If, say, the Muslim community want schools where teachers were headscarfs and were children do too, they can build one.
“The law is against the principles of democracy.”
No, it isn’t. The law is what the people voted for. That is the principle of democracy. What you mean is the principle of limiting democracy to protect individual rights.
“where teachers were headscarfs and were children do too”
What was wrong with me?
-> where teachers wear headscarfs and where children do too
BTW if a woman wants to wear a long extended hijab like the burka then it’s also fine with me. What I meant was that she has no right to hide her face and conceal her identity. Her face should be visible for “security” reasons at least. Again though banning women from wearing hijab is an infringement on their right to practice the religion. It’s not oppression if the woman chooses it freely. Look at what Nouri stated. Anyways nice perspectives all together. I can actually get a feel of the other side especially from Halalhippie’s comments on the “skimpy” girls and their rights.
“Again though banning women from wearing hijab is an infringement on their right to practice the religion.”
There is no right to practice your religion whereever and whenever you want.
You may not practice your religion in my house without my permission.
You may not practice a religion that involves illegal acts.
You may not practice a religion that involves wearing certain cloths in a place where other cloths are mandatory.
You may not practice a religion that involves wearing certain symbols when you have agreed to work in a place where such symbols are deemed inappropriate for employees.
You may practice your religion in your house.
You may practice a religion that involves legal acts.
You may practice a religion that involves wearing certain cloths in places where such cloths are allowed.
You may practice a religion that involves wearing certain symbols unless you agreed to get paid for, among other things, not wearing them.
What your religion demands is YOUR business, nobody else’s. From the point of view of a secular state wearing X for religious reasons and wearing X for reasons of fashion are EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
And a secular state can ban the wearing of X in its institutions whenever it wants.
Fashion is not an argument against a law. And neither is, in a secular state, religion.
Leave a Comment