Burqa 'not welcome' in France: Sarkozy

[TruthSeeker]

Bahrain girls lauded for Hijab standoff

'Pakistan Times' Wire Service

MANAMA: Lawmakers here heaped praise on the members of Bahrain’s women’s basketball team for refusing to remove their hijab in an international competition.

“The attitude of our national team was honourable and truly indicated the players’ deep commitment to Islamic values. They conveyed a strong and genuine message to the whole world that Muslims value their traditions and principles and are not ready to give them up for the sake of a game,” said MP Ebrahim Busanadal.

It is obvious that the struggle for wearing the hijab is long and arduous and is taking place in several countries, even in those that falsely claim that they promote democracy and the right of people to think and dress as they like. I salute all the members of the Bahraini delegation who fought for the right to allow the girls to keep their hijab,” he added. MP Mohammad Khalid said their attitude deserved to be applauded by all people.

You held our heads high by refusing to remove the veil for the sake of the game. You were right in wearing it and you were right in keeping it. We do understand your frustration when you were told that you would be losing the game.

Bahrain girls lauded for Hijab standoff

 

[Awesome]

Bahrain girls lauded for Hijab standoff

'Pakistan Times' Wire Service

MANAMA: Lawmakers here heaped praise on the members of Bahrain’s women’s basketball team for refusing to remove their hijab in an international competition.

“The attitude of our national team was honourable and truly indicated the players’ deep commitment to Islamic values. They conveyed a strong and genuine message to the whole world that Muslims value their traditions and principles and are not ready to give them up for the sake of a game,” said MP Ebrahim Busanadal.

It is obvious that the struggle for wearing the hijab is long and arduous and is taking place in several countries, even in those that falsely claim that they promote democracy and the right of people to think and dress as they like. I salute all the members of the Bahraini delegation who fought for the right to allow the girls to keep their hijab,” he added. MP Mohammad Khalid said their attitude deserved to be applauded by all people.

You held our heads high by refusing to remove the veil for the sake of the game. You were right in wearing it and you were right in keeping it. We do understand your frustration when you were told that you would be losing the game.

Bahrain girls lauded for Hijab standoff

Its the principle of the whole thing. Western nations for all their glory, democracy, freedom have chosen this issue just to harass Muslims. The only point where Burkha gets negative points is the security situation, you know matters of life and death. Otherwise as you can see, given the choice, professional sportswomen CHOOSE to wear Islamic dressing rather than anyone imposing the dress upon them.

Only two Muslim countries impose any sort of Islamic dressing. Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Awesome]

In the US the only controversy is over driver's license and passport photos. A very few Muslim women, who are fully veiled, have challenged the requirement that they have a "picture ID" photo on their driver's license. So far, US Courts have upheld the right of State and the Federal governments to require a face photo on certain identification documents. However, some Muslims continue to challenge this requirement for driver's licenses in lawsuits against various States. I think there is a case in Florida still winding its way through legal procedures.

Well I think the state is right as the Islamic requirement is head covering, not a face veil. And a driver's license is an important ID. Some women interpret that the requirement is to cover anything that adds to a woman's beauty and hence cover the face too.

I think it wont affect the majority of Muslims, but the problem would start when the government says even the Hijab isn't good enough.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Lifting The Veil

By Ram Puniyani

07 July, 2009

Countercurrents.org

The statement of Nicholas Sarcozy that Burqa is not welcome in France, that it is a symbol of oppression and not of religion has raised serious debate all over. It is France again where five years ago the display of religious markers, head scarf, Sikh turban, and Jewish skull cap in schools was banned. Public servants cannot use the same in place of work.

France as a secular state has adopted a particular version of this policy. France has been setting example for some of the countries in this imposing type of secularism, like Turkey. It has another dimension and that is large number of poor Muslims coming here are from its old colonies who live in very abysmal conditions. One recalls a large section of these immigrant Muslim population lives in suburbs, poor localities in economic deprivation. A couple of years ago right here some Muslim youth began a series of violent acts out of frustration due to unemployment and poverty. The cultural economic differences between these sections are very wide and urban affluent ones’ are very gross.

How is secularism to be implemented? One way is that social situations are transformed and the hold of feudal elements is done away with and state encourages the society to adopt the norms of social and gender equality. And with this, the symbols of gender inequalities start receding in the face of changing social situation. There is no uniform pattern in this. Even after the democratic regimes come to being formally, many an old norms take time to vanish. Surely there are some of these which have to be done away by strong legislation. In India during freedom movement forcible prevention of Sati, burning of wife after husbands’ death, had to be resorted through legislation.

Burqa has not been the mandatory part of Koranic teachings. Here the emphasis is on dressing modestly. In earlier societies and other societies also, different dress codes have imposed on and also adopted by women, some as honor and more of them to impose controls on them. Dr. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, a noted Islamic scholar points out that long before the advent of Islam, veiling and seclusion appear to have existed in Hellinitic-Byzantine era, and also amongst Sassanians of Persia. In ancient Mesopotamia veil of women was regarded as sign of respectability and status.

During feudal times, the patriarchal norms were operated in the society through the institution of religion. With persistence of patriarchy the women were made to wear the identity markers in different cultures and societies. Stronger the patriarchal norms, stronger the social presence of clergy, stronger is the imposition of identity markers. These may be Ghunghat, (India) head scarf in different cultures and burqa amongst Muslims. From the beginning of twentieth century, the status of women started improving slightly and women started coming to social space. By 1980s in many a Muslim majority countries also women came to their own and prevalence of burqa came down, and at places totally done away with. The situation started worsening with the Global War on terror at world level and with communal violence in India intensifying.

With so called ‘war on terror’ the intimidation of Muslim communities’ world over started worsening. With this orthodox and conservative sects in Islam came to fore. Fundamentalist tendencies like Taliban propped up at places and worsened the situation by giving sense-less fatwa’s and dictates. Taliban imposed the norms in most inhuman way. The sense of insecurity in the wake of war, invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq increased the sense of insecurity and the consequent hold of conservative sections, who generally impose such restrictive norms on women increased. Still in many a countries, where the women enjoyed a safe and secure social condition, the use of burqa came down. If we have a look at global scene we will find great amount of diversity in this matter. Broadly one can say, more the insecurity, more the hold of orthodoxy more the burqa.

In India one can see a great diversity in the use of the same. In Kerala it was not much in use and in Kashmir it was practically absent. In Kerala its use started going up with the rising communal violence of the decade of 1980s and with the rising influence of Wahabi Islam through those taking up jobs in Gulf region. In Kashmir the rise of militancy after 1990, the communalization of the Kashmir issue, led to rise of conservative sections who wanted to impose the veil, but Kashmiri women held there ground and resisted the same.

Also lot of misconceptions have been constructed around Islam, Burqa and local traditions. Recently India’s President, Mrs. Pratibha Patil stated that the Ghunghat in Rajasthan has been introduced due to the fear of Muslim kings, to protect women from their atrocities. One can ask those arguing on these lines, how did Sati come into being? Can hiding the face protect women or make them more vulnerable to atrocities? Sati, Ghunghat etc, have been more a mark of patriarchal values than due to the impact of Muslim Kings. Even today Ghunghat persists not because of the fear of Muslims but the strong hold of patriarchal values. The occasional cases of Sati also fall in that category. Bal Thackeray of Shiv Sena came for a strong praise of Sarcozy for his stand on Burqa. The same Shiv Sena has been intimidating girls on Valentine day off and on and giving the fatwa that girls should not wear Jeans. What a case of crass double standards!

The social and political situation leads to the social psychology and individual psychology of women is shaped around that. Men have held the sway in dictating such norms, and social situation is created where women internalize these norms. The Sufi tradition of Islam was not for the use of burqa. There are two essential points which the rulers have to keep in mind. One is that the very basis of democracy is freedom and liberal space. The countries like Saudi Arabia impose burqa. The countries like France want to do away with the same through a dictat. What is the difference? Secondly the point today is to see that globally and within the nation states the minorities are given the feeling of security, they are provided with situations leading to equity. These will ensure that the identity issues will take the back seat. Today the communities where security is the issue, equity is eluding the community, identity becomes the major rallying point. Just the statement about identity markers, without changing the social situation leading to such phenomenon is a hollow move.

Lifting The Veil By Ram Puniyani

 

[garibnawaz]

Apart from Saudi Arabia, foreigners and non Muslims are able to get alcohol in almost any country imaginable, and that too legally (and many westerners have been known to brew their own lager/beer in Saudi, with the authorities knowingly averting their eyes, since the expats' activities do nto harm the locals). Even in our very own Islamic fortress, Pakistan, shows leniency in this regard to non Muslims.

I second this. Liquor, Prostitutes and Pork is something that you get very commonly in UAE.

In almost every UAE supermarket u have a separate section for PORK. On the top of the section it is written in bold letters that this is a PORK section and it is Haram for Muslims.

Ajman in UAE has liqor shops where on Dubai and Abu Dhabi airport you can get liqor in duty free shops.

Every restaurant, night club, dance bar, pub in Dubai serves liqor.

It is very childish to say that since Saudi bans lot of things for other religion's people, France has right to ban burqa.

My point of view on this topic is that every country has a right to allow ban something in their own land irrespective of what others doing in their country. Hence I am not protesting against France.

It is an internal matter of France.

 

[Unbeliever]

In the countries of their infiltration Islamists exploit a, for them useful, dogma of local political culture. It is that all persons are equal, all cultures are equivalent and that all groups are to be treated without judging them. The problem with this reasoning is that it asserts a right to protection created by a tradition that radicals reject. Alas, Islamists that demand acceptance and protection are reluctant to accept the culture, the social order and the political system of those harboring them. Accordingly, these unbelievers are not entitled to benefit of the tolerance they claim for themselves.


The covering up of women by a mobile tent, is a supposed command of Islam that fails to appear in the faith’s scriptures. The practice is to protect men from the distraction of their impure – frankly perversely erotic – response to body parts, the totality of which makes a human female out of a creature. The argument betrays that it might not be the woman that is responsible for the wicked attraction. At fault is the male who, by his nature’s command, reacts to features that express femininity. Therefore, it might not be up to the object whose shape cause godless impurity to raise its ugly head to hide whatever provokes dirty reactions. It might be argued that, the one that reacts indecently is to be held responsible for his inappropriate response. If so, male nature’s command is to be suppressed. The repression of impure temptation might be the responsibility of the one that responds improperly to the, to him tempting, appearance of the opposite gender. If so, one is led to make a suggestion. The burden of preventive measures should be borne by those who are easily eroticized and who thereby abandon their devotion to higher values. Therefore, not women should be covered up by a curtain. Ignoring the advantages of castration, fallible Muslim men should be required to wear a bag over their heads. In communities of moderation it might suffice if they wear very dark glasses.

 

[Awesome]

I second this. Liquor, Prostitutes and Pork is something that you get very commonly in UAE.

In almost every UAE supermarket u have a separate section for PORK. On the top of the section it is written in bold letters that this is a PORK section and it is Haram for Muslims.

Ajman in UAE has liqor shops where on Dubai and Abu Dhabi airport you can get liqor in duty free shops.

Every restaurant, night club, dance bar, pub in Dubai serves liqor.

It is very childish to say that since Saudi bans lot of things for other religion's people, France has right to ban burqa.

My point of view on this topic is that every country has a right to allow ban something in their own land irrespective of what others doing in their country. Hence I am not protesting against France.

It is an internal matter of France.

This is a fundamental human right. To REMAIN CLOTHED. Nudity is different for everyone.

In most western countries, levels of nudity are defined. Rear, frontal, full frontal. So who says that to a woman observing the Hijab, exposing the hair to HER, the WOMAN, not you islamaphobic non-Muslim men, TO her, exposing the hair would be a level of nudity.

Its the fundamental human right to not be disrobed! To forcibly remove a woman's clothing is punishable by law in most civilized societies. You have to be pretty uncivilized to support France's ban. That too when your reasoning is along the lines of "For the heck of it".

"Yeah just stick it up to the Muslims", right?

UAE allows a lot of stuff, and does not force much on its visiting people. Its such moronic things that westerners have done to Muslims is why in countries like France they have to fear the rise of Muslims. Because they know pretty soon when the Muslims out populate them the tables would turn and then such things would surely be remembered.

 

[dabong1]

Just do the same to the french........we wont allow any french woman to enter muslim countries which have a problem with Sarkozys useless she wears a burqha.

Sarkozys family history makes a nice read.

Sarkozy's Jewish roots
France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, lost 57 members of his family to the Nazis and comes from a long line of Jewish and Zionist leaders and heroes, writes RAANAN ELIAZ.

IN an interview Nicolas Sarkozy gave in 2004, he expressed an extraordinary understanding of the plight of the Jewish people for a home: “Should I remind you the visceral attachment of every Jew to Israel, as a second mother homeland? There is nothing outrageous about it. Every Jew carries within him a fear passed down through generations, and he knows that if one day he will not feel safe in his country, there will always be a place that would welcome him. And this is Israel.”

Sarkozy’s sympathy and understanding is most probably a product of his upbringing it is well known that Sarkozy’s mother was born to the Mallah family, one of the oldest Jewish families of Salonika, Greece.

Additionally, many may be surprised to learn that his yet-to-be-revealed family history involves a true and fascinating story of leadership, heroism and survival.

It remains to be seen whether his personal history will affect his foreign policy and France’s role in the Middle East conflict.

In the 15th century, the Mallah family (in Hebrew: messenger or angel) escaped the Spanish Inquisition to Provence, France and moved about one hundred years later to Salonika.

In Greece, several family members became prominent Zionist leaders, active in the local and national political, economic, social and cultural life.

To this day many Mallahs are still active Zionists around the world.

Sarkozy’s grandfather, Aron Mallah, nicknamed Benkio, was born in 1890.

Beniko’s uncle Moshe was a well-known Rabbi and a devoted Zionist who, in 1898 published and edited “El Avenir”, the leading paper of the Zionist national movement in Greece at the time.

His cousin, Asher, was a Senator in the Greek Senate and in 1912 he helped guarantee the establishment of the Technion – the elite technological university in Haifa, Israel.

In 1919 he was elected as the first President of the Zionist Federation of Greece and he headed the Zionist Council for several years. In the 1930’s he helped Jews flee to Israel, to which he himself immigrated in 1934.

Another of Beniko’s cousins, Peppo Mallah, was a philanthropist for Jewish causes who served in the Greek Parliament, and in 1920 he was offered, but declined, the position of Greece’s Minister of Finance. After the establishment of the State of Israel he became the country’s first diplomatic envoy to Greece.

In 1917 a great fire destroyed parts of Salonika and damaged the family estate.

Many Jewish-owned properties, including the Mallah’s, were expropriated by the Greek government. Jewish population emigrated from Greece and much of the Mallah family left Salonika to France, America and Israel.

Sarkozy’s grandfather, Beniko, immigrated to France with his mother. When in France Beniko converted to Catholicism and changed his name to Benedict in order to marry a French Christian girl named Adèle Bouvier.

Adèle and Benedict had two daughters, Susanne and Andrée. Although Benedict integrated fully into French society, he remained close to his Jewish family, origin and culture.

Knowing he was still considered Jewish by blood, during World War II he and his family hid in Marcillac la Croisille in the Corrèze region, western France.

During the Holocaust, many of the Mallahs who stayed in Salonika or moved to France were deported to concentration and extermination camps.

In total, fifty-seven family members were murdered by the Nazis. Testimonies reveal that several revolted against the Nazis and one, Buena Mallah, was the subject of Nazis medical experiments in the Birkenau concentration camp.

In 1950 Benedict’s daughter, Andrée Mallah, married Pal Nagy Bosca y Sarkozy, a descendent of a Hungarian aristocratic family. The couple had three sons – Guillaume, Nicolas and François.

The marriage failed and they divorced in 1960, so Andrée raised her three boys close to their grandfather, Benedict.

Nicolas was especially close to Benedict, who was like a father to him. In his biography Sarkozy tells he admired his grandfather, and through hours spent of listening to his stories of the Nazi occupation, the “Maquis” (French resistance), De Gaulle and the D-day, Benedict bequeathed to Nicolas his political convictions.

Sarkozy’s family lived in Paris until Benedict’s death in 1972, at which point they moved to Neuilly-sur-Seine to be closer to the boys’ father, Pal (who changed his name to Paul) Sarkozy. Various memoirs accounted Paul as a father who did not spend much time with the kids or help the family monetarily.

Nicolas had to sell flowers and ice cream in order to pay for his studies. However, his fascination with politics led him to become the city’s youngest mayor and to rise to the top of French and world politics. The rest is history.

It may be a far leap to consider that Sarkozy’s Jewish ancestry may have any bearing on his policies vis-à-vis Israel.
http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=3162

 

[Unbeliever]

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable

To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity

I am a Shia Muslim and I abhor the burqa. I am offended by the unchallenged presumption that women covering their heads and bodies and now faces are more pious and true than am I.

Islam in all its diverse forms entitles believers to a personal relationship with Allah – it cuts out middlemen, one reason its appeal extended to so many across the world. You can seek advice from learned scholars and imams, but they cannot come between your faith and the light of God. Today control freaks who claim they have a special line to the Almighty have turned our world dark. Neo-conservative Islamic codes spread like swine flu, an infection few seem able to resist.

The disease is progressive. It started 20 years ago with the hijab, donned then as a defiant symbol of identity, now a conscript's uniform. Then came the jilbab, the cloak, fought over in courts when schoolgirls were manipulated into claiming it as an essential Islamic garment. If so, hell awaits the female leaders of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Soon, children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves ("so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing," said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls' school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.

White liberals frame this sinister development in terms of free choice and tolerance. Some write letters to this paper: What is the problem? It is all part of the rich diversity of our nation. They can rise to this challenge, show they are superhuman when it comes to liberty and forbearance.

They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled or their sons became fanatic Islamicists and imposed purdah in the family. Such converts are springing up in Muslim families all over the land. Veils predate Islam and were never an injunction (modesty of attire for men and women is). Cultural protectionism has long been extended to those who came from old colonies, in part to atone for imperial hauteur. Redress was necessary then, not now.

What about legitimate fears that to criticise vulnerable ethnic and racial groups validates the racism they face? Racism is an evil but should never be used as an alibi to acquit oppressions within black and Asian or religious communities. That cry was used to deter us from exposing forced marriages and dowry deaths and black-upon-black violence.

Right-wing think tanks and President Sarkozy of France scapegoat Muslims for political gain and British fascists have turned self-inflicted "ethnic" wounds into scarlet propaganda. They do what they always have done. Self-censorship will not stop them but it does stop us from dealing with home-grown problems or articulating objections to reactionary life choices like the burqa. Muslim women who show their hair are becoming an endangered species. We must fight back. Our covered-up sisters do not understand history, politics, struggles, their faith or equality. As Rahila Gupta, campaigner against domestic violence, writes: "This is a cloth that comes soaked in blood. We cannot debate the burqa or the hijab without reference to women in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where the wearing of it are heavily policed and any slippages are met with violence." What happened to solidarity?

Violent enforcement is evident in Britain too. A fully veiled young chemistry graduate once came to my home, her body covered in cuts, tears, bites, bruises, all happily hidden from view. Security and social cohesion are all threatened by this trend – which is growing exponentially.

As for the pathetic excuse that covering up protects women from male lasciviousness – it hasn't stopped rapists in the most conservative Muslim nations. And what a slur on decent Muslim men, portrayed as sexual predators who cannot look upon a woman without wanting her.

We communicate with each other with our faces. To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity. Unreasonable community or nationalistic expectations disconnect essential bonds. Governments should not accommodate such demands. Naturists can't parade on the streets, go to school or take up jobs unless they cover their nakedness. Why should burqaed women get special consideration?

Their veils are walls, keeping them in and us out. We need an urgent, open conversation on this issue – which divides the Muslim intelligensia as much as the nation. Our social environment, fragile and precious, matters more than choice and custom should to British Muslims. If we don't compromise for the greater good, the future looks only more bitter and bleak. Saying so doesn't make me the enemy of my people.

Monday, 13 July 2009, Independent

 

[harun786]

There are few things that I would like to say in connection with this 'Burqa not allowed in France'.

First of all France is not a Muslim country, it has its own culture and French are very nationalistic. Since it is their country, they have all the right to make laws that are according to their culture. In Islamic countries, we don’t allow the westerners to do certain things such as drinking alcohol, and sun bathing in open etc. If we can impose certain laws on the westerners, why they can’t impose laws on foreigners irrespective of Muslims or not?

And the second thing is, if some one has to cover herself from head to toe, why she or her family chooses to go to France in the first place?

I had a friend here in USA. I know him from the days when both of us used to work in the Aga Khan University back in late nineties. He immigrated to Canada and I went to Malaysia. Later we joined together here in Atlanta after almost 5 years. My friend (and his family) are very practicing Muslims. He invited me to his house, me and my family went. He did not let her wife come in front of me, in fact he took me upstairs and served me food there. OK, even though neither my wife nor I liked this whole idea, since he was a friend, and the host, we respected his choice. Later on, I invited him to my house, and even after repeated invitations, he refused to come. And you know why? Because he thought I would not be able to serve them with Halal food since I used to buy meat from a different store selling halal meat than his, and that I might not be able to serve him and his wife separately. Now what kind of Islam is this? Obviously if he had come to my house, I would have never come in front of his wife if that is what he likes. But simply refusing invitation from another Muslim who also happens to be your friend, how Islamic is this?

Question is why the hell such people leave their country in the first place if they had to do all this? These people find it OK to serve Kaafirs and earn money in their countries but don’t want to follow their laws and cultural norms. Sorry to say but I have found Westerners far more civilized as compared to the Asians in general and Muslims in particular. I have several American friends, few are French. Whenever I was invited, never once they put pork or alcohol on the table. They know we are Muslims and they have always respected our religion. Once I and my family were invited by one of my friend to spend vacations at his parents place up in North Carolina. We stayed with them for a full week and during all this time, they did not cook pork and never drank alcohol while we were around. Similarly neither I nor my wife has ever been asked about our dress code. No one ever forced us to put on swimming costumes on the beach etc. Fact of the matter is, it is easier to live in Kaafir's lands than it is in the Muslim countries. I am extremely sorry if someone's feelings are hurt, but that is my experience.

you are 100% rite , I too have alot of Australian friends and none have ever served me Alcohol nor pork.

 

[dabong1]

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable

To deny face-to-face interaction is to deny our shared humanity
Monday, 13 July 2009, Independent

Sorry Yasmin Alibhai-Brown its all about freedom of choice.......you assume that girls are forced into wearing ther niqab.......i can assume that french woman are forced to wear miniskirts doesnt make it true.

 

[XYON]

***************************************************
VERSAILLES (FRANCE): The burqa is "not welcome" in France because it is not a symbol of religion but a sign of subservience for women, President
Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday.

"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," he said. "That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity."

"The burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience," he told lawmakers. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic."

Sarkozy told a special session of parliament he was in favour of holding the inquiry sought by some French lawmakers into whether Muslim women who cover themselves fully in public undermine French secularism and women's rights.

But the president added "we must not fight the wrong battle, in the republic the Muslim religion must be respected as much as other religions" in France, which has Europe's biggest Muslim population estimated at several million.

The proposal to hold an inquiry has won support from many politicians from both the left and right, but France's official Muslim council accused lawmakers of wasting time focusing on a fringe phenomenon.

"To raise the subject like this, via a parliamentary committee, is a way of stigmatising Islam and the Muslims of France," Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM), said last week.

Later Monday, Sarkozy was expected to host a state dinner with Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani of Qatar. Many women in the Persian Gulf state wear Islamic head coverings in public — whether while shopping or driving cars.

France enacted a law in 2004 banning the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, sparking fierce debate at home and abroad. France has Western Europe's largest Muslim population, an estimated 5 million people.

A government spokesman said Friday that it would seek to set up a parliamentary commission that could propose legislation aimed at barring Muslim women from wearing the head-to-toe gowns outside the home.

The issue is highly divisive even within the government. France's junior minister for human rights, Rama Yade, said she was open to a ban if it is aimed at protecting women forced to wear the burqa.
****************************************************
Burqa 'not welcome' in France: Sarkozy - Europe - World - The Times of India

While i agree with the point of view that wearing the Burqa is a sign of subservience, the French governments attempts at interfering in the rights of Individuals to practice their religion is completely unacceptable. Banning the Burqa is not the way to go about it -education is. Discuss.

OK Monsieur SARKOZY! So when are you going to also ban the NUNS in your catholic churches to stop wearing the head-gear which is the same as a Muslim woman's Hijab?

Looking at the choice of your 3rd wife, you would like everyone in France to roam around butt-naked dontcha you frenchie?

 

[Unbeliever]

Sorry Yasmin Alibhai-Brown its all about freedom of choice.......you assume that girls are forced into wearing ther niqab.......i can assume that french woman are forced to wear miniskirts doesnt make it true.

Don't give me that ridiculous nonsense.
And the Jews in Nazi Germany chose to wear the Yellow Star because they wanted to preserve their identity..

Your comparison doesn't add up one little bit, because while only some girls wear mini skirts and you see a high diversity in clothing(and the amount of skin shown) in free societies, ALL women wear the hijab or burqa or at least the veil in countries were Islam has its way. In addition there actually is EVIDENCE of coercion and force when it comes to Muslim families or countries, their daughters and the veil/burqa.

A 'protective' clothing against being raped by Muslim man who apparently have the self control of a two-year old, worn as a result of peer, family and religious pressure is hardly a choice. Even if some Muslim girls share this delusion or are too young and naive to understand what kind of message them wearing a burqa sends (namely they are the one responsible if being raped and women who don't wear a burqa or even a veil are somehow "less pure", creating new peer pressure.). Self deception isn't new to religious people so that is an easy next step.

No women in her right might chooses to wear a tent. No where in the world do you see any non Muslim "choosing" to dress up in a burqa simply because 1. women want to be seen(not objectified, just noticed). 2. women like to choose what they are wearing, if given the chance. Ask any Iranian women who ran from her barbaric country.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about dressing up all sexy and slutty, just "looking good" whatever they think that might be. Conforming to the (in some Islamic countries) universal 'tent look' out of fear, certainly is as far from any aesthetic self determination no matter what the culture..
And to honestly argue a girl growing up in a western country wants to wear something like that is so outrageously ignorant and sinister it almost offends me.

Furthermore a society decides what symbols mean within it, not the individual. If I think a swastika stands for peace and wear one on my shirt it doesn't make it so. The same goes for an extended middle finger or the burqa (and the veil although to a lesser extent since its meaning is not as universally agreed on).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Don't give me that ridiculous nonsense.
And the Jews in Nazi Germany chose to wear the Yellow Star because they wanted to preserve their identity..

There is nothing ridiculous about his point - the fact is that there are women who choose to wear the Burqa - my widowed aunt for one, and she never used to wear it from what I can remember from when she was younger.

The issue is not whether the Burqa is allowed in Islam or not, but whether banning it impinges on the freedom of practicing ones faith, as some women might interpret it.

So far no one has been able to quantify any sort of tangible damage to society from an individual freely choosing to wear the Burqa.

The fact remains that if male adults in a family force a woman to wear a burqa, then there are more serious issues related to the safety and health of that woman than a mere all encompassing piece of clothing. And banning that piece of clothing is not going to address the underlying issue of possible domestic abuse and repression that some women might be subjected to.

Too many of you are too caught up in bashing the Burqa as a means of venting your frustration and anger at extremists, and in the process are trying to attack what is a symptom (in some cases), rather than focusing on the real issues of male attitudes and the safety of women.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

The Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb Threaten France over Hostility to Burkas

Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 21
July 17, 2009 01:40 PM Age: 6 hrs
Category: Terrorism Monitor, Global Terrorism Analysis, Home Page, Military/Security, Europe

By: Pascale Combelles Siegel

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Afghanistan’s Taliban strongly condemned French President Sarkozy’s declaration that the burka, a sign of “enslavement” and “debasement,” is “not welcome in the territory of the French Republic” (Aujourd'hui en france, June 19; La Croix, June 19). Both groups reacted swiftly and angrily, castigating Sarkozy’s declaration as yet another example of the Western war against Islam.

President Sarkozy made his statement during a speech before a joint session of the French Parliament on the global economic crisis. Why the president and his advisors decided to weave the burka into a speech on economic policy remains obscure. It may have to do with that the June 9 proposal by 58 representatives, mostly from Sarkozy’s center-right Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), to open a Parliamentary inquiry to examine the issue and “define counter-measures to curb the wearing of the burka and niqab.” [1] According to the proposal, the burka is degrading and cannot be tolerated in France under the principles of secularism and gender equality.
Both AQIM and the Taliban reacted swiftly and angrily, hyping the threat to Islamic custom and caricaturing its significance in an effort to rally maximum support against the West among Muslims in both Islamic and Western countries.

AQIM’s Amir, Abu Musab Abdul Wadud (a.k.a. Abdelmalek Droukdel), asserted that President Sarkozy’s stance reflects a broader Western hostility toward Islam, characterizing Sarkozy’s statement as “the essence of extremism, racism and the most manifest form of religious terrorism and incitement to religious hatred'' (Al-Khabar [Algiers], July 1; As-Ansar.com, June 29). Throughout his communiqué, Wadud used interchangeably the terms “France/French” and “West/Western.” Meanwhile, Taliban spokesman Qari Muhammad Yusuf explicitly accused Western leaders of collusion with President Sarkozy: "In clear and simple words, we must say that Sarkozy's recent decision is not his own decision. It is not his idea or theory. It is a general decision that all Western officials have adopted to usurp Muslims' Islamic and human freedoms, to target their social rights and spiritual values. We noticed that no single Western leader or organization has protested against Sarkozy's recent declarations and attitudes; indeed all of them remained silent in satisfaction” (Sawt al-Jihad, June 29; As-Ansar.com, June 29).

In the same statement, the Taliban claimed banning the burka “is a decision agreed upon and applied by all officials of Western countries to usurp Muslim freedom and Muslim humanity and target their social rights and moral values.” In their zeal to demonstrate collusion between France and the West, both AQIM and the Taliban glossed over the fact that France is the only country that has so far attempted to define the wearing of the burka as being incompatible with national values.

Wadud attempts to play on Muslim fears of greater restrictions on their religion as practiced in the West; "There is no doubt that our Muslim brothers, particularly in France and in Europe in general, are increasingly concerned about the practices of the French politicians and leaders and their harassment against them. Yesterday it was the veil, today it is the burka and tomorrow their dirty hands could be extended to prayer, fasting or pilgrimage.'' For Wadud, if Muslims do not feel compelled to defend the burka or the niqab, surely they must not feel compelled to defend prayer or fasting.

The controversy poses two problems for French authorities. The first is a security challenge. The Taliban did not specifically threaten further attacks against France and its interests; however, the presence of more than 3,000 French soldiers in Afghanistan, including combat troops involved in interdiction missions along Afghanistan’s eastern border with Pakistan, offers easy targets for retaliation (see Terrorism Focus, September 2, 2008). Wadud, for his part, spelled out his threat clearly, writing: “We will do everything in our power to avenge our sisters’ and our daughters’ honor, by striking France and its interests, wherever they may be” (As-Ansar.com, June 30). At a time of renewed AQIM activism in Mauritania and Mali as well as Algeria, that threat should be taken seriously.

The second problem is ideological and political. By raising the specter of a possible ban without having a specific policy in mind, Sarkozy has allowed the radicals, whom he presumably wants disempowered, to seize the initiative and mobilize support against the West’s goals in Afghanistan and beyond. Sarkozy’s brief mention of the burka overshadowed several overtures he recently made to the Muslim community. His insistence that “Islam must be recognized in France like any other religion,” his acknowledgement that anti-Muslim discrimination exists and must be confronted, and his belief that the current model of integration does not fulfill its promises for many Muslim youths were completely obscured by the burka controversy.

Possibly anticipating that a strong message condemning the burka might play into the hands of those who argue that the West is at war with Islam, President Sarkozy argued that the burka is not a religious, but a human rights issue. Several Muslim leaders concurred with the French president on this point; Muhammad Moussaoui, president of the Conseil Français du Culte Musulman, and Shaykh Muhammad Sayid Tantawi, Grand Imam of Cairo’s Al-Ahzar Mosque and Grand Shaykh of al-Azhar Univeristy, both agreed that the Quran only requires women to wear a covering over their heads, nothing more (Le Monde, July 2; June 26). However, they also argued that forbidding the burka or the niqab may be counterproductive and contribute to polarizing Muslim and non-Muslim communities in France (Le Nouvel Observateur, June 18).

As things stand now, Sarkozy’s condemnation of the burka has served the radicals’ agenda by allowing them to make their case to a broad audience and to set the terms of the debate. Instead of furthering his vow to address the pitfalls of the current system of integration, Sarkozy has managed only to fuel the radicals’ anti-Western perspective.


Notes:

[1] Assemblée Nationale, Proposition de résolution no.1725 tendant à la création d’une commission d’enquête sur la pratique du port de la burqa ou du niqab sur le territoire national, Paris, June 9, 2009.

single - The Jamestown Foundation[tt_news]=35276&tx_ttnews[backPid]=26&cHash=8b7e324597