Muslim women should be able to decide what they can and can't wear and wearing the burka is a choice they alone should make. The President of the French republic should not be the one to make that call. Everyone has freedom on what they can wear, so Muslim women should not be scrutinized for wearing something that is a part of their religion and to them, their obligation. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President's final decision to ban the burka, a clothing Muslim women wear in regards to their religion, has sent an uproar throughout the city of France, which is Europe's biggest city with Muslims residing within. The National Assembly of France passed the bill to ban the burka with 335 votes agreeing and just 1 vote against the idea. Daniel Garrigue was the sole member of the Assembly to vote against this ban on Muslim women wearing the full faced veil around in public. He has said, "To fight an extremist behaviour, we risk slipping toward a totalitarian society." (search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au)
Women, who are now seen wearing the full faced veil, are issued with a fine on the spot, are expected to take a citizenship course and if authorities find out that a male is oppressing a woman to wear the burka, then he himself is put into prison. This new law prevents Muslim women in France to not only wear the full faced veil but also the head scarf which is more common than the burka which was their choice alone and now they do not have the right to make a choice. Franco - Muslim leaders in France view this new law as a form of discrimination. "To raise the subject via a parliamentary committee is a way of stigmatizing Islam and the Muslims of France," said Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council for the Muslim Relig...
... middle of paper ...
...n alone should make the decision on what they want to wear. The President of the French Republic or the members of the National Assembly should not be the ones making that decision for them. Women being fined and being sent for citizenship courses for wearing the burka should not be subjected to such punishments, they are simply following their religion and fulfilling what they see as their obligation. But regarding security issues, there should be laws on the burka as to when the veil has to be removed the persons face can be visible. This in turn would be very helpful in avoiding crisis’s like the London bombings where the bombers fled wearing the burka. Finally, the burka is not something that is forced upon Muslim women they make the choice to cover their heads and faces in order to complete their religion. It is a decision that they solely make for themselves.
In the article, Chesler uses several persuasive appeals in an attempt to convince readers to support France’s ban on head coverings. While some may argue that banning religious clothing infringes on Islamic law, Chesler points out that “many eloquent, equally educated Muslim religious… women insist that the Koran does not mandate that women cover their faces… Leading Islamic scholars agree with them.” In an appeal to logos, Chesler uses facts, gathered from educated Muslim women and Islamic scholars, to show that this argument is illogical because the burqa is not required. Chesler continues logos appeals by citing the Sheikh of al-Azhat University as saying “The niqab is tradition. It has no connection to religion.” This passage demonstrates ethos as well, but carries on the idea that burqas and niqabs are not required by Islamic law, making the ban perfectly logical. The idea is that, since these garments are not mandatory in the Koran’s broad requisite of “modest dress,” the ban does not infringe on religious rights, making the ban a logical choice. Chesler takes the argument one step further by insisting that the burqa is not only optional, it is detrimental to wearers. The argument that “it is a human rights violation and constitutes both a health hazard and is a form of torture” to women who wear burqa exhibits both logos and pathos. By pointing out that burqas are a possible “health hazard,” Chesler uses unappealing syntax to make readers believe that burqas are unhealthy and i...
For some women wearing a veil is not something that is forced on them but rather a choice of their own. Martha Nussbaum and Maysan Haydar are both authors that try to explain their reasoning that veiling isn't an oppressive tool used against women. Martha Nussbaum's article “Veiled Threats”, is a political and philosophical take on why banning the burqa is a violation of human rights. On the other hand Maysan Haydar’s article “Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering”, is a more humorous and personal take on why veiling shouldn't be as judged or stereotyped. Though Nussbaum and Haydar have equal goals this essay is being used to understand the main argument, claims and whether or not each article has any weaknesses.
The documentary “Young, Muslim, and French” brings attention to the islamophobia that is going on in France. In September 2004, the French government passed a law banning religious paraphernalia in schools, especially targeting head scarfs. The government claims this was a way to “end extremism”. The school system believes that there is no place for religion in school, and around the young in their formative years. The veil is an expression of their devotion to Islam, not a symbol of terrorism. Not wearing it contradicts their religion and even jeopardizes their place in heaven, and puts a great amount of stress on Muslim students. Which results in the French education failing to properly teach and support these students. Muslim students are thrown off the education path and often study to become electricians and other technical careers. Girls are forced to choose between practicing their faith and receiving an education.
Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving by Lila Abu-Lughod describes Western feminist beliefs on Muslim women and their burqa/veil and how focusing on these misconceptions are doing far more harm than good. This causes Western feminists reduce the culture and beliefs of Muslim women down to a single piece of clothing. The burqa is a type of veil worn by Muslim women for a number of reasons such as proprietary and signaling their relationship with God. The burqa is often seen a symbol of suppression amongst the Western world and it was expected for women to throw it off in a show of independence once liberated from the Taliban. The saving of Muslim women is often used to justify the “War on Terrorism” as exemplified in Laura Bush 's 2001 speech. The belief that Muslim women needed saving existed before the “War on Terrorism” as seen when Marnia Lazreg wrote about a skit where two Afghan girls talked about the beauty of the free Christian France.
The author talks about how this was not something that happen overnight, but has been discussed about from a very long time such a 1989. The views of people that the author chooses to look at are Ernest Cheniere, who raised the statement of banning headscarves in public schools in 1994 and Francois Bayrou minister of education in 1994 who saw muslim headscarves as a way of proselytizing. Then Joan Scotts talks about why the timing played into affect, how racism such as colonial legacies were effected, secularism, individualism of the veil, Muslims being looked as threats, how uncivilized Muslim people were, and sexuality. Joan Scotts goes into detail in all the sub topics and shows how does this affect a common Muslim girl that wears a hijab and how does the French government view
The creation and enforcement of the burqa comes from a combination of a misinterpretation of the Koran and influences from the Pushtun residents of the country. The Koran has a brief passage that describes that women should abide by decent codes of conduct and their bosoms and private parts should be veiled (Goodson). In Pushtun societies women have a lesser role and lead more sheltered lives, but they were still respected (Goodson). So women had a very restrictive dress code that included wearing veils that covered almost their entire body till the late 1950’s, but it should be noted that they were treated with a lot more respect and equality than during the Taliban regime (Schulz).
Across the world there are countless religions, new and old, each having their own unique traditions and laws that believers abide by. As defined by World History, Sharia, the Arabic word meaning “the path” or “the way”, alludes to traditional Islamic law. (Ellis, Esler, and Beers, 255) Sharia originates within the Koran, the holy book of Islam, which Muslims consider the unaltered word of God. Along with the Koran, Sharia is derived from the teachings and examples set by the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, who Muslims view as the perfect man of faith. Muslims believe that God revealed his true conviction to Muhammad, who in turn was to spread the commands of God through the Koran. Between Muhammad’s death in the seventh century and leading up to the tenth century, many Islamic scholars worked to understand Sharia in its entirety, and apply it to the rapidly expanding Muslim Empire of the time (Dunn, 57). Sharia played a key role in uniting the Islamic Empire by serving as the precedent which dictated laws concerning both private and public behavior.
The author of this essay thinks it is ridiculous that women cannot wear their hijab in certain places around the world. Many people think the hijab is not necessary. However, it is part of what Muslim women believe. She explains in her essay, "So next time you hear about a hijab ban think about your best pair of jeans or your faded t-shirt with the logo of your favorite band" (Fakhraie 461). A hijab is just like every other piece of clothing that covers up the body. It can be part of their religion, or they can wear a hijab just because they like how it
Professor Leila Ahmed, active Islamic feminist, in her article “Reinventing the veil” published in the Financial Times assumes that there is a connection between “advancement” and veiling, which means that unveiled women are advanced and vice versa. In addition, she supports that it led to increasing rate of violence. She questions why women wear veil, that is considered as “symbol of patriarchy and women’s oppression”. However, research changed her position towards wearing veil. Firstly, she states that wearing veil was essential for women, because it could be beneficial and influence to how people treat women, in terms of job, marriage and free movement in public. Secondly, her assumption was explained while interviewing women, who stated
The legislation aspires to prohibit public-sector employees from wearing “objects such as headgear, clothing, jewelry or other religious affiliation”. These objects include items such as kippahs, turbans, hijabs, and large crucifixes. This ban would be intended to apply to all civil servants, including individuals such as teachers, doctors, nurses and police offiercers (Jake Flanagin, The Atlantic). At a hearing for Bill 60, Michelle Blanc, who is a transgender woman, spoke in support of the Bill, appealing to Quebecers' pro-LGBT feelings. “When I see a veil, the mental image I have is all of the gays who were hung high and low in the public square... in certain Arab countries”, Blanc had stated. Although same-sex relationships and the importance of being accepting of all religions have been two of the most controversial and highly debated topics, it is definitely not the right step to attack the Muslim religion and specific Arab countries in an attempt to defend Bill 60. Much like it is innapropriate to accuse the LGBT community of being anti-religion, it is equally innapropriate to accuse an entire religion for the horrible act of the hanging of gays in certain Arab countries. Not all gays are
According to Doucleff, “‘wearing the hijab eliminates many of the hassles women have to go through — such as dyeing their hair,’ she says. ‘For example, you're getting old, and gray hairs, when you wear the hijab, you might not think about dyeing your hair because nobody sees it anyway.’” By wearing a hijab women do not have to worry about “gray hairs, and can focus on other parts of their lives. Although this seems like a trivial improvement, women in the west spend inestimable amounts of money on beauty products and a surfeit amount of time on their daily regimen. Even though the burqa is therapeutic in helping women with their appearance, it can be physically restricting, “Mariam had never before worn a burqa…The padded headpiece felt tight and heavy on her skull…The loss of peripheral vision was unnerving, and she did not like the suffocating way the pleated cloth kept pressing against her mouth” (72). In this excerpt the burqa is described as “tight”, “heavy”, and “suffocating, making it seem like an unpleasant garment to be ensconced in. The burqa can cause an “unnerving” feeling, which can make daily tasks hard to complete. When interviewing a girl in Afghanistan Daniel Pipes, American historian, writer, and commentator, got her opinion on the burqa, “When I wear a burqa it gives me a really bad feeling. I don't like to wear it…I don't like it, it upsets me, I can't breathe properly.” The discomfort the girl feels in the burqa “upsets” her, linking her physical distress to emotional distress. The girl gets “a really bad feeling” when she wears a burqa, showing that the physical effects of the burqa can be negative. Besides the physical hardships Muslim dress may cause, it can also cover up physical abuse, “A Muslim teenage girl
The videos viewed for class this week disclosed that there is not an understanding as to why the niqab is worn by women. Due to the misrepresentation of the Muslim population within the media in the western world. This has led many in the western world to believe that the niqab is worn against the choice of the women who wear it. That being said, when the niqab is worn because it is forced upon women under the threat of violence or family/community pressure, there is not much difference between that and the government denying to give women government services who are wearing the niqab. Women and any other person should have the right to wear whatever they choose. No outside source should have any influence to tell someone what to wear or what
International human rights standards protect the rights of persons to be able to choose what they wish to wear, and in particular to be able to manifest their religious belief. Thus, Human Rights Watch in their report, focusing on the hijab ban for state officials in Germany, said that: “Restrictions should only be implemented where fully justified by the state, and be the least restrictive necessary”.1 Proclamation of wearing the hijab in public institutions as illegal is undermining the autonomy of individuals, their right to choose, their right to privacy and intimacy, and their self-determination. In addition to this, several European countries such as Germany and France directly prevent women wearing hijab to work or attend school in the public state institutions, which further intensified already negative attitude of Western public towards wearing hijab.
Hijab is a choice that some women or girls make for their own security, for more privacy, or because it makes them feel comfortable and confident about themselves. It should be a choice though, and as it is not proven to us that it is obligatory, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan should remove their laws that insist every girl puts the veil on. Freedom of choice should be given in these countries. It is not required in Islam so it shouldn’t be forced on anyone anywhere. In addition to this, Islam’s beauty is it’s freedom, the choice it provides you with, let it not be ruined.
To sum up, the burkini ban is communal reprimand and bigotry impersonating as rational secularism. In addition, even if you appraise the statement on its own conditions, it goes on foolishly and inexcusable. The "burkini," has been prohibited in three French beaches, which includes Cannes. Cops says the attire is against France’s secular beliefs, and focusses on religious partitions in a state that is experienced dreadful act of violence by Islamist extremists. Nonetheless criticizers say it is Islamophobia.