President Sarkozy’s remarks about the Burka or the face veil reminds us about the intellectual foundation of France and most of the western nations, including our own country Britain. Since the 1789 French revolution, secularism continues to dominate the political and social intellectual milieu of the country promoting liberalist and capitalist agendas in all spheres of life. “laicite”, a concept that is cemented in the constitution of France believes in, among other things, the separation of church from the state, and the division of the private and public spheres. It is from this paradigm that Mr Sarkozy seeks to alienate a Muslim community reaching a staggering number of five million.
He said, “We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity,” and “That is not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity.” He also said, “The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”
Apart from the obvious ignorance of Mr Sarkozy and, in my opinion, the inconsiderate and rude comments, it is completely wrong for a ‘Secular’ state to intervene in these personal matters. Yes, there may be ‘some’ women who are being ‘coerced’ into wearing the burka, but the vast majority of them do it out of their own will and desire to please their creator. Is he misinformed or is he just playing a political game? The latter seems to be more of a credible assumption. I wonder, will he dictate to his wife what she can wear or not wear? I won’t be surprised if politicians like Mr Sarkozy made speeches about where women should go to shop or what kind of slippers they should be wearing!
The reality is that Mr. Sarkozy is deducing his thoughts and ideas from a flawed intellectual premise that is secularism. The proponents of secularism may wish to make us believe that we are living in a free and liberal society however, these remarks and laws banning the wearing of hijabs only exposes the hypocritical fallacy of secularism. Where is the freedom of the Muslim women to observe what they believe to be modest? Even, for the sake of argument, we say that the Burka is not a religious symbol, this still does not negate the fact that their human rights is being encroached upon.
The crux of the matter is that secularism is a ‘belief system’ in its own right with its own sacred book, prophets, Imams, and duats. The difference between secularism together with other worldly philosophies and divinely revealed doctrines is that the former relies only on human efforts and reasoning, which has many limitations and restrictions, and the latter resonates its laws and injunctions from the Legislator without any restrictions and limitations, who is above time and space and free from any human biases and prejudices.
In face of the global economical and the political crisis, Mr Sarkozy and other politicians should reconsider their policies and the decisions they make. It is through guaranteeing the rights of the citizens that a nation is built on justice, fairness, and equity, not by committing the very same crime they reprimand others of doing.
Is not curtailing the rights of the Muslim women to observe the hijab and the face veil in fact trying to make them ‘subservient’ to a limited and bias philosophy?
“It is through guaranteeing the rights of the citizens that a nation is built on justice, fairness, and equity, not by committing the very same crime they reprimand others of doing.”
Would you demand the same form Muslim sates too as it appears they are doing much worst in terms of all the above qualities that you have mentioned towards their citizen’s compared to secular states.
Following is from Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s law;
ORDINANCE NO. XX OF 1984 PART II – AMENDMENT OF THE PAKISTAN PENAL CODE (ACT XLV OF 1860) (3) 298C… Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), who … invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
PAKISTAN: Two murdered and 15 charged as discrimination against Ahmadis continues unabated
http://ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2009statements/1947/
Salam
Question: The French banned hijab from schools several years ago. Is the proposed ban
on burqas a ban from wearing it in all institutions?
The UK bans people from wearing the hoodies and helmets in banks for
example. WHat is the difference in France then banning burqas.
Clarification: I need strong arguments for the above. I am livid with the French for their pompous attitude to our faith
Some comments:
(1) Here is a persistent confusion about the meaning of secularism. The term has a number of senses that together comprise its meaning. Trading on one sense (the political-legal sense as understood in French constitutional law) in order to demolish or otherwise rubbish secularism in general is fallacious.
(2)Yes secularism is an ideology – however, a faux-sociological perspective that demands that secularism be taken as another form of (quasi) religious belief has the rather unwanted effect of undermining any distinction between the religious and non-religious that the author (presumably) would be keen to maintain.
(3) The acts of the French government (in this case the suggestion by the President of the Republic and others that the niqab or burka be banned) are in and of themselves not necessarily derivable from a secularist ideological stance. As far as I am aware, the French supporters of this proposal are not appealing to a French tradition of secularism; but rather to pretexts of equality – Sarkosy’s comment, above, suggests as much (“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic”).
It seems at least tenuous, then, to link this issue to the ideology of secularism (purportedly esteemed in all European states since 1789… despite the fact that the French state only introduced the constitutional separation of religion and state in 1904).
In fact, it would be far more effective if the opponents of this proposed regulation were to emphasise the dysfunction between Sarkosy’s views and the very French traditions of liberty, equality and fraternity (notions that certainly derive from 1789 and may be effectively viewed as principles of Islam as well – or is this to be denied because of the false bogeyman of “secularism”?).
To attack the secular state, is to attack the freedom of religion it provides.
When Sarkozy seeks to ban religious dress he behaves not as a secular leader, but as an atheist seeking to impose his atheist views upon the people of France.
While his words and actions do a disservice to the notion of the French Republic as a place of liberty, equality and fraternity.