President Obama, addressing the Muslim world at Cairo, said that Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab as a covering for the head are no less equal than those who don’t. President Sarkozy of France, in a more recent speech, seemed to have no time for nuances.
“In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” he declared. “The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement.”
Sarkozy went on to say that it wouldn’t be welcome “on the territory of the French Republic.”
Not surprisingly, his remarks have sparked intense debate among feminists, Muslim activists, liberals, and conservatives.
What does the donning of a burqa really mean, or signify? And would banning it achieve what Sarkozy has in mind—the emancipation of Muslim women?
The burqa originated and evolved in different contexts. Most people now associate it with Islam, but this garment was worn in the deserts of Arabia long before Islam arrived. It was meant to protect against the corrosive desert wind and sand. On the Indian subcontinent on the other hand, the burqa denoted a higher social standing. Over the last two centuries, women projected their status and class by shielding themselves behind it. It wasn’t meant as a means to make oneself invisible, but rather to distance oneself from the commoners. Over the decades, such practices were discarded by one class only to be taken up by the less well-to-do, perhaps as an effort to climb the social ladder when sheer wealth or education might not have been enough.
Present-day images of Afghan women clad in sky blue burqas hint strongly of nothing less than oppression and subjugation of women; especially to a Westerner. From there, it is a short step to the politicization of the issue, which is where Sarkozy has chosen to pitch camp. History suggests that his wish to surgically remove the burqa, while well-meaning, might backfire.
Secular governments of Turkey have banned the headscarf (a garment that in no way minimizes or erases the identity of a woman) on university campuses and in the public sector. It has had the opposite effect: an increasing number of Turkish women wear headscarves in defiance of a political system which they believe treads on religious turf.
Tunisia is another example, if a less publicized one. Three years ago, its government, fearing resurgent Islamism, began going after headscarf-wearing women with particular ferocity. Many women consequently began to cover their heads as a dissenting gesture.
In 2004, France banned conspicuous religious symbols in state schools. It was openly acknowledged as a move targeting the Muslim headscarf. Sarkozy’s comments on the burqa have obviously renewed the controversy.
President Sarkozy’s remarks, while unwelcome to many, may hint at a desire to tackle the problems besetting immigrant communities in France. In his words, “To achieve equality, we must know how to give more to those who have less.” If equality is indeed the top priority of his government, as he has often emphasized, then banning a “symbol of subservience” is not the answer.
If President Sarkozy wants to fight against the oppression of women, then perhaps a closer look at the socioeconomic condition of immigrants in France is in order. Simply banning the burqa will likely amount to no more than a quick fix, doing little to improve the status of women.
It might also simply collapse over its rigid and unwieldly logic, as has happened with government-backed iniatives elsewhere. The move, seen as arbitrary or worse, could alienate a large section of the five million-strong French Muslim community.
As President Obama pointed out, a physical assertion of one’s faith does not necessarily mean subservience or inferiority. Women, or minorities, suffer most when they are denied equal opportunity.
In Obama’s words, a woman denied an education is denied equality. Perhaps the focus (in relevant communities such as that of Muslims in France) should be on educating women and furthering their progress, rather than focusing on symbols and clothing that stand for different things in different contexts.
If Sarkozy believes fervently that the burqa signifies oppression (which is entirely credible in examples like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan), then an outright ban on the burqa might have a short-term benefit. At the least, it would set the stage for more meaningful reforms. In the case of the immigrant communities in France, he would serve the cause better by examining more fully the reasons for the marginalization of Muslim women; not simply focusing on an infrequent manifestation.
One hopes that the 32 lawmakers of the French National Assembly (charged with finding ways to restrict the use of the burqa) will, after due consideration, give wider-ranging recommendations for improving the conditions of the women underneath.
Tags: burqa, france, islam, muslim women, muslims, religious symbols, sarkozy, secular, secularism
I agree with the Sarkozy, Islam subjugates women at every level, from covering their faces to cutting off their genitals and not allowing women to participate in society as in Saudi Arabia. Islam is an existential threat not only to France but to the west as a whole and I applaud France's move to ban burqas. Now it's time to start deporting the muslims from France. Mark Montgomery boboberg@nyc.rr.com
I instinctively find the Burqa offensive; it does seem to subjugate women. It's interesting how, according to this article, in many cases it does seem to empower them by being a vehicle of protest. Maybe we non-muslims would do better by attacking the anti-muslim sentiment and prejudice in our communities, and let Muslim folk sort out their own dress styles. Andrew Prior - churchrewired.org
Mark Montegomery, is this a joke? Who on earth are you dude? You sound like the Western version of Taliban: hateful and utterly idiotic, and trust me we don't need any version of Taliban. Do you know how long caucasian European women suffered under Christianity and the "virtuous" popes? I really don't think you read the article. Please, go comment on other websites. You're wasting our time. Really man.
I notice in this article that Rushda Majeed (gender?) also inserts the word "headscarf" in this article. What are we really talking about here? If it is the same burqa infamously imposed by the Taliban in Afghanistan (which included the forced “severe to total” absence of women from participating in all social structures as well as social interaction), then I can see the banning of this "garment" in any free society IF wearing that garment in that society includes the same kinds of restrictions as those that were imposed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, I have to further ask if these same restrictions are now imposed on women who wear the burqa in France? Well, duh! With an obvious and resounding "NO," how can such a ban be justified at all?
Taking the "burqa" argument even further, shouldn't the Christian cross also be totally banned as well? The cross was used as the "flag" of the Crusades, a banner which was used to justify the slaughter of “infidels” and the “unwashed” (non-baptized) in the love of Christ. Furthermore, the cross was also used to justify the subjugation of women to men (or a society run by men) via the application and “interpretation” of the “Word of God.” Even more recently, the "new crusade" against "radical Islam” (terrorist) resulted in the deaths of at least a million "innocents" in Iraq. The deaths of these “innocents” was just one of the results of the use of right-wing “radical” Christianity by the Bush administration (he even tried to explain this to Sarcozy to try to have him sign on to the war in Iraq) to hasten the "end times" foreseen in Revelations. The unilateral strike against Iraq by the US (a “war crime” described by the Geneva Conventions as a “crime against peace”) as well as an “undeclared” war in Iraq included the deaths of "innocents” in a proxy Crusade no more “justified” than with the "reasons" used during the great Crusades. So, why not ban ALL wearable displays of Christianity as well? Sarcozy could also ban all Christian symbols that can most certainly and with intellectual honesty be defined as “oppressive” as it applies to women as well as to humanity as a whole. All jewelry, clothing accessories and so on with any Christian symbol (wow, imagine who will determine which lamb on a top or the butt of one's trousers is or is not a symbol of the "Lamb of Christ"?) should also be banned.
Yes, we can go into every religion, their symbols, their cosmology and such in order to figure out what else should be banned.
Now, I am reminded of the great little story by Dr. Seuss in which the members of the "elite" had stars on their bellies, genetically encoded. Those without a star on their bellies were the "lower," "working," and, it seems, "slave" class. One day a fellow came to town with a "Starbelly" machine and, for a fee, he put the image of a star on one's belly. Well, business was, indeed, rather brisk. As a counter-measure, after everyone had a star on their bellies, a law was passed so that those who did NOT have a star on their bellies would be the "new" upper class and, of course, our little business man made more money removing the stars from the bellies of those who could pay to have it done. This cycle went round and round until the business man leaves town with all of their money and the critters are left in various states of being with and without stars on their bellies. Finally, these critters learn that the star itself no longer has any significance in determining who is or is not better than another.
Maybe I can go to France to sell and buy back (very cheaply, of course) burqas until they learn the lesson of the "Starbellied" critters of Dr. Seuss' tale.
Anyse
anyse1@mac.com
Can I board a plane/vote/appear in court/get driver's license with a bag over my head? No? Neither can you.
Indeed! The discussion over the burqa has been overused such that it obfuscates the many other ways that Muslim women have empowered themselves. In another geographical context, for example, Tanenbaum Peacemaker Sakena Yacoobi seeks to educate Muslim girls at the Afghan Institute of Learning. She believes that education must be used to reclaim Islam’s messages of peace and equality, so Yacoobi teaches with, and through, the Koran. The AIL now provides education programs, health care clinics, teacher-training programs, human rights seminars and vocational training, while simultaneously teaching Afghani women how to negotiate constructive relationships with men in a patriarchal society. Now THAT’S empowerment!
you all are missing the point. sarkozy is dead on and he is right...this is not a point i expect any committed muslim to agree with (our interest are in conflict and disagreement is what is to be expected). islam is fundamentally unjust and demands a level of fairness from others that it does not deliver. sarkozy recognizes the fact that a french woman cannot walk around in islamic society dressed as she deems fit. if we go to saudi arabia, we must cover...those are the rules of their country. well the rules of our society is that in our country you cannot hide your identity while walking around in public. those are the rules, if you wish to not live by them no one is holding a gun to your head...u are free to go to an islamic country where u may freely cover in public. it is also a part of western value system that our women have the same freedoms as our men...if u can't accept this then go where the rules are more to ur liking. sarkozy's did not say his goal is to lift muslims living in france out of poverty...his goal is to enforce the laws and promote the values and ideal of the french republic. many muslims came to france poor in many cases as refugees or to escape deplorable lives in their own countries. now that france has shown hospitality and humanity in accepting the poor, france is being blamed for their poverty? what nonesense...u came poor, u have now the opportunity to improve ur condition and u are failing to show gratitude for the kindness...deportation sounds like a plausible solution...unfortunately france's human laws prevent deportation of the children u gave birth to in poverty after u arrived (i guess they are ALL france's fault as well).
-no doubt muslims face some injustices, but eliminating the injustice WITHIN islam is the root problem to address, NOT merely the reactive symptoms of such root problems...u do not eliminate a disease by treating only it's varied symptoms...you attack first the root cause! the koran needs to be revised and all the hateful language edited out of it, and until that happens their will be no end to the confrontation. we in the west and our governments should challenge the mullahs and religious scholars in islam to EDIT the hate against non-muslims out of the koran. u have a book that says love in one verse and hate in the next verse...that's the problem! islamic extremist are not extremist at all, they are being true to the violence in the faith, and it is the violence that needs to be taken out if we are to expect them to stop perpetrated said violence. SAME applies to the bible in respect of homophobia and oppression of women (although after centuries of revisions, it is now nowhere near as bad as the koran).
-banning the burqua is not the complete answer, but is definately a step in the right direction...under no circumstances should we permit the IMPORTATION of islamic oppression into our societies...we already have enough oppression of our own that we need to get rid of.
-islam needs desparately to go through REFORMATION just like christianity did (and still needs more). the so called 'religion' has too much violence, intolerance and oppression that is a present danger to our entire species. once muslims kill off all non-believers, and have nobody else to hate, they will then turn on themselves...ie other sects, their women, less strict pratitioners...mark my words...our species need protection from such barbarism. European barbarism under the banner of christianity was bad, and although we have made much progress, islamic barbarism threatens to repeat our errors and throw us back into the dark ages. let's not mince words: if we do not face the problem head-on by unrooting the HATE out of the koran, our pretty little lives may be no more for much longer. obama has some good ideas in terms of focusing on the moderates within islam and appealing to their decency. this however is only PART of a good strategy...
There was a time on the Indian subcontinent that it was considered appropriate for a respectable, good widow to throw herself upon her deceased husband's funeral pyre, and this tragedy happened with regularity. Of course a normal sane woman does not become convinced that it is her duty to immolate herself in a vacuum; rather, this behavior has to be learned via strict indoctrination regarding the value (or lack thereof) of a woman in that given society. No sane woman in a healthy society would ever conclude that her life was only as value as that of her husband and that upon his death, her life ceased to be worth living. Furthermore, no healthy society would ever tolerate such a practice, no matter how voluntary the widow's participation. A healthy society would of course conclude that such behavior could never be voluntary in the truest sense and that any woman willing to participate had been coerced (whether she is aware of it or not). Similarly, no truly healthy society would allow parents to raise their children in a cage, even if the child had been convinced to agree to such an arrangement. A healthy society would conclude that despite the willing participation of the children, their agreement to the practice is invalidated by the fact that they had been cruelly conditioned to believe that they deserved to be imprisoned. In this situation, the voluntary nature of their imprisonment would be given significantly less consideration than the methods used to reach such an agreement. Now, I will grant fully that there are differences between these two examples and women wearing burqas; however I do not believe that the differences are significant enough to invalidate the comparison (I view the burqa to have much in common with a cage). I firmly believe that a sane woman raised in a healthy environment would never conclude that it was evil to expose even an inch of their skin and that to do so they were inflicting upon their male counter parts an irresistible urge to sin. In truth, this mind set comes from an unspoken (well…usually unspoken) Islamic belief that women are somehow inferior to men and can be treated as such. It is not a coincidence that this garment is currently exclusive to Islamic populations, and it is not a coincidence that even today in some part s of the world a woman failing to wear the garment is subject to violent retribution…even up to stoning if the women were foolish enough to persist. In Afghanistan, (where in Kabul it is technically legal to go without a burqa) many women none-the-less re-donned their burqa after several women were brutalized for appearing in public without one. Throughout the world, women are killed daily by male family members for failing to observe Islam’s absurdly strict moral codes regarding a woman’s appearance in public (this occurs even in modern democracy’s), a practice commonly known as honor killings.
In this instance, I stand with Sarkozy in his effort to stand up for the women living in his nation. Ultimately, his message is this: if you wish to treat women as objects; if you wish to believe that women are somehow evil and inferior, then you’ll have to do it somewhere else. Personally I applaud this message. In conclusion, the burqa is not a symbol of oppression…it’s an act of oppression.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.