Roots of the Establishment of Secularism in the U.S. and France

What makes the approach France takes in promoting secularism different than that of the U.S.?



On Monday April 15, the Brookings Institution sponsored a discussion in Washington, D.C., moderated by Brookings senior fellow, E.J. Dionne Jr., relating to the French ban on wearing religious 'symbols' such as the hijab.



French writer Justin Vaisse promoted the idea of enforcing the ban, while Ms Raja Elhabti, a Moroccan scholar, who works for Muslim Women for Human Rights, a Washington group, and Pakistani journalist Husain Haqqani of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace defended a woman's right to wear the hijab.



Mr. Vaisse pointed out what could possibly be seen as the essence in the difference between secularism in France and in the States. In the latter, the purpose of establishing a secular state was to avoid the interference of the government in church matters; in France, however, the idea was to protect the new French democracy from the Catholic church which was socially dominant and opposed to secular democracy. He stressed that what was at work was the French principle called “laicite” which meant balancing religious freedom and public order. Contrary to secularism, it was a principle of “religious neutrality” in order to create conditions for religious freedom (dailytimes.com.pk). But is banning a religiously-mandated headscarf, and effectively denying people the freedom to practice their religion, "religious neutrality"?



Though this may be true, it is important to consider that we are now in the 21st century. Shall we not move on beyond the history of the Catholic Church's involvement in France? This becomes an important question to consider knowing that about 8.3 percent of France's population are Muslims.



But France's ban of the hijab has not only affected its citizens. The plague of this version of secularism has now spread to a southern state in Germany, where hijab has now been banned for teachers.



Thus, the people of France need to reexamine the direction in where their country is headed. Afterall, do they really want to live in a so-called democratic country where religious oppression is being enforced on a federal level?

A Reflection: Experience in NY

This past weekend, events arose leading me to unexpectadly travel from Virginia to New York. Having been raised in New Jersey during the earlier years of my life, though I must have forgotten about the pot-holes, I was at least somewhat expecting the pollution and the noise that are so common to the two states. There was one thing I had forgotten to take into consideration, however. Unlike my earlier life in New Jersey, I now wear a headscarf, a pseudo announcement to the world that I am Muslim.



While traveling accross the Brooklyn bridge, I sat in our small grey minivan admiring the awesome structure of that huge contraption. "How was it," I thought, "that we, as a people, have come so far that we can build such a magnificient structure?" For anyone that has passed through the Brooklyn bridge, I am sure these thoughts have come to mind. Just then, a light bulb went off. "I should definately savor this moment by forever perserving its magnificence with a pictre," I thought.



I hurridly looked through my bag and took out my digital camera. I held the camera firmly on the back seat so as to avoid the picture blurring from the vehicle's motion. I looked outside from the back window and angled the camera to what I thought would be a nice snapshot. I took a couple of pictures then noticed the driver in the car behind us. The license plate indicated that it was a diplomat's car. The driver looked horrified.



At first, I wondered why. Did he think I was taking a picture of him? "What's wrong with him? What's the big deal," I thought. Then it hit me. Here I am, on the brooklyn bridge, with a camera in my hand and a scarf on my head. Here I am, a Muslim taking pictures in New York.



For whatever it was worth, I actually felt sorry for the guy. He must have been so frightened. I humbly put away my camera and sat back down. "I hope he doesn't report our liscence plate to the feds," I thought. "I don't want to spend my weekend being interrogated in prison."

Muslim Veil Could Cut Cancer Risk?

In a recent article, Professor Kamal Malaker, head of radiation oncology at King Abdul Aziz hospital, announced that women who wore the complete veil, including the face veil, were in actuality protecting themselves against Epstein Barr Virus, which causes nasopharyngeal cancer. Though this news came as a suprise to some, it is not suprise to the many Muslim women who already wear the veil and recognize that every aspect of their religion has benefits.

It has happened many-a-times in the history of Islam that an element may be commanded or prohibited, or that a scientific or historical fact unknown to the people of that time would be mentioned, and it would only be later that the benefits of these laws or realities of these facts would be found. Thus, finding more benefits to fasting or, in this case, to wearing the veil comes as little suprise. Regardless of the benefits, however, Muslim women continue to wear the hijab not because of these 'side benefits', but, rather, they wear it because this is the commandment from their Lord.

So-called "Experts" Should be Banned

I recently read an article about the hijab written by a so-called "expert" and published in the New York Post. The writer belongs to a PR firm that specializes in providing these "experts" to present seminars or write for publications. The article was so ridiculous, even for the NY Post, that I just had to comment. Below is what I wrote to the author and his editor (with slight modifications).



----------------------------------------------



I recently read an article ...[detailed where, when, etc].



To be honest, I questioned whether or not I was actually comprehending what I was reading. I really do not know where to begin. Could it be possible that someone is this misinformed? Or is this writing a type of backlash of someone who was somehow suppressed or oppressed by their family/parents/government's incorrect enforcement of the religion? I do not know.



What I do know, however, is that this article has such blatant factual errors that I am at a loss as to whether I should laugh or cry. I do not understand how the New York Post could publish such an article. Do they not fact check every article they publish?? Or is it that I should not be suprised that a publication such as the NY Post would print such an article?



At any rate, I want to clarify some erroneous claims the article makes by simply asking a few logical questions. I will leave it up to the author and editor (if there is one) to do the rest of the homework.



First, the author writes about hijab that "It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet."



From the Holy Koran, I cite surah ('chapter') 24, verse 31, and, from Hadith, the description of the events that occured after the revelation of this verse (more info.).



Setting aside the specific rulings of this Islamic injunction, I would like to quote a statement that is even more erroneous than this. The author says, "This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi'ite community."



Is this a joke? I mean, is there no reference to at least history of any kind? Was there not the least bit of research done? Has no one asked why this is not an oft-made point? Surely the author does not really believe that the hijab was "invented," as he termed it, in the "early 1970s."



I really cannot even address this statement from how ridiculous it is. I will, however, ask some very very simple questions. First, if this is the case (that hijab was no where to be seen until the 70s), then why is it that there are so many books of scholarly work written about the hijab that date back to more than a thousand years ago. Second, why is it that the artwork during the Islamic empire illustrate women wearing the hijab. Third, why did my great grandmother wear the hijab if it was only 'invented' in the 70s?!



The author does not stop here. He goes on to make an almost humurous claim that "The garb [referring to the hijab] is designed to promote gender apartheid. It covers the woman's ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings."



Need I comment? I wouldn't normally think so, but if this is published work, so help me God. I feel strange writing this from how simplistic it seems to someone who claims to be an "expert," but I guess I should: there is no specific way in which you must wear your hijab. The point is that it loosely covers your body. End of story.



I do not know much about your organization or its legitimacy; however, I do question how it is possible to call the authors of your articles "experts." Again, perhaps I'm mis-reading the entire article. Though I wish that to be the case, somehow, I doubt it.



I really hope you make an effort to educate your writers or, at the very least, fact check the articles. I hope in the future the articles written on your site reflect true scholarly or journalistic work.



Thank you.

Alabama Driver's Photo Rule Overturned

Though news stemming from Europe about the hijab (head scarf) may be gloomy, there is light radiating from an unlikely place: Alabama.



Soon after France proposed its Hijab ban, news came out that two Alabama women were not allowed to renew their driver's licenses because they refused to take off their religiously-mandated hijab. But in January, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, a Washington-based civil rights and advocacy group, called for a review, and on Feb. 20, the Department of Public Saftey changed its recently adopted policy to permit the hijab. The policy is now expanded to include all head coverings or headgear that are worn due to certain religious beliefs and medical conditions.



The policy change is great news, but it didn't come easy. Hundreds of concerned Muslims called in from all around the country to protest the policy. Members of other faiths also protested the policy, saying it was an infringement on their religious right to freely practice their faith.



The policy change really speaks of an adherence to the fundemental values of religious freedom based on the First Amendment in this country. The hope is that the adamence of adhering to this value is never compromised, even under stressful or strenuous circumstances

Azhar Shiekh Supports Singapore’s Hijab Ban

Yes indeed, once again the so-called University of Al-Azhar "Sheikh" Mohamed Tantawi speaks, but he really shouldn't.



Tantawi met with Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Tong last Wednesday, Feb. 11, and said after the meeting that “Singapore has the right to impose a unified code of dress, which also bars students from wearing hijab.”



This isn't the first time Tantawi had made such 'strange' and controversial remarks. In fact, not too long before that meeting, Tantawi made similar remarks about the hijab when he met with French officials, pushing many to fulfill their doubts that he is merely a puppet, afraid to speak the truth.



Other scholars have spoken out against the hijab ban in France, including Dr. Yousef Al-Qaradawi, who has recently sent a letter to Chirac regarding the hijab ban. Even Christian groups and French Churches have urged Chirac to support hijab.



It's really strange actually. If the hijab is just cloth, why is it causing so much controversy? And why is it that there's suddenly this trend to ban women from wearing clothing??

Background on the Issue of Hijab and Religious Freedom

The hijab in the Arabic language means a 'covering' or 'veil'. It is modernly used to refer to the headscarf Muslim women wear as part of their religious practice. Recent controversy has erupted over the hijab as a religious symbol, rather than a religious practice. Tensions escalated in France late November 2003 over those who support the banning of hijab and those who oppose it.



Several incidents have already taken place, projecting the seriousness of the conflict. People from all around the world have carried out letter campaigns, demonstrations and other forms of protest. Despite the world-wide protests, however, some European legislators are beginning to consider applying the law in their own countries.

While supporters claim that the ban is legitimate under secular law, Muslims see it as an attack on their religious freedom and civil liberties. In fact, even in the U.S. the hijab is gaining more and more media coverage.



Despite massive protests and hunger strikes, the French parliament approved the ban yesterday. Hundreds of women wept as they heard the deicision while some officials condemned it.

Hijab Overview

Recent controversy has erupted once again over the hijab, the religiously-mandated clothing worn by Muslim women.