What is behind the French Burqa?

Why the French obsession with the burqa? After all, as the French government itself has conceded, only about 1,900 women wear the full-body covering. So why are over half of the respondents in recent public opinion polls in favor of a ban on it? 

The answer is simple. This is not about a fashion faux pas or women's rights, but about sending a message to Muslims. Concerned with increasingly visible numbers of Muslims openly practicing their way of life while enjoying the privileges of life in the West, French citizens and politicians alike feel that they need to restore "Frenchness" to their streets.

What exactly they mean by this is unclear, but there is apparently agreement that it means a largely homogenous society or, at the least, a multicultural one with well-integrated foreigners. Whether such a society is desirable or not, the burqa ban is not the way to get there.

This confusion is at the root of the French parliamentary commission's decision to recommend a partial ban on burqas. It would ban burqas in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport. Women defying the ban would be denied public services.

The commission's report said "the wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess." If fewer than 2,000 Muslim women are capable of mounting a challenge to the republic, France must be built on weak foundations.

The ban's proponents claim to be acting in the cause of equality, that the burqa is a symbol of the repression of women. President Sarkozy, who has publicly declared that the attire is not "welcome in France," said in 2007 that "France will not abandon the women who are condemned to the burqa."

The irony of fighting repression with a ban seems to have escaped notice.

What is proposed is a serious invasion of personal liberty without reasonable justification. To be sure, individual freedoms can be legally curtailed when circumstances such as security, crime prevention or violence justify it. But the justifications given for the restriction of the religious freedoms by the burqa ban - equality, repression of women, protection of French cultural values - do not seem to be on the same footing.

To begin with, judgments about cultural values are very subjective. Who decides if particular items of clothing fit with French values? Can we trust politicians and bureaucrats to make these decisions for us?

Secondly, where do you draw the line? Are turbans, yarmulkes, saris, salwars and long skirts next? Many groups, including some feminists, assert that crucifixes and crosses are examples of patriarchal oppression. Would a government ban on jewelry containing crucifixes be justified? This is a slippery slope.

If we support a burqa ban on the basis that we dislike the clothing, or that it offends our notion of freedom, or that it makes us uncomfortable, we would then be opening ourselves to all manner of compromises on the many unpopular personal choices that we make in daily life.

The freedom to do that which is unpopular or ugly, but is harmless or legal, is precisely what a civilized society is about. We should not toss this aside lightly.

Burqa bans have been considered by other jurisdictions. In Egypt, the High Administrative Court recently overturned a ban on female students wearing the niqab - a full face veil - at university examinations. The court held that the "a girl's right to dress the way she sees fit in accordance with her beliefs and her social environment is a firm right that cannot be violated." 

The court did carve out a security exception, saying that a student wearing the niqab must show her face when asked for security reasons. Similarly, many Islamic states require women to unveil for photo identity cards, professional exams and certain medical procedures. 

Religious preferences must yield when there is a compelling government interest and where accommodation is not reasonably possible.

The proposed French restrictions on the burqa do not satisfy either of these requirements. What compelling interest does the government have in banning burqas in hospitals or government offices? Or on buses and trains?

To the extent that there are any reasonable security concerns, it should be permissible to require burqa-clad women to be screened by police officers. Similarly, banning burqas from some government jobs would also be acceptable.

In any case, how would the partial ban be enforced? Enforcement would be costly and would only drive burqa-clad women out of the public space and into more darkness. If the purpose of the ban is women's empowerment, this would be counterproductive.

In the end, the law would only serve to expose the Muslim community to scorn and ridicule and to further heighten the serious ethnic and religious differences in French society.

Instead, France should invest in persuading the Muslim community to discard the veil voluntarily. A combination of compulsory education, incentives and access to equal opportunities is a better way forward. Bans only breed resentment and discord.

Sandeep Gopalan is head of the law department at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. (Islamcity)


More debates on Banning Burga>>>

Home          Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

The Conviction & Sentencing of Dr Aafia Siddiqui – Sunday 3rd October 2pm, Rochdale [Women Only]

UK Women’s seminar condemns the failure of successive Pakistani leaderships to secure the needs of the country’s women and children;

Women from across London gathered at a seminar in Walthamstow, East London on Saturday 2nd October 2010, organised by the women of HTB, to condemn the failure of successive Pakistani leaderships to secure the needs of the country’s women and children.

The first speaker, Dr. Nazreen Nawaz, Women’s Media Representative of HTB explained to a full audience that suffering, hardship, and misery had been the recurring nightmare for Pakistan’s women and children since its establishment. This was due to generations of incompetent leaders, indifferent to the pain and plight of their people, in addition to the rotten, oppressive feudal system re-enforced under the banner of democracy. She discussed how in its 63 year history, successive Pakistani governments – whether military dictatorships or secular democracies – had failed to fulfil the basic needs of their citizens, provide adequate healthcare, develop the infrastructure of the country, or invest effectively in disaster management planning – all of which had transformed the current floods from a natural disaster into a human catastrophe. Consecutive leaders had been bereft of any economic vision for the country other than placing the finances of the nation in the hands of the IMF whose strangulating capitalist policies had placed an economic noose around the necks of the people and sucked the country dry. The addiction of rulers to foreign aid and bail outs laden with millions of dollars of interest had effectively mortgaged the country away.

Dr. Nawaz,  described how the corrupt, oppressive feudal system dominating Pakistan’s politics and designed to serve the wealthy elite and class of landowners had for too long enabled politicians to feed themselves to the wealth of the nation in parasitic fashion rather than use it to feed the people. She highlighted how the ‘D’ for ‘Democracy’ in Pakistan had in truth always acted as a smokescreen for the ‘D’ of dynasties where power had been handed down like an heirloom between generations of selected families and used to cement the political seats and wealth of an elite few. It was a system shaped upon self-preservation and securing self-interests of politicians rather than preserving the lives, land, livelihoods, and wellbeing of the people. A political finger had not been lifted by any government to seriously address women’s welfare including honour killings, the victimisation of rape victims, female illiteracy, or improving the education of girls.

She argued that a radical alternative in the form of the Khilafah state, an Islamic leadership was required to break the cycle of corruption, incompetence, oppression, and suffering. The focus of this system would not be in filling the pockets of a few but in sincerely taking care of the needs of the people, feeding the hungry, raising the standard of living for its citizens, protecting their lives, and defending the sovereignty of its lands.

The second speaker, Umm Ammar, a member of HT then detailed in practical terms how a future Khilafah state implementing Islamic laws would effectively manage future natural disasters. She described how it was a system with a vision of greatness that would cut the dependency on foreign aid and use the rich resources of Pakistan to make the country self-sufficient, fight poverty, invest heavily in hospitals and public services, and establish the state as a leading international power. She gave inspirational historical examples of the Islamic Khilafah, where the application of Islamic principles enabled the state not only to effectively manage its own natural disasters but to also alleviate the humanitarian crises in other nations. This included the Great Irish famine where the Uthmani Khalifah Sultan Abdul-Majid was able to deliver 3 ships of food to Ireland, reflective of the economic prosperity and wealth of the state resulting from an Islamic political and economic system. She ended by motivating attendees to deliver a message to family and friends in Pakistan of the need to support the establishment of the Khilafah to create real positive change for the women and children of Pakistan.

Umm Adil, a member of HT also delivered an Urdu summary of both talks. (HT Women)

Home              Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link) 

Aafia Siddiqui does not need tears or sympathy - she needs a Khaleefah to defend her honour

It comes as no surprise to hear that the daughter of the Ummah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم has been sentenced to 86 years in prison in a Manhattan court. The leader of the ‘civilized' world, the United States of America conjoined with its slave, Pakistan, has displayed an abysmal show of justice. One perhaps should not be wholly surprised at such a sentence, for this sham of a trial epitomises everything that is flawed with the War On Terror. 


The fact that Bagram airbase, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib (amongst others) carried out systematic torture and rape amongst the prisoners is no surprise as Capitalism has a degenerate tendency and will refer to extreme measures to maintain its global stranglehold. The same can be said of other man made systems for Communist Russia was renowned for its brutal tactics against political and ideological opponents. Furthermore, the Jahilliya of Quraishi society unleashed its wrath upon the noble Sahaba (RA) because there aspirations were to make the deen of Allah Swt the highest. Bilal ibn Raba (ra) would have huge rocks placed on his chest and yet would still shout, ‘Ahad! Ahad!'. Ammar ibn Yasir (ra) would be whipped with such ferocity that blood would flow out of his body. Upon seeing this scene, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wept as he could not intervene but said words that softened his heart and strengthened his resolve.

‘Oh family of Yasir, have patience for your reward is Jannah!'

Therefore, one must not overlook the fact that the trials and tests that afflict the sons and daughters of this Ummah at the behest of the kuffar are of no fundamental difference to the actions taken by the Quraishi leaders all those centuries ago because, like the Quraish, the current rulers of today have been unable to intellectually counter the revival of Islam so the most horrendous and heart rendering forms of torture are employed.

Aafia Siddiqui (May Allah give her sabr) is not the first to suffer because she is a noble Muslimah, for the first martyr in Islam was Syeda Sumayyah Bint Khabbab (ra) who was tied to the floor and Abu Jahl killed her by stabbing her in the private parts, simply because she upheld the truth, that Allah سبحانه وتعالى is one and Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is his Messenger.

It is therefore imperative that one views the farcical trial against sister Aafia as part of a global concerted effort against the deen of Allah سبحانه وتعالى - an effort that is designed to extinguish the light of Islam from this dunya. One doesn't need to give countless examples of how the dictators of the Muslim World are backed by the West, how occupation of Palestine is tolerated and condoned, how squandering of Muslim wealth is overlooked and how hideous modes of torture are practiced under the guise of extraordinary rendition. As Muslims, we know our realities all too well, however, the sad fact is that there are countless men, women and children weeping in the dungeons of the tyrannical rulers because they have nobody to protect them and Aafia Siddiqui is suffering and experiencing the nasty brunt of having no protection.

Overview of events leading to her incarceration

In March 2003, Aafia was arrested by Pakistani agents and at the behest of the traitor Pervez Musharaf, was transferred to Bagram airbase in Afghanistan where she received American hospitality that included physical abuse, torture and rape which she endured for years. At this point, she came to be known as the ‘Grey lady of Bagram' as her screams and sobs could be heard throughout the night due to rape and torture.

Her imprisonment was denied by both Pakistani and American agencies until media reports brought her case to the surface, at which point she was conveniently regarded as being involved in terrorism and a fictitious story was mustered against her claiming that she wrestled a rifle off a U.S soldier and attempted to shoot at American soldiers.

On 7th August 2008 an article in the The News exposed some of the treatment Aafia had been subjected to whilst in American custody.

one of her kidneys had been removed


her teeth had been removed


her nose had been broken, and improperly reset


her recent gunshot wound had been incompetently dressed, was oozing blood, leaving her clothes soaked with blood.

In August 11, 2008, a Reuters report stated that she had appeared at her court hearing in a wheelchair, and that her lawyers pleaded with the judge to make sure she received medical care. Elizabeth Fink, one of her lawyers, told the Judge:

"She has been here, judge, for one week and she has not seen a doctor, even though they (U.S. authorities) know she has been shot."

Such accounts would bring tears to anybody with an ounce of Iman in their heart. However, the stark reality is that tears are not going to help sister Aafia. In order to understand this point better, one needs to deeply reflect upon a particular time in history when a Muslim woman was captured by the Romans in a place called Amuriyyah. Not content with only capturing her they tried to dishonour her as well. Frightened and alone she called out the name of the Khaleefah, "[Ya Mu'tasim] Oh Mu'tasim." A man witnessed this incident and rushed to the Khaleefah informing him of what had happened. When he heard the plight of this woman he responded bravely, "Labbaik [I am here at your call]." It is narrated that he was drinking water from a cup and upon hearing the news that a woman was shouting his name, he immediately put the cup down and commanded to deploy a massive army to retaliate against the Romans.

Another profound example of such competence is the response of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf Ath Thaqafi to the cries of men, women and children who were captured by pirates as a Muslim merchant ship was sailing back from the Indian coast. They were taken inland to Sindh and imprisoned. Hajjaj was the Umayyad governor of Iraq and when reports reached him of this incident, he wrote to Raja Dahir (ruler of the region) demanding that the captives be released and the responsible pirates punished but Dahir refused. This refusal led to warfare as it was the responsibility of the Khilafah to protect its citizens. Hajjaj dispatched an army of 7,000 seasoned cavalrymen under one of the greatest Generals, Muhammed bin Qasim, a man of the tender age of 17. Despite the fact that Hajjaj was well known for his tyranny, he still felt the need to send an entire cavalry to free the prisoners. It makes one wonder how down trodden the Muslim rulers have become, as they do not even utter a word of condemnation or threat at the appalling way sister Aafia has been treated.

We pray to Allah سبحانه وتعالى that he revives this noble Ummah once again and brings forth a man from amongst us who will carry the shield of Khilafah and protect the vulnerable and the oppressed amongst us. Ameen,

"The Imam is like a shelter for whose safety the Muslims should fight and where they should seek protection." [Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 204] (Islamic system)

Home           Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)