Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
muslim
women
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2004/20: Should the wearing of burqas and headscarves (hijabs) by Muslim women be banned in Western countries?
What they said ...
'The scarf is a symbol of the inferior status of women'
Binnaz Toprak, Turkish academic
'Muslims need to be fully involved in their society'
Tariq Ramadan, Islamic affairs analyst
The issue at a glance
On March 15, 2004, the French Parliament passed into law a bill prohibiting conspicuous religious symbols and clothing being worn by students in publicly-funded schools.
Prohibited items include headscarves for Muslim girls, skull caps for Jewish boys, turbans for Sikh boys and large Christian crosses. Despite the apparent all-inclusiveness of this legislation, it is generally believed to target Muslim students and to reflect a desire to control the potential for social disruption brought about by France's growing Muslim population.
In Germany, some states have forbidden women teachers to wear the hijab. In Belgium, some schools have banned it. Turkey, the biggest Islamic country in Europe, bans the veil in schools and any other public institution.
In April 2004 a Victorian soccer referee told a female player to remove her hijab. When she refused she was ordered from the field. (The referee has since been cleared of racism or religious discrimination, however, the Victorian Soccer Federation is devising a formal policy on players' dress, which should prevent similar incidents taking place in the future.)
In Britain, where there are no restrictions in place, non-Muslim girls at a state school with a Muslim majority have been told they should wear the hijab. Similarly, in Australia, King Khalid Islamic College of Victoria in Coburg makes the hijab optional in prep to year 5 and compulsory for years 6 to 12.
Disputes continue within Australia and overseas as to whether the wearing of the hijab (and in some countries the burqa) should be either prohibited or mandated.
Background
Muslim beliefs re appropriate dress
Hijab is the modern name for the Muslim practice of dressing modestly. The Muslim holy book, the Koran, instructs all practising Muslims past the age of puberty to dress in this way.
No precise dress code for men or women is set out in the Koran, and various Islamic scholars have interpreted the meaning of hijab differently.
The most basic requirements are that when in the presence of someone other than a close family member, a woman should cover her bosom and walk and dress in a way which does not draw attention to her body. A man should be covered from at least the navel to the knees and similarly not wear figure-hugging clothes that draw attention to his body.
The way in which Muslims interpret this, if they choose to dress in accordance with hijab, varies greatly from individual to individual, and country to country.
The word 'hijab' is also frequently used specifically to mean a headscarf worn by Muslim women. In this case, it most often refers to a square scarf which is folded diagonally and worn over the head to cover the hair, ears and throat, but not the face.
The word used in the Koran for a headscarf is 'khimar', which might be better to use when referring to headscarves in general, as many people argue that this use of 'hijab' is incorrect, and can lead to confusion.
Hijab is sometimes controversial: its proponents suggest that it may provide higher levels of sexual security for women. They offer as evidence the relatively low incidence of sex crimes in Islamic countries compared to other countries with similar economies and gross domestic product per capita.
Some others, however, believe that hijab is unfair towards women, claiming that repressive cultures use hijab to subjugate and oppress them. Pre-invasion Afghanistan under the Taliban has been used as an instance of this. Under the Taliban women were compelled to wear the burqa (a garment which covers the entire body, except for netting or a grille over the eyes for the women to see out of) and were at the same time denied educational and employment opportunities. The burqa was condemned as part of a total system of oppression
On the other hand, many Muslim women, including many in western cultures, state that they prefer to follow hijab as a sign of their faith and submission to Allah. They also argue that hijab means that all Muslim women are respected equally without reference to their appearance.
The Taliban practice of forcing women to wear full burqas has been described as cruel and misogynistic. However, very few Afghan women chose to take off their burqas after the Taliban fell (maybe some out of fear that even without the Taliban controlling their lives, Afghan society still frowned on their removing their burqas).
French law and religion
French law regarding religion centres on the concept of 'laicite'. This term implies the free exercise of religious belief but no special status for religion: religious organisations and religious activities are regulated according to the same set of laws as other activities and are not considered above the law.
La9cit does not imply any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is essentially a belief that governmental and political issues should be kept separate from religious organisations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). This is meant both to protect the government from religious organisations pushing their agenda on the public, and to protect the religious organisation from political quarrels and controversies.
However, if religious organisations or religiously-motivated individuals take a position that is likely to have negative social or political consequences they will be regulated under the law. This is the justification given for the ban on conspicuous religious symbols and headgear. Such symbols have been judged likely to provoke hostility between groups with conflicting beliefs.
Internet information
The freedictionary.com's encyclopaedia on-line has a detailed entry on 'hijab', the Muslim practice of modest dress. This entry supplies must of the information contained in the background section of this issue outline.
The entry can be found at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/hijab
The freedictionary.com's encyclopaedia on-line also has a detailed entry on the French law banning conspicuous religious symbols. This information can be found at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/French%20law%20to%20ban%20notable%20religious%20symbols
The freedictionary.com's encyclopaedia on-line also has a detailed entry on 'la9cit', the concept lying behind French law in relation to religion. This item can be found at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/la%EFcit%E9
On February 10, 2004, the BBC published a series of interviews with subjects presenting a variety of views on the banning of the hijab in publicly-funded schools in France.
These interviews can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3459963.stm
On December 6, 2003, the British newspaper, The Guardian, published an article titled, 'Something aggressive about veils, says Chirac'
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1101321,00.html
On December 15, 2003, The Arabic Electronic Mail Journal published an article titled 'Veiled Issue "a provocative symbol of Muslim fundamentalism"!' suggesting that in trying to ban the hijab the French Government was seeking a simple solution to a complex problem.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aj0008.html
On February 6, 2004, The Age published in its education section on-line a number of student opinions on whether Muslim women and schoolgirls living in Australia should be able to wear the hijab.
These comments can be found at http://www.education.theage.com.au/pageresponse.asp?intpageid=1249&strsection=students
On March 15, 2003, The Age published an article titled, 'Torn between two cultures' on the position of young Muslim women in Australia. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/14/1047583701468.html
Arguments against banning burqas and headscarves in Western countries
1. In Western countries, wearing either the burqa or the hijab is a free expression of religious belief
It has been claimed that in Western societies as opposed to some Islamic states, women who wear the burqa do so not because they have been compelled by the state or some powerful male figure in their lives, but because they wish to do so, usually as an expression of their religious belief.
This point has been made by Fatima Shah, a spokeswoman for women's affairs for the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee. Fatima Shah claims, 'The fact is that most women who wear the burqa in the West do so because they want to. I know, because I wear it. My father didn't force me; my mother doesn't wear it; and my husband didn't order me to do it, because I'm not married yet. Like every other veiled woman, I am exercising the same personal choice and using the same freedoms that everyone else has, to decide what they wear.'
2. Western countries have a tradition of religious tolerance
It has been claimed that Western societies are acting against their own traditions of religious tolerance if they ban the wearing of either the burqa or the hijab. It has been argued that the wearing of such items is an indication of religious belief and an exercise of freedom of expression and so should not be restricted by the state. This point has been made by Bernie O'Kane in a letter published in The Age on January 18 2004. Mr O'Kane states, 'A liberal society can adjust to veils and burqas in much the same way it has dealt with yarmulkes and crosses, accepting them without rancour as ways of acceptable, even proud, self-expression.'
In a letter published in The Age on January 7 2004 D. Beryl Phillips wrote, 'Why does the hijab or burqa raise such emotional and irrational responses? Surely we are a mature enough society to be able to accept such difference? ...The world is not large enough to cope with bigotry and sectarianism. Australia and the wider world desperately need encouragement from all levels for building bridges across old barriers.'
Fatima Shah, a spokeswoman for women's affairs for the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, has made a similar point. Fatima Shah claims, 'A Muslim woman who covers her face ... is sending the message that in this society difference is tolerated and a person's religious beliefs should be no barrier to them playing a meaningful role in our society.'
Randa Abdel-Fattah, a Sydney lawyer, has argued, 'Society has to face the fact that certain faiths celebrate spirituality through an overt expression of inner convictions. The hijab, or sikh turban, or Jewish skullcap are all explicit symbols, but they do not represent a threat or affront to others, and have no bearing on the competence, skills and intelligence of a person.'
3. Islam requires certain standards of dress of female believers
It has been argued that banning the burqa and the hijab interferes with religious observance as the Koran requires that female believers adhere to certain standards of dress.
The Islamic imperative for veiling stems from a passage in the Koran that states: 'Say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty. They should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their ornaments.'
Though the burqa, in particular, is part of local traditions in different parts of the world, Muslim women have a choice based on their circumstances. However, regional differences and some degree of individual variation, Koranic injunctions definitely call for modesty in dressing.
It is therefore argued that governments such as the French which have prohibited the wearing of headscarves by female Muslim students at public schools are interfering in the religious observances of a portion of their population.
4. Banning signs of religious belief radicalises believers
It has been claimed that when a minority group feels its members are being persecuted for their religious beliefs its expression of those beliefs is likely to become more extreme.
This point has been made in an editorial published in The Age on December 19 2003. The editorial claims, 'Nothing is more likely to radicalise adherents of a minority faith, who may already feel alienated from the majority culture of society, than state-sponsored suppression of the public expressions of their religious identity.'
Such bans are typically imposed in the hope of minimising religious, racial and cultural tension within a country. Critics of the bans argue that they may, paradoxically, have the opposite effect from the one intended.
5. Banning signs of religious belief may increase the restrictions imposed on Muslim women.
It has been claimed that where Western societies prohibit the wearing of burqas or headscarves, many young Muslim women may have to withdraw from Western schools and may have their opportunities for education and employment reduced rather than increased.
This point has been made by Anthony Giddens, a British social commentator and former political adviser to Tony Blair, who has made this claim about the French ban on burqas and hijab in public schools.
Mr Giddens has argued, 'Girls whose parents force them to wear [the hijab] are likely to be withdrawn from the state sector and sent to single-faith schools once the ban comes into operation. They may find themselves married off at an early age to a partner deemed suitable by their parents, and perhaps with several children by the time they are in their 30s. Such an outcome can hardly be regarded as desirable by anyone who wants greater freedom for women. If girls from such backgrounds are to have more of a chance actively to decide upon their futures, only education in a wider cultural setting will provide that chance.'
Arguments supporting banning burqas and headscarves in Western countries
1. Conspicuous displays of religious belief can provoke social discord
This argument has been used in France in the Stasi report which claimed that the wearing of obvious religious symbols in state schools created disharmony.
The report claims that the majority of school directors in France want to ban religious symbols in an attempt to ease 'the tensions which are created by claims of religious identity, the formation of gangs for example and community-based factions in the play-ground and canteens.'
It is claimed that conspicuous symbols of difference, religious or otherwise, encourage clique formation and hostility between opposing groups. Removing external signs which indicate group membership has been suggested as a way of reducing such rivalry and aggression.
2. The separation of church and state prohibits the public endorsement of any religious creed
It has been claimed that secular societies such as Australia which have no established religion have to be careful not to appear to endorse any particular religious creed. Thus publicly funded services such as kindergartens and child care centres are becoming increasingly reluctant to stage Christmas pageants and other traditional Christian celebration, in part because they do not wish to give offence to those who do not adhere to this particular belief system.
It has been claimed that in multicultural societies religious beliefs should be celebrated privately among those who are members of the particular faith concerned. This would seem to preclude the public expression of a particular religious belief in a setting where a majority of people do not share that belief.
This tradition of a secular state is particularly strong in France. In France it is argued that the best guarantee of religious tolerance is to ensure that particular religious observances are confined to observers and do not appear to be endorsed by the state.
The French president Jacques Chirac has claimed that most French people saw 'something aggressive' in the veil and that the secular state could not tolerate 'ostentatious signs of religious proselytism'.
French writer and academic Justin Vaisse has argued in favour of the principle of 'religious neutrality' in order to create conditions for religious freedom. He said to preserve the religious neutrality of the state, the neutrality of public places also had to be maintained so that no group should feel excluded.
3. Burqas and hijabs represent the oppression of women
Many feminists claim that the hijab and the burqa are symbols of the lack of equality women endure in many Islamic cultures.
According to this line of argument compulsorily wearing these garments implies that women must cover those features deemed sexually attractive in order not to be sexually provocative to men. It is claimed that this treats women exclusively as sex objects and denies any male responsibility in ensuring reasonable and harmonious relations between the sexes.
In an article published in The Age on January 5, 2004, Pamela Bone wrote, 'What the burqa says, in the clearest possible way, is that men are not responsible for controlling men's sexual urges, women are. Not only is there nothing remotely feminist about this idea, it is pretty insulting to men too.'
French feminist philosopher Elisabeth Badinter has further argued that the issue is essentially one of gender equality. Badinter has claimed, 'If we allow women to wear headscarves in state schools, then the republic and French democracy ... have given up on any equality of the sexes in our country.'
Those who hold this view maintain that any religious or other belief system which imposes upon women a set of restrictions it does not impose on men denies gender equality.
4. Many Muslim women are not free to reject the hijab or the burqa
It is claimed that for many Muslim women the decision to wear either a hijab or the burqa is made by the dominant men in their lives, their fathers or husbands.
Rachida Ziouche, a journalist, is the daughter of an Algerian imam who has been living in exile in France since fleeing her homeland. She has claimed, 'Where I live, in a small town in France, girls and young women are intimidated by Muslim men who oblige them to wear the scarf. These Muslim women are often isolated, and need some protection. The law to outlaw the veil goes some way towards addressing this need.'
Even when clothing restrictions are apparently accepted by the women concerned, critics claim this is the result of indoctrination. French Parliamentarian, Jacques Myard, has argued, 'A lot of Muslim girls say that they wear the headscarf freely.
But in fact when you look at it carefully you will see that in some cases, in fact in most cases, they have been motivated by religious fundamentalists.'
According to this line of argument, religious indoctrination, to which the women in question have been subjected from the time they were children effectively removes their freedom of choice.
5. The burqa is not prescribed in the Koran
It is frequently claimed that the Koran does not require Muslim women to wear the burqa and, beyond the requirement that they cover their bosoms, it does not require them to wear the hijab.
Dr Amirudin Ahamed, in a letter published in The Age on January 10, 2004, stated, 'The Koran, as explained by the Prophet, prescribes only hijab (head scarf) and not the burqa (the veil). In fact, the Koran clearly commands men to refrain from looking at women, which does not make any sense if the women are expected to cover themselves entirely, including their faces.'
Further implications
This is a difficult issue. It is clear that we live in fraught times when nations propose what on the face of it appears to be intolerance or discrimination as a means of dealing with intolerance and discrimination. In principle it is difficult to accept that any positive purpose can be served by forbidding people from displaying signs of their religious beliefs.
The French Government appears to be concerned that a growing Muslim population within France will lead to social dislocation. It appears to be concerned about the possibility of hostility directed toward Muslims and hostility from them. A growing incidence of anti-semetic acts, apparently many attributable to Muslim youth, has fed this concern.
The French Prime Minister, Jacques Chirac, has condemned the wearing of the veil as an 'aggressive' act. This seems a rather extreme judgement, however, it does indicate the super-heated state of political debate on the broader issues of how to accommodate a visible and growing group who show little inclination to assimilate at the same time as Muslims worldwide are coming to see themselves as persecuted.
Whatever one's view of Islam and its treatment of women, western societies are treading on dangerous ground when they prohibit the expression of religious belief. If these societies can and do accommodate fundamentalist Christian groups, Hasidic Jewish groups, white witches, black witches and devil worshippers, we are surely on dangerous ground if we seek to discriminate against Muslims.
It would be unfortunately easy for Muslims to see themselves as the victims of post September 11 hysteria and a Europe having increasing difficulty coping with the growing number of descendents of Arab migrants from the 1960s.
Sources
The Age
5/1/04 page 21 comment by Pamela Bone, 'Why teachers must not wear the burqa in our schools'
8/1/04 page 11 comment by Fatima Shah, 'There's enough room under the burqa for personal choice'
18/1/04 page 13 comment by Karen Green, 'The burqa stripped bare'
19/1/04 page 11 news item, 'Thousands fight French religious ban'
27/4/04 page 6 news item by Wells and Lynch, 'Soccer game called off over headscarf'
24/5/04 page 10 editorial, 'A proper regard for faith on the field'
The Australian
20/1/04 page 8 news item, 'Belgian plan to ban headscarves'
27/4/04 page 3 news item by D Hoare, 'Red card for soccer girl over head scarf'
The Herald Sun
7/1/04 page 21 comment by Anthony Giddens, 'Reject this veiled threat to tolerance'
27/4/04 page 7 news item by J Masanauskas, 'Soccer girl sent off for Muslim headscarf'
28/4/04 page 18 editorial, 'Scarf ban ridiculous'
28/4/04 page 18 comment by Sarah Henderson, 'Bigotry ruled offside'
10/6/04 page 21 comment by Jill Singer, 'We don't wear burqas but our fight goes on'