Time to declare Islam has a right to exist. - Haaretz

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 10:11am

Nice article from Haaretz today:

Targeting Muslims - the new Inquisition
11:25 22/10/2006


By Bradley Burston

Were I a Muslim living in the West, I'd be mad as hell. Not to mention terrified.

Were I a Muslim living in the West, I'd begin to believe that a new Inquisition had begun. An inquisition aimed at no one but Muslims.

Were I a Muslim living in the West, my wife, or my sister, or my daughter might well decide to wear a headscarf or a veil when she went out in public.

Perhaps it would be because she was tired of men and boys ogling her, objectifying her. Perhaps it would be because she felt she was entitled to her dignity. Perhaps she simply might prefer modesty and privacy to fashion slavery.

Perhaps she just thought it was a free country.

And perhaps, on that last point, she would have been mistaken.

For years, and especially since 9/11, law-abiding Muslims have been verbally and physically attacked across North America and Europe. They are scorned for their faith, shunned for their piety, falsely condemned for dual-loyalty, blamed for the crimes of terrorists they abhor.

Of late, however, there has been a disturbing new trend, particularly in Europe, where cabinet ministers and influential lawmakers have increasingly made it their mission to combat, of all things, the head scarf and veil worn by growing numbers of Muslim women and girls.


In Germany, the states of Baden-Wurttenberg and Bavaria recently introduced legislation to outlaw the wearing of head scarves in schools.

Bavarian Education Monika Hohlmeier said the head scarf was increasingly being used as a political symbol. To the understandable ire of Muslims, Hohlmeier went on to say that it was acceptable to wear Christian crosses or Jewish symbols.


In Spain, home to the original Inquisition, Minister for Social Affairs Juan Carlos Aparicio was quoted as having said that the Muslim veil was "not a religious sign but a form of discrimination against women," and having compared it to genital mutilation.


In Britain, the government minister for race and faith relations, Phil Woolas, was quoted this week as demanding that Muslim teaching assistant Aisha Azmi, 24, who refused to remove her veil at work, be fired for that reason.

"She should be sacked," Woolas was quoted as telling the Sunday Mirror. "She has put herself in a position where she can't do her job."

Azmi worked at the Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, which took pains to state that her suspension had nothing to do with religion.

The scarf issue had already taken center stage when former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, now an MP and Leader of the House of Commons, voiced public objections to the wearing of the niqab, a full-face veil, at face-to-face meetings with his constituents.

The national debate has since widened, with David Davis, a top Conservative Party official, taking the anti-veil stance to a new level.

'What Jack touched on was the fundamental issue of whether in Britain we are developing a divided society,' Davis said. 'Whether we are inadvertently encouraging a kind of voluntary apartheid.'

The anti-veil arguments dovetail with a parallel campaign, which takes as its premise the concept that Islam itself renders its adherents incapable of integrating into Western societies.

"If you are going to have Islamic schools, the question is whether they are going to embrace Western values," Patrick Sookhdeo, a Pakistan-born Anglican priest in England who converted from Islam, told the New York Times this month.

"I would argue that Islamic values are not compatible with Western values," he said.

And what Western values might these be? Are they the time-honored Western values of intolerance for people of color, suspicion and marginalization of non-Christians, fear and loathing of non-Whites? Exploitation of and contempt for the residents of former imperial possessions and colonies?

At this point, there will be a pause for the springloaded Islamophobes among us to suggest that it is any society's right and duty to protect itself against elements that may foment terrorism. There will be those who will argue that the veil may both mask and encourage extremism.

Perhaps it is time for us in the Western world to declare that Islam has a right to exist.

Perhaps it is time for us to recognize that non-violent, non-Judeo-Christian religious observance is a right, not an act of war.

Scarves don't explode. Veils do not kill. The niqab does not incite.

It takes courage to wear the veil in the West. Certainly, no one should be forced to wear it against her will. But those who do so voluntarily, have chosen to brave ridicule, and perhaps to risk their own livelihood. They have made a choice for self-respect, in the face of all that is vacuous in contemporary Western civilization, where the worship of the superficial has taken on the potency and universality of a state religion.

We in the West have allowed the veil to become the symbol of all that we do not know and do not trust about Islam.

In the Age of Paris Hilton, however, the West desperately needs women who devote themselves to serious pursuits, to the betterment of society, women who believe that self-esteem and dignity are worthy values. If they choose to wear a veil, and we take offense, that is wholly our problem. We have no business making it theirs.


__________________



Source

[Elphaba]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 10:54am

two things bother me about the article above

"Bavarian Education Monika Hohlmeier said the head scarf was increasingly being used as a political symbol. To the understandable ire of Muslims, Hohlmeier went on to say that it was acceptable to wear Christian crosses or Jewish symbols."

I think crosses and Jewish symbols are seen more as religious symbols, not political ones, although today that view could be taken differently.

And Bavaria, bad example.......my God you cannot emmigrate to Bavaria if you have AIDS.......the only German state with such a law. Bavaria, Bad example, they "out-Catholic" Rome.


In Spain, home to the original Inquisition, Minister for Social Affairs Juan Carlos Aparicio was quoted as having said that the Muslim veil was "not a religious sign but a form of discrimination against women," and having compared it to genital mutilation.

Remember that Catholic Spain fought the Arab world (mainly the Turks) for years of their history.....there is no love lost between Spain and the Arab world.

And I agree that the veil is a way to subjugate women, BUT....I also realize that they have to change this themselves......it is not my place, nor Spains to force this change.....it is for the people involved to deal with this.

On the whole I agree with you......removing these veils, religiously would be no different than forcing Hindus to eat beef, and Jews to eat pork (which I do because I am not orthodox).

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 11:00am

"And Bavaria, bad example.......my God you cannot emmigrate to Bavaria if you have AIDS.......the only German state with such a law. Bavaria, Bad example, they "out-Catholic" Rome."

While I agree about Bavaria being a rather catholic and conservative place in Germany, that does sound pretty illegal to me and I'm convinced that in case it is like you say it can and will be overruled by the courts instantly.

Besides , you of course can emmigrate to another part of Germany first and then move to Bavaria if that would be your destination. In that case they had no chance of doing anything...

Edit: from a lawyer's point of view I've got to add: emmigration law is federal law in Germany, so Bavaria has little say in it. It'd be then just an interpretation

I agree about the whole veil thing. The problem is merely that while it is not accepted in the Western world to wear it, that the other way round governments aren't able to prevent that unseen by most there is some (let it only be moral) force to wear it. So it means pondering how you're able to give as much liberty in it as possible and yet enable them to not wear it (if they want to) if necessary against the will of their families. It's difficult. Updated On: 10/23/06 at 11:00 AM

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 11:05am

Our country has a history of rejecting and removing immigrants based on HIV status.

Assuming you know everything about people wearing anything religious is just plain ethno-centrism. In one place, a veil could be oppressive in another it could be liberating. The Amish in this country have a choice to live the way they do. It's obviously an oppressive culture when compared to our feminist and anti-child labor beliefs. That said what they are doing with our freedom here is extremely progressive. For us to draw conclusions or make decisions for them is just wrong. Live and let live, it’s contagious.
Updated On: 10/23/06 at 11:05 AM

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 11:26am

Well, I guess one can have different point of views on that. The point I tried to make is a government has a certain duty of preventing harm being done to citizens of their country.

But we probably meet in the middle since I don't think the attempts of the countries you named are done very well. So in my opinion whatever regulation they do should apply to all religions in the same way.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 11:51am

I don't understand why we do not meet all the way Franklin. Do you think it is ok for a so-called democracy to prescribe religious choices and beliefs?

In this country, religious people try to dictate whom I can love and how I love. It is not in anyone’s right to decide or even debate these things.

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 12:01pm

I agree with you on that, true. And I must admit I'm probably not fully aware how that works or doesn't work in the US, since I'm European.

Still I don't think when there are problems, and there are, everyone should look into a different direction.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 12:33pm

For Europeans, the issue of the head scarf is only symbolic of the issues of immigration and integration.

The riots in France last year have morphed into what the police union describes in this AP article as a "permanent Intifada." The acts of violence against police include torching of cars and then attacking the firefrighters who arrive to put out the fires.

In England, the suicide bombings on the subway last year killed 52 commuters in addition to the suicide bombers.

Those protesting say there are no economic opportunities for the Muslim immigrants from North Africa and Southeast Asia. Those criticizing them say there is not enough effort on the part of Muslims to integrate into British and European society.

The reaction to the headscarf is a symbol of that fear and distrust. And it is larger and more present than a piece of jewelry worn around the neck, whether that jewelry is a crucifx, a Jewish star or a Muslim crescent.

Because we don't have anything like this kind of violence in America, the issue is less emotional for us. But Europeans in England, France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands see it as a threat to the assimilated society they have struggled to create.

Snippets:

===

French police face 'permanent intifada'

By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Oct 22, 8:34 PM ET

On a routine call, three unwitting police officers fell into a trap. A car darted out to block their path, and dozens of hooded youths surged out of the darkness to attack them with stones, bats and tear gas before fleeing. One officer was hospitalized.

The recent ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighborhoods that were the scene of a three-week paroxysm of rioting last year.

One small police union claims officers are facing a "permanent intifada." Police injuries have risen in the year since the wave of violence.

National police reported 2,458 cases of violence against officers in the first six months of the year, on pace to top the 4,246 cases recorded for all of 2005 and the 3,842 in 2004. Firefighters and rescue workers have also been targeted — and some now receive police escorts in such areas....

Michel Thooris, head of the small Action Police union, claims that the new violence is taking on an Islamic fundamentalist tinge.

"Many youths, many arsonists, many vandals behind the violence do it to cries of 'Allah Akbar' (God is Great) when our police cars are stoned," he said in an interview. ...

Larger, more mainstream police unions sharply disagree that the suburban unrest has any religious basis. However, they do say that some youth gangs no longer seem content to throw stones or torch cars and instead appear determined to hurt police officers — or worse.

"First, it was a rock here or there. Then it was rocks by the dozen. Now, they're leading operations of an almost military sort to trap us," said Loic Lecouplier, a police union official in the Seine-Saint-Denis region north of Paris. "These are acts of war."...

Distrust and tension thrive. Rumors have flown around some housing projects that police are hoping to use the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which ends this week, to round up known troublemakers, on the basis that fasting all day will have made the youths weaker and easier to catch.

Police say that suggestion is ludicrous. However, they are on guard ahead of the first anniversary this week of last year's riots. That violence began after two youths who thought police were chasing them hid in a power substation and were electrocuted to death.

Police unions suspect that the recent attacks may be an attempt to spark new riots.

"We are getting the impression these youths want a 'remake' of what happened last year," said Fred Lagache, national secretary of the Alliance police union. "The youths are trying to cause a police error to justify chaos."


French police face 'permanent intifada'

Updated On: 10/23/06 at 12:33 PM

[Mamie]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 12:52pm

I used to work for the Federal government and we had many occasions for sending employees, including women, to many overseas posts. Some of the middle Eastern countries demanded that all women wear a veil and sometimes the niqab. This included women who were there for a short visit, a 2 or 3 year assignment, or who had actually emigrated to that country and wouldn't be returning to the West. It didn't matter what their religious leanings were. The governments decided that it was required of all women and so they had to comply with the rules.

What do you think of this - particularly in light of recent actions by some of the Western governments?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 12:56pm

Oye...PalJoey: this is the same sh!t people here say about blacks and Latinos. The same reason white people lock their car doors when the see me walking down the street in my North Face jacket and Timberlands.

And yes we did have violence like that here in the US. The countries mentioned many Jews have considered anti-Semitic. To me it shows an obvious racial/ethnic bias and low tolerance for assimilation. Why do people think that political oppression is an answer to quell violence?


Updated On: 10/23/06 at 12:56 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 1:00pm

why should these muslims have to assimilate into any other culture? i mean just because they choose to live somewhere doesn't mean that they should have to follow any of the rules that such a society has, should they? i mean, the sooner countries learn that they must adapt to islam (or just accept the supremacy of the eventual caliphate), the less violent the would will be. who are these countries to dictate to allah? do they not know that their heathen ways will lead to the beheading of their peoples and the slavery of their children who will serve a greater umma? the arrogance of these infidels displeases me.

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 1:15pm

a little provoking but there is unfortunately a little truth in Papa's satirical point.
There has to be at least a minimum common agreement between all cultural or religious groups within a country on what boundaries are not to be crossed by its citizens, wouldn't you agree, Mejusthavingfun? That is not to say, that one group has the leadership in everything, but at least what are the constitutional rights and duties which should be applied and honored by all in the same way.

Updated On: 10/23/06 at 01:15 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 1:20pm

You say "oye" and I say "oy vey," let's call the whole thing off.

We define assimilation differently.

My parents' and grandparents' generations of Eastern European Jews escaped many of those same European societies because Europeans, it seems, can only be tolerant of Jews for just sooooooooo long, then BANG! another pogrom or some boxcars.

But my parents and grandparents defined assimilation as "learning to play by the rules of the society you live in--and learning to win by those rules."

Observant Jews criticized my grandparents and parents for assimilating "too much," but I prefer over-assimilation to separatism, which is what I think is symbolized by the head scarf as well by as the black hats and long coats of Hasidic Jews.

Crucifixes, stars and crescents worn around the neck may be tacky, but they are subtle, person amulets, very different from head scarves and big black hats.

Perhaps I might feel diffently about head scarves if men had to wear them too. But seeing as they don't, the old 70s gay feminist in me makes the same judgment about women wearing head scarves as I do about (Orthodox Jewish) women wearing bad wigs.

Oy VEY, ladies! Show some style!

Updated On: 10/23/06 at 01:20 PM

[Yawper]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 1:23pm

I believe the only country that *requires* women to wear veils is Saudi Arabia. It is optional in other countries. Many American Muslim women proudly continue to wear hajib as a show of faith.

[SweMozArt]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 1:23pm

The thing that bothers me most with this article is the double standard it applies. The countries that have had the most liberal asylum policies in the world (mostly european nations) are those that are attacked for being intolerant. If you wan't to become a citizen in an arab nation, being an arab is in most cases a must. Many asian nations have the same tough immigration policies. If you wan't to become a citizen in Israel you don't have to be jewish, but you should at least have a jewish grandfather or being in the process of converging to judaism or so i think (correct me if i am wrong).

My conclusion is that if you as a nation don't want to be critiqued for being intolerant then the best policy is to have a tough immigration policy. Don't get me wrong i'm not suggesting that new immigrants shouldn't have a right to maintain cultural traits but i think it is the most tolerant nations that are constantly attacked in world media for being intolerant and that is unfair.

Would it matter to the jews if the majority of citizens in Israel were non-jews? Would it matter to the arabs if the majority of citizens in Saudi Arabia were white christians? It's evident that for a majority of jews and arabs it would. So why then call todays Europeans intolerant?
Updated On: 10/23/06 at 01:23 PM

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 1:32pm

"Were I a Muslim living in the West, my wife, or my sister, or my daughter might well decide to wear a headscarf or a veil when she went out in public.

Perhaps it would be because she was tired of men and boys ogling her, objectifying her. Perhaps it would be because she felt she was entitled to her dignity. Perhaps she simply might prefer modesty and privacy to fashion slavery."

The point is the choice would be theres. Who cares if they can't wear the viels. They can vote, drive and walk in front of their husbands without being beat within an inch of their lives. I personally have no problem with the veils. I could care less if you dressed like a friggin clown. As long as you aren't bothering me. You are also talking about extremely isolated instances here. I live in NYC and I see plenty of women wearing the veils. Nobody cares. The guy who wrote this is looking for sympathy on an issue that is one of MANY. If you're not getting ridiculed for wearing a veil, its cause you're fat, or you're gay or you're too skinny or whatever. Its a human thing. Not an American or "West" thing.

Funny how this was written by a guy who is not expected to wear that very uncomfortable looking veil.

[gymman]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 1:38pm

I agree with Papa
Hell has officially frozen over!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 1:42pm

who needs laws in those countries when you have the mutaween that can flog or burn alive those whom they deem to be dressed immdestly?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 2:07pm

PalJoey: "Oye" is Spanish for "listen."

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 2:19pm

Papa is disgusting.
Updated On: 10/23/06 at 02:19 PM

[gymman]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 2:20pm

you are SO right...

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 2:24pm

oh, i'm sorry, mejusthatejews, does the unfortunate reality presented skew the thread?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 2:30pm

I have said I all I need to say about you. You keep spouting your hate and see where that gets you. Calling me racist, you should look at your narrow-minded self.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 2:34pm

i'm not calling you racist, just an anti-semite. i'm not spouting any hate, i leave that to you. but remember, no matter how much you suck up to them, in the end you're gay and they'll kill you.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/23/06 at 2:43pm

I have not said anything slightly anti-Semitic in this thread and my previous posts were not at all. Not being Pro-Israel is not anti-Semitism.

You are the one trivializing Islamic faith. And as far as them killing me, so would Christian, Jews, Hindus and even Buddhists! They have before and still do. It’s ok for Christians and Jews to hate on Muslims, but not ok for Muslims to hate gays? Unlike you, I can actually pass for straight. I think I might enjoy throwing rocks at your fat head.
Updated On: 10/23/06 at 02:43 PM