Sarkozy, Burqas and Secularism…
This is likely to trigger a massive debate. From Sarkozy Backs Drive to Eliminate the Burqa:
…Speaking at the Palace of Versailles, Mr. Sarkozy confronted one of the most hotly debated social issues in France, saying there was no room in the republic for burqas, the garments that some Muslim women wear to cloak their bodies and faces.
“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women.”
To enthusiastic applause, he said, “I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.”
…Mr. Sarkozy said that “in the republic, the Muslim religion must be respected like other religions.” But he declared, “the burqa is not welcome in France.” He added, “We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind bars, cut off from social life, deprived of identity.”
Admirably:
Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of France’s Representative Muslim Council, said he agreed with Mr. Sarkozy’s position on burqas, calling them “an extremely marginal phenomenon.”
More on this later…In the meantime, please share your thoughts via the comments section.
Related Posts:
Please cover yourself, I am feeling awkward
On Taslima Nasreen, fatwas and burqas…
Dr Phyllis Chesler has contrasted Sarkozy with Obama:
Excerpt from “THE REACH OF WAR: RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS; Ban on Head Scarves Takes Effect in a United France:
At the same time, France is determined to enforce its tradition of strict secularism by banning the Muslim head scarf from its public schools — even if this alienates Muslims around the world.
…Still, much of the Muslim world remains convinced that the new law is an unfortunate affront to Islam. Arguments by French officials since the law was passed in March, to explain it as a desirable way to preserve France’s republican values, have not been understood.
Even the interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, who was foreign minister when the bill was passed, argued against it, predicting rightly that it would be seen as an act against veils rather one for secularism. [ link ]
its amazing how fearful people are of doing anything that mohammedans may dislike.
underscores, in my mind at least, the death of ‘ahmisaawaad’ as a negotiating tool. India has not internalised this, and continues to hanker after one chimerical ‘peace process’ after another.
From one side it may be argued that every person has a right to wear what he/she wants to. This freedom must be granted to person in any society. Hence a woman may wear burqa just a like another girl wearing mini skirt.
However, we need to look at other side. Islam, or in general any other such cults try to maintain their control over sections of community by forcing them to accept some dress/conduct codes that alienate/differentiate the cult members from others.
Hence a woman wearing burqa is more likely to wear it under pressure from her society, people around us. More and more and more she will fall pray to that pressure, higher are the chances that her future generations would end up losing their freedom to wear any other types of clothes.
Hence by using the phrase “not welcome” Sarcozi has made it clear that, the society or government of france does not encourage any such practice, especially when it is so degrading for women. Whatever might be his intentions behind this but we must welcome it.
Wrong practices in religion must be ridiculed by those who wants to build a more equal/modern society.
Lets leave it to the individual women from our society instead of religion or community forcing it.
Not burqa but I can see many girls/women wear head scarf in order to avoid the pollution and sunburn.
So it will be impractical to stop someone on religious terms but it should be accepted by the society (includes all religions).
Also whatever Mr.Sarkozy says is for his country and citizens of France are with him so outside Islam followers need not be offended.
“This is not said for Indian Muslims and we need not to worry about it” – Amir Kishti (Mumbai on Star Maza), Islamic Religion Studies Scholar.
Jai Hind!
“This is likely to trigger a massive debate” – I doubt any of this debate will be where it is most relevant, i.e. in the Muslim world. Yes, the West will be ready to turn their country over in debating burqa but as far as the radical Muslims are concerned, they are more interested in bombing than debating.
For all Obama’s words on America protecting individual rights, within the American society is the powerful social pressure to assimilate or at least seem to assimilate. While European nations generally try to be tolerant of cultural differences and allow minorities to live with almost subnational identities (e.g. Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and even Britain which tolerates Radical Islamic clerics trashing European culture on a regular basis), America doesn’t really tolerate that. The prevailing idea in America is still the melting pot, where people from all faiths and nations end up having similar ideas about democracy and freedom. The Americans don’t really like it when people dress differently or speak different languages. And regardless of background, every American celebrates all the national holidays–although many are in fact rooted in the Christian tradition. The public school education also reinforces this concept of immigrants coming to a better nation with better ideals. Americans forever tell themselves and everyone else that their nation is the best in the world. That is why America will allow people to wear the hijab while at the same time spying on mosques and Islamic charities supposedly to prevent funds to foreign terrorist organizations. This is also why it won’t bow down to pressure to ban Salman Rushdie’s books etc.
The question for us in India should be whether we want to follow the European model of minorities having strong sub-national and often anti-national identities, or we force them to assimilate and respect the dominant culture and religion. Let me end by saying that Americans would never tolerate the kind of evangelical activity from any other religion or Islamic extremism that we tolerate in India .
Just to keep in mind, the banning of burqa will only be effective in public spaces and in those institutions that are run by the state. People are still free to wear a burqa on their private property or in a private company if that company’s policies allow it. All in all, a good move, given French society and how high they place secularism.
@K. Harapriya: “The question for us in India should be whether we want to follow … … ”
I really don’t think that there is any question on that??!!
Even the Europeans acknowledge *now* that their decades of appeasement in the name of tolerance (like we do in India) have brought them to a critical point where the society is at great stress for a massive divide across cultural lines. As a result countries like France, Denmark, Greece, Germany, Holland are waking up to the dangers of Islamization unlike in UK where its too late to do anything. In the entire west, there’s a growing consensus that the only way to accept immigrants is by (forcing) assimilation, something US has done well, at least till now.
Surprisingly, the Muslims don’t complain a bit in the US unlike in Europe, where they whine the most in countries that provide them with maximum freedom (UK>France>Holland>Denmark>Germany>Greece in that order). If one cannot force assimilation, then its better to close the doors like the Swis, Austrians or Belgium, etc have done.
As for India, well …. forget stopping Islamization of our society. Are we willing to fight terrorism?
This debate can take different contours, in my opinion the debate can best be had in the context of “state and religion”
France is a secular democratic – this does not mean it can be made to bend on its knees on the issue of burkha. Now muslims may think that French President’s comment on burkha is unteneable – the reason they can even make such noises is because there isd democracy and also because of the freedom the country gives ppl to practice their faith.
When contrasted to the muslim countries,there is not only no democracy but also there is no freedom for other religions to be practised.
Here we have a president who is rtrying to define the parameters of what is secularism and freedom of faith, when contrasted to the islamic counteris oppression on women and how they keep a tight leash on other religions – they truly dont have anything to complain.
Those muslims who are living in France, should make a call if state is important or those sitting in mosques in the islamic world have more importance.
Quran has no where said that women should wear a burkha, but merely it states that women should be dressed dignifiedly.
@Ashwin Kumaraswamy: Well said! And to add further Sarkozy has enunciated to make clearer his worldview vis-a-vis Obama’s that two points need to be borne in mind: One, while individuals have freedom of practicing faith, no one will overtly exhibit any aspect of a particular faith in the carrying out of the state’s (read administration’s) duties or functioning – they will dress and behave secularly. And secondly, practicing faith is a personal choice and personal freedom (as in choice to practice) clearly wins hands-down when at odds with freedom of religion. No woman or child can be forced to wear any religious dress, it’s her personal choice and the state will protect that choice
To my mind it all really boils to freedom of religion versus fundamental human freedoms of moral, legal, social, economic, and individual types that are non-negotiable. Any sane head of state of a democratic government will say that individual freedom outweighs and out-values freedom of religion… One can practice one’s religion if it does not interfere with individual freedoms of others as well as of oneself.
All: Great discussion…I will post excerpts later today from FTI’s policy on “Religious Freedom and Tolerance” to add to the debate.
More later.
No Comment.
Excerpts from Women behind the veil: Burqa secures dignity:
Link courtesy: BarbarIndian.
People who support burqas should be made to wear them and spend a summer outside in the 100 degree heat daily.
Then they should be asked whether its actually helpful or is a hindrance.
Those idiots who say that it prevents crime should be shot.
There are more accidents from automobiles than these crimes. Then by the same logic should cars be banned?
There are thousands killed by electric shocks, so should electricity be banned.
If burqas are so effective, why hasn’t it stopped those crimes in Islamic countries? The statistics are probably the same for those with or without burqas.
@ DD – you are being emotional in your outburst!!!
“Women are urged to protect themselves from evil elements”. Clearly this poor woman buys into the chauvinistic and sexist rationale that the onus of protection clearly rests on women whose bodies are unacceptable and have to be covered up. How about envisioning a society where the laws protect the women and “evil” men are punished. Oops–that is the French (and all Western) society.
I am always surprised that poor muslim immigrants even want to live in European nations or America. European culture is the very antithesis of Islamic culture. Why don’t they go to rich Islamic nations instead where their culture is protected? What is happening in Europe, where Muslims form a large minority, is that they are insisting on the Sharia. They don’t seem to realize that what makes Europe or the US what it is is the absence of religion based laws.
@AShwin
Unfortunately stupid people like those who are quoted above, cannot be tackled with reason. Its almost like they are saying, “We are stupid and proud of our stupidity” and start spouting flat earth theories.
What Sarkozy has done is to courageously strike at the outward manifestations of Islam and by doing so, symbolically reject the ideologies of the relgion.
Part of the problem in multicultural countries, is that we all assume that though the individuals embrace their own religious beliefs, they are held together by the shared ideals and common purpose of the state. This is a myth.
What Islam seeks to do in many parts of the world is to replace the existing system with Islamic ones. That is why Muslims in England, instead of being grateful and happy to live in a free society, seek to implement the Sharia law and make everyone bow down to their laws if not their god.
Europe probably needs to a more capitalistic society, and needs to depend more on its own populations to work rather than invite more immigrants. Michael Savage, a radio personality in the US, always says that demographics is destiny. That is true– a population can actually commit suicide by pursuing the policies that Europe is now following.
Let this be a lesson to us Hindus who are being brainwashed into limiting our family size while the Imams and Church clerics exhort their flock to increase in number. The RSS was right on the money when it asked Hindus to have three kids.
The classical liberal viewpoint (courtesy Amit Varma):
@ DD:
““We are stupid and proud of our stupidity” and start spouting flat earth theories.”
LOL
BTW, the RC church only recently apologised for the way they treated Copernicus and Galileo ….. 600 years later!!
France, maybe thanks to the harm it suffered at the hands of the cardinals, has always taken its secularism very seriously – just as burqas are now banned in govt paid places (including schools), so are head scarves and obvious show of large crucifixes – essentially, all religious symbols are banned in govt owned places. Do not like it? Do not work here, then.
Cheers
@Patriot,
Could you please expound on “Do not like it? Do not work here, then.”? Whats “it” refer to in this case?
Conservatives have long pointed out — and liberals have long largely ignored — that there are real contradictions between liberalism and multiculturalism.
Source: http://tr.im/pTf8
Also read Sandeep at “Secular Burqa“
@Shantanu
The debate in France and Europe on the veil and burqas reflects their discomfort at the accomodation their poltics has had to make. There was a time in India’s distant past when foreign communities when their home first in India, her kings insisted not so much an adherence to clothes sense but nothing to their beliefs. Their women were asked to where saris. Muslim conquest changed all that. Any community making their home abroad will stand out like a sore thumb challenging accepted values. How is that different to what the French are requiring of Muslims? The only right the Muslims of France have is it to leave with their lives intact. Muslims are as a consequence leaving Europe, choosing to come to Britain which has been more tolerant under the present UK government. Anybody challenging the values of Islam in Muslim countries would be lucky to escape with their lives.
“Burqua is the symbol of subjugation for women”, the French president Mr. Sarkozy’s statement sparked a series of debate in the entire world. The Indian media is discussing it in a more relinquishing way than their French counterpart probably because we in India think more strongly about our religious identity. There is nothing wrong in being conscious about one’s religious identity but the moment it starts entering into state’s affair then we should follow their will. Last week I saw a few debates on that issue on some private Indian English speaking channels. I found a bit less rational the way some of our experts appeared and gave their opinions on television without really understanding the core issue specially the French polity as I believe.
Critics in India on a private channel said that Sarkozy should first try to create a society where women can feel safe and then they’ll themselves stop wearing veil. Mani Sahnkar Aiyar went one step a head who was a panelist on that program said that “what kind of president he is to jump on the conclusion before the enquiry commission would give their verdict whether wearing veil violated the right of a woman or not”. Here he may be right but then he went on to say that the Indian government (India being a second largest Muslim populous nation) should take up this issue with the French . Then the anchor jumped into by saying that our prime minister Dr.Singh had also taken up the issue of ban on the Sikh children wearing turban in French public schools, that’s how she actually supported such move if the Indian government takes up. Mr.Aiyar further moved one step ahead, and criticized French democracy by citing that how could they call themselves a country of “liberté, égalité et fraternité”.
I found a little strange such comments because it was coming from the side of an expert, secondly the gentleman was an ex-IFS who was supposed to understand the France’s way of secularism. Firstly we’ve to understand that Republic is much more important than democracy, latter exists and flourishes thanks to the former. And any head of state’s responsibility is to discipline its people when they see that a particular chunk of their people is going away from the main stream of population. Secondly, France has had a different and sometime one might say a more stricter way of following the rules of secularism ( laicité as they call it) which they feel very proud of doing. Its route lies in their famous French revolution period, still from there they cherished and nourished the value system of secularism. On the basis of that the state does not encourage or even recognize any particular sort of religious symbol or identity if a particular community tries to show in public because the state thinks that this way a sort of distinction or space is being created by that community people which in long term can go against the interest of the republic. So it’s better to discourage or even ban such distinctive (based on religious identity) features which are evolving and creating a separate society by ghettoization within a large national community. And if the value system of that ghetto group happens to go against the ethos and rules of the national community, then the state has to take corrective measures to bring back that separate society into the large national one through social inclusion , otherwise the presences and on-growing strength of that ghetto can pose a threat to the basic norms of the republic. In France’s case, exactly the same thing has been happening over a past few years, so Sarkozy’s statement was merely reflecting that alarming bell, and was hinting towards the possible corrective measures which his government will take to put things in order.
This is quite true that this does not really go with the democratic and multicultural ethos which says that everybody has the right to wear whatever one wants to. But if such freedom comes in the way of republic’s value of equality then the government should and does curb such freedom of right to safeguard republic this is merely to serve the long term interests of any nation as country. That’s why under Homeland security, former US administration had taken all the steps to ensure the safety of its citizens, and in doing so they had to suppress some fundamental rights of the people too, which was in the interest of the US republic but was not coherent with the US democray.
Finally I would like to say that Mr.Aiyar should voice his opinion in this regard after going through the politics of laicité of France, and then should pass a judgment. At the same time, if any Sikh or any Muslim comes to live in any western country be it France or Canada then they should follow the rules and regulations of that very country rather than asking their respective governments to let them wear the dress reflecting their religious identity. Once you live your country, and start living in a foreign land then you become a subject of that very land, you must abide by the law and constitution of that very country.
Excerpts from: Sarkozy is Right! Burqah is NOT an Islamic Requirement! by Yasser Latif Hamdani:
The Sikh position is unique. The Sikhs were originally Hindus (which included Muslim converts) who under Guru Nanak decided to worship one rather than many Gods. Their dress code was established under the Khalsa by Guru Govind Singh. I see in them the true martial spirits of the ancient Hindus. I have said that their ideals are one which we can as Hindus follow without fear or contradiction. Of course there is the serious matter of Khalistani idealogues who have sought to amplify differences but their brand of militancy is easily drowned out by the majority of Sikhs. Unlike with Islam, Sikh identity is laid down by their religion. This has had unfortunate consequences for them. What we have seen is that because images of Sikhs have been likened to that of Osama Bin Laden, they have borne the brunt of violant attacks in the West. Muslim men have however escaped such attacks because beards and turbans are traditional dress native to their country of origin which they have no need of observing on religious grounds abroad. My sympathies are with the Sikhs: it is no less possible for them to disentangle their religious beliefs as it was with the “immortal” Greeks warriors of the battle of Thermoplae. It would not be too much of leap for the French (and indeed the Americans) to make the Sikhs their own as the British have done to their considerable advantage. Our success as Hindus lie in having similar clarity and purpose and avoidance of each and every fad that has come our way on issues that really matter. That applies most critically in the area of religion and politics. The word “culture” itself means that it is something that needs to be nourished and grown with due deliberation, love and care. It is also supposed to be the better side that a civilisation displays to the world. The world will partake of it and even make it its own as it has with the ideas of democracy and justice, imperfect as they were when they first came to be explored by the ancient Greeks. I am less comfortable with lobbies (Christian, Hindu and Muslim ones) that have set themselves as protectors of culture because it is an object of such great national importance that it should be left in their charge. I am sure its because the BJP recognise its importance that it has made it the mainstay of its ideology in Hindutva: that by itself is not enough and I would take issue with its premise, contents and values which need to take account of the advance the world has made.
@ DD:
“Do not like it? Do not work here, then.”? Whats “it” refer to in this case?
By “it” above, I was referring to the public spaces/commons/govt spaces in France.
cheers
@ Shantanu:
“Conservatives have long pointed out — and liberals have long largely ignored — that there are real contradictions between liberalism and multiculturalism.
Source: http://tr.im/pTf8”
I went through the post cited by you – the author puts forth no evidence for this assertion.
Liberalism and multiculturalism actually go hand-in-hand, as liberals stand for freedom and choice. Conservatives would squash choice and force people to conform to their definitions and world view – so, the opposite is more likely to be true.
To substantiate his/her view, the author says this in one part of the post:
“Yet such state interventions can end up working against individual women. Last year, for example, a Moroccan woman married to a French man was denied French citizenship because she wore a burqa at her husband’s request. The ruling declared her “radical practice of her religion (and) behavior in society incompatible with the essential values of the French community, notably the principle of equality between the sexes.” According to the scholar Cécile Laborde, political parties, intellectuals, and journalists praised the decision almost unanimously.”
I think the author is too dumb so he misses the delicious irony of the fact that the cited example goes against his own view point.
Note that the woman did not *choose* to wear the burqah – she as *asked* by her husband to do so. One can debate endlessly as to whether she complied with the request of her own free will or not, but the fact stands that she was not going to wear one of her own free will. So, was the decision just? May be, maybe not – but, the liberals were right – there was no free choice in this matter. It is interesting that the “religious/racial identity” of the French man is not clarified – I would be willing to bet serious money that the man was a muslim.
So, let us be very clear – we, as liberals, stand for free choice. But, when we see a religion or state oppress its own, then we will stand up to it, and that is an expression of freedom and free choice as well.
And, given that children are indoctrinated into their faiths, brainwashed as it were, liberals should not back down in the face of illiberal faiths.
Sarkozy has done a stellar job in the service of liberty.
Cheers
It is important to recognise that the use of burqas is a manifestation of just one of the many interpretations of certain Islamic principles. The principle is of modesty and dignity in appearance (which applies to men and women) and arose as a guidance against the previous behaviour and practices that existed in Arabia in the 6th to 7th centuries. The burqa arose later in certain communities in West Asia as Islam spread, according to their interpretations (influenced by their own pre-existing practices) .
I am saddened to see that certain comments above are just poor attempts at Islam-bashing rather than any level headed analysis.
True freedom and justice in any society allows individuals to practice their beliefs – provided they do not impinge on any one else’s rights and liberties. A nation attempting to dictate what people wear will be a strange place. Imagine if we started telling people in India what they should wear – would we ban tribal outfits if they do not sit comfortably with some people’s image of a modern India?
@ SR:
While I would be the first to support anyone’s free choice to wear the clothes of their choice, the issue of burqas is complicated by the enforcement that happens in these families.
Would the Islamic community let us do a survey of the women, without any men present, about whether they like to wear burqas?
And, there is just way too much evidence of the dominating role that men play over women in Islamic societies – a very small example – women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia? Why? Did the prophet bar them? That would be interesting!
While you are seeing the burqas in isolation, we see the illiberal tenets of Islam in totality – the day they free their women to do what they want, I will be at the forefront of the line supporting any woman’s free choice to wear the burqa.
Cheers
SR, I doubt that people will object to Muslims wearing a hijab or a chador where the face is visible, or if Muslims want to wear a taweez. So, I don’t think any objection to burqa (which obscures the face) is Islamic bashing.
BTW, what’s so wonderful about Islamic ideology that it needs special treatment and freedom? When it comes to gays, or non-Muslims, or women, and their rights, Islam’s views are pretty regressive and unfair. So, it’s fair to “bash” such regressive views. (And that goes for any regressive views in all religions.) Certain European countries have also taken a firm stance against female genital mutilation that was observed among some Muslim immigrant communities, and like burqa, is a religious-social tradition. Would you consider banning such a practice “Islam bashing”?
Let’s also keep in mind that we’re discussing what’s happening in France, which has a very strong secular tradition.
@ Patriot (#29): You are right…I think the confusion is because the author does not mean “classical liberalism” when he talks about liberalism but the current European/UK version of it.
***
@ SR: Would you like to elaborate in view of Patriot and Kaffir’s comments?
Thanks.
Pat Condell’s view on Ban the Burkha which he aptly calls a Dart Vader dress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48
Here is a short Economist article on the issue:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13925890
But, what is more fun is all the comments that follow the article – don’t miss out Kaffirhindoo in the comments section – he is particularly good as is the commentator “Imright”.
Kaffirhindoo riffing on allah’s believer had me in splits …. and, was that you Kaffir?
Cheers
=>
Kaffirhindoo riffing on allah’s believer had me in splits …. and, was that you Kaffir?
=>
@Patriot, nope.
Thanks for the link Patriot..As you said, the comments section is where the action is.
The Burkha is still in use in Britain. There is a call to ban it. See the link.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/…/Ban-the-Burkha-here-in-Britain -
The French President has called to ban it. Just type in google Burkha in Britain, you will get many hits.
So there you go, secularism defintion is it , state away from religion ( Britain) or state for uniform laws ( France). What is secularism then? But one must remember it was France which gave the world ” Liberty, equality and fraternity”.
An interesting link this.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0623/p06s11-woeu.html -
@Patriot,
Thanks much!! I guess I did not have my daily caffeine that day to read between the lines
Some are justifying it by hiding behind Secular Burkha, some are calling it an oppressive Burkha but none of us actually looked into the reason as to why exactly are Muslim women forced to wear this ridiculous cloth even in excruciating heat to follow a 6th century pathetic practice while Muslim men hog all the pleasure in the world. So here we go.
First of all, Guys, whether Burkha is banned or not, it wouldn’t matter till the time such fascist ideology as mentioned in 4:34 (women are inferior), 2:223 (women are liken to mere play tilth/field), 2:282 (woman’s testimony is half of men), 4:3 (have 4 wives and slave girls), 4:11 (son’s inheritance is twice of daughter), 4:34 (beat disobedient wives), etc. stays and is practiced. So it ain’t going to make much difference. Burkha is just a physical manifestation of what the above verses stand for.
And for those who are saying that Burkha is not mentioned in Quran, I would like bring to their notice verse 24:31 (draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment except to their own husbands). Like I said Burkha is just a physical manifestation of it.
Also note that Muslims believe in Hadiths as secondary authority to Quran. Below is a reference to the pathetic reason why they have to wear Burkha. By the way they also wanted women to cover their feet but since they couldn’t, they put it as an exception. Yeah you heard me right… how thoughtful of him…
It is so hard to read their text because half of it is full of repetition of funky acronyms R.A, S.A.W, PBUH, PPWH, etc. Now why they have say re-enforce and re-invoke PBUH again and again is beyond me. So I have removed it below for easy readability.
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/23496
http://islam1.org/khutub/Hijab.htm
“The majority of scholars Imams Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash-shafi’i and Al-Awza’i said that what is meant with the exception is the face and the hands. They based their opinion on the evidence like the one reported by Imam Abu Dawud on the authority of Ae’ishah that said, “Asma’, the daughter of ABu Bakr, came to the prophet wearing thin clothes. When the prophet saw that, he looked away and said, “Oh Asma’, if a woman reaches puberty, she should not show anything from her except this and he pointed to his face and his hand.” Imam Abu Hanifah added the feet to this exception because it is more difficult to cover the feet than the hands, and many of the women of At-Tabe’een did not cover their feet when they worked in the country.”
–
I hope I have not pissed any Taliban out there. Take it easy.
Oh I forgot to mention the stellar of all Islam for Women Rights verse: 24:13 (Why did they not produce four witnesses ? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah). So produce four witnesses to prove rape or your accusation becomes an admission of adultery. Hence, get stoned for it in case of Wahabi Islam. As per an estimate, 75% of imprisoned women in Pakistan (Land of Pure…yeah right!) are behind bars for being rape victims.
A suggestive read, “Voices behind the veil: The world of Islam through the eyes of Women”.
*** RECOVERED COMMENT ***
On Section 377, the (unholy?) nexus between the VHP, muslim leaders/groups and the Catholic Secular Forum (sic) continues …. looks like no organised religion comes down on the side of freedom and liberty.
They all claim to support moral values, but are not willing to let individuals decide their own moral compass!!!! Typical.
Here are some news clippings:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/muslims-leaders-denounce-moves-to-legalise-homosexuality/483577/0
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20090630/1285661.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090630/church-to-oppose-legalization-of-homosexuality-in-india/index.html
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_govt-faces-hurdles-in-repeal-of-anti-gay-law_1269405
*** NOTE by B Shantanu ***
Sorry Patriot, this was stuck in the spam queue. More on this later.
They can denounce all they want, but article 377 has been repealed. Unless some group challenges it and it goes to the Supreme Court (not quite familiar with the legal system). Or unless Congress/UPA comes up with a Shah Bano-like law to circumvent this repealing and appease the religious people, especially the minority vote-banks.
Kaffir,your Freudian slip shows. This was one issue which brought together all religions together, wasn’t it? Or do the VHP and the Arya Samaj no longer speak for the Hindus?
Patriot, you complain that our enlightened gurus are not willing to let individuals decide their own moral compass. You want them to cut the branch on which they are perched? Fat Chance! These guys must have composed the refrain of “The Charge of the Light Brigade” and let Tennyson take the credit.
Jayadevan, your senioritis shows. Please take vanvaas and spare us your trollish behavior, instead of continuing your pathetic attempts to gather some chelaas who can carry on your “wisdom”. In old age, people get concerned about their legacy.
Here’s the fact which you ignore: when was the last time government did something to appease VHP or Arya Samaj? And I wouldn’t call it united – yes, all those groups are against repealing of 377, but that doesn’t mean they will unite together and join hands.
@ Satyabhashnam:
I used to wonder about many of these aspects of the quran and the hadith and wonder these stuff can be religious prescriptions – but, if you think about the Quran simply as one man’s attempt to legitimise his plunder, his treachery and his behaviour, then it all becomes clear.
Have a look at this:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm
It is a fascinating read.
Cheers
@Kaffir:
I just saw that the Delhi High Court has struck down Section 377 yesterday – the quotations you saw were from much earlier.
Great day for personal liberty. Now, let us see what the Congress does.
Cheers
@Patriot
I agree with your sentiments entirely. The Supreme Court did India proud on their striking out of Section 377. Congress has between now and the next election to push through Shah Bano type amendment to appease the fundamentalists. Then we will at the reactionary party that it has always been.
@ Khandu -
It was the Delhi High Court that ruled on it, not the Supreme Court – but, I am sure the “aggreived” moral parties are going to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I think the Congress has been clever about this, with Moily first saying that 377 needs to go, and then coyly backtracking, citing more discussion are required – meanwhile, the Delhi High Court did their job (I wonder if they were tipped off? Congress, I mean).
And, the language in which the judgment has been framed makes it extremely difficult for any political party to now undo this – the HC has ruled that it is violative of fundamental equalities guaranteed to the citizens of India by the Constitution – if the Supreme Court agress, that is that. Because any legislation trying to undo this will be called ultra vires of the constitution.
So, July 2 will go down in India’s history as a great day for personal liberty. I also notice, with chagrin, that the Communist parties are the only ones who have come out in full support of the HC judgement. All the other parties are in hiding.
Meanwhile, “Baba” Ramdev finally dropped the veil and showed what a hidebound reactionary he really is:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Gays-not-part-of-Gods-plan-say-religious-leaders/articleshow/4731106.cms
And, oh, BTW, did you know, he had also claimed that he could cure HIV and cancer through yoga – I wonder why people still go to Tata Memorial in Mumbai ….. oh ye, people of little faith
http://www.ramdevyoga.net/cancer-cure-by-pranayam-swami-ramdev-yoga/
As he prepares for his entry into Indian politics, I worry for the future of India.
Khandu Patel is right, Europe is showing its limits in terms of integration while racism is growing across the old continent.
As a French citizen I’m really concern with the government stand on this issue. To forbid religious signs for government officials is one thing, although controversial, but to ban an item that some people considered part of the religion (culture) is way out of line.
Sarkozy is plain wrong when he states: “The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue.”, in a perfect world that would be true and same thing would be said of extremist who use suicide bombers, unfortunately we don’t live in that world. The sad fact is that some cultures have adopted the burqua as a religious symbol. To argue against the latter would be the same as telling French people from the 60’s that smoking is wrong. Change takes time, and having different culture in Europe should be seen as a gift rather than a cultural concern. With time and understanding immigrants will learn a lot from their new home, and so would “natives”
.
Share your thoughts below.
Join the Community
|| Satyameva Jayate || delivered to your Inbox
Archives
Contact Me
Recent Comments
Categories
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Search
Most Viewed (since Dec '09)