The following is a guest contribution. Reuters is not responsible for the content and the views expressed are the author’s alone. Sarah Sayeed is a Program Associate at the Interfaith Center of New York and a board member of Women In Islam, Inc.
By Sarah Sayeed
As an American Muslim woman who adheres to religious guidelines on modest dress, I find it ironic that such remarkably different nations as Sudan and France seem similarly preoccupied with legislating Muslim women’s dress. The Sudanese government recently arrested and whipped women, including Christian women, for wearing trousers. The French banned a woman wearing a head-to-toe Muslim bathing suit (a “burkini”) from entering a town pool.
(Photo: Australian lifeguard Mecca Laalaa in her burkini, 13 Jan 2007/Tim Wimborne)
Even if we were to give credence to an argument that pants are immodest for women, there is no injunction in the Quran or any example from Prophet Muhammad which demands corporeal punishment for “inappropriate” dress. Such a harsh practice completely contradicts the justice and compassion that Islam mandates.
Likewise, the French ban on burkinis is outrageous. Wearing the burkini has given me the freedom to enjoy water sports with my son; it has not limited me, but rather enhanced the quality of my life. But now, I worry that other public pools will follow suit. In recent years, France banned religious symbols in public schools, including the headscarf, and denied citizenship to a Muslim woman who wears a face veil. Will this disturbing trend spread across other democratic nations?
France and Sudan are miles apart geographically, politically, and culturally. Yet both countries have imposed on the personal freedom of Muslim women to dress as they choose, and ultimately, to participate in the public sphere. Sudan’s choice to impose corporeal punishment is far more egregious, relative to banning a woman from entering a pool. For the average person, Sudan’s actions seem barbaric, but in a way, unsurprising because they conform to a prevailing stereotype about Islamic law as harsh and oppressive to women.
But because French laws are enacted in a context which purports more openness, plurality and freedom, they could be more harmful to the cause of global freedom and democracy. France perceives itself as a free country that allows its citizens to practice the religion of their choice. France, like other Western European countries or the United States, would want Muslim nations to “look up to it,” to learn from its example how to separate religion and state. However, the French ban on head covers, face covers, and now on pool attire suggests that religious freedom is bounded, even within a democratic context.
It is true that the ban on headscarves emerged out of a debate among French Muslims. Specifically, one group of Muslims felt that their freedom of choice and conscience were imposed upon when other Muslims insulted and physically harassed girls who were not wearing a scarf. The former turned to the government for assistance. Out of its sense of responsibility to maintain public order, the government banned all religious symbols in public schools. But preserving the freedom of conscience of one party need not come at the expense of freedom of religious practice of another. There are other methods of resolving such conflicts, including prosecuting harassment and attacks as hate crimes, imposing strict penalties on perpetrators, and even community mediation.
(Photo: Palestinian girls play beach volleyball at Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip, 20 \june 2009/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa)
French authorities also voiced a concern that loose fitting swim gear that “can be worn in public may carry molecules and viruses that can be transmitted to other bathers.” Even though most Muslim women are unlikely to wear the burkini anywhere else, surely a shower before entering the water and the chlorine of a public pool can be counted upon to take care of these dangerous “molecules and viruses!” A deeper mistrust of Muslims emerges in Mayor Kelyor’s statement that to permit the burkini is to “go back in civilization.” Muslim women’s practice of modesty poses a threat to French notions of progress just as Sudanese Muslim women’s choice to wear pants was also deemed threatening.
Ultimately, authorities in Sudan and France conveyed a parallel message. To democracy’s nay-sayers in the Muslim world, France communicated that those who practice Islam will be marginalized. To Islam’s nay-sayers Sudan confirmed the interpretation that Islamic law is an oppressive and restrictive. Both have infringed upon the rights of minority groups within their respective contexts.
Governments and political movements worldwide, from Turkey to Afghanistan, from France to the U.K, from Sudan to Saudi Arabia, all are inappropriately focused on controlling Muslim women’s dress. It is surprising that even within nations that uphold individual freedom, democracy and the separation of religion and state, governments seem to be anxious about Muslim women’s attire. Would governments ever legislate that men who wear beards may not become citizens and those who wear fitted pants should be whipped? I say to these governments: get out of our hair, and stay away from our pants! Instead, what government must do is to protect the freedom of Muslim women to choose our dress. Protecting choice guarantees human dignity and maintains fairness. Ultimately, the preservation of democracy as well as the practice of Islam depends on it.
———————
The burkini (aka “burqini”), which first appeared in Australia, has also been banned in at least one Dutch swimming pool.
Following is a Reuters video report on the recent “burkini ban” in France –
Trackback
48 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
Sarah, thanks for your thoughtful answers. A few ideas in response:
- Posted by Tom Heneghan– You write that “it is important to reconcile the disconnect between what the intention is and what the recipients’ perceptions and experiences are of those rules/laws.” I agree 100% and don’t have to tell you that this is one of the things that interfaith and intercultural dialogue is there for. We have to be optimistic enough to believe that rational people can find a solution.
– You ask “who gets to define the nature of freedom and boundaries” in society. Not to be flip, but society itself does. That is, the people and groups in a society roughly agree on what has to be done to promote the common good. When people and groups in the society change, the society has to be open to change along with them. But there is no formula for how to change and how much change is needed. This can only be worked out in the public sphere.
– on hygiene, I don’t have any scientific info on germs vs. showers and chlorine, but I can say the French don’t fully share the American enthusiasm for technical solutions (”better living through chemistry”) when they think a simpler one like a dress code can suffice. They do use chlorine in their pools, but not as much as in the U.S., and they don’t want to dump more in because it can be harmful to swimmers and the environment. I’m no expert on the details of public pool hygiene but French friends who swim regularly in public pools tell me this makes sense to them and using more chemicals does not.
Tom,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments.
Re: the French pool and their hygiene concerns- I understand. The issue is that even if they are not motivated by prejudice, and intentions are good, the problem is that for Muslim women who cover, it is experienced as prejudicial. Reconciling that disconnect is important.
I don’t think it is enough to say, “we are not discriminating” because we know from history that this doesn’t work– rather, if rules/laws explicitly infringe on someone’s freedom/religious choices, there should be concrete alternatives offered. In the past, the option has been segregation- and I am not sure that would work in this case, alongside the push to integrate. Some of those who practiced segregation in the US used scripture as well as practical reasoning to justify it—but it was still experienced as demeaning.
It is like the mosque access issue for women- sometimes the argument is made based on religious reasoning that women aren’t required to do their Friday prayers at a mosque, so it is not required for mosques to provide space for Muslim women on Fridays. Other times, mosques say they don’t have space for Muslim women to pray on Fridays because they are overcrowded with men, and space is short. Both the religious reasoning and practical reasons may be true and may not be intended as discriminatory, but it is experienced as discriminatory and alienating.
Alienated individuals result in a fractured community and ultimately social unrest….maybe that is something else to write further about. Also, while we can dissect the arguments for arguments’ sake and assume that the French aren’t being discriminatory against Muslim women, we know that in reality, societies and rule makers include those who are discriminatory. That is why I think it is important to reconcile the disconnect between what the intention is and what the recipients’ perceptions and experiences are of those rules/laws.
An article could probably be written on interfaith/cross cultural perspectives on hygiene:) I don’t think that Muslim women would dare to wear their burkini on the bus to the pool– hmm at least I would not- unless there was absolutely no place to change on the other end! I am also genuinely curious about the scientific reasoning underlying the germs issue- is it really true that germs that are acquired on a bus cannot be adequately done away with using a shower and chlorine? If you have any more information on that, it would be important to know.
Your statement, “But religious freedom — like all freedoms — is bounded in some way in all democratic countries, and rightfully so” makes a lot of sense. The problem is that when “Western” countries like the U.S. or France sell freedom to others, they never tell you that it is bounded– they say that they are “free” while the rest of the world is “not free.” In reality, all societies have relative freedom, including the West. We need to think about who gets to define the nature of that freedom and boundaries–How do the boundaries get negotiated over time, and as societies become increasingly multi/transcultural? This applies to all societies, whether Islamic or Western or Eastern.
You are right to point out that a government is not required to respond to the concerns specifically of Muslim women, and yes, they do have a responsibility to protect the choices of all citizens. My assumption is that a Muslim woman is part of the group of citizens, and her rights must be protected because she is a citizen—not as some special group. You write that the limitations that we are subject to are decided on by society- yet again, my question is, who are the members of the society, and what is their role in determining the limitations? Who articulates the limitations, and who is ultimately heard by the state? For me personally, the practice of Islam is intimately bound up with the protection of choice- that is why I focused on Sudan’s practice as problematic. Given the plural nature of Muslim societies, if choice is not protected, we are at risk of violating religious principles of compassion and justice. I believe that states must prioritize which ethical principles underlie their laws, and I do hope that the priority will be compassion and preservation of choice.
Thank you again.
- Posted by Sarah SayeedSarah, as you probably remember from your previous FaithWorld contribution (http://tinyurl.com/myg8df), I appreciate having your strong opinions here but don’t fully agree with all of them. Our main point of difference seems to be over whether freedom of religion is an absolute right or whether it has to be put in a wider social context of competing rights and duties.
I see no problem with a woman wearing a burkini at the beach. But French municipal pools are quite strict on hygiene and effectively ban anything that the bather could come to the pool already wearing, thereby bringing in dirt from outside. Bathing caps are mandatory. Long baggy swimtrunks for men are also out as they could double as shorts worn on the way to the pool, something they wouldn’t do in a skimpy swimsuit.
You write that “surely a shower before entering the water and the chlorine of a public pool can be counted upon to take care of these dangerous ‘molecules and viruses!’” French pools already have pre-swim showers and chlorine, but the officials who run them decided long before the burkini ever appeared on the scene that these were not enough to ensure cleanliness in the enclosed spaces for which they are legally responsible.
I’m not saying that some officials are not prejudiced against Muslims and might not be more motivated by that prejudice than by any concern for hygiene. This certainly happens — as in that mayor’s comments about the burkini amounting to “going back in civilisation” — and it deserves to be highlighted and criticised. But I also know that I, as a non-Muslim male, am also constrained by what I can and cannot wear in a public pool here. Similar restrictions apply in other European countries — I first encountered them in Germany in 1972 when I was a student there and the few Muslims in town were mostly working men. Saying a real hygiene-based burkini ban (not a prejudiced one) amounts to a message that “those who practice Islam will be marginalized” does not tell me what message is sent by the long-standing hygiene-based ban on baggy shorts and uncapped hair for French non-Muslim men.
In the post, you say “the French ban on head covers, face covers and now on pool attire suggests that religious freedom is bounded, even within a democratic context.” This suggests it somehow is not bounded elsewhere, for example in the U.S. But religious freedom — like all freedoms — is bounded in some way in all democratic countries, and rightfully so. Religious freedom should be allowed as far as possible, and we advocate that on this blog. But there inevitably are limits. No multifaith society can operate peacefully if each religious group has unlimited freedom. No democratic society can operate peacefully if any social group has unlimited freedom. The challenge is to allow as much freedom as possible without creating divisions in the society. This doesn’t mean existing regulations can’t be changed, but criticism of them has to refute the reasons behind them and not simply posit freedom of religion as an absolute right that, in cases of a clash, other society-wide rules and regulations must necessarily adapt to.
I also find your conclusion questionable. You write: “what government must do is to protect the freedom of Muslim women to choose our dress. Protecting choice guarantees human dignity and maintains fairness. Ultimately, the preservation of democracy as well as the practice of Islam depends on it.” Unless it is an Islamic state, the government does not have a specific responsibility to protect Muslim women’s choices, only the choices of all citizens. And they must all be subject to certain limitations decided by the society, be they a ban on displaying intimate body parts in public or a ban on full facial veils in public. Although a state may decide to protect the specific choices of a specific minority, its democratic credentials do not depend on that. Indeed, one could argue that this approach might actually undermine democracy rather than strengthen it. And I wonder if the practice of Islam really does depend on state protection for specific women’s clothing choices that many Muslims do not think are necessary to be faithful to their religion.
- Posted by Tom HeneghanWell done Sarah - this was a balanced and thought provoking article
- Posted by maureenAs long as can see women’s face, it shouldn’t be seen as a security risk, or demeaning to women (that has to feel has to cover oneself up so much, or embarrassed about about one’s body ). The real issue is the need for religions and secular society to feel more compatible and friendly towards each others interpretation of propriety! These are all reasons to support “Bob Larick’s” Holistic, Risk Management, Interfaith,Business,Security (& development) Alliance Institute; as an integral part of meaningful UN reform , and a local to global , Culture of Mutual Respect/Consideration and Goodwill, between “All God’s Children”.Don’t we all need a Salvation Agenda, to Achieve Sustainable, Human Security & Prosperity, in this world ( not just beyond)?
- Posted by Bob LarickThank you for your lovely and enlightneing article. Fear breeds on ignorance. Please keep writing your wonde ful articles and hence, educate all of us. What does it matter what we wear or in many cases, not wear? I will never understand why can’t we understand and respect one another despite our garb, whatever it maybe. What happened to the old adage of NEVER “judging a book by it’s cover”. Brevity is the soul of wit and diversity is the soul of life.
Thank you
- Posted by Maura[...] costumes. As for the "burkini", I didn’t see it once, but if American Muslim Sarah Sayeed is to be believed, the outfit is becoming more and more popular worldwide. Some French councils [...]
- Posted by The burkini & the beach | Newpapers CollectedThanks, Sarah Sayeed, for starting this discussion. I thought it was a no-brainer that women should choose their own dress, but I see that readers are quite conflicted about it.
I’m surprised by the number of writers who cannot imagine an educated, thinking woman choosing to cover herself. Such a choice is derided as a sign that “a woman cannot think for herself” or even as “malicious progaganda” by writers who probably think they respect women. Maybe folks need to get to know educated women who’ve made this choice before dismissing it all as ignorance.
I’m also surprised by the number of people from “freedom loving civilized countries” who are ready to dictate what Muslim women should or should not wear. We’re offended by patriarchal societies that dictate women’s dress and behavior, yet we’re ok with Western societies that legislate conformity?
A number of respondents say “Do as the Romans do”, i.e. follow the local restrictions wherever you are, i.e. you have no right to question. In the U.S., if someone passes a restriction we don’t like, we push back and argue about it. Isn’t that the model we prefer, rather than passive acceptance?
Finally, some argue that the burkini issue is all about public health. Were head coverings in French schools banned because of public health? Is that why the Dutch said that women in burkinis could swim at separate times like other ’special groups?’ I suspect it’s a monolithic fear of Islam behind this, with public health as the latest thinly ‘veiled’ excuse.
Islam has as many variants as Christianity, Judaism and nonbelief. If we can’t respect that complexity, we end up trying to “exclude all forms” or, almost as bad, dividing Muslims between ‘ignorant’ and ‘liberated.’ That’s a trap, and a disservice.
- Posted by Wendy