آیا حجاب باید ممنوع شود؟

تحلیلی از حجاب و جایگاه آن


Share/Save/Bookmark

آیا حجاب باید ممنوع شود؟
by Azar Majedi
15-Apr-2011
 

با تصویب ممنوعیت برقع و نقاب در امکان عمومی در فرانسه، یکبار دیگر مساله حجاب، آزادی مذهب و پوشش، حقوق مدنی و سکولاریسم (لائیسیته) و تبعیض علیه یک محیط اجتماعی معین، محیط مسلمان، در صدر اخبار و مسائل بحث برانگیز اجتماعی قرار گرفته است. مساله حجاب بویژه در دهه اخیر بعنوان یک مساله حاد در جوامع غربی مطرح بوده است. چند سال پیش در انگلستان دختری که حجاب کامل از سر تا پا می پوشید مدرسه ای را که حجاب کامل را ممنوع کرده بود به دادگاه کشاند؛ در هلند چند سال پیش دولت مساله ممنوعیت برقع را طرح کرد؛ در بلژیک پارلمان ممنوعیت برقع را به تصویب رساند، اما بحران دولتی عملا اجرای آنرا بتعویق انداخت.

هر بار که دولتی تمایل خود به ممنوعیت حجاب را در شکل یا فرمی طرح می کند، اسلامیست ها و برخی سازمان های مدافع آزادی مذهب و حقوق مدنی بحث حول این مباحث را در رسانه ها و جراید کشوری مطرح می کنند.

اسلامیست ها و برخی سازمان های حقوق بشر اعلام می کنند که جامعه باصطلاح مسلمان از واقعه تروریستی یازده سپتامبر مورد تبعیض و حملات راسیستی قرار گرفته است. بر همین مبنا استدلال می کنند که تلاش برای ممنوعیت برقع و نقاب تعرض به آزادی های فردی و حمله راسیستی دیگری به جامعه مسلمان است. برای روشن شدن صحت و سقم این ادعاها باید این مسائل را مورد تحلیل و بررسی عمیق تر قرار داد.

بنظر من دفاع مطلق از پوشش حجاب، یعنی در هر شکل و فرم آن و در هر شرایطی، بعنوان دفاع از آزادیهای فردی یا آزادی پوشش کاملا اشتباه و گمراه کننده است. چنین استدلالی حقوق دیگر برسمیت شناخته شده در جامعه، حقوقی اگر نه مهم تر به همان اندازه مهم را تحت الشعاع قرار می دهد. دفاع بی قید و شرط و مطلق از پوشش حجاب با حقوق دیگر در تناقض قرار می گیرد؛ بطور نمونه، حقوق کودک، حقوق زنان، حق جامعه و اصل سکولاریسم. در دفاغ از آزادی پوشش حجاب باید شرایط مختلفی را در نظر گرفت. 1- سن فردی که حجاب می پوشد؛ 2- میزان حجاب، یعنی تا چه میران از بدن را می پوشاند؛ 3- در کجا حجاب مورد استفاده قرار گرفته است.

چرا این فاکتورها باید در نظر گرفته شود؟

قبل از هر چیز باید حجاب را تعریف کرد و جایگاه آنرا شناخت. آیا حجاب فقط یک مد لباس یا یک نوع لباس است؟ بحثی که می کوشد حجاب را فقط یک نوع لباس قلمداد کند، کاملا گمراه کننده است. پوشیدن حجاب یک اصل و دستور مذهبی و پوشش مذهبی است؛ بعلاوه، در شرایط کنونی حجاب به بیرق یک جنبش شدیدا ارتجاعی و ضد زن، یعنی اسلام سیاسی، بدل شده است. حجاب به سمبل قدرت اسلامی بدل شده است. هر جا اسلامیست ها قدرت سیاسی را بدست گرفته اند یا در قدرت سیاسی سهیم شده اند، حجاب را با زور شلاق و شکنجه بر زنان تحمیل کرده اند. تحمیل حجاب بر زنان سمبل قدرت گیری و پیروزی اسلام سیاسی و جنبش اسلامی است.

چرا این استدلال به بحث ما مربوط میشود؟ ممکن است در مقابل این بحث چنین استدلال شود که صرفنظر از خصلت مذهبی یا سیاسی حجاب، فرد باید در پوشیدن هر سمبل مذهبی یا سیاسی آزاد باشد. پاسخ به ادعای اخیر از زاویه اصول و قوانین حاکم در جوامع مدرن منفی است. در بسیاری جوامع از جمله جوامع غربی، در بسیاری مشاغل یک کد یا نرم پوشش وجود دارد. بطور نمونه در بخش پزشکی، پلیس، آتش نشانی، و ادارات هر نوع پوششی آزاد نیست. این نرم از طرف جامعه پذیرفته شده و رعایت می شود. لذا حجاب نیز باید از همین زاویه مورد بررسی قرار گیرد.

یا بطور نمونه، موتور سواران و در برخی جوامع دوچرخه سواران باید کلاه ایمنی بسر داشته باشند؛ لذا ادعای برخی مذاهب یا تعلقات ملی به پوششی بر سر که مانع پوشیدن کلاه ایمنی است، پذیرفته نمی شود. حجاب نیز باید در حیطه همین مقولات مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. اما بنظر می رسد که نه تنها اسلامیست ها، بلکه برخی سازمان های حقوق بشر و چپ نیز حجاب را بعنوان مقوله ای کاملا مجزا و منحصر بفرد در نظر می گیرند.

این استاندارد دو گانه را باید مورد نقد جدی قرار داد. باید هر نوع "حجاب" رومانتیکی که بر حجاب کشیده شده است را درید و جعلیات و مغلطه های فلسفی و حقوقی حول این مقوله را شکافت. حجاب سمبل مذهب، ایدئولوژی و جنبش سیاسی ای است که زن را بی ارزش و بی حقوق قلمداد می کند. حجاب ابزار و سمبل بی حقوقی و بردگی زن است.

اسلام، همچون تمام مذاهب دیگر، زن ستیز و مردسالار است. اسلام محصول یک نظم مرد سالار است و بعلاوه مردسالاری موجود را ارتقاء داده و در اشکالی کنکرت تر و محدود کننده تر تثبیت کرده است. اسلام، بویژه در تمام جوانب زندگی شخصی، خصوصی و اجتماعی انسان نفوذ کرده است. اسلام قوانین و مقررات بسیار مردسالارانه ای بر مناسبات میان زن و مرد در خانواده و جامعه مقرر کرده است. آپارتاید جنسی مشخصه نظام سیاسی-اجتماعی اسلام است.

زن، طبق اسلام، موجودی مستقل و صاحب رای و اراده نیست. زن تداوم مرد محسوب می شود. زن متعلق به مرد، پدر، پدر بزرگ، برادر یا شوهر است. خود هیچ موجودیت و هویت مستقلی ندارد. اصلا بدون مردی که صاحبش باشد، در جامعه بحساب هم نمی آید. حجاب تجویز شده است، تا مایملک مرد را از تعرض مردان دیگر محفوظ بدارد؛ مانند سیم خارداری که دور خانه ای کشیده می شود تا از ورود دزد به خانه جلوگیری کند. یک زن "آزاد"، بدون "صاحب"، در اسلام مال "حلالی" است برای تعرض هر مردی.

این یک بحث و ادعای پوچ است که حجاب را صرفا یک نوع پوشش در نظر بگیریم. باید تاکید کرد که حجاب در زندگی میلیون ها زن که تحت قانون اسلام زندگی می کنند، ابزاری برای بندگی و بی حقوقی است.

با این وجود ممکن است استدلال شود، که اگر کسی تصمیم بگیرد یک زندگی برده وار را انتخاب کند، باید بتواند چنین کند. جامعه مدنی مدرن پاسخ متفاوتی به این استدلال ارائه می دهد. در جامعه مدرن که برخی حقوق انسانی و فردی برسمیت شناخته شده است، منشورهایی در دفاع از حقوق کودک، حقوق زن و غیره بتصویب رسیده است. در این جوامع حتی کوشیده می شود که انسان را از آزار رساندن بخود مانع شوند. با همین متد، می توان و باید محدودیت هایی بر پوشیدن حجاب برقرار کرد. در اینجاست که اختلافات و بحث های متقابل در می گیرد. این یک عرصه خاکستری و بحث برانگیز است. در اینجاست که باید به عرصه هایی که در بالا به آنها اشاره شد بپردازیم.

ممنوعیت حجاب برای دختران زیر سن قانونی

یکی از دستاوردهای جامعه مدرن برسمیت شناختن کودک بعنوان انسانی مستقل و ضربه پذیر است. این آگاهی، تصویب منشوری بعنوان منشور حقوق کودک را ضروری کرده است. تمام جوامع متعلق به سازمان ملل، در شکل فرمال یا واقعی و با درجات مختلف در اجرای منشور، منشور حقوق کودک را برسمیت شناخته اند. هدف این منشور دفاع از حقوق کودک و ممانعت از سوءاستفاده و آسیب رساندن به کودک است. جامعه باید در مقابل حق کودک به یک زندگی نرمال، ایمن و شاد مسئول باشد. رشد نرمال و سالم یک کودک از مسئولیت های اجتماع و نه فقط اولیای کودک است. این منشور کودک را در مقابل آسیب و سوءاستفاده اولیاء و خانواده نیز محفوظ می دارد و یا باید محفوظ بدارد. مبارزات بسیاری انجام گرفته است تا ایده سنتی، پدرسالارانه و فئودالی که کودک را مایملک پدر محسوب می کند به مصاف بطلبد.

این یک دستاورد مهم است که در اساس مذهب را به مصاف می طلبد. زیرا طبق اصول مذهبی کودک مایملک پدر است. در اسلام پدر یا پدر بزرگ حق دارند کودک را بکشند و هیچ مقامی حق دخالت در این امر را ندارد. باین ترتیب منشور دفاع از حقوق کودک بعنوان یک انسان مستقل و دارای حقوق ویژه، این اصل پایه ای مذهب را باطل اعلام می کند. لغو حقوق بی قید و شرط اولیاء، در واقع پدر بر کودک، باید به دختران تحت اسلام نیز بسط یابد.

حجاب یک تعرض مستقیم و خشن به حقوق دختر بچه ها است. حجاب دختران را از یک زندگی نرمال، شاد و رشد آزادانه و سالم محروم می کند. حجاب از همان طفولیت جدایی دو جنس را بر جامعه تحمیل می کند. دختر از همان طفولیت تحت تبعیض مسلم قرار می گیرد. می آموزد که باید نوع دیگری عمل و فکر کند؛ باید توقعاتش را از زندگی کاهش دهد؛ درونی میکند که هویت و موجودیت مستقل ندارد؛ باید خاموش و مطیع باشد. حجاب ابزاری برای تثبیت بی حقوقی زن، بندگی زن و آپارتاید جنسی در جامعه است. لذا برای دفاع از حقوق کودک، ممانعت از تعرض به حقوق کودک، آسیب رساندن به شخصیت و رشد کودک، حجاب باید برای کودکان ممنوع شود.

استدلالی که در مقابله با این خواست انسانی، بر دفاع از آزادی مذهب تاکید می کند، کاملا پوچ و مسخره است. "کودک مذهب ندارد." این مذهب اولیاء و خانواده است که بر کودک تحمیل می شود. لذا تا زمانی که کودک، کودک است، باید از تعرض مذهب محفوظ باشد. زمانی که به سن قانونی رسید، آنگاه می تواند میان بندگی و آزادی انتخاب کند. جامعه در مقابل حقوق کودک و رشد سالم و نرمال وی مسئول است و باید این مسئولیت خود را جدی بگیرد؛ همانگونه که کار کودک را ممنوع اعلام کرده است؛ تنبیه بدنی کودک جرم محسوب می شود؛ سوء استفاده جنسی از کودک جرم است و آموزش و پرورش کودک اجباری است؛ حجاب نیز باید در رده این مقولات قرار گیرد و پوشش آن برای دختر بچه ها ممنوع شود. حجاب یک تعرض مسلم جسمی و روحی به کودک است.

جامعه سکولار در برابر حجاب

در یک جامعه سکولار، مذهب امر خصوصی و شخصی شهروندان است و باید از دولت، قوانین، آموزش و پرورش و هویت شهروندی جدا باشد. بیک معنا دولت در برابر مذاهب خنثی است و هیچ مذهبی را تشویق و تبلیغ نمی کند. یک جامعه سکولار قابلیت دفاع بیشتری از حقوق فردی و مدنی افراد دارا است. بر خلاف نظر حاکم که یک جامعه سکولار را مخالف آزادی مذهب قلمداد می کند، یک جامعه سکولار از آزادی افراد در اعتقاد به هر مذهبی دفاع می کند و محکم تر در مقابل تحریکات نفرت مذهبی مقاومت می کند.

از اینرو در یک جامعه سکولار پوشیدن یا حمل هر نوع سمبل مذهبی در ادارات و بنیادهای دولتی ممنوع است. چنین قانونی بر مبنای جدایی دولت از مذهب و عدم دفاع حکومت از یک مذهب معین تدوین شده است. لذا بر دیوار ادارات دولتی هیچ عکس و سمبل مذهبی از صلیب تا الله یا ستاره مخصوص مذهب یهود خبری نخواهد بود. انداختن صلیب به گردن، پوشیدن کلاهک یهودی توسط مردان و حجاب توسط زنان ممنوع خواهد بود. باین ترتیب از هر نوع تداخل مذاهب در ادارات و مجامع دولتی پرهیز می شود. تبعیضات مذهبی کاهش می یابد و تفرقه و جدایی های مذهبی تعدیل می شود.

بنابراین، بنظر من قانون اخیر در فرانسه که پوشیدن و حمل هر نوع سمبل مذهبی را در ادارات و اماکن دولتی ممنوع می کند، قدم مثبتی به پیش است. اما این قانون باندازه کافی به پیش نمی رود. چرا که مدارس مذهبی خصوصی هنوز در فرانسه آزاد هستند. این مدارس به محیطی برای تبعیض مضاعف، تفرقه و جدایی بیشتر، و گتو سازی بدل می شود. باید مدارس مذهبی خصوص نیز ممنوع شود تا هر کودکی از یک محیط برابر تر برای رشد و آموزش برخوردار شود.

برقع و نقاب، یک حق فردی یا تعرض به یک حق اجتماعی

حجاب در اشکال مختلفی اعمال می شود. از روسری تا چادر و برقع و نقاب اشکال مختلف حجاب محسوب می شوند. در سال های اخیر، برقع بعنوان سمبل طالبان شناخته شده است. نظامی بشدت ارتجاعی که ضد انسانی ترین شرایط را بر یک جامعه تحمیل کرده است و موقعیت زنان را از احشام نیز پایین تر برده است.

سوال اساسی اینجاست که آیا یک زن باید "آزاد" باشد که برقع یا نقاب بر چهره خود بکشد؟ بنظر من خیر. ممنوعیت برقع و نقاب را از دو نقطه نظر می توان مورد دفاع قرار داد. 1- دفاع از حق زنان؛ 2- دفاع از حق جامعه.

در بالا اعلام کردیم که حجاب ابزار و سمبل بردگی زن است. و بر همین مبنا استدلال کردیم که حجاب باید برای دختران زیر سن قانونی ممنوع شود. اما پذیرفتیم که در یک جامعه آزاد افراد بزرگسال باید مجاز باشند که در صورت "تمایل" حجاب را "انتخاب" کنند. همچنین از محدودیت هایی که جامعه بر "خود آزاری" مقرر می کند، نیز صحبت کردیم. بطور نمونه، ختنه دختران که پس از یک مبارزه طولانی نام درست تری بر آن گذاشته شد، یعنی مثله جنسی دختران، در بسیاری از جوامع متمدن ممنوع شده است. مدافعین حقوق زن و کودک بدنبال یک مبارزه طولانی و متمرکز توانستند توجه جامعه را به این عمل وحشیانه جلب کنند و آنرا بعنوان یک جنایت برسمیت بشناسانند.

در اینجا باید تاکید کرد که آزادی مذهب بمعنای آزادی عمل کردن به تمام دستورات و اصول مذهبی نیست. برخی مذاهب به قربانی کردن انسان ها در مقابل خدایان معتقدند؛ برخی به مثله جنسی دختران؛ برخی به بی حقوقی و آزار جسمی و روحی انسان ها؛ برخی به سوزاندن زن بیوه بهمراه جسد شوهرش؛ تمام این رسوم و دستورات در کشورهای متمدن غیرقانونی است و باید در تمام دنیا ممنوع شود. مطابق اسلام مرد حق دارد زن "سرکش اش" را تنبیه بدنی کند؛ آیا باید این دستور آزاد باشد؟ روشن است که نباید چنین باشد و مردی که به این دستور عمل می کند با قانون روبرو خواهد شد.

برقع و نقاب نیز در رده همین دستورات مذهبی است و باید ممنوع شود. برقع و نقاب زن را از هر نوع هویتی محروم می کند. زن را به یک روح بی هویت و شکل بدل می کند، هویت انسانی را از او سلب می کند. اجازه پوشش آن بمعنای قبول موجوداتی بی هویت است که مانند ارواح در گوشه و کنار جامعه در تحرک اند و این یک توهین مسلم به زن و حقوق و انسانیت اوست. جامعه نباید به چنین بی احترامی و تعرضی به زن اجازه بروز دهد. نقاب و برقع باید تحت قانون "خود آزاری" غیرقابل مجاز قرار گیرد. حال از این استدلال می گذریم که هیچ انسان صاحب اختیاری حاضر نمی شود که چنین توهین و محدودیتی را آزادانه انتخاب کند!

در برخورد به مقوله نقاب و برقع ما از حیطه حقوق فردی عبور می کنیم و به حیطه حقوق اجتماعی می رسیم. برقع علاوه بر تعرض آشکار به حقوق زن، حقوق اجتماعی را نیز مورد تهدید قرار می دهد. فردی که برقع بر چهره دارد، برای افراد دور و بر و جامعه، بی هویت است؛ قابل شناخت نیست؛ جامعه نمی تواند بطور روزمره با انسان بی صورت و هویت فونکسیون های خود را به پیش برد. بطور مثال در یک محیط کار، چه همکاران و چه مراجعین قادر نیستند با فردی که صورت خود را پوشانده است وارد صحبت، مذاکره یا کار و فعالیت شوند. مساله جلب اعتماد افراد یک فاکتور مهم در پیشبرد فونکسیونهای اجتماعی است. انسان بی چهره این اعتماد را زیر پا می گذارد و یک خلاء مهم اعتماد در محیط کار و در اطراف خود ایجاد می کند.

مساله اعتماد از محیط کار فراتر می رود. در اماکن عمومی، در خیابان، در اتوبوس، زمین بازی کودکان، در هواپیما، در هر محیط عمومی، فرد برقع پوش یک شرایط ناامن برای محیطش ایجاد می کند. در اینجاست که حق فردی با حق اجتماعی در تعارض قرار می گیرد. ممنوعیت پوشش برقع و نقاب مانند ممنوعیت سیگار کشیدن در اماکن عمومی است. فردی که سیگار می کشد حقش محدود میشود باین خاطر که دود سیگار برای افراد دیگر مضر است. حق فردی با حق اجتماعی در تعارض قرار می گیرد و لذا محدود می شود.

در پایان باید یکبار دیگر تاکید کنیم که حجاب را باید دوباره و بدون هیچگونه رومانتیسم حق فردی یا آزادی مذهب تعریف کنیم. حجاب را بعنوان ابزار و سمبل به بردگی کشیدن زنان و تنزل شان انسانی زن برسمیت بشناسیم. مضرات آنرا برای رشد نرمال، آزاد و سالم کودک برسمیت بشناسیم و همچنین مضرات آنرا برای کل جامعه مورد بررسی قرار دهیم. باین ترتیب به واقعیت وجودی حجاب پی خواهیم برد. اسلامیست های زیرک، همان کسانی که با شلاق حجاب را در محیط های تحت تسلط خود پیاده می کنند، در جوامعی که حقوق مدنی را برسمیت می شناسد، به این حقوق متوسل می شوند تا حجاب را در جامعه به یک پدیده عادی و قابل احترام بدل کنند. باید این راه را در مقابل اسلامیست ها مسدود کرد.

آذر ماجدی


Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Azar MajediCommentsDate
نوستالژی رژیم گذشته
11
Nov 02, 2012
باند سیاه
14
Oct 04, 2012
بازار شام آلترناتیو هاى ارتجاعی
17
Sep 30, 2012
more from Azar Majedi
 
Sahameddin Ghiassi

حجاب تنها مشګل نیست مشګلها عمیق تر هستند

Sahameddin Ghiassi


تمامی قربانیان جامعه های دنیا بایست باهم متحد شوند   هنګامیکه دانشجویی بیش نبودم  استاد ما میګفت که ګروهی از مردمان بسیار باهوش و با ثروت بنام ایلومونادیهای با دردست داشتن چهل در صد از کل ثروت دنیا دنیا را به ذوق خود میګردانند  آنان با استخدام بهترین و با هوش ترین دانشمندان و متخصان برنامه ریزیهای پردامنه و پرزمانه میکنند و مردم را عملا بصورت برده های مدرن در میآورند  آنان به نفرتهای موجود بین دینها نژادها و زبانها و ملیتها دامن میزنند و سعی دارند مکتبها و دینها و یا مشګلات جدیدی هم به آنها اضافه کنند  آنان با فروش ها سرسام آور مواد منفجره و مواد مخدر و ګرفتن بیمه های کلان توسط شرکتهای وابسته خود و موج بی تفاوتی و بی قانونی در همه دنیا حتی درولایات متحده آمریکا که ادعای حقوق بشری دارد بل بشوی عجیبی برپا کرده اند و ماهیان درشت را شکار میکنند؟  با سو استفاده از تفرقه و دانش پایین مردم  ملتهای خاورمیانه را بجان هم انداخته اند و آنان باهم سرشاخ شده اند حتی در میان دولت که مثلا بایست حامی ملت باشد و ارتش که باید از مردم دفاع کند وضع را چنان کردند که دولت با کمک ارتش با بهترین سلاحهای مدرن جنګی به کشتار ملت بی دفاع خودمیکند  شاید کاری که حتی هیتلر هم نکرد؟ 

 در لابلای ګفته ها و نوشته ها میخوانیم که از حقوق زنان دفاع میشود از حقوق کودکان و...  دفاع میګردد در صورتیکه ما همه قربانی هستیم چه زن چه مرد و چه کودک؟  تنها راه رهایی این است که مابایست همه آزاد شویم و همه از قید بندهای استعماری و استحماری رهایی پیدا کنیم وګرنه آزادی یک ګروه نه تنهاکافی نیست که موجب مشګلات بیشتری خواهد شد. مثلا در ایران جوانان ما در آرزوی عشق و دلدادګی و یا عشق همراه با سکس میسوزند در صورتیکه همتایان غربی آنان اکثر از این موهبت استفاده میکنند دختران و زنان جوان با مردان جوان رابطه های عشقی جنسی دارند بدون اینکه مرد ثروتمند و یا مسن باشد  دختران به آغوش پسران همسن سال خود میروند و با آنان به راحتی نرد عشق میبازند 


Siavash300

Black shroud is discriminatory, oppressive against women

by Siavash300 on

French people are smart. They are dealing appropriately with the issue in a civilized manner and banned it before it gets out of hand. Intelligent nation. French see the sign of fundamentalism and they kill it before it grows to the point to hurt the nation. The idea that is the production of mind of lizard eater Arabs 1400 years ago in Arabian Peninsula. The issue of Hejab is radicalization of Islam and has nothing to do with individual right. Same doctorine could be found in ideology of nazi Germany for justification of  killing jews. it is not the matter of freedom of speech, it is the matter of crime. It should be banned because it is against humanity. One must be guilable to think it is the issue of freedom or democracy. Plus the Islamic sharia law  may be attractive to Afghans, Pakestani, or Arabs ,but not for Persians with a great civilazation and rich history. We should have done the same thing that french are doing long before these Islamic bastards took power in 1979. Iran progressed and modernized because Reza shah was firm with these monsters. The same things French authorities are doing right now. God bless Reza shah's soul.

Payandeh Iran


incognito

Reality-Bites,

by incognito on


You have raised more issues that I can handle in one sitting. I’ll try to address as many as I can here – in no particular order.

You and I agree on the violent and criminal nature of domestic abuse, including but not limited to cases in which religious beliefs are used as justification. Our differences are not about women who wear hejab out of fear of retribution, but about those who do so voluntarily. I am against the use of a loaded word like “indoctrination” because it betrays the problem that is in essence cultural. Women who wear hejab voluntarily do so because they believe it’s an indispensable part of being pious. Four generations of women in my family disagree. However, none advocates a law banning hejab.

You have listed anecdotal examples of what I regard as sociopathology of backwardness. While you limit yourself to rejection and condemnation, I like to go beyond what appears to me as religious denunciation and look for the root causes. In my book, you are attacking the symptoms, while I am interested in etiology.

*****

In the second part of your comment, you write, “This law bans the covering and therefore hiding of the face and thus, one's identity, under essentially what is some kind a mask.” It seems to me that you are now looking at these women as security threats. Don’t they carry some sort of ID card, like the rest of us? Don’t they show their faces to a female officer, if asked? Don’t they speak the language?

With regard to “everyone in the country is bound by it” – I am against capital punishment. I agree that there are very few “who are most likely to be affected by [this] law.” Most of us haven’t murdered anyone and have no intention of going on a killing spree. Sill, I am against it. In my neck of the woods, my view is regarded as progressive and humanitarian. Many however disagree.

 

VPK,

Here we go again. You might have missed the irony of someone who has voluntarily “veiled” oneself recognizing “the right of French people to pass laws banning Hijab.”

You ask, “Why do Muslims always talk about "rights" when it comes to them?” Where did you get the idea that I am a Muslim? Where did you get the idea that I am for hejab? As your previous comments demonstrate you have not yet realized the virtue of not brandishing your faith, or lack of it, as a weapon in a political discourse. You may also not realize how easily you mix apples and oranges. Do you remember how upset you were when I called you “saadeh engaar”?

Sorry, I didn’t read the rest of your comment.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Incognito

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

 

It is the right of French people to pass laws banning Hijab. Why do Muslims always talk about "rights" when it comes to them. But when it comes to others they disrespect their rights?

The answers is obvious: Islam puts itself above all others. This is a fact that Muslims themselves admit. Why should they allow a bunch of masked people running around. 

Here in the USA you may not wear some T-shirts to school. For example those glorifying taking drugs. Or having F*** on them. Kids wearing them are sent back home and told to change it. Thanks to 911 now they want to scan our bodies to board a plane. Tell them no and they say fine: you don't board the plane. The worst part of it is that law abiding minirities get bunched with the "demanding" ones. They are the real victims.

There is no question France has a right to ban Hijab. How about some even handedness? When Saudi allow Jews to build temples. When Islamist IR allows bikinis; then I am willing to talk. But they won't. How about the right of gay people to openly admit their orientation? We know what happens to them. Before Muslims learn to respect others it is laughable to hear them ask for rights.

I have a suggestion. If someone is unwilling to live under French law then move. France did not beg them to move there. They did not send them invitations. 

I live in America and fully respect their laws. I do not go with a list of demands. Try my approach for a while. You will have more success. Most miniorities are good people. But they get painted with the same brush as the trouble makers. The law abiding minorities thus become the real victims. Not of France or any host nation. But of the radicals of their own groups who "claim" to speak for others.


Reality-Bites

incognito

by Reality-Bites on

Before anything else, thank you for taking the time to expand on your views on this topic. Sadly however, there is not much that I can agree with you on this score.

For example, earlier you stated:  "the preposterous presumption that “indoctrinated” women identify with their own “indoctrinators” – the Stockholm syndrome? – and thus, would “indoctrinate” their own children. Notwithstanding the fact that a (1400-year old) cultural trait is not “indoctrination”..".

On what basis have you decided that the diktat for females to always hide their bodies from head to toe, including their faces, is merely a "cultural trait" and not part of a vociferous and vigorously enforced indoctrination? Is because it is 1400 years old? If so, what has length of time got to do with it? If it isn't indoctrination, why is it in so many cases and in so many hardline Islamic communities and societies, females are so poorly educated and have little else to do in life other than raising families? Why are so many of them downtrodden and mistreated by their male counterparts and told to accept their lot in life without complaining about it?

Why are those females who decide to stop wearing the hejab and/or go against other forms of hardline Islamic indoctrination, at best shunned and totally abandoned or, as is usually the case, threatened, physically and verbally abused, publicly and socially stigmatised and in some instances even murdered? Is this all part of a "cultural trait" and nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of indoctrination?

Another instance where I disagree with you is where you state: "...to “others who want to make the choice, but don't dare”, I can only say that if the existing laws in France do not provide them needed protection, I doubt the new law will..".

Why should the inability of existing laws to protect the women (if that is indeed the case) who wish to make the choice, necessarily render the new law ineffective to protect them, especially seeing as the new law has been designed to address this very issue? Even this were the case, the protection issue shouldn't detract from the principle of a law requiring people not to hide their faces in public.

Furthermore, and this goes to the heart of the matter, you state: "...this law bans and criminalizes a particular dress code. In effect, it violates the right of a minority of women in France to choose their outfit. As much as it is unacceptable for Moslem men to force their female relative to wear hejab, it is also unacceptable for a government to demand that these women don’t..".

Where to begin? Alright, this law is not about a dress code, as you state. Muslim women can wear any kind of dress they choose, including a head to toe hejab that covers pretty much their entire bodies. This law bans the covering and therefore hiding of the face  and thus, one's identity, under essentially what is some kind a mask.

Moreover, there is no "violation the rights of a minority of women", because the law applies to everybody. Yes, it is some Muslim women who are most likely to be affected by the law, and I don't deny that it was/is the way they choose or are forced to cover their faces  that prompted the French government to enact this law, but everyone in the country is bound by it.

More importantly is the question of violation of rights. The topic of rights is a huge one and this is not the time or the place to go into it in detail, but suffice to say even in the most open and free societies people don't have the "right" to do absolutely anything and everything they please, regardless of consequences and impact on their fellow human beings. For instance, as it's been mentioned a number of times already, one cannot go walking down the street stark naked and when arrested for the act complain that his/her right is being violated.

Aside from concerns regarding brainwashing, enforcement of hardline religious dogma and, yes, good old fashioned indoctrination, not to mention seriously curtailing the abilities and opportunities for Muslim women to become productive members of society, there are issues of identity and security that cannot be avoided when some members of a society insist on covering and hiding their faces from the world. For one thing, it inevitably interferes with the 'rights' of other people to live in a safe and secure society and their 'rights' to be aware of the identity of their fellow citizens in whatever capacity and situation they have to deal with them.

You complain about an illiberal alliance of right and left on this issue. To me (and I do consider myself a liberal on many issues), supporting women in either choosing or being forced to cover their faces and hide themselves away from the world in the 21st century, complaining about violations of a minorities' rights when they are prevented from doing so and thereby standing one the side of intolerant and dogmatic religious hardliners (who are against pretty much all rights for women), is Liberalism gone mad.


incognito

Princess,

by incognito on


I am going to skip your first question and start with the second. My assumption is that those women who take off their hejab two blocks from their homes do so as a matter of deliberate choice, and not as a mere expression of defiance toward their misogynous relatives. You are welcome to disagree.

With regard to “others who want to make the choice, but don't dare”, I can only say that if the existing laws in France do not provide them needed protection, I doubt the new law will. Moreover, I believe it’s only a “want” when it prompts “dare”. Otherwise, it is just a wish. However, I also know that wishful mothers tend to help their daughters “want”.

Thirdly, this law bans and criminalizes a particular dress code. In effect, it violates the right of a minority of women in France to choose their outfit. As much as it is unacceptable for Moslem men to force their female relative to wear hejab, it is also unacceptable for a government to demand that these women don’t.

A case in point: when Reza Shah banned hejab in Iran, my grandmother (an educated woman) embraced it, and no woman in my family ever wore hejab voluntarily - except during religious ceremonies - until the revolution reversed his decree. Both the original ban and its reversal were however top-down decisions taken by autocrats who were more than willing to bypass public sentiments. In both cases a woman’s right to choose was ignored. Seeing Reza Shah’s imposition of a new dress code as a progressive step is one thing, considering it legitimate is another.

 

Reality-Bites,

Please read my answer above to Princess.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Hijab and us

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

I have been to a lot of Iranian events recently. Many with 100+ people there. For most part no one wore Hijab at all. The few who did wore ro sari only. No one gave anyone a hard time about Hijab or lack of it.

The summary is that our immigrant population is mature. We handle this right. No laws required. There were a handful of police directing traffic and so on. They were the most relaxed police I have seen at an event. They knew this was a cushy assignment with no chance of trouble. It boils down to how a people act. I saild already Chador and Burkha are unacceptable but scarfs are fine. Most importantly it is our image that matters.


Reality-Bites

Does it have to be one way or the other?

by Reality-Bites on

by incognito on Mon Apr 18, 2011 01:42 PM PDT


Despite my earlier reservations about this blog, I am glad to see that - thanks to many commenters - it has turned into a healthy debate between those who support a ban on wearing Hejab in Western societies, and those who advocate education and social assimilation as the solution. As an optimist, I find myself in agreement with the latter group.

======================================================

Why not implement both measures?


Princess

JJ

by Princess on

Nafasset az jaye garm dar miyaad-haa! Chosing between the hejab and one's loved ones? Is that a real choice?? How many people do you think make that choice? Not many, I can assure you.

How does the state give them protection other than advise them to stay away from their family? Some people have already made that choice and are paying the price for it, and I my point is that is not just! People would not have to be put in a postion to have to make that kind of choice in the first place. Haallaa shomaa hey begin they have a choice!

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.


Jahanshah Javid

nemikhaay nakhaa!

by Jahanshah Javid on

it's a difficult question. how far should a government go in imposing something on a free citizen? a muslim woman in france is under a lot of pressure from her family and fundamentalist community, but she is still a woman with guaranteed rights. if she WANTS to get rid of her hejab and live a secular and independent life, she CAN. what i mean is every institution in france, from the local police station to the judicial system to media... you name it... will protect any muslim woman who decides to break away from her religion or religious ways. so we have to take into account each individual's personal responsibility AND choice. those options do not exist for children and minors. THEY need legal protection to ensure that something as drastic as the hejab is not imposed on them at an impressionable age. but adults are a different story. cultural and family pressures are undeniable -- they can prevent a muslim woman from freeing herself. but cultural and religious pressures exist in any situation -- muslim or non-muslim. but what makes the difference is the existence of constitutional rights which guarantee anyone's freedom. if an adult muslim woman does not accept or see that as an opportunity to break free, then i would say, nemikhaay nakhaa! :)


Princess

Really...

by Princess on

Incognito?? They've already made their choice? How about others who want to make the choice, but don't dare? How about their rights?

I am afraid you make things sound a lot easier than they are.

 


salman farsi

MM & Divaneh

by salman farsi on

MM

Judas was not a traitor. He merely obeyed God's (in this case Jesus) wish.

Divaneh

I read on the home page about Mr Ali Amini who was appointed governor of Fars in Khomeinis first government. Was he a traitor too?

http://iranian.com/main/2011/apr/friend-remembers

For an Islamic democracy


incognito

Feminism gone awry

by incognito on


Despite my earlier reservations about this blog, I am glad to see that - thanks to many commenters - it has turned into a healthy debate between those who support a ban on wearing Hejab in Western societies, and those who advocate education and social assimilation as the solution. As an optimist, I find myself in agreement with the latter group. So, allow me to point out the problems I have with some of the positions taken by the author of this blog, and supported by the pro-ban commenters.

To begin with, there is an irony in the fact that some who support this illiberal French law portray it as a liberal and feminist step in combating the misogyny inherent in Islamic teachings and laws as practiced in some Moslem-ruled countries. In reality, this law is more intended to allay Europeans’ fear of ever-growing immigrant population, and to appease the French Right.

Second, double-victimization: i.e. regarding women who are potentially victims of domestic abuse as outlaws. And, as another commenter pointed out, in effect condemning them to a lifelong imprisonment in their own abusive household. 

Third, guilt-by-association: the preposterous presumption that “indoctrinated” women identify with their own “indoctrinators” – the Stockholm syndrome? – and thus, would “indoctrinate” their own children. Notwithstanding the fact that a (1400-year old) cultural trait is not “indoctrination”, these proponents of the ban ignore the reality that in Islamic societies, such as Iran, mothers are the single most significant driving force behind girls’ education and emancipation, bar none.

Forth, the folly of choosing the wrong example: young Moslem women in Western societies who take off their hejab two blocks away from home -despite the fear of being seen by their relatives – have already made their choice, with or without such draconian laws. Such women are bold bridges between their own incompatible past and an assimilated future for their children.

Finally, I see in this blog a dispirited Left dancing to the tune of a self-congratulating Right, and in the process sacrificing fellow (backward?) victims at the altar of the new world order. It reminds me of a scene I saw on TV decades ago: A group of black soldiers were beating up and shoving Patrice Lumumba into a truck, while white (Belgian?) officers were watching from a distance, with smirk on their faces. And, that is regrettable.


David ET

great comprehensive. article

by David ET on

hope it will also be translated to english


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dari Vali

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

nesvas: circumcision


maziar 58

..

by maziar 58 on

It's a sticky question Would a hejabed women be willing to walk in a french nudist beach ?i'm sure a mollah or a muslem men would do that whitout hesitation.I'm ok on muslem hijab with moderation in any society withoutEnforcement. Maziar


divaneh

Please don't mention circumsize Salman

by divaneh on

It brings back painful memories. Well it is a very complex issue but let me ask you a question and by answering it you may answer your own questions.

Some Africans believe in Voodoo and genuinely believe that by torturing their children, they help them to get rid of black spirits. Should they teach those beliefs to their children? How can we help to put an end to such nonesense?

BTW, Salman Farsi was made the ruler of the Madaen (Tisfun) by invading Arabs in recognition of his services. What do you call that? I call it treason.


Mash Ghasem

...

by Mash Ghasem on

MM or I should say SS! Salman (P)Farsi = Abji Medusa in disguise?


MM

Salman Parsi - Judas or Benedict Arnold?

by MM on

At some point, MOST of our ancestors believed in monotheism with its basis on "Good Thoughts, Good Deeds, and Good Words".  And, in addition, the same ancestors did not subjugate women and respected everyone else with alternative thoughts/god(s). 

Looking at where we have been in the past ca. 1300 years and especially where we are now, I am not sure that we have improved by switching, regardless of whether Islam is more righteous or not.  If it is a more righteous way, Islam's leaders have surely done a crappy job of representing the faith.

So, to many of us, Salman (P)Farsi is more of a Judas than Benedict Arnold!


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

What is

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

an Islamic country? A place of death and torture; worship of child molestation and women = 1/2 man. That is what reality is. The gift of the dive and their child Momammad, No matter how much sugar this ain't gonna work!

PS, I know I am free; I live in America!

VPK


salman farsi

Wrong again veiled prophet

by salman farsi on

Was it not for Salman Farsi much more Iranian lives were lost. Besides Salman did what he did for his faith. Arnold did it to save his own back. There is a huge difference here.

Again you are using the anti-Islamic republic as an example to generalize your allegations. We are talking about an Islamic country in which while Islam is the state religion the rule of law forbids such un-Islamic practices as killing the apostates. Was there any one killed in the Shah's regime? Though not a democracy it was a state with Islam as its official faith and yet no apostate was ever killed unless in a pogram. Even under the present regime there is no systematic program to kill the Bahai converts, though many of them were killed in the early days of the regime and on a sporadic on/off basis,

In an Islamic democracy you are free to reject Islam  and continue with your normal life. So no need to panic:)

 For an Islamic democracy


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Salman

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

was a traitor to Iran. But a hero to Islam. It all depends on your point of view. Was Benedict Arnold a traitor? To America: yes. To Britain: no.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

How is it that they have

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

How is it that they have become non practicing muslims and were spared the fatal punishment? So thankfully we have you alive
here today!

  • I do not publiczie it. Why do you think I use a pseudo name?
  • My ancestors left Islam long before I did. I am not sure if they ever accepted it. Of course they do not punish me. We had to pretend because of Muslims terror.
  • I do not live in Iran; if I did IR would execute me.

I am not a "non practicing" Muslim; no Salman. I am not a Muslim at all. I reject Islam; I reject Muhammad; I reject it.


salman farsi

Who says Salman was a traitor?

by salman farsi on

He was loyal to the righteous path he had chosen to follow and in doing so he saved millions of Iranians from the corrupt Zorasterian priests who were running Persia in the same style as velayate faghih is running Iran today.

So after this correction allow me to respond to a few comments

Divaneh

I am sorry to see that I was right about your programme of re-education of children. So how do you suggest to implement your great project in a free and democratic (oh and I almost forrgot to add "laic") Iran? by keeping parents away from their children soon after birth? (lest the boys are circumsized - or perhaps you suggest a genitalia inspection programme) or are you going to get the children to betray their parents if they teach them how to pray (like Khomeini did for a different reason)? Can you please expand a little?

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

You and perhaps 90% (if not more) of the participants on this site (and their parents and grand parents and further back) are the best examples of how people born to muslim families can abandon Islam and not being punished. For the simple reason that I am glad to see you are well and alive. I suppose at some stage your ancesters (I mean you typically) must have been muslims. How is it that they have become non practicing muslims and were spared the fatal punishment? So thankfully we have you alive here today!

What you are saying is only practiced in the most extreme factions of Islamic societies in the same way that if a member of the North Korean communist party wishes to resign his membership, his or her punishment is going be, let's say, sever.

As for Islamic democracy the present regime in Tehran is a complete anti-thesis to the faith of Islam, let alone democracy. So once again your example is incorrect.

 For an Islamic democracy


Reality-Bites

'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': say the 'London Taliban'

by Reality-Bites on

I thought this article might have some relevance to this debate.

'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is targeting women and gays in bid to impose sharia law
 

Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.

Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.

Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html#ixzz1JnVEYKvn


divaneh

Names are names Salman

by divaneh on

They are just names. I don't think you are a traitor because of your name.

And yes, you have it completely right. I think children should not be taught any of these fairy tales about any religion in their impressionable years, and that include Judaism and its entire offspring including Christianity and Islam. Why do we want to teach children all these lies? It's time to stop brain washing them.


Cost-of-Progress

Quick question

by Cost-of-Progress on

hey, I'm just asking here, how many of the male posters here actually practice other suggestions and "teachings" from the "good book"? I am particulalry interested in the verse that allows a man to beat his wife.

If you believe it is OK to instituitionalize this type of thing by shrouding it (no pun intended) in the nonsensical "personal choice" cloak, then you're practicing the other teachings too.

You proud believers you.

I won't even ask the veiled ladies....that one is beyond me!

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Many on the other side of

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Many on the other side of the isle could and would argue the lack of Hejab in its extremer case, semi nudity, will reduce a woman to a bag of sex toy and it is a tool to separate her from humanity by making an object from here.

Mehrdad I must totally disagree with that point of view. We are born naked and if you believe in God then that is what he wanted. It is our "natural" state. Now we chose to wear clothes because we moved to regions where the climate did not allow nudity. In Africa where we all originated people are still mostly naked.

In time people realized they could use clothes for other reasons:

  • Status: Wearing expensive clothes indicates wealth. Wearing insignia indicates rank. High level Sassanid women covered. their face indicating rank. 
  • Repression: In some societies men discovered they could repress women by forcing them to wear Burkha. This hampered their ability to be themselves.
  • Fear of sexuality: Many people are in dread of sexuality. This is particularly so about women sexuality. This is a form of repression.
  • Jealousy: Men do not want others to see their "women". It keeps other people eyes and hands off them. I see the reason but I also find it a form of repression. If you trust your wife then who cares if others see them. If you do not trust them then there are bigger problems. They will not be solved by wearing Hijab. Marriage help is a better path.
  • Diguise: Hijab is the perfect disguise for criminals. As I said there are recorded instances of criminals using it. You just put on a veil and run off! Another reason against it.
  • It is simple: I know some women who put on Chador because it is simple. They want to run to the store. It is a pain to get properly dressed. So they just throw on the Chador and run to the store.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

How about other faiths? How

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

How about other faiths? How about Christianity or Judaism if you will?
Aren't these faiths imposed on their kids by their religious parents?

That is where you are wrong. My ex wife is from a Christian family. She decided to become a Wiccan. No one in her family gave her a hard time. I know Jews who left their religion without any problems. 

Muslims on the other hand punish those who leave Islam. That is why Islam has been a problem. Other religions are much more tolerant.

VPK


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Salman

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

Both Hijab and Islam are forced on kids by grown ups. Religion should be a personal choice not done by force. The problem is that Islam punishes people for leaving it. The penalty for leaving Islam is death.

Now what kind of freedom is this?

Regarding "Islamic Democracy": Iran has proved that it is impossible. If you have not seen inherent contradiction you are not paying attention.

Does Iran belong just to Muslims? What about others. Why should I be forced to not eat in public on Ramadan. Why should I not be allowed to get a bottle of wine. Why should a woman not be allowed to swim with her male friends. There are some Muslims who do not understand freedom. They think freedom means their right to impose views on others. That is dictatorship not freedom.

Unfortunately it is pointless to argue becausse they do not listen. That leads to confrontation and use of force. Muslims use force and others respond in kind. Then we get a war which is bad for all.

VPK


FACEBOOK