Arabeyes: Moroccan woman refused French citizenship for burqa
Last week a French resident was refused citizenship on the grounds that she was “insufficiently assimilated.” The woman, referred to in the Press as “Faiza M.,” is a Moroccan citizen but has lived in France since 2000 with her husband, a French citizen, and three children, all born in France. Although most articles on the subject quickly pointed to Faiza's wearing of the burqa (or, given that she was from Morocco, more likely of the niqaab), Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff of PostGlobal indicates that other factors, such as Faiza's refusal to show her face even to a female officer, and her statement that voting should be for men only, were involved.
Regardless, the incident has set a precedent and has stirred up the feelings of bloggers around the world. The Angry Arab remarks briefly on the story, explaining:
Social services reports said the burqa-wearing Faiza M lived in “total submission to her male relatives”. Faiza M said she has never challenged the fundamental values of France.
The story garnered quite a few comments; one in particular reads:
As far as that niqab business, why would a person who is going to live most of her life inside of a big sack want to live in a Western country? Why?
I have no respect for anyone who would think that a woman must walk around all day in a niqab of any kind. It is a human rights abuse. Human beings need sunlight and air. I sat on a beach in Syria and watched a father and his sons frolic in the wonderful sunlight and cool water on a very hot day. On the beach, in the sand, completely covered by those monstrous niqabs, were the mother and daughters! How could any decent human being, let alone a decent father, allow only one part of his family to enjoy the beauty and the coolness of the sea? It made me physically ill to think about those poor girls and what they were learning about what it meant to be female. Why was it proper for the father and the boys to swim without shirts and in shorts? And I do not want to hear about it being ” a cultural thing” or that the woman freely chooses to live like that. If she has, she has been brainwashed. It is a disgusting abusive practice. If it is torture to hood prisoners, then it sure as hell is torture, whether willingly or unwillingly, to place yourself in a big sack and not see or feel the light of day.
Internation Musing (a group blog with writers in Turkey and Greece, among other places) also had a strong opinion about the case:
Their two children have the French nationality, she not. Appeal is not possible: bravo!
But in fact she is a ticking time bomb. And that's scary.
Nuseiba has a considerably different opinion:
This narrow interpretation I will write about in another post, however, right now, i’d like to focus on this woman who has been rejected for expressing a cultural and religious belief. I’d like to point out that I’m not much of a supporter of the burqa, because it is not sanctioned in Islam and women who do wear it do so unnecessarily. However I do support a woman’s right to wear one–whether for cultural or religious reasons.
The blogger concludes:
As I pointed out earlier, the notion of laicite, which this ruling was premised on, cannot apply in equal fashion to all citizens of France today because there are many who belong to the Islamic faith, who wear burqas, hijabs, turbans, yalmulkes etc, who have different cultural practices that cannot only be expressed in private (which is how the French understand religion to be). So what we’re seeing is a clash of values, a France imposing its normative understandings of equality and justice on individuals who see it nothing more than an unjust coercive act of the state.
Sabria Jawhar, writing for Arabisto, argues against the ruling as well, stating:
Here’s what French government representative Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave said about Mabchour: “From her own declarations she lives an almost reclusive life, cut off from French society.
She has no idea of secularism or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to the men in her family. She appears to find that normal.”
Normal?Excuse me. But who is Prada-Bordenave to say what is normal? Normal by Western standards? Must Mabchour completely conform in every respect to France’s cultural values to be a French citizen?
Speaking French alone is a sign of assimilation into French society. Mabchour even has a male gynecologist, a fact that most Muslim women would find extremely difficult to face. That is considerable assimilation.I don’t know whether Mabchour is submissive. Perhaps by her own standards she has a fair and equitable marriage. I frankly think that is her business.
Creative Commons-licensed photo by janjochemo
26 comments
Jillian.
Standing up for justice — and equality — and freedom of speech and religion — is absolutely necessary if we are going to live together on this planet. No exceptions. Speaking out against an ideology — any ideology — or in this case, Islam — must be based on these concepts.
I appreciate your position and I am aware that there are all kinds, colours and types of Muslims, with many sects and different interpretations. I am also aware that they all share certain basic beliefs, and some of these beliefs are contrary to the basic concepts mentioned above. First of all I do not consider Muslims in Western societies to be credible voices for the ‘real’ islam. They are a minority and do not have great political power. I take what happens in those countries where Muslims dominate as the standard against which I will judge Islam — that and Islam’s doctrines.
It is not just the ahadith the are problematic. For example, consider just one very troubling aspect of the Quran. A person would have to be blind not to notice that the Quran is full of special cases and exceptions –privileges granted by Allah to Mohammad only, through Mohammad only, to benefit Mohammad only, of course. Why don’t Muslims consider it suspicious that a book that was supposed to exist from all eternity has so many little rules to benefit a single person.
Among the special exceptions (in the Quran) for Mohammad are: to cut, burn and destroy orchards and fields (59:5), to attack and burn mosques and kill Muslims (9:107, 110), permission to marry for than 4 women (“this only for thee, and not for the believers” – 33:50), to put away wives (33:51), to violate the sanctity of the sacred month Rajan (which from immemorial antiquity in Arabia had been consecrated to peace) and attack infidels (Sura 2). It gets worse: by special permission captives were executed (Sura 47, 48). In another verse (8:67) Mohhammad says he must kill captives (make slaughter in the land) to prove he is a prophet. He also has permission (8:12) to inflict barbaric torture and kill his enemies (“execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land”). The Quran also gives M permission to not keep his word of honor, if it interferes with anything bringing pleasure (O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Allah has already ordained for you, the dissolution of your oaths.” -Surah 66). To control his wives, Allah also came through with a few more special rules for them: authorization to marry his daughter-in-law (33:37), to replace all his wives if they complain, as in the case when he was found with his concubine Maria the Copt in the bed of his wife Hafsa (66:3-5), or to prevent his wives from using adornments and receiving a greater allowance (33:28), to cover themselves (33:32, 59), to receive double punishment if they did wrong (33:30), and not marry again (33:53) and even to acquit his favorite wife (Aisha) of slander (24:1-22).
Rather than have an infinite number of exceptions for Muhammad, announced by Mohammud to benefit Mohammad, Allah finally resolved this issue by declaring a blank check for all sins: “There is no fault in the Prophet in what Allâh has decreed for him” (Quran 33:37). So, whatever the Prophet does is OK because he is special and the rules of conduct demanded of others don’t apply to him, because Allah made him do it.
Mohammad explained that he often receive special instructions from night to night and even changed them (“We substitute one revelation for another” – 2:106,108 – We? Plural? Allah is plural?). These divine interventions to satisfy Muhammad’s sexual and marital issues were so blatant that Aisha even snickered that “It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire”
It goes on and on… Mohammad gets 20% of all plunder from jihad (“And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire, a fifth share is assigned to Allah and to the Messenger” 8:41). It is doubtful that Allah ever showed up at Mohammad’s door to claim his share of the booty, so we can assume that the Prophet got 20% of the loot.
The use of the term “Allah and his Messenger” (“Obey Allah and His Messenger”; “believe in Allah and His Messenger”; “show your faith in Allah and His Messenger”; “an announcement from Allah and His Messenger”; etc…) is so frequent and blatant in the Quran that Mohammad can almost be understood to be a junior partner to Allah (“Verily those who swear allegiance to you Muhammad, indeed swear their allegiance to Allah” 48-10, “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah” – 4:80). Hey, in Christian theology, wasn’t Lucifer’s sin the desire to be like “the most high”?
Jillian. No more theology. I spent many a long day reading the the Quran and hadith. Not impressed. The result is that just as any moderate Muslim cannot win and argument with me, so can they not win an argument with a radical. If a Muslims believes the Quran (they ALL do, moderate and radical), then they must recognize that that 1. infidels are lower than animals and 2. Muslims are to attack and subdue them. The text is very clear. Thus, the radicals have the Quran and hadeeth on their side. The only thing I don’t understand is how anybody can read these things without any uneasiness or distress.
I am old; you are young. What we are seeing is the unchecked growth of a barbaric ideology that seeks to reverse 500 years of progress. Islam wants to throw out the magna carta, the renaissance, reformation, counter reformation, the enlightenment, the bill of rights, the lessons of the French and American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, civil rights laws, the separation of church and state, the concepts of freedom of religion and speech, the emancipation of women, the idea of equality, and replace them with sharia and some fantasized version of the golden age of the Caliphs (which was marked by Muslims attacking and conquering infidels when they were not slaughtering each other in the riddah or apostasy wars. By the way, 3 of the 4 “Rightly Guided Caliphs were killed, two by Muslims for religious motives and one by a slave because a. his master took his earnings or b. because he was revolted by seeing children enslaved).
It will get worse. It is getting worse. I predict you will see the radicals grow stronger and stronger, as the moderates continue to make excuses and blame others. Our leaders will appease and then appease more again.
Is this hate or a stand on principles? It is my interpretation of events and Islamic doctrine. Nobody does anybody (including Muslims) a favor by not being honest. They may not like what I say but it is sincere and it seems to me that my understanding of things fits reality better than their beliefs (ie, Islam means peace but it is misunderstood and corrupted by a few bad people). I am not asking you to believe me. Just watch and study. Be skeptical. One thing is for sure, the future will be intriguing (as the Chinese say “may you live in interesting times”). It probably won’t be fun, but it will be interesting.
I apologize for the length of this post. I got carried away.
Jay
You take care and thank you for your work here at Global Voices. It is a great site and has an interesting range of topics and opinions from all over our small planet.
I can only hope that the world truly believes that the American people truly believed that sadam was a thug and killed thousands of muslims and that American soldiers took out this gangster for THEM. The iraqi people of course will forget this and start hating Americans as the French and the Germans have done so why even try right?As for the Quran I dont believe in my mind I can win a debate over such a well written book????so I wont even try.Goodbye Global voices and thanks for the interesting and futile conversation.
I think the gov.would be condoning the slavery that is islam if it gives citizenship to the covered woman. A democracy is obout freedom . The spiritual slavery that is islam , and the physical slavery the women suffer are in opposition to democracy , liberty ,freedom and other sweet things of life. Islam is a bully, appease the bully and he becomes bolder.
“we could learn a lot from crayon, all are different colours, some have weird names, some are pretty,some are dull, but they all have to learn to live in the same box.”
Men will never see women as equal, or human.
It’s just a simple fact. Of coarse he is only going to play with his sons in the ocean, his wife and daughters mean nothing to him.
I don’t know which is worse, being burried alive in the sand or the soul.
Ethier way, they are slowly dieing from it.
Whenever I see a woman wearing all black like that, I don’t see a person, I see walking death.