Religion, when mingled with Politics, is probably one of the most dangerously influential factors in some societies, playing a leading role in terms of power, creating stereotypes, controlling behavior and, this way, controlling people. Religion has been a source of power throughout the centuries in Western nations, with Christianity, but while the Cristian Religion has been losing its grip or softened it, Eastern religions like Islam, on the other hand, have not only kept but also reinforced their power, as they have managed to twist Religion to an unprecedented controller of political life. The result is overwhelming: a group of religious extremist leaders (call them Isis, IS, Isil or even Daesh ) have learnt that they can play God’s role and ask His believers to be faithful to the point of killing themselves in a supreme sacrifice. Unfortunately, with appalling results to Humanity. Never before has a religious group had so much power over entire nations and managed to cause so much pain, destruction and chaos and although Islam should not be reduced to a radical group of extremists, this is sadly the face it has created as its public image in most Western societies, which can explain the hatred to all its religious acts, demonstrations and artifacts, the niqad (the veil that covers Islam women’s face) being one of them. Is it fair to prohibit and ban it as well as penalize Muslim Women in France for the use of the niqab? Should educated societies interfere with religious garments? Is it a sensible measure to ostracize legitimate demonstrations of faith? I would like to believe there is a middle path, as a form of extremism is never a good tool to destroy another. Solutions are always a form of compromise, but can one be reached in France or other Western societies fighting Islam influence by fighting its public demonstrations? Or do Western societies have the legitimate right to keep an identity that is being threatened by the influence of external groups, like the Muslim communities that are spreading and invading western culture to the point of changing it radically ? There is no easy answer for a complicated issue, but let me begin this long path to a compromise with an example. The French example.
Firstly, it is undeniable that people are entitled to have their own faith and live according to it. Islam has strict conduct moral rules – may you agree or disagree with them – one of which concerns the women’s dressing code. Women are supposed to be modest, conceal their faces and bodies and this way show they are true and devoted believers. Right or wrong, it is a faith matter. Therefore, forcing Islam women to ban the veil can be considered a form of violent pressure against their free will. Or is it not? In 2014, according to a BBC article:
A case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman, who argued that the ban on wearing the veil in public violated her freedom of religion and expression (Radio France International)
The article clarifies that:
French law says nobody can wear in public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205) a breach of the ban can also mean a wearer having to undergo citizenship instruction. (Radio France International)
The woman felt so humiliated for being denied what she considered her free religious rights that she appealed to The European Court Of Human Rights. The Court, however, has upheld a ban on wearing the Muslim veil, going against this woman’s expectations and giving France strength to go on fighting this dress code. Is this, indeed, a violation of a person’s free will? Would it be acceptable if we were told not to wear sunglasses, as they conceal the eyes or tight jeans as they are too sexy? Would it be acceptable that any western government interfered with their citizens’ choice of garments and accessories? Most of us would feel utterly shocked if that was the case, but analyzing the Court’s arguments, we must admit there is a reasoning we will not be able to deny. The ban of the niqad:
"was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face". (ECHR ruling)
Concluding that the Strasbourg judges´ decision:
"took into account the state's submission that the face played a significant role in social interaction". (ECHR ruling).
Apart from the point concerning human rights, a second question remains: in order to develop a multi-cultural community, create a strong community life and bonding relationships, shouldn’t all the members of any developed society accept the difference? Or is it impossible to bridge differences when you hide behind a veil, hiding yourself and creating a volunteer barrier? Does the Muslim community wish any interrelationship contacts at all? There are no easy solutions for religious and cultural barriers, but they are not impossible to achieve. One must admit it is difficult and awkward to talk or go out with someone wearing a niqad. It is sinister, almost medieval like, to watch women concealing behind a veil, often voluntarily encaged in an old-fashioned religious artifact, afraid to show their faces, for fear of being sinful and, consciously or unconsciously, implying that other women are sinners, indecent and unfaithful. The niqad is indeed a creepy barrier and that is not a hoax. So what can be done to overcome the implications it has?
That brings us to a last point that seems indispensable, in ethic and scientific terms, to bring some light to the darkness of the subject. There should be a deep sociological analysis of Islam and the impact and ultimately the consequences of its practices in different societies. This apparent lack of scientific approach is probably the reason why so many misinterpretations of this religion and practices prevail. According to the researcher Rachen Rinaldo, in her article Sociology (Encyclopedia of women in Islamic Cultures), chapter 17 :
Many sociologists of women and gender in Muslim societies ( even those who use qualitative approaches) continue to treat Islam largely as a variable and /or to generalize about Islamic beliefs and practices, rather than investigating more fully what Islam means to people, the differences in how it influences ( or does not influence) social life and politics in a particular society. ( Reinaldo, page. 356)
All in all, I strongly believe that religious wars have caused more pain, death and hate than any other issues throughout the History of mankind. Religion is not supposed to be an issue, but sadly it is. Religion is supposed to be a way to connect man and God and its core goal should be the attainment of peace, harmony, freedom and love among all races and if it is not, something is terribly wrong. Although I agree that each country and community should be able to preserve its own traces – and western cultures have developed an essential role in the rightful consolidation of human rights and freedom, having therefore the right to keep them – I also believe that measures can be taken to allow the process of religious interrelationship to develop smoothly: more than prohibit some artifacts and practices, like the uncanny niqad, as France has decided to do, the western religions and societies ought to take intelligent steps to attract Muslim communities to a more open and less defensive way of participating in society events. Ethnic diversity and religious diversity should be respected, encouraged and looked at as an asset. Maybe that way close communities like the Muslim one is would feel a stronger connection to their local communities in foreign countries and learn to integrate some of their practices. One fact makes one wonder: most suicide bombing and jihad-martyrs’ immolations are perpetrated by youngsters raised in Western countries, within their own societies. What is it that makes them, raised in an open-minded environment, become suicidal radicals? Won’t the final answer take us to moments when they have felt marginalized or subject to prejudice, which is the ultimate form of dogmatism and fundamentalism? Whenever a serious sociological and cultural study is done to help us find sensible solutions to the integration of Islam in western cultures, we may find some enlightenment and, who knows, be able to regard religious differences, mainly the ones between Muslim and Christian religions, as an asset rather than an issue in the future. I finish with a quote I especially like and may help us understand the path we all need to take:
Although the act or nurturing another’s spiritual growth has the effect or nurturing one’s own, a major characteristic of genuine love is that the distinction between oneself and the other is always maintained and preserved (Peck)
Works Cited
European Court of Human Rights, ECHR ruling, issued by Registrar of the Court “French ban on the wearing of clothing designed to conceal one’s face does not breach the convention”. BBC News, 1 July 2014. Mon. 25 April 2016.
< http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900>.
Source: Radio France International, “European Court upholds French Full veil ban”. BBC News, 1 July 2014. Mon. 25 April 2016
< http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900>.
Rinaldo Rachen, upload “Chapter 17, page. 356 – Sociology (Encyclopedia of Women in Islamic Cultures) Academia Edu, 2013. Mon. 25 April 2016
https://www.academia.edu/5855510/Chapter_17_Sociology_Encyclopedia_of_Women_in_Islamic_Cultures_
Whitehead, Alfred North (quote), in Peck, M. Scott, Abounding Grace – An Anthology of wisdom. Kansas City: Andrew McMeel Publishing, 2000. Print.
