The Indian presence at yesterday’s Bastille Day events in Paris commemorated the sacrifices of Indian soldiers who fought and died in World War I and symbolized the current economic, military and political ties between the two nations. But the images of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as chief guest and the Indian troops who marched in the annual military parade, including a group pictured to the right led by a Sikh officer, also brought to mind the French law that continues to keep Sikhs out of public schools and prevents them from getting drivers licenses or serving in the military or public office.
Overlooked back in 2004 when France enacted the so-called French headscarf ban forbidding any conspicuous religious symbols in state schools or government offices, the tiny Sikh community of France has been fighting the law in and out of the courts since then (previous SM coverage). The French President encapsulated his government’s official and unnuanced position on Sikhs in France following last fall’s European Union/India Summit in Marseille. An annoyed Sarkozy, standing next to Prime Minister Singh at the time, took a reporter’s question about Sikhs wearing turbans in France.
Sarkozy, replied curtly, “Sir, we respect Sikhs. We respect their customs, their traditions. They are most welcome to France.” Visibly irritated, Sarkozy continued, “But sir, we have rules, rules concerning the neutrality of civil servants, rules concerning secularism, and these rules don’t apply only to Sikhs…
Sarkozy explained that the banning of turbans is not discrimination, that, “These rules apply to everybody, to everybody with no exception. There is no discrimination whatsoever.” (New Europe)
It seems unlikely that Sikhs in France will have much luck in their efforts given more recent developments that could broaden the reach of the 2004 ban. Last month Sarkozy spoke out to support a ban of the burqa, the full-body garment worn by an estimated 100,000 Muslim women born in France (Telegraph). In public comments he said “it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” and that the burqa “is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” (Reuters)
Kamran Pasha, a screenwriter and novelist who writes about Islam recently returned from a week in France and he offers another perspective on the proposed ban.
my own experience in that beautiful country (I lived in Paris for several months in 2007) leads me to believe that the controversy over the burqa is not really about women’s rights. It is about preserving a certain cultural heritage from the onslaught of foreign values and perspectives. The burqa controversy is really about attempting to save a beleaguered French identity from being replaced by a new and alien social tradition that is spreading through the power of demographics. But social engineering is a poor tool to curtail the realities of reproduction. At current birth rates, Muslims will become a numerically influential community inside France within this century. The same is true for many other nations in Europe. Efforts to stem the power of Muslim culture from reshaping European identity are as pointless as trying to hold back a river with one’s hands. (Lifting the Veil)
Given what seems to be another sort of Bastille Day tradition in recent years — riots and destruction in the nation’s suburban estates like those spurred this year by the death of a young Algerian man in police custody, and evidence of employment discrimination against ethnic minorities in France, I agree with Pasha that there is more at play than the stated and maybe more publicly palatable concerns for women’s rights. The desire to prevent changes to French identity and demographics seem the more likely motivations for the 2004 law and the proposed burqa ban.
But fixating on conspicuous religious symbols like the turban or burqa does not feel like an effective way to preserve French traditions and identity, especially when it keeps people out of state schools or other public institutions — just the kind of places where I imagine they have opportunities to study and participate in the culture and traditions that are part of a nation’s heritage.
one love, numbers matter. catholic immigration caused a lot of conflict in 19th century USA compared to jewish. i think the fact that the former were 10 X as numerous was the main issue. most jews abandoned orthodox judaism within a generation, while catholics were able to create a whole parallel educational and power structure before their final assimilation.
@no_not_really:
.
You are incorrect, sir or madam. You are allowed to wear a crucifix, but not a “conspicuous one”
Do you understand now why I am saying that this is an anti-Islamic effort rather than a truly secular one? Small crucifixes, wedding rings, and shaved heads are all permitted. Head coverings are not. The article above links to the French text of the law, btw.
ponninyin, some european countries like spain or in scandinavia basically banned most religious groups aside from the established one (many scandinavian countries had immigration laws which discriminated against jews and catholics for a while for example). others, such as the netherlands or england had a more relaxed attitude toward pluralism. all of these different conditions mean that generalizing about “europe” is probably not useful. btw, the EU country with the largest muslim is bulgaria.
I am with Sarkozy on this. If you are sooo fixed on your headscarves and security blankets, stay at home. If you want to participate in society (which is what schools and jobs are), then you have to go along with what the majority of the society dictates as acceptable dress code. There are people who believe in going around naked, would it be okay if they come to schools and work in their preferred dress? Maybe the French should start a birthday-suit religion!
.not just b/c “norms” are different but also b/c of public safety issues and safety of minors.
no, not only that. gov accommodates religious sensibilities so long as they don’t violate laws (giving people days off, schools or prison menus, etc.). but which religions it decides to accommodate is based on demand, not whether a religion is true or not. really small religions don’t get accommodates in the same way, or have to make their case, in a way that large religions which are well known do not. as i said, the idea that religion is private is a fiction. religion isn’t some special domain that can be sealed off, but bleeds into daily life.
Maybe the French should start a birthday-suit religion!
hm. don’t some jain and hindu ascetes go nude? there is also a controversial christian nudist movement (i listened to a radio show where a spokesman was basically takfirred by caller after caller).
Razib wrote:
i’m scared for muslims who will not flourish in the french way.
Yes. I understand.
Ponniyin wrote:
What is that “universal civilization” ?.
France. French culture. The French “mission civilisatrice”. The French, like the Americans, think they are really special.
I think Europeans are realising that they have taken the “politically correct” stand on issues regarding religion too far
Seriously, you need to read about France. This is the country that proudly bombed Greenpeace — there’s nothing PC about them. Google “evolues”. Or a good history of the Algerian colonization.
necon propaganda about france has sunk deep roots in the USA. e.g., most americans don’t know that france has traditionally been a chauvinistic country of mass immigration. sweden it ain’t. aside from the reliance on nuclear power.
France is actually pretty good at the whole “Speak softly and carry a big stick” thing. They put out an image of universal values and whatnot, but when it gets down to brass-tacks they are extremely mercenary in who they are willing to work with and quite merciless in their tactics.
the world values survey has an N = 50 for french muslims and N = 43 for the british. this is a small dataset, but for comparison. a question:
(V186) How often do you attend religious services Possible answers: 1 More than once a week 2 Once a week 3 Once a month 4 Only on special holy days/Christmas/Easter days 5 Once a year 6 Less often 7 Never practically never
here are the responses for french and british muslims respectively:
More than once a week 4.2/52.4 Once a week 19.7/23.5 Once a month 2.7/13.2 Only on special holy days/Christmas/Easter days 33.1/4.7 Once a year -/2.5 Once a year 6.1/- Never practically never 34.3/3.8
viva la france
There are five pillars of Islam, none of which have to do with the way one dresses. You can dress in any form or fashion and practice those five pillars.
I know a little bit about Algerian colonization and the news item that when the allied troops liberated Paris they wanted the colored regiments to not walk into Paris even though they fought along with the white troops.
As I said, France should openly come out and claim that they are against allowing certain religions. There is nothing new with that.
i think the old generalization was that the french were more culturalist while the british were more racialist. though it wasn’t a black-white dichotomy, so to speak 🙂 but the french weren’t all talk re: the coloreds. see avengers of the new world: the story of the haitian revolution, which documents the subversive role played by some white legates from the republic (though that is not a primary focus of the book).
Keep in mind, most of European history prior to the industrial revolution can basically be characterized as the history of the Ottoman Empire and Europe’s desperate attempts to resist and eventually strike against them (and the Muslims world more broadly.)
One can argue that much of European culture and religion evolved in an environment where it was trying to fight against encroaching Muslims empires which influenced the religious norms of their societies as well as the secularized norms that grew out of them. The same process was enacted in reverse when Europe started to colonize the rest of the world and Muslims (as well as Hindus and various East Asian religions) began to characterize themselves in opposition to the West and Christianity.
Given all that historical baggage, it’s not hard to imagine that France would have some anxieties about integrating a population whose belief systems they had spent the past 1,000 or so years explicitly characterizing as “the opposite of us.”
Its not about Islam. If it was then Sikhs would be allowed to wear pugris in government jobs/whatever. Its about bold external displays of religion on gov property.
God does not require us to be a neon billboard sign for Her.
(and how come the Sikh women are not wearing pugris and crying over “discrimination”????)
yoga fire, to some approximation what you are saying is right. but the details matter. e.g., Given all that historical baggage, it’s not hard to imagine that France would have some anxieties about integrating a population whose belief systems they had spent the past 1,000 or so years explicitly characterizing as “the opposite of us.”
well, as a point of fact france long had a tacit alliance with the ottomans against the haspburgs. louis xiv was chided for his lack of support of the germans during the siege of vienna (the french equivocation was exceptional, this particular siege of vienna is notable for the pan-european, including protestant, support for the german cause, in spirit if not materiel). and during that siege hungarian protestants from ottoman ruled territory rode with the turks against the catholic monarch who had already forcibly re-catholicized ‘royal hungary.’
there is certainly much to the idea that both islam and europe (what was once christendom) evolved only in relation to each other. just as there is something to be said that a hindu identity emerged in response to the reference point of muslims and later christians. but let’s not forget that all civilizations exhibit positive values and identities which exist beyond their reference to other societies. in other words, the french are not french just because of the battle of tours (which was followed by many muslim raids out of septimania in any case). they are french because of bourdeaux wine 🙂
my previous comment is prompted by a discussion i had with aziz poonawalla about the term ‘west.’ muslims sometimes forget that europe has an identity which exists apart from its long conflict with islam, just as europeans may forget that the ‘saracens’ and the ‘turks’ exist beyond the lines where the ghazis operate.
God does not require us to be a neon billboard sign for Her.
vox dei indeed!
Lets stop being PC, the Sikh’s in France are victims of the backlash against Muslims in Western Europe.
What were the European thinking when they open immigration to there countries from places like the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Is it a fair question to ask that if Europe had looked for immigrants from places like South Korea, China and Japan that they would not be having the same problems that they are now having with there immigrant population.
What were the European thinking when they open immigration to there countries from places like the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia.
europe had tighter labor market than the united states between the end of world war ii & ~1970. and western eurasia and north africa are closer. but france is a very different case from germany. most muslims in germany are not citizens. most in france are.
but let’s keep it in perspective, the european union has on the order of 15 million muslims. out 300 million +.
. Is it a fair question to ask that if Europe had looked for immigrants from places like South Korea, China and Japan
prague has a large vietnamese community i think (communist era tie). they’re causing tensions due to the fact that they work hard and cause resentment during times of high unemployment. their kids do well in school. Crisis Strands Vietnamese Workers in a Czech Limbo.
I have to believe the choice of the Sikh officer to lead the parade was deliberate. If so, good for India, Indian diplomacy, for Sikhs, for turban wearers everywhere, and for socking it to obtuse hypocritical ‘secular’ sanctimony (which the French defending their silliness on this issue exhibit). And sanctimony is originally from the French, sanctimonie and no irony there either.
Here are some pictures of Sikhs marching through Paris at the end of World War I.
I wrote a post on the French silliness over the hijaab here last month. I know what would be just the thing for Sarkozy to do: go to Chartres or Notre Dame, and order the nuns to stop wearing their hijaab.
“I dont really blame France for this.
I dont want to live in a country where Muslims are the majority.
I know it’s not politically correct to say this, but imagine what is going to happen to freedom in the future?
Say goodbye to freedom of religion and say goodbye to freedom of expression if Muslims are the majority in Europe and eventually America.
This might not be realistic, but can anyone offer any reason for why this shouldnt be a concern?
And this my friend is why you are the ShallowThinker.”
I don’t he/she is so shallow. The French would like to remain French. What exactly about any Muslim society, or a large numbers of Muslims in France, would make you think the French would not prefer to avoid such a situation? They left Algeria but the Algerians are not leaving France. Most have assimilated and many are indistinguishable from the French culturally, however, if the numbers become too great, assimilation becomes less likely and most French are pretty much stuck with France.
It’s shallow to think that the typical French (or Spanish or German or Indian) person thinks like a PC pol or a sepiamutiny world citizen. Chrisitianity and their own traditions are actually getting more meaningful to Europeans, Indians and most others around the world, according to those who have actually studied the state of religion in Europe–I can’t recall the name of the author, but his statistics on religion in Europe, and predictions using these stats, are startling. They are not as secular minded or as passively delighted to be overwhelmed by non-Europeans as you think they should be. I’m easy — I can pick up and go to Indian or Switzerland or Panama. I don’t care. But most people are stuck where they are and because they like their own culture.
Personally I think when people go to live in a foreign country for the rest of their lives, and they intend their descendants to live there, they should assimilate as well as they can. Otherwise, why go? We’re not all running for their lives. And even if we were, we’d be well advised to let France be France (secular Catholicism/Protestantism included) or we just might find ourselves running again. I don’t see this getting smoother.
From Wikipedia
Tensions between Germans and Vietnamese broke out into violence beginning on 22 August 1992 in the northeastern city of Rostock, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where white power skinheads and neo-Nazis attacked Roma people, and then, on the third day of the riots, set fire to a housing complex where over 100 Vietnamese asylum-seekers lived. Some were injured, but none died; the police evacuated the Vietnamese residents but took no action against their attackers.
Really, the problem is not just “immigrant communities”. It is often equally “native society”. A resident of the city that had infamous anti-asian riots in 1907 should know that.
Chrisitianity and their own traditions are actually getting more meaningful to Europeans, Indians and most others around the world, according to those who have actually studied the state of religion in Europe
that is actually false. religious belief is still either decline (as in spain) or stagnant (as in the netherlands). parts of eastern europe are an exception, but russian orthodox religiosity seems to manifest less in personal piety than in national-cultural assertiveness.
Really, the problem is not just “immigrant communities”. It is often equally “native society”. A resident of the city that had infamous anti-asian riots in 1907 should know that.
yes, but there are differences in the details of the interactions. e.g., on a microeconomic scale the muslims of algerian background and west african christians have the same issues. but on a macrosocial scale the west african christians aren’t espousing an organized pan-africanist ideology to supplant france as it is now, are they? islamism among european muslims is a marginal phenomenon, but it is different as an organizing principle than the conventional immigrant-native dynamics. you have analogized muslims to european jews before. well, european jews were attracted to radical political movements which were a threat to the status quo, and so anti-semitism was often confounded with political fears (french protestants were heavily overrepresented in the pro-republican factions up until republicanism became the only game in town, which earned them a great deal of suspicion from conservative catholics).
Why do so few people see that all they’re doing is trying to eliminate conspicuous and often [i]intimidating[/i] religious symbols? I think it makes sense from their point of view, and the reason shaving one’s head for religious reasons is allowed is because it isn’t an easily recognisable religious symbol. These groups are very well-known for having a strong sense of identity related to their appearance, however, and I don’t think that French people should pass laws like these – even if the groups are prone to fundamentalism. It will only make them (and others) angry, and make the French look silly and insecure. It’s interesting though, and I’d like to see if it gets any major reactions from the Sikhs and Muslims in France or anywhere else – I think its a minor matter whether religious symbols are allowed to be on display or not – most people agree that piety is a very personal thing.
I think France has a law that it has to keep. Sure, they can change the law that religious headgear is OK but then they’d be more loopholes for their law. Dont know why the law is there in the first place but thats how it is. It is dated, yes. But I’m a sikh and wearing a turban also has its roots in time that is nothing like today. It’d be tough for people settled in France to move but its just like that Some countries are better to live in than other, you can always go visit. The law targeted different sections of society when it was formed and it targets different section of society today. Its coincidence that at this point in time this issue is getting more time. A Sikh cant join the military as a marine or something in America, so there are things you can do and you cant do. I also love riding motorcycles but in America there is a helmet law so I have to wear a helmet (I think there are still 7 states that are OK with no helmet). I know the law makes perfect sense. I have a leather suit which cost 2500 for riding so i can be safe, the same applies here. In india, the rules are quite laid back and can be bent but then the same group of people that are screaming right now would scream asking why the rules are not being enacted.
What about the Arab countries where there are very specific restrictions due to religion.
You definitely cant compare France to say, England or America as far as being progressive goes and thats just how it is, thats what Makes France France.
All,
I am sensing some trolls so let me address those:
if people would view these laws as racist intention, they are truly misguided but obviously there is a following for people who need this kind of remedy to their plights.
I am sorry, no crucifix ever, oh ok you can wear one, but it cannot be shown, so your point is mute. The link you gave is in english, not in french and therefore cannot be french law (merely a summary in english). This is the reason we have the french academy, we guard our language so that every word used by government officials or in laws can be understood by everybody and not just the rich or the connected.. The whole point is, France does not want to follow models where religion is part of government. So no signs for gov employees. We don’t want to look like Lebanon for instance where every part of the gov has to be divided across religious factions. We also do not care much much for a society with caste. Which part of this is difficult to understand ?
I agree that some of these items may look like fashion issues as scarfs in indonesia and tunisia are just not the same. Eventually I agree the point will be mute.However, I’d say I am well traveled and I fully understand less well traveled people who could feel threatened by it. But as one of the commenter say “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”
But in the end, I cannot seem to understand the need to portray France as a place where nobody can wear what they want..This is nonsense. The statement that is making headlines is that you simply cannot wear items that will make people uncomfortable when you represent the state or will reduce the learning experience.of kids by divided them needlessly in cliques. Disagreeing with these principles will make your life miserable in France however if you decide to immigrate there. Eventually, if you are not satisfied by these answers, the only solution is really to ……………. change the laws in the books as France is a democracy.
A French Person.
“I have to believe the choice of the Sikh officer to lead the parade was deliberate. If so, good for India, Indian diplomacy, for Sikhs, for turban wearers everywhere, and for socking it to obtuse hypocritical ‘secular’ sanctimony (which the French defending their silliness on this issue exhibit). And sanctimony is originally from the French, sanctimonie and no irony there either.”
While I am proud of Indian traditions of inclusiveness, telling the French to follow Indians in matters of religion in the public sphere is not a good idea. They might die laughing, given the events of the last thirty years in India – not to mention other parts of South Asia.
“But social engineering is a poor tool to curtail the realities of reproduction. At current birth rates, Muslims will become a numerically influential community inside France within this century. The same is true for many other nations in Europe. Efforts to stem the power of Muslim culture from reshaping European identity are as pointless as trying to hold back a river with one’s hands. (Lifting the Veil)”
This has got to be one of the more ridiculous pieces of reasonings I have seen recently.
As if Indian army is very lax or doesn’t care abt safety issues !
But I do agree that without becoming numerically, economically or in some other way influential as a minority in a country, trying to change the laws especially wrt to outward practices of minority religion is slightly bordering on asking for too much. Or be prepared to totally have an Indian kind of system where every kind of familly/civil and (including owning property in some places like Kashmir, Nort-East) is based on religious grounds. Uniform law may work only in places ( Europe, Muslim countries) which are not so homogeneous like India or USA. But at the same time it sounds so silly for the French to make a fuss about about turbans….burqas or knifes/swords I can still understand. I mean whats the difference between “pagdi”, western hats/caps or sikh turbans. Turbans seem so mundane a thing to start controlling by laws.
My erotic journey to Mecca with razib
Lost, lonely and scared without SepiaMutiny I decided to msn my good friend razib. He invited me to his cardboard house under a bridge so I took up the offer and traveled by double decker bus to it. When I reached, we watched a useless slideshow about why the Muslim religion is the greatest in the world and all those who don’t follow it are sinners. It didn’t make sense or contain any facts but razib told me blind faith isn’t supposed to. Then we threw stones at some whites and watched Friends. Chandler is so funny.
Then we left for Mecca and arrived at this road block:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Christian_Bypass.jpg
razib said it was time for me to convert so I must come inside of him and become one. So I dropped my pants and moaned as he performed fellatio on me and Ikram operated the camcorder. It was a true awakening as razib called it.
We finally arrived at the Kaaba. There was a big black stone in the middle that symbolized the birthplace of Abraham. I was told by razib I could circumvent this stone and after that everything I do or say can be justified in the name of this monumentous occassion.
Then we arrived in Mumbai, popped some LSD, and did some crazy shit. The End.
I don’t think Sarkozy’s opposition the burqa is religious.
The French ban is targeted at the hijab and the burqa, because the state has, rightly, concluded that these are impositions of an intolerant patriarchy on its women. But lacking the courage to say so, the state has acted to give the impression that it is against the symbols of all traditions. Even those that don’t maul their own for disobeying or giving up certain mores.
I don’t know what it is about the French and their ever-present feeling of having their culture threatened – Quebec goes through some of the same issues (ie Language laws which state that French text on signs has to be larger than English) and of course many people have horror stories of Quebec-ers refusing to speak English to them. Of course – not every Quebec-er is a xenophobe, but then you get small towns like this one:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070129/code_conduct_070129/20070129?hub=Canada
Hell, the Canadian government actually pays sponsorship money at public events to have the Canadian flag shown. But Montreal is still known as a fun party town.
And France does have a mixed history when it comes to race – it was a refuge for many African American musicians and artists in the 20th century, but then you also have De Gaulle removing black soldiers from the ranks of those liberating France so that only ‘real french soldiers’ would be seen as the real liberators. They have also had a hard time integrating their arab / muslim populations – high unemployment has a lot to do with it.
This comes across as knee-jerk reaction-ism. Even Turkey went through the same issues, but the bottom line is, if you are muslim, jewish or sikh and you are orthodox in your beliefs and need to keep your religious symbols / clothing – you cannot be employed by the government, then that is in fact discrimination, even if it is the name of equality or secularism.
There are much better ways to create integration and understanding.
no_not_really said:
You’re making a laughing stock of yourself trying to defend the patently indefensible. Your point is indeed mute.
Damn! Is that what they say? I had much more luck the last time I was in Italy and thought I should practice “when in Rome, do the Romans”.
True that.
Imagine living in a place where more than 50% of the women moved about burqa clad. That’s everyone’s unstated fear. And if we wanted to live in a place like that, I think we would have moved there by now, because places like that exist.
Chrisitianity and their own traditions are actually getting more meaningful to Europeans, Indians and most others around the world, according to those who have actually studied the state of religion in Europe
“that is actually false. religious belief is still either decline (as in spain) or stagnant (as in the netherlands). parts of eastern europe are an exception, but russian orthodox religiosity seems to manifest less in personal piety than in national-cultural assertiveness.”
hmm.It was on your gnxp web site that I saw the material about the religion and Europe. It surprised me too. I just can’t remember the name of the author. Your yourself have sometimes argued with people who claim that religion is irrelevant to most people — yeah,I know you’re an atheist. What’s up? Who was that author? You sited him as actually knowing something about religion in Europe because he’d actually done the research. In any case, whatever people’s feelings about day to day observance of their religion, they still don’t like “foreigners” coming in because they want something of what the country has to offer, and then demand the country become more their original homeland.
Yea! ban the burqa, baby baby baby. Go to sleep happy peepo.
hmm.It was on your gnxp web site that I saw the material about the religion and Europe. It surprised me too. I just can’t remember the name of the author. Your yourself have sometimes argued with people who claim that religion is irrelevant to most people — yeah,I know you’re an atheist. What’s up? Who was that author? You sited him as actually knowing something about religion in Europe because he’d actually done the research.
ah, i thought you meant philip jenkins! yes, probably the best author on this topic i’ve encountered (in terms of data). i wish more people would read him. well, my attitude toward religion is complex because RELIGION IS COMPLEX. 🙂 if you’re talking about european beliefs in regards to christianity, god isn’t back. if you’re talking about european attachment to their customary religions, that is a different matter. jenkins makes the important observation that when many people are talking about religion and comparing christians to muslims, they do the following:
1) count as christians only those who attend church regularly or are core believers
2) vs. count as muslims everyone of possible muslim background. e.g., i am sure i would be counted as muslim despite the fact i’m adamant about the fact that i’d rather have my children by hindu or christian than muslim if they were of a particular religion (though i would prefer they be godless as i am).
in fact, there are quite likely to be more evangelical christians in european that muslims right now (remember, there are only 15-20 million muslims in the EU using expansive definitions of who is a muslim).
i will agree with your general point that i think people are wrongly counting out christianity in europe. history doesn’t move in one direction inevitably. christianity was on the verge of being written off during the french revolution, in particular the papacy. and yet the loss of temporal power probably resulted in the most prestige accrued to the papacy in the 20th century in the past 500 years (since the renaissance). there are many europeans who are NOT catholic, calvinist or lutheran believers, and what they are NOT matters a great deal to them. i suspect some beef-eating “hindus” i’ve met would understand 🙂
back to the main topic. people have an attachment to a particular set of norms, customs and aesthetics as who they are. this is subsumed into tradition. when protestantism came to the fore in much of europe in hindsight it was a cultural catastrophe, a lot of powerful religious art and architecture were destroyed because of their catholic associations (in particular in regions touched by the radical reformation). catholics mourn this naturally. the people in northern europe who are now protestant don’t, because now they are something different. but at the time many people wanted to cling to the old traditions. in much of england peasants had little interest in sectarian arguments, but they were really, really, attached to their traditions associated with the catholic church. today from what i have read persepolis tends to attract parsees from india, who have a deep attachment to pre-islamic iran. modern persians are not totally ignorant of their past, but they do not have the same emotional attachments that zoroastrians do to the persia before islam. some of the more apocalyptic eurabianists make the arguments that the great churches of europe will be neglected in a muslim future. muslims still mourn the fall of al-andalus to christians,and the amnesia of the muslim past which the spanish tend to engage in.
now, with only 5% of europe being muslim, and muslims being of low SES generally, i don’t think that europe will become muslim in any near future. but many large cities are already10-20% muslim and cultural changes are occurring. the norms and values that the people bring are naturally different, and their historical attachments are different. people are naturally afraid of this. societies evolve over time, but rapid shifts bring unease. societies want to preserve the status quo in general. in the shia revival vali nasr suggests that many people in the gulf, especially the united arab emirates, high their persian backgrounds because of the terror of local arab polities that they’ll be swamped demographically by iranians. so it isn’t as if europeans are special in this way.
high their persian backgrounds because of the terror of local arab polities that they’ll be swamped demographically by iranians. so it isn’t as if europeans are special in this way.
high=hide.
Thanks for the name of the author. Philip Jenkins. All current religions are only ghosts of their former selves, but as you say, they are still tokens of deep identity. In some ways this is all moot. Europeans are never going to convert in any numbers. They can no more be “Muslims” than a bunch of Hollywooders and yuppies can be “Buddhists” in the sense that people were Buddhist in Tibet or China, for centuries. They can have a Buddhist like approach to life, but their approach will eventually–if its continues–transform it to something more appropo to the modern western world. I study cultural and religious history because it explains so much about today. . Nobody cares what your temple looks like–nowadays it’s just a curious looking building. But I have to say it. Religious practice is the last thing about Muslims that is a problem. When I was in a certain northern European country last year, I learned that the Muslim immigrants are known for perpetrating ugly gang rape cases, fairly rare until their arrival. I’d say that has caused far more natives to wish them away than the fact their sisters wear headscarves. I mean how long are they going to put up with all that? Hopefully, this too shall pass.
The core practices of any religion can be done in private at home. There is no need to dress a certain way in public to show off one’s sectarian alliance.
Question: Whoever you are and wherever you live, if tomorrow you woke up and 50% of the female population of your country was moving about burqa-clad, how would you feel?
Exactly! And this is a GOOD thing.
The fear is not conversion of natives to Islam but influx of Muslim immigrants who are unwilling to assimilate. Then they have babies and raise them in an un-assimilated manner, many of whom grow up to become un-assimlated adults.
I’m all for the conversion of adults to the Buddhist “lifestyle”. That just means more good vibes to go around. Western Buddhist approach is “chelta hai”. Un-assimilated Muslim immigrant approach is anything but “chelta hai”.
Well then why stop at the burka? What about the miniskirt and the bikini? There’s no patriarchy in western society? How many western women run companies in France, are elected to public office in the US? Why do we detach what western women wear from their patriarchy but insist Muslim dress is linked?
Because women who don’t wear bikinis aren’t stoned to death, you say? well, neither are non-burka muslim women in france. So, if you acknowledge acts seemingly the result of free will are actually a product human relations of domination, why stop at the burka i ask again? within the patriarchy all female dress codes are forced in some sense, a product of some intolerance, are imposed by a culture of male supremacy…just like within the patriarchy all sex is rape.
The core practices of any religion can be done in private at home. There is no need to dress a certain way in public to show off one’s sectarian alliance.
one love, a lot of people don’t look at religion in this way though. religionists interpret their public aspect as witness. from an anthropological perspective it is a signal as to group identity. the individual privatization of religion is an innovation.
i wish the french well. and i will bet on your success. unlike some other europeans, the french breed 🙂
manju, a lot of truth in that. there is no society where individual choice runs amok out of the context of agreed upon values.
Please. Its about assimilation. Wearing bikini to beach in France is assimilation. Wearing burqa is not.
Similarly, in countries where everyone wears burqa and no bikini, immigrants should be expected to conform as well.
Maybe this is what was actually meant by the Eurabia coinage.