Feature Img
Photo: Reuters
Photo: Reuters

In 2011, a French law came into effect which makes it illegal to cover one’s face in public. Even though lawyers for the French government emphasize that the law also applies to non-religious face-veiling garments, such as balaclavas and hoods, it is clear that its principal target is Muslim clothing, particularly the burqa and the niqab. The legislative process that led to the law now widely known as the French burqa ban started shortly after then-President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that the Islamic burqa – which he thinks makes women “prisoners behind a screen” – is not welcome in France. Those who violate the law face fines of up to 150€, or lessons in French citizenship.

France now finds itself in the undesirable company of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other countries that force women to dress in a particular way. A young French Muslim woman was not willing to accept that, and hence challenged the French burqa ban before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, arguing that it violates her rights to freedom of religion and expression. Last month, on the 1st of July, the ECHR rejected her argument and upheld the ban, reigniting troublesome calls for similar bans in multiple European nations that threaten the values of tolerance, multi-cultural diversity, and individual freedom which Europeans are rightly proud of. But not only Europe talks about the burqa. The debate over the ban has now even reached Bangladesh. Yesterday, Dr. A. Rahman, a fellow columnist at bdnews24.com, argued that the government of Bangladesh should consider following the French example. Given the complex and often emotional nature of the debate, it is important to put feelings and prejudices aside and carefully consider the arguments. What follows are some common arguments for the burqa ban. Let us evaluate them one by one. I will focus on France but the reader will find it easy to apply what I am about to say to other contexts as well.

First, it is sometimes argued that full-face veils cannot be tolerated because security requires people to show their faces in public. In 2010, for example, two men dressed in burqas robbed a post office in a Paris suburb. Security staff had let them in, believing them to be Muslim women. Once inside, they removed their head coverings and pulled out a gun. At best, isolated anecdotes like this make for an argument against face veils in security-sensitive places such as banks and airports, and most contemporary Islamic scholars agree that a woman may remove her face veil for visual identification if required for security purposes. But the fact that the face veil is inconsistent with reasonable security measures in certain public places is not a reason to ban it in all public places. Surely, an 18-year-old in a car is a much greater danger than a Muslim woman in a burqa on the sidewalk.

Secondly, some believe that the burqa and the niqab are a threat to French culture, and that the burqa ban is needed as a means to preserve that culture. There are about five million Muslims in France, more than in any other country in the European Union. Yet, it is estimated that less than 2,000 Muslim women wear a full-face veil, which amounts to no more than 0.04 percent of the Muslim population, or 0.003 percent of the total population. Are tiny fractions of a percent in unusual clothing enough to threaten French culture? Is the cultural identity of France so weak and feeble that it cannot tolerate a few women in burqas without falling apart? What is this culture that needs preserving anyway? Does it not include a passionate love for liberty and freedom that is threatened not by the burqa but the burqa ban? What about rap music, Italian cuisine, or the Sikh kirpan? Are these things next on the list of the French culture police?

Thirdly, the burqa ban is said to protect women from oppression. How this is supposed to work is a mystery that only the French parliament can fathom. Those who are forced to wear the burqa or the niqab by family members are more likely to be imprisoned at home than to be liberated as a result of the ban. Of course, we will never know that for certain, precisely because of the many women who just disappear behind closed doors. Not to mention the fact that all forms of physical coercion were illegal before the introduction of the burqa ban already. But not only women forced to stay at home have fewer freedoms with the ban in place. Those who cover their faces voluntarily now either comply with the ban and let the state determine their clothing, or refuse to comply and risk being harassed by law enforcers and overzealous wannabe police officers.

Lastly, and this was the basis of the ECHR’s decision, there is the complaint that the burqa and the niqab contradict a certain idea of “living together.” It is true that facial recognition and expression typically play an important role in human communication, but that does not mean that communication is impossible if the face is veiled. Anyway, there is no right to communicate with someone face to face, and the ban will not do much to facilitate dialogue between different faiths and cultures. Rather, it stigmatizes, and breeds resentment against, Muslims who already face increasing discrimination across Europe. If the goal is to reduce the polarization between “us” and “them” and bring about a better living-together, the means of choice should be more tolerance and understanding, rather than the legal imposition of the majority’s dress code.

The French burqa ban does not respond to any real security need, contradicts the West’s venerable liberal tradition, undermines the rights of women who voluntarily wear a face veil, does little to protect those who are forced to wear it, and divides people by feeding stereotypes and encouraging intolerance and wrongful discrimination. It is not the purpose of a liberal democratic state to dictate what people can and cannot wear. Rather, it is the responsibility of the state to protect every individual citizen’s right to govern his or her own life.

The ban and the ECHR’s decision to uphold it will have far-reaching consequences, and come at a time when a climate of suspicion against “others,” particularly Muslims, is rising in Europe. Belgium adopted a similar ban in 2011, and some towns in Spain and Italy and the Swiss canton of Ticino have joined the bandwagon, too. This, just like the Swiss ban on minarets and the abuse at Guantanamo Bay, is rightly perceived as Western hypocrisy and aids extremists worldwide.

In conclusion, the French ban on full-face veils is bad for women and bad for Europe, and everybody should hope that the illiberal trend it is a part of will revert sooner rather than later.

————————————————–
Rainer Ebert is a graduate student of philosophy at Rice University in Texas, and an Associate Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.

42 Responses to “Banning the burqa: Liberation or oppression?”

  1. Priyoshop

    A number of countries have banned the wearing of these religious garments, while it is oppressive Niqab is a very liberating and empowering experience.France finds itself in undesirable company of Saudi Arabia, etc. that forces women to dress in a particular way.I am really grateful to them for publish this content.

    • Golam Arshad

      Even in the Sweet Swinging SIXTIES; NONE could force sniffing DOPE! Even parents of Conservative home.Even In those days, I remember, Government of the then Pakistan could not stop teenagers keeping long hair. You know I tried and got away from parental control wearing Teddy Paint (skin tight trouser) tried but failed in keeping long hair (because my hair was not that silky). This Hi jab and Niqab is a political ploy to belittle Islam. Well, to westerner under the cover of hijab, Niqab a hides a terrorist. What a Joke: All IRA, Red Brigade and Bader German Meinhof. WILL blush In coy I think this is a silly mistake, drilling Muslim.Men and Women. Al Quran and Islam will prevail at the Will of Almighty Allah.! M

  2. Sukhamya Bain

    Reiner Ebert is certainly politically correct with the religious Muslim crowd. While some of his arguments against the reason that the French government showed for banning burqa are valid, he misses the bigger point of what the purpose of burqa is. The picture that he posted with his article says, “Face veils: a woman’s right to choose.” Is it really a choice of free minds? Would a liberally educated woman choose to cover herself up? What is the purpose of covering oneself up? Why would someone want to cover someone else up? These are some of the questions that need to be honestly discussed and debated. As for France, they could ban burqa even if the Muslim crowd is not convinced with the rational answers to this kind of questions. They certainly have the right to keep their country culturally French, which by most definitions provides a lot more human and citizenship rights than most of the world.

    • Sukhamya Bain

      Please corret “Reiner Ebert” in my post to “Rainer Ebert.” Thanks.

    • Golam Arshad

      Ms. Why does India do NOT ban veil/Burkha/Naqab? Is MODIJI listening? So your contention is banning burka will modernize Muslim Women, even if she is highly educated graduated with high honor from IVY LEAGUE School. IF a particular Religion Comes under clutch of hatred for ANY REASONING then it’s followers must be punished. Hinduism, Judaism or Christianity or even Buddhism will NOT be spared. Taliban, Hamas Al Osama must be a hatred means to vilify ISLAM. WAR ON ISLAM is a target of convenience to sustain peace and peace from Only one terror. Zion is NO TERRORIST But a defender of SECURITY. Brilliant! Let us worship Terror and HAVE THE MUSLIM and their ills and Tagg them both men and women as a gene of terrorists forever. Good Job.Thank you for your HELP to modernize.

      • Sukhamya Bain

        Well, Golam, first let me correct you on my identity. I am no Ms. I am a Mr. One can also call me Dr., since I have a Ph.D. degree.

        Now, talking about Muslims following their religion blindly, I have also seen Ph.Ds. from Ivy League schools, and from other big name schools, who are too much of Muslim. To me, they have not gotten educated enough to promote themselves to “Humans” with common sense beyond their religious compulsions.

        I have called Israel a “terrorist state” for what they are doing in Gaza right now: http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=3074

        But think, why did the Jews displace the Palestinian Muslims? Because they wanted a piece of the so-called “promised land”, a piece of the so-called “holy land.” If the Muslims want the whole world, the Jews want the ‘promised land’, and other people want to live in their home land, conflicts and horrible crises are inevitable for humanity. The fact that too many people cannot educate themselves beyond their religious non-senses, hatreds, claims and desires is too much of a shame for the most intelligent life form on Earth, and it has been hurting humanity too much. So, please stop being proud to be faithful to the religion that you inherited, and learn how to live life with your natural human sense of justice and decency.

      • Golam Arshad

        What a banter!! Dr. Bain!! BOTH OF US inherited the Charm of Non Sense!! Religion OFCOURSE! THANK YOU DR. I am very PROUD of you Only!

  3. Dr A Rahman

    Who would say that burqa or niqab or hijab is a Bangladeshi or Indian culture and heritage? If Rainer or anybody else said or alluded to that, then that person should learn basics about Indian culture before passing any comment. These attires are not Indian at all and they are not religious; they are purely Bedouin attire from pre-Islamic times. Misguided religious preachers started to piggyback them as religious obligation to various cultures and heritage of the world.
    Why in Indian subcontinent women must slavishly follow Bedouin culture? Are Bangladeshis or Indians or Pakistanis or, for that matter, rest of the Muslim world slaves to the Bedouins that we must imitate them? Rainer Ebert is saying something which does not affect him and hence he pretends to be grand liberal voice of the West.

    • Golam Arshad

      My distinguish friend you have been overwhelmed by cutting that ball .Two WRONG can never put you RIGHT.IN grace and dignity accept what a shocking mistake in naivety. Dr.A Rahman it is No time to demonized BURKA AND NAQAAB. Look what the Zion is to are doing. You take ONE we will take your THOUSAND. USA, European Union and even UN are helpless to the mighty titan in the block Israel.Will the Jewish lobby be highlighted as Terrorists just as Hamas. I wonder.RM ( Rupert Murdock and his friends are winning the cyber war ). The rest of US including US, UN AND E U. ARE SILENT Spectator to a Bloody Genocide! President Barack Obama rise Up and please do not succumb to that pathological excuse that Israel has a right to protect their only Right to security. Israel is a terrorist regiment at all Democratic.Muslim bashing is Easy as 123… burka Naqaab template on Muslim is Easy raising legitimate voice against Israel is HARD. But Israel is a Terrorist Country!!

      • Dr A Rahman

        Mr Golam Arshad: Let me tell you, my heart bleeds no less than your’s watching the inhuman suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Zionists. We published an Open Letter to the World Leaders with the title: ‘Stop the killing in Gaza’. The URL is: http://www.thedailystar.net/op-ed/stop-the-killing-in-gaza-an-open-letter-to-world-leaders-34990. The same Open Letter had been sent to the UN Secretary General, to American Senators, to British MPs and Ministers and uploaded in a number of websites. I am also taking steps to put it in highly reputable international online newspapers.
        But just think, why are Muslims so very weak that Jews can kill, maim, punish Muslims at will and with no fear of reprisal? Because Muslims have fallen back and effectively become primitive, stuck in the blind alley holding Quran and Hadith and praying to Allah to save them. On the other hand, Jews have embraced ages ago modern science and technology and now miles ahead of the Muslims in almost every sphere of human endeavour including war techniques, surveillance system, defence shield etc. Unless Muslims wake up, accept modern science and technology, leave behind all those gobbledegook of divine messages and edicts, there is no prospect for the Muslims. My write-ups over the last few years were basically urging Muslims to embrace modern technology and stand up on their own feet.

      • mahadi

        Modern Science and Technology, reason, secularism every one of these discourse attributed to Modernity, gave West a moral! upper hand to merciless kill primitive,in this particular case Muslims? Isn’t this very same logic tells you colonialism and imperialism is just? Even the self defense narrative of the powerful which denies the very existence of the weak is a just cause?

      • Golam Arshad

        Wrong! Modern science spurred high tech advancement.Given life the tune sophisticated self centric adulation. But blocked Morality to its knee.Conservative expression redefined in extremism with feathered dosage of Religiosity.Liberalism redefined as a fad of All permissiveness.The cold war ended and Islam bashing began to Hit hard to chain and challenged the order of conservatism. For the time extremism in all other RELIGION aborted only Muslim men and women are being targeted to decimate ISLAM. Muslims how educated they are being branded with Primitive ethos to prevail the mission of annihilation of a Religion that was growing Fast in the West? Why you All know the rest of the story.

    • Rainer Ebert

      Nowhere did I say that the burqa or niqab are part of Bangladeshi or Indian culture. However, I don’t think that’s relevant here. Most of the food served at Nando’s in Dhanmondi is certainly not Bengali. Are you prepared to argue that Nando’s should therefore be banned?

  4. Akteruzzaman Chowdhury

    Heritage, History and culture is as important as liberalism in Europe. When you visit Europe you see that they preserve all their buildings which are more than 200 years old and they spend a lot of money for this. They even use 500 year old buildings by fitting them with central heating and air-conditioning. This historic ambience in the European towns is a big source of tourism income. They even protect heritage foods like Champaigne from france and Feta cheese from Greece. It would be good idea if for a few days of the year they went back to their heritage dresses and costumes. It is not an insane idea for us Bangladeshi people when we wear our heritage dresses like Sari and Panjabi all the year around. In the heritage dresses of Europe of 19th century, you will find that women wore something like a coloured burka with a white veil. If Europe wants to demolish the burqa, they should also demolish all those old buildings. Burqa may be a heritage dress for muslim women.

  5. Sumit Mazumdar

    The Muslims who are in France, or in any western country are there because they did not like what was going on in Syria and Pakistan, in Saudi Arabiya and Iran, in Algeria and Egypt.

    And once they have escaped these oppressive societies of Syria and Pakistan, of Saudi Arabiya and Iran, of Algeria and Iran – they want to import to France the lifestyles and beliefs of the countries they escaped from. Is this sane?

    • Golam Arshad

      It is ONLY SANE FOR YOU! You pontificate all GOOD NESS IN ALL EVIL FORCES! I wonder you are touched by an Angel. You pull the Arrow to regain Paradise but MISSED the target and Hit the Hell. S M THAT FAILED RE ERSE STROKE TAKEN OUT YOUR MIDDLE STUMP. THAT IS AN “OUT AND OUTB.

      • Golam Arshad

        Oh Really !! Hit wicket! Sumit you are OUT!! Try next TIME!!

      • Golam Arshad

        SEE I have teased you and you lost your composure and in cricket analogy, OUT hit wicket! Thank you in all credence!!

      • Anthony Abraham

        Mr. Golam Arshad always tries to give us sermons and pretends to be a good man but he is a staunch supporter of the dreadful ghosts and goblins who in the form of human beings, wearing Islamic dresses, keeping beards committed mass killings, gang raped, committed arsoning, drove away hundres of thousands of human beings from their houses and committed mass scale looting of those houses i.e. those Jamaat-e-Islami kingpins during our glorious liberation war in 1971. Look at his audicity! Is it tolerable? He ia s persong who desreves due punishment.

      • Golam Arshad

        Dear Anthony: What a CUT in ERROR? The sigma of your comment on me; slipped and wicket down it’s GONE, Sorry you are OUT! Try next TIME!! Anthony never pull the string of hatred and never mince a word that makes you look a star in fallen Pride. THANK YOU!

      • Anthony Abraham

        Mr. Golam Arshad : Only truth has been said about you. Because of your bad deeds, you deserve strong abhor from everyone.

      • Golam Arshad

        Please Prove my Bad Deeds! I am an open Book! Please! Please!! Prove my misdeeds! Troy burns in Hector ‘ S Pride.To Achilles Heal! Love wins in Paris! Never Late Cut hatred! In joy we Prevail. THANK YOU.

    • Golam Arshad

      It is ONLY SANE FOR YOU! You pontificate all GOOD NESS IN ALL EVIL FORCES! I wonder you are touched by an Angel. You pull the Arrow to regain Paradise but MISSED the target and Hit the Hell. S M THAT FAILED RE ERSE STROKE TAKEN OUT YOUR MIDDLE STUMP. THAT IS AN “OUT ANOU

    • Golam Arshad

      It is ONLY SANE FOR YOU! You pontificate all GOOD NESS IN ALL EVIL FORCES! I wonder you are touched by an Angel. You pull the Arrow to regain Paradise but MISSED the target and Hit the Hell. S M THAT FAILED RE ERSE STROKE TAKEN OUT YOUR MIDDLE STUMP. THAT IS AN “OUT AND OUT”!

    • Golam Arshad

      It What a stroke of genius Sumit! Taking RAM LILA TO THE GARDEN OF HADES! Your iconic prayer FOR A BURKA AND N IQ AB PEACE! PEACE IS YOUR CALL! GOOD JOB!!

  6. anti_blog

    I wish to see Rainer wear a Burqa or a Niqab. This hypocritical human rights freedom of speech needs to stop in the west. When women go to middle eastern countries specially saudi and some other muslim countries, Burqas are mandatory. If Saudi arab can say Burqas are mandatory and it is part of their culture and law, then I don’t see why western countries can’t ban Burqas.

    The author in his limited mental capacity tried hard to be sarcastic and argued that italian cuisine, rap music and sikh kirpans should be next on the ban list, since it didn’t originate from french culture. What the author alluded to was that Burqa or niqab is supposed to cover and preserve modesty of the muslim women and girls. Now think about this carefully Rainer. There is something extremely misogynistic to assume that a women’s or girl’s body is inherently immodest and will arouse sexual desires in men, which will lead to rape of the girl or women, therefore it needs to be covered. Something is extremely wrong when women are taken as sex objects, therefore their body needs to be covered in its entirety, to re-establish modesty and piousness. Are you telling me seeing a women’s or girl’s hand or leg or face will make a man go wild? Then there is something wrong with the men not the women. Therefore the men need to wear a sort of head veil or a chastity belt, to keep their primal sexual urges of performing coitus with women at the slightest chance in check.

    What is even more worrying is little girls as young as 3 or 4 are seen wearing hijab. I am sure that little girl does not have the mental capacity to chose to wear hijab. I am sure that their family made her wear it. And from a certain tender age she is taught (not literally, but covertly or subliminally) that her body is a sexual object and needs to be covered and it is an acceptable practice.

    From an early age a girl is reduced to a sex object and feels alienated and restricted by possessing yet under-developed breasts and vaginas. Even before reaching sexual maturity a little girl is made aware of her body as a sexual being. There is something extremely distressing to know that some parents think that their 3 or 4 year old girl or 15 year old or 18 year old or 25 year old is a sex object.
    By the way little girls are made to wear hijab from a young age so that they “voluntarily” wear one when they reach puberty. I have seen many women wearing these veils voluntarily just due to social pressures. Any girl who have a balanced rational view of things and not indoctrinated from 3 years of age will find wearing a veil oppressive.

    If banning the burqa in france impinges upon the basic human right of being labelled a perpetual sex object, then let it be.
    Again I invite Rainer and his wife, sister or daughter to wear a Burqa from this day onwards to save himself and his family’s honour from the ravaging eyes and the morally righteous and virtuously erect penis of the male form.

    On another note Muslims are champion athletes in abusing freedom of speech in their own countries, but when they go to western countries, they are world champions at playing the victim card and how their religious identities and basic human rights are being stampeded upon. Seriously if you do not like the west and their culture, and do not wish to integrate into their society, then kindly go back to whatever great champion country you originated from.

    A lot of religious apologists and Anglos like Rainer, probably from a deep sense of guilt built up from being former slave traders and destroyer of cultures and races for centuries, have this misguided sense of duty for defending and upholding the rights of religious minorities in the west, especially the rights of Muslims, as they are the most vocal of all other religious denominations. But what is wrong is wrong, please do not re-enforce and perpetuate such behaviours and heap misery and eye-soreness for generations to come.

    Hijab and Niqab are from desert tribes, where it is appropriate to wear such attire to block sand from entering every part of the body. It has it’s practical uses in the desert. Not in the streets of france and nor in most countries of the world.

    • Akteruzzaman Chowdhury

      The whole world is going modern and Europe is going into a ‘Post Modern’ era. To see modernism you go to Chine, Dubai Singapore and maybe USA. You go to Europe to see heritage, history and culture. Burqa is a heritage of muslim women. One heritage attacking another heritage does not make sense. Indian and Bangladesh women are making big strides without discarding their heritage dress, ie, sari. (sari is a wonder dress, no stitches and one size fits all). Does your mother wear a mini skirt.

      • anti_blog

        Sorry Akteruzzaman, my mother wears a sari and a salwar. You are mixing Arab heritage and culture with our Indian heritage of wearing sari and salwar. Hijab and Burka are attires of Arabs which have been espoused by muslims.

    • Golam Arshad

      What Name ! You are a GENIUS! Too SMART ! Hitting Hard to be a High Priest in the Chapel of Discord!

      • anti_blog

        O Sire, Mr. Golam I am but a humble idiot. I have much to learn about the world. And I am learning day by day. May be you should try to do it as well instead of being stuck and enslaved by dogma and regurgitating some random oxford certified scholarly words to sound like a genius.

      • Golam Arshad

        You TOO a Genius in the Cradle of Eminence! Me and you Idiots in the Garden of nocturnal Paradise!

    • Tariq

      Dear anti_blog, you quoted “If Saudi arab can say Burqas are mandatory and it is part of their culture and law, then I don’t see why western countries can’t ban Burqas”. Your anti_logic is like cow eats grass and human eats cow, so human also eats grass.

      There is biological difference between a man and a woman. A bare chested man on the street would not cause much of a stir as would a bare chested woman, this means that a woman’s body is ‘inherently immodest’ compared to that of a man and needs a wider cover. A beautiful man doesn’t attract a woman as much as a beautiful woman attracts a man, and this doesn’t mean that something is wrong with the man as you mentioned.

      In recent times, a couple of 5-7 year old girls were molested in Australia’s busy shopping centres by older adult men, this girls haven’t developed their female organs but already became the victims of sex crimes. Their parents didn’t make them sex objects.

      As for Hijab or Niqab, they are imported from the Arabian culture just as the Panjabi (kurta) is, which I don’t think you mind wearing.

      • anti_blog

        Hi Tariq, my namesake I know does not make any sense, it was an attempted rebellion towards people who thought bloggers were all evil and godless. I knida stuck to it since then. Anyways I did not anywhere write that women should walk about bare chested, you are using a straw man’s logic to discredit what I said.

        The point about Saudi Arab is that if Muslims in that country can pass a law that Hijab’s and Burkas are mandatory therefore France can and has every right to pass a law to ban burqa. Point is respect each country’s own laws. If u have migrated to Europe because you don’t like your own country or face economic uncertainties or face persecution then embrace the new countries’ customs. Don’t abuse their freedom of right and liberal attitudes. Which on the contrary is lacking in most Muslim countries except may be turkey.

        I’ll use a straw man logic here, you seemed to have lived your life as both a male and a female to make such a quote “A beautiful man doesn’t attract a woman as much as a beautiful woman attracts a man, and this doesn’t mean that something is wrong with the man as you mentioned ”
        How do you know that a beautiful man doesn’t attract females as much as the female counterpart, this is a bit hilarious. It’s a bit like saying hmmm I am sure an apple tastes exactly the same between humans and a fish.

        And that 5-7 year old I feel sorry for that kid. I am sure they were not made into sex objects, there are some sick perverted people called pedophiles who actually are sexually attracted to young kids. It is prevelant in all countries not just western. In south asian countries it is hushed up as usual.

        And no I don’t wear a Kurta but if someone gives me one I wouldn’t mind wearing it just for a few laughs.

  7. Ali Shaheen

    Dress code is the low hanging fruit. Please speak out for women’s right to drive and work in Saudi Arabia too and then help organize an economic boycott of countries that oppress women. We did it in South Africa. Why are we silent when it comes to women in Muslim countries? Women’s rights are human rights.

  8. Zahed

    Nicely written. I saw the article yesterday by Mr. Rahman. It needed to be answered and you did a good job by putting everything together in short period of time. Rahman missed the point totally. While bashing Islamic culture, Muslim women and their right to choose dress he was trying to uphold the French black-law. Showed even the audacity to implement similar law in BD. Rahman can choose anything for his family members but can’t decide what Muslims women/girls in BD should wear. It’s a democracy and everybody has the right to choose their dress, be it burqa/hijab or even not covering their head.

  9. pankaj

    anyway it may be a attemp to make u people modernise..uptil when u people will be bow ur head inside earth like ostrich..

    • Golam Arshad

      So you are Tanned Up Angel! A Modern Art in KING K H A N’S DOMAIN.The Divine wink in HM GLORY.

  10. Golam Arshad

    Burka and naakab are in combo a threat to PEACE. DO WONDER IN DISMAY.IS DRESS NOT TO COVER A SYMBOL OF FETISH LIB. WESTERN MODE OF DRESS CODE E SPECIAL L Y FOR WOMEN IS ITSELF A MODERN TABOO OF SEXISM.MUSLIM WOMEN IN BURKA AND NAKAB OPPOSED IN POWER ABSOLVED IN OPPRESSION. ABHORED IN IMPUNITY DISCARDED AS A THREAT FOR HUMAN BEING IN ALL AASSERTIVE ASPECT OF LIFE.SO, WE DO TUNE HOPE IN A DRESS LESS CODE AND NEGATE A MUSLIM WOMEN IN COVER OF VEIL I.E.BURKA AND NAAKAB. WHAT A SHPCKING SHOT TO DEFINE ISLAM ITS FOLLOWERS MUSLIM AS A THREAT TO ORDER AND PEACE!

  11. Osama S M Khan

    I completely agree with this article as a citizen of liberal Europe. Not much of this freedom of expression and liberalism will be intact if European court of human right kept on denying human rights. Well argued Rainer.

Comments are closed.