hollow embrace and a hollow hope

something that my soul did grope

after that it had lost all bliss

reminiscing the fading morning kiss..

and a hand thus stoned as it clinched your touch

and a heart going cold having housed pain much

in the shallow sunlight who can find a sultry shadow

and shelter a bemused heart in a maze of inane credo 

a heart that seeks fire, a heart that never rests

a heart that loathes to die, failing its own death

a shuddering wish lurks in the crater of despair

the flame of love was kindled to light the heart’s lair

it will keep on tearing the veils until it finds you there..

An analytical book review of Scott’s “Politics of the Veil”:

Unveiling France

         Joan Wallach Scott’s “Politics of the Veil” is an expose on the controversial French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools (2004). Scott looks at “the hijab – the piece of cloth that became a symbol of the “problem of Islam” for the French Republic” (Scott, 21). She traces the roots of the “affaires des foulards” and the ideology of the French Republic to the 1789 revolution. France’s republicans suggest that the voile is irreconcilable with being a citizen of France. However, Scott successfully proves that the reasons behind the ban run deeper than just a superficial insulation for French values. She argues that the ban should be seen in a historical context of racism, secularism, individualism and sexuality, all of which shape French discourse and opinion. France views assimilation through a counterproductive lens with an artificial homogeneity gaining precedence over “common ground” and respect.

Laïcité, arguably the single most important word in French ideology, sculptured the headscarf debate. Laïcité was “not just any secularism but a special French version, at once more universal than any other and unique to French history and French national character” (Scott, 97). This shows that the term did not imply just a separation of Church and State, but in fact focused on a decidedly more private realm in the sphere of religion. Therefore, any overtly religious symbols seemed antithetical to French universalism. However, Laïcité, much like the Muslim community in France, cannot be defined in plain black and white. French secularism too had different versions, and a “democratic model” of secularism was possible. This was shown by Bauberot’s example, the lone dissenting member of the Stassi commission. Regarding a myth of universalism in France, Scott suggests that a “racist” narrative is shaped as an effect of policies, instead of the “foulard” causation.

French public sentiment, politics and media all indicated that the veil was an oppressive piece of cloth that limited, or even prohibited, a Muslim woman’s integration in society. Nevertheless, Scott presents a case for an increasing number of French women taking up the veil to rebel against such a law. The book’s greatest achievement was a clear structure to present a case that had heavy anti-ban leanings, but at the same time tried to include a wide range of opinions on the issue. In fact, Scott identifies her position as a liberal voice that looks to France through an American lens shaped by ideas of multiculturalism. Thus, the author tries to present a balanced view, though at times it is often stifled as she tries to win a case against the French ban.

In order to analyze Scott’s work, it is essential to explore the text of the March 2004 French law. In article 1, it states:

The clothing and religious signs prohibited are conspicuous signs such as a large cross, a veil, or a skullcap. Not regarded as signs indicating religious affiliation are discreet signs, which can be, for example, medallions, small crosses, stars of David, hands of Fatima, or small Korans (Scott, 1)

Note here that legally, Muslim women were not singled out. However, Scott asserts that it growing anxiety regarding immigrants, particularly those from the Maghreb with North African and Arab backgrounds were specifically targeted through this law. The Headscarf Controversies were shaped by growing anti-immigration sentiments in domestic politics. This was solidified by the National Front Party’s Jean-Marie Le Pen, whose hardened anti-immigrant stance tapped “into a set of racist attitudes with deep roots in French history” (Scott, 41).

Fractures in France’s domestic politics may have shaped racist trends, which saw a particular spike in the 1980s. Le Pen fueled racist depictions of “immigrants,” who “breed like rabbits” and upset the “biological equilibrium” (Scott, 71). Le Pen was playing to populist sentiments, and echoing what French society already thought, yet exacerbating racism in the process. Of course, France’s internal struggle towards assimilation was impacted by international events, in particular by the 1989 Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, whose book Satanic Verses sent ripples through what France saw as a monolithic Muslim world.

The ideas of Islam versus the West, and a “clash of civilizations” are best seen through the 1960s Algerian War, a transformative event in French history that stirred racism against an “other”. The author recounts an incident in the diverse town of Carmaux where he first heard deeply racist comments against Arabs. “These people are animals, they are not Christians; your blacks are Christian. The Arabs don’t live in real houses but in huts, in holes in the ground; they’re uncivilized, uneducated, unclean” (Scott, 44). To readers, such anecdotes seem antithetical to what France claims to represent in modern history, upholding principles of “Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite”; values that are in fact said to have driven the French ban against veils in the first place. However, Scott says that this image of France and French identity is an artificial construction. Thus principles that were in essence democratic in nature began to be tainted by the ugly colors of colonialism and discrimination, particularly against the immigrant community. Even third generation immigrants were seen as different, with identities that were unmistakably anti-French in the eyes of the general public. In fact, even colonial art form showed “subjugation of Algeria was often depicted by metaphors of disrobing, unveiling, and penetration” (Scott, 55). Through this, Scott exemplifies racism which she thinks is deeply embedded in French society.

Ironically, a law that is theoretically designed to help assimilate Muslim women into French society is what sets them even further apart. Scott rightly suggests that individualism was an integral question in the debate. Feminists in France were particularly concerned about what they saw as oppressive Islamic laws which they felt inhibited women from fully participating in French society. Scott says that while this was true, it was lamentable that the law failed to hear Muslim voices in the debate, with Muslim women who wore the scarf – those who would be most impacted by the law – largely absent from public debate. They were heard outside of courtrooms, and the media shied away from them. It is because of this that Scott says “by outlawing the headscarf, the state declared those who espoused Islam in whatever form, to be literally foreigners to the French way of life” (Scott, 149). Individualism could not be reconciled with sameness and French universalism.

In the debate over French versus Muslim identities, gender relations and sexuality were a cause of concern. In Islam, women and men have specialized roles in society, and have limits on gender interactions; this is diametrically opposed to the Republicans’ “French” way of life (Scott, 154). The hijab as a symbol raised dangerous questions about the visibility sexual freedoms, clash of gender systems, and the established gender order that was “natural” and French.

In conclusion, it is evident that France’s 2004 ban on the veil was a result of historical debate, and raised symbolic implications on what it means to be French. The foulard, and later, the voile represented a view diametrically opposed to French universalism. Differences meant dissimilation, which were a threat to national unity. In “True France”, the ideology of the Republic would reign supreme. Communautarisme (Scott, 11) was corrosive to integration, and the hijab represented a path that was not egalitarian. Equality meant sameness in French political discourse. Yet, is precisely this move towards artificial equality and a suppression of differences that lead to greater dissonance in French society. Instead of embracing multiculturalism, and directing it as a positive force, France chose to suppress it in a simplistic definition of the French identity. The hijab became a symbol of Islam, and Islam began to represent traditionalism and a resistance to modernity.

Such a point of view oversimplified an issue that was anything but black and white. The French ban debate is multifaceted, raising elemental questions on class disparity in “immigrant” and “French” populations, the anthropological identity of colonized people, to timeless ideas on “traditional versus modern, fundamentalism versus secularism, church versus state, private versus public, particular versus universal, group versus individual, cultural pluralism versus national unity, identity versus equality” (Scott, 5). As the world becomes increasingly globalized, these ideas will continue to stir debate, and it will be integral to respect the complicated nature of discourse and questions.

 Works Cited

Scott, Joan Wallach. The Politics of the Veil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ., 2007. Print.

A nude shot of a sultry Pakistani starlet on the cover of an Indian lad mag has sparked an uproar between the two nuclear rivals.

Pakistani actress Veena Malik appears on the cover of FHM India’s December issue wearing nothing but a steamy gaze and the initials of Pakistan’s fearsome intelligence agency, ISI, tattooed across her arm.

Conservative Muslim clerics in her home country slammed the shot as an insult to Islam, while Pakistan’s government has promised to investigate whether the image was doctored, London’s The Telegraph reported.

Malik, meanwhile, has filed a lawsuit against the magazine, saying that she agreed to pose topless — along with a cheeky dig at her home country’s spy service — but the editors digitally altered the shot to make her appear totally nude.

“I agreed to a photo shoot and having an ISI tattoo in a humorous way but I did not have any nude photos. My pictures have been morphed,” she told a Pakistani television station.

The suit is seeking $2 million in damages. FHM India editor Kabeer Sharma insists the cover is legit.

“Maybe she is facing some kind of backlash, so maybe that’s why she is denying it,” Sharma told Agence France-Presse.

“We have not photoshopped or faked the cover. This is what she looks like, she has an amazing body.” Sharma says a video from the cover shoot would prove the photos are real.

An alternate cover that has surfaced online shows Malik clad in a dinky military cargo belt while nibbling on the pin of a grenade.

The 33-year-old Muslim actress and model was best known as a Pakistani TV star before hitting it big in India in 2010 as a contestant on the fourth season of the reality show “Bigg Boss,” a version of “Big Brother.”

In January, she got in a much-publicized verbal spat with a conservative Muslim cleric, who called her an insult to Pakistan and Islam for cozying up with a dashing Indian actor on the show.

Filed under: Desi, Freedoms, India, Pakistan, Veil Tagged: Big Boss, Big Brother, FHM India, India, ISI, Kabeer Sharma, Pakistan, Pakistani TV Star, Veena Malik

By Manzer Munir for Pakistanis for Peace

The steady stream of negative news about the twisted way Islam is being practiced around the world seems to never end. In my view, it is not how the Prophet would have wanted his followers to behave.

Just when I thought I was beginning to get used to the ridiculousness of the news coming out of Saudi Arabia, where a religious edict is trying to force women there with beautiful eyes to  completely cover up their face in order to stop the temptation of the men, along comes the grim news of Gulnaz  from Afghanistan. If you are not familiar with Gulnaz’s story, let me give you the facts.

Two years ago, in 2009, Gulnaz, a 19 year old single girl who lived with her elderly mother in Afghanistan, was brutally raped by her cousin’s husband. To describe the events, she recalls that on this day, the rapist came into her house when her mother left for a brief visit to the hospital. ”He had filthy clothes on as he does metal and construction work. When my mother went out, he came into my house and he closed doors and windows. I started screaming, but he shut me up by putting his hands on my mouth,” she said.

Afterwards, she hid what had happened out of shame and fear, as shockingly there is no difference seen between women who are raped and women who commit actual adultery.  In Afghanistan and in many conservative Muslim countries, any sex outside marriage, whether the guilty party is single or married is considered adultery by the society and the justice system.

A few weeks after her rape, she began to vomit and started showing signs of pregnancy with her attacker’s child. Instead of sympathy and proof of her ordeal, she was charged and found guilty of adultery by the courts and for having sex outside marriage and was sentenced to twelve years in prison. She has already served two years and even gave birth to her rapist’s child, a little girl, in Kabul’s Badam Bagh jail where sadly, her innocent daughter is being raised in captivity alongside the unfortunate mother.

Rather than being freed from jail and given justice for her painful ordeal, the only way out of the dishonor of rape or adultery for her is incredibly only by marrying her attacker. In Afghan culture, and indeed in most Muslim communities, this is believed to be the only way to restore a woman’s honor, by marrying the man who she had sex with, damned be the fact whether it was willingly or unwillingly!

Sadly in many Muslim countries, rape remains a common form of violence against women. In addition, women are often blamed for being the victim of rape. Islam however, views rape as a violent crime against the victim, against society, and against God. The perpetrator who commits a crime is morally and legally responsible for that crime and should be held accountable. The victim, who is an unwilling partner in the sex act and so should bear neither blame nor stigma associated with the unfortunate act. To either ostracize or condemn the victim because she was compelled to engage in sexual intercourse is against the laws of Islam since the victim was an unwilling, and therefore a blameless, participant.

As common as her story and circumstances are for a woman in Afghanistan, the world has only learned of it due to a chance foreign documentary.  Gulnaz’s ordeal came to light because of a dispute between filmmakers and the European Union who hired the crew to film a documentary on the improving situation of women’s rights in Afghanistan and the assistance that the EU has been providing in the better treatment of women in the country. It was only when the documentarians came across her story and the grave injustice being done to Gulnaz and indeed by some accounts, hundreds of women across Afghanistan in similar circumstances, that the EU decided to cancel the project out of fear of harming their relations with Afghan government and institutions. Officially the EU states that it fears for the safety of the women in the film as they could be identified and face reprisals but many human rights organizations believe it is due to the fact that the film shows Afghan justice system in a poor light and the EU is concerned about the Afghan government’s sensitivities to the situation. It is despicable that the EU is more concerned with the sensitivities of the Afghan government rather than fighting for justice for Gulnaz.

Customs such as these in Afghanistan or the recent religious ruling in Saudi Arabia warning women to cover their attractive eyes, or the continued religious persecution of Christians and other minorities in Pakistan through the egregious blasphemy laws as seen in the case of Aasia Bibi, only serve to illustrate to many within and outside Islam the tremendous challenges that exist in what is right and what is logically very wrong and goes against all sense of justice and common sense, not to mention the very essence of Islam.

I am certainly not arguing for making any changes in the Quran or interpretations of religious text or any wholesale revisions whatsoever. That would not only be blasphemous but also counterproductive and unnecessary. Furthermore,  a big part of the beauty of our religion stems from the fact that it has remained unchanged as we Muslims believe that mutations and changes in both the Bible and the Torah necessitated the need for a third Abrahamic religion, Islam,  to arrive some 1400+ years ago to “set the record straight” after all the changes over the years in the two earlier Holy Books. Instead, I believe the only thing that needs to occur is the realization amongst the leaders and countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) that in this day and age, there are certain rights and freedoms that should be guaranteed to citizens of all countries of the world and this does not require any changes in the great religion but rather some simple changes in the current laws.

Aristotle once said that “You can judge a nation by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens”. You could be a Hindu or a Christian in Pakistan, a woman in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or a homosexual or transgendered person in Iran, you do not deserve to lose your life or liberty under the guise of religious laws. Allah almighty is a just and fair God in Islam, just as he is in the Christian and Jewish faiths. He most certainly would never condone the treatment of Gulnaz, Aasia Bibi and countless other poor souls who are being mistreated under the banner of Islam.

I am not a religious scholar and nor do I profess to know everything I need to know about Islam, Christianity and many other religions. Some may even question my faith and belief in calling myself Muslim simply because I am asking these tough questions, and in their version of Islam, you never question, you simply obey. Lest they forget, Islam also clearly states to seek knowledge and to be just and fair and respectful of other religions.  “Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good — they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.” (Quran 5:69)

I am however certain that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would indeed be very upset with the current state of affairs of most Muslim countries when it comes to morality, religious freedoms,  respect for other religions and the treatment of women. Sadly, I do not see the changes necessary coming into being voluntarily by these nations, I believe it is incumbent of the benefactors of these nations, such as the United Nations, United States, the European Union, China and other trading partners, to push for better treatment of women and religious minorities in many Muslim countries of the world.  It is high time that they pressure these nations into enacting basic rights and freedoms for all people, regardless of their race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. It must become a precursor to being a part of the civilized nations of the world and in being a member of the world community of nations. Freedom after all is what the Arab Spring is all about!

-Manzer Munir, a proud American of Pakistani descent, is a practicing Sufi Muslim and member of Muslims for Progressive Values, he is also the founder of Pakistanis for Peace and blogs at www.PakistanisforPeace.com as well at other websites as a freelance journalist and writer.

Filed under: Afghanistan, All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, American Muslims, Arab, blasphemy laws, Freedoms, Islam, Manzer Munir, Muslims, Pakistan, Pakistani Christians, Pakistanis, Pakistanis for Peace, Saudi Arabia, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Veil Tagged: Aasia Bibi, Abrahamic Faith, adultery, Afghan Women, Afghanistan, Allah, Asia Noreen, blasphemy laws, Christianity, EU, Gulnaz, Hinduism, Iran, Islam, Jesus Christ, Judaism, Manzer Munir, Muslim World, Muslims, OIC, Organization of Islamic Conference, Pakistan, Pakistanis for Peace, Prophet Muhammad, rape, Religious Tolerance, Saudi Arabia, Sharia Laws, Sufi, United States, Veils, Women in Islam, Women’s rights

Reported by Amrutha Gayathri for International Business Times

In yet another sexist and repressive act, a conservative Islamic committee in Saudi Arabia has proposed a law to stop women from revealing their “tempting” eyes to the public.

As of now, Saudi Arabian women are required to cover themselves up from head to toe, with a long black cloak called the “abaya”, except for their eyes and in most cases the eyebrows.  The laws on women covering their bodies are strictly imposed and anyone who doesn’t abide by the codes of conduct faces fines and public floggings.

However, Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) found that even women’s eyes could sometimes be too attractive for men and drafted a new proposal.

According to the Daily Mail, a report on the Bikya Masr news site suggested the proposal was made after a member of the committee was attracted by a woman’s eyes as he walked along a street, provoking a fight. The fight culminated in the woman’s husband getting stabbed twice in the hand.

A spokesperson for CPVPV, Sheikh Motlab al Nabet, said a proposal aimed at making it illegal for women to be in public without covering themselves up completely, if they happened to have attractive eyes, had been tabled.

The committee has always been under fire from human rights activists for repressive measures had carried out in the name of Islamic principles. It was widely criticized for its inhuman enforcement of the Sharia law in March 2002, when a public school in Mecca was on fire.

The religious police prevented female students from escaping by locking the doors and barring firemen and emergency services personnel from entering the building because the students had not covered their heads properly. The committee said it didn’t want to invoke the “sexual feelings” of emergency personnel by allowing them see the girls without their head-cover. The CPVPV was held responsible by human rights organizations for a death toll of 14. Though the organization denied the charges, the shocking accounts of witnesses were published by local media.

Incidents of brutal physical torture of women, by religious committees, for not abiding by Islamic laws have regularly appeared in Saudi media. Women are not allowed to drive or travel without male authorization or accompaniment in the country.

Filed under: Arab, Freedoms, Islam, Muslims, Saudi Arabia, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Veil Tagged: Attractive Eyes, CPVPV, Human rights, Mecca, Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Women, Saudi Women’s Rights, Sheikh Motlab al Nabet