The idea that Ireland is a modern 21st century state is proffered time and again by media pundits eager to highlight differences between Islam and their own illiberal values, but every now and then the veil slips II’m being modest here) and the charade is exposed.

Take O’Doherty’s piece in the Indo today, where he relishes the idea of a burka ban because one is never quite sure what is under it. Let’s read what he says:

“the most compelling reason why even the staunchest Muslim bloke should want the burka and niqab outlawed has just been reported… In what surely rates as the funniest piece of straight news reporting in ages, local papers said: “(he sought a divorce) after discovering his veil-wearing fiancée had a beard and was cross-eyed.” After taking a look at her face, the Shariah judge agreed to the divorce request and one family member said: “She has a lovely personality but there’s a reason why she always wore the veil.” So, Muslim lads who are still opposed to the ban — bet you’re not so sure now, eh?’

In a country that speaks so highly of women, the idea that the worth of a woman is based solely on her looks is straight out of a misogynists manual and not something Islam endorses at all. In an authentic hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari (4802) and Muslim (1466) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said: “A woman may be married for four things: her wealth, her lineage, her beauty and her religious commitment. Seek the one who is religiously-committed, may your hands be rubbed with dust (i.e., may you prosper).”

Commenting on this Shaikh Muhammad Al Munajjid says:

There is nothing in this hadeeth to suggest that it is enjoined or encouraged to marry a woman for her beauty, lineage or wealth. Rather what it means is that these are things that people look for in marriage. Some look for a wife who is beautiful, some look for a wife who is descended from a noble family, some look for a wealthy wife, and some look for a wife who is religiously-committed ? and this last is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) encouraged when he said: “Seek the one who is religiously-committed, may your hands be rubbed with dust (i.e., may you prosper).”

So the encouragement is toward the religious. However, the human heart is inclined toward that which it considers agreeable so the Prophet also ordered a man to see his wife before he marries her. Muslim reported Abu Hurairah as saying that a man came to the Prophet (peace be on him) and told him that he had contracted to marry a woman of the Ansar.

“Did you look at her?” the Prophet (peace be on him) asked.”No,” he said, “Then go and look at her,” said the Prophet (peace be on him).

While the injunction is to seek the religious, there is nothing wrong in seeking that which is agreeable to the eye. Unfortunately, in some Arab and Pakistani cultures, it is considered shameful to look upon a prospective wife, an tradition that is contrary to the Sunnah of the Prophet, and suitors must rely on photographs and family recommendations to build a picture of a potential wife. There is every reason to suggest that the Muslim man in O’Doherty’s piece may have been deceived and this itself is grounds for divorce.

One thing is clear though, O’Doherty’s attempted jibe at the burka is wholly unfounded and reveals more of western perceptions of women than it does of Islam.

Muslim women should never be banned from wearing burkas on Britain’s streets, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said yesterday.

'I do not believe that this is a matter which should be the subject of the criminal law in which we were expecting the police to remove these items of apparel from women who choose for religious or cultural reasons to wear them.

France has banned female students from wearing face-covering veils in schools and more widespread measures are under consideration.

Peter Bone, Tory MP for Wellingborough yesterday asked Mr Straw in the Commons whether he believed there should be a change in the law in Britain.

Mr Straw said he would ’strongly recommend against’.

He added: ‘I do not believe that this is a matter which should be the subject of the criminal law in which we were expecting the police to remove these items of apparel from women who choose for religious or cultural reasons to wear them.’

His public stand is in contrast to his private request that women constituents remove their burkas before visiting his Blackburn office.Source

A contrast indeed. There was widespread outrage at Jack Straw’s comments on the niqab a few years ago, why the change?

Absurdities come in many varieties. The latest example is the French ban on burqa. Worse, the French action is proving contagious.

In Denmark, Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who heads a right-wing government, has hinted at a ban on burqa, even though no woman in Denmark wears it. The notorious rightwing Jyllands Posten newspaper had to retract a story that three or four women wear it in Denmark. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden is being quizzed by the press corps on the subject of burqa.

But the respective countries’ media have found merely 100 women in Sweden and 1,900 in France who wear burqa. A sizable minority among burqa-clad women consists of European converts. From France to Sweden, rightwing elements are up in arms against these roughly 2,000 burqas, supposedly for the rescue of European Enlightenment.

However, only three decades ago, rightwing governments in France encouraged Muslim immigrants to grow beards and wear burqas. Islamised immigrants were considered a safe bet against unionised immigrants.

The ultimate victim of the burqa ban is enlightenment itself, even though the effort to undermine enlightenment is sophisticated, with Europe’s culture being invoked. How absurd! Enlightenment does not need protection by governments headed by rightwing politicians like Nicolas Sarkozy. If Pakistan were to go Taliban tomorrow and the Taliban imposed burqa on Pakistani women, they would justify their action by invoking the French ban on burqa. No one banned burqa in Pakistan, but no woman in my family wears it anymore, although my mother used to.

By the way, long before Sarkozy’s France got alarmed at burqa, the founding fathers of Muslim countries like Turkey and Tunis, Mustafa Kemal Atarurk and Habib Bourguiba, had banned headscarves — for entirely different reasons though. In both these countries now, many young women wear headscarves, as a symbol of defiance. Last year in Istanbul, I saw a girl in a Che-shirt, with her head covered by a headscarf. Ironically, Islamists have thrice won general elections in Atarurk’s Turkey. The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is Islamist. Bans never work.

The burqa ban is a discriminatory measure directed not merely against French Muslims but ultimately against the democratic rights of the entire working class of France. Instead of leading to integration, the ban on burqa will contribute to anti-immigrant and communalist sentiments, thus fuelling divisions among French citizens. The Nazis targeted Jews before settling scores with broad layers of the working masses.

The ban negates the basic rights of religious freedom and a citizen’s control over his or her own body. It grants the French state new powers to intervene in matters of individual choice on what dress to wear. In essence, it is false to equate the progressive democratic principle of secularism (separation of church and state) with a government edict that abridges individuals’ right to dress the way they want.

In a grotesque way, the French ban is France’s “Talibanisation.” Many proponents of the ban claim that it is directed against the oppression of women, of which the burqa is a symbol. This argument is an example of sophistry. It is impossible to attribute a democratic and liberating character to a law that stigmatises an entire group of people, based on their dress choice.

The inevitable result of this discriminatory law will be to encourage the development of religious separatism and communalist thinking among Muslim immigrants who feel, justifiably, that they are being singled out for persecution. Religious prejudices can be fought back through the political development and education of the masses in the struggle for democratic rights, not through state decrees imposed from above, by governments that serve the interests of the elite.

Source: The News.com

Let me open this by saying quite candidly, that it is my belief that the proposed French ban on the Hijab (the burka is simply a version of the hijab) has little to do with so-called French values and everything to do with good ‘ole French imperialism.

Ever since the French revolution, there has been a strong antipathy toward perceived religious encroachments into French public life. During the French colonial enterprises, France brought this extremist interpretation of secularism to its colonies, which unfortunately included a number of Muslim lands and one of their favourite torturous acts against Muslim women was to strip them naked and cover their heads. In this way, what the women denied them by covering was now on display, and the tables turned – the women couldn’t see the men. It is against this perverse backdrop that the French ban must be questioned.

When a liberal democratic state legislates against women covering, but has little to say about how much is removed – then it’s fair to ask whose interests the state is working for. Where does it stop?

European Muslim women have demonstrated quite visibly that they have the ability to engage in everyday activities without adorning themselves or removing essential items of clothing. They are very clear about why they go into the public domain and make a conscious effort to not be alluring or light entertainment for the opposite sex. But this wouldn’t be enough for the French because of their view of the Muslim woman in general. They feel denied the freedom of lusting after the female form and like many of their European counterparts insist that they remove their covers so that they might view and enjoy what non-Muslim women contentedly show off freely.

Unfortunately European women have learned that in order to obtain the pick of the crop, be it the best housing, careers or men, that something has to be removed, shortened or decorated with rouge and lipstick. In a recent educational article one professional pointed out that she managed to obtain her position because of her ‘looks’, knowing all along that the other candidates were far more experienced and qualified than herself.

But back to France, who is to police the numerous women who choose not to comply, Les Francais Taliban, no doubt! Their menfolk shunted of to prisons for aiding and abetting women in burqas. Imagine that, it’ll be a criminal offence to overdress! It does sound utterly ridiculous that a group of grown men and women would give way to such rampant emotions surrounding their own insecurities and identity crises. And what of the increasing number of indigenous Muslims, are they not French anymore because of their choice of religion? My only advice at this point – get a grip! What is distinctly French today will almost certainly evolve over time, as it has done so already. From where I’m standing the future looks decidedly Muslim – Vive la France.

Umm Is’mael

MPAC.ie
An’Nisa (Women’s) Faction

Source: MetroEireann (Print Edition)

France’s insidious war on Islam and Muslims took on an odious turn today as it was revealed that a Moroccan man had been denied French citizenship because he ‘apparently’ forces his wife to wear the veil, refuses to shake hands with the opposite sex and believes in segregation.

How they came to the conclusion that he ‘forced’ his wife to cover hasn’t been revealed and is unlikely to be as it would expose the secularist charade. The fact is the French don’t believe a woman could have the common sense to cover up of her own volition. As Sarkozy’s wife has indicated a predilection of baring her assets for public consumption, should we assume that he now forces his wife to cover up? Can he prove he doesn’t?

We would urge Muslim countries that have French citizens/expatriates to impose upon them the strictest dress codes possible and enforce 100% compliance with the Sharia. Any failure to meet Islamic standards should result in immediate deportation.

France’s Muslim population might also consider a mass emigration and plunge the country into a crisis. With the sudden loss of doctors, lawyers, police and army personnel etc – the country would come to a standstill. Gulf nationals who use French banks might contemplate switching to more tolerant states such as the UK and tourists from Muslim lands should ponder other destinations. All of this coupled with a total boycott of all French products in every Muslim country would indicate our collective resolve.

Fight them in the way they fight you O’Muslim, and let’s face it they need you much more than you need them.

Because:
- a man can marry up to 4 wives, a woman can marry only one man
- a man’s share of inheritance is bigger than a woman’s
- a man can marry a non-Muslim, a woman cannot
- women must wear the veil

This widely held misconception does not remotely follow from the reasons given. The first and most important observation to make about the popular question “Are men and women equal?” is that it is a badly-formed, unanswerable question. The problem which many people conveniently ignore is that “equal” is not defined. This is a very critical point: the equality must be specified with respect to some measurable property.

For example, women on average are superior to men if we ask who is shorter in height than the other (”Growth and Development”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). Women are also superior on average if we ask whom do children bond to deeper, mothers or fathers. Women are also superior on average if we ask who has a tendency to socialize more. On the other hand, men are superior on average if we ask who is taller in height than the other. And so on: every question can be turned around, and more importantly these are properties which are irrelevant.

What then, is the really important property which we are worried about in terms of gender equality? Naturally, from the point of view of the Qur’an and
Sunnah, the obvious important property is who is dearer to Allah, men or women? This question is emphatically answered in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:124]If any do deeds of righteousness – be they male or female – and have faith, they will enter Paradise, and not the least injustice will be done to them.

[33:35] For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for truthful men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.

The Qur’an and Sunnah repeat over and over again that Allah only favors one person over another based on that person’s awareness, consciousness, fear,love, and hope of Allah (the Arabic word is difficult to translate: Taqwa). All other criteria are excluded: gender, ethnic group, country, ancestry, etc.

Given that Allah does not favor one gender over the other in His attention to us (and it helps to remember that Allah is neither male nor female), we can
now address the differences between the genders in Islam. First, men and women are not the same as we know. The Creator states in the Qur’an
(translation),

[3:36] …and the male is not like the female…

Men and women are different in their composition, and in their responsibilities under Islam.

However, both are bound by obligations to one another, especially the following important one which must be understood in any discussion on men and women. From the Qur’an (translation),

[24:32] And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

In this verse, the Creator emphasizes that marriage is to be vigorously pursued by the Muslims: the state of being single is not to be maintained.

With this in mind, we can begin to understand the four reasons cited above for the nonetheless erroneous conclusion. Men and women are different in their responsibilities towards the families that they are strongly encouraged to set up. Women are not obligated to work, whereas men are obligated. The man must provide for the family, but the woman does not have to spend out of her money for it, though she gets a reward for doing so. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:34] Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[2:24:545] Narrated `Amr bin Al-Harith: Zainab, the wife of Abdullah said, “I was in the Mosque and saw the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saying, `O women! Give alms even from your ornaments.’” Zainab used to provide for `Abdullah and those orphans who were under her protection. So she said to `Abdullah, “Will you ask Allah’s Apostle whether it will be sufficient for me to spend part of the Zakat on you and the orphans who are under my protection?” He replied “Will you yourself ask Allah’s Apostle?” (Zainab added): So I went to the Prophet and I saw there an Ansari woman who was standing at the door (of the Prophet) with a similar problem as mine. Bilal passed by us and we asked him, `Ask the Prophet whether it is permissible for me to spend (the Zakat) on my husband and the orphans under my protection.’ And we requested Bilal not to inform the Prophet about us. So Bilal went inside and asked the Prophet regarding our problem. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked, “Who are those two?” Bilal replied that she was Zainab. The Prophet said, “Which Zainab?” Bilal said, “The wife of `Adullah (bin Masud).” The Prophet said, “Yes, (it is sufficient for her) and she will receive a double rewards (for that): One for helping relatives, and the other for giving Zakat.”

Given that husbands are obligated to provide for wives, and that marriage is a highly recommended goal of Islam, it is easy to see why women’s inheritance share is half that of men. We note also that men are obligated to provide a suitable dowry to women on marriage. In fact, it is preferable at this point to speak in terms of husbands and wives instead of men and women. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:4] And give women their dowries as a free gift, but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment and with wholesome result.

Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[2:228]…And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them…

This one degree in no way affects the position of the Creator in which He has stated that He does not hold women dearer to him than men, or vice versa. Rather it is simply a way of partitioning responsibilities in a household of two adults: someone must make the final decision on daily matters. As will be shown below in a section on a different misconception, though the final decision rests with the husband, it is through mutual consultation that decisions are best reached at.

While men are allowed to marry up to four wives, they are also commanded to meet the preconditions of being able to financially support them. They must also deal with each wife justly and fairly with respect to marital and economic obligations. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:3] If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

Moreover, women are allowed to reject any marriage proposal made to her by prospective suitors, thus if she does not feel she can abide by the rules of the Qur’an and Sunnah if she marries a certain person, she can reject his proposal. While it is irrelevant to Islam, it is worthwhile to note that both Judaism and Christianity allow polygamy. The idea is not as foreign to the non-Muslims as is often claimed.

Finally, the wearing of the veil by women is also an illogical premise to claim that women are inferior to men. It is more appropriate to indict a society of female exploitation if it tolerates pornography rather than if it enforces the veil. Given that Allah is neither male nor female, given that He does not endear people to Himself based on their gender, given that the Creator cares about all of us male or female, given that the sexual and violent drive of men is stronger than that of women…given all this, it is illogical to cast a negative light on the following injunctions contained in the Qur’an (translation),

[33:59] O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not be annoyed…

[24:30-31] Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands…

On this misconception, there is a great deal more to write, most of it showing how current practices in many Muslim lands go against what the Qur’an and Sunnah have ordained, lands in which women are treated as property (unIslamic), are not educated (unIslamic), are forbidden their economic rights (unIslamic), and more. On this point in particular, we encourage everyone to consult the Qur’an and Sunnah before incriminating Islam. Always remember that Islam is a complete way of life from the Creator, and that Muslims are people who claim to follow that way of life. A Muslim may claim to follow Islam, but be wrong.

Source: The True Religion

So the French have come to the realization that like many of their European counterparts they are wholly devoid of a culture and uncertain of who they are amid the amalgam of numerous people and traditions. Their answer, construct an identity in opposition to the only group of people in Europe who seem to have one – Muslims.

It isn’t a new idea, Hitler, in writing his Mein Kampf, had similar thoughts of a Reich, or a nation comprised of a people who distinguished themselves from ‘a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.’ He was of course referring to the Jews, but the rhetoric was and is remarkably similar.

The danger in banning the Hijab/Burka/Niqab is that inevitably it can and does become a political tool of opposition. The French should be wary of making the same mistakes of those who foolishly took that route before. In 1935, the shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, also outlawed the chador or the Burka, urging his countrywomen to “cast their veils, this symbol of injustice and shame, into the fires of oblivion”. The move was “part of his Westernisation campaign whose primary aim was to weaken Islam” Women who resisted had their veils forcibly removed and troops killed hundreds of protesters at mosques.

Forty-four years later, when Iranian women took to the streets in an Islamic uprising against the Pahlavi dynasty, they flaunted the chador as a symbol of protest against the regime and its Western backers.Source

The French may indeed move to restrict Muslim women, but if history teaches us one thing – banning only serves to popularize and oppression will add to its symbolism.

By definition, femaleness has become pornographic. Whether making arguments for covering up women’s bodies or encouraging exuberant sexual expression in dress, these debates share a profound fear of women and their alleged voracious sexuality. Women must know their place, or pay the price. If they break the rules, they should expect a backlash.

For women even more than men, clothes have always been about identity. They signify belonging – whether to another man (a father or husband), a nation (Indian or British), a faith (Muslim or Jewish), or a cultural community (hippie or goth). In fearful times, when society is threatened by war, corruption and crumbling values, it becomes even more important to encourage or coerce women into taking up a symbolic role as upholders of morality and stability. Source

‘Muslim Women don’t know what is good for them’ and so extreme feminists like Martina Devlin feel duty bound to tell them. Choice doesn’t come into it because in the myopic world of Devlin ‘Even those who claim to do it willingly are brainwashed.’ This of course was the same individual who expressed a desire to strip off for photographer Spencer Tunick in 2008.

Interestingly in that article speaking of her body she stated, ‘As a body, it does the job adequately, but doesn’t measure up to the oppressive image of perfection — other people’s perfection — impressed on me every time I flick through a magazine.’

Herein lies one of the many flaws in Ms Devlin’s skewed logic. For while she laments the incessant subjugation of women to the fashion industry’s notion of ‘perfection’, she feels no such compunctions in dictating to Muslim women what she considers freedom. Additionally Devlin has rallied against the restrictiveness she perceives in Islam, hypocritically insisting on freedom of interpretation of religion, while denying others the same right when she disagrees with it.

Devlin is of course entitled to her opinion, no matter how moronic it is, but to impose her narrow interpretation of what the Burka means is to become the very repressive monster she rallies against. There appears to be little consistency in her thinking. Ms Devlin may be the sort to flaunt her body as an expression of ’social freedom’, Muslim women do the opposite under the same flag and it’s incredibly patronizing for her to suggest otherwise.

For a balanced feminist perspective on the veil, take a read of Naomi Wolf’s Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality

A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts. She passes under immense billboards on which other women swoon in sexual ecstasy, cavort in lingerie or simply stretch out languorously, almost fully naked. Could this image be any more iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam, and vice versa?

Ideological battles are often waged with women’s bodies as their emblems, and Western Islamophobia is no exception. When France banned headscarves in schools, it used the hijab as a proxy for Western values in general, including the appropriate status of women. When Americans were being prepared for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women; when the Taliban were overthrown, Western writers often noted that women had taken off their scarves.

But are we in the West radically misinterpreting Muslim sexual mores, particularly the meaning to many Muslim women of being veiled or wearing the chador? And are we blind to our own markers of the oppression and control of women?

The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling – toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.

Outside the walls of the typical Muslim households that I visited in Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt, all was demureness and propriety. But inside, women were as interested in allure, seduction and pleasure as women anywhere in the world.

At home, in the context of marital intimacy, Victoria’s Secret, elegant fashion and skin care lotions abounded. The bridal videos that I was shown, with the sensuous dancing that the bride learns as part of what makes her a wonderful wife, and which she proudly displays for her bridegroom, suggested that sensuality was not alien to Muslim women. Rather, pleasure and sexuality, both male and female, should not be displayed promiscuously – and possibly destructively – for all to see.

Indeed, many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualising Western gaze. Many women said something like this: “When I wear Western clothes, men stare at me, objectify me, or I am always measuring myself against the standards of models in magazines, which are hard to live up to – and even harder as you get older, not to mention how tiring it can be to be on display all the time. When I wear my headscarf or chador, people relate to me as an individual, not an object; I feel respected.” This may not be expressed in a traditional Western feminist set of images, but it is a recognisably Western feminist set of feelings.

I experienced it myself. I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market – the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me – I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.

Nor are Muslim women alone. The Western Christian tradition portrays all sexuality, even married sexuality, as sinful. Islam and Judaism never had that same kind of mind-body split. So, in both cultures, sexuality channeled into marriage and family life is seen as a source of great blessing, sanctioned by God.

This may explain why both Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women not only describe a sense of being liberated by their modest clothing and covered hair, but also express much higher levels of sensual joy in their married lives than is common in the West. When sexuality is kept private and directed in ways seen as sacred – and when one’s husband isn’t seeing his wife (or other women) half-naked all day long – one can feel great power and intensity when the headscarf or the chador comes off in the the home.

Among healthy young men in the West, who grow up on pornography and sexual imagery on every street corner, reduced libido is a growing epidemic, so it is easy to imagine the power that sexuality can carry in a more modest culture. And it is worth understanding the positive experiences that women – and men – can have in cultures where sexuality is more conservatively directed.

I do not mean to dismiss the many women leaders in the Muslim world who regard veiling as a means of controlling women. Choice is everything. But Westerners should recognise that when a woman in France or Britain chooses a veil, it is not necessarily a sign of her repression. And, more importantly, when you choose your own miniskirt and halter top – in a Western culture in which women are not so free to age, to be respected as mothers, workers or spiritual beings, and to disregard Madison Avenue – it’s worth thinking in a more nuanced way about what female freedom really means.

And while you’re at it, why not read what Muslim women have to say on the issue of the hijab (hijab means to cover and includes the all the variations we witness in the Muslim world including the niqab and burka).

Across Europe, governments are actively engaged in discussions on what it means to be a citizen of their respective countries. This spurt of national soul searching has been prompted by the influx of Muslim communities who all share a common tradition – Islam. And it is this bond and assurance of who Muslims are that has irked Europeans, because quite frankly they don’t have anything that vaguely resembles a culture.

Take France for example. Discussions are underway to try to tease out what it means to be French, all the rhetoric thus far points to a fascist, xenophobic and deeply Islamophobic state, but we’ll wait for the final outcome before we cast any stones. But for the French to attempt to define their society by virtue of its opposition and wanton subjugation of Muslim culture does point to the inadequacies of the former. After all, if a woman wearing a Burka is a threat to any European culture, then what does that say of the substance of western culture?