This Week on teh Interwebs


Why yes, I do think the French model of laïcité is bullshit and no, you won’t change my mind by insulting my intelligence

A good article in the blogosphere lately  (HT Stephanie) got me thinking again about laïcité , the form of legal Islamophobia the French want to pretend has been part of their culture and society since time immemorial.  I’m not buying what the French are selling, laïcité is a giant load of crap, and nothing anyone can ever say in defense of the subject will change my mind about how utterly horrible, misguided and wrong laïcité is as it is practiced in France.  I don’t care if you call me stupid, you should care that you are a bigot if you think laïcité is awesome and I am publicly judging you. Why don’t I like it?

1. I think it is veiled (tee hee, a hijab joke, I’m so punny) “racism” masking as Islamophobia. It’s not pc any more to say you don’t like Arabs or Black people, but you can attack the religion of some of them and still feel smug in your white mainstreamness. I’m not the only one who says this.  Laïcité now is what the “integration” arguments were in the 80s and 90s. Same discourse, but this time it is about attacking Islam.

2. A lot of people equate laïcité with being anti-hijab and anti-Islam insofar as DERP ISLAM HATES WOMEN or something. I   think people who call themselves feminists should accept that their sisters in “womanity” have different ways of practicing feminism and that just because one of your sisters doesn’t agree with you 100% of the time, you still don’t have a reason to pull her feminist card.  I think it is intellectually irresponsible to base your logical argument on either the assumption that a woman who choses to veil is misguided, or that a woman can only call herself a Muslim feminist if she doesn’t wear one.

3. Laïcité doesn’t make people more equal, the only thing equal about it is all believers are at the same level when it comes to state-enforced atheism.  Muslim women suffer under it the most but in reality anyone who chooses to practice a religion gets screwed.  Again, a lot of proponents of anti-veil discourse try to say that not having a veil means women are liberated and don’t have to listen to men any more, but they discount choices freely made by women. It is demeaning to think that everyone who wears a veil is either “misguided as to the true nature of Islam because [insert pundit here] said it wasn’t necessary” in the book you read or because her father or brother made her do it.

My favorite is when the trolls come out and say Muslims disrespect other believers as if that is a reason to sign on to laïcité .  I believe in freedom for all religions. Dude wants to wear a pasta strainer on his head? LOVE IT. My Christian friend wants to homeschool her kids? When can she teach me?  Sikh dude needs his knife? Bring it. Don’t ascribe to me feelings towards other religions.  A close second to that is being told that I haven’t read enough shite French “intellectuals” have put out to truly have the knowledge necessary to have an opinion.  I don’t need to pick up and touch a steaming pile of cow dung to know that it is, in fact, cow dung.

I’m a proponent of secularism, when it means secularism is the only way to give each religion equal footing. When I was in high school- a state-funded public high school in the state of Lousiana- our principal at the time “got saved” and decided we needed to have a moment of prayer each morning.  I would have been cool with that except for the fact that around Ramadan time, one of the sole Muslim students there (who wasn’t practicing but wanted to test what Principal Jerkwad would say) asked if he could have ten minutes out of class to pray asr.  OF COURSE NOT. But we could spend ten minutes in the morning doing Christian stuff in our public school.

The problem with French laïcité however, is that it creates inequality. You aren’t allowed to believe anything, but Christmas is still holiday, no one can touch all the ponts in May, and oh noes, not Pentecost or Assumption. Meanwhile Muslim women can’t even walk in the street, much less work or go to school.  You can twist that all you want, but Muslim women are the ones who suffer under laïcité and to maintain the fiction that laïcité  actually protects them or anyone else is foolish and dangerous.

But of course, far be it from any Muslim to say that. Any time any Muslim says anything about laïcité , it turns into an argument about how we want to create a khalifah in Europe, how we aren’t intellectually sophisticated enough to understand what laïcité  REALLY means, or that we are stuck in a victim cycle where we think everything is about us.

What is really going on is that I am absolutely tired- tired of the Caroline Fourests and the Manuel Valls of this world, tired of being treated like a demented child for choosing a religion, tired of having to constantly listen to the same old trite memes about Islam from ignorant bigots who think they are smart.



Everyday Islamophobia

Some people buried a dead pig and some pig heads on the land of a mosque being built in Solothurn. Oh, and I forgot the 120 liters pig blood they poured on it for good measure. They justified their actions saying they were worried about the “rampant Islamization” of Switzerland.

For a short English article from Swissinfo on the topic, click here.

It’s a slippery slope from every day Islamophobia like “Well *we* can’t have churches in Saudi Arabia” and “Minarets are against the Swiss way of life” to burying dead pigs on mosque grounds. I’m just saying.

I get so tired of the lame ass Swiss excuses like “well ‘these people’ need to integrate and learn the language and understand how ‘the West’ is.” Stupid Oskar Freysinger made money off Muslims then dared hold his post-minaret vote press conference in the Lausanne mosque. And that’s supposed to be ok even when it is blatant media manipulation. No one asks for minarets and supposedly *we* are the ones Islam-izing Switzerland? What, was this mosque in Solothurn a Mecca Mega Mall mosque? Did we start a popular initiative for all women to wear headscarves? What is this “Islamization?” Come on people.

And maybe people wouldn’t put all Islamophobes in the SVP basket if all Muslims weren’t in the Terrorists on Welfare basket. I feel like I have to justify my existence every day when frankly all I have done in this country is pay my taxes and keep my head down.

The worst part is that I am a convert and what I go through can’t compare to the hell someone with a “Yugo” or an “Arab” name who may identify as Muslim goes through just by virtue of being “ethnic.” So it is all fine and good that people are quick to condemn the pig attacks as an isolated incident, but remember that next time you “tut tut” at a chick walking down the street in a headscarf. Slippery slope indeed.

I’m working very hard on a project this weekend but had to blog on this. It makes me angry.


Friendly reminder on LGBT issues and LGBT Muslims

As a friendly reminder- I will not tolerate any negative comments that go beyond polite discussion on LGBT issues and especially LGBT Muslim issues in any of the fora in which I participate, be it here, Twitter or FB or on my other blogs. I judge you in private. And now in public.

To rehash something I have already said in a private forum, My position on LGBT Muslims is simple, I want them to identify as Muslim. I don’t particularly care who they sleep with. Islam teaches me that other people’s sex lives aren’t my biznass. I’m tired of jobless no-good, welfare-cheating, multiple-wife-beating ignorant scrubs (all also “forbidden” in Islam) being able to hold their head up high at jummah and dirty MY religion by being called a good brother when we, as a community, don’t have any more answers for LGBT Muslims other than “ZOMGS teh Islamz sez being gay is HARAAAAAAAAAAM.” I’m over it. It’s the same head-up-the-ass type of philosophy that people apply to

-Muslims engaging in politics or political activism (ZOMGS teh Islamz says No Politics Without Khalifah don’t talk to TEH KUFFAR)

-Muslims engaging in interfaith dialogue (ZOMGS teh Islamz is the final monotheistic religion, talking to TEH KUFFAR makes us TEH KUFFAR ASTARGHFIRULLAH)

-Muslims glossing over Domestic Violence issues in the community: “in Islam our Prophet Salla Allahou Alaihi wa Sallam was the best of examples, so all your husband needs to do to stop beating you is follow the religion. Have some sabr sister (and lose weight/stop nagging/clean more/cook better so that he will stop beating you), but DON’T go to counseling or a mental health professional or a DV shelter or anything because teh Islamz says that is HARAAAAAM.”

I don’t care whether you believe being LGBT is a choice or not a choice. It’s about recognizing the fact that LGBT Muslims EXIST, have a right to exist as members of humanity, and recognizing that our ummah has to do better to make sure all Muslims are in the fold. And by in the fold, I don’t mean “on the haqq.” In the fold means “Islam is for everyone.” We do not have an exclusive right on Islam, and it is poor dawah to think otherwise. And very, very very few of us are specialists in doctrine. I don’t want any of you assholes to go google Bukhari or something, I can do that myself. We, as simple Muslims, are not here to decide who is and isn’t burning in the hellfire. The stuff we learn about the religion is first to be applied to ourselves, but sadly people we Muslims never check ourselves and instead go and google Bukhari to spread namimah and be all Judgy McJudgerson.

What’s my final point? Sticking our heads up our collective asses as an ummah is why Islam and Muslims have a major PR problem. There’s a way to “enjoin the good and forbid the evil” without being a bigoted, close-minded asshole. What breaks my heart the most is that LGBT people of Muslim culture usually just wind up not being Muslim any more and LGBT people not from Muslim backgrounds have absolutely no reason to convert given the current state of affairs. Our goal as Muslims, as a I have said countless times before, is threefold: 1) check our own Islam; 2) make the Muslims around us happy to be Muslim and treat them in the way Islam tells us to do (regardless of their supposed “shortcomings’); 3) make people around us who aren’t Muslim think Islam is pretty cool by being examples of human deceny, kindness and fair treatment. We are failing BIG TIME on all three as an ummah.

1 Comment

Sex and Betrayal

Many years ago, prior to my conversion to Islam, I had a “relationship” with an aspiring writer (who, might I add, is still “aspiring”). Every few years since, the Aspiring Writer has attempted to revist/recreate what happened between us in what I can only assume is an utter lack of inspiration in his current life. His creative flights of fancy took the form of poems, short stories, and even podcasts. All talking about ME, the things we did together, and what he thought of as “us.” With each new episode, I was (and am still, as he continues to use me as a source of inspiration) enraged. I feel betrayed, used and completely misunderstood as I never dared go after my “droit de réponse” in public. Maybe this is my “droit de réponse.” Strangely, I always had a hard time explaining exactly why he made me so mad until I read an article on Feministe last night and discussed it with a dear friend in Paris. The Feministe article isn’t about sex per se, I think she is getting more to the point of being body-conscious, with maybe a side dig at evangelical Christianity. And I think it is well written (obviously so if I chose to blog about it). But the passage about her sexual encounter with her Mormon bf and his inability to put on a condom made me feel the same way the aspiring writer makes me feel: Sex is the no-share frontier for me.

I overshare a LOT on line, I tweet what I had for breakfast, but I cannot and will not talk about who I may or may not have had sex with. Sex is something so intimate and personal, there are details that (threesomes and orgies aside, *snort*) rightfully are only known to two people. And that includes one-night-stands as much as long-term relationships. I don’t want to share how good (or bad) someone was in bed

What does Islam have to say about “teh overshare?” First off, the slate of converts like me is wiped clean at conversion. Which means, in principle, that what I did before I converted is no longer relevant to my current life as a Muslimah. That is a debatable point of view in that our experiences shape us, whether within the shade of Islam or not, but whatever. Then you have the “good brothers” who say that “blushing Muslimahs” should be pious and shy about anything that the Hislam patriarchy thinks we shouldn’t talk about. But as a convert who truly believes that I had a series of principles before I came to Islam and those principles have stayed with me and are in line with Islamic belief (which is why I converted), sex has always been about me and my chosen partner. I have major issues with people who use sex as art, or who delight in regaling teh interwebs with tales of their bedroom exploits. My cases of overshare have always been in private with close friends, and God knows I have tried not to name names. What’s the point? In most cases, past is past, so why live in it? And if it isn’t the past, why does the world need to know about your current relationship? If sex isn’t private, what is precious and secret in this world? That doesn’t mean be a big prude in bed. That means don’t let anyone know what your game is. I could be a big prude, I could not be a big prude, but since I now take the precaution of not sleeping with bigmouths, no one will ever have to know.

Not talking about my sex life isn’t about me being a “blushing Muslimah”, selling out to Hislam, not being body-conscious or trying to hold on to my history for myself (which is what the Aspiring Writer accuses me of). It is respect for my past, respect for my partner(s) and respect for myself.

Leave a comment

J’adore Chador: Majida Khattari’s Art

This post was originally written for Muslimah Media Watch in 2010. I am reproducing it here for safekeeping as an author under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It was also cross-posted at Altmuslimah. For reposts, you are kindly asked to also seek the permission of the MMW editorial team and credit that site accordingly. For trackbacks and links for citation, always use this link at MMW. In doubt, original credit should always point to Muslimah Media Watch.

Le Monde, France 24 and Le Nouvel Observateur covered Franco-Moroccan artist Majida Khattari’s Parisian runway show/art exhibit in April. Her show was titled “VIP” (for Voile islamique parisien) and took place at Paris’ Cité Universitaire. The show was atypical of Parisian shows in its choice of subject: a series of veils.

Her choice of subject isn’t by accident. Since 1996, Khattari’s work has in some way related to veils of all kinds–and now, in the middle of the debate over France’s proposed “burqa ban,” her art is more relevant than ever. The show included patchwork veils, a burqa imprinted with the portrait of the wearer, a naked woman and a veiled woman on the same stage.

Khattari’s work plays on the ambiguity and ambivalence of the French public to all sorts of coverings. By adopting slogans adapted from marketing campaigns (the one in the title is a take-off on “J’adore Dior”) and putting veils front and center in her shows, she moves the debate out of politics and into the realm of art, which seems to be much more palatable to French people.

In France24, Khattari explains the reasoning behind her burqa-as-runway show: “I find that every time there is a crisis, the female body takes a hit, and I can’t help but ask myself questions about this phenomenon.” After this, the English and French versions of the France24 article differ: the French-language article has another quote from Khattari: “But the reality of the imprisonment of women’s bodies is not only related to the headscarf.” But the English-language article adds an explanatory phrase to this quote, just in case we weren’t clear before: “The artist was careful to point out that religion is not the only source of oppression of women.” (my emphasis) While it is a minor point of translation and doesn’t change the world of the article, why add it? My guess is that the headscarf debate is so common in French, people are used to headscarves being a visible part of the public debate, whereas in the English-speaking countries like the U.S. and the U.K., the headscarf debate isn’t a big deal, but religious freedom is.

Le Monde is quick to point out that Khattari is a “Muslim who never wore the veil,” and got another nice sound-bite out of the article about how she views the place of her work within the public debate. “More than the headscarf issue, the real problems are those of education for both young Muslims and some non-Muslims who are ignorant of the culture of the other. Furthermore, the attacks go back again and again to women. Women should be free to do what they want.”

You can also go to Belgium’s Het Laatste Nieuws to see photos of the show. This link contains images of nude models. The dozen or so comments on the post relate mainly to the nude models, with one commenter rightly mentioning that if you “combine veils with anything sensual or stimulating, the whole debate would be over.”) This was exactly the point of Khattari’s 2007 piece “Sexy Souks,” where the burqa-clad models wore frilly undergarments bought in Middle Eastern markets underneath their coverings.

In France (and Belgium for that matter, who recently became the first European country to enact a full face veil ban) it seems so easy to look at the veil as art, especially performance art (as was the case for my Un Voile article).

My question is, what do art shows really add to the debate? Is this the type of coverage that will make French people change their minds about head coverings?

Leave a comment

Bérengère Lefranc’s “Un voile, Un certain moi de juin”

This post was originally written for Muslimah Media Watch in 2010. I am reproducing it here for safekeeping as an author under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It was also cross-posted at Muslim Voices. For reposts, you are kindly asked to also seek the permission of the MMW editorial team and credit that site accordingly. For trackbacks and links for citation, always use this link at MMW. In doubt, original credit should still always point to Muslimah Media Watch.

Un voile, Un certain moi de juin is the story of French artist Bérengère Lefranc’s decision to wear a “burqa” (although she hesitates to define it as such) for one month and write about it. I was skeptical about this book after reading an initial review of it in Swiss daily Le Temps. Not normally a fan of these “Let’s play dress up” stories, I set out to read the book anyway. Already, the title bothers me. ”Voile” is “veil” in French, and the garment Ms. Lefrance wears most closely resembles a burqa. It seems that for the French, veils and burqas are pretty much the same thing (or maybe, that was Ms. Lefranc’s point).

The premise is simple: she is going to wear a burqa for one month. The only person—male or female—allowed to see her without is her boyfriend Hubert.

She takes great pains to insist she isn’t trying to be “Muslim”- that her journey is about her art, about covering herself up. ”I didn’t want to slip into the skin of a Muslim, rather, I wanted to hide gracefully from the looks of others. And continue to live normally.” (p. 135) She even shies away from defining her gown as a burqa.

However, the comparisons to Islam and Muslim women are inevitable, something even she is resigned to. Her female friends even encourage her to “take it off” around them, noting that Muslim women don’t wear their veils around other women.

And if it wasn’t clear enough that she wasn’t doing this to “be Muslim,” she mentions several episodes where she is either smoking or drinking while fully burqa-fied–although she was refused a glass of white wine once because “ladies in burqas aren’t supposed to drink.” She tells the bartender she isn’t Muslim. He tells her in return: “When women are forced to wear it because they have no choice, that is respectable. But if [you are wearing it] for other reasons, well you’re just making fun of women.” (p. 95) Lefranc was rightfully scandalized: here was a man trying to tell her not only what she should wear, but how she should feel about it.

Lefranc uses the “I’m not a Muslim argument” as a defense when the going gets too tough. In stores and in shops, she seems quick to insist that what she is doing is an “experiment.” This is evident in the beginning of the book, where her first trick is to go vote. Since you can’t vote in France if your face isn’t visible, she has a proxy made for her boyfriend, yet still accompanies him to the voting location.

Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely), the fact that it is an “experience” makes it “okay” by some French people in a way a burqa worn for religious reasons would not pass. In fact, the officials were all smiles when she showed up to vote. What Lefranc does is acceptable because it is art, but what a Muslim woman wears is not acceptable because it is religion. Something even she refers to when she mentions on page 135 (cited above) that she wanted to live normally under her “burqa”, but found that “living normally” was impossible with such a “religious image.”

To be fair, Lefranc goes through a lot of what I went through when I first put on the veil in France (which is likely similar to a lot of places): incomprehension, stares, accusations of provocation. I found myself even sympathizing with her as the book progressed. I even thought towards the end that she “got it.” She was like the new convert little sister, all covered up and guns blazing, ready to go.

The spectrum of emotions she felt under the burqa was not dissimilar to those any person adopting a new lifestyle feel. Like her, when I first started wearing the veil, I didn’t want to go outside. It was easier to stay inside than deal with the drama of people’s looks, the weather, even just putting an outfit together. Likewise, when she took it off at the end of the month, she too had trouble with people looking at her body, saying that the way people looked at her, especially her décolleté, “made her want to scream.” (p. 127)

The strangest bit was her rather frank descriptions of her sex life and her relationship with Hubert, which too seemed to change. She blamed this change on the distance the veil created, even though he was the only one to see her without it. That was the only part of her diary I felt contrived and out of place because it called her intimacy into question. She wonders in the beginning of the book if her boyfriend’s look will “be enough,” as if somehow we thrive on being looked upon by others. Could he carry this burden himself? (p. 14)

And while I enjoyed her openness, her ability to criticize herself, and her honesty, one passage at the end of the book made me realize that she didn’t get it at all. And this after one month of “walking in our shoes” and three days after the end of her “experiment,” she writes: “I think about these women who wear the veil, by choice or by obligation. What is their life that the response is [the veil]? What faith pushes [them] to choose darkness over light?” (p. 151)

For me, Un voile was better than your typical clichéd “let’s wear a burqa” news story, but falls short in its final analysis.

Leave a comment

Politics as Usual: France Gets Riled Up About a Candidate’s Headscarf

This post was originally written for Muslimah Media Watch in 2010. I am reproducing it here for safekeeping as an author under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It was also cross-posted at Altmuslimah. For reposts, you are kindly asked to also seek the permission of the MMW editorial team and credit that site accordingly. For trackbacks and links for citation, always use this link at MMW. In doubt, original credit should always point to Muslimah Media Watch.

Headscarves are the hot talking point in French politics again. But on this occasion, we aren’t talking about girls getting kicked out of high school or women getting kicked out of mayors’ offices.

No, the latest uproar comes about Ms. Ilham Moussaïd, a candidate from the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA) in France’s upcoming regional elections who dares to “visually” identify herself as a Muslim and stand for election. Feminists and politicians are up in arms. While not the first candidate with a headscarf, the buzz around Moussaïd’s candidature is something new.

French media is having a field day (“A covered Muslim woman! In a public space!”), and is airing plenty of criticism against Moussaïd. The first criticism: a practicing member of a religion shouldn’t be a candidate for a left-wing party with roots in European socialism– anything else is showing off for the media. A member of the Parti Socialiste admonished the NPA’s leader, Olivier Besancenot, to go “reread Marx.” In the government, spokesperson and Education Minister Luc Chatel accused Besancenot of trying to “make himself interesting” (read: relevant), while the State Secretary for Families Nadine Morano called the candidacy “a media coup against Republican values.

The second criticism: Moussaïd’s veil is “anti-feminist.” European MEP Jean-Luc Mélenchon says that, “You can’t call yourself a feminist while showing off a sign of submission to the patriarchy.” Government member Fadela Amara (who used to belong to French feminist group Ni Putes Ni Soumises), called the issue serious:

“I say to Olivier Besancenot that what he is doing is very serious because he is banalizing the veil and thus banalizing a tool of oppression of women… the veil, it’s not just ten centimeters of fabric, but the sign of a political plot, the oppression of women and the confiscation of women’s rights.”

Note that Amara does not address Moussaïd directly—only her party leader.

In that vein, the lone dissenting feminist voice in the established media comes from the opinion column in Le Monde and is signed by a series of women (including Karima Delli) connected to the Europe Ecologie, a rival party on the left. Some excerpts:

“In this case, everyone makes the veil say what Moussaïd doesn’t say. What this young lady says seems to barely interest all those who condemn her. In fact, her words do not have the right to belong. She is accused of wanting to say what she [doesn’t say at all].”

The reactions of Moussaïd’s own party provoked this statement from Besancenot:

“Our party welcomes the young, the unemployed, those with precarious employment, employees from all walks of life who see themselves in the ideals of [this] party. Faith is a personal question and would not be an obstacle to participation in our struggle so long as our party’s fundamental landmarks of secularism, feminism and anti-capitalism are sincerely shared.”

However, the NPA isn’t exactly clear on its “headscarf position”—should there even be one?—as one of its speakers, Pierre-François Grond, campaigned for the exclusion of a veiled girl from her high school outside of Paris in 2003. Furthermore, a few days after his original statement supporting Moussaïd, Besancenot was careful to backtrack during a meeting of the party’s national committee: “The headscarf is not only a visible religious symbol, but it is also an instrument of subjugation of women used in various forms and at various times by the three monotheistic religions, even if Ilham does not live it like this.” A colleague on the same list says that Moussaïd’s presence on the list shows that “in these neighborhoods, there are women like her, with or without a veil, who can take part in extreme-left politics. The face of French society has changed, and Ilham is one of the parts of this [new] social mix.”

Indeed, Moussaïd has already come out as pro-choice, and for contraception (among other “feminist” values of the French left). Her party credentials appear flawless—yet it’s the headscarf that everyone seems to be caught on.

Moussaïd’s presentation on the list for the upcoming regional election, while seemingly unremarkable, calls into question the French model of secularism both vis-à-vis the French left as well as in French society as a whole. French “laïcité,” as many scholars have noted, is “exclusive” (secularism means no religion, period). This is in contrast to American-style secularism, “religious freedom,” which is “inclusive” (no religion should be given priority). Both are used as founding myths for their respective societies.

Even the group Ni Putes Ni Soumises said as much, noting that Moussaïd’s candidacy could open the door for a more “open” interpretation of French secularism, which according to the group, is very bad because (echoing the words of their former leader Ms. Amara), the headscarf is a symbol of the “submission of women to men… illegal in the French Republic.”

What does Moussaïd herself say in the middle of all this?

“I am very sad to see eight years of my life reduced to my headscarf, I am very sad to hear that my personal belief is a danger to others while I advocate friendship, respect, tolerance, solidarity and equality for all human beings.”

In a media flurry of opinions, Moussaïd’s says it all.

Leave a comment

Paroles de musulmans, parlons de musulmans

This post was originally written for the Lausanne Bondy Blog in 2009. I am reproducing it here for safekeeping as an author under the Berne Convention
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
. For reposts, you are kindly asked to also seek the permission of the LBB editorial team and credit that site accordingly. For trackbacks and links for citation, always use this link at the LBB.

Il est souvent dit que les musulmans ne s’expriment pas assez sur des sujets les concernant. Depuis les votations, Nicole s’interroge sur ce que elle, et les musulmans de Suisse, auraient pu faire de plus pour “participer” et rendre leurs paroles plus visibles que les voiles et les minarets.

Les musulmans et les minarets ont été tellement commentés ces derniers mois dans les médias, que la majorité des auditeurs, lecteurs ou téléspectateurs, se sont lassés (à vrai dire moi aussi j’en ai un peu marre). Cependant, j’ai été un peu étonnée de lire un article dans les colonnes du Temps le 7 décembre dernier, intitulé “Les musulmans doivent s’exprimer davantage dans le débat public.” Sans remettre en cause le bien-fondé du discours l’auteur de cet article, ni son habilité à parler de ce sujet, j’ai quand même bloqué sur ce titre car il reprend un discours déjà bien rodé aux Etats-Unis. En effet, à chaque fois qu’un incident est commis par les “musulmans”, on nous accuse d’être trop discrets, de ne pas avoir pris de position claire, de ne pas “protester” assez fort, que ce soit en ce qui concerne le terrorisme ou la violence faite aux femmes. Et voilà que ce même discours est repris en Suisse par un expert. Décryptage.

Souvent, les gens pensent que la communauté musulmane est homogène dans sa façln de penser. Dès lors, ils pensent que l’absence d’une remarque signifie une acceptation tacite. Pourtant, le “musulman de base” peut très bien avoir l’avis de Monsieur ou Madame Tout-le-Monde, un avis contraire à celui de son voisin musulman, ou tout simplement pas d’avis du tout. Car les musulmans de Suisse ne représentent pas une communauté homogène. Il est possible qu’ils n’aient pas eu et n’aient toujours pas d’avis particulier sur les minarets. Et peut-être qu’il s’agirait là d’un début d’explication sur l’échec de la votation du mois dernier. Mais est-ce vrai, comme le dit notre expert du Temps, que les individus musulmans ne s’expriment pas par peur d’être mal compris? Dois-je en vouloir aux associations musulmanes qui ne parlent pas forcément pour moi? D’ailleurs, qui parle pour les musulmans? A quels musulmans est donnée la parole? Est-ce Hani Ramadan qui parle pour moi? Non. Amina Wadud (une américaine, la première femme à diriger une prière mixte en assemblée)? Encore moins. Peut-être que les musulmans aussi sont tombés dans la piège de l’homogénéité, quelque part nous n’osons pas afficher nos divergences du moment, ou alors notre avis moins sexy ou provoc’, plus traditionnel que ce qui est normalement accepté par nos communautés.

En réalité, je pense qu’une partie du problème réside dans le fait qu’il y a beaucoup de musulmans en Suisse, faute de nationalité, qui n’ont pas pu voter. Ceci pourrait d’ailleurs être un des enjeux du projet du Vaud concernant le droit de vote des étrangers. Mais est-ce vrai que nous, les musulmans, n’avons pas assez “parlé” avant la votation? Que nous n’avons pas fait un travail de “terrain” assez profond? Je n’en suis pas sûre. Le sujet a été repris, presque trop de fois, dans les médias. Et si ce n’était pas aux “leaders” de la communauté – les imams, les penseurs – c’était au “musulman moyen” que l’on donnait la parole. Ceci à plusieurs reprises, dans la presse suisse et mondiale. Alors peut-on vraiment dire que les musulmans de Suisse n’ont pas assez parlé, qu’on ne leur a pas donné la parole? Ou est-ce plutot que nous n’avions pas dit ce que les gens voulaient entendre?

Lorsqu’elles ne sont pas contestées, les perceptions ont une tendance à devenir plus vraies que la réalité. Il est dommage qu’on percoive les musulmans de Suisse comme étant “trop discrets” alors qu’une blitzkrieg médiatique qui vient de s’achever dit clairement le contraire.

Leave a comment

L’intégration des musulmans passe-t-elle par les minarets?

This post was originally written for the Lausanne Bondy Blog in 2009. I am reproducing it here for safekeeping as an author under the Berne Convention
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
. For reposts, you are kindly asked to also seek the permission of the LBB editorial team and credit that site accordingly. For trackbacks and links for citation, always use this link at the LBB.

Drôle d’idée de se prononcer sur les minarets. Les musulmans n’en ont jamais demandé.

Interdire les minarets, est-ce vraiment la solution à “l’intégration” des musulmans de Suisse ? Un pas vers l’égalité homme-femme? L’UDC aurait-elle raison? Le discours autour de l’initiative fédérale reprend un schéma classique couramment utilisé par une partie de la droite conservatrice : une incitation à la haine raciale visant à l’exclusion. À l’approche du 29 novembre, aux musulmans d’en faire les frais. C’est un fait, mais dans un contexte où l’islamophobie est généralisée, le tableau n’est cependant pas si noir ; nous sommes loin de fermer le chapitre de l’Islam en Suisse. Voyez plutôt.

En France, pays où j’ai vecu, un débat semblable a eu lieu dans les années 90, non pas sur les minarets mais sur la construction des mosquées. A la suite des attentats de St-Michel en 1995, les élus ont compris l’avantage de construire des mosquées pour permettre de faire sortir l’islam des salles de prières aménagées dans les caves. Ce qui a pignon sur rue est plus facile à contrôler tout en permettant de montrer un autre visage d’un islam local, qui a sa place dans les institutions. L’étape suivante de ce processus de reconnaissance a été de donner une vitrine officielle avec la création du Conseil Francais du Culte Musulman.

Tous des barbus
Bien que l’Hexagone n’ait de loin pas réglé tous ses problèmes vis-à-vis de sa population musulmane, il a, à tort ou à raison – et j’ai mes propres hésitations sur le CFCM – permis l’émergence d’un “Islam de France”. Voter sur la construction des minarets démontre au moins que les choses bougent, sans vraiment susciter une réelle réflexion sur l’intégration des musulmans. Lesquels ? Les Laïc(que)s ? Les converti(e)s ? Les pratiquant(e)s ? Ceux du Maghreb ? D’Asie du sud-est ou des Balkans ? Eux tous ! Oui, tous ces musulmans au mode de vie incompatible avec la société occidentale. D’ailleurs, rien qu’à voir les affiches, on comprendra que l’on ne parle pas de minarets ou de la société civile, mais des femmes en burqa mal-intégrées, piétinant le sacré drapeau suisse percé de minarets guerriers. Et on ose ensuite crier à la censure.

Tout est question d’intégration
Mais l’intégration, ça veut dire quoi, au juste? J’ai ma propre vision de l’intégration. Dès mon arrivée à Zurich en 2004, j’ai tenu fermement à travailler. Je reste convaincue que le travail est un moteur d’intégration. Les langues et le savoir aussi – je perfectionne mon français, j’apprends l’allemand, je prends des cours du soir – tout pour aller de l’avant et montrer que je mérite ma place ici. Je rencontre et fréquente des Suisses, je ne reste pas “avec les américains” (très courant chez mes compatriotes) ou “avec les musulmans.” J’essaie de comprendre ce pays et ses coutumes et m’y adapter. Que reste-t-il à faire? La société civile ne permet-elle pas un espace de vie où la religion a toute sa place? Ne puis-je pas être musulmane et intégrée? L’UDC me dit que non, je suis trop musulmane.

Et dans ce contexte, comment vivre sa foi ? Une simple croyante n’a pourtant pas besoin de grand-chose pour y parvenir. Le plus important étant de vivre avec pragmatisme et sans chercher la confrontation. Le voile est mal vu au travail? Et bien pour prouver que je ne suis pas en Suisse pour “prendre les allocs”, je travaille sans. C’est l’heure de la prière alors que je suis en train de faire l’apéro avec les amis? Je me cache dans un coin discrètement pour la minute et demi qu’il me faut pour l’accomplir. Le plus important c’est que comme pour toute religion, le désir de chacun et chacune c’est de la vivre sans prise de tête, en accord avec ses principes mêmes non religieux mais aussi en accord avec les règles de la société.

Qu’on soit clair sur les minarets, cela n’est qu’une partie de la tradition architecturale musulmane, la valeur d’une mosquée ne se mesure pas à la taille d’un minaret. D’ailleurs, la plupart des mosquées dans les pays occidentaux sont situées dans des bâtiments reconvertis, alors que la plupart des minarets se trouvent sur les mosquées construites et conçues en tant que telles. Je tiens ici à rappeler que souvent en Occident, ces mosquées conçues spécialement pour être des mosquées sont financées par des gouvernements étrangers (mosquée du Petit-Saconnex par exemple). Encore une fois, peut-être les Français n’ont pas eu tort d’avoir voulu créer un “Islam de France.”

Et la Suisse? Un minaret ou pas à Lausanne, ville où je réside depuis bientôt cinq ans, ne changera pas ma façon de pratiquer ma foi. Mais cela génère un climat malsain encourageant les amalgames, où le minaret, et par conséquent l’Islam, est vu comme une ostentation péjorative et nuisible à la tranquillité suisse. Dans l’émission Forum de la RSR et dans les colonnes du Temps, le Vaudois Jacques-André Haury a pris la parole pour dire que les musulmans devraient se contenter d’être une “religion cadette.” Je ne savais pas que les musulmans de Suisse revendiquaient l’emprise totale du pays. Je ne demande qu’à redevenir adepte d’une “religion cadette”, que l’Islam sorte de ce bocal médiatique. L’initiative ne vise pas les minarets, elle vise plutot “le péril vert”. Donc moi. De prendre les minarets comme message haineux montre bien l’ignorance et le dedain que l’UDC révèle dans ses attitudes provocatrices.

Pour terminer, petite réflexion d’un lecteur américain de Swissinfo : “où est le mal dans les minarets? Si vous avez confiance en votre culture, votre tradition et votre religion, vous ne serez pas menacés par un groupe d’individus qui tente d’introduire sa propre version des choses. Peut-être que ce debat en dit plus sur le déclin annoncé de la culture suisse que sur la montée de la culture musulmane Suisse.”

À moins que ce ne soit le déclin de l’UDC.

(Citation d’origine: “What’s the problem with minarets?” asked one reader in the US. “If you have confidence in your culture, tradition and religion, you’re not threatened by another group trying to bring in its own version. Perhaps this debate says more about the decline of Swiss culture than the rise of Muslim culture in Switzerland…” )

1 Comment

Polygamy in Switzerland : Just say NO!

This is part of my installment of old posts from 2008 and early 2009 which I have chosen to republish. Some links may be dead and I will try to fix them as I go. Unlike the other posts, the comments were not added here because the old post was on its’ own page. I wrote this roughly a year ago and the advice does not change, and the case law happens at the same frequency.

I read case law when I am bored. Weird like that. Whatevs. Anyway, I read a series of interesting appeals to Swiss cantonal and federal courts recently about polygamy. I must preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. However, I want to share my understanding of the current legal situation in Switzerland. As this is a hot topic in the Muslim community, I would like to make the following post as a public service to all those Pious Brothers just dying to fulfill the sunnah. Never mind the whole praying, eating halal, fasting Ramadan stuff (you know, that fard stuff), brothers who love this part of the sunnah and are considering polygamy in Switzerland, this is for you:

DON’T DO IT, YOU WILL GET CAUGHT, AND IT WILL BE NASTY. Even if you are one big happy p family.

While I am not debating the permissibility of polygamy in Islam (which someone accused me of the last time I brought this up) I will give a little food for thought about reigning jurisprudence in Switzerland to my readers. And speaking of just dying to fulfill the sunnah I do believe in following the sunnah of following the laws of the land in which you live. Anyway:

Under Swiss law, polygamy is bigamy. If you are a born Swiss citizen there is not much that happens to you should you partake in this sunnah other than eventual welfare or tax fraud charges…oh and losing custody of your children. However, if you are a foreign brother, even if you don’t care about the laws of the koofaar, the following might give you an opportunity to twist your beard a bit:
Continue reading