|
 As
the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington were immediately associated with Islam, European
societies intensively turned their attention to Muslims living in
their countries. In the face of both interest in and
aggression towards Islam, Muslims found themselves representing
their religion apparently with their clothes. With their
veils, Muslim women were the main targets of such interest, or
aggression.
Staring
eyes in the streets and in public transportation and unfriendly
shop assistants formed the least unpleasant part of the reaction
towards the veil. After September 11th Muslim
women were harassed and their veils were pulled down. These
incidents may have been few, but the attempts of Muslim women
wearing veils to integrate into European societies are still
facing difficulties. Muslim women argue that wearing the
veil is both a religious duty and part of their personal
self-determination. They say that covering their hair does
not form a restriction to their life but gives them freedom from
men and from the enslavement to physical attributes. With
this position they still get into conflict with public
institutions.
In
the southern German region of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Fereshta Ludin,
a Muslim woman of Afghani origin, tried to enter the civil service
as a teacher at a public school. The supervisory school
authority asked her to stop wearing the veil and she refused.
The case went through several courts. Finally, in July 2001,
the Administrative court of Mannheim refused her the entrance into
German public service. The court argued that any
manifestation of religious signs would endanger the states
neutrality towards its citizens, which is the duty of a secularist
state. The court also referred to a case in Bavaria where
crucifixes were being banned from the walls of classrooms.
These were said to be unconstitutional, for students could may
fall to the influence of these religious symbols. Ludin
argued that the veil was part of her individuality. She
described it as a result of a personal relation to God. She
also added that in her view the sentence did not correspond to the
freedom of religion and expression granted by the German
constitution.
Cem
Oezdemir, a member of the German Parliament for the Greens and
expert on immigration issues, underlined in an interview with the
daily “Suedkurier,” that the teacher had to stick to the
German constitution during her time as a trainee teacher. “This
should be the measure and nothing else,” added Oezdemir.
In a
similar case in Switzerland judges followed the same lines of
arguments underlining the state’s neutrality towards religion,
which was to be represented by its teachers. The Federal
Court of Switzerland argued in sentence in fall 1997, that the
veil forms only an outward manifestation. By the
interdiction of this symbol inner values remain intact. The
freedom of religion was still not restricted.
The
sentence in Germany led to a controversial debate on whether or
not to promote further integration of Muslims in the German
society. The Central Council of Muslims in Germany stated
that such debates threaten the neutrality of state values rather
than abide by it. According to this statement, Muslims were
put into social isolation by the court.
To
find a balance between personal rights and the requirement of
those serving the state and its citizens to withhold their
personal beliefs is indeed ambitious. The veil can easily be
perceived as a political symbol, even if not intended, as in the
case of Fereshta Ludin. The veil is also a controversial
issue since different perceptions of religion and the relevant
parts of the Quran are essentially to judge these cases.
Fereshta Ludin says it is a religious duty for her to wear the
veil, the court said it is not. Such conflicting views and
their repercussions on Ludin’s daily life in Germany in
themselves trigger debates between Islamic scholars on similar
cases.
In
Germany the debate on the veil has also reached the institutions
of public health care. In hospitals Muslim women were not
allowed to do their job while wearing the veil. But here the
veil is handled with pragmatism, especially that in many
hospitals, qualified personnel is strongly needed. But in a
school, a place not only for education but also for culture,
pragmatism is still missing.
Looking
among Germany’s neighbors, we find that France is a country
where the debate on the veil has a longer history. In the
early 1990s a nation-wide debate arose about the veil, touching
the core elements of French self-understanding. In 1989 two
Muslim students had refused to take off the veils and were thus
expelled by the school principle. The incident, which
coincided with the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie, was considered a
challenge to French values and tolerance.
Common
throughout Europe are the deeper reasons for hostile reactions
towards the veil. European societies are widely secularist where
relations to God are very personal and are rather a taboo in
public. Also, the veil is often misunderstood to represent a
certain form of oppression, reminding Europe of a permanent blot
in its past. That is why Muslim women in Western countries
are often perceived to have worn the veil after being forced into
it by a male family member, rather than out of personal beliefs.
The veil is often perceived as a symbol of compelling religion and
traditional beliefs, making it further difficult for qualified
Muslim women with the veil to fulfill their ambitions in European
societies.
|
