Hijab Ban in French Schools: A Blow to Religious Freedom

Dr M A Bari

France's Legacy of Religious Intolerance

The French President Jacques Chirac who led the anti-war campaign in the UN against the US-led invasion of Iraq has plunged his country into a cloud of controversy and international criticism by his hysterical banning of ‘religious symbols' in French schools from 2 September 2004. The worst sufferers in this ill-conceived ban are obviously France's already disenchanted huge Muslim population. This ban has now the potential of unleashing a wave of Islamophobia and creating a new controversy between faith and state in defining the social life of people. The fact that some European countries are trying to follow suit is ominous. The deep antipathy that the French establishment has for religious symbolism, particularly the Islamic dress code for women, has surprised the rest of the world. The debate has already come to the surface of French politics; and although most French people are supporting the ban, it is nevertheless dividing the whole nation. Chirac took personal initiative in urging the French parliament to pass the law, and it has now been implemented formally. In a televised speech in December 2003 he declared that the ‘Islamic veil, whatever name we give it, the skullcap and a cross that is of plainly excessive dimensions have no place in the precincts of state schools.' He made reference to the underlying principles of the French constitution arguing that secularism was being undermined by the encroachment of religion. Do all the constitutional experts agree on Chirac's subjective argument?


The law was passed with unprecedented authoritarian skill. The French Parliament and then the Senate passed this law on 10th February and 3rd March 2004 respectively with an incredible majority (thanks to the determined effort by the government to get the ban through, to the media hype for the ban and to the hypocrisy of the French liberals). The whole process now has the risk of undoing what France has achieved over generations and what it promotes internationally – the freedom of life. Ironically, this ban echoes the bigoted practice in some Muslim countries, notably Tunisia and Turkey, on hijab. As the ban came into effect in French schools, five million or so Muslims who live and work in France, many of whom are French citizens, have found themselves in a serious predicament. The simple act of wearing a piece of cloth on some school children's head has become a point of conflict and contention in schools, council buildings, courts and so on. Muslims are once again pushed toward a situation where their adherence and loyalty to religion is being ruthlessly tested. One Muslim girl has shaved off her hair in protest and others who can afford are going abroad for study.

The law includes the Sikh turban, Jewish scull-cap and Christian cross. Skull-cap and cross are not obligatory for the followers to wear, but hijab and turban are. Sikhs are a small minority in France. And India, where they originally come from, is a big country. It was foreseen that France would waive the law for the Sikhs under Indian pressure. This has now happened, and the hypocrisy of the French establishment has now been exposed. How Christians and Jews respond to the ban on their religious symbols is also going to be a matter of interest, as most Jews educate their children in private schools and Christians can wear smaller crosses. That means, only ordinary Muslims who do not have support from outside power like India and who cannot afford to send their children to private schools are in the receiving end of this law. France is clearly following the colonial ‘divide and rule' policy with its own citizens. At a time when the international community is in dire need of tolerance among religious communities and societies need faith for individual happiness and community harmony, France is alienating a major section of its people for its misconceived view of secularism. This may be politically and socially costly for France in future.

Given France's history of religious intolerance, it is not surprising it has taken this divisive line with its Muslim population. France has a legacy of religious bigotry, at least in the Middle Ages. In 1542 when Pope Paul III set up the Universal Inquisition against Protestants, Muslims and Jews, Europe plunged into an era of intolerance and cruelty. France's atrocity towards its Protestant people, the Huguenots, from 1562 till the French Revolution (1789-99) was particularly repulsive. The French Revolution brought an end to this bigotry and raised hope of tolerance not only to the people of France but also to Europe and the rest of the world. Since then European countries seemed to have learnt from their mistakes of their past and started adopting more tolerant and humane attitude to establish freedom, human rights and the rule of law for their own people. However, at the same time, the European powers failed to do the same to the people they colonised in other parts of the world. After the Second World War, when the European powers lost their colonies, they came to terms with the reality of accommodating people from their ex-colonies. Since then, most European countries were making good progress in enhancing multi-racial and multi-faith societies. France now is unfortunately going back to the past and, in an enthusiasm to protect secularism, they have targeted certain religious groups, with a view to mainly curbing the growing influence of Islam. After more than two hundred years of the French proclamation of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity', it seems that France has become impatient to return to the era of intolerance of its Middle Ages. French secularism appears too vulnerable to face the ‘onslaught' of a piece of cloth worn by some school girls. French socialism now needs protection by discriminatory law! It is incredible.

The extent of ignorance about religion in France is amazing. When Bernard Stassi, an ex-French Minister who chaired the Stassi Commission set up to oversee the process of this ban, met a number of prominent faith leaders in Britain last year, he was visibly surprised to see the diversity in the multi-faith delegation. Among others he met a prominent Sikh personality with his turban. He could not hide his surprise and asked the Sikh whether he attends public functions with this turban. When he learnt that the Sikh leader not only attends public meetings but also acts as a judge with his turban on, he was just taken aback. The ignorance is astonishing.

French Hijab Ban is an Affront to Religious Rights

The hijab ban issue has created genuine concern not only among Muslims but also among others in the international community. Muslim scholars across the world publicly registered their protests. Demonstrators took to streets in many countries across the globe for expressing solidarity with the religious rights of France's minority communities. Even the non-practicing Muslim women who do not wear hijab considered the hijab ban as an attack on the religious freedom. Apart from the discredited fatwa of the Egyptian government sponsored Sheikh al-Azhar and the carefully publicised support from some French Muslims, this hijab ban has been criticised by Muslims scholars and mass alike all over the world. The Muslim objection was based on Islam's guidance on the dress code as well as on human rights. Muslims do not consider hijab as a symbolic display of faith, but a religious right and obligation.


A statement published on its website on February 27, 2004 by the US based Human Rights Watch says, ‘By disproportionately affecting Muslim girls, (the) proposed law is discriminatory'. It also puts, ‘The impact of a ban on visible religious symbols, even though phrased in neutral terms, will fall disproportionately on Muslim girls, and thus violate anti-discrimination provisions of international human rights law as well as the right to equal educational opportunity'.


The group maintain that the law would leave some Muslim families with no choice but to remove girls from the state education system. This will isolate a large section of French citizens from the French society. This is going to defeat the very purpose the French government is advocating. As long as integration means total assimilation into ‘French' values, Muslims and other minority communities will be forced to remain in the periphery; and France will pay the cost of social division. This ban will also prevent the promotion of understanding and tolerance in schools. What is the meaning of tolerance if there is no acceptance of diversity? If girls are supposed to remove a part of who they are at the school gates, how can they learn belongingness and how can others educate themselves in diversity and tolerance? It is now universally accepted that if children of different faiths are educated together, some wearing a turban, others a skullcap, and others still a headscarf, this helps to promote understanding and break down barriers and prejudices. When children exposed to religious and cultural diversities enter the wider world, they are more informed and have a greater chance of showing respect and understanding towards fellow citizens.

The Human Rights Watch also argues, ‘International human rights law obliges state authorities to avoid coercion in matters of religious freedom, and this obligation must be taken into account when devising school dress codes'. ‘Under international law', the report says, ‘states can only limit religious practices when there is a compelling public safety reason, when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others, or when it serves a legitimate educational function. But hijab, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses - which are among the visible religious signs that would be prohibited - do not pose a threat to public health or order. They have no effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of other students; and they do not undermine a school's educational function.'

Many international figures have expressed their dismay at the discriminatory hijab ban. London Mayor Ken Livingstone terms Paris's move as an ‘anti-Muslim measure' and accuses Chirac of playing a ‘terribly, terribly dangerous game'. In Britain, the government has stressed that it will not follow the French example. Government ministers and other prominent figures, like CRE Chair Trevor Philips, have come out against this folly (and the attendant fallacy) of French government. In America, the International Religious Freedom report, released by the U.S. State Department last year, voices concerns over French plans to ban the religious insignia.

Why Hijab Ban should not go Unchallenged?

Hijab is an Arabic term used to describe the outfit worn by Muslim women. The literal meaning of hijab is 'covering'; but, being a loaded term, it also carries a more general connotation of 'modesty'. Hijab as a social practice thus embraces not only clothing but also values and behaviour. In the past, most societies in the world practised some form of hijab; and Catholic nuns even today wear it as a symbol of modesty.

Muslims believe in a benevolent Creator Who has provided humanity with guidance on how best to live as good human beings. The basic rule is that men and women should wear dignified and modest dress. Women should cover their body with loose fitting clothes. This is a generic requirement, but the actual style of clothing is adaptable to suit personal preferences, cultural norms and practical requirements. These regulations of modesty are equally applicable to men, albeit in a different manner.

Islam does not hinder the natural inclination of a woman to dress well and take care of her feminine beauty. However, it should not be for public display or in a provocative manner. With modest dress women get more respect because of what they are, not how they look. Here are a few assertions from some highly educated western Muslim women.

'I accept the whole faith of Islam. To me, the dress requirements are part and parcel of my accepting Islam as my faith and way of life, regardless of changing times and opinions....'

‘The scarf is just a part of the overall dress. Women not so far back in this country were content in dressing modestly....'

'When I converted to Islam I soon became aware of its [hijab's] benefits - most noticeable of all was that men increasingly treated me as an intelligent human being and not simply a piece of flesh...'

A central principle of the Holy Qur'an is that 'there is no compulsion in religion'. As such, although hijab is certainly an integral part of the overall Islamic dress code, it is not for anyone to force it upon another person. Parents have a responsibility to nurture and to educate their children. Children grown in the culture of their parents and of the community normally choose to follow similar values. This cultural mooring gives young people the required confidence and empowerment to relate with others in dignity. Muslim women, who make a personal and independent choice to wear hijab and who understand what this means to them, consider hijab as emancipating. They find that hijab liberates them from the visual clutches of men, as it frees them from the demands of dressing to conform to others' demand. They learn how to value their bodies and themselves according to their own belief. Such women see hijab as a right, not a burden; a practise that often brings richness to the world as they are evaluated on the merit of their talent and personality. They are happy not to fit into stereotypical images of so called ‘emancipated' modern women.

Overcoming the Challenge

Muslim predicament in France and elsewhere in Europe, would not be solved by just leaving the country or insulating themselves in ghettos. They have to realise that there are many others in the society who feel the same against this discriminatory hijab ban. They are their allies for a common cause. What is required for Muslims in these difficult days is full trust on their religion, firmness and determined action in constitutional and other legal means. Muslims need to improve in dialogue and employ civil resistance in collaboration with others. They need to have a permanent strategy of social and political presence in the societies they live.

With the rise of far right movements in many European countries, Islamophobia is now on the rise. Although most Europeans denounce these groups, some governments are trying to curtail ostentatious religious and cultural practices of minority communities to appease these groups, or to win votes from the majority community. This tactics is being adopted also by some political parties in Europe who want to come to power in future. This is dangerous for future social harmony in those countries. Conversely, the victim mentality among some Muslims has led them to ignore their wider social responsibility. With this ghettoised attitude these people fail to see their own shortcomings. Muslims have to address whatever challenges they face with their own responsibility first. They should realise that there is so much ignorance surrounding Islam and Muslims, and the reason for this is because the noble principles of Islam is not explained properly.

Unfortunately, the common Europeans do not see in Muslims the manifestations of the principles of Islam. Islam is great, but Muslims prove themselves not to be so in most cases. Muslims have to be seen as serious about building bridges with the people around them. Islam's natural assertion of producing outgoing and sociable people in the society is unfortunately missing in most places. Many Muslims prefer insular life and some sincere young Muslim activists, even in their third generation, do often possess the ‘immigrant' mentality in them. Their main concern then becomes just the protection of their religion from ‘external threats'.

Muslims in Europe need to understand that the problem they are facing is both psychological as well as religious. They should also remember that they are not prevented from practicing their religion in Europe, and the ban on hijab in France is only for the secondary school girls. I am not saying this is less serious, but Muslims should see things in broader perspectives. There will be a review on the ban in one year time. Can Muslims articulate their case and let people around them understand that as French citizens they want their equal rights, not a favour from the government? In this campaign they need to use the ‘right language'.

Home|| Library || School|| Magazine|| Dawah|| Entertainment|| Children