How should observant Jews react to the ban on the public wearing of the burka (a full-length garment with only tiny, mesh-covered slits for the eyes) recently passed by the French parliament and currently under consideration in other European countries?
Answer: with profound ambivalence.
Women who wear the burka – or, in some cases, their husbands or fathers, who demand that they do so – view the burka as a religious obligation.
Orthodox Jews have always favored an approach which places a high burden upon the state to justify legal burdens on the performance of religious obligations. When the U.S. Supreme Court's began to interpret the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution, to give great deference to state statutes, as long as those statutes are neutral on their face, Orthodox groups lobbied hard for the Freedom of Religion Restoration Act. The RFRA required the demonstration of a compelling state interest before imposing a serious burden on religious observance.
Orthodox concerns are well founded. Some European countries already ban shechitah, (kosher slaughtering) and there are recurring threats to do so on a European-wide basis. Of even greater concern are possible restrictions on brit milah (religious circumcision).
The burka ban could be justified in some cases even under the compelling state interest test – e.g., with respect to airport security. (There are cases of male terrorists who have escaped detection by wearing a burka.) But the case for fines for merely appearing in public in a burka is harder to make.
Some defenders of the burka ban maintain that the burka is not required by Islamic law and is a recent innovation, with little support in traditional Islamic practice. A number of Muslim countries ban the burka, and the vast majority of Muslim women around the world do not wear it.
Some of the arguments adduced in support of the burka ban could come back to bite us.
While these claims are true, no observant Jew would be comfortable with the secular judicial system conducting halachic inquiries and making its own determination as to what is required by halacha (Jewish Law) and what is merely a religious stringency.
Others argue that religious liberty claims have less force in the case of the burkas because the decision whether to wear a burka is often not made by the woman wearing it, but imposed upon her by her male relatives as an instrument of social control to prevent her from integrating into her host society.
Again, that is true. But similar arguments could be raised against traditional Jewish practice. Anti-circumcision activists, for instance, invariably describe brit milah as an act of parental compulsion, lacking any informed consent on the part of the infant. In short, some of the arguments adduced in support of the burka ban could come back to bite us.
The Positives
So what is the positive about the burka ban? The ban signals a determination by a significant number of Europeans to save their countries from the worst ravages of a mindless multi-culturalism and to prevent a Muslim takeover. Those Europeans insist that there is such a thing as national culture, and that citizenship and even residency can be properly conditioned on a willingness to participate in that culture. (The conundrum for Europe, of course, is that low European birthrates necessitate the import of cheap labor, most of it Muslim.)
The recent Swiss referendum against the building of minarets reflected a similar assertion of national culture. In Muslim countries, no structure of another religion is allowed to be higher than the minaret. (In some Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, no other religion can be practiced at all.) In banning the minaret -- which is not a requirement for Muslim prayer -- the Swiss are rightly treating the building of tall minarets as, in part, a Muslim political statement, and saying, "We do not have to show a tolerance for Islam that Islam does not reciprocate with respect to our majority faith."
Until now, Europeans have watched passively as Muslim minorities have grown, with many major European cities nearing majority Muslim populations. Members of the first generation of Muslim immigrants were often eager to assimilate into their host cultures. But their children and more recent immigrants increasingly reject integration. Many urban Muslim neighborhoods have become no-go zones for police and firefighters. Sharia, Islamic law, applies in these areas and honor killings often go unpunished.
Not only have Muslim populations created their own autonomous areas, they have sought official recognition for Sharia law and Islamic banking practices and produced an endless stream of demands for "sensitivity" from their hosts – e.g., no public display of piggy banks.
Some Muslims have resorted to political violence against those who showed insufficient deference to their sensitivities – e.g., the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, the attempted murder of the author of the Danish cartoons, and the fatwa against author Salman Rushdie. Many young Muslims travel frequently to their countries of origin where they become radicalized and trained in terrorist tactics.
The European political class has often treated Islamophobia as a greater danger than the radicalization and refusal to assimilate Muslim populations.
In response, the European political class has often proven pusillanimous, treating Islamophobia as a greater danger than the radicalization and refusal to assimilate Muslim populations. One result of that cowardice has been to embolden Muslims and make Europe an ever more dangerous place for Jews. Amsterdam police have begun dressing as Jews in order to catch Muslims who prey on identifiable Jews. The Belgian newspaper Der Standaard reports that large numbers of Jews are fleeing Antwerp for America, Britain or Israel. Jacques Wenger, director of the Jewish community center in Antwerp, who is making aliyah, predicts that in 50 years the only Jews left in Antwerp will be the ultra-Orthodox.
While right-wing parties in Europe have traditionally been bastions of xenophobia and anti-Semitism, today many of the politicians most dedicated to combating the Moslem takeover of Europe, like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, are the most supportive of Israel, which they see as at the forefront of their struggle.
All of which leaves us deeply conflicted by the burka ban, just as we began.
What do you think? Let us know in the comment section below.
This op-ed originally appeared in Mishpacha magazine.
(77) Charley Goodman, February 3, 2016 8:44 PM
You pretty well hit my feelings and questions
(76) Jordan, November 29, 2015 5:00 PM
Birkas etc Creates Separation Rather than Inclusion: Social Problems for Host country
We must ask ourselves why Muslims who claim they are a religion of ‘peace’ show no evidence of this. Why is there no country or city that is a good place to live; peace-filled; where human rights are evident? This points to the fact that there is something inherently flawed with Islam. Time Muslims who claim they are ‘moderate’ got their head out of the sand and called for Reformation so they may distinguish themselves from the radicals. Overall, Islam is NOT compatible with democracy or Western values. Muslims clamor to countries established by Christians and overnight create social problems for the host country. It only takes a few bad apples – those who have a sense of entitlement – take and take and give crumbs back; who wear those hideous niqabs, birkas, hijabs and skull caps on our public streets. They are the trouble makers right off the bat – creating separation and with that laying the groundwork for prejudice. Religious wear in public should not be tolerated; Muslims wearing costumes in public are no ‘holier than anyone else; in fact this is the antithesis of ‘holiness/ wholesomeness’ – it shows disrespect. Most westerners find niqabs etc ugly and a symbol of oppression and all we despise. The black adds no vibrancy to our society; no life; no joy. What makes it particularly disrespectful is the fact that Muslims are not mandated by the Koran to wear this garb. So those who do are defiant, insecure and the kind of people we don’t need in our society.
(75) Marion, February 24, 2013 3:54 AM
If they want to ban it, I'm behind them for once
I'm not behind the government banning many things, but I'm behind them on this one. I ride a motorbike, and if I ride to my local branch to make a deposit, even if I'm only going to spend a couple of minutes in there and then be off on my bike again, I'm not allowed in without taking my helmet off. Why? There could be anyone under my helmet. Even at some petrol stations (many of which are owned and staffed by Muslims), I am not allowed in to pay without removing my helmet. But, a woman in a burka could cry religious discrimination. Also, the comparison between parents circumcising baby boys and fathers and husbands forcing women to wear the burka doesn't wash with me. If a boy is circumcised, there is a small chance he may feel injured later on, but it's unlikely really. On the other hand, my mum's friend's daughter was seriously considering getting married to a Muslim man from the UAE. Had she done so, he would have required her to wear the burka. That would have severely violated her personal and social freedom on a day to day level, and any future daughters they'd have had would have suffered. If Muslim women need to wear something, they should wear the chador - ample covering under Islamic law.
(74) Emma, September 28, 2012 12:02 AM
Do you know how many French women wear the burqa?
Really, do you know? Because people here are under the assumption that the number of Muslim women who wear burqas in France is a sizable majority. Yet the real number is somewhere around the whopping size of... 367. Yes, 367 women is enough for France to consider free religious expression a "security risk." Frankly, I think Orthodox Jews and ANYONE who values their freedom to practice should be concerned. The truth is, the ban did not stem from "security risk," but from irrational fear that all Muslims are terrorists. Mr. Rosenblum seems to be falling under the same delusion, unable to differentiate the general body of French Muslims from the zealots on TV. France, like the rest of Europe, has been growing increasingly xenophobic, which encompasses recent flareups in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. If you think these right-wing parties are worthy of your support because they are friendly to Israel, think again. Not only are many members of these parties anti-Semitic, but they were also major supporters of the circumcision ban.
(73) Mike, April 4, 2011 5:25 AM
Burkas
BURKAS ??? Can ANYONE TELL ME !!!!!! Are they allowed in State Gov Building like DHR DFCS Buildings ??? \"Wearing of the Burka in the State of Georgia ??? Please let me know what the law is for GA and the US\" Shoot me an email with the answer to Business429@msn.com Please anyone ???
(72) Anonymous, April 3, 2011 12:10 AM
hgfd
America is a place of freedom. Why can't Muslim women wear what they want to wear, and practice the religion they want to practice? This country is messed up! Since when did it matter what clothes you wear?
Silky, May 30, 2011 1:46 AM
It's not just "clothes"
The problem with the burka is not that it is an Islamic dress but that it covers the face. Anyone can be behind that cloth. It is a secuity issue. The problem is though, that by making the burka illegal, are we heading down a slippery slope?
Anonymous, October 1, 2012 2:56 PM
slippery slope
We were well down the slippery slope when we started legally prosecuting those Protestant Christians who practice healing by faith, and those who find blood transfusions violate their faith...
Anonymous, May 30, 2011 2:54 AM
There are cultural norms and burkas are not part of our American culture. Some Hispanic men prevent their women from learning English to keep them "under control." Ditto Muslim men. Burkas are just another way to keep women in submission and thus is UNAMERICAN.
(71) Rachel, January 9, 2011 12:53 AM
I'm a girl and I cover my head. It could be argued that covering my head isn't a religious obligation, so could I be banned from wearing the yarmulke? I don't know anybody who wears the burka, but I do know a few people who wear the hijab, Muslim headscarf. In the summer: light colors, light materials. Winter: darker and heavier. If I decide to cover my hair once I'm married, I'll have learned from them. They're nice people who are hard-core believers in the Golden Rule, by the way. ("Golden Rule"="Love thy neighbor as thyself", not specifically a Muslim term, but definitely Islamic philosophy) A Christian man blows up a building. But not all Christians blow up buildings. It's the same with everybody. Not all Muslims blow up buildings, not all Jews blow up buildings, etc. Food for thought.
(70) Dorene Schwartz-Weitz, January 5, 2011 2:04 AM
Burka Paranoia
Wearing a sheitel cannot be aligned with the Burka. Jewish mothers nurture their children through the highest Torah value of "Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself". Whereas, the founded fears with which we all have come to be conditioned from those who espouse the religion of Islam is that to raise one's child to be suicide martyr is of the highest calling. That's what the Burka has come to represent.
(69) Anonymous, January 3, 2011 4:58 AM
ban the burka and the towel
it's been my experiance that muslims wear their headgear with additude and arogance,neither are welcome traits. horray for the dutch. bagdad would be a good place for such attire.
(68) Anonymous, December 27, 2010 12:34 AM
Tzniut vs. Burka
I remember the first time I got my driver's license after I was married, and I was deciding did I need a sheitel, so they would not ask me to remove my hat. Where is the line? Do I think a woman should "have" to cover her face? Maybe it is not my business, as long as it is her choice. I do not want someone deciding how long my skirt can be in case I conceal something or whether I can where a snood in public. It might seem unrelated, but that is the same idea as "the last butterfly", when they came for someone else stay silent, who will speak when they come for me. Religious observance is a supreme right that must come second only to true concerns for national security. Anything less is an infringement on anyone's ability to live free.
(67) Anonymous, December 26, 2010 11:02 PM
A few years ago I was to pickup family vacationers at JFK International Airport. On this scorching August day, I was looking down at the arrival of thousands of lightly dressed crowd in their shorts and light, breezy attire. Trying to be inconspicuous and not calling attention to themselves were a group of muslim women covered from head to toe, including gloved hands in attention getting swaths of black yardage and leather. they were accompanied by a much more weather appropriately dressed male. Everyone was looking at this medieval display of repressed womankind. Cruelty masked as religion.
(66) stanley felsen, December 20, 2010 3:48 PM
Security uber alles
Respect for all religious practices except when the security of the populace is threatened. We are at war with an enemy that uses ANYTHING to achieve their goal.
(65) Steve Skeete, December 6, 2010 8:04 AM
Just asking!
Can someone answer these questions for me, please? Do Moslem women really want to be non persons? Why would it be wrong for someone to see a moslem female's face? Why should family and close friends be the only ones to see the female body? Do these females really only want to interact with persons close to them? Do they have no interest at all in participating in life in a "normal" way? Why do the male in the lives of these females believe it is alright for them to interact with society but it is not alright for their women? How are non-moslems supposed to react when they see what for all intents and purposes is a spectre coming towards them? Finally, if you do not intend to socialize when in public, why go public in the first place? Like I said I am just asking!
(64) To BK, December 5, 2010 10:36 PM
BK...
People in America are allowed to wear the Burka, it just so happens that not very many do. The good thing about the way America has approached its Muslims is the same way it approaches every other group. You can practice your religion all you want, but our society WON'T be changed because of that religion. Whereas Europe made the mistake of giving the Muslims minor concessions that don't actually mean squat to 99% of Muslims. In America they have good opportunities for employment, they can rent and buy wherever they want, there kids get to go to high school and college and they often move into mixed neighborhoods. Another factor would be that Muslims in Europe have easier access to their Muslim homes and often return there, there could be an underlying attempt to Islamasize Europe to spread "Allah".
(63) BK, October 7, 2010 7:00 PM
I'm american and proud to live in a country where society recognizes honesty in society by their face. Saluteing was evolved from solders raising their face shields as they passed each other to show respect and who they were. If you wear a covering over your face in a bank, you will be shot because your probably trying to rob it. My country is founded on honesty among it's people that overrides but also respects the different rligions of it's people. You come to my country you better show your face or I consider you dishonest and have something to hide. If you come to my country you would be better off acting honest by following our customs just as we have to or be locked up in an arab country for some minor infraction.
(62) Anonymous, October 7, 2010 12:10 PM
The burka offends me. My grandmother, my mother and I have worked hard to support rights for women in the US. The burka wearing immigrants have profited from our work while making a public statement that women are one down.
(61) nasa, September 5, 2010 1:51 PM
'left' is wrong , right is 'right'
The burka is a hazard in that it does not allow the free movement of the wearer. It doesnt even allow good ventilation of the wearer. It is also an infringement of the wearer's right to womanhood. yes, these things are bad.but the worst is blood thirsty Islamic propagatiors can carry out their neferious acts under the cover of a burker.
(60) Aviva Sarah Pels-Looyen, August 29, 2010 3:03 PM
No true information
Dear Mr.Rosenblum, Nex time you intend to wrtite on Europe and especially the Netherlands, please, be well informed beforehand. There is no such a thing as an upcoming muslim take-over in Europe. You will not fins any research poinying in that direction. Are there integratio-problems? Definitely But they have very little to do with islamic extremism. The poorly educated part of the first generation Moroccan immigrants still live somehoe apsrt from Dutch society. Bur remeber 9/11; those guys were well educated and became extremists.We do suffer from antisemitism on the street from muslim boys. Boruch Hashem the polica do take us seriously. There has been an IDEA, a PROPOSAL to use jewish-looking outfit as policemen to get these little criminals on the spot. But the same idea hs been published about gay people (receive way more threats and violence than jews from the same group). Now these Dutch boys of Morrocon descent are no muslim extremists at all. They just identify with the Palestinians caused by daily hatred and violence Arab broadcasted movies etc. Geert Wilers is a very bizarre and dangerous politician.He is trying very hard to incite hatred against all of Islam. Fill in the word Jew for Muslim in his awfull speaches and we all know what he means and what could happen if this raciism is not fought and beaten. Sincerely, Aviva Pels
(59) Lindsay, August 17, 2010 1:33 PM
Don't do it to us, but it's okay for them
Hair color is a major identifying factor -- in fact it's on my driver's license. So wigs and wraps and such for Orthodox women? Nope, not allowed. And in the interest of safety and health, school girls need to participate in sports, and dresses are a hazard to that so ALL girls in all schools in the US must "dress-out" in PE shorts and t-shirts at school. Sex-segregated classrooms? Not allowed, as we have a culture of gender equality. So ban those too. And businesses open on Sunday but closed on Saturday? Not allowed -- we have a culture of being open for business all weekend...so no business licenses for those places anymore. Extreme? Nope As soon as you say culture trumps religious practice BY LAW, you allow all of these laws to be passed. We need to stand up for religious freedom. And as for genital mutilation ? That is NOT a religious practice -- it is a cultural practice that predates Islam -- so much for allowing culture to call the shots!!!
(58) Anonymous, August 17, 2010 1:24 PM
Freedom to practice religion is a good thing except when...
Freedom to practice religion is what enables us to live an orthodox lifestyle in the U.S. and Europe, and should be supported.. so long as religious practice neither harms nor forced on others. Hiding behind a burka presents danger. The seemingly innocent head gear can and at times does provide cover for terrorist and other criminal activity. It is impossible to ID a burka hidden individual, and thus it is fair to say that the burka clad folks have, perhaps innocently, created a danger for society. Additoinally, the burka ties the hands of law enforcement as in these politically correct days, the fear of being labeled "racist" or "bigot" will prevent police officers from doing their job. Pursuing burka clad individuals who may have broken the law, may land them in hot water. Religious freedom does not negate the rule of law that is there to protect the masses. Religious freedom is a right but also an obligation. Religious freedom is indeed the freedom to practice religion, but also the freedom from religion. Therefore, when a religious group forces itself on others or its practice engeders danger for others, it should be monitored, limited, and/or banned.
(57) Anonymous, August 17, 2010 3:31 AM
Hooray! to france for banning the Burka. I can't remember anyone going into a muslim nation and making demands to change the muslim laws to suite their needs;it is unheard of. People have been killed or maimed for even making such suggestion, how blatantly disrespectful can the Muslims be. For much too long now we of the western world have been bending over backward to accommodate the unfair demands of a nation that have little or no respect for us, or for the women who gave birth to them for that matter. I say it is now time for us to get out of our contortionistic position and stand up for our democratic rights (yes! we do have rights, thats the big difference) and the rights of Muslim women who hunger for emancipation from a burdensome law. Enough is enough!
(56) Anonymous, August 16, 2010 6:20 PM
melanie philklips: it is intimidating-and meant to be
the face veil aloows others to see your face- and emotions- but not theirs- it is not a level playing field
(55) folke Holtz, August 15, 2010 1:42 PM
Fight for religious freedom.
Fight for the religious freedom. The Burka,ban as the ban of other religious acts is the secular states fight against religions. There is a wave of antireligious streams that we all must be against, such as for us the Brit Milah, the Kosherfood and wearing Kippots in the daily basis that restrict us but not the secular people who can eat and be clothed as they want. This is undemocratic.
(54) Leah, August 15, 2010 4:52 AM
This is a good start
At first glance, I was totally for this outlawing of burkas. After reading the article, I thought for a little bit, maybe it is wrong to outlaw something for a religion. but upon further reflection, I realized that this is a good start. We outlawed polygamy, although to some it was a religious practice. In addition to burkas, some Muslims also practice child-marriages. Should we allow a man in his 20s, 30s, or even 40s to marry kids? Kids that are 12, 11 or even 7 or 8 years old? They do in India. What about gender mutation so the woman does not enjoy relations with a man? Should that be allowed? We already see from this article that they sharia law is being practiced and honor killings are going unanswered. Has it happened yet that an honor killing occurred with someone who was not a Muslim, but had an affair with one? Will we allow sharia law to apply only to Muslims? But sharia law demands the killing of infidels, of which everyone one of us are. We must remember what Caroline Glick said ... radical Islam has no respect for life. Not their own. Not ours. Their lives in this world are meaningless, and they look forward to their reward in the next world. We can not fight them with the same logic we use against each other, because the logic doesn't work for them. I support the French ban on burkas.
(53) Lancey, August 14, 2010 2:18 AM
in general I support the ban
In general, I would support the ban as a matter of security from a terrorist attack. However, I also understand the concerns that regulating this religious observance could (and probably would) lead to regulation of other religious observances by persons of any faith that the government did not agree with.
(52) Pleasant, August 12, 2010 10:27 PM
No way!
This article confirms my belief that there are some jews who are just suicidal. The burqa is a prison. No woman forced to wear it is ever happy to do so. The head scarf is one thing, but the burqa is ridiculous. The airport is not the only place to have to worry about such security and you know it. It is also not the only place that such a situation has occurred where a terrorist is hiding inside. No burqas, ever. I agree. It is not a part of islamic observance, I own a koran. I purchased it so I could understand the behaviors of my muslim neighbors in Virginia. And I read it. The chapter is entitled "the Cow" and yet bovine are never brought up, only women and their attire and intelligence level. The burqa isn't mentioned as an item of clothing, only as what it is A CURTAIN which stays in place in a room, like the thing in an orthodox jewish sabbath service to separate the men from the women. This is something invented by terrorists in order to hide what they do.
(51) tony, August 12, 2010 6:46 AM
who cares its France.
lets worry about the burka in the US. they can have it on when getting their drivers license. How is the officer who pulls them over suppose to know what going on under that thing? a good friend of mine was killed when a burka wearing women walked into a building in Israel and set off a bomb. Don't say it cant happen here. remember something called 9-11?
(50) Joe, August 12, 2010 5:01 AM
How can you possibly be conflicted?
I am going to say something that might be unpopular. A free and civilized society believes and practices religious tolerance for all. There really is no middle ground to debate any religious practice that does not violate common sense applications of the social contract. By that, I mean a practice that clearly violates criminal law or clearly is untenable in a given circumstance. For instance, human sacrifice is absolutely wrong, and a burka wearer must show her face for her ID pictures and to be identified by police. Too bad otherwise. But, past that, do you believe in the religious tolerance that allows us to practice freely or do you let prejudice appeal to you and get a little pay back? Do you believe in the standards of a free society, or do you enjoy a little European style religious oppression? Philosophically, I despise the burka. I see it as utterly dehumanizing to women. But then again, I also have great difficulty with how stringent, and to my mind, unreasonable some Haredi are with regards to tsniut.. If you think that Muslim women speak much differently about their ideals of tsniut (in terms of how they find it actually liberating and not sexist) than observant Jewish women speak of tsniut, you would be shocked. I have heard Muslimas and Rebbitzens use *exactly* the same arguments word for word. The only difference is extent - and given some Haredi, not so much. As to Muslimas who merely wear the hijab, I can detect no difference at all philosophically from what might hear at a Bais Yaakov other than when women start wearing them and if anything, the Muslims who are like that, are less strict. But I respect the rights of observant Jewish women to obey tsniut to standards that I think are harsh beyond what halacha demands, even when the standards are also male imposed. Banning religious observances is a very European thing to do. Something our ancestors fled. We should have learned that. We should not have a single question.
(49) Gary Katz, August 11, 2010 7:42 PM
Orthodox Jewish modesty is quite different
There's a difference between a head to toe burka and a Jewish woman covering her hair. Besides, if the Jewish woman decides not to dress that way, it's her decision and nobody's going to beat her, stone her or arrest her. Finally, the authorities can be sure the Jewish woman is not wearing a suicide belt underneath her garments.
(48) Renee, August 11, 2010 7:13 PM
Burka Ban Does Not Equal Kippah Ban
"Where you sit, is where you stand." Europe has a problem. When you have strongholds of neighborhoods wholly Mulsim DEMANDING, against the civil laws of the state (France, Spain, etc.) that they live in, that ONLY Sharia Law, etc. is "valid" then I think it's time Europe took back its' nations. Switzerland has the right idea, which is ironic considering their position during WWII. But then again, Switzerland is a business more than a state is it not?? THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, IT IS ABOUT THE USE OF THE BURKA TO DISGUSE TERRORISTS, AND THE REAL THREAT THAT EXISTS. IT IS ALSO ABOUT SAFETY, VIS-A-VIS DRIVING, WALKING, ETC. WE ALSO MUST AT THIS POINT BE ABLE TO USE FACIAL IDENTIFICATION IN PUBLIC AS WOMEN ARE BEING USED NOW AS SUICIDE BOMBERS. SO, mixing apples and oranges, folks. Let's keep our common sense. Safety first. As for our "Political Correctness"...well it seems that is what got EUROPE in trouble in the first place. Having said that, I WOULD DEFEND ANY MUSLIM WOMAN'S RIGHT TO WEAR HEAD COVERING. As for "piggy banks" -- all I can say is Muslims need to get over themselves. Civil rights and liberties end at the point where they trample on others' safety or right to express their liberty or pursuit of happiness, or practice their religion without fear, or express political views. We Jews here in the USA get soooo worked up on the PC crap. If you were in Israel, betcha you would worry about burkas in a WHOLE different way. LET'S KEEP IT REAL FOLKS.
(47) Anonymous, August 11, 2010 6:28 PM
What do the Muslim women want?
If you would ask Muslim women living in non-Muslim countries I think people would be surprised that the Muslim women would vote for the ban on the Burka. I'm not opposed to the ban for two reasons: I really think the Muslim women want freedom from the thing, and because it can be a security problem. If someone walked into a store with a sky mask on, would you expect them to be served? The store could say sky mask==no service. If the Muslim women, and they are the ones who are forced to where the Burka, wants to keep them, then yes I would fight for their religious freedom on it. (in certain places) For like this article pointed out it could trickle down. The Muslim women in my area where scarves that do not cover all their face except the eyes. Do they like being subject of stares because of them? Many do not like it, and it's not even a Burka. The men do not want others to see the beauty of their wives is why the women are forced to wear Burka's. Wonder, do they not trust their wives or the other men?
(46) Dvirah, August 11, 2010 1:59 PM
Opposed
We should oppose this ban, just as we should make laws which will prevent one person from forcing another to wear the burka. From a ban on the burka to a ban on the kippa is a very small step. With the exception of agreed rules of "decency" in clothing, all should be allowed to dress as they please.
(45) Anonymous, August 11, 2010 7:41 AM
My objection to the Burka is that it conceals personality.European and western societyhas been hitherto an open society in which everyone could read a person's character in their open face . This is no longer possible when the face is concealed by a burka or a full face veil.
(44) Bob Hensler, August 11, 2010 1:48 AM
Dressing like you're proud!
A burka is a statement. Some statements an be quite positive and life affirming. A few years back my wife and two of our old friends rode the cog railway up to the top of Mount Washington in New Hampshire. As we click-clacked up the narrow guage railway in the old fashioned railroad car, I saw a guy dressed in a black silk suit with a large black wide brimmed hat, and a full black beard and mustache and the side curls. He was with his young family... his wife and two kids, a boy and a girl. The kids and his wife looked as if they felt "all dressed up." And they were. I delighted in watching this guy. A Jew who was ostentatiously and dramatically proclaiming to the world - through his clothing - "Hey World! I'm a Jew. And mighty proud of it, too!" I had been studying Judaism for about two years, and had read about the Chassidim and the Lubavitcher folks, and I was delighted to be seeing one in person. I wanted so to walk up to him and say something... anything... but I just stared at him and his happy family. They were having a wonderful time, the kids laughing and enjoying the view out the windows, the wife just sort of smiling as if she felt pretty good inside. Her husband wandered from one end of the car to the other, and at one point removed his expensive Borsalino fedora, and I saw he was wearing a kipa, as well. Okay, so he knew he was putting on a show. But he was so up front and so delighted in being a Jew on the cog railway in New Hampshire in the 21st Century. His smile was sincere, and he carried it off so well. I close my eyes now, 9 years later, and I still see him. And I am delighted all over again.
(43) rivka, August 10, 2010 5:56 PM
day-to-day safety concerns
My experience relates to naquaib more than a burka, but I think the stance I hold applies to both. To start, I understand the cultural roles the garments play for Muslim women. I have known covering and non covering Muslim women (and suspect the "wait until we take over" comment early in comments was probably a tired and cranky response to an over-asked question). I inconsistently cover my hair. We have many concerns on the side of security. Some are well founded. I was walking to a market a couple months ago, along a busy road in the Denver metro area. As I crossed the driveway to a parking area, a woman driving a minivan, talking on a mobile phone, and looking the opposite direction hit me. Barely. I slapped the hood as hard as I could, frightening her. But I could only see her eyes. She was veiled. Driving. The headcovering created a fold blocking (it seemed to me) her side vision. That is where the line between her rights and others' rights collided, and the individual loses, in my view. It also seems like a simple fix: fold and pin the cloth to not create such a wimple effect. I tie my scarves in a way that maximizes my vision, especially when i drive -rare as that is. (hey, it is probably safer as my hair is long and inclined to blow everywhere) We have to have minor adaptations to technologies we embrace. If you are going to drive or ride and aircraft, you must adjust a bit to the greater good.
(42) Karmen Nava, August 10, 2010 1:40 PM
I wouldn't wear a burka because of the discomfort and lack of freedom in participating in the celebration of life. A burka does not make a woman respectful or godly. Godliness and modesty begins with respect for the Torah and a faith in a Creator who loves us by giving us the highest instruction for a successful lifestyle; in return we offer our obedience. Although the burka may be considered inhumane by many, totalitarian governments regulating the religious beliefs of its citizens sounds even more dangerous.
(41) Henry A. Wiltschek, August 10, 2010 1:39 PM
An excellent article to complex situation
Very well written. How far can we go to curtail other people's behavior ? Especially when others have created a one-way street not allowing freedom of religion and expression.
(40) Anonymous, August 10, 2010 2:09 AM
some people get it, some people don't
I read ALL the comments, and the first one, by Jessi Schneider, was shocking! You obviously don't understand the reasons for Jewish women to be modest, and Moslem women having to wear the burka. Women are very beloved to men in the Jewish religion, so when a man and woman get married she is exclusive to her husband, so she should not flaunt her private parts to other men. G-d is the one who made this requirement, not men. The burka is nothing more than a cruel covering so women should be submissive slaves. There is no reason to ban head coverings or modest dress for Jewish women no matter where they live. This is part of what a Jewish woman is. This is why the Jewish people exist until today. You say "it is their right to practice their religion and culture as long as it isn't imposing on other people's lives. " Says who? They are beaten by their husbands They have their noses and ears and hands chopped off if they disobey. These men are criminals and they walk our streets. Do you want to lve in a neighborhood where such people live? (like living in beirut)
(39) Sarah, August 9, 2010 10:43 PM
Should NOT ban the burka
All kinds of religious apparel could be considered "dehumanizing" if one wants to see them that way. Orthodox Jewish women cover their hair when they marry. Some Chassidic women wear and wig AND a scarf. People outside of the Orthodox community might argue that this "dehumanizes" them. However, as a former Orthodox Jew, I can tell you that I never knew an Orthodox Jewish women who felt that way upon taking on the mitzvah of covering her hair. Dehumanization is in the eye of the individual, and we must NOT allow government to homogenize us all.
(38) Laura, August 9, 2010 9:09 PM
burkas are hazards
Inside a burka, a woman cannot see well, cannot move freely, and is terribly hot in the summer. For health reasons alone, women should not be covering themselves in a tube of cloth. If standing against this health and terrorism hazard leads to questions of religious Jewish practice, we can answer them. We should not allow the dehumanization of women in this manner.
(37) Maria, August 9, 2010 6:21 PM
Interestingly, Hitler also thought, and preached, he was saving Europe from the "ravages of mindless multi-culturalism" and preventing a jewish takeover. Nazis also viewed the European political class as pusillanimous in dealing with the "jewish problem". Jews were banned from displaying any sign of "jewishness" in public, then segregated in ghetos,and later put in concentration camps and exterminated. Wow, pretty positve!, ain't it? Was everything said about the jews false? No. There were all sorts of crimininals among jews, like in any other human group. But, they were the exception, not the rule. Generalizing set the stage for fanatical hatred, and justified persecution. Same thing is going on today, only now the muslims are at the receiving end. I can see how all this islamophobia is quickly snowballing into what can be the next holocaust. The saddest thing is that there are so many Jews talking the leading voice. We should know better.
(36) Regina, August 9, 2010 5:25 PM
Why is there even an argument about this?
A burka a)is clearly a security threat, and b)dehumanizes its wearer. Why are we even considering the positives of it? It's almost like seeing the positives in a Holocaust labor camp as providing a really good lifestyle for weight loss. Let's not make a traditional Jewish mistake of picking the wrong side of the argument just because we are afraid of making more enemies. It's too late - we already pretty much know who our friends are burka or not.
(35) Unlisted, August 9, 2010 5:03 PM
We should be yelling "bravo" (or the French equivalent)!
The fact that the French took ANY action against Muslims in a country whose Muslim presence is growing by leaps and bounds-- resulting in anti-Semitism-- should be supported and celebrated publicly. Thank G-d there's no French equivalent of the ACLU there. The time we should really start to worry is when the French government succumbs to Muslim pressure, as the idiots here in the U.S. constantly do, such as supporting building a mosque near the site of 9-11.
(34) Michael Pell, August 9, 2010 4:30 PM
David S. Levine's comment
Mr Levine's comment is spot on!!
(33) SS, August 9, 2010 9:23 AM
xenophobia and antisemitism are Divine gifts
Anything that makes Europe - or North America - or South Africa - dangerous for the Jews is cause for celebration. Xenophobia is the healthy instinct put into all peoples by Him who "set up the borders between nations." When the tide of world anti-semitism rises high enough for the Jews to realize Who is really shaping policy, they will ultimately wake up and come home to their own Land. Perhaps the Jews of the world, most especially the ultra-orthodox, will not even wait for shechita and bris mila to be outlawed where they now live. Only then will we be strengthened in our understanding that WE ARE A NATION THAT DWELLS APART, geographically and in all other ways.. We will begin to carry out ALL the Torah's commandments("since THIS is your wisdom and sagacity in the eyes if the nations"). But we will stop caring which nations love us, since universal hatred will be manifest. This seems the only possible scenario for our future, the future that is meant for us, speedily in our days.
(32) Ellen, August 9, 2010 8:59 AM
ambivalence = political correctness
The only reason to be ambivalent is if the underlying issues of the ban cannot be openly stated and focused on. If the dangers of the burka are for security searches, then that does not warrant a complete ban. If the dangers are because it represents a belligerent style of fundamentalism, then the European countries need to specify that, that it is encroaching on their country at large - otherwise it can indeed be turned on us by categorizing any "socially unusual" religious practice along with the burka.
(31) yehudit levy, August 9, 2010 6:16 AM
TRUTH = ambivalence for selfish reasons
The honest truth is that I am only ambivalent about the burka banning because, as Rosenblum said, I wouldn't want it to backfire on orthodox Jews one day, myself included, since I dress modestly. Although one could NEVER say that orthodox women dress threateningly to society, neither could one say that Jews were ever a threat to society throughout all our history, but were murdered for precisely that reason. Having said that, I absolutely support the banning since the burka stands for the most radical elements of Islamist extremism which threatens world stability at large, and on a social level, usually denotes either physical or mental abuse of the women involved. And, I might add: any women that WANTS to wear it, may very well be radicalised herself. There is no way to compare it to ANY form of Jewish dress, except for the extreme case of the so-called "Taliban Woman": her media nickname being a case in point!!! In any case, we should not worry about what others might think about us, and thank Hashem and have faith that justice is being done.
(30) David S. Levine, August 9, 2010 3:40 AM
No Ambivalence At All!
There should be absolutely no ambivalence whatever in allying ourselves with the forces of civilization against the burka or other Moslem practices such as polygamy! Islam is the enemy of civilization today and just as America allied itself with the Soviet Union of Joseph Stalin the forces that wish to preserve civilization and the politicians such as Geet Wilders who lead them must be supported by us. Indeed it is the left wingers who support the "right" to wear the burka who also wish to end kosher slaughter in the western world. The obnoxious Mayor of New York who sucks up to Moslems who continue to dishonor the victims of 9/11/01 is a prime example--he can't seem to begin a replacement building for the destroyed towers but his hacks guide through a mosque near the site of Moslem destruction. We do not eat pork or shellfish but we do not impose that sanction on others and the Moslems must not be allowed to impose their religious practices on us. The Moslem taxi drivers in Minnesota will not carry passengers with liquor of pets in their taxicabs. Who are they, who are licensed by the City of Minneapolis, to make such rules? It's time for America and Europe to make plain our hostility to such behavior, and as soon as possible.
(29) Malka, August 8, 2010 11:39 PM
to sam
The Eda Charedit are about to issue a ban on Jewish women wearing burkas in Israel. They were quoted last week as saying: "There is a real danger that by exaggerating, you are doing the opposite of what is intended [resulting in] severe transgressions in sexual matters". In a nutshell what Anonymous (2) said.
(28) Steve B, August 8, 2010 11:26 PM
Conflicted except that public security concerns must trump private practices.
I too am deeply conflicted for all the same reasons - except that in cases of security clearance and of traveling on public conveyances burka wearers should expect to be asked to de-burka, and public officials should expect compliance. I don't go for fines - but i do go for refusing admittance to berka wearers in these situations. Just as a beard wearer might be asked to trim their beard in order to wear a gas mask, so do special; circumstances have to occasionally impinge on private preferences.
(27) Joan, August 8, 2010 11:26 PM
These women are nothing but slaves. They hate it. It's nothing but a canvas prison for them. They want to be free !!!
(26) Anonymous, August 8, 2010 11:04 PM
Kind of like KKK hoods
The burka is great for terrorists! Imagine, one can commit a crime, and no one will ever recognize you. You could even be male, and no one would be the wiser. Dressing modestly is to be admired. Dressing like Darth Vader is for terrorists.
(25) mgoldberg, August 8, 2010 9:14 PM
one more point
it seems that the author wishes to discuss right and wrong applications of understandings. I wonder.... if peace for all the other religions, means accommodation and non war like state between different 'faiths' and states, and 'peace' for Islam, means 'submission' and the explicit permission to lie to all infidels, all 'others' then what is the nature of the discussion? Peace for a muslim means submission. Peace for all others means something much much different. Therefore, letting a muslim 'hide' is fine, except of course in a non-muslim land where the theologic goal is to eventually impose muslim practices on non-muslims. And that of course is a tenet that is forever. That's why muslims can easily kill each other, for rule, for right to rule, and in so many muslim nations, and where non muslim lands are beneath them. And all they feel is 'being shamed' by infidels. Indeed. Ban the Burqa, and ban all Sharia impostions... because none of it will stop. It never does- not for Islam.
(24) mgoldberg, August 8, 2010 9:04 PM
we don't speak up, but pretend it's due to fairness to all
So we are supposed to allow all religious expressions, because we're so tolerant. But that's absurd. When in England, a mere six years ago, muslims and leftists demanded no piggy banks on bankers desks, because the 'pig' might offend them- we didn't defend ordinary people, like gentlie brits and even ourselves. We didn't say that the leftists and muslims were using political correctness to impose sharia or muslim law on non-muslims. A tyranny. We didn't say, that as important as Kasruth is, for jews, it is not imposed on non jews as is none of jewish law. Which would be the sane, righteous thing to have done. To have scorned Islam and muslims and leftists who's only desire is to submit western civ. We didn't care enough. And now... now comes the 'burqa' and all the other sharia laws to separate and impose islam on the west, and gentiles, and jews. And we debate...'well now, we have to be tolerant of their religious practices' No, we, don't. If Sharia law is demanded of non muslims, then any changes that might be a threat to our security and safety take precidance. And yes, ever muslim should be searched if they are on a plane, and anyone else who comes from a belief that says.... it's good to kill infidels. And no, not most of them will, but if that's the belief, so be it. Ban the Burqa, up with common sense, up with common decency and up with righteous indignation at the destruction of human rights by Islam and the left, in the name of multiculturalism and diversity.
(23) Jonathan, August 8, 2010 8:21 PM
France has a right to ban
I agree that the security concerns of the state in this matter outweigh the rights of individual citizens to the free expression of their religious practices, especially given that some some Muslim countries also forbid the burkah. A niqab is what most Muslim women use to cover their hair for modesty, and this does not disguise their faces. In the home they may wear a burqah, or inside a mosque.
(22) Gary Katz, August 8, 2010 8:02 PM
There is precedent for these types of laws
Don't forget that Western countries already ban certain Muslim practices, such as bigamy and female circumcision (not really Muslim, but practiced mostly by Muslims). If a religious practice conflicts with societal norms, the religious practice may become illegal. Some Muslim women argue that the burka is their preference and they were not pressured into it. Maybe so, but when I see a black burka, I see a garment designed to be as hot as possible, to keep women out of the sun (in other words, at home). The Arab men all wear white. My, my... I'm glad the author pointed out the double standard of certain Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia. The Saudis can't complain about a burka ban until they allow visitors to sport crucifixes or bring in their personal Bibles. The situation reminds me of the Muslims who decry Jewish hegemony over Jerusalem, when no Muslims are even allowed to step foot into Mecca.
(21) Frank Adam, August 8, 2010 7:52 PM
Security first
Throughout history to mask the face is the work dress of a robber, highwayman, footpad and thieves and contracthit-men of all degrees. That is why Robin of Locksley when evicted and turned outlaw became known as Robin [i' th'] Hood. It makes sense in amiddle Eastern sandstorm to protect one's face and eyes BUT in Europe or the Americas etc it maksno sense at all and is a public security matter. Already the French have thrown out of public exams brothers impersonating their sisters. The only thing wronf abut the French actionis to get pompous about women's rights ad teir variety of REpublicanism. They shouldcut to the chase as should evrybody else and damn the practice of facecovering in public on Security grounds.
(20) Ben Z, August 8, 2010 7:30 PM
It's 1935 again for Jews.
So many Jews are leaving europe again. The Eurabian syndrom is taking place as we speak. A Jew in Paris or Amsterdam has to be careful..deja vu again in 1935 Germany. Europe will be sorry...very sorry!
(19) Eema23, August 8, 2010 7:25 PM
I need to see a face
Much as I support a woman's right to modesty and freedom of religion, covered faces are too much for Western society. I need to see a person's face, I have walked out of stores because there were people present with face coverings, there is one store near us with a cashier who wears a veil. I do not shop there anymore. BTW I live in Maryland near Washington and often these covered women are speaking with English American accents.
(18) nancy, August 8, 2010 7:22 PM
NOOOOOOOOOO!
The burka is what keeps women from becoming a productive and valuable part of society. Ambivalence is the absolute wrong reaction. Keep in mind the profound statement , "In order for evil to spread, let good men do nothing."
(17) Buzz, August 8, 2010 7:13 PM
burka
Historically those who arrive in a new land accept the mores of that nation. That does not say you lose your heritage, but that you assimilate to a point that you are a part of the "new world". If you do not care to do that, don't go to the "new world". Stay home. I am not talking about tourists, but long term residents. People should not hide behind what they were in the old country. In America you produce ID for numerous reasons. We accept it so should new residents. Learn the language, accept the customs, maintain your heritage, but find a balance. Don't tell us we have to change to meet your culture. I can't imagine somone having the gall to want to wear a burka in a driver's license photo as I read about several years ago. I felt like the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. It's enough giving in to immigrants. Come join us I say and take our hand and embrace us and our culture--or back to your native land.
(16) Duane Bass, August 8, 2010 7:02 PM
cultures?
In a country that is not of your culture, you should abide by the host wishes. If wearing a Burka is so important, I would suggest moving to where it is actually a part of the culture. We are going to have the same problem in America real soon, if not already, with the Mosque at Ground Zero!
(15) Chava, August 8, 2010 6:33 PM
Aliyah!
This is why Jews need to come HOME!
(14) YoAv, August 8, 2010 6:21 PM
Greater Danger
Emboldening the Muslim community by allowing its culture to usurp that of the host country is not only stupid, it’s treasonous. Recognizing borders between countries is discrimination and so what? Israel has borders to help keep her culture intact. Islam crosses the lines of government whenever in the majority. Let those who advocate for the right to wear burkas in public and minarets atop Mosques, reside in Saudi Arabia for a year. Let us admit Islam’s hostility towards all other religions, as evidenced upon the Temple Mount. How ironic, that Western freedom & liberty are being used by repressive Islam, to crush what Islam hates - religious freedom & liberty. One day people like Jessi, will be dumbfounded as to what happened to their liberty & freedom. Let us be as toxic to Islam as Islam is toxic to other religions.
(13) monique, August 8, 2010 5:51 PM
duh
why? because its used to cover up their identity. why dont you go ask them why are others forced to dress as a muslim in muslim countries? all their asked to show is their face not their nakedness.
(12) Anonymous, August 8, 2010 5:26 PM
I agree with the ban.
I agree with it. Muslims who are not happy with it can stay in their country of origin (coo) or go back to their coo. It has nothing to do with veils that cover the hair. Muslim F PM Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan wore a lovely white scarf over her hair. If people want to join the life of western countries, their male children need to learn how to control their sexual urges and not see any woman not covered up totally, including ankles, hands as an invitation to be raped, assaulted, brutalized. Context means a lot. This ban came as a result of repeated assaults on non-Muslim school girls in France by Muslim males who felt it was their right to accost an unveiled female. The slippery slope argument can be argued in both ways. If the burka is allowed to be foisted upon wider western women(www) for self-protection, what is the next act that will be foisted off? Honor killings? Polygamy? No liquor, pork? No music? Perhaps www will not drive nor shop on their own nor leave the house unaccompanied by a male, nor seek medical advice from a M Dr, nor examin s of her body, and Ob/Gyn exams by male Drs are disallowed, nor be in a room with an unrelated male, etc. I do not know about Sam ^. In the story of Tamar she covered her face, and concealed her identity which is what women of the night did. I support modesty in women which is different from anonymity. Did you see the photo of the lost panicked Muslim child crying for his mother surrounded by 100 women in identical blue burkas? We have some cultural values, and seeing the face, dating, marriage by choice, marriage to 1 person, and taking care of dogs, cats happens to be part of our values. The reason I bring this up is that there is no end to the application of Shariah law on others, and the Somali airport taxi drivers in the US who refused to transport families who had their dogs with them, or who carried liquor, are good examples. Dogs are "unclean". Develop a spine. Stop acting craven, pusillanimously, flaccidly.
(11) Peter, August 8, 2010 5:09 PM
Ambivilance?
The banning of the wearing of a burka in public is critical to avoid a breakdown in public order. If you were robbed by a woman (man?) in a burka, how would you describe the robber to the police? If a woman was raped by a man wearing a burka, how would she describe the perpetrator? NYC prohibits the wear of masks in public to avoid the problem of providing the police with a desrciption of a person who commits a crime. Does Israel have a ban on wearing burkas? They should. As to the issue religious freedom in a country - e.g. schita - if you don't like the laws of the country you live in, then move. If you worked for a company that required you to work on Shabbos, and they were permitted to do so because there was no way to accomodate your schedule, would you stay or leave? I, an orthodox Jew, is sick and tired of hearing complaints about how one is treated in their country because they are Jewish. If you don't like it, then MOVE!!!!! There is a country where you can go and be in the majority. Oh right, I forget, there are numerous reasons for not fulfilling this mitzvah just so you don't have leave the "comfort" of your home.
(10) Anonymous, August 8, 2010 4:01 PM
to sam:
the custom that you are referring to (women covering their faces) is actually practiced today! That is why women before going to the chuppah cover their faces with a veil (it's actually first covered by the bedekken). Rivkah Imeinu's face was not covered before seeing yitzchak- She rather covered it when she saw her prospective groom. Which is the custom nowadays as well. The rambam lived in muslim countries. Jewish styles followed those of the muslims. Same way american Jewish dress is reflected by the society that we live in.
(9) Maurice, August 8, 2010 3:50 PM
Religious Obligation Justifies Nothing
The author is suffering from self-gult and General Muslim apologist. The Burka's sole purpose is to demean women and to use them as slaves. That it has some "religious" meaning is irrelevant. So does human sacrifice, so what? The wearing of a Burka by women (not by men, too), is synonymous with slavery, nothing else. Jews should oppose it on the principle of the value of human life and the humans were created in Hashem's image. Otherwise, why oppose human sacrifice by others? Or slavery by others? It is a sad day to see a Jew defend anything Muslims do. There perception of you is a monkey. Now how do you think they plan to treat their little monkey pet?
(8) miriam wolkenfeld cohen, August 8, 2010 3:29 PM
interesting article, but no conclusion
What makes you think that Muslim women have any choice in this decision of wearing a Burka? Their religious dress is imposed on them by their men. Our religious dress is imposed upon the ultra-religious by the community. But Jewish women have free will, and we have different lifestyles from which to choose. The full Burka makes it impossible to see the person underneath, it is modesty taken to the extreme. And there is a message to the world in this dress code; we will do what we want regardless of what YOU think. Extremism is dangerous. Check out world history.
(7) J.S., August 8, 2010 3:19 PM
I think the French law goes too far. Up to a point, the law is understandable. If there is a requirement to ascertain the identity of the woman (drivers' license, voting, boarding a plane, etc.), then no face coverings should be allowed. But to simply criminalize burka wearing in public? -- it strikes me as too draconian. (on a somewhat different note, I'm just as much in opposition to the surveillance cameras put up everywhere in the UK -- it too seems to reflect a "guilty till proven innocent" approach).
(6) Melanie Jones, August 8, 2010 2:47 PM
the burqa is more than just a face covering
Whilst I understand that democratically, we should support people's right to worship or dress as they please, I have this one story: an acquaintance was queuing behind a burqa clad woman in Western Australia. Chatting, she asked the woman if she was hot or uncomfortable. The woman replied "just wait until we take over here, and you can find out for yourself". I'm sorry, but to me the burqa represents covert hostility; oppression of women; the 'stealth jihad' of attempted cultural domination....and I say "not in my country"!!!!! We Jews want the freedom to dress or worship as we want, but not to the detriment of our neighbours. My observaton is that the Muslims amongst us do not want to live peacefully side by side, they want to dominate, exterminate and that, I find, is the symbol represented by the burqa - and I say BAN IT!
(5) ChristianVan Niekerk, August 8, 2010 2:16 PM
It is time for entire civilised world to ban the burka as well as face cover. These pracrices are evil and duisgusting, It shows how evil Islam is to their own women. What is sto stop Islamic terrorists from hiding behind the burka? How does anyone know if Psa, Bin Laden has not travelled to USA wearing a burka? No person wearing a burka or vail should be allowed to enter any civilised country. Would they show their faces at Immigration stations when entering any coultry? The Burka and vail must be banned in every civilisaed country. Do not allow Islam to take over the wolrd. Stopheir spread before it gets more out of hand. They are on their way to take over every country and spreak sharia law.
(4) Anon, August 8, 2010 11:59 AM
The ban is 100% justified. Anyone arguing against it is defending bigotry and sexism. We can not allow the sexist religion that is Islam to flourish anymore than we can allow its European equivalent Nazism to flourish. Westerners have to follow Muslim dress codes in Islamic countries (and of course you never hear left wingers complaining about that) so they cannot have it both ways. In addition, you never see Muslim men covering themselves up. It makes no sense for Jews to defend people who want them dead because their leader commands them to (Mohammed, like Hitler, was a vehement anti-Semite)
(3) Sam, August 8, 2010 11:52 AM
Halacha?
I don't know where Anonymous gets his/her information. The Rambam when discussing the obligation for women to cover their heads refers to the custom of wearing a 'Redid' a type of shawl which also covered the woman's face. We find a precedent for this in the Torah when Rivka covers her face with a tze'if when meeting Yitchak. Although NOT obligatory today, it seems that it was once the customary for Jewish to cover their faces too. It is certainly not halachically forbidden to do so!
(2) Anonymous, August 8, 2010 9:16 AM
A side point : On Burkas and modesty
The root of Panim (=face ) in Hebrew means inside. The face is the only part of the body that expresses whats inside - the feelings - the soul. That's why although the face plays a central role in male female attraction, by Jewish Law women ***are not allowed*** to cover their faces. Meaning that even if a Jewish woman would want to be super duper modest she is not allowed to cover her face. This would actually be considered an act of immodesty - of attracting attention by being mysterious - covering up too much and creating a desire that wasn't there in the first place.
(1) Jessi Schneider, August 8, 2010 6:16 AM
Discrimination is Discrimination
They ban burkas now, but what next? Married womens head coverings? Yarmulkes? Tallit? We may not be Muslims but it is their right to practice their religion and culture as long as it isn't imposing on other peoples lives; what they wear is no ones business but their own.