To feel sad to see 5 year old girl in hijab

[INeedSomeSun]

Probably will get flamed for this & iabu as its not my business.
I am not racist in any way. I am Asian myself and have many Muslim friends.

Growing up, I never saw any muslim girls with hijabs. This is a trend which has been growing since the late 90s.

I know that the meaning behind the hijab is to protect modesty and show committment to Islam. It is supposed to be the girls/womans decision after much thought and dedication.

At 5 years old they are still getting changed in the classroom for PE and she won't be able to do this now with boys around. How will she play and do PE freely? She has been singled out by the views of her parents.
Also, she will barely know what religion means, so she has not made an informed decision for herself.

Normally she is chasing about with my DS and other kids before school.Today she was just stood there, perhaps embarrassed or told not to?
I felt very sad

Yay fro simplistic non-sequiturs.

for, not fro

Pointing out that "lacite" doesn't seem to have made France any less racist is not a "non-sequitur".

Nice try.

Could you read the thread, do you think? Not trying, since you're not contributing.

Why is the fact that
"The laicité of the French state is well-known and enshrined in many laws, and, I believe, the constitution. It's really, really important here."

Any different, or more important then countries who will say the fact that Islam is part of the constitution and laws is very important and therefore women have to wear hijab in public?

Also, it might be that the girl you saw is not Muslim at all. I just watched a dcumentary on Youtube where Romanian gypsies are dressing up as Muslims to beg from Muslims in wealthy parts of London. When they leave the area, they just take the abayas and headscarfs off. Muslims are very much aware they are not Muslim - I think they are playing with fire with that strategy to be honest.

You need to stop being so patronising and explain exactly why pointing out that the far right in France has substantial support is in anyway irrelevant to this thread. Particularly when nailak (waves to nailak) was asking about the experiences of Muslim women in France.

Do you honestly think people go out, tick the box for the racist bigot party and completely forgot about it afterwards? That it has no influence on how Muslims in France (generally not white, generally from immigrant backgrounds) are treated?

thebody BIL is not worried about her safety - she still wears it when he is not accompanying her. As hoppingmad said, he is more embarrassed/uncomfortable.uneasy by the scarf - despite the fact that his sisters also wear it. So he has decided that because he cannot parade his wife for all to see with the hijab, and because the hijab makes him feel uneasy/uncomfortable, he has said he doesnt like her wearing it - he sulked and cancelled social engagements with family - all to avoid the embarrassment - but said that he wouldnt 'force' her to remove it! it sits very uncomfortably with him the fact that he is 'forcing' her or 'oppressing' her - but he still believes that he is a forward thinking, oppression hating liberal.

I really want to highlight that this kind of 'oppression' against hijab is also very much evident in the 'western' society and that is why it smacks of hypocrisy on this thread that the oppressed woman forced to wear a hijab in Pakistan seems to be a worthier cause than an independant, educated woman oppressed for wearing the hijab in the UK. (not specifically talking about my sis here) What happened to equality for all? Not being able to accept the hijab is prejudice, stereotypical and oppressive.

even if he was worried about her safety

since when do women have to change the way they dress in order to prevent attacks?

What it's about, hopping, is the connection between the covering and the oppression. That question - "What's a scrap of fabric" compared to a murder - just about sums up the total disconnect evident in many defenders of covering women.

"since when do women have to change the way they dress in order to prevent attacks?"

I thought the point of the covering was to protect you from men who are unable to control themselves - "if you don't cover meat flies land on it"? So that question seems a bit rich, Nailak.

And if you read the link about Afghanistan, you'd see that there women had to change they dress in order not to be murdered by men who thought they should be covered.

Crumbled - there have been several posts describing why women cover, i.e it's for a variety of reasons. And the person who quoted the line about flies and meat up thread did not approve of the quote, nor has any Muslim woman posting on here.

Such disingenuity is rather disappointing.

In France, it's not discrimination, since the rule about religious symbols and clothing applies to all. You are still offered a free state education - just under different terms, which you refuse to accept. The same terms apply to all. There are options for non-oppressed women; they can educate at home, they can change the way they dress, they can send their children to private schools. They are not denied an education; they can have a state education under the same terms as everyone else or they accept that their inability to access state education is a result of their choices as non-oppressed women.

I approve of the French attitude on this, as I do on so many things.

Schooling should be secular. No religious mumbo-jumbo of any form will be allowed. Whatever particular fairy in the sky your parents happen to believe in, schooling is SECULAR.

Job done.

Putting a 5 YO in hijab is tantamount to child cruelty IMO. Why we get flustered over this in a surge of political correctness I do not know.

So it's nothing to do with men, modesty and sexuality and nothing to do with the Queen?

I'm afraid the disingenuousness began with "what's the bother - it's only a headscarf".

And Gosh I notice you completely ignored the brazen double standards of "when do we have to change the way we dress in order not to be attacked" when you know that women in some countries have to cover in order not to be attacked quite routinely by men who will be protected by their communities and by the law and the judiciary and against whom they have no redress. Ignore ignore ignore.

Crumbled - how is someone wearing a hijab in the UK causing someone to be murdered in Afghanistan?

This is like arguing that women partaking in heterosexual relationships is causing women to suffer domestic violence.

Still no answer as to why we should want to emulate France, when it is demonstrably a more racist society then the UK.

interesting advice on random Islamic internet board to woman who doesn't want to cover

Crumbled - can you actually engage with what I am saying, not what you think I've said.

Where on earth have, I or anyone on here defending a women being attacked, at all.

Where have we said that women should be forced to cover?

I thought that it should be a given that I and others here do not defend forced covering (or uncovering).

No one on here has defended it, in fact we have all described covering as something that should be a personal choice, that's pretty explicit about condemning forced covering, is it not?

"Still no answer as to why we should want to emulate France"

Is there some way that the law on religious symbols singles out race or colour or, indeed, religion? Would you like to point it out?

"How is someone wearing a hijab in the UK causing someone to be murdered in Afghanistan?" And you seriously accuse others of being disingenuous. The connection is the oppression of women. Oh yes, I forgot - you're not oppressed, you're alright Jack. Well that's alright then, no one is. Covering women is the most visible symbol of gender inequality. It's an inequality which justifies abuse, murder, false imprisonment, forced marriage (and not all in Afghanistan or other countries far enough away for you not to worry about), torture, assault and life-long oppression. But then that obviously doesn't bother some people.

Gosh: can you actually engage with what I'm saying? Because I've engaged with what you say and you keep shifting the goalposts.

By choosing to cover you validate it. You normalise it. You make the symbols of woman-blaming, separation and gender inequality visible, normal, and valid, and you defend them robustly. You have to work really, really hard not to see that.

So non-Muslim cultures are havens of equality are they?

Domestic violence and forced marriages are only Muslim problems? No of course they aren't.

I'm still waiting for you to explain, using logic, not rhetoric, exactly how women wearing hijab in the UK causes femicides in Afghanistan.

Do they send statistics over to the Taliban saying "x number of women in the UK wear hijab, so keep going".

As for France, you had read any if the discussion around the hijab ban, you would know exactly who it was aimed at.

Do you honestly think banning hijab and niwab in the UK would have any global impact? Do you seriously think Muslim women would be grateful to you for such an imposition, because they certainly haven't in countries where they have had such bans in place.

Crumbled you are talking to us as if we are children and you are the adult who knows better, yet you claim to be liberating us.

Do you not wonder why we aren't convinced? How can you save us (tries to keep a straight face) when you persistently belittle us and repeat that you know better?

You are simply avoiding the question - again. If you have read my posts you will see that I A point out (some time ago) that they are not only the problems of Muslim societies and B that I condemn inequalities in other societies.

I have explained to you - you do not want to know or understand, it seems. You choose to normalise, and validate, and make visible, a symbol of oppression against women. Not just in other countries - in this country. If you believe that even every woman in the UK choose to cover, and none is forced, do you think you are right?

The ban in France applies to everyone and if anyone wants to access public services then everyone adheres to the same rules. You have a choice. You are not oppressed (I am told). You can make one choice, or you can make another choice. What happens is a result of those choices.

Where have I talked about banning covering in the UK ? If you have rad my posts (again) you will see that I have said I wouldn't ban it. But I can express my point of view. And my point of you is that choosing to cover validates that crucial, tremendously important symbol of the oppression of women. You are not oppressed. It is your choice to make that validation and to normalise it. You choose that. This is a free country: I criticise that choice.

I'm not speaking to anyone as if they were a child. Read my posts. I don't claim to liberate you. I certainly don't speak for you. I don't disagree that you do not feel oppressed. Read my posts.

A child in ds's class (year 3) wears hijab, as does her little sister in year 1 and other little sister in nursery. Her dad brings her to school every day. He is young and fit and wears tight trousers is completely westernised in his dress and I find it quite incongruous seeing him dressed top to toe in Gap co-ordinates while his wife and three little dd's are in hijab (the wife wears a niqab).

Actually the thing I'm finding really interesting ATM are the number of young girls in my area who wear western clothes combined with a huge and elaborately draped headscarf, plus very, very stylised and heavy make-up. Some of these girls look so unbelievably beautiful in this garb that you can't take your eyes off them. Quite subversive really!