Ginnah Muhammed Muslim veil case highlights cultural clash Commentary
Ginnah Muhammed Muslim veil case highlights cultural clash
Edited by:

Farzana Hassan [president, Muslim Canadian Congress]: "For those who think the veil symbolizes the oppression of Muslim women – think again. In an American court in August of 2006, the veil instead became a symbol of clear defiance to legal protocol and authority. Ginnah Muhammad, who refused to remove her face-veil to identity herself as the complainant in a petty-claims case, rejected the authority of the judge who had earlier demanded she comply with court regulations by lifting her veil. His response to her refusal was merely to dismiss the case, thereby denying Ginnah access to justice. Such incidents raise valid questions about the extent of faith accommodations in pluralistic societies, the conditions of denying justice, the clash of cultures and last but not least, the correctness or otherwise of Ginnah's extreme religious stance.

Certainly, there exists a school of thought within Islam that believes it is better to err on the side of extreme expressions of piety rather than fall short thereof. Be that is it may, often in the West, refusal to remove head gear, or in this instance the face-veil, may constitute a political statement that Orthodox Islamic precept must be upheld over and above any temporal law or authority. There is no denying her opinion represents only a fraction, albeit a growing one, of what is believed about the veiling and segregation of women. Neither does her view find substantiation in religious texts. No explicit injunctions enjoining the face-veil on Muslim women exists either in the Quran or in the oral traditions attributed to the prophet Mohammad. But what is troubling is not as much Ginnnah Muhammad's extreme religiosity. It is more the politicization of her views and those who share it. Often these uncompromising attitudes surface in situations such as the above where these parties refuse to make concessions due to rigidity of religious outlook. This is the kind of radicalization that seeks to change existing public systems and mechanisms through such refusal.

Often Islamists demand the imposition of Sharia law and excessive accommodations in public places while themselves refusing to budge an inch from their own extreme positions. This is how they are changing the world around them. Though the judges actions may be deemed excessive by some in dismissing the case, they are understandable in the interest of maintaining uniformity and transparency of the legal process. Moreover, moderate and secular Muslims who have embraced the liberalism of North American society, would most certainly welcome this decision. Its about time they stood up to the scare tactics of the Islamists and also found support for their stance from local authorities."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.