Secularism in Danger: The Muslim Backlash Against French Schools

Upon a cursory glance, it may seem like there is no direct contradiction between secularism and allowing students to display their religious symbols at school. If someone wanted to bring their cross or yarmulke to school, why would the supposed “neutrality” of the state prevent them from doing so?

Yet when it comes to this issue, as expected, France begs to differ.

In 2004, French politicians realized that the children of Muslim migrants would remain firm upon their religion. For example, increasingly more and more girls were attending schools wearing the hijab. As a religion-phobic country, this was absolutely unacceptable for France. And as such, using shallow jurisdictional arguments to justify their decision, they very quickly seized the opportunity and promptly outlawed it.

RELATED: France Demonizes Senegalese-Muslim Footballer for Refusing to Promote LGBTQ

Why was the thought of little girls covering their hair so completely unbearable for the French?

Is it the fact that France is infamous for its brazen advocacy of debauchery? Is it the “conservative” element of Islam that is so disturbingly unacceptable in a modernist country such as France? What is evident though is that prior to this, nobody had any complaints whatsoever when it came to Christians and Jews openly displaying their religious symbols.

Regardless, the French parliament ruled against the hijab and banned all religious symbols in public schools. They had declared that children needed to forge their own opinion and decide for themselves regarding such matters.

This law needed to address all religions to appear secular enough, but since the vast majority of religious French people are not in any habit of wearing religious symbols to begin with, it was de facto undeniably directed against Muslims. You may also have noticed that comparing a scarf with a cross is far-fetched. One is a tool of modesty, and the other is an emblem which indicates that a person belongs to Christianity.

These politicians were completely ignorant about how this ambiguity would, later on, go on to become a jurisprudential catastrophe. However, recent events may have served in demonstrating just how significant a problem this specific law has created.

RELATED: France: Liberal State Forces Muslim Women to Swim with Men

The Blockade of Nanterre High School: The Fall of French Secularism?

Back in 2004 the arrogant French mind may have presumed that with the banning of hijab, all Muslim girls would eagerly cast the “shackles” off their hair. They now raise their eyebrows in astonishment when they see French sisters going out of their way to wear the hijab and how they actively seek out solutions in order to bypass the ban.

The Islamophobic lawmakers clamoured desperately to try and impede the rise of devotion in Muslim youth by increasing the level of discrimination and pressure against Muslim women.

RELATED: Islam in France: A Liberal French “Imam” Is on the Run

Finally, due to the ambiguity in the 2004 laws regarding what constitutes a “religious symbol,” many schools scandalously banned long robes and abayahs. A number of board of education members in high schools had warned on the internet that their administration teams had ordered them to keep a record of students who wore the hijab outside school.

In the picture: “In my establishment, the senior school administrator asked for a list of those who wear head coverings; they check the width of long dresses, if these are colored and whether or not they think they’re ok. On the other hand, if they are black or dark colors, this is not okay. They stand at the exit, in front of the gates, and they observe how many girls put on their veils. All of this was following a governmental mail they had received, asking them to report outfits of this kind which they referred to as abayah and games (which according to them were outfits worn at mosques). I document that no girl wears an abayah, and I have never seen games. So yes, there is an obvious hunt since it entails drawing up lists.”

That was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

A high school in Nanterre decided to oppose this unjust ruling and organized a violent blockade in the high school to prevent students from attending classes.

The images are very violent, and I do not encourage people to follow in their footsteps.

However, this kind of reaction was to be expected.

It has been years since a call to violence was raised in France, and this is simply the result of France’s mismanagement of its school system; France’s rapid decline into modernity; and a very anti-Islamic policy within a country where Muslims live in sensible neighborhoods.

They evoked resentment in a lot of the youth. And even if, with regard to Islamic ethics, these youngsters are far from being perfect, they remained men who naturally felt honor bound to protect their sisters.

RELATED: Ghayrah: A Vital Muslim Trait in Increasing Decline

Ultimately no amount of word games and semantics can change the fact that France’s policy is not liberating women. By design, its very purpose is to forcefully undress women.

France’s control over mass opinion and the media has finally reached its limit. They can unveil French women, but they cannot force them to wear skirts.

Let us hope that this event signals an awakening for the French Muslim community; and that they will soon cast this idiotic law in the trash, where it belongs.

RELATED: France Bans Hijab for Anyone Under 18 – Secular Tyranny Rises

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

 One is a tool of modesty, and the other is an emblem which indicates that a person belongs to Christianity.”

Not only that. It’s also a religious obligation/fard. Which a cross or yarmulke isn’t. A ban would mean people can’t fully practise their religion. The state thus ceases to be neutral. The questions than become: what is secularism and what is France’s governing philosophy?

If France is secular than secularism can’t be neutral. And if it isn’t secular than what is it?

Ibrahim Ihsan

It is called laicite. It is a more militant and strict version of secularism where even public display of religiousity is regarded as improper, even discriminatory behaviour(ironically). Most simply do that on the administrative and legal level but laicists do it on a societal level.

Last edited 3 months ago by Ibrahim Ihsan

I think that France doesn’t care about what is “religious obligation or not”. The law doesn’t include exceptions for religion. So when “no major display of religious belonging” are allowed in French Schools, it means none. This is “French laicité”. It means, that even in the name of your religion it can’t go against the laws of the countryAnd it would have been seen as a huge discrimination, if in the name of your religion, you could bypass those laws

Mohammad Talha Ansari

I hold the producers of hate responsible for producing hate.
I hold the consumers of hate responsible for consuming it.