شاركوا ISNA - أضعف الإيمان

[Byte]

وصلنى هذا الايميل من ال ISNA - Islamic Society of North America اليوم.

ان لم يكن لدينا اقتراحا افضل لما يجب علينا فعله، فلنشاركهم

Letter from Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed Regarding Banning of Religious Garb

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Assalamu Alaikum

As you may know, the French Government has begun to draft a law that would ban the wearing of religious symbols in public schools and any public facilities such as hospitals, courthouses, etc. These include Jewish skullcaps, Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, large Christian crosses, and any other religious dress deemed to be “ostentatious.” In a discussion this morning, a French political leader said to me that the question of appropriateness of dress is “like pornography in the US – we’ll know it when we see it.” He also stated that “banning religious garb is a protection of democracy, as religion is a threat to the state of France and to democracy at large.”

The draft law is expected to be voted on in early February. Attached please find a letter to President Chirac on this issue. If you are interested in adding your name to this letter, please do so by Monday, January 12. You may e-mail me back at this address, fax us at 317-839-1804 or call us at 317-839-1805

Please feel free to forward this letter to anyone else whom you believe would be interested in adding their name to the letter.

Thanks much for your leadership on this.

All my best,

Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed

Secretary General

Islamic Society of North America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Letter to President Chirac on Banning of Religious Garb

January 6, 2004

President Jacques Chirac

Palais de l’Elysee

Paris, France

Dear President Chirac:

We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned by the suggestions of the Commission of Reflection on the Implementation of the Principle of Secularity in the Republic, and by the intention expressed in your address of December 17, 2003, to promote the adoption of a comprehensive law that, in our view, would limit and jeopardize the free expression of any religious sentiment in France.

We are encouraged to send our concerns to you, Mr. President, out of respect for the unique heritage and traditions of freedom and openness that constituted the pride of France, a country that through history has welcomed diversity and proclaimed tolerance and full respect of the values of human rights. We agree that fanaticism and obscurantism threaten the delicate fabric of the contemporary world. But in order to counter it, we need not institute more authoritarian and restrictive dispositions of the law. On the contrary, we should rather embrace more broadmindedness and acceptance, more democracy and freedom.

The adoption of the law suggested by the Commission would limit the display of religious symbols in a way that is contrary to the spirit of all international documents proclaiming respect for human rights and freedom of religion to which France is a signatory. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, unanimously venerated by all nations, proclaims in a very specific way the right of everyone to manifest his religion and belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. This right has been reiterated in Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

These actions also violate the right of freedom from discrimination in education articulated in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 13 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR). These actions also contravene rights articulated in numerous UNESCO normative instruments on education and human rights, including UNESCO's Convention and Recommendation Against Discrimination In Education, UNESCO´s Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, and UNESCO’s Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel.

These instruments establish the right of an individual to freedom of expression and opinion. The principle of nondiscrimination and rights enunciated in these instruments further establish that discrimination in education based on religion or opinion constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights.

We submit to your high authority our concerns in the spirit of dialogue so well expressed in your address of December 17, 2003. The common value that you are trying to promote is tolerance. But there is no tolerance in depriving a Jew of the right to observe his religion by imposing on him not to wear a yarmulke, or to demand a Muslim woman not to have a scarf as a head covering. These items do not mean a voluntary and personal display of their beliefs; they are an essential part of the respective individuals’ obligations as members of a community of faith. They do not intent in any way to win adherents or proselytize, they are required by their allegiance to an organized and well structured, deep rooted, historical religious belief. Such an observance cannot be limited without infringing upon the basic human rights and freedoms as stated in the above mentioned documents.

A policy of secularism should not be promoted in any way as a cover for unintentional intolerance and atheism as a state policy. To avoid such a twist is as necessary as much as it is to prevent the misuse of the concept of freedom that preoccupies you in the address. It is indeed a fine and fragile balance that needs to be maintained. A noble endeavor that would truly make your nation the proud trustee of its rich history of acceptance and noble ideals.

Mr. President, there is no valid justification for such a law, especially in the circumstances that prompted the present debate over religious extremism and its tragic consequences throughout the world. Social and political tensions and conflicts created by mass migration of people and by feelings of inadequacy are not controlled by coercive measures and imposition of tougher laws. There could be no real power in a law that so many religious believers will resent or will try to circumvent. Alienating people and making them feel unwelcome is not the solution. We ask for your kind consideration of a different approach, and we are confident that you will exercise your wisdom in order to pursue the way of freedom and harmony.

Sincerely,

Your name and address