Top Menu

French Minister Compares Muslim Women Who Wear Hijab To “Slaves”

Laurence Rossignol

Oh, I wonder why Muslims feel alienated in France? France, continues to astound with outdoing its own racism and hate, especially of its Arab and Muslim populations.

By the way this is their minister for women’s rights.:

via. AlJazeera English

France’s minister for women’s rights has compared Muslim women who wear the veil to American “Negroes” who accepted slavery, in an interview with French media.

Laurence Rossignol made the comments to RMC radio and BFM TV, igniting accusations of racism on Wednesday across social media as a petition was launchedcalling on the minister to resign.

In just a few hours, the petition gathered more than 10,000 signatures.

Rossignol was a guest on a programme to discuss the Islamic fashion industry. She later said the use of the word Negro had been made in error, but stopped short of retracting the remark.

Many on social media pointed out that Rossignol previously founded an anti-racist coalition, SOS Racisme.

France has the largest Muslim minority in Europe and some of the continent’s most restrictive laws about expressions of faith in public. The veil was banned in 2011.

Elsewhere in the interview, the minister reportedly criticised those who made fashion items such as the so-called burqini, a modest swimsuit covering the head, arms and legs, as “irresponsible”.

Today, according to the  2015-2016 State of the Global Islamic Economy Report,Muslim consumers spend an estimated $230bn on clothing, a number that is projected to grow to  $327bn by 2019 – larger than the current combined clothing markets of the UK ($107bn), Germany ($99bn), and India ($96bn).

Earlier this year, the Italian fashion house Dolce & Gabbana unveiled a new abaya and hijab collection aimed at Muslim women.

Continue reading

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Reynardine

    I remember that. I also remember the Parisian troglodytes blatting their horns rhythmically as they chanted, “Algerie française!”

  • Reynardine

    Of course: these were their former colonial subjects, whom it was convenient to view as only semi-human.

  • Reynardine

    There have been tropical cultures where nudity is the norm, and people found it boring. To attract sexual attention, they put on clothes. These were, to be sure, cultures from balmy islands without prickly pears in the dunes or airplane-size mosquitos.

  • Reynardine

    Though one were to give all one had for love, it would be utterly contemned…

    (I forget what Biblical passage)

  • Reynardine

    I am a person.

    In Florida, I wear shorts. In Chicago, I wear a headscarf. These have to do with climate. When I was young and slightly built, I never had my tits stuffed. I have earned three degrees, and, although not indifferent to the opposite sex, regard them as fellow human beings. I appreciate it when they do as much. Does that answer anything?

  • Reynardine

    *That* is a nightingale?

  • cmyfe .

    Is there something in between the two? Why not that?

  • George Carty

    I think feminists mostly believe “women shouldn’t be sex objects, but better a sex object than a baby factory”.

  • Awesome

    Yeah it’s religious all right, your religious police like to go around
    and harass women who don’t comply.

    I do not have any religious police. I have no use for them and I do not make enough money to afford their payroll anyway, even if I did.

    There may be a few governments in certain countries that operate that way, and you can probably count them all on 1 hand, 2 at the most. That is only significant enough to be mentioned as a footnote. Especially since there is no mandate for “religious police” in Islam.

    The nudist argument is No argument.

    Just because you cannot respond to the argument, does not mean that it is not an argument. In reality, it undermines yours.

    The subject: dress-code

    Your argument is that dress codes should not be enforced on women (you don’t care about men), and that any article of clothing that women are forced to wear by law, you would burn in protest.

    However, public decency laws are dress codes, which are virtually universal and require everyone in public to be covered to some extent, including women.

    Therefore, based on your anti-“enforced-dress-code-for-women” principle, the logical conclusion is that you are opposed to public decency laws.

    If you are opposed to public decency laws and you would burn any article of clothing that a woman is punished for not wearing in protest, then the obvious conclusion from that, is that if a nudist woman were punished for not wearing anything in public, you would, in protest, burn every article of clothing on account of her being punished for not wearing any of it.

    That is of course, if you are consistent with your own alleged principles.

    If you do not believe in public decency laws, then good for you. At least you are consistent.

    However, if you believe in public decency laws, then clearly you do not truly believe in your own principles, and are only using them out of convenience to justify your argument against Islam and Muslims. In which case, you would in principle, be in agreement with those laws that require women to cover almost everything, even if you don’t agree with those laws themselves. The only difference is scale, and you would just be favoring one dress code over the other.

    don’t care what men do frankly I know your religion has rules for them

    Yet it only concerns you that the religion has rules for women. So is it inconsequential for men to have rules but not so for women? Or do you, personally, only care about things that apply to the female variety?

    Your religion or should I say social system has rules and
    regulations for everything! Don’t you know how to make decisions for
    yourselves? Do you have to have a rule for just about everything? It’s
    very childish and this is another major fundamental error in islam.

    Virtually everything already has its own principles and etiquette in virtually every culture. That Islam, as a way of life, comes with its own (sometimes consistent, sometimes not consistent with that of other cultures and religions), is to be expected. Any way of life should have principles and etiquette for most, if not all, relevant aspects of human function. Therefore, rather than being a “major fundamental error”, it is in fact essential for a way of life to be complete.

    Also, abiding by an etiquette and following certain principles in life does not restrict the ability of a person to make decisions on their own. At most, it only provides guidance in doing so. There is nothing wrong with guidance, as it only provides benefit, as in some cases, some ways of doing things are absolutely better than others. What is truly “childish” is the absence of rules, not the existence of them.

    Trying to get to heaven by doing this and eating that or wearing this or
    wearing that or not having a dog or coming into compliance must be
    exhausting and it seems very ridiculous God is not concerned with how
    you dress. God looks at the heart, the compassion, the love. You can
    dress up or don all you want but God sees through all that nonsense.

    God also looks at obedience. A person who willfully disobeys God is not graded the same as a person who willfully obeys God even if they both have “love” and “compassion” in their hearts. But then what is there in a person’s heart that compels them to willfully disobey God besides arrogance, selfishness and egotism?

    And again, it is expected that a way of life would contain guidance in all aspects of life.

    guess your social sharia has the answers for all the ills of society

    The shariah of Islam may provide the answers for some ills in society, while it provides guidance and principles for finding the answers to other ills in society.

    Why are you living where you are?


    What brought you there?

    A car.

    come it was no good in a muslim country for you or your ancestors?

    Because whether the country is a Muslim country or a non-Muslim country is irrelevant.

    you convert because you were looking for a path to God? That’s some
    path buddy.

    And it is truly a blessed path by which to attain God’s grace and enter a state of eternal bliss in God’s Paradise.

    This would not even BE an issue if women were not being
    punished for lack of compliance of wearing a shroud and all the other
    human rights violations that islamic culture perpetrates against women
    because men’s control of them.

    Enforced dress code is a human rights violation? Interesting. Public decency laws are virtual dress codes, so enforcing them must also be “human rights violations”. But no one cares about those because they are used to them. It has nothing to do with human rights or men’s control. It’s just ethnocentrism and nothing more.

    No one gives a crap what you people do.

    Clearly they do “give a crap” if they can’t even contain themselves at the sight of a Muslim woman simply wearing a headscarf.

    When you start strapping bombs on yourselves and blowing up people in
    the name of Allah and beating women (which by the way is sanctioned in
    the quran, thats the first issue) Then we have a problem my friend.

    I’m sure the prospect of being bombed is a problem for virtually everyone, regardless if there is a person attached to it or if it is alleged to have been done in God’s name. Also, beating women is not in the Qur’an, and spousal abuse is a problem for both men and women, regardless of religion.

    Only addressing the parts of the problem that you care about, is as bad, if not worse, than not addressing the problem at all.

    it’s a human rights issue and not a religious issue.

    A dress code is not a human rights issue. How non-compliance of a dress code is penalized might be a human rights issue.

    Take your snow job
    somewhere else pal, it’s doesn’t work on me.

    Clearly something else has already been worked on you if you think my response is a “snow job” because of your inability to provide a coherent counter-response to it.

  • Sam Seed

    I wasn’t talking about places, there are some places where they don’t enforce a dress code. Why must you also bring up ISIS? ISIS is not Islam…just as KKK is not Christianity, of course your little brain may not be able to correctly correlate the two but give it a shot, maybe, just maybe you will figure it out.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    “Hey the Jews used to be big in the head covering and the whole modesty
    robe wearing deal too. The difference is they don’t punish women anymore if they don’t choose to comply with a dress code.”

    Just some more evidence that people who generalize about one group tend to do so about many groups.

    There are Jewish sects that are still “big in the head covering” for both men and women (though the degree of head coverage is different). And there are some that will shun women (and men) who don’t comply with the group’s dress code.

    If you are going to compare Muslims and Jews, it would be nice if you got the facts right on at least one of the two groups rather than make incorrect generalizations about both. If you want to educate yourself, here is a starting point: .

  • Awesome

    Once again it’s all about men’s pride and control.

    In the imaginations of vindictive women who have neither, but desire both?

    If their woman is
    beautiful then they don’t want other men to look at her. They will get
    jealous so she has to be covered because they are insecure. If their
    woman is ugly than she has to cover to save him embarrassment.

    Yet women who are single choose to dress that way anyway, even in countries where it is entirely optional, sometimes discouraged and even prohibited. In which case, “men’s pride and control” cannot be a motive for dressing that way.

    In reality, the real motives for why Muslim women dress that way are religious principles and guidelines for how believing men and women should ideally dress and interact with each other in public.

    Hey the
    Jews used to be big in the head covering and the whole modesty robe
    wearing deal too. The difference is they don’t punish women anymore if
    they don’t choose to comply with a dress code.

    That is not really a difference, since wearing it is entirely optional in the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries, with some of them even restricting it. Yet virtually every country in the world today, through public decency laws, punishes both men and women for not complying with its dress code.

    The hypocrisy is so obvious, and it inevitably points to the sad truth: No one really cares how much a woman chooses to cover. They only care about the fact that she is a Muslim while covering herself.

    If a woman was punished
    because she did not wear a certain article of clothing I would have to
    burn that mo-fo article of clothing just to protest! Just my
    principals. There is no compulsion.

    So if a woman were punished for going out in public without any clothing on because she’s a nudist, would you burn all women’s clothing in protest? You know, “no compulsion” and all.

    Does the same apply to men as well? Or do you only care what happens to women?

  • Jekyll

    Well now you know.

  • Jekyll

    Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

    Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

    Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,

    Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?

    And who has the right, as master of the house,

    To have the final word at home?

  • 1DrM

    This folks is what we call overcompensation. So you have no education. You’re from Jerseym what a surprise. Going off on useless tangents about dogs, how petty. Your husband ought to treat the corrosion in your head. He’s probably some two bit con artist trying to sell snake oil in the Middle East. Either way this a forum for educated and intelligent commentators not bigoted inbred. Stick to Boardwalk cheese steak and vinegar fries and leave the discussion to the adults.
    As for terrorism, the vast majority of terrorists are white males from North America and Western Europe. Look it up at some library in Jersey when the Haldol has kicked in.

  • 1DrM

    You have zero references as you’re babbling out of ignorant ass. Common sense? More like nonsense from an idiot who couldn’t make it out of kindergarten. Get back on your medication, satanic hypocrite.

  • Awesome

    Write about how reza Aslan got his ass handed to him because he rejected hadiths.

    That is news to me. I didn’t even know that happened.

  • Sam Seed

    Wrong. In Islam woman are free to choose whether to cover up or not. Allah tells men to lower their gaze.

  • Awesome

    I am called to love my enemies, That is a tall order isn’t it? And I don’t subscribe to a doctrine that gives me permission to kill my enemies, even if they kill me or my loved ones, Which by the way has happened. I am called to forgive them if I want to receive forgiveness for my sins.

    There is no doctrine that permits vigilantism to begin with, so choosing not to subscribe to one is redundant. Vigilantism is also illegal virtually everywhere so there are no legal means to so either. It may always be good to love and forgive. However, someone who infringes on the rights of others still, at the very least, needs to be stopped, even if you choose to love them and forgive them for what they do.

  • AJ

    I am a woman so we would be sisters however I don’t think that hate in your heart for Muslims is going anytime soon.

  • BH

    I am a hypocrite and a sinner you are right. I admit it. I have a loving higher power that knows my heart, the good and the not so good. We are all sinners and hypocrites at one time or another. Also I’d like to say that when a person describes themselves as a muslim, a jew, a christian or this or a that, than that is the beginning of all violence. That is the beginning of separation, of building walls that divide us into believers and non believers, this puts one above the other and categorizes us. This is prejudice. If you look at the Lords prayer Jesus said we pray starting with “Our Father” not your father not my father not the christian father and the jewish or muslim father. And…… if He is “Our Father” he is everyone’s father which makes you my brother and me your sister, like it or not. I am called to love my enemies, That is a tall order isn’t it? And I don’t subscribe to a doctrine that gives me permission to kill my enemies, even if they kill me or my loved ones, Which by the way has happened. I am called to forgive them if I want to receive forgiveness for my sins. When someone say’s that their way is the right way than that’s cool. It is right for them but it may not be right for me. And I am free to choose or not to choose what to wear and how to live. Religions are mostly “group think” with loads of peer pressure of what is good what is not good. What is the word? Harem? There is sin in the world and we must examine were we fall short and hurt others. We can no longer blame one another. Simply put I am of the mind that I am tolerant of all and love all. If a person is dangerous to me or society than they need to be confined away from others where they cannot do damage. Have a good day and I apologize to you and all who’m I may have offended with my harsh words. Peace be with you brother…..and sisters

  • BH

    Ouch!!! I apologize for any misunderstanding or harsh words. Have a good day and peace be with you.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    I wasn’t trying to be funny. You can’t even see what I was trying to do, can you?

  • Awesome

    ” ‘Aisha is said to have been betrothed at a young age (between 6 and 7) and that marriage contract is said to have been consummated after she had reached puberty, which was 2-3 years later (at the age of 9).”

    Said to be? Is that your opinion? Hearsay? Please reference the above or prove it in a rational/logical manner. If what you have stated above is true then you are simply parroting anti Islam and anti Muhammad propaganda the Hindoos, Christianista Crusaders and the Islam haters are propagating world wide.

    The reference is from hadith collections:

    Sahih Bukhari, Book 62, No. 64
    Sahih Bukhari, Book 62, No. 65
    Sahih Bukhari, Book 62, No. 88
    Sahih Bukhari, Book 58, No. 234
    Sahih Bukhari, Book 58, No. 236
    Sahih Muslim, Book 8, No. 3309
    Sahih Muslim, Book 8, No. 3310
    Sahih Muslim, Book 8, No. 3311
    Sunan an-Nasa’i, Book 26, No. 3257
    Sunan an-Nasa’i, Book 26, No. 3258
    Sunan an-Nasa’i, Book 26, No. 3259
    Sunan an-Nasa’i, Book 26, No. 3260
    Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, No. 2116
    Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 9, No. 1876
    Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 9, No. 1877

    Because these are all ahadith references, the guarantee of accuracy is not 100%, which is why I said that it was “said to have been” and not “was”. Indeed, there are those who dispute the accuracy of the ages mentioned in these ahadith for ‘Aisha, due to seemingly conflicting accounts in regards to it. Perhaps you would have preferred it if I used the word “alleged” instead?

    Consider very carefully what you have just stated. If you indeed believe what you have stated above is true then you have concluded the following:

    #1. The Prophet rubbished Allah’s Commands in the Qur’an. That he went against his own teachings and message he was ordained, mandated to give to humanity. That he was warned by Allah that if he strayed from that message one bit, adding/subtracting his words to it, then his jugular will be cut by Allah!

    That angels have been assigned to him, to all prophets/messengers of Allah, to ensure that he does not stray. That he is protected and truthful by nature, from childhood? Have you read that in the Quran or do you think I am making it all up, doing Shirk/blasphemy? Are you?

    I have only stated what is in these ahadith that mention it, and it has nothing to do with Prophet Muhammad’s teachings or the message that he was mandated to give to humanity.

    Or are you saying that there is something in the Qur’an that says how old a person has to be before they can consummate a marriage with someone?

    #2. That a 50 years old man considering marriage with a 6 years old little girl and consummating it when she was a 9 year old minor is anything but a mentally deranged sex pervert.

    That of course assumes that the motive for the marriage was sexual desire in the first place, which is a false assumption. The vast majority of Prophet Muhammad’s marriages were for social and political reasons (as a lot of marriages tended to be in Arabian culture at the time) as well as for religious reasons, and his marriage with ‘Aisha was no different.

    Also, the modern legal standards for someone being a “minor” do not apply retroactively.

    Do you know that it is a medical fact and ingrained evolutionary instinct that any man who even thinks of a child as potential object of sex is not normal.

    Again, this all depends on the definition of a “child”. Not every society considers an adolescent to be a “child”, especially when they have all of the necessary physical features of an adult. There is no fixed age for adulthood in nature, only in a legal system.

    Note how this perversion of nature by the Hindoos have decimated the female population of India to a catastrophic unsustainable ratio!

    From what I have read, it is the foeticide and infanticide in India that has “decimated the female population” because of how their culture works. It has nothing to do with when they marry, or when they consummate their marriages.

    #3. Thus if [#1 + #2] above are taken together…means that the Qur’an is a lie and Islam’s Prophet a pathological hypocritical pervert. That is what you are saying. Can you refute that logic? Are you applying the Jewish Scripture to Islam? The blasphemous hadith to override Qur’anic injunctions?

    #1 and #2 have nothing to do with the Qur’an, or what kind of person Prophet Muhammad was. All marriages are based on the customs and cultures in which they occur, and Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to ‘Aisha is no different. There are no Qur’anic injunctions about how old a person has to be to get married, because that is entirely culture-based. It also seems too presumptuous to dismiss a hadith as “blasphemous” when it doesn’t contradict the Qur’an.

    “However, regardless of what her actual age was, by all accounts, the marriage was almost certainly not consummated before she reached puberty”

    #1. Do you think that a girl reaching puberty, at whatever age, is ready/capable of sex with a strong, virile masculine man? Is that what the Qur’an is saying?

    The Qur’an doesn’t really address the issue, so I am not sure why it is even being mentioned here.

    Puberty, by definition, is “the period or age at which a person is first capable of sexual reproduction of offspring”, and with sex, a person is either capable of it or not. It is irrelevant how “strong”, “virile” and “masculine” a man is.

    #2. Do you think that a strong, masculine, virile, grown man, a charismatic wise leader of men, would even think of a six or nine year old child as a sex object? Suitable for married love? Is that in the Qur’an? In any medical, physiology or psychiatric text book [Internal Medicine, DSM-5]?

    A person’s suitability for married love is entirely predicated on their physical, mental and emotional development – the latter 2 being largely a matter of upbringing. Age is only a legal factor and only in modern society. I do not think that a “strong, masculine, virile, grown man, a charismatic wise leader of men” would see anyone as a mere “sex object” to begin with, much less a child. I also don’t think that sex objectivity is the reason people get married in the first place.

    I’m also fairly certain that for such a wise leader, how later generations of people over 1,000 years in the future would feel about the age of one his beloved wives at time of his marriage with her (and the consummation thereof) would probably be at the very bottom of his list of concerns with regards to it.

    #4. Would you, if you are married and have a six or nine years old daughter of your own give her in marriage to a 50years old man? To a nineteen year old man? Seventeen?

    I would not, but then I am not cultured in 7th century Arabia either, and I am not from a culture where it is acceptable, so what I would do is besides the point. I also would not use horses or camels for transportation either for the same general reason. Abu Bakr and his wife; Umm Ruman, however, did give their daughter, ‘Aisha (who is alleged to have been 6-9 years old at the time) in marriage to Prophet Muhammad (who is said to have been 50 years old at the time). Before that, they had planned to give ‘Aisha in marriage to another man whose father is said to have broken off that engagement. Why would they want to marry their daughter off at such a young age in the first place? Perhaps because it was common in that culture during that time to do so?

    BTW are you a Muslim? Hindoo? Have you read the Qur’an? Do you think the Noble Qur’an is frivolous? Do you know what it is saying on the subject? Do you think that man made concocted hadith takes precedence over the Words of God: The Glorious Qur’an?

    It should be obvious to you that I am a Muslim. I have read the Qur’an and as far as I can recall, this subject was not addressed. Ahadith do not take precedence over the words of the Qur’an. They only provide narrative accounts of varying authenticity of what was allegedly said and done during that time period.

    The Qur’an doesn’t address the age of marriage, so this not a question of one taking precedence over the other. There seems to be only 2 primary reasons that this particular account of ‘Aisha’s age at the time of marriage (and the consummation thereof) is accepted:

    1 – Its authenticity and veracity in its documentation and transmission


    2 – Its historical precedence, frequency and acceptability for its occurrence, both for that time period and that culture.

    Given these reasons, the only legitimate objections against this account, only stem from the seeming inconsistency of ‘Aisha’s in comparison to other accounts with regards to it.

  • Tanveer Wan Khanobi


Powered by Loon Watchers