The case of Faiza Silmi, who was denied French citizenship on grounds of her ‘radical’ practice of Islam, was covered extensively in media and gained widespread publicity. Her choice to wear a niqab, a veil covering face and the head, caused her application for French citizenship to be rejected. In Economist’s words, “This is the first time the court has refused nationality on the grounds of religious expression.” It was further claimed by French authorities that Ms. Faiza lived “in total submission to the men in her family.”
At the same time, International Herald Tribune (IHT) also published a deeper analysis in which Ms. Silmi clarified, “I want to tell them: It is my choice. I take care of my children and I leave the house when I please. I have my own car. I do the shopping on my own. Yes, I am a practicing Muslim, I am orthodox. But is that not my right?” More importantly, the question of what constitutes private religious practice and public life is further confused by the ruling. Not only that, IHT also mentions she being served tea by her husband during their interview and she picks her up veil when driving to pick up children from school.
While all of this was going on with France taking a strong stance on socio-religious issues, the French government issued instructions to enable Islamic finance and make appropriate changes to the structure. Islamic finance prohibits gains in form of interest money and dividends from stocks of companies that indulge in interest based business, pork and alcohol related products. By enabling Islamic finance, the government essentially supporting Muslim beliefs, which of course are religious in nature and would therefore stand contradictory to secularism. In addition, these prohibitions are not only applicable at an individual level but in fact cover the society.
It is hard to see that France finds a woman's wearing a face veil opposed to secularim whereas it does not find Islamic finance so. Although religious is nature, wearing a face veil nonetheless is still a personal choice. It is not even close to having the kind of effect that Islamic finance will have on French society. Purely from a philosophical standpoint, if Islamic finance is not banned (rather supported), then it is only logical that the citizenship of a woman not be denied at least on the grounds that face veil clashes with France's 'secular' values.
It is also interesting to note that while face veil has been labelled 'radical' by government spokespersons. On the other hand, Islamic finace was not even discussed and instructions already issued to enable it. On the economic side, this seems to be primarily because the French government finds economics of Islamic finance very lucrative. In a paper by Standard and Poor addressing France's gap with Britain on Islamic finance, the financial benefit to France in light of current global recession is too strong for it to miss on this opportunity.