protection against possible discrimination in the
workplace on the basis of wearing the ™ijàb.
Individual states have been forced to comply with
recent developments in European law such as the
Equal Treatment at Work Directive (2000/78/EC),
itself promulgated under Article 13 of the Euro-
pean Community Treaty, which outlaws discrimi-
nation in the workplace on a number of grounds,
including religion. Muslim women who wear ™ijàb
are among the main beneficiaries of state imple-
mentations of this significant directive.
The second approach is one whereby Muslims
have developed means by which official laws can be
legitimately avoided. Muslims are following those
aspects of state law they consider appropriate or
not in direct conflict with Islamic precepts.
Bracketing together Islamic obligations with provi-
sions in state law, a synthesized form of Sharì≠a is
developed that avoids breaching official law. This
hybrid form of law remains unrecognized by offi-
cial law but is a potent and dominant force for
many Muslim communities in European states. The
area of marriage laws may be seen as an example
of this approach whereby the nikà™ ceremony,
although not formally recognized by state law,
functions as an integral part of the marriage cere-
mony and is incorporated within civil procedures.
This has elements of both the pluralist and assimi-
lationist models. There is no official recognition of
Muslim difference and so assimilation takes place
in the need to comply with the civil marriage pro-
cedure. However, the nikà™is tolerated at the mar-
gins of state law, giving rise to a nebulous form of
legal pluralism.
The third model is found in the conflict between
state laws and Sharì≠a injunctions. Here, liberal sec-
ular ideals come into play. There is a clear rejection
of Muslim religious difference by the state on the
basis that Muslim demands do not comply with so-
called secular ideals such as gender equality. The
assimilationist rationale underpins state rejections
of such Muslim claims as men’s unilateral right to
divorce and polygyny, mothers’ lesser rights of
child custody, women’s reduced rights of inheri-
tance, the diminished weight accorded a woman’s
evidence against a man and, most recently, state
restrictions on the wearing of the ™ijàb. It is impor-
tant to note here the burgeoning feminist literature
exploring women’s legal rights in Islam and the
new exegetical work on scripture that is challeng-
ing the restricted notion of such gendered rights.
Muslims concerned with state rejection of Islamic
family and personal laws also have the choice of
bringing legal claims outside the official legal sys-
western europe 385tem and in Muslim organizations that apply Islamic
law. The European-wide Fatwa Council and the
British Shariah Council are examples of commu-
nity institutions that will adjudicate and mediate
within an Islamic legal framework.
Both the second and third models are leading to
the development of legal measures for Muslim
women that are less discriminatory than conserva-
tive interpretations of such rights under Sharì≠a. To
take the model of hybridity, the fact that Muslim
men have to comply with state procedures to regis-
ter a marriage has resulted in the granting of impor-
tant rights to Muslim wives and the prohibition of
unfair practices, under the aegis of secular state
laws. Thus women do not have to challenge their
husbands’ “right” to take on additional wives – it is
simply banned by state law. Because the state regis-
ters marriages, women have greater custody rights
of children upon divorce. The model of assimila-
tion has also provided for greater rights for women
in areas of inheritance, the rules of evidence, men’s
unilateral right to divorce and, of course, polygyny.
The European picture is not one of homogeneity,
however. Individual state systems vary in their ap-
proach, as do Islamic schools of jurisprudence and
Islamic interpretations of women’s rights in such
discourses.
Legal protection of the right to wear the ™ijàbis
a particularly pertinent issue in the light of Euro-
pean law. The wearing of the ™ijàbin schools is a
good example of the inconsistency of rights in Euro-
pean states. The stances taken by Britain (tolerance)
and France (proscription) illustrate the diversity of
state laws in this area. The issue is further compli-
cated by the fact that the European Convention on
Human Rights 1950 gives European citizens the
right to practice their religion (Article 9) and also
the right not to be discriminated against on the
ground, inter alia, of religion (Article 14). Thus,
French Muslim women may challenge the ban as a
human rights legal issue as they are being forced to
choose between religiously mandated attire and
access to public education. Additionally, a claim
could be made under the French constitutional
right to freedom of conscience, education, and
expressions of religious belief. This example illus-
trates the situation in other European states where
laws may be contradictory and inconsistent.
Powerful cultural norms and the stigma attached
to such issues as divorce have resulted in women
failing to access their legal rights – either in state or
community courts. Many are unaware of their
rights, under either Sharì≠a or state legal systems.
State courts can also view Muslim women in a