Spotlight: Anti-Niqab Agenda

[Muhammad]

The following articles are taken from Islam21c's page: Islam21c's counter narrative of the Anti-Niqab Agenda

---

Why the Niqab is Religious not Cultural and why the right to wear it should be supported by those who care about Liberty

Sheikh Shams Adduha Muhammad

Once again, Muslims of Britain are under the microscope. This time it is the niqab, the face covering worn by many Muslim women. Calls to ban it, have a national debate about it etc are being made by non-Muslims and so called ‘progressive Muslims’ like Yasmin Alibhai Brown ^[1]. Neither of these two groups of people have any idea why a Muslim woman wears a niqab and proceed with their tirade based on their own assumptions; preaching to Muslims about their own faith. What positive outcome they think they will get out of this; quite how this will promote community cohesion and understanding is beyond anyone. What irony! They offend Muslims, propose to limit their freedom, and yet still talk about social cohesion and freedom in the same breath. In a country where women have won the right to bar ealmost everything, we have a proposal to ban people from covering almost everything. People’s freedoms are being limited in the name of emancipating them. The newspaper that has Page 3, is campaigning for the niqab ban on page one. Male MPs want to tell women what they can’t wear; ‘progressive Muslims’ i.e. non-practising Muslims are the new Muslim theologians; and practising Muslims are the extremists.


It’s a tired and familiar old story. With hugely important events occurring around the world to report on, the media jumps on every little scrap that either makes Islam and Muslims look bad or puts pressure on them by making their way of life look more and more incompatible. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy; make your own demons and then fight to banish them. Muslims will respond by fighting the oppression and repelling the false liberators. As things stand, the Muslims are fighting for the heart of Britain, for freedom and human rights. Should they along with the sane voices in British society fail and the extreme voices in British society prevail, it will simply add to the ever increasing proof of the British establishment’s hypocrisy as, on the one hand, it seems to be taking lessons in suppression from its despotic and autocratic allies in whose lands Muslims indeed struggle for basic freedoms; and yet on the other hand it marauds around the world, hand in hand with the US in the name of freedom and democracy. Now it is simply bringing all that ugly mess home. Muslims of Britain simply need to stick to their value-rich faith. Good people will respect us for our principles, and the haters and hypocrites will continue to expose themselves plain for all to see.


Yet while we will continue to fight for a woman’s right to wear the niqab, there is growing confusion about whether Muslim women are fighting for a cultural practice or a religious one. Although this distinction should make little difference in a democratic country, it is a pertinent question for us as Muslims to understand. Every time this issue makes the headlines, some Muslims who are vocal in the media make a point of stating that it is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam.
It is time to clear this up, and it is very simple.


In Surah al-Noor ^[2], Allah (SWT) commands believing men and women to lower their gazes and guard their chastity. Then He tells women to not expose their beauty except that which is normally apparent. There are two interpretations for the ‘normally apparent’. Ibn ‘Abbas (RA) says it means the face and hands. However, Ibn Mas’ud (RA) interprets it as whatever is apparent after the face is covered. ^[3]


In Surah al-Ahzab ^[4], the Prophet (SAW) is commanded to tell his wives, daughters and the women of the believers to ‘bring their outer garments close to them’ so that they can be recognised as noble women and not be harmed. In response to the verse, the women of Madina were reported to have come out with their faces covered in different ways. ^[5]


In light of the above, Muslims scholars have differed on whether or not covering the face is obligatory for women. This is true also of the four famous and currently practised schools of thought. The Hanafi and Maliki schools do not consider covering the face to be obligatory. The Shaf’i and Hanbali schools declare it obligatory. Later Hanafi jurists preferred the obligatory ruling due to an increase in immorality resulting in the need for women to be more prudent and protective over themselves. ^[6]


The above difference of opinion based on varying interpretations is not unique to this issue, thousands of issues are differed upon in exactly the same way. Muslims accept both positions as acceptable interpretations. Preference is either based on an academic leaning or based on precaution and prudence. The fact that there is disagreement does not take any matter outside of the pale of the Islamic tradition. In the case of men, the same is true of the beard, the cap, wearing trousers above the ankles. All of these are issues that have differing views, yet all of these issues are part and parcel of Islam and all are issues wherein the current practice of Muslims is diverse. To suggest that any such issue is cultural and not religious demonstrates an overwhelming ignorance of Islamic teachings. In some instances it also indicates crass-pragmatism and an inferiority complex owing to an inability to cope with issues presented by modernity. There will be those ‘progressive Muslims’ who give little importance to the hadith literature and claim to only be following the Qur’an, interpreting it in whichever fanciful way suits their preference. The contradiction they have to overcome is that the Qur’an itself was preserved by the memories of the Prophet’s companions and their oral tradition. Thus if one accepts the Qur’an as being preserved through the memories of these most trustworthy of human beings then how can one choose to ignore the weight of their testimony in other matters relating to the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).


On any Islamic issue where there is a difference of opinion, the individual chooses what to do. There is no force or coercion. In the matter of the niqab, many women find it more conducive to Islamic teachings around modesty, chastity, and neutralisation of sexual attraction, and so wear the niqab as a mark of their commitment to these ideals and their piety. It doesn’t even have to mean they consider it obligatory; nor does it mean that those who do not wear the niqab are less chaste or modest. It is about one’s personal feelings about themselves and how they manage their own spirituality. Many of my students know that I do not consider it obligatory. I see them join my classes without the niqab, soon after, they start wearing the niqab. I don’t even know why they did it. Ultimately, it’s their choice and none of my business. But it is a religious choice and not a cultural one, which means a woman makes the choice to adopt an Islamic teaching in the hope of being rewarded by Allah (SWT). This is the essence of any religious practice.


The idea that women are being forced to wear the niqab is laughable. I’m sure some wear it because their husbands or fathers want them to. But choosing to respect their wishes does not mean they are forced. Maybe the would-be heroes who seek to emancipate niqab-wearing Muslim women should actually talk to niqabi women to find out how they feel rather than excluding them. An act that is so undemocratic, one wonders what kind of government these MPs think they represent?


In my fifteen years as an active imam and teacher with thousands of students, I have rarely come across a woman who complained that she was being forced to wear the niqab. Given that I do not hold it to be obligatory; I would be an obvious imam to consult for such women. Ironically, the complete opposite is true: women regularly complain that they choose to wear the niqab but their husbands or fathers pressurise them to take it off. They ask whether they have the freedom in Islam to hold their ground. If the niqab gets banned, these MPs would have succeeded in taking away their freedoms and would have played in to the hands of patriarchy, something that would never have occurred to them.


At the root of it is ignorance and arrogance. Ignorance of what the niqab really is about, and arrogance that leads to imposing one’s own views, preferences and anxieties upon the freedoms of others. Whatever happens, Muslims will adapt and we’ll move on. We’ve seen and been through worse. Britain as a whole needs to think carefully about what it stands to lose if it goes down this path. As far as I am concerned, democracy, human rights and liberal values are now being interpreted in a very dubious way. Muslims just have to stick to their principles. We were around before modernity and many other aspects of new-age conventional thinking, we will not be dictated to by it, we have not given in to it like Christianity and other faiths, and indeed we have no need to do so. Furthermore we will be around the day they have moved-on and become unrecognisable to westerners whose ancestors fought for them. It seems they are already moving on, albeit a move backwards.

---

Notes:
Source; www.islam21c.com

Islam21c requests all the readers of this article, and others, to share it on your facebook, twitter, and other platforms to further spread our efforts.

(1) http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...m-8817963.html
(2) Surah al-Noor (24:31)
(3) Tafsir Tabari
(4) Surah al-Ahzaab (33:59)
(5) Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 4481
(6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhdb0-w8Rg4

[Muhammad]

Niqab debate: ‘Sometimes you have to force people to be equal’


Birmingham Metropolitan College’s decision last week to reverse its ban on the veil was met with outcry and condemnation in many of this weekend’s newspapers with some politicians and columnists taking umbrage at the policy reversal.

The Daily Mail, Independent, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun and Guardian all featured opinion pieces questioning the logic behind the decision with some writers expressing outright Islamophobic and racist views.

Newspaper commentary is supplemented with political interventions with Home Office Minister, Jeremy Browne, calling for a ban on the wearing of the veil in public places and Conservative MP for Totnes, Dr Sarah Wollaston, urging national guidance on the wearing of face veils in Britain.

Commentary on the niqab, fusing the events at Birmingham Metropolitan College and Blackfriars Crown Court last week, comes thick and fast in the papers with pieces by Theodore Dalrymple, (whose real name is Anthony Daniels), in the Daily Telegraph, Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Independent, Sarah Wollaston pens a guest column for the Daily Telegraph, Victoria Coren-Mitchell in The Observer and Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail.

Dalrymple pens a piece peppered with incendiary phrases, referring to the student protests that prompted the college to back down “religious thuggery” while questioning whether events herald “…the triumph of a regressive view of human existence whose adherents use the rights and protections of a liberal society to destroy those very rights and protections, with the ultimate aim of imposing an intolerant vision on the world?”

An “intolerant vision of the world”, which Dalrymple elsewhere in his column refers to as “aspiring totalitarianism”.

Indeed, for Dalrymple “niqab is symbolic of a strong desire not to integrate in Western society” and manipulate by Muslim women who seek to fuse “medievalism with modernity”.

Unwilling to accept that Muslim women would choose to veil their faces, Dalrymple insists that many “wear it often because they have little choice and are coerced”.

On the question of choice or coercion, Sarah Wollaston wades in complaining of what we are to do with those “…once the niqab becomes an accepted norm, are pressured into compliance as a badge of piety or purity? It would be naive to think that a thirteen year old would have complete freedom to reject family or peer group pressure.”

For Wollaston, the niqab places on the majority the responsibility to insist on “our cultural belief that women should fully and equally participate in society…Women should be clear that the burka is a symbol not of liberation but of repression and segregation.”

One can only wonder at how many Muslim women who wear niqab and burqa Wollaston has spoken to in reaching her conviction that it is “a symbol not of liberation but of repression and segregation”?

These sentiments are echoed by Melanie Phillips in her last article for the Daily Mail, in which she argues “…the over-riding rule of a liberal society is that minority customs should be tolerated — but only if they do not interfere with the values of the majority.”

But as Jogchum Vrielink in an article for Open Democracy wrote, in a review of the burqa ban in Belgium, “Fundamental rights ultimately exist to protect minorities, unpopular minorities in particular, against the tyranny of the majority. A boundary is crossed when rights of individuals are simply sacrificed to majority sentiments.”

It is a point worth reinforcing to those who use arguments on the values of ‘liberal’ democracies to undermine the rights of women to exercise liberty in practising religion in the way they choose.

Such is the tack taken by Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who in a column in The Independent argues the ‘choice’ exercised by women is the result of an ideology “well funded by sources based in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states” in which “manmade injunctions [are] followed by unquestioning women”.

But as numerous interviews with women who wear face veils show, they are certainly not to be regarded as ‘unquestioning’ in the choice they have made.

Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun treads a similar path, decrying the College’s move of caving in to “intolerant fanatics” and being “dragged back to the dark ages of superstition and repression.”

In a confused piece which draws together such disparate issues as ‘honour’ killings, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, Kavanagh claims the niqab and burqa “are first and last an overt testimony to male oppression. The imply women are property. Objects with no public identity outside the household, controlled at all points in their daily lives by fathers, husbands, or brothers.”

In an amusing irony, Kavanagh’s column appears alongside The Sun’s editorial column in which the paper celebrates the fact that half of Liberal Democrat councillors “DON’T want to ban page 3”.

Kavanagh laments feminists’ silence on the college decision, but it would seem his interest in feminist opinion extends only to opinions on the niqab.

Nick Clegg, adding to comments made last week on the College’s ban making him “uneasy”, adds:

"My own view, very strongly held, is that we shouldn't end up like other countries issuing edicts or laws from parliament telling people what they should or should not wear.

"This is a free country and people going about their own business should be free to wear what they wish. I think it is very un-British to start telling people what pieces of clothing they should wear.

"I think there are exceptions to that as far as the full veil is concerned - security at airports for instance. It is perfectly reasonable for us to say the full veil is clearly not appropriate there.

"And I think in the classroom, there is an issue of course about teachers being able to address their students in a way where they can address them face to face. I think it is quite difficult in the classroom to be able to do that."

Other prominent opponents of the ban include Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister, Jeremy Browne, who thinks an outright ban on the veil in public needs to be debated. The minister tells the Daily Telegraph:

“I think this is a good topic for national debate. People of liberal instincts will have competing notions of how to protect and promote freedom of choice,"

“I am instinctively uneasy about restricting the freedom of individuals to observe the religion of their choice. That would apply to Christian minorities in the Middle East just as much as religious minorities here in Britain.

"But there is genuine debate about whether girls should feel a compulsion to wear a veil when society deems children to be unable to express personal choices about other areas like buying alcohol, smoking or getting married.

"We should be very cautious about imposing religious conformity on a society which has always valued freedom of expression."

In all the comment pieces written, the most sensible contribution comes from Victoria Coren-Mitchell, writing in The Observer, about her own wrestling with conventions and patriarchy.

Reflecting on her ‘veil epiphany', Coren-Mitchell writes:

“That it's a strong and happy choice; that their grandmothers (or young cousins in Saudi Arabia) might not have had that choice, but they do in Britain today and they make it in glad and grateful acknowledgement that it isn't mandatory.”

Noting the ‘false choices’ all women are made to make, Coren-Mitchell reflects on her own choice to adopt her husband’s surname and the feminist reaction such choices elicit vacillating between “oppressive when it's obligatory, but confident and happy as a choice”.

Seeing her own dilemma in the eyes of Muslim women who choose to veil their faces, Coren-Mitchell describes her epiphany: “I will recognise her as very familiar – only, perhaps, having made her choices more decisively than I make mine.”

Perhaps a glaring omission in all the commentaries written is the viewpoint of women who veil their faces. Let’s hope, should a national debate be sparked on the issue, that their voices, so absent in the media, are granted the public space to challenge perceptions of their subjugation, oppression, stunted careers etc…

---

Notes: This article has been sourced from www.iengage.org.uk

Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

[Muhammad]

The Niqab - a convenient veil for Islamophobia?

Uzma Aslam


If I wasn't someone with first hand experience, being a niqab wearing women myself, I would think that Muslims were a tad paranoid in saying that politics and the media run a recurring cycle of Islamophobic jabs. As a woman who has worn the niqab in England, it appears that when there's little left to say , then the rather heated, yet over played topic of the niqab is a grand one to throw on the table. After years of bashing and negative coverage, more and more people have come to the exaggerated conclusion that the niqab is hugely detrimental to society, and few stop to ponder over the legitimacy of what the media portrays.

So is it just paranoia on our behalf. I for one can recall the first day I wore the niqab on the London underground over 15 years ago. I was a bit nervous, but happened to sit in front of a ‘punk’ lady, tattooed all over with pink hair. I clearly remember the pause as we stared at each other, followed by a sudden mutual smile as we found peace in each other's uniqueness (you can tell when a niqabi smiles by the eyes). I never had any problems in those days, though a few years later I would find myself dodging tube cabins with groups of intimidating looking yobs . Now, sad to say, it's not the typical skin head taking a jab at a single harmless woman, but just about anyone who feels it is totally ok to insult the woman in niqab. It would take a real emergency for me to get on the tube alone with my niqab these days. Recently, Conservative back-benchers brought forward a bill discussing a ban on the full face veil. The usual rhetoric of women being forced to wear it or it being a security risk has long been quashed by statistics proving that a large percentage of the women are British born, educated and often converts to Islam. As for the issue of security it should be acknowledged that much of the Muslim world operates with women fully covered, with hundreds of thousands passing through security checks every day. These women would not and should not have a problem in verifying their identity to female staff members, and this is typically done in airports or banks all of the time. MP Philip Hollobone who called for a ban in 2010, stating that British people like to smile and greet one another in the street. He obviously has had precious little else to do since then, as the issue has been burning on his mind for the last 3 years, no doubt he was gleeful when he finally got his private members bill discussed last Friday.[i]

The argument against the Niqab has often run parallel to immigration, and the idea that the presence of non-Brits has led to a number of problems here. It may look good to use a picture of niqab wearing women to show a group of immigrants, but this has also led to a huge amount of confusion and been detrimental to us. It is vital that we clarify that not all niqab wearing women are immigrants and that to vent the frustration felt towards the issue of immigration on a group, simply because they look the most foreign is unfair and unwarranted. From the hundreds of veiled women that I know, they are generally British born, educated, religious, focussed and courageous people, who have taken the brave step to pursue what they believe in. They are void of bad language, promiscuity, crime or abuse, and more than often are devoted to raising a wholesome family and contributing to society. It is about time that Britain took heed of this. If only they would look around society they would have to admit that veiled women are the least of their concerns.

Generally, the argument boils down to the fact that many Brits just don’t like the veil. But surely that alone cannot justify a ban, and it is worrying that the argument has reached parliament without really having a valid reason. For me, it highlights peoples deeper dislike towards Islam as a whole. Furthermore the idea that someone is so committed to Islam that they can abandon Western dress and liberal values it boasts, is interpreted by many as a rejection and degradation of British lifestyle. What needs to be clarified here is that when most women wear the niqab it is done to achieve a religious station of submission and modesty that is promoted by Islam, and not to spite society at all. The Niqab and hijab is worn in public, in gender mixed environments, outside of this many of these women observe a very British dress code, and lifestyle too as long as it does not oppose any matter from their faith.

It would be interesting to know how many of the people in parliament arguing the ban actually knows a lady who wears niqab. Most likely, their knowledge of the niqab extends from a skewed image from the media, and that within itself is bias. Also, who qualified certain people to sit back and dictate what is or isn’t good for a people who are in actual fact causing no harm. If what is occurring is indeed a reflection of Islamophobic tendencies then Muslims should stand beware of what they may dare ban next.

If we look at France, we ask exactly what did they achieve from banning an extremely small sector of society from wearing their religious choice of dress? The answer is nothing more than a gleeful jab at Muslims just because they could. France did not improve integration, instead it further ostracised veiled women, and clearly demonstrated its Islamophobic colours.

Our message to Parliament today, is not only to preserve the liberties that Britain so proudly boasts, but also to preserve the harmless and conforming rights of the Muslim woman to actively practise her religion. One may not choose that lifestyle for themselves but to ban it, when promiscuity and indecency are far greater harms to society, seems absurd.

---

Notes:

Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

[i] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...Hollobone.html

[Muhammad]

The Niqab ban at Birmingham Met College : Bigotry or genuine security threat?

Adam Belaon


Students who wear the niqab are no longer welcome at Birmingham Met College. Dame Christine Braddock DBE the principal of Birmingham Met College said:

“Safeguarding is a priority…This needs individuals to be easily identifiable at all times when they are on college premises and this includes the removal of hoodies, hats, caps and veils so that faces are visible.”

Apparently people wear hats on their faces at Birmingham Met College – but let’s leave this quirky observation to one side for a moment.

It’s easy to understand that the college may wish to set a level of decorum and thus baseball caps, hats and hoodies may signify an element of ‘street culture’ that may not be conducive with a college. However, this is not her reasoning. She claims it is to do with faces being visible. If this is true then one must ask whether a hat which has been banned covers more of the face than a hijab that has not been banned. Is this not a logical inconsistency? Not that I’m arguing for hijabs to be banned, but I’m interested in probing the logic. I have worked in a large sixth form college before, and I can tell you that most students are either looking at their phone or engrossed in discussion with their immediate circle of friends to pay too much attention to all of the faces walking around in every direction. The idea that they would be on edge because someone is wearing a face veil is quite unrealistic. Every student would have to get through security at the door going through metal detectors and requiring an electronic pass so it’s pretty secure. Furthermore, in this instance the girls wearing niqabs suggested the compromise of revealing their faces at the door so they could be granted entry with additional checks.

Christine Braddock thinks people will be safe from one another as long as they can see one another’s face. Perhaps she doesn’t know that the vast majority of crimes are committed by people who have their face uncovered and on display for all to see.

Has Christine Braddock considered that most students are not known to other students in such a large college. Thus, seeing someone’s face does not make them automatically identifiable. Furthermore, one cannot judge a person by their face. One is not safer because they can see someone’s face. From their face you won’t know whether they are concealing a weapon, what propensity to violence or aggression they may have.

I suppose if you were assaulted then it would be easier to describe your attacker, however this would assume there are genuine concerns of niqabi women carrying out frequent assaults on fellow students and getting away with it! A claim yet to be made and intuitively unlikely.

The college should be questioned: how many criminal acts by people wearing religious face coverings have occurred on their premises in the last 5 years? How many thefts that were got away with because security cameras couldn’t identify the culprit due to a religious face covering? Were there any improper items that went against college policy concealed under the veil?

The upshot is that the college is suggesting a random student wearing a veil poses more of a danger to fellow students than a random student not wearing a veil. Presumably, there are statistics and incidents to back this up. If the school cannot demonstrate this then they must be in clear breach of their own equality and diversity policy, as they are infringing unnecessarily on their own student’s right to religious practice.

The principle bleets: "We have a very robust Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Policy at Birmingham Metropolitan College but we are committed to ensuring that students are provided with a safe and welcoming learning environment whilst studying with us.

In doing so, she starkly contradicts herself. She proclaims inclusion, but has not catered for the needs of a much bullied minority, she proclaims a welcoming learning environment, yet she has made clear that girls wearing a niqab are most unwelcome. She has been reckless with these girls education and shown a deficiency in her duty of care. She has placed an unnecessary burden on these few young women and forced them to choose between what they felt was guidance from their God over a bigoted bit of school legislation.

It is hard to ignore that this incident occurs when recently a private members bill discussed in parliament discussed the possibility of banning the face veil in public. The principal needs to listen to the voices of reason and not the voices of intolerance.

Colum McGuire, NUS Vice President (Welfare): "Whilst it is important to ensure safety on campuses, it should not mean that students lose the right to express their religious beliefs and practises. It is unacceptable for a college to enact a policy that, perhaps unintentionally, has a disproportionate impact on a specific group of students due to their faith or belief.

“No group of students from any community should feel specifically targeted due to an institutional policy. NUS believes in progressive learning environments and recognises the importance of safe, cohesive campus relations which are open to all.”

MP Khalid Mahmood said,

"I am seriously concerned that the college has taken this approach," he said. "If there is an issue of security in identifying students for exams then there are other procedures for this. We do not have a legal ban like France so I don't know why the college would want to do this."

"I see no reason why young women should not be able to practice their faith and wear what is appropriate for their religion," Mahmood continued. "It is about freedom to protect your rights."

"The college should demonstrate and encourage respect of belief, colour and background. [The decision] is not an example to set to students."

Finally, it should be noted that there is nothing in principle that could prevent such a ban being extended to hijabs in the future, in actual fact to be more consistent the college may assert that it is only fair to ban hijabs since less obfuscating hats are already banned. Muslims need to stand up for therights of their fellow Muslims, even in religious opinions they may not hold, and stand up for the struggle for equal citizenship.

---

Notes:

Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

[1] http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...-veils-5872305
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...?utm_hp_ref=uk
[3] http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428...security-fears
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-reasons.html
[5] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...hes-parliament

[Muhammad]

10 Reasons Why The Niqab Does Have a Place In Modern Britain

Adam Beloan


The Islamophobes in the Tory party otherwise known as ‘the nasty-party’ tabled a private members bill for debate on Friday, on whether face coverings should be banned.[1] Here are a few points that their narrow minded bigotry wouldn’t permit them to consider:


1. The niqab does not conflict with principles of feminism if it is a woman's chosen form of dress. A significant aspect of feminism is giving a women the right to choose what she wishes to do with her own body. Many women who wear the niqab regard it as empowering, claiming that those they encounter, give greater value to their speech over their cosmetic appearance. That may seem strange to some people, but is it stranger than nudist beaches, pole dancing clubs or barely clad ladies staggering home in stilettoes after a night out on the tiles? Cultural conditioning and social constructions alone seem an unfair method of determining that which is ‘normal’.


2. The idea that banning the niqab is required for women’s liberation is patronising to those who choose to wear it. The idea that all such women are forced to wear the niqab is delusional. Many community leaders will know of examples of Muslim women who are ostracised by their families for taking up the dress. In fact far more than the few who may be forced. When the facts disagree with ones ideological bigotry, it is often tempting to ignore the facts and create fiction, cue the Tory party.


3. Does the niqab present a security risk? Well how many bank heists do you know of involving a religious face covering? Precisely none!


4. Some people say the niqab is a barrier to communication and therefore it should be banned. It may well be a barrier to communication, but so what! Turning off my phone is a barrier to communication; does that mean we should ban it? I’m sure GCHQ would love the idea so they can track our movements unhindered but personally nah. If a women feels the niqab is a means of her living a more aloof existence, a shield from becoming too engrossed in the day to day on goings in society, if a women finds it helps with focusing on spiritual development then surely a liberal society should have no issue with that.


5. The right to wear a niqab is in-keeping with people’s freedom of expression which supposedly a modern day Britain seeks to preserve.


6. The right to wear a niqab is preserved under religious freedoms which supposedly a modern state should seek to uphold if it wants to remain in keeping with the UN charter. If a women believes it to be foremostly an act of submission and dedication to their God, then I see no argument for a modern Britain to interfere.


7. Such debates tend to whip up a media frenzy over what is ultimately a small number of women who choose to wear a niqab, it is creating animosity towards this minority. This has given rise to verbal abuse and even physical attacks. It is nothing short of the bullying of a minority, yet ironically is supposedly done for their liberation.


8. We live in an overly vain culture that is having a detrimental effect upon the mental health of young women. We live in an overly promiscuous society in which abortion rates keep going up along with sexually transmitted diseases. It is a reality that some women may choose to opt out completely of this culture because they find it burdensome and exhausting on the spirit.


9. Modern society is failing women and this has social consequences, no wonder the majority of people turning to Islam in the West are women, and no wonder that many of the women who wear the niqab are British born converts.


10. Many have observed that today, modern Britain is responsible for objectifying women as sexual objects. The nations favourite newspaper still offers a daily dose of page 3 and it has been estimated that 13% of all internet searches have erotic content[2]. Indeed when google releases the top 10 search strings of the year they have to discount all of the ones relating to porn otherwise all 10 would be un-publishable. Most of these sites have of course been developed by western companies seeking profits. You would have thought the Tory party would have plenty to keep themselves busy with as regards the furthering the plight of women. At least they would do if they all weren’t so busy watching it. A freedom of information request from the Huffington Post[3] revealed that the House of Commons authorities acknowledged that users of the Parliamentary Network servers, including both MPs and their staff, have repeatedly attempted to access websites classed on Parliament's network as pornographic between May 2012 and July 2013. The number of attempts to access pornographic websites via the Parliamentary network peaked for 2012 at 114,844 last November and at 55,552 in April for 2013. Perhaps someone should send them some niqabs so they can cover their faces in shame.

---

Notes:

Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

[1] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...hes-parliament
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/julieruv...ally-for-porn/
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3859837.html

[Muhammad]

Important Advice in Light of the Veil Ban

Reposted Declaration


In light of the ongoing anti-veil agenda we the undersigned would like to present the following important advice to the Muslim community here in the UK, irrespective of school of thought, sect or organisation.


1. The Muslim community should remain united regardless of its differences and opinions about the veil. This request is in response to the countless number of Quranic and Prophetic traditions that command Muslims to be united. Among these is the Quranic verse that says, ‘Hold fast, all together, to the rope of Allah and do not be disunited.’ [translation of 3:103]

2. We strongly condemn any attempt by any individual or organisation to create disunity in the Muslim community. We see such a move as an attempt to create friction and disruption in the whole society through indirect discrimination. It is the nature of modern pluralistic societies to be constituted from different communities coexisting peacefully as a single political entity. It is completely irrational, when trying to achieve community cohesion, to instigate disunity and racial tension.

3. The veil, irrespective of its specific juristic rulings, is an Islamic practice and not a cultural or a customary one as is agreed by the consensus of Muslim scholars; it is not open to debate.

We advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution in this issue, since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief. Not practicing something enjoined by Allah and His Messenger (Salla-Allahu alaihi wa sallam) - regardless its legal status (i.e., whether obligatory, recommended or praiseworthy) - is a shortcoming; denying it is much more serious. Allah says in the Qur’an: ‘It is not for a believer, man or woman, that they should have any option in their decision when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in a plain error.’ [translation of 33:36]

4. We recognise the fact that Muslims hold different views regarding the veil, but we urge all members of the Muslim community to keep this debate within the realms of scholarly discussion amongst the people of knowledge and authority in the Muslim community. Allah says in the Qur’an, ‘When there comes to them news of some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they spread it (among the people); if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have understood it from them (directly).’ [translation of 4:83] In another Quranic verse, we read the following instruction, ‘So ask those who know if you know not.’ [translation of 16:43 and 21:7]

5. Furthermore, we warn Muslim individuals and organisations to avoid seeking to capitalise on this debate in order to further political or personal interests. Such despicable tactics are judged by Islam as working against the interests of our faith and the Muslim community, and are, accordingly, a matter condemned in the strongest possible terms. Allah says in the Qur’an, ‘The believers, men and women, are Awliya' (allies, helpers, friends, protectors) of one another.’ [translation of 9:71] The Prophet (Salla-Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, ‘A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim; he does not oppress him, betray him, mislead or fail him.’

6. We would like to call upon all members of the Muslim community to show solidarity against criticising the veil or any other Islamic practice as this might prove to be a stepping-stone towards further restrictions. Today the veil, tomorrow it could be the beard, jilbab and thereafter the head-scarf!

Such a strategy, unfortunately, has been widely used by many European countries. Similarly, we feel that this campaign may be employed to gauge the response of the Muslim community. Therefore, our reply should be firm, sending a clear and powerful message to those who are trying to promote the banning of the veil or any other common Islamic practice. We, the Muslim community, will not tolerate such attitudes nor will we compromise on our values and common customs. All Muslim women, especially those who wear the veil, should play a major role in this response since their voice will be the most effective.

7. We understand the viewpoint of those who may find the veil a barrier to communication. However, we believe that the level of discomfort caused is insignificant, particularly when compared to the discomfort and problems that result from other common and less widely condemned practices such as sexual promiscuity, nudity and alcohol consumption by other segments of society. Moreover, we feel that it is against the interests of the whole society to single out a significant part of it, such as the Muslim community, or to put them under the spotlight and abuse them for their practices, as is now an oft- recurring theme in the media.

8. The unexpected and ruthless reaction of the media over the past few weeks on this issue gives an indication that there is a political agenda behind this campaign. It is very disappointing that the media and many politicians dealt with this issue as if it is the greatest national concern. This becomes more apparent when observing the already tense climate facing Muslims, which is contributing towards creating hostility in the wider society against the Muslim community. Therefore, Muslims should take this matter seriously and defend the veil with all their ability. This could be a battle of 'to be or not to be' for Muslims in the UK. {We urge all brothers and sisters to strive in countering these attacks by utilising the various avenues open to them including sending letters to the relevant authorities, their MPs, human rights activists, and so on. The most important guideline to observe is to react in a wise, sensible and responsible manner and avoid any action that might be used as an excuse for furthering any unfavourable agenda.

9. We would like to advise the sisters who observe the veil/ niqab in the work-place or in educational premises to avoid making it a matter of dispute between them and their employers or school authority. Such disputes will attract more unnecessary media attention, and thus may cause various negative consequences including the imposition of certain dress codes in work places, and in turn, used as justification to legislate further restrictions on wearing it in other areas.

10. Finally, let it be noted that {quotes}we appreciate the noticeable level of understanding and tolerance shown by considerable parts of the wider society towards many Islamic practices. However, we ask all society to deal with the Muslim community without prejudice, and to exercise genuine openness and tolerance towards Islamic practices, even those they may not like, as this is the real test of tolerance to others.{/quotes}

Furthermore, we urge people to be supportive for a woman’s right to wear the veil as on one hand, this complies with the values upon which western civilization was founded - the protection of human and religious rights; and on the other hand, these practices aim to promote values of modesty, decency and good-manners all of which should be the aspiration of any peaceful society.

We conclude by asking Almighty Allah to guide us to that which is better and to make truth and justice prevail in British society as a whole.

25th Ramadan 1427
17th October 2006
Signed (in alphabetical order):

1. Dr Daud Abdullah
Deputy Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)

2. Khurram Bashir Amin
Trustee and Editor, Monthly Dawn, Central Mosque, Birmingham

3. Munir Ashi
Chairman, Dar ul-Isra Islamic Centre, Cardiff

4. Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari
Secretary General, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)

5. Shakeel Begg
Imam, Lewisham Mosque, London

6. Mufti Mohammed Zubair Butt
Sharia Adviser, Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence, Bradford

7. Moulana Ilyas Dalal
Head teacher, Ilaahi Masjid, Dewsbury

8. Dr. Khalid Fekry
Imam, al-Taqwa Organization, London

9. Sulaiman Gani
Lecturer in Islamic Studies, Tooting Islamic Centre, London

10. Moosa Gora
Islamic Scholar, Jame Mosque Batley, West Yorkshire

11. Dr. Haitham Al-Haddad
Director of Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF), Judge (Islamic Sharia Council U.K. & Ireland), London

12. Dr. Suhaib Hasan
Secretary, Islamic Sharia Council U.K. & Ireland; Chairman, Masjid and Madrasa Al-Tawhid Trust, London

13. Muhammad ibn Ismail
Imam, Al-Medinah Masjid, Brighton

14. Hafeezullah Khan
Editor-in-chief, Sirat-e-Mustaqeem, Monthly Magazine, Birmingham

15. Dr Khalid Khan
Imam, Lambeth Islamic Cultural Centre, London

16. Wakkas Khan
President, Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS)

17. Shaykh Amjad Mohammed
Head Teacher of Olive Secondary School, Bradford

18. Shaykh Ashraf Osmani
Imam, Markazi Masjid Northampton (MMN), Northampton

19. Ismail Patel
Chairman, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Leicester

20. Shaykh M. Abdul Qayum
Head Imam and Khateeb, East London Mosque, London

21. Abdul Fattah Saad
Director of al-Muntada al-Islami Trust, London

22. Qari Zakaullah Saleem
Imam, Green Lane Mosque, Birmingham.

23. Massoud Shadjareh
Chair, Islamic Human Rights Commission

24. Mohammad Sawalha
President, British Muslim Initiative (BMI), London

25. Shaykh Haytham Tamim
Chairman of Utrujj Foundation, Educational, Training and Research Institute, London

26. Mawlana Abdul Hadi Umri
President - Islamic Judiciary Board, Birmingham

[Muhammad]

The Niqab: A Barrier to Integration?

Osman Ahmed




One of the multitudinous quasi-reasons given by a certain Conservative MP in the UK and many others for why Muslim women shouldn’t wear the niqab is that it is, in the words of one observer, ‘a blatant obstacle to integration’. This seemingly unequivocal (and ‘factual’) statement is trotted out not only by right-wing MPs, but many a Muslim called upon by the media to offer their two pence worth in the debate. The argument may hold some water if only someone were able to define quite what integration is. Of course there is a lexical meaning which defines integration as “the bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization...”¹ Or, indeed, as in Tito’s communist Yugoslavia or Zhivkov’s Bulgaria, which of course Britain isn’t, or isn’t supposed to be. To start to address this argument one would start by having to define integration in our context, only to stumble across the first hurdle – there isn’t a consensus definition for integration in the sense that it is being used.

The authors of a report on integration commissioned by the Home office and carried out by a team at the University of Oxford, are a bit more honest about how unambiguously the term can be used as it is:

‘...it must be emphasised that there is no single agreed understanding of the term ‘integration’’²

Castles et al are also helpful in dispelling the ‘when in Rome’ notion of integration:

“Integration is a two-way process: it requires adaptation on the part of the newcomer but also by the host society. Successful integration can only take place if the host society provides access to jobs and services, and acceptance of the immigrants in social interaction. Above all, integration in a democracy presupposes acquisition of legal and political rights by the new members of society, so that they can become equal partners. Indeed, it is possible to argue that, in a multicultural society, integration may be understood as a process through which the whole population acquires civil, social, political, human and cultural rights, which creates the conditions for greater equality. In this approach, integration can also mean that minority groups should be supported in maintaining their cultural and social identities, since the right to cultural choices is intrinsic to democracy.”

With this elucidation, the onus of integration, at least in part, is placed not upon those being integrated as much as it is upon the host society. However, herein lays another dilemma. Much of the discourse regarding integration deals with the issue of migrants, refugees and ethnic minorities integrating into society. What then of third generation “immigrants” who are British and may already have been ‘integrated’ and then decide to wear the veil? Or of white British Muslims upon whom many of the parameters of ‘integration’ do not apply? One politician on a radio interview cited the veil as being discourteous to the ‘host society’. What then if the lady behind the veil is an Emma with a double-barrelled surname who is very much part of the ‘host society’? Many cannot accept the notion that the women wearing the veil are in the main not refugees who have been forced to wear it under duress, but British women who have chosen to wear it out of religious conviction.

Castles et al helpfully contribute to the discourse by setting out a list of criteria against which the degree of integration can be measured – a sort of checklist of indicators that determine the extent of integration with indicators of education, training and employment; social integration; health, legal , political and overall integration. The irony is that there may be women wearing the veil who may tick all the boxes by being educated, working in the public and services sector, voting and being good neighbours, yet be considered not to have integrated because of the niqab. Furthermore, if the veil is an obstacle to integration, the implied meaning by those who use this word loosely is that they will not be able to integrate at all, whilst in the academic sense of the word they may be more integrated into the workings of British society than many thousands of young white working class English (the so-called ‘Chavs’) whose integration may never been questioned on the basis of their appearance. For a politician to assert that Muslim women are not integrated because they wear the niqab and do not converse with male strangers on a street is somewhat of an over-simplification to say the least.

One of the problems in the discourse is that whilst often referring to integration, many of its proponents actually mean assimilation, a totally different concept and certainly not one to be expected in what is supposed to be a democratic country in a post-colonial era that has described itself as being multicultural³. As expounded on by Professor Modood (University of Bristol), assimilation involves the ‘newcomers’ becoming as much like their hosts as possible while not disturbing the host society, with the least change in the attitudes of the latter. Integration is a two-way process, while assimilation is a one-way process. What is regrettable is that it is the voices within the Muslim community that are the most vocal advocates of assimilation (whilst still talking of ‘integration’) to an extent that even the generality of British society does not demand of Muslims in 21^st century Britain.

There are many reasons for this, and certainly one of them is a pathological sense of inferiority that has persisted, albeit in subtle form and especially amongst South East Asian communities, despite decades having elapsed from the end of colonial rule where the subjugated Asian held the white Sahib in awe. There is a subliminal message that in their difference, there is somehow something superior about British society and Muslims are to integrate upward in to it – in contrast to a lateralised mutual accommodation – and adopt its ways, and aspects of Muslim culture are looked down on and denigrated as being inferior. The niqab and the Muslim women’s dress is certainly a case that illustrates this conflict, what with it being described as medieval and backward. A certain lack of confidence in their own heritage makes many Muslims echo these same sentiments.

The glaringly obvious reality of the Hollobone bill and the brouhaha surrounding the niqab across Europe is that it is not motivated by altruistic concerns about social cohesion or courtesy or women’s rights. If so, then banning the English Defence League, countering racism, promoting respect and allowing people to practice their religion in peace are more worthy causes to promote. This is no more than a further symptom of the swelling problem of anti-Islamic xenophobia that is spreading across Europe, with a growing far-right and a dangerous rise in anti-Muslim sentiment that is catalysed by a biased media and closet racists in mainstream parties. It may be argued that with so much Islamophobia around, Muslims should not fan the flames by wearing attire that is seen as divisive. But that is a flawed argument, as it is precisely this argument that gives in to the racist far-right and emboldens them further. It is for this very reason – this dangerous Islamophobia in Europe – that Muslim women should not be allowed to be bullied into taking off the veil, and that Muslims, whatever their views, should support them. It is tremendous naiveté if Muslims think that by a handful of women taking off the veil the racists and Islamophobes will back off or that the growing xenophobia that Muslims are being subjected to will somehow abate.

These law-abiding women have been forced to the cold front, and are taking the bullet for the rest of the Muslim community simply for adopting attire they believe is recommended by Islam and a tradition of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The honourable thing to do for anyone with any sense of justice and concern for both the Muslim community and social cohesion overall is to support them and not let the racists and xenophobes claim a pathetic victory.

---

Notes:
Source: www.islam21c.com

1.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/integration. Accessed 10 Sep. 10
2. Castles S, Korac M, Vasta E, Vertovec S. Integration: Mapping the field. Report of a Project carried out by the University of Oxford. 2002. Home Office online report 28/03. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/onlinepubs1.html. Accessed 10 Sep. 10
3. Modood T. Remaking Multiculturalism after 7/7. 2005. http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/multiculturalism_2879.jsp. Accessed 10 Sep. 10

[Muhammad]

Discussing the 'Symbol of Subjugation'

Shaikh (Dr) Haitham Al-Haddad


In a speech delivered on the 22nd of June the President of France said, “the burqa is not a religious sign’ — it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”

Having already banned the Hijab in public schools, France seems eager to move even further with a complete ban on the niqab and as a result we feel it is necessary to provide some advice on the matter so that Muslims living in the West are not caught unaware and unable thereby to articulate an accurate Islamic perspective on the issue.

Generally speaking there are three methods to answering questions when being interviewed: (1) focusing on the content; (2) the delivery of the content and, (3) the perception of the audience. Muslims who are interviewed on Islamic matters tend to focus solely on how the audience will receive their answers and tend to lose track of the real content that needs to be addressed. In stark contrast the Quranic dialogue with non-believers is very much content focused; delivered in an awe-inspiring way. We too, as followers of the Qur’an, are commanded to “Speak the truth” albeit with wisdom and eloquence. Our prophet told us that whoever tries to please the people at the expense of Allah’s pleasure will certainly displease Allah and also find that the people eventually dislike him and that whoever speaks the truth to please Allah will find that the people will end up liking him.

In light of this I would like to provide some answers to questions that are often asked by non-Muslims, be they our neighbors, colleagues, or from the media. It is hoped that these answers will empower us to take the debate forward in a constructive manner.


1) Why do Muslim women wear the Burqa (face veil)?

All of us, we believe, have been created by an all-Knowing all-Wise being who blessed us with a short life here on Earth and then an eternal life in an abode in the Hereafter. The purpose of this life is to achieve success in passing the trials and tribulations God has decreed for us; the greatest test being sincere submission to His divine Will. Abiding by the guidelines and legislation decreed by God brings harmony and tranquility to the hearts of the believers which is then followed by eternal happiness in paradise. Every piece of guidance legislated by God has copious amounts of goodness and wisdom behind it including the dress code specified for both men and women.

Muslim women who adopt the face veil, for example, have a deep conviction that they are following the guidance of their Creator. The wisdom behind the injunction, such as protecting women from abuse and harassment, are of peripheral value as the main aim is to seek the pleasure of God.

2) Would you like all women in the western society to cover themselves up?

We would like all of mankind to live by the guidance of their Creator and understand their purpose in life. Many Muslim women including those who accept the message of Islam do chose to adopt the traditional Islamic dress code.

Interestingly the majority of converts to Islam are women. I recall once a lady had made an appointment with us to take the testimony of faith. When we went to meet her we found a woman fully dressed with Islamic attire. When we asked her if she knew of a non-Muslim woman wanting to become Muslim she replied that it was in fact her!

3) Does the Qur’an speak about the Niqab?

It is very saddening to see so called ‘Islamic experts’ categorically deny the mentioning of the face veil in the Qur’an when it is in fact mentioned in two specific verses.

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex."

Therefore, one cannot deny the fact that covering the face is an authentic orthodox opinion held by a great number of scholars based on Quranic texts.

Even if one was to deny its place in the Qur’an this by no means shows that it hasn‘t been legislated elsewhere in the prophetic guidance, the Sunnah. For instance the Qur’an does not specify the number of daily prayers as being five or the obligatory annual charity as being 2.5% but such fundamentals were learnt from the prophetic guidance and are not disputed over by any Muslim.

4) Is the Niqab obligatory?

The question is somewhat irrelevant as there exists a consensus amongst jurists that observance of the Niqab is a legislated act within Islamic jurisprudence, that is to say, it is not merely cultural attire as many ignorant individuals claim. Though a great number of scholars opined that it is mustahab (recommended), many others thought it was obligatory. Thus, whether it is obligatory or not is not the issue as every Muslim woman has the right to adopt the Islamic dress code regardless of the opinions of others. The question concerns those who want to adopt it and would like to clarify their position so as to provide theological grounding.

5) Is the ‘Non-Niqabi’ immodest?

The women who champion the Niqab are raising the standards of modesty in their respective communities. If we say that modesty is essentially covering up ones beauty than inevitably the face veil does this more so than any other garment. However, modesty must be defined in the framework of Islamic tradition which means that while the Qur’an and the Sunnah provide a general guideline for how to be modest (for instance the word Jilbab is mentioned in the Qur’an and refers to a single garment that covers the body) the specifics of style and manner can depend on the cultural norms of the society.

A common pitfall Muslims find themselves in is when they simply refer to the Niqab and Hijab as a means of being modest without providing any sense of the general guidance of Islam on the matter. This implies that clothing is completely relative and so what is modest in Saudi Arabia is inappropriate in Miami since a revealing dress in Miami could, in all seriousness, be deemed modest given that the norm there is a Bikini!

6) Why don’t men have to wear the Niqab?!

Men have been commanded to lower the gaze and to cover that which is between the navel and knee but women have been commanded to cover much more. Why? Because they are physiologically and physically distinct and so the legislation, logically, encapsulates these differences.

7) Do Muslim men force their women to adorn the Niqab?

We encourage each other to perform acts of piety and righteousness. If I felt that my nearest and dearest were going off the rails I would help them and actively advise them do change their ways. I would advise the women in my family to adhere to Islamic dress code because it is a call for righteousness.

8) Is the Niqab a security issue?

There should always be a spirit of tolerance and forbearance in people, especially the natives as where ever there is a will there is a way. Muslim women who are accepted for who they are will be more appreciative of the state and help to develop stronger ties of cohesion in their communities. Forcing Muslim to uncover their faces will sow seeds of mistrust and even hatred with the state. And so banning the Niqab would be grossly counterproductive.

9) Is Niqab a symbol of subjugation?

The word subjugation, when spoken of in the West and addressed to Muslims or non-Westerners smacks of a colonial will to dominate through a preponderance of the view that European values are not only better than those of others, but that their being ‘better’ elevates their imposition on to others to the status of liberation.

What is frustrating to many Muslims is that over and over again Muslim women have spoken out claiming that what they wear is out of their own choice and a deep sense of spirituality. Yet the media and prominent figures in the West continue to ignore these voices and imply that only ‘they’ truly know what is going on inside Muslim women’s head, something which even the Muslim women – subjugated as they are – are not privy to. This obscene hypocrisy highlights the continuing Orientalism that still operates in the West when it comes to its discourse on Islam.

From a Muslim perspective (although many non-Muslims agree), the tyranny of fashion shows, billboards with air-brushed pictures, the use of scantily clad bodies to sell consumer products is a form of subjugation for Western women, who, if not dominated by men are certainly dominated by the demands and dictates of the market.

How, at any rate, is one to decide whether someone is subjugated or not? Banning a religious practice in a society where no Muslim is demanding its imposition seems more a fundamentalist move than a liberal one, but then perhaps that is exactly what we are witnessing: the fundamentalising of liberalism. What’s more is that Muslim ought not to feel cowed by media pressure or hawkish tactics by commentators who merely claim that such Islamic dress codes are oppressive – the onus of proving this, after all, lies with them and not with Muslims.

For our part we have firsthand accounts of women who have donned the burqa/hijab/niqab who repeatedly pronounce their individuality and choice as well as the fact that the majority of women who seem to be adopting the burqa are Western educated women all born and brought up in countries like France and Britain many a time at odds with their mothers from the East. So, is the Burqa an Eastern or Western phenomena?!

__________________________________________________ _________
Notes:
Source: www.islam21c.com
The following has been adapted from a recent lecture delivered by Dr Haitham al-Haddad on the 30/06/09

[Muhammad]

The Power of Words:Unveiling the Politics of Dehumanisation


“It is true that the Jew is a human being but so is a flea a living being – one that is none too pleasant ... our duty towards both ourselves and our conscience is to render it harmless. It is the same with the Jews.”

These were the words of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda under Hitler. Such comments were typical of the discussions that abounded in Nazi circles about ‘the Jewish Question’. In what was a deliberate strategy of dehumanisation, the Nazis also described and portrayed the Jews as rats and vermin, bringing plague, disease and death with them wherever they went.

In 1994, during the genocide of almost one million Tutsis in Rwanda, state controlled radio routinely described the minority Tutsis as inyenzi and inzoka, Kinyarwandan words meaning 'cockroach' and ‘snake’ respectively. Around the same period, Serbs in Bosnia were slaughtering Croats and Muslims who they routinely characterized as ‘subhuman’. More recently, Buddhist Monks butchered Rohingya Muslims in Burma spurned on by leaders who described the minority as “mad dogs”. [1]

Any study of an episode of ethnic cleansing or genocide in history is likely to demonstrate that the massacres were proceeded by a deliberate campaign of dehumanisation, a psychological process whereby the enemy Other was viewed as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. For it is the denial of the humanity of others that is the initial step that permits killing with impunity. The universal human abhorrence of murder of members of one's own group is overcome by treating the victims as less than human.

It should therefore be of great concern to us when we see any minority group dehumanised in such a way and compared with or equated with animals or beasts. For this line of attack to come from elements of the vitriolic tabloid press is unfortunately to be expected. It is when mainstream commentators associated with the Left draw such parallels that alarm bells should be ringing.

Last September, the Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai Brown wrote a piece [2] in which she described veiled Muslim women as a “guerrilla army of Muslim Salafists”.

Following a debate on the niqab in Britain last week, Alibhai Brown used the same phrase to describe the audience of veiled women, but with a slight difference. She replaced the words ‘Muslims Salafists’ with ‘bats’. Her tweet [3] in full read

“Still #c4news after fleeing the guerrilla army of bats, a niqabi came up & was just lovely and honest. If she takes it off we'll be besties”

Mrs Alibhai Brown has every right to express her disagreement with those who choose to don a piece of cloth across their faces in accordance with their religious beliefs. However, by resorting to such crude remarks, not only does she undermine any strength in her own arguments but also engages in the tactics of dehumanisation of the minority Other that was implemented with catastrophic results in Nazi Europe, Rwanda and the Balkans.

As an award winning journalist and writer, Alibhai Brown would know the power of words and the images that they can evoke. Her deliberate use of the term ‘guerrilla army’ implies rebellion, foreign, hostility, violence, subversive and terrorism. Her calculated use of the word ‘bats’ raises images of evil, death and disease. Conjoining both phrases to label a minority of the Muslim minority in this country, amidst a climate of growing intolerance and xenophobia, is both irresponsible and dangerous. Words can create all kinds of powerful symbolic imagery, create the image of a threat that desperately needs to be dealt with, and dehumanise a people so effectively that inhumane treatment seems not only justifiable but necessary.

As philologist and Nazi victim Victor Klemperer has noted, “Nazism … crept into the flesh and blood of the masses by means of single words, turns of phrase and stock
expressions which, imposed upon the people a million times over in continuous reiteration, were mechanically and unconsciously absorbed by them.”

Alibhai Brown’s tweet should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a growing pattern from mainstream commentators and politicians from across the political spectrum. At the Channel 4 niqab debate Alibhai Brown sat on the same side of the table a man who once described her as “the stupidest woman in Britain”,[4] Douglas Murray. At one point in the debate, Murray responded to a veiled woman discussing the European Convention of Human Rights with the following:

"There is something fundamentally ludicrous about somebody dressed as you are to talk about human rights."

For Murray, far from being afforded the protection of human rights, veiled women should not even talk about such matters. The insinuation is that human rights belong to humans, not those he perceives to be subhuman. Murray stopped short of calling for a complete ban on wearing the niqab in public but simply said that it should be “discouraged” without detailing how.

We should be wary. Murray is a writer with a chequered history of rabble rousing and inciting hatred against Muslims. He has previously described [5] Islam as “the AIDS of the West” and demanded that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board” and that “all immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop”. He is someone who has defended [6] the English Defence League (EDL) referring to it as the kind of "grassroots response" to Islamism he would like to see.

Commentators such as Douglas Murray should not be permitted to air their inciteful views on national television. By placing him alongside the slightly more respectable Alibhai Brown, Murray’s views are deemed acceptable. But when Alibhai Brown resorts to the same tactics of dehumanisation, we, as a society, should be concerned.

Last year, academics at the University of Leicester found evidence [7] of a correlation between the niqab ban in France and increased levels of anti-Muslim hostility towards veiled Muslim women in the UK. No such ban yet exists in Britain but nevertheless, an increasing number of Muslim women in hijab and niqab are being verbally and physically attacked on our streets, their assailants justifying their actions by reference to the statements of politicians and the press. Most people of reason would refer to such actions as Islamophobia. Not Douglas Murray. For him, this is a “nonsense term” [8]. Alibhai Brown would probably disagree with Murray on this but by equating the victims with animals, she is complicit in the violence.

---

Notes:



Source: http://islam21c.com/
Islam21c requests all readers to share this article on your facebook, twitter, and all other platforms in a bid to spread our efforts

1- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/wo...rity.html?_r=0

2- http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...mmentReference

3- https://twitter.com/y_alibhai/status/393481734269853696

4- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/do...an-in-britain/

5- http://web.archive.org/web/200802011...ves/000809.php

6- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wlSS61X9eg

7- http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/p...eicester-study

8- http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/251/full


http://www.islam21c.com/politics/133...dehumanisation

[Pygoscelis]

Interesting articles. Some very poor arguments for banning the veil have been put forward by some very islamophobic people I see. I did find the story of the lady in face veil meeting the punk lady having a moment of mutual understanding and smiling, both having chosen to be so different in their society, in different ways. I wonder if that kind of mutual understanding would exist between the misunderstood veiled muslim (who is accused to being repressed) and the misunderstood nudist (who is accused of being perverse).

Having read all of the above, I think there are only two valid reasons to be weary of face veils: Security and Identity.

A few of the articles above mention security, and dismiss the concern noting there are not many bank robberies in face veils and that muslimas are not a serious criminal element. But that seems to miss the point. If other face coverings are banned for security reasons, and face veils are given an exception, that opens the door for people who are NOT muslimas, perhaps not even women, to wear the veil to hide their identity for nefarious purposes.

The issue of identity is only mentioned by one of the articles I saw above. It says that identity is not a major issue in muslim lands because female staff are hired everywhere to check identity under veils. That may be a good solution, but infringes on the rights of others, forcing them to spend resources on hiring these female staff and having them spend their time doing this. Perhaps a fee should be charged to the muslima to compensate for this? Yes, as the one article above says, integration should include full rights and some accommodation for minorities, but that should not include special rights, and certainly not special rights that come at the cost of the rest of society.

The third reason I see for wanting to ban face veils is prejudice against muslims. Fair or not, Islam has a reputation of being ultra-conservative, intolerant, and violent. I know this isn't true of all muslims, but the image is engrained on western society following 9/11, violent reactions to cartoons, etc. The face veil is very much a symbol of Islam and an easy one to target and oppose for the above two (legit) reasons. I think that is why we see people calling for widespread bans instead of just bans in security or identity sensitive areas (like banks for security or voting or driver's licenses for identity)

This prejudice also meshes with the feminist attack on the veil. The articles above do a very good job at pointing out that very few women who actually wear veils are interviewed or complain, and the feminists just assume they are repressed, to afraid to speak up, etc. They see Islam as a repressive and sexist religion and so they assume the veil to be a symbol of that. That is more the prejudice of the feminists than anything to do with the muslimas. I expect they wouldn't have any problem with women walking around in hats with scarves, if they were western style, or nuns for that matter who also cover a lot of themselves (and also for religious and modesty reasons).

[~Zaria~]

for sharing these informative articles with us.

Im really grateful that my home country is relatively more tolerant towards different dominations of faith, versus the current situation in many parts of Europe.

Specific to niqaab, I personally think that some responsibility lies with muslims themselves - with regards to how it is perceived by other groups of people:

1. Unfortunately, the niqaab is still donned by only a minority of practicing muslim women.
Even though there is more consensus amongst scholars regarding the importance of niqaab in islam, this point is not emphasized enough amongst our ummah.
The end result being that those few women who decide to wear the niqaab, are seen as 'extremists' in their interpretation of the deen.

A young woman who chooses to adopt the niqab, more often than not, meets more criticism by her own family and muslim friends and colleagues, than anyone else in real life. Out of ignorance, they are often told that the niqab 'has no role in islam' , that it is 'a cultural symbol (of the arab)', rather than a religious indictment, etc.
In many cases, a woman in niqaab feels isolated - even within her own community. E.g. if one has to attend a muslim wedding/ family gathering/ islamic event, the woman in niqaab stands relatively alone - surrounded by a much more modernized (and accepted) version of hijab.

If our own ummah cannot unite upon its own teachings, or at the very least, respect differences in opinion, then I think it becomes that more difficult to convince the world that this particular practice in Islam is important to us, and that it forms an integral part in the life of a muslim woman.

At the moment, the niqaab is perceived by others, as an 'option' rather than an obligation.
^ And the core of this perception lies with us (to some extent).

2.

There are many reasons for this, and certainly one of them is a pathological sense of inferiority that has persisted, albeit in subtle form and especially amongst South East Asian communities, despite decades having elapsed from the end of colonial rule where the subjugated Asian held the white Sahib in awe. There is a subliminal message that in their difference, there is somehow something superior about British society and Muslims are to integrate upward in to it – in contrast to a lateralised mutual accommodation – and adopt its ways, and aspects of Muslim culture are looked down on and denigrated as being inferior. The niqab and the Muslim women’s dress is certainly a case that illustrates this conflict, what with it being described as medieval and backward. A certain lack of confidence in their own heritage makes many Muslims echo these same sentiments.

^ I think this is an important point - and it applies to many other countries where British colonization has occurred.

Being 'different' to the rest of society, sometimes creates a sense of being 'inferior' to others.
I personally have experienced this from time to time - more-so, when being surrounded by wealthy, 'upper-class' folk - dressed in their designer gear, and poshed in every manner.
In a society which 'grades' their women by their outer appearances, it means that a woman in niqaab has to really dig deep within herself to ward off these feelings of 'inferiority' and to have strong conviction for why she chooses to be different from the rest.
If it is not done, solely for the sake of seeking the pleasure of Allah, then there is always the risk of falling back into the mainstream way of thinking.

-----------

Having said this, there is no doubt, that the current anti-niqaab drive is founded upon intolerance to others and their beliefs, and is a direct attack upon islam itself.
In the UK, there has been suggestions that this is a means of indirectly urging a growing number of muslim ex-pats to return to their home-lands, by clamping down on what is most important to them - their religion.

From our part, I think that there needs to be a more united front in demonstrating the integral place that the niqaab holds in islam - by advising our muslim sisters to leave behind the 'westernised' version of hijab, and to dress in the manner that will ultimately please Allah.

So long as non-muslims view the niqaab as an 'optional' part of worship in islam, that is practiced by only a minority of muslim women (and especially taking into consideration the security concerns, as mentioned above) - this makes the challenge a lot more difficult.

[ardianto]

Although rare, sometime I saw niqabi women in public area like shop or marketplace. Yes, if they did something wrong I could not identify their faces, but I could identify their companion faces.

Frankly, everytime I saw niqabi women in public area in my city, I saw that they were always accompanied by someone or some people with 'open face'. They never alone like I see in some photos about niqabi in the West.

Maybe accompanied by 'open face' people can reduce suspicion toward niqabi when they are in public area.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Thanks for reading and commenting on the articles. If anyone wants to see the debate mentioned in the last article, it can be viewed here:
http://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thou...-muslim-woman-

Having read all of the above, I think there are only two valid reasons to be weary of face veils: Security and Identity.

A few of the articles above mention security, and dismiss the concern noting there are not many bank robberies in face veils and that muslimas are not a serious criminal element. But that seems to miss the point. If other face coverings are banned for security reasons, and face veils are given an exception, that opens the door for people who are NOT muslimas, perhaps not even women, to wear the veil to hide their identity for nefarious purposes.

I do think there is a valid point in those arguments where they are pointing out that we are reacting to, or weary of, a problem that does not exist. There are not many other face coverings that people wear in this scenario, so I don't think there is much of an exception.

The issue of identity is only mentioned by one of the articles I saw above. It says that identity is not a major issue in muslim lands because female staff are hired everywhere to check identity under veils. That may be a good solution, but infringes on the rights of others, forcing them to spend resources on hiring these female staff and having them spend their time doing this. Perhaps a fee should be charged to the muslima to compensate for this? Yes, as the one article above says, integration should include full rights and some accommodation for minorities, but that should not include special rights, and certainly not special rights that come at the cost of the rest of society.

But does it really infringe on the rights of others, and is it really a special right? I think airports tend to have female staff appointed for searching female passengers anyway, and I reckon women in general would prefer it that way (and vice versa for men).

It's important to highlight that Muslimahs are willing to cooperate with the authorities as far as security and identity risks are concerned. The issue just needs to be handled with understanding of both sides.

[Independent]

The escape of a man under security restrictions, concealed by a burka, is a very negative development for the wearing of religious clothing in western countries:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24847388

Whether he is correctly accused or not, this man has abused the privilege of the burka. By doing so, he highlights exactly the security concerns that have been raised by opponents.

If such a garment is ever used in a similar way for a direct terrorist act then the call for a ban would be irresistible.

[Karl]

‘progressive Muslims’ like Yasmin Alibhai Brown

Wouldn't apostate be a better term? You can't tweak Islam. Love it or leave it. She sounds like a poisonous feminist.
Britain is a Zionist country so you can't expect the constant attacks upon Islam to go away, but to attack females because of their clothes is a very low blow.
The British are known to be two faced in all their affairs and will never be honest with you. They will never show you their cards or their real feelings or intensions. Only the lowest class will let fly with their bigotry and hate, which is an honest reflection of the pyramid of power that is anti Islam.
If Britain was just a WASP country like it was in the past, things would be a lot easier. But with adopting Zionism and liberal lefty agendas things have got messy.
I can see two paths that Britain can take. It either melts down to a socialist internationalist multi cultural police state. Or a rise in nationalism where the WASPs want their country back as a mono cultural right wing police state. I think it will be the former as the Zionists are pushing it in that direction.

[جوري]

I think any man who dresses in Niqab is easily found out. Women no matter how niqabed up is still a woman there's no concealing it even if the features can't be made out.
here it is donned by Non-Muslim 'Royals'



here it is worn by Jews:


At any rate there's only one reason niqab isn't compatible with the western world (btw I don't wear niqaab and a shopholic at that) bottom line is if women aren't being sexualized or objectified or made to dress to impress men or show off in front of their lady friends then they're not partaking in western economics which is based on sell sell sell, sell your bodies if you've to and how dare you be a slave to God instead of capitalism .. that's really all there is to it.. 'all about the money money money and it doesn't matter at what price, your dignity, your sanity, your finances, & dignity of your age

btw can anyone mistake those Jewish women for men? their clothes are pretty concealing they're still very obviously women, they're built like women and walk like women I wish the kaffirs would stop with their nonsense!

[Independent]

I think any man who dresses in Niqab is easily found out.

What's the point in trying to claim this when it's just happened? While someone like myself would find it hard to pass for a woman unless I somehow lost a foot in height, there are many men who could get away with it.

And one of them just did.

In any case, the threat to religious dress is not just men using it as a disguise. It's also women themselves acting as terrorists. Curiously, it's often western women converts who seem more inclined to act this way. For example Amanda Lewthwaite, who is wanted in connection with the Nairobi shopping mall massacre.

In the event of a similar incident in the west, the pressure on banning/restricting any concealing clothing would be immense.

For instance, many organisations have long ago banned motorcycle couriers from entering their offices without removing their helmets, because of theft and other security issues. (Which come to think of it is a very good parallel with the niqab argument.)

there's only one reason niqab isn't compatible with the western world (btw I don't wear niqaab and a shopholic at that) bottom line is if women aren't being sexualized or objectified or made to dress to impress men or show off in front of their lady friends then they're not partaking in western economics

Obviously untrue. Capitalism has only been around the last few hundred years (although what passes for acceptable clothing has changed any number of times for both men and women over the centuries).

[جوري]

What's the point in trying to claim this when it's just happened?

It is just happened but he was found out puts a dent in your theory all together no?

In any case, the threat to religious dress is not just men using it as a disguise. It's also women themselves acting as terrorists. Curiously, it's often western women converts who seem more inclined to act this way. For example Amanda Lewthwaite, who is wanted in connection with the Nairobi shopping mall massacre.

Terrorists at shopping malls happen all the time with or without niqaab. You've no way of finding people's intent based on clothing which makes this one of the dumbest arguments you've made to date!

Obviously untrue. Capitalism has only been around the last few hundred years

when people were producers and not just consumerists their garb was appropriate - when they became nothing but sexualized objects more and more of it came off!

best,

[Independent]

It is just happened but he was found out puts a dent in your theory all together no?

I always make the mistake of assuming you will bother to read things properly. Let's go through it again:

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed was under house arrest using a tagging system. To escape, he cut the tag and used the burqa disguise to get past the surveillance cameras. They only realised it was him in the burqa when they examined the video footage to find out what had happened. By which time he had already escaped.

Terrorists at shopping malls happen all the time with or without niqaab. You've no way of finding people's intent based on clothing which makes this one of the dumbest arguments you've made to date!

Once again, you have missed the point entirely. It's got nothing to do with normal everyday Muslims. The problem is the possibility it could be used as a disguise. A burqa could be used to hide weaponry. And a niqab could be used to disguise identity whilst preparing the attack, or to evade surveillance cameras on the way in. They don't even have to be Muslims. The risk factor is in the clothing, not the person who wears it.

If a lethal terrorist attack should ever happen by this method, then there would be irresistible pressure for banning such clothing in certain areas.

That's why Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed is to be condemned, because by his actions he has placed at risk the freedom of Muslim women in general in the west to wear religious clothing.

[جوري]

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed was under house arrest using a tagging system. To escape, he cut the tag and used the burqa disguise to get past the surveillance cameras. They only realised it was him in the burqa when they examined the video footage to find out what had happened. By which time he had already escaped.

Even if the story were true and not some propagandist BS to follow suit from their anti Islamic rhetoric targeting Muslim women it would be no different from any burglar/killer wearing a ski mask and that happens daily most criminals have no desire to reveal their identity. My mistake is presuming you can think in abstract form!

Once again, you have missed the point entirely. It's got nothing to do with normal everyday Muslims. The problem is the possibility it could be used as a disguise. A burqa could be used to hide weaponry. And a niqab could be used to disguise identity whilst preparing the attack, or to evade surveillance cameras on the way in. They don't even have to be Muslims. the risk factor is in the clothing, not the person who wears it.

See above response. This is just a sick excuse to target and further alienate Muslims and then based on that faulty premise speak of how they can't integrate into society!

If a lethal terrorist attack should ever happen by this method, then there would be irresistible pressure for banning such clothing in certain areas.

Lethal terrorist attacks happen daily mostly by people like you white lonely males who spend their time niggling over trifles & confabulating on the net!
see here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...a-map/2820423/

The law doesn't change based on the exception unless in very racist societies who are impotent to do anything about their obvious and repeated problems and would rather target a small population of women based on one attack!
I don't know how your brain functions truly!

best,