Inquiry launched after Islamic group holds segregated lecture

your so down on people's hopes & dreams today Pruitt.. why don't you go frequent the bar and drown your woes there instead of our forum debbie downer!

Does Gender Segregation Oppose Liberal Values?

Adam Belaon

Last Updated on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:52 Please help us run Islam21c and its' projects for the next 12 months. Donate to our Just Giving page.

In a recent incident, a London university banned its own student Islamic society from conducting any further events in conjunction with a well-established international Muslim organisation (IERA), on the grounds that enforced gender segregation had taken place at an event on university premises.

In a recent incident, a London university banned its own student Islamic society from conducting any further events in conjunction with a well-established international Muslim organisation (IERA), on the grounds that enforced gender segregation had taken place at an event on university premises.

For the record the above mentioned Muslim organisation has evidence to the contrary with video footage demonstrating that the seats in the lecture theatre were filled by individuals without enforcement or over-stewarding. The natural end being that most attendees, many of whom were Muslims chose to sit in gender segregated areas, and a minority chose not to, and did so for the duration. However it appears that the university had made up its mind. Last week another UK university said it was investigating similar claims about the way their Islamic society conducted its own events.

What is the point of principle that has so evidently exercised them? The infamous gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who felt it his place to comment on the situation is quoted in a piece in the ‘Guardian’:

"Gender segregated seating contravenes the equal opportunities and anti-discrimination policies of universities and student unions. Students and staff should not be subjected to sexist segregationist policies. Universities are supposed to be places of enlightenment, tolerance, liberalism and human rights. It is shocking the way some student Islamist societies are being allowed to force women to sit apart from men, sometimes with the connivance of the university authorities, who take a hands-off approach. Some universities are doing very little to ensure that the campus is a safe and equal place for all students."

Peter Tatchell says he wants equality for all. If that is true then presumably that would include religious Muslims as well. Yet it appears to have gone right over his head that equal opportunities and anti-discrimination are the precise reason that gender segregated areas should exist as an option for those who want it. Some people, mainly Muslims (but guess what Muslims are people) want to sit amongst their own gender for reasons of adherence to religious conviction and some don't. Secularism, Liberalism, equal opportunities should accommodate both. Dear Peter should understand better than most - Some people are just Muslim - get over it - and then we can live in a more tolerant society.

In the same way Peter Tatchell chose to patronise women so too did Rupert Sutton, from the self-appointed campus watchdog Student Rights, who wrote: "While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated."

They choose to tap into the overplayed narrative that all Muslim women are subjugated and down-trodden. Mysterious it must be for them to learn that the majority of converts to Islam in the west are women. Being the dogmatic ideologues they are; they clearly don’t quite know how to process the information. Their internal conflict requires them to believe in the inherent weak-mindedness of the women who make such choices. This results in them patronising women who see Islam as a value-rich faith with enduring principles. I would strongly suggest Tatchell and Sutton have fallen into a rather misogynistic reasoning process!

Richard Dawkins also weighed into the debate by describing segregation as a "sexual apartheid". I wonder if Dawkins would describe separate wards in hospitals as being sexual apartheid. Interestingly enough it was something that many people, particularly elderly felt so strongly about that the last Labour government pledged to end mixed wards completely. What would Dawkins think about single sex schools, or ladies only time at the gym – a violation of human rights no doubt. Or would he perhaps consider female only swimming sessions at the local baths or separate toilets for men and women as a subversion of liberal values? I’m sure Tatchell and Dawkins cry themselves to sleep at night thinking about the poor women forced to use a separate WC. Surely they have a right not to have forced upon them these cleaner facilities.

Their reasoning is clear folly. If pushed in a corner, Dawkins would have to argue that privacy here is required or desirable, where as in a university lecture theatre it is not. To which we could respond, well why? Why do you deem it to be required or desirable? The only answer is that the cultural sensitivities of our society tell us it is desirable. The point being is that Liberal values in and of themselves do not indicate that progressive societies should have separate hospital wards or toilets. Rather, liberal values tell us to be accommodating of people’s cultural sensitivities, but do not dictate what those sensitivities should be. Thus the cultural sensitivities pertaining to gender mixing cannot be trumped by liberalism. If religious Muslims wish to live a life consistent with the teachings of their faith then to be frank what business is that of Dawkins, Tatchell or anyone else. If some Muslims wish to respect the values of Islam pertaining to minimising gender mixing then a tolerant society should be able to accommodate that.

Secularism and Liberalism were intended to accommodate difference not homogenise us all and make moral judgements on people's chosen religious practices. It is nothing less than an oxymoron that a university that claims to uphold the tradition of democracy violates the advice of John Stuart Mill, who stated,

‘Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.’

Pointing this fact out does not make us hypocrites. One can still mention this and yet be clear that they are not a liberal but rather a conservative Muslim who holds orthodox Muslim opinions sourced from scripture. Yet it seems clear that denying an organisation the right to speak (in this case IERA) purely because it holds a minority voice that doesn’t fit the paradigm dominant discourse, seems to violate what a University that promotes freedom of thought is all about. Universities should not allow themselves to be brow-beaten and in the spirit intellectual rigour investigate the facts for themselves rather than believing verbatim what they are told be these pressure groups. Sadly crass pragmatism has overtaken integrity, fairness and seeking the truth of the matter. More disconcertingly a new neo liberal bigotry is being aggressively pursued by these groups, which few seem to realise actually conflicts with more traditional liberalism.

Symbolic politics theory contends that hostility to minorities is ultimately motivated by perceived differences in values between the dominant and minority groups. Undoubtedly people with different backgrounds and perspectives on what life is about will have differing values. Most of us will accept this as a fact of life and in the general spirit of good-will and accommodation we all get along. However, it is becoming ever more apparent that some are hell-bent on over-exaggerating the case of difference as a way of whipping up animosity with the aim of marginalising orthodox Muslims as social outcasts. They do so by falsely claiming to act in the interests of preserving the integrity of liberal values.

This false perception is being driven by right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organisations and some right-wing nationalist groups use as propaganda for their followers. This is definitely an area wherein more needs to be done to offer an explicit expose'.

---

Notes:
Source: www.islam21c.com

Islam doesn't impose upon people, people impose upon it!

sounds like a case of missing common sense again.


i take it that the university has separate praying facilities for males and females?

how bout setting up some loud speakers in each room and being done with it?


it depends on what time the talk was held but i guess they could never have thought that far ahead, somebodies always got the loudest voice.. which is just as bad as red tape.


or am i just being patronizing and arrogant again? dont answer that, the last time i said that they took it at face value.. and said yes i was.


allah swt's will is always done.

i will keep apologizing.


...public lecture, might need three rooms.



the important thing to remember is that not everybody is at the same stage of belief/practice/knowledge in islam and it is important to not put of people who are not at the same stage as you.

...or not


i dont get the picture of the signs?

format_quote Originally Posted by Junon

Salaam

Thanks to the brothers and sisters who replied.

Point of posting was to show how all enveloping the ideology of secular liberalism has become in UK and the dangers it poses particularly to those who practice there faith. In fact several Christian societies have been forced off campus because they don't submit to the equality and diversity agenda.

No doubt more Islamic societies will be targeted in the future. Rough times ahead methinks .

not really, its just a badly worded article.

the jumps in logic and comparison and the wanting to be pigeon holed together.. leads me to think how little the information actually is.


i mean the answer to opposition is literally an expression of belief.


so what happens when somebody asks you?



we get what we send forward really. and in a modern society, civil answers and debate should count for more. dont know what god thinks about that though.


every article has an agenda.


and wanting a faculty to teach you and then saying they are not on your side is a bit of a paradox.


...the critical student always learns the most imo.. and is always a pain in the @ss

format_quote Originally Posted by Logikon

If the rules of Islam stopped me from sitting with my friends in a lecture room then it is imposing on me.

Have you actually read the article?
Regardless that it does state those who wished to sit with the opposite gender are in fact allowed to do so, if you're attending an Islamic lecture, it stands to reason that you're there to actually attend the lecture and learn something not socialize with either genders which is something that can be done in your own private time.
This is simple hostility, and audacity to speak on behalf of women. I don't personally desire for any kaffir to tell me what it is I feel or don't feel, where I'd like to sit, and what I'd like to learn!

best,