Islam to be banned in British schools
Yesterday, Denbigh High School won its appeal before the House of Lords, against an earlier ruling of the Appeal Court that Shabina Begum Human rights were violated when the State run school denied her the right to an education, for no offence greater than observing the dress requirements of her faith. Having scanned the British media reaction to this case, it is apparent than in the triumphalism and sometimes blatant Islamophobia, few commentators have grasped the gravity of the situation: the Law Lords have outlawed Islamic religious observance in schools, which by corollary will translate to the work place, in a facsimile of the French headscarf ban.
The policy in France has further added to the insulation of Muslim women in French society. Those who wish to observe the requirements of their faith (the vast majority) are faced with a stark choice: do so and be denied an education and denied work outside the Muslim community or alternatively, to continuously compromise their faith and then statistically, end up still not being accepted into the non-Muslim workplace. France's fractious tinderbox society is not a positive model of an enlightened or integrated multiculturalism; it is a revolution waiting to happen.
The UK, which before the introduction of the Human Right Act in 1988, which came into enforce in October 2000, was in the main progressive toward religious observation within State schools and Church of England schools. Yet now perversely Human rights legislation is interpreted to deny the most fundamental human rights; that of freedom of conscience. The requirement to wear a uniform in compulsory education or prison is undoubtedly oppressive. There are many matters of conscience other than religious observation, which might lead one to object to wearing a uniform.
The Law Lords ruling will result in many Muslim students, male and female alike, becoming prisoners of conscience in school, since they will be wearing their uniforms under protest.
Lord Bingham placed emphasis on the fact that the school had consulted with a local Mosque and developed a uniform policy that met the interest of Muslim culture and had been accepted by the majority of the local Islamic community. Unfortunately neither assertion is true. Had Lord Bingham given consideration to the real motives behind the campaigning anti Hizb-ut Tahrir head's motives for adopting the the shalwar kameez, he might have come to a very different view. The head teacher, who by her own admission is not a Muslim, has taken position that is deliberately designed to be exclusive of Islamic observation.
The shalwar kameez is fashionable in the Indian subcontinent but it is not Islamic entire. The shalwar kameez can "if" it protects a woman's modesty meet the requirements of religious observation, this said the vast majority of Muslim women and Islamic scholars throughout the World do not perceive that it does. In any event, if a Muslim woman does not consider it to sufficiently protect her modesty, as Shabina Begum clearly does not, then ispso facto it does not meet the requirments of religious observation. There is an essential as well as existential elements of the Hijab; any expert who is unaware of this is clearly bereft. One wonders how Lord Bingham could arrive at the conclusion that it meets the needs of Islamic culture, in paradox with all the leading Sunni Muslim religious authorities.
The question therefore as to whether the local community accepts this is irrelevant, as any Islamic scholar ought to have been able to tell the school that in Shabina Begum's case the shalwar kameez would necessarily be against faith. Although, it clearly is not the case that the shalwar kameez is satisfactory to the local Muslim community.
The head choose the shalwar kameez precisely because it was un-Islamic, she made the point that she did not wnat their to be a distinction between Sikh and Muslims girls. Although, notably she has not asked Sikh boys to remove their turbans. It would have been more sensible to address this outdated concept of school uniforms, yet instead the Law Lords have given the green light to the abolishment of Islamic religious observation in state schools. This will not lead to integration it will lead to further segregation, and not just in schools.
Shabina Begum's right to wear the jilbab infringed upon no other persons rights, denying her that right infringes upon the rights of 3% of the British population.
Massoud Shadjareh Chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission stressed:
"That children can be denied an education because of their religious beliefs is indicative of the fact that religious and cultural freedom in Britain today is nothing but a fallacy."
27 comments:
I am gobbed smacked that the Law Lords would be so Islamophobic. For God's sake the poor girl doesn't want to harm anybody, all she wants to to do is wear the garments of her faith, that hardly a big deal. It is no more than a Jew wearing a skull cap, a Sikh wearing a turban or me wearing a crucifix when I was at school. Actually my Gran Stefania, who I was named after, never went out the house without her head covered.
What I can't understand is why Denbigh High School wouldn't let her wear it in the first place, her parents have both tragically died and that her faith might be very important to her and most schools allow it. It seems to me that we should be asking questions about this head, Yasmin Bevan political agenda, she seems to have a bee in her bonnet about Islam. She was born a Muslim but is no longer one. She said the reason that Shabina was banned from wearing her jilbab because the school thought it represented radical Islam!!! Really? Then is the school saying that the MCB, which was set up by the Labour party is radical Islamist group???
Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain:
"Many other schools have willingly accommodated Muslim schoolgirls wearing the jilbab. The British Muslim community is a diverse community in terms of the interpretation and understanding of their faith and its practice. Within this broad spectrum those that believe and choose to wear the jilbab and consider it to be part of their faith requirement for modest attire should be respected."
The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, Mick Brookes, said:
"This is a good judgment for schools."
...if they are run by backward Islamophobes or racists who got nothing better to do. This gives a green light to schools to ban Muslim head coverings, like they did in France. In Germany Muslim school teachers were banned from wearing the head coverings - the unforeseen consequence off this Islamophobia is that Nuns were banned from wearing their head coverings too.
Britain has got the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the EU, little girls going to school wearing mini skirts, no knickers and naval piercings, take drugs and get drunk in school time, parents get sent to prison if they take their kids on holiday during term time without the schools permission, children are raping teachers and stabbing each other and Denbigh High School is excluding students on the basis of religious belief. There is something very wrong with this picture.
Interesting and thought-provoking post. Hmm, I'm in two minds about this. My instinct is that her freedom to practice her faith as she sees fit should be protected.
However, I also find fundamentalist religion (in all its forms - Christian, whatever) extremely frightening because of its inability to entertain doubt, and because of the way it casts all outside of it as the enemy. I'm not sure that schools should cater to fundamentalism - either in allowing the jilbab, in teaching Creationism as science, or any other way. I presume that it is not accpetable for Sikhs to take their ceremonial daggers into school? It would also appear that this school allows headscarves and modest dress (this was the policy of my school in the 70s/80s, and appeared to cause no problems).
I'm also unsure of what you mean about the shalwar kameez not protecting her dignity. Although again, I take your point that if she felt it didn't, then it didn't.
I'm feeling similarly to how I feel about euthanasia - that to allow this girl (who doubtless feels very strongly about this) to wear the jilbab would be like allowing euthanasia for those who really want it. There would then be a pressure on those who didn't feel so strongly to adopt it.
School uniform is about just that - making children uniform. In some ways it really helps - less bullying on the grounds of being poor etc. In other ways it allows little Hitler headmasters to stifle any creativity. But on the whole, I'd prefer a school had a uniform than not.
If the school were to make Shabina Begum wear a uniform skirt, I'd be right with her. But uniform is about getting to a compromise for everyone. Having to compromise here might stand Shabina in good stead in the future - and a fundamentalist faith isn't likely to teach her that at any other time.
I'm also conscious of the comparison with the Christian possibly being denied his right to life for converting from Islam. It's kind of hard to feel that such an intolerant religion should demand toleration. Although this is apparently a crime against the state rather than the religion?
I don't know on this one, I really don't know.
Karen
Thank you for your well thought out comments.
I think the issue of Fundamentalism is often misrepresented. Islam is fundamentalist, the Qu'ran is regard as the word of God, this is of Judaism too but it is not the case with most branches of Christianity. In Christianity it is generally regarded as an extreme position to believe in the Bible is the word of God. In Islam there are many interpretations of the Qu'ran some more literal than others. The requirement to observe the Hijab, or to act and dress with modesty and to have ones head and soul covered is not regarded as an extreme position.
I am not suggesting that Hizb-ut Tahrir is moderate but many Hijabis who wear the jilbab would be considered moderates. I do not recall seeing one female member of the Muslim Council of Britain dressed in a shalwar kameez. Moreover, it would be erroneous to suppose that all those Hijabis dressed in a shalwar kameez were more moderates than those dressed in jilbabs. In any event, it would be wrong to assume all of those who wear the Jilbab would be in the creationist class, I'm sure most are in the Copernican World.
The shalwar kameez would not be considered acceptable my the majority of Muslim girls, I am not suggesting that their preference should been given prominence over anyone else's, Shabina Begum wearing the Jilbab does not impinge upon the right of girl who do not wish to wear a head scarf or a shalwar kameez. The argument that this places pressure on other girls to do so is false, if that were so does it not logically follow that the shalwar kameez would have such an effect on those girls who choose not to wear a headscarf at all?
I should however like to clarify that I am not saying that the shalwar kameez protect the modest of Muslim women, I am saying that it does not do so if they perceive that it does not. In much the same way that many women object to a uniform that requires them to wear skirts.
I cannot agree with that school uniform has any positive effect in arresting social inequality or bullying; these social iniquities remain apparent. In much of the World children do not wear school uniforms and where they do not there are not the manifest problems usually identified as being prevented by a school uniform. The real reason for the introduction of school uniforms was to address the inequality of schools: secondary modern, tech and grammar. Only grammar and public schools used to have uniforms.
With regard to the Christian convert in Afghanistan, no Muslim has ever been killed in this country for converting to another religion although several have been killed for being Muslims. So it is tempting to dismiss this as not being relevant since it is not a British situation. However, that would be somewhat dishonest as the Shari'a is clear that aspostasy, insulting Islam, or for a Muslim who publicly rejects and denounces Islam the death sentence applies. The same is true of Christianity and Judaism and like these other religions, Muslims have for the last 1000 years tried to circumvent the sentence.
Whether they will be able to do so is dependent upon whether this man wants to be martyred for his faith, I suspect the court will try to declare him mentally incompetent or questioning whether he ever accepted Islam in adulthood. However as a comparison how many Muslims have died in Coalition detention, when they have been detained for no other fact than they were Muslims? The international situation is perhaps not a good determining factor of our multicultural society, after all we are all British and have to live together.
This I think is the crux of it, how sensible is it to deny Muslim women the right to an education (or work) for observing their faith? The corollaries are predictable and they do not bode well. I should have thought that allowing people to observe their religion without prejudice. Instead we have a situation in which Muslims are being denied the right to observe their faith in state schools.
Interesting and thought provoking. I have not read anything about this ruling in the press but did heard a little about it on the BBC Today news so know the establishments views on the matter and can pretty much guess what the rest of media are saying. I had heard about it before and what has happened in France etc.
What I find shocking is why the matter of ‘the’ school dress code reached the House of Lords. These people are nuts. Interesting piece but perhaps relevant to the House’s ideas about the world.
From: A Bully in Ermine, George Monbiot
March 21, 2006 From Monbiot.com
“Last week, the baroness (formerly the Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Tonge) opened a debate about Botswana with an attack on the Gana and Gwi Bushmen of the Kalahari(1). She suggested they were trying to “stay in the Stone Age”, described their technology as “primitive” and accused them of “holding the government of Botswana to ransom” by resisting their eviction from their ancestral lands. How did she know? In 2002 she had spent half a day as part of a parliamentary delegation visiting one of the resettlement camps into which the Bushmen have been forced. Her guides were officials in the Botswanan government.”
Read on:
http://www.ukwatch.net/article/1543
Truly shocking but in know way surprising.
So back to the schools.
Education for children should be free from any religious belief systems. If children want to make their own mind up about a religious belief at the age of what ever so be it. Not in schools. To me a belief in any God is insane but that is my belief and from the age of twelve when I decided I didn’t believe in any GOD I had a hard time at SCHOOL but I got through and around it. This government wants religious schools for children; it’s the neo-con Straussian doctrine. Very bad and sick.
You say,
“Shabina Begum Human rights were violated when the State run school denied her the right to an education”
‘violated’ and ‘Human rights’ what? over a piece of cloth over a humans head. And all the crap that is happening now in the real world, is this is really important but…when I was a kid a teacher would send me home for having my hair over my **** and I was a punk! I just stood up for my rights. I said Fuck You! Sorry for language. But I did.
And things worked out. Sort of.
Human rights? !
Hello Zep,
Firstly, thank you for your contribution and please feel free to use whatever language you wish without further regard.
Secondly, the right to practice ones religion in school is not the same as religious indoctrination within school; you choose to reject religion and to adopt an existential path at the age of twelve: you were bestowed with sufficient intellectual capacity to arrive at this position even at this young age. Therefore, surely you would accept that adolescents equally intellectually bestowed could embrace religion and essentialism?
If the nation is to adopt an education policy where a pupil is to be excluded from a state school for observing the requirments of her faith, then surely such is policy that regrettably will lead to greater religious segregation and advances the cause of faith schools.
Thirdly, I did not say that Shabina Begum's human rights were violated, it was held by the court of appeal that they were. I do not believe in abstract Human rights, I believe they are contrived fiction. Rights are necessarily deduced from a body of law, I maintain that such a right is manifest in the 1950 Convention on Human rights and fundamental freedoms, yet I also hold that her case was poorly argued. Her counsel Cheri Booth QC should have placed legal opinions of respected Islamic scholars before the court. Exposing the myth that school consulted with Islamic scholars or community leaders; in truth, the school consulted an inconsequential Mosque Imam, the council and the local education authority. Resulting in an unsatisfactory modus vivendi which was offered to the students, it was not an agreement at all it was a diktat
Fourthly, you are mistaken in thinking that this was a disagreement about a piece of cloth over her head, the difference is in the length of the hem of her dress. It is her lower half that she felt was insufficiently covered. So it is a difference of eleven centimeters, which is of great significance to her but of no consequence to anyone else in the school.
The school decided to manafacture a conflict with Hizb-ut Tahrir, or more to the point the council did. However, they approached this conflict in a manner reminiscent of George Bush's: "you are either with us or you are against us" speech. The entire notion that the Jilbab represented Islamic extremism or was exclusive to Hizb-ut Tahrir is fraudulent. The Islamic "leaders" referred to represent far fewer Muslims than Hizb-ut Tahrir, both nationally and in Luton. The "leaders" who endorsed the shalwar kameez, did so for political reasons, in contrast to their previous positions.
There is a lot more to this issue. In brief: the MCB is a Government front, undemocratic and unrepresentative; the once popular Muslim Parliament of Great Britain exists in name only, the British Government certainly helped bring about its demise by refusing to deal with it in 1997, when it set up the MCB. The Labour Government has partial bans on Hamas and Hizbullah, which effectively neuter the two most popular Muslim political parties and are in the process of banning Hizb-ut Tahrir, another large Muslim political party. The Government rarely deals with the Muslim Brotherhood aligned MAB, which now has the largest membership of British Muslims.
There has been a deliberate attempt to marginalise and disenfranchise Muslims. The Labour Government has willful sought conflict and pursued undemocratic means to bully Muslims, this is echoed in the actions of many local governments including Luton. However, I doubt that the Labour Government welcomes this ruling, since instead of dividing Muslims it unites them, further undermines British credibility in Muslim nations and has fueled a wave of anti-Muslim triumphalism that will make any Government legislative or policy intervention to reverse the position difficult.
Yes you are right in saying that I made my choices at an early age so why shouldn’t someone now make a choice to follow a particular faith at an early age. Point taken. But my choices way back then were taken without the influence of family, friends or my school. If Begum came from a family of non believers and converted to Islam then there may be a similarity. I really don’t know about her motives for choosing her faith, I only know mine for rejecting a God.
I think there should be no faith schools. The conflict in NI was fuelled by the state in the sixties allowing Catholic and Protestant children to be educated separately. And I am against private education.
“There has been a deliberate attempt to marginalise and disenfranchise Muslims”.
I agree with you there but who is doing the marginalising here.
Ok I know some more about the issue and thanks. It has cleared up a few things.
The net is an odd place but is this Hizb ut-Tahrir official site that says,
“Women’s circles are supervised by either their husbands, relatives who they cannot marry or by other women.”
Supervising women? And the husbands have to do this if they are married?
Hizb ut-Tahrir want to,
“change the situation of the corrupt society”
“ …change the emotions in the society until they become Islamic emotions that accept only that which pleases Allah (swt) and rebel against and detest anything which angers Allah”,
“…works to change the relationships in the society until they become Islamic relationships which proceed in accordance with the laws and solutions of Islam.”
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/english.html
What planet are these guys on? Hizb ut-Tahrir represents everything about religion that I detest. Change Islam with Christian and allah with God and you have a fundamentalist Jesus loving evangelic rhetoric. ‘You are either with us or against us’
An undemocratic party operating within in a democracy with aims to dismantle it and replace it with one based on a religious belief system that says women should be ruled by their husbands amongst other rather fascistic rules and regulations. I am very glad the schools head is anti- Hizb ut-Tahrir. Campaign on.
Was Begum in anyway supported by Hizb ut-Tahrir in taking her action against the school? Is her brother a member of this group by any chance? The press seem to think so. You are saying this link was manufactured by the school. Why did they do this. Did the head who is rightly against Hizb ut-Tahrir, ban Begum from school because she believed that Begum’s clothing represents Islamic extremism? Did Begum go to the courts by her self without any help from anyone?
Zep
I cannot agree that your sincerely held views have any greater legitimacy than the views of anyone else: it is surely irrelevant whether a view is heterodox or orthodox.
I think you missed the point about Hizb-ut Tahrir, the school framed this case as a dispute against HT, yet this was not so; it was a dispute with mainstream Islamic opinion. The head mistress was contrived the situation, you have alluded to the fact that it was suggested that the brother was a member of Hizb-ut Tahrir, which is not true. It is also said that Hizb-ut Tahrir supported her, however, again this is not true.
The head mistress' views on Islam and Hizb ut-Tahrir are a mater for her. She should not be using her school as a political vehicle, which clearly she did. Moreover, she banned the wearing of the Jilbab on religious not secular or pragmatic grounds. She imposed the shalwar kameez precisely becasue it was not Islamic and only allowed the headscarf after strong Muslim objections. Her claims to be defending her students from Islamic extremism have not be substantiated, the school has a vague written advice from the MCB regarding uniform, however they have clarified their position in support of Shabina Begum. Moreover, the two consulted Imams have given written declarations supporting the view that the Jilbab is the appropriate etire for a sexually mature female.
Hizb-ut Tahrir, they had no involvement in this case, this is the manufactured element, and the media presentation of this case is bordering on anti-Muslim propaganda; considering the degree of blatant untruthfulness in the reporting. However this said, HT they represent a significant body of opinion and they are a peaceful organisation in this country. There are many political organisations who views are odious; the Head would not be allowed to denouce the BNP.
I have been thinking a lot about the word ‘Islamophobia’ recently and been spending hours trawling the web looking at many different view points on this word. In what I have been able to find ‘Islamophobia’ is used by two groups of organisations: institutions and web bloggers. Those that think it is on the rise**** and those that think it is a myth not much from the betweenies. From what I can gather there is no clear distinction between those who say more people in the West fear Islam and those that say it is a myth.
The media pundits, politicians and some Muslim leaders say it is a problem, particularly after the 9/11 attack and more so since the London bombings. Opinion polls say in the US that more people are distrustful of Muslims now than before 9/11. TV, radio, the press in the last 5 years have had a discourse on Islam that is unprecedented.
In the UK, there are moderate Muslims, extremist Muslims but where are the Muslims who are not moderate or extremist. The ones who have a drink, a smoke and like to shag? Pretty much like the ones I know. Why are they not represented. Like at www.muslimswhogetdrunkandhavesex.com (made that up)
I cannot find references to the ‘word’ retaliated to anything academic other than the colonial ‘Other’ (Said) ,nothing else. There is nothing that I could find that says that word is older than ten years and it is not referenced.
So where has it come from. The media or Muslims that have been spot lighted by recent events. Perhaps both, and it is useful for right wing media pundits and fundamentalist Muslims. Power. Who really benefits.
The media pundits who a earn good living writing about ‘Islamophobia’ and the nutters who claim it represents Islam and spend their days contriving more shit about how down trodden Muslims are in this country and feed more rubbish to the media nuts who write about this. Is there not a little bit of a jerk circle going on here.
And the real people in power are having a laugh.
Divide and rule!
Zep
are you not being extremely disingenuous? Those who suggest that Europe is not awash with Islamophobia, are without exception hostile to Islam as a religion and Muslims as a social group. Islamophobia as a term came into prominence with Runnymede Trust
report in Nov 1997 commissioned by Jack Straw.
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf
Islamophobia was identified as a separate form of xenophobia, largely because it exceeded in scale all other forms of xenophobia in this country. For instance, most racial motivated crimes are committed against people who ethnic origin is predominately Muslim ergo Muslims are more likely to be victims of a racist crime than non-Muslims. If the fact that the victim is a Muslim or is likely to be a Muslim, is a common factor in most race crimes, it cannot be dismissed as coincidental.
Moreover, the most politically under-represented religious group per percentage of the population are Muslims. The most overrepresented religious group is Jews, followed by Sikhs, both of which have been classified as ethnic under the race relations act.
The Labour Government have been at pains to avoid making a similar classification of Muslims, notwithstanding that the exceedingly loose legal defintion would equally apply. It should also apply to Irish Catholics it was inexplicable that it was not so applied.
Islamophobia (anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim xenophobia) has been defined thus:
The eight components are:
1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-a-definition/
Whilst the police argue that the Jean Charles de Menezes case has to be taken in the context of the 7th July London bombings; it does demonstrate that the police are using racial profiling to characterise Muslims. Muslims are routinely detained, beaten harassed, intimidated and placed under surveillance by the state. The lack of media coverage lends to an overall impression that it is not happening.
First off I apologise for the disingenuous last comment, I thought I’d sent it to anywhichway in reply to a one of his comments posted to me. And considering the seriousness of the subject it was not amusing.
In “Islamophobia (anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim xenophobia) has been defined thus:” The second point says, “Islam is seen as separate and 'other'.” Very true and agree but “It does not have values in common with other cultures,” and “is not affected by them and does not influence them.” I don’t understand. I guess it would be better to say that its values are regarded by Islamophobics as inferior to Western values. We are talking about a Eurocentric view of the world here I guess. The rest of the points seem valid and agree with them. Cheers.
I would guess then about 90% of the UK population are Islamophobic.
The Runnymede Trust did their research in Bradford, Tower Hamlets and Walthamforest. Well I’ve never been to Bradford but know Tower Hamlets and Walthamforest pretty well and they are racked with poverty. I think in Tower Hamlets the Muslim community consists mainly of Bangladeshi immigrants, terrible housing, no jobs, kids running around not feeling they fit in anywhere and a terrible council. And white residents of several generations who, rightly or wrongly ‘perceive’ the immigrants as stealing their jobs and housing. There simply is not enough resources to go round. I didn’t look closely at the paper and couldn’t accesses the rest of it but did they interview non-Muslim residents? I mean white, African, Eastern European, etc to find out what their attitudes were and if Islamophobic, how did this play out in there everyday lives.
From what I know throw the media and talking to people from that part of the world (Bradford) the Asian and white communities both working class live in separate areas and again poverty and lack of jobs are the situation. In these areas the problem is poverty everyone is discriminated against, these places are a breeding ground for danderous crazies like the BNP.
As for the Begum issue I know from reading about this in the press much is Islamophobic according to your definitions and ignorant but a school has the right to exclude a child that does not conform to the dress code. I have found no statements made by the head teacher. And keeping the BNP or HT out of the school should be part of her job.
You say, “HT they represent a significant body of opinion”. If this is true how is this going to promote understanding and educate the Islamophobes. Surely groups like this only confirm an Islamophobes beliefs. I will take your word for it that HT are non violent but wanting to convert the world to your faith is ridiculous. Anyone from any faith telling me that my ways are wrong I say, well gets me really angry.
Yeah that right Zep you just mug off the East End :) The school doesn't have the right to exclude on the basis of religious belief and if you read the judgement (sorry no link -I'll post one later) there is no doubt about it, the woman was trying to exclude a religious belief that she didn't agree with. What Babak is saying and every major Muslim org is saying is that that it ain't just HT belief but mainstream belief.
The head teacher has made a lot of claims that she ain't backed up at court one of them was that this Richard and her brother were members of HT. So before we accept that she has rights as a head to exclude someone, shouldn't we be looking a little bit more closely about what the women's agenda is here. If its to mug off Muslims, then that puts things in a different light. She has presented herself as protecting moderate Muslims but that has been shown to be a load of old porkies. She ain't produced any of the evidence of local Muslim support that she claims. Whereas that Begum Richard seems to have the entire Muslim World in her camp.
Also Babak's point about the head teacher not getting into politics in school time is reasonable. I had to pull my sons school up on them teaching him when he was 6 that Blair was a good man! Fuckin propaganda or what!!! I would be totally against schools supporting HT, BNP, Sinn Fein or DUP but they shouldn't be denouncing them either. It seems to me this would be the same as saying you can't wear a crucifix coz it represents Sinn Fein.
Yeah that right Zep you just mug off the East End” I didn’t, I was writing about Tower Hamlets. It is in the east end and it’s a shit hole through no fault of the people who have to live there. But perhaps not for those who have a big wedge to buy a loft apartment in a tastily converted ware house with private security and a big wall to keep the scum out then the east end is cool. Is that called gentrification? If it is I’m a Gentrificationophobe. Crap corrupt council as well. I’m a ‘Councilophobic’ as well! Help!
Ok find the link. Please! What is the heads name, what is the school called. What did she actually say or was reported to have said. If the head actually said that Begum was being excluded because her clothing represents blaa blaa and so on then ok that is wrong. I will maybe change my mind. That’s the advantage in not having a dogmatic view of the world, new ‘truths’ on life the universe and everything can be taken on board, a previous ‘truth’, that this new ‘truth’ replaces, can now be chucked into the great dust bin of knowledge. Many years ago people thought the earth was flat and the sun went round the earth and perfectly understandable considering the information available. Don’t mean everyone was stupid all that age ago. The stupid people were the ones who couldn’t except the evidence put to them when it came along.
But this is a web blog, just because some blogger writes something doesn’t mean it is true. If the blogger provides a link from a news paper that is the newspapers opinion. You might agree or disagree with it. If the blogger provides a link from a web site that claims to represent a large part of some community or other I look at the ‘about us’ link and for example The Board of Deputies of British Jews states:
“This is based upon a system of delegates (or Deputies) elected from the great majority of Jewish communal organisations, including synagogues, social and welfare organisations, local community bodies and many others.”
It doesn’t actually say how they elect and so on so, I become suspicious and why not. Dig a little deeper and you find more.
Like when you read in the press, ‘officials say’, ‘experts agree’, ‘public opinion says’, ‘opinion polls relive’, ‘a report said today’. 99% of the time the sources are not relieved or it is a ‘think tank’. You only know what is being ‘said’ which is interesting as a subject.
What is being said about a subject (discourse), is really the only thing the reader or listener to these reports really ‘knows’.
The word ‘Islamophaobia’ didn’t exist as a word before 1997, which I found out thanks to Babak and I find this really interesting. (Something to do with Jack the Mac Straw). Just because this word ‘Islamophaobia’ has been invented by neo cons doesn’t mean that Muslims haven’t had a hard crap time in the UK before this word was invented ( Freudian by the way, phobia). It means someone, probably white Christians (or Struassians) invented this word and I think it was to give the Muslims a harder time. Why? More later on this.
Hi Ho and so it goes on and on. Peace and Love.
Zep,
I was only having a bubble about the East End Tower Hamlets is a toilet.
Found the source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2098312,00.html
Head's name is Mrs Yasmin Bevan and no mention of her being a practising Muslim unlike the claims in some of the rags.
Point 18:
"Since then, according to the appellants, a number of Muslim girls at the school have said that they do not wish to wear the jilbab and fear they will be pressured into wearing it. A demonstration outside the school gates by an extreme Muslim group (unconnected with the respondent) in February 2004, protesting against the education of Muslim children in secular schools, caused a number of pupils to complain to staff of interference and harassment. Some pupils were resistant to wearing the jilbab as unnecessarily restrictive and associated with an extremist group. The head teacher and her assistant, and also some parents, were concerned that acceptance of the jilbab as a permissible variant of the school uniform would lead to undesirable differentiation between Muslim groups according to the strictness of their views. The head teacher in particular felt that adherence to the school uniform policy was necessary to promote inclusion and social cohesion, fearing that new variants would encourage the formation of groups or cliques identified by their clothing. The school had in the past suffered the ill-effects of groups of pupils defining themselves along racial lines, with consequent conflict between them. The school uniform had been designed to avoid the development of sub-groups identified by dress."
So on the basis of unsubstantiated claims (or complete bullshit) this girl was denied her religious freedom not coz there was a problem with her wearing it but because of the affect it might have on the other students. Well hang on a minute, why is the school saying what is right or wrong in Islam. If other kids don't want to wear it, no bother they don't have to - what's all this bollocks about pressure? Not one witness came forward for the school!
What I think is fuckin hilarious, this school is majority Muslim, so be rights write a letter home to the parens ask them what they want the uniform to be and when the majority say Jilbab - they can all wear it and be happy! Coz it would be part of the school uniform and fuck all to do with religion. Somehow I don't think the law lords would of gone for that.
I'm very interested in your take on Islamophobia, coz to be honest until Babak said that the phrase was used to cirumvent the Race Relations Act, which makes sense, I never thought about it like that before. I always thought that it just came about like homophobia.
"What I think is fuckin hilarious, this school is majority Muslim, so be rights write a letter home to the parens ask them what they want the uniform to be and when the majority say Jilbab - they can all wear it and be happy! Coz it would be part of the school uniform and fuck all to do with religion. Somehow I don't think the law lords would of gone for that"
A very good point.
Thanks for your reply, quotes and link. At last I can read the judgement from The Lords in Greatness: They Who Sit Softly Upon High in Exuberant Luxuries of the Powdered Wiginess and in Robes of Nice Materials; Hail be to Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote and.. what ? a woman, when did this happen? Baroness Hale of Richmond.
You write.
“...why is the school saying what is right or wrong in Islam.”
It doesn’t. Not from what you have quoted. At least I can’t find it. From your quote:
“A demonstration outside the school gates by an extreme Muslim group (unconnected with the respondent) in February 2004, protesting against the education of Muslim children in secular schools, caused a number of pupils to complain to staff of interference and harassment.”
Well that states that Begum was not pushed into wearing what she wanted to wear and what the media wrote was rubbish.
“The head teacher in particular felt that adherence to the school uniform policy was necessary to promote inclusion and social cohesion, fearing that new variants would encourage the formation of groups or cliques identified by their clothing.”
A basic school inform policy. Just the same in many schools. That’s what informs are for.
“The school had in the past suffered the ill-effects of groups of pupils defining themselves along racial lines, with consequent conflict between them.”
This sentence sticks out. Begum didn’t want to dress the way she felt she wanted to because it defined her race; it was for personal religious beliefs.
Point 10.
“On 3 September 2002, the first day of the autumn term, the respondent (then aged nearly 14) went to the school with her brother and another young man. They asked to speak to the head teacher, who was not available, and they spoke to the assistant head teacher, Mr Moore. They insisted that the respondent be allowed to attend the school wearing the long garment she had on that day, which was a long coat-like garment known as a jilbab. They talked of human rights and legal proceedings.”
On the first day of term there is talk of human rights and legal proceedings.
Point 11
“On the same day the head teacher, who had been informed of the incident, wrote to the respondent's mother and brother. After setting out an account of the incident, she stated that the uniform had been agreed with the governing body, and that it was her view, and that of the LEA, that the school's uniform rules were more than reasonable in taking into account cultural and religious concerns. She noted that the respondent had not attended school because she had been removed by those representing her and stated that the respondent was required to attend school dressed in the correct uniform.”
Very odd.
“The school was anxious to establish contact with the respondent's guardian and accordingly, on 4 September 2002, a member of the support team telephoned her house and spoke to a male member of the family who said that the respondent had seen her solicitor and was going to sue the school.”
Stranger still.
Point 12
“…the school's decision to exclude the respondent breached her human rights under UK and European human rights law. Articles 9, 8 and 14 and Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Convention were set out and reasons given explaining why the school's actions had breached the respondent's human rights.”
That was fast. Woh! 19 days later a solicitor’s letter arrives at the school. I want that solicitor’s number! Maybe useful.
Point 16
“The EWS again offered help in making a transfer if that was what the respondent wanted. She made an application to one school, but it was full. She was told of two other schools where she could wear the jilbab, but she did not apply to them. An approach by her solicitor to the DfES for a direction under sections 496-497 of the Education Act 1996 was fruitless.”
If a child wants to wear a certain type of clothing because of religious belief and it gets to this ( the above), then surely this child should be allowed to say something. I couldn’t find a word (a statement) from her in this. Perhaps wasn’t looking hard enough. Was this because she is a female and it is just a ‘mans world’; in the Western sense of the meaning?
I can’t read the rest at the moment so will caste my zepblog judgement on this at a later date. And happily change my mind on what I have just written if more information on this matter comes to my attention. But between you and me I just support Begum. Thanks again.
Peace to all.
Take care.
Zep.
"It would in my opinion be irresponsible of any court, lacking the
experience, background and detailed knowledge of the head teacher, staff and governors, to overrule their judgment on a matter as sensitive as this".
Learnt alot from this exchange but i will have to disagree with you this matter. The school has a right to have a dress code which is known to pupils, parents and so on before they register. This is the end of story as far as I can make out. I can't think of any more to write on this.
Cheers.
Zep
The head teacher is an incompetent and extremist; she has quite deliberately introduced a policy of excluding Muslimah who choose to observe the Islamic faith. She did not seek to so restrict observance of any other faith; indeed she has adopted the Sikh requirments as a generic, having learned that they failed to satisfy the requirments of Islam, the majority faith in her school. Hence this policy is overtly Islamophobic, which destroys the secularist argument that you are forwarding, the Head teacher is actively promoting religion vis-a-vis Sikhism, yet is trying to supress adherence of the Islamic faith.
The point that is beyond question, is that the school position has not been supported by any authoritative Islamic source; indeed it runs contrary to all the authoritative sources in each of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafii) and the Shia Jaafari, therefore there is no validity whatsoever in the school's claim that their particular design of the shalwar kameez, which fails to cover a woman's leg and posterior, is in accordance with the Shari'a for a sexual mature adult female. Even the very organisations that the head teacher consulted has taken the opposite view.
It has been an interesting public debate, the majority has sided with the school, nothwithstanding that the school sought to oppress Shabina Begum for no other reason than she is an observant Muslim and the head teacher disliked that, as do much of the British nation. Rob raises an interesting juxtaposition, predominately Muslim schools could impose the Jilbab on all students as a dress code.
Massoud Shadjareh is correct:
"That children can be denied an education because of their religious beliefs is indicative of the fact that religious and cultural freedom in Britain today is nothing but a fallacy."
First off you write, “The head teacher is an incompetent and extremist…” It is written as a statement but it is your opinion. The school had a good Ofsted report.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/109/109683.pdf
In fact very good. You wrote this to make out she is bad at her job.
You write she has deliberately introduced a policy to stop Muslims from going to school. I thought that the majority of children at the school were Muslims and were happy to wear the salwar kameez.
First is this a salwar kameez verses the jilbab issue? Is either garment essentially more "Islamic" than the other? Or is salwar kameez not a true form of Muslim dress for women. And would this be about the fact that head teacher is a woman and as mentioned before on this blog she is no longer a practicing Muslim ( but I’ve noted other sites were it says she is Muslim. Strange) Or is it she not the right sort of Muslim. What does this matter.
Second what gets me about nearly all religious faiths is it is always men who do the interpreting of texts and so forth. Who said there shouldn’t be a female pope or the head of the church of England shouldn’t be a woman or there can’t be female rabbi.
I forgot the texts come from God who is a male and it is the job of men to do the interpreting of the texts.
Third: The uniform code is a matter for the school, not the education authority or the government to decide.
Good piece here on Islamophobia.
http://www.rationalist.org.uk/newhumanist/issue02summer/benn.shtml
You said, "It is written as a statement but it is your opinion". No it is a qualifiable statement of fact: Bevan is not a is not a Mujtahid so she is not qualified to issue a fatwa, therefore if she is to venture an opinion as to what is consistent with the Shari'a it must be with reference to an Islamic legal authority, which she pointedly failed to do. Thus she exceeded her competence. In this regard she was an incompetent.
Moreover, she further, elected to ignore the legal opinion of the Imams that she had consulted and the views of all the main Muslim bodies and imposing a uniform code, not to mention the entire corpus jus of all five recognised schools of Islamic jurisprudence in this matter and chose to insist that the school dress did conform with the Shari'a; this is extremist.
Citation - Grand Ayatullah Haajj Sayyid Ali Khamenei:
Q 1: Is taqlīd (emulation) an absolute rational issue or is it also grounded on jurisprudential evidence?
A: Taqlīd has its jurisprudential evidence in addition to reason which also admits that a person who is ignorant of religious rules should refer to a qualified mujtahid.
"I thought that the majority of children at the school were Muslims and were happy to wear the salwar kameez"
This is unqualified, yet it was indeed accepted as fact. There have been numerous objections at the consultation stage and a decline in the percentage of Muslims students. However, even if we assume that the majority do not wish to wear the Jilbab, or the hijab, this is an irrelevance - observant Muslimah are still excluded.
"First is this a salwar kameez verses the jilbab issue? Is either garment essentially more "Islamic" than the other? Or is salwar kameez not a true form of Muslim dress for women."
The particular design of the shalwar kameez adopted by the school reveals to much of the female form. There are longer forms of the shalwar kameez, a unisex garment, which do meet this requirement.
Citation - Grand Ayatullah Haajj Sayyid Ali Khamenei:
Q: Which parts of the body should be covered by a woman?
A: It is obligatory upon a woman to have her entire body covered in the presence of the non-maharam except the face and the hands up to the wrists without make up and ornaments. The clothes should not be attractive to non-maharams.
Q1356: In wedding parties or the like, is it permissible for women to wear transparent or tight clothes that show the contours of their bodies and other types of dresses that show most parts of their bodies?
A: If women are insulated from the gaze of men who are non-mahram, and are immune to falling victim to vile deeds, there is no harm in their wearing such clothes. Otherwise, it is not permissible.
Q1359: Is it permissible for a woman to wear a kind of hijab or dress objects that could trigger the attention of other people or unleash their desire, e.g., to wear a chador in an unconventional way or choose socks with color or material which unleash the desire?
A: It is not permissible for women to wear anything, whose color, design, or manner of wearing may be attractive to non-mahram’s attention or could eventually lead to bad effects or committing that which is haram.
"And would this be about the fact that head teacher is a woman and as mentioned before on this blog she is no longer a practicing Muslim ( but I’ve noted other sites were it says she is Muslim. Strange)"
You have not provided any citation, I doubt you would find any credible source claiming that she was a Muslim, she is pointedly not so described by the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegarph and the Times. Moreover, were she a practicing Muslim it would have been stated in the paragraph five of the Law Lords judgement, and in paragraph two of Lord Justice Brooke's ruling, which reads:
"The Headteacher, Yasmin Bevan, was born into a Bengali Muslim family. She grew up in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh before coming to this country. She has had a great deal of involvement with Bengali Muslim communities in this country and abroad, and she says that she understands the Islamic dress code and the practices adopted by Muslim women. She does not, however, purport to have a detailed knowledge of the theological issues which surfaced in this dispute."
It is clearly implicit from Lord Justice Brooke's description that she is not.
"Second what gets me about nearly all religious faiths is it is always men who do the interpreting of texts and so forth."
This is not so there are female mujtahid, who form their own interpretations, there are also female Rabbis in Reform Judaism and female Vicars in the Church of England.
"Third: The uniform code is a matter for the school, not the education authority or the government to decide."
It is my understanding that the new legislation would still make the LEA the final arbitrator - do you disagree?
You quote an article by Piers Benn, in the Humanist Magazine, which is a notoriously Islamophobic publication with links to right wing extremist group, "Civil Liberty", a BNP front led by BNP North-East organiser, Kevin Scott. The article itself lacks substance and conflates issues. Moreover, Benn's blatant hostility towards highly successful Muslim academics and his use of a flagrantly Islamophobic propaganda website "answering.islam-org" (a BNP favourite) as a source, invites ridicule.
I have wriiten an article on Islamophobia post the 11 September that can be found on this site. In it I provide qualitative examples of Islamophobia that cannot be confused with theological criticism.
Sorry wrong link, yes it is rubbish. But I like to read lots of different opinions.
It was a piece by Ziauddin Sarder which I can't find now that I ment to paste. Islamophobia in Germany, Holland and Belgium. Get back to you on last your last post but as a non beleiver i find this all very difficult.
This is the link that I think you are looking for http://www.newstatesman.com/200512050006 He spells his last name "Sardar"
“Bevan is not a is not a Mujtahid so she is not qualified to venture a fatwa…”
She is the head teacher of the school. That’s her job to run the school and make sure the children get an education.
“It is my understanding that the new legislation would still make the LEA the final arbitrator - do you disagree?”
No idea what this new legislation is but at the moment it is up to schools to decide its own dress code.
You write that,
“There have been numerous objections at the consultation stage and a decline in the percentage of Muslims students. However, even if we assume that the majority do not wish to wear the Jilbab, or the hijab, this is irrelevance - observant Muslimah are still excluded.”
Do you have any citations for this? Would this have not been brought up in court, was it in the court case before the Lords ruling? And has attendance really fallen? Also what is the difference between an observant Muslim and a Muslim? Muslim women who decide to wear western clothing because they choose to, are they frowned upon by the observant Muslims?
These dress codes seem very odd to me. I’m familiar with these ideas and I’m not saying they are wrong; it is up the individual to follow these rules if they want to but the reality is they are completely alien to the sort of society that exists in this country. And what is wrong with wearing beautiful colourful cloths? It reminds me of politicians and Christian leaders wanting a return to Victorian values. No I’m not going down that line that Muslims should be more progressive and modernise etc, but are these rules written in stone so to speak? Are other interpretations available or are these the ones that Begum chooses to follow.
“..there are female mujtahid, who form their own interpretations, their are also female Rabbis in Reform Judaism and female Vicars in the Church of England.”
Well I didn’t know about female mujtahid. Maybe they should have spoken on behalf of Begum in this case. For people who are not educated in certain Muslim traditions and codes of dress it does appear that it is the men who are in charge, just as they are in the Christian church. Yes there are a few female vicars but not many. I can’t image there ever being a female head of the C of E and certainly never a female Pope.
Zep
Bevan is not qualified to determine what does or does not conform to the requirments of the Islamic faith, she should have accepted this and been sensitive to the dress requirments of all religious beliefs and not singled out those she has a personal issue with; it is not for the head teacher to determine which religious beliefs are or are not extremist. She should have not involved her school in the way she did in her personal crusade that what clearly contrary to her brief as a head. She has placed, religious intolerance and conformity above education. Until this dispute she was a failed head teacher in a failing school; on academic results nothing has changed. (1)
The final decision lies with all state school policies lies with the LEA. Actually that was pregnant to this ruling. (2)
The objections at the consultation stage and after, the demonstration and the decline in Muslim students are in evidence in both judgements (3)
The Hijab is not alien to this society at all, they may be more in evidence than ten or twenty years ago but our present society is not the society of ten year ago or twenty ago. The changing nature of societies is ignored by that argument. Consider this: Britain has a longer Islamic heritage than it does Protestant or Jewish. Furthermore, European civilisation owes more to the Islamic Renaissance than pre-Islamic Christianity. Therefore denials of Europe's Islamic heritage are absurd, and claims that Islam is alien or contrary to western civilisation are wholly fictitious. Muslims community have lived in Europe, including the United Kingdom, for a longer period of time that either Protestant or Jewish communities.
According to the Islamic belief everyone is born a Muslim, although not everyone is aware of the Holy Qu'ran. A Muslimah who having read the Qu'ran and accepted the message of the Prophet (saw) once she has obtained sexually maturity is required to wear the Hijab in the presence of non-maharams. If she with regard to her faith chooses not to, in the knowledge that this is wrong, then she is in violation of her faith, in the UK this is a matter of conscience. This is the same with those who drink alcohol or eat pork.
You misunderstand the ruling about colourful clothes, all colours are permissible unless they are worn with the intent of being sexually provocative or are lightly to be sexual provocative. The colour reference has to do with cultural norms, in this regard unless they contravene the purpose of the hijab they are permissible. All is lawful that has not been proscribed.
There are no fatwas from reliable sources that are more progressive than the one given, they are all much the same; where rulings differ is in whether the face should be covered. Begum follows the majority view, that it does not.
All Islamic scholars were supporting Shabina Begum, male and female; they were ignored.
(1) http://www.denbighhigh.luton.sch.uk/examresults/GCSE2005.htm
(2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2098312,00.html
(3) http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j3114/sb-v-denbigh_high_school.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2098312,00.html
The school decides on dress code not the LEA. This is fact! Sorry mate.
Get your facts right ! Don’t waste my time with this!
Students:
1993, Muslim, 90%.
2006, Muslim, 79%.
Does this mean that parents are taking their children away from school in protest? Maybe, but it could also mean that the school has expanded and more children who are not Muslim are now attending, hence the lower proportion of Muslim children in the school. Anyhow it appears it is a good school and loads of kids are going on to higher education and so forth. Using stats like this to prove a point is a waste of time. Don’t waste mine with it!
Why do you say the head was on a personal crusade? The school governors had a say in this. Head teachers are not dictators and not the whole school and nothing but the school. Can they not be over ruled? ?
Next subject.
How can a 1 day year old baby be aware of anything much except where her/his mother’s breast is? Are all non Muslims from the day they are born looked upon as ‘lost sheep’ by observant Muslims? Every baby that is born on this world is a Muslim until they ‘know ‘otherwise? What arrogance!
“If she with regard to her faith chooses not to(wear the Hijab) in the knowledge that this is wrong, then she is in violation of her faith, in the UK this is a matter of conscience.” It is a matter of right and wrong! Think I’m liking the Muslim faith as much as the Christian one, which is not a lot. Oh mustn’t leave out the Jews or I’ll be labelled a Zionist!
Anyway I’m off the woods to worship a tree. By far the oldest faith in this country.
Paganism. Just as irrational but without the rules and regulations.
And this is my last post. Had enough of this blogging stuff. Narcissistic nonsense!
At least on this site. Cheers and good luck.
Zep
You seem somewhat angry. I am not sure whether this is a result of this discussion or something else, however I should not imagine that there has been anything during the course of this discussion to cause such emotion.
Regarding the uniform policy: the guidelines are that it is a matter for schools to set their own policy, although there is no statutory right for them to do so. Thus as a matter of statute, such matter are ultimately within the domain of the LEA. Some LEAs have published uniform guidelines, some do not. The exclusion of Begum for non-compliance contravened the national guidelines and was therefore a matter for the LEA.
An 11% drop in the number of Muslims attending the school between 1993 and 2003, is a significant factor, when there has not been such a drop in the proportion of Muslims in the catchment area. You accept that in a ten year year period the school's Muslims population has drastically reduced, which coincides with this policy, there is no published explanation why this should have occurred. Dismissing it as irrelevant is intellectually vacuous.
The school's academic record is pitiful: 63% of children failed to achieve five GCSEs including English and Maths; the school has no sixth form so all references to HE are meaningless, as they are not attributable to the school.In the equivalent year Thomas Telford obtained 98%. Even a cursory reading of the Ofsted report should leave the reader in no doubt that the praise was politically motivated.
"Are you sure they'd say 'jilbab' though?"
Dunno mate but I'm pretty sure that they would choose to wear some form of hijab. But I'm doubt the crowd banging on about respecting the school's muggy uniform policy (like anyone ever does) would be well fucking mugged off, if their daughters had to wear the hijab.
"About the possible effects on other pupils, why do I as a non-Muslim man have such a strong visceral reaction to hijabis (and especially jilbabis)? I feel very weepy and protective... "
WHY???
When I look at her I think she does her parents proud. I don't have daughter but I have a niece and when she's older she'll cover her head when she goes church just like my sisters and cousins, aunts and old dear do.
One of the interesting thing about Muslim immigrants in the West is that they are not assimilating like most other immigrants.
No offence but that's bollocks - do you live in a Muslim area? I do and it really pisses me off when I hear that and I ain't even a Muslim. But you're talking about my mates here - the geezers I went to school with, who I watch West Ham with and have a bubble with.
Cultures and socities ain't static they change they develop, and I go along with Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor - we're better for it.
Good to hear from you Joe, I trust you are keeping well? My apologises for not responding sooner.
"Oh, isn't she beautiful" while the other is saying "How dare you think that, you misogynistic creep!".
Joe we are all sexual beings, it is in our nature and perfectly healthy and normal that males and female should be sexual attracted to one and other, this is a positive thing.
It is not extraordinary that a non-Muslim man might feel that a woman's beauty is being concealed by the hijab, like a beautiful rose withering in a vase. If the Hijab is alien to his cultural or aesthetic appreciation.
Yet one would hope that whatever the guttural reaction that non-Muslims would respect that a Muslimah feels that her virtue is protected by the Hijab and her beauty is preserved for those with whom she has chosen to share it with.
Post a Comment