Ban the Burka? A Comprehensive Rebuttal (Part 3 of 3)

Epistemology of the “Men Control Women” argument and Diversionary Tactics

The argument that covering is a tool for men to control women is archaic. It is rooted in the mechanisms which British colonialists employed in controlling Muslim communities and justify invading their land and eventually their resources on the premise that they were “backward”. (see, Liela Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate, (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992)). The targeting of the veil continued unabated in the West with obvious epistemological bias. Crawford in 1863 wrote, “Short of Christianity, no teaching can elevate the character and position of Mohammedan women in any land; for, as long as she accepts the Koran as a rule of faith, she will unhesitatingly acquiesce in the mutilated life to which she is condemned.” (Mabel Sharman Crawford, Through Algeria, [1863], quoted in J. Mabro, (ed.), Veiled Half-Truths: Western Travellers’ Perceptions of Middle Eastern Women (London: I. B. Tauris, 1991) 182)

Thus making the veil a symbol of oppression worked in favour of the colonialists, and to assist their colonial endeavours it was made popular as an understanding in the West utilising a distorted Christian paradigm (the veil is commanded in the Bible contrary to popular opinion). Today, the colonialism has concentrated upon the mind, with centrality of the attack of subjugating the minds of Muslims being issues such as the veil. This of course allows for diversion of attention, both of Muslim and non-Muslim members of the British populace from more pressing issues: British/American foreign policy in Muslim lands, the hypocritical stance on Israel, recession, expenses claims. It is no surprise then, that every so often, the Hijab, Niqab and the Jilbab are attacked in symphony by the neoconservatives and those “Muslims” who have either internalised the debacle and brought into Western way of life or have been paid out by their masters.

Domestic Violence a Muslim Monopoly?

To deny that cultural imperatives coercing particular actions and the issue of forcing them into marriages exists would be naïve. It exists, but in families which are culturally bound (like Khan’s father for example, who would be ready to slap her if she wore ankle socks) and ignorant of sound Islamic principles. Also, perhaps someone should enlighten Khan that violence to stop women wearing “sexy” clothing is practised in Britain. The Home Office released statistics indicating that one in seven people believe it is fine for a man to slap his wife or girlfriend if she wears revealing clothes in public. The poll further highlighted 25% believed that wearing revealing clothes should lead to a woman being held partly responsible for being raped or sexually assaulted.

This smashes the myth that the “threat of violence” as Khan states, or domestic violence as depicted through her article is a Muslim monopoly, and Khan uses this to enforce the perception that the Niqab and Hijab are forcibly placed on women. Further analysis of the statistics suggests otherwise. In 2001 the estimated population of Muslims was 1.6 million which represents 2.8% of the total population.  This means that 1.4% percent of the UK population is female Muslim. According to the British Crime Survey, 25% of women had been physically assaulted by a current or former partner (Home Office (2003) Government Policy around Domestic Violence, (London: Home Office)). This means 23.6% of women suffering domestic violence are non-Muslim. The percentage figure of 1.4% is also for the entire female Muslim populace; hence the figure reduces further if it is logically assumed that not every single Muslim woman experiences domestic violence. To make the statistics proportional, if we take 25% of the female Muslim population the percentage figure drops to 0.035%; a point which Khan perhaps would like to consider before lambasting the “fundamentalist” Muslim communities and cheering the “freedoms” which the British society offers.

Khan’s Closing Statements

After persisting with personal claims and unverified generalisations, we finally come to the key reason Khan wants the Burka to be banned:

“Precisely because it is impossible to distinguish between the woman who is choosing to wear a Burka and the girl who has been forced to cover herself and live behind a veil, I believe it should be banned.”

The logic of such a statement is absurd in the extreme and highlights the immature mentality of the author. One can argue no body knows which men are rapists and which men are not; hence they should all be imprisoned and barred from having contact with any women. No body knows for sure which woman is a prostitute and which woman is not and hence all should be imprisoned. The logical absurdity of such a ludicrous statement is self-evident.

After declaring support for Sarkozy’s comments and calling on ministers to ban the Burka, she says that people from here are expected to respect the customs of Pakistan or Middle Eastern countries, and therefore it follows that others should respect the customs of this country. The problem with this statement is that Muslims have respected the way the British live. They may not necessarily agree with it and adopted it, but they have not ordered Britons to do away with mini-skirts and low cut tops, even though Muslims may find such attire repugnant. Since when did respecting a custom involve adopting it? The “pub culture” is very central to Britain; Jews religiously do not drink, are to be regarded as not respecting British culture?

Khan moves onto describe her experience of the Niqab. Do readers honestly care what a person who lacks any genuine credibility to talk about ANY aspect of Islam thinks? Sisters who read her words, “it was hot and uncomfortable” would probably remind her that the fire of hell is hotter. But would someone devoid of Islam care?

She then goes on to make even more exaggerated claims,

“If I had been forced to wear a veil, I would certainly not be free to write this article. Nor would I have run a marathon, become an aerobics teacher or set up a business.”

Clandestinely and incorrectly suggesting that all Muslim women who wear the Niqab have been forced to do so, Khan would not be able to write an article in a Niqab. Surely the readers would like to know how a woman who wears a Niqab would not be able to write an article; are her hands shackled behind her back? Perhaps she is hung upside down? ISSM activities are a proof that women can be doctors (the head of ISSM on the sisters side is a Muslim woman who is a doctor and wears the Niqab and Jilbab), operate businesses, and even run Kung Fu classes in a halal environment. Khan’s drivel suggests she clearly lives in her own little bubble devoid of any reality.

Her one dimensional, unrealistic “opinion” draws to an end with emotional calls to free the poor women from control of the evil men. She finishes with a message:

“’If you don’t like living here and don’t want to integrate, then what the hell are you doing here? Why don’t you just go and live in an Islamic country?’”

To this it would be replied

“We are born here and are here to stay, and will we integrate as far as Islam permits, not what the superficial, ever-changing norms of a glamorised egg-shell society dictates.”

Concluding Remarks

One must feel sorry for Khan. Trying ever so hard to be the perfect stooge, she invariably makes the silly mistake of making unsubstantiated, exaggerated claims which lack any real intellectual veracity and instead exposes her own deceitful aims of denigrating Islam and that practice which the pious Mothers of the Believers, and the female Companions (May Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet Sallalahu Alayhi Wassalam adhered to. Her article is a continuation of the war against Islam, and the tactics employed are a reflection of those which were employed by the European invaders and colonialists. Khan is nothing but the product of the neoconservative RAND Corporation’s policy document. This document sets out that to tackle Islam one would have to give prominence to modernists/secularists to tackle the traditionalists. In other words, it is a plan to divide the Muslim community and conquer Islam. Cheryl Bernard, the author of the document states,

“…a Muslim woman’s head covering is not analogous to the Sikh turban or the Jewish man’s yarmulke or even to a sari or other kind of ethnic dress… It has become a political statement..”

By declaring it a political statement, it can become more readily subject to political scrutiny and therefore more vulnerable to attack then it would be as a religious symbol. She links this “political symbol” as her protégé Khan does to acts of violence and an issue forced upon by fundamentalists without any evidence whatsoever.

Khan is nothing more than a tool, a puppet in the grand scheme of the neo-conservatives to destroy Islam. May Allah guide her to the pristine religion, the perfect religion for the whole of mankind.

Khan, her ilk and her masters may do their best to dismantle Islam and break the resolve of the Muslims, but our faith is in the Book revealed and practised by the blessed Messenger Muhammad Sallalahu Alayhi Wassalam. And Allah Almighty says,

“Mighty indeed were the plots which they made, but their plots were well within the sight of Allah, even though they were so as to shake the hills.” (Al-Quran, 14:46)

“They plotted and they planned and Allah is the best of planners”. (Al-Quran, 3:54)

A special Note for the Quilliam Foundation.

This section is equally applicable to Saira Khan and all those who claim that the Niqab has no Islamic basis. A report on banning the Burka was also covered by the Express in which the reporter states, “Moderate Muslims in Britain supported the move here, pointing out that the Burka had no justification in Islamic teachings.”

It then continues by quoting Ghaffar Hussain of the anti-extremism, Islam-twisting, neoconservative serving think-tank Quilliam Foundation, to the effect that there is no religious basis for the Burka. Images of women in Niqabs are then shown with the caption “will Britain follow France” to complete the anti-Islam picture. The rather one-sided article finishes off with a quote from Centre for Social Cohesion director Douglas Murray and author of “Neoconservatism: Why we need it”, a blatant right-wing think-tank. For an exposition of the vile hatred this individual displays and the alliances of the Quilliam Foundation, refer to the article over at Ummahpulse.

Firstly, the Express article suggests there is a massive divide in the Muslim community. However, not a single one of the persons quoted as suggesting that the Niqab and Hijab are not part of the religion is a credible authority, as demonstrated above.

Secondly, the point of this section is to show that the Niqab is not some control mechanism cooked up in the minds of mad, sword wielding bearded men, but has firm grounding the Quran and the Sunnah of our master, Muhammad (Sallalahu Alayhi Wassalam).

• For a comprehensive exposition of proofs of the Niqab please refer to the following: In Defense of the Niqab

• For a view on all four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, namely the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hambali schools, refer the here.

• Another academic analysis of the proofs for the Niqab from the Hanafi perspective can be accessed here.

• Another collection of proofs from the Hambali perspective can be accessed here.

http://issmstudents.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/ban-the-burka-a-comprehensive-rebuttal-part-3-of-3/