« UK: Youths Attack Muslim Dairy In Windsor |
| Australia: Dissident Islamic Cleric to be Shunned »
October 5, 2006
UK: Politician Says Muslim Veils Hinder Community Relations
The former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, is member of parliament for Blackburn in Lancashire. His constituency has a high amount of Muslims, many of whom showed their belligerence and intolerance when Condoleezza Rice visited the town in March.
Tonight, he is on the end of a media backlash after writing in a local newspaper on his opinions of the Muslim veil. This is the full veil, or nikab, and not the hijab or Muslim headscarf. The news is carried by the BBC, Times, Guardian, Press Association and Deutsche Presse Agentur via the Raw Story.
He has a weekly column in the Lancashire Telegraph (column not in online editon), Straw wrote that in his constituency office, he had asked Muslim women wearing this veil to remove it when in the surgery.
He stated that "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult."
Straw had considered this issue for some time, he wrote, before writing about it. "“I thought a lot before raising this matter a year ago, and still more before writing this. But if not me, who? My concerns could be misplaced. But I think there is an issue here."
He was first made aware of the issue when a Muslim constituent in a veil said to him that she was pleased to meet him "face to face", which prompted his comment in his article: "The chance would be a fine thing, I thought to myself but did not say aloud."
He was forced to think on the "apparent incongruity between the signals which indicate common bonds. Above all, it was because I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone face-to-face who I could not see."
He said that the wearing of the veil was part of "what is an increasing trend".
"The value of a meeting, as opposed to a letter or phone call, is so that you can, almost literally, see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say. So many of the judgments we all make about other people come from seeing their faces."
He said that he ensures a female member of his staff is present when he asks Muslim women to remove their veils.
Inevitably, Muslims have condemned the article, as if it is enshrined in the Koran that a woman should have her face covered. It is not. There are commandments for women to observe modesty, but nothing to suggest either the hair or the face should be covered.
Sura 33 - Al-Ahzab (The Clans)- verse 59 states:
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they grow abroad). That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful."
However, the increasing missionary activity of extremist groups such as Tablighi Jamaat and Hizb ut-Tahrir have made the wearing of the nikab into a statement of faith for a growing number of Muslim women.
The increased use of all-enveloping coverings such as burkas and nikabs can be proved by the incidence of rickets in babies. Rickets occurs when a person (or a baby's mother during pregnancy) is deprived of UVB sunlight, as we wrote on July 31. There was a high incidence of rickets in the 1970s, affecting mainly Muslim women from recent immigration. This dropped in the 1980s, but returned in 2002, and again is causing Muslim women to give birth to babies with rickets in regions like Birmingham.
The wearing of nikabs and burkas which cover the face does alarm non-Muslims. In Utrecht in the Netherlands, women who insist on wearing burkas and claim unemployment benefits do not receive the full benefit payment as they are seen as having made themselves "unemployable".
In Belgium, the wearing of burkas is banned in the Flemish towns of Ghent, Antwerp, Sint-Truden, Lebbeke and Maaseik, as they are seen to frighten people.
There is a political element to Muslim women wearing nikabs and burkas which cover the face. It is, as Straw states, a statement of "separation and difference".
The chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, Hamid Quereshi, said that asking women to remove veils could only be justified on identification or security grounds. He said: "Women believe that wearing it is God's command. I think it is unnecessary for him to do this. I do not know what principle he is trying to establish. What is he really concerned about? If he thinks it is about community cohesion concerns, he is mistaken. There are thousands of things that we do together. This is not helpful. It has the potential to cause anger. He will get criticism from all quarters."
A Lancashire Muslim woman councillor said that Straw should "respect the decisions women make".
What is strange is that most news sources quote the opinion of the inappropriately named "Islamic Human Rights Commission", which has as an adviser the terrorism-supporting Saudi asylum seeker, Mohammad al-Massari.
The Press Association and DPA quote from Massoud Shadjareh of the IHRC, who says: "It is astonishing that someone as experienced and senior as Jack Straw does not realise that the job of an elected representative is to represent the interests of his constituency, not to selectively discriminate on the basis of religion."
"Mr Straw's comments are as objectionable as the elected representative of Stamford Hill, a predominantly Jewish constituency, requesting members of the Orthodox Jewish community to remove their religious garb when visiting the surgery."
I lived for 10 years in Stamford Hill in Hackney, and not once did I see a Jewish woman wearing a face-covering. At the end of the 1990s, Muslims deliberately bought up properties to create Muslim schools in the area, which has been predominantly Jewish for nearly a century. The Muslims would import their children to these schools by car, often causing traffic congestion in areas such as Clapton Common. In Casenove Road in Stamford Hill, a Muslim boys school, with links to extremist group Milli Gorus, set itself up less than 15 yards from an existing Jewish school. As a result, the Muslim boys regularly started fights in the street with the Jewish children.
What makes this reporting biased is the failure of the news sources to mention, as we did on August 11, that Massoud Shadjareh is also a terrorism supporter. He has urged British Muslims to provide the terrorist group Hezbollah with "financial, logistical and informational support" to attack Israeli targets. He has also demanded that Hezbollah should occupy Israel.
Dr Daud Abdullah of the terrorism-supporting Muslim Council for Britain (whose leading lights Inayat Bunglawala and Iqbal Sacranie have openly supported both Hamas and Osama bin Laden) gave his opinion.
He said of the wearing of the nikab: "This does cause some discomfort to non-Muslims, one can understand this. Even within the Muslim community the scholars have different views on this. There are those who believe it is obligatory for the Muslim woman to cover her face. Others say she is not obliged to cover up. It's up to the woman to make the choice. Our view is that if it is going to cause discomfort and that can be avoided then it can be done. The veil over the hair is obligatory."
That last comment is a lie. The hijab is only "obligatory" for Muslim extremists and fanatics.
UPDATE: The Guardian has the full article which provoked the ire of Islamists and Islamistas in Britain. I will reproduce it in full. And to add fuel to the fire, on BBC Radio 4's Today program this morning (October 6), Jack Straw has gone a step further and said that he wishes that Muslim women in Blackburn did not wear the veil at all.
"I felt uneasy talking to someone I couldn't see"
"It's really nice to meet you face-to-face, Mr Straw," said this pleasant lady, in a broad Lancashire accent. She had come to my constituency advice bureau with a problem. I smiled back. "The chance would be a fine thing," I thought to myself but did not say out loud. The lady was wearing the full veil. Her eyes were uncovered but the rest of her face was in cloth.
Her husband, a professional man whom I vaguely knew, was with her. She did most of the talking. I got down the detail of the problem, told the lady and her husband that I thought I could sort it out, and we parted amicably.
All this was about a year ago. It was not the first time I had conducted an interview with someone in a full veil, but this particular encounter, though very polite and respectful on both sides, got me thinking. In part, this was because of the apparent incongruity between the signals which indicate common bonds - the entirely English accent, the couple's education (wholly in the UK) - and the fact of the veil. Above all, it was because I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone "face-to-face" who I could not see.
So I decided that I wouldn't just sit there the next time a lady turned up to see me in a full veil, and I haven't.
Now, I always ensure that a female member of my staff is with me. I explain that this is a country built on freedoms. I defend absolutely the right of any woman to wear a headscarf. As for the full veil, wearing it breaks no laws.
I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face. Indeed, the value of a meeting, as opposed to a letter or phone call, is so that you can - almost literally - see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say. So many of the judgments we all make about other people come from seeing their faces.
I thought it may be hard going when I made my request for face-to-face interviews in these circumstances. However, I can't recall a single occasion when the lady concerned refused to lift her veil; and most I ask seem relieved I have done so. Last Friday was a case in point. The veil came off almost as soon as I opened my mouth. I dealt with the problems the lady had brought to me. We then had a really interesting debate about veil wearing. This itself contained some surprises. It became absolutely clear to me that the husband had played no part in her decision. She explained she had read some books and thought about the issue. She felt more comfortable wearing the veil when out. People bothered her less.
OK, I said, but did she think that veil wearing was required by the Qur'an? I was no expert, but many Muslim scholars said the full veil was not obligatory at all. And women as well as men went head uncovered the whole time when in their hajj - pilgrimage - in Mecca. The husband chipped in to say that this matter was "more cultural than religious". I said I would reflect on what the lady had said to me. Would she, however, think hard about what I said - in particular about my concern that wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult. It was such a visible statement of separation and of difference.
I thought a lot before raising this matter a year ago, and still more before writing this. But if not me, who? My concerns could be misplaced. But I think there is an issue here.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at October 5, 2006 2:31 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)