Sara Benkirane in hijab thrown off pitch

A DISPUTE between FIFA and Iranian and Jordanian women soccer players over the right to wear religious Muslim headdresses during matches is expanding as it spreads across the Atlantic.

A Canadian soccer referee, Sarah Benkirane, was barred this week by Quebec’s Lac St. Louis Regional Soccer Association because she wears a hijab, a religious headdress that covers a woman’s hair, neck and ears in accordance with conservative Muslim dress code.

The 15-year-old referee had been refereeing games on Montreal’s West Island and Vaudreuil for the past two years but was informed by association officials this week that she had been barred because of world soccer body FIFA rules prohibiting religious garments on the pitch.

“I always felt like I was equal growing up in Canada, so I don’t understand why they’re going to take this right away from me,” Ms. Benkirane, who has worn a hijab since she was 12, told Canadian broadcaster CBC.

“It’s just a sign of my modesty and how I choose to express myself. I thought we were free to practice religion in this country if you’re not hurting anyone else, and I’m not hurting anyone else,” Ms. Benkirane said.

The banning of Ms. Benkirane comes after Iran earlier this month lost its chance of reaching the 2012 Olympics when its qualifying match against Jordan was cancelled because the Islamic republic’s women soccer team appeared on the pitch wearing a hijab rather than a cap that had originally had been agreed with the Iranian Football Federation (IFF).

The agreed cap covers a women’s hair but not the neck and ears. Religious women players have charged that the cap violates Islamic dress code.

Three Jordanian women players were also banned for wearing the hijab.

Iran charged that FIFA’s decision to disqualify its women’s team constituted an attack on all female Muslim players.
Prince Ali Bin Talal, a half-brother of Jordanian King Abdullah and FIFA vice president has said he is seeking to resolve the dispute between Iran and the soccer body. Prince Ali was elected to his FIFA post on a platform that emphasized women’s rights.

Mr. Benkiran said she has filed a complaint with the Quebec association. Ms. Benkirane insists that rules have to be adapted as society changes. The Quebec federation has advised Ms. Benkirane to address her complaint directly to FIFA.

The Lac St. Louis Regional Soccer Association asserted it was acting in accordance with rules set out by the Quebec Soccer Federation. For its part, the Quebec federation said in a statement that it was upholding FIFA’s rule 4, which prohibits religious statements in team uniforms.

“The situation is clear,” the statement read. “Wearing a hijab is not allowed on Quebec’s soccer fields just as necklaces, earrings, rings are prohibited, and we will follow the rule until FIFA says otherwise.”

The federation’s communications director, Michel Dugas, said the group could not make an exception for Ms. Benkirane because that would create an untenable situation in which a referee wearing a hijab would have to tell players that they can’t do the same.

The right to wear a hijab has long been a controversial issue in Canada with some segments of Canadian soccer supporting women who wear the hijab.

In February 2007, five Canadian teams walked out of a soccer tournament in Quebec, because a Muslim girl was ejected for wearing a hijab.

Muslim women have been allowed to wear the hijab in other parts of Canada, including Ontario and British Colombia.

Al-Arabia & CBC

I AM an American woman who was born in the midst of America's "Heartland." I grew up, just like any other girl, being fixated with the glamour of life in "the big city." Eventually, I moved to Florida and on to South Beach of Miami, a hotspot for those seeking the "glamorous life." Naturally, I did what most average Western girls do. I focused on my appearance and appeal, basing my self-worth on how much attention I got from others. I worked out religiously and became a personal trainer, acquired an upscale waterfront residence, became a regular "exhibiting" beach-goer and was able to attain a "living-in-style" kind of life.

Years went by, only to realize that my scale of self-fulfillment and happiness slid down the more I progressed in my "feminine appeal." I was a slave to fashion. I was a hostage to my looks.

As the gap continued to progressively widen between my self-fulfillment and lifestyle, I sought refuge in escapes from alcohol and parties to meditation, activism, and alternative religions, only to have the little gap widen to what seemed like a valley. I eventually realized it all was merely a pain killer rather than an effective remedy.

By now it was September 11, 2001. As I witnessed the ensuing barrage on Islam, Islamic values and culture, and the infamous declaration of the "new crusade," I started to notice something called Islam. Up until that point, all I had associated with Islam was women covered in "tents," wife beaters, harems, and a world of terrorism.

As a feminist libertarian, and an activist who was pursuing a better world for all, my path crossed with that of another activist who was already at the lead of indiscriminately furthering causes of reform and justice for all. I joined in the ongoing campaigns of my new mentor which included, at the time, election reform and civil rights, among others. Now my new activism was fundamentally different. Instead of "selectively" advocating justice only to some, I learned that ideals such as justice, freedom, and respect are meant to be and are essentially universal, and that own good and common good are not in conflict. For the first time, I knew what "all people are created equal" really means. But most importantly, I learned that it only takes faith to see the world as one and to see the unity in creation.

One day I came across a book that is negatively stereotyped in the West--The Holy Qur'an. I was first attracted by the style and approach of the Qur'an, and then intrigued by its outlook on existence, life, creation, and the relationship between Creator and creation. I found the Qur'an to be a very insightful address to heart and soul without the need for an interpreter or pastor.
Eventually I hit a moment of truth: my new-found self-fulfilling activism was nothing more than merely embracing a faith called Islam where I could live in peace as a "functional" Muslim.

I bought a beautiful long gown and head cover resembling the Muslim woman's dress code and I walked down the same streets and neighborhoods where only days earlier I had walked in my shorts, bikini, or "elegant" western business attire. Although the people, the faces, and the shops were all the same, one thing was remarkably distinct--I was not--nor was the peace at being a woman I experienced for the very first time. I felt as if the chains had been broken and I was finally free. I was delighted with the new looks of wonder on people's faces in place of the looks of a hunter watching his prey I had once sought. Suddenly a weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I no longer spent all my time consumed with shopping, makeup, getting my hair done, and working out. Finally, I was free.

Of all places, I found my Islam at the heart of what some call "the most scandalous place on earth," which makes it all the more dear and special.
While content with Hijab I became curious about Niqab, seeing an increasing number of Muslim women in it. I asked my Muslim husband, whom I married after I reverted to Islam, whether I should wear Niqab or just settle for the Hijab I was already wearing. My husband simply advised me that he believes Hijab is mandatory in Islam while Niqab is not. At the time, my Hijab consisted of head scarf that covered all my hair except for my face, and a loose long black gown called "Abaya" that covered all my body from neck to toe.
A year-and-a-half passed, and I told my husband I wanted to wear Niqab. My reason, this time, was that I felt it would be more pleasing to Allah, the Creator, increasing my feeling of peace at being more modest. He supported my decision and took me to buy an "Isdaal," a loose black gown that covers from head to toe, and Niqab, which covers all my head and face except for my eyes.

Soon enough, news started breaking about politicians, Vatican clergymen, libertarians, and so-called human rights and freedom activists condemning Hijab at times, and Niqab at others as being oppressive to women, an obstacle to social integration, and more recently, as an Egyptian official called it--"a sign of backwardness."

I find it to be a blatant hypocrisy when Western governments and so-called human rights groups rush to defend woman's rights when some governments impose a certain dress code on women, yet such "freedom fighters" look the other way when women are being deprived of their rights, work, and education just because they choose to exercise their right to wear Niqab or Hijab. Today, women in Hijab or Niqab are being increasingly barred from work and education not only under totalitarian regimes such as in Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt, but also in Western democracies such as France, Holland, and Britain.

Today I am still a feminist, but a Muslim feminist, who calls on Muslim women to assume their responsibilities in providing all the support they can for their husbands to be good Muslims. To raise their children as upright Muslims so they may be beacons of light for all humanity once again. To enjoin good--any good--and to forbid evil--any evil. To speak righteousness and to speak up against all ills. To fight for our right to wear Niqab or Hijab and to please our Creator whichever way we chose. But just as importantly to carry our experience with Niqab or Hijab to fellow women who may never have had the chance to understand what wearing Niqab or Hijab means to us and why do we, so dearly, embrace it.

Most of the women I know wearing Niqab are Western reverts, some of whom are not even married. Others wear Niqab without full support of either family or surroundings. What we all have in common is that it is the personal choice of each and every one of us, which none of us is willing to surrender.
Willingly or unwillingly, women are bombarded with styles of "dressing-in-little-to-nothing" virtually in every means of communication everywhere in the world. As an ex non-Muslim, I insist on women's right to equally know about Hijab, its virtues, and the peace and happiness it brings to a woman's life as it did to mine. Yesterday, the bikini was the symbol of my liberty, when in actuality it only liberated me from my spirituality and true value as a respectable human being.

I couldn't be happier to shed my bikini in South Beach and the "glamorous" Western lifestyle to live in peace with my Creator and enjoy living among fellow humans as a worthy person. It is why I choose to wear Niqab, and why I will die defending my inalienable right to wear it. Today, Niqab is the new symbol of woman's liberation.

To women who surrender to the ugly stereotype against the Islamic modesty of Hijab, I say: You don't know what you are missing.

Sara Bokker is a former actress/model/fitness instructor and activist. Currently, Sara is Director of Communications at "The March For Justice," a co-founder of "The Global Sisters Network," and producer of the infamous "Shock & Awe Gallery."

CIC Friday Magazine

QUEBEC Premier Jean Charest's government recently announced its commitment to secularism and gender equality and proposed legislation (Bill 94) that essentially bans the niqab -- a face veil worn by a very few Muslim women -- from all government bodies.

Under common Islamic interpretations, however, this bill is unnecessary and the Quebec government's move is inflammatory. Let me tell you why.

In Islam, the divine teaching is that adult women should exercise modesty in public places -- as do Muslim men in ways appropriate to them. Women are expected to cover their beauty, which includes either wearing the commonly seen hijab scarf that covers the hair but not the face, or (in accordance with a minority of scholars) the niqab that covers both the hair and face.

The Islamic law of modesty may seem to contradict Western standards of gender equality by removing the individual identity of women in their daily lives. However, Muslim scholars agree that it is allowable for a woman to prove her identity when necessary, by revealing her face. During activities where showing her face or uncovered head are unnecessary – such as when shopping, watching a sports event or listening to a speaker -- a woman need not do so.

Therefore, there shouldn't be a problem between seeing Muslim faces and the Quebec government. The proposed bill, however, stamps a negative expression on many Muslim's faces, and for several reasons.

Behind the niqab, for example, is the reality that Muslims consider modest dress as one among many symbols and habits required in order to show obedience to God.

Muslims are uncomfortable with the Quebec bill’s subtle implication that face-coverings are equated with backwardness or gender inequality. Perhaps the bill could also be seen as a politically slippery slope leading to the scrutiny of other religious traditions by creating the perception that face-coverings are alien to "us Canadians."

Then how, exactly, do we apply such subjective legislation as the Quebec bill entails? How much, and for how long, should a Muslim woman show her face?

Over the past six months, more than 100 articles and letters on the niqab have appeared in Western media, making it hard for Muslims to accept that the “niqab problem” relates only with facial identification. It's already abundantly clear that requiring niqab-wearing women to disclose their faces when receiving public services is consistent with Islamic law (as a majority of Islamic scholars agree) and thus not worth debating.

Furthermore, there is no inconsistency or contradiction in the Muslim mind between one’s freedom to practice Islam or perform daily duties. What is clear is that the Quebec bill attacks the visibility of Muslims in Canada rather than addressing opportunities to build bridges with our Muslim communities.

In fact, the niqab is rarely seen on Quebec's streets, yet the antagonistic stance of the government is so intense that other national policy-makers may now be more hesitant to consider Canadian Muslims as equal neighbours and citizens.

Wouldn't it be better if the Quebec government considered the niqab as an "endangered code of dress" rather than a problem that can only be solved through legislation? It is indeed ironic that we Canadians pride ourselves on preserving self-identity through supporting human rights and multiculturalism, while simultaneously supporting laws that contradict those same principles.

Both the Bible and the Qur'an invite the faithful to embrace peoples of differing belief. Nonetheless, with Bill 94, the Charest government is effectively destroying the tradition of accepting minorities. Why discriminate against any particular heritage or religious belief? What evidence exists that the key to a population's "success" is full visible integration and acculturation?

To Muslims, the current problem isn't so much a conflict between religions or cultures, as much as it points to the lack of seriousness in accepting Islamic traditions and religion-based practices -- such as wearing the niqab.

Unfortunately, this political preoccupation with face covering is expanding, having spread from France to Quebec and we must do something about it. Canadian Muslim women have a duty to show their faces for purposes of identity, but should not be coerced into it for social acceptance or popularity.

Therefore, Quebec should not adopt the unnecessary Bill 94. It will be construed by some as a license -- and indeed a legal right -- for one Canadian to demand another to explain and justify his or her religious practices. And that possibility leaves me feeling very concerned about what future bills may bring.

(Dr. Ahmed Shoker is a professor of medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, as well as past-president of the Islamic Association of Saskatoon, and a Regional Director of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Retrieved from: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/Quebec+decision+niqab+sends+troubling+signal/2776694/story.html This article was slightly edited for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

Even a limited ban on the full-body veil would be difficult to enforce, the Council of State said in a study of the legal possibilities for a broad application of a ban on burqa-like garments that was commissioned by Prime Minister Francois Fillon earlier this year.

A total ban risks violating the French constitution and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the report said.

However, the council did say that rules requiring the face to be uncovered could be justified in some situations, for security reasons or when knowing the age or sex of the person is important.

The report is the latest development in Sarkozy's efforts to ban face-covering veils after he told the French in June that such garb was "not welcome" in France.

A parliamentary commission examined the issue for six months last year before making 15 recommendations in a report in January. That panel refrained from recommending a ban on face-covering veils.

Determined not to give up, Fillon asked the Council of State, the body which determines whether laws conform to the French constitution, to further study the issue as a precaution to make sure that any possible bill would be legal even before it was voted by parliament.

The council determined that "no indisputable legal basis for a general and absolute ban on wearing a complete face-covering veil as such could be found," the report said. The council also concluded that a ban on covering the face regardless of the type of dress also would run into legal hurdles.

Wearing a full-body veil already is forbidden in some cases: for public servants exercising their duties, in schools or in businesses where it would interfere with work, for example.

Beyond that, the council found that presenting an uncovered face could be required and would have a solid legal foundation in other cases: including situations involving public security; in places where the sale of certain items requires age verification such as courts, polling stations, city hall or the exits of schools when children are being picked up, among others.

An uncovered face could be required in hospitals, public toilets and swimming pools where it is necessary to know the sex of the person entering, the report said. Establishments that sell alcohol, cigarettes and guns could also be required to sell only to people whose faces are not covered, the report said. Appearance in public with a covered face also could be banned in certain train stations, department stores during the holiday season, fairs and street markets, the report said.

The full-body veil issue is divisive in France, with many conservatives such as Sarkozy favoring a very restrictive ban, while others say women should be free to wear what they want.

-Agencies

A MUSLIM sister was recently expelled from a French language course for the second time in Quebec for wearing the niqab. Western countries preach the right of personal freedom yet when faced with accommodating Muslims, they renege on the very principals upon which their society was built. Using only Islam as the basis, we should engage in dialogue with those who criticize Islamic opinions and rules and reveal the inherent contradictions in Western-secular societies. Furthermore, we should invite them to worship Allah (swt) on the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah by proving the certainty of His existence and message – the Quran.

Earlier this month, the Canadian press reported that a Muslim woman living in Quebec had been expelled from a government sponsored language program last November after she refused to remove her niqab. This year, she once again enrolled in a government sponsored language course at another school only to have a teacher report her to the provincial authorities. As a result, a civil servant along with an Arab translator met her at the school and gave her the ultimatum of attending without the niqab or to be expelled once again. Yolande James, Quebec’s Immigration minister, said: "There is no ambiguity on this question: If you want to [attend] our classes, if you want to integrate in Quebec society, here our values are that we want to see your face."

Muslims being singled out and put under pressure is a recurring phenomenon:

• France – In January of this year, the country banned the wearing of the burka while receiving assistance from any public service such as hospitals, schools and public transportation.
• Switzerland – In November of last year after a referendum on banning the construction of minarets, a constitutional amendment was approved to support the initiative.
• Canada – In September 2008, during a hearing in Ontario, a sexual assault victim said that she did not want to remove her niqab when testifying. After hearing her explanation, the judge ruled that he did not find her "religious belief ... that strong" and ordered her to remove the veil when she was in the witness box.

Much Ado about Nothing
Often, the issues that are chosen to be brought to the forefront for public awareness are of little impact on society at large. For example, the above incidents have a marginal impact despite the amount of media coverage received. Recently in Quebec, Medicare applicants have been required to remove their niqab for their photo ID. Yet among the 146,000 applicants, from 2008-2009, only 10 clients, or 0.007%, asked for special accommodations because they wore a niqab. In France, the banning of the burka affected only 0.003% of the entire French population, yet the issue grabbed headlines and was made to seem as if a significant portion of the population in France wore the niqab. Finally, in Switzerland the motion to ban the construction of minarets was also insignificant as there are only 4 masajids in the entire country. With such negligible impact on the greater society, why would politicians and the media focus their energies on providing mass coverage?

1. To seek electoral votes: Often politicians manipulate the populations’ fear of immigrants and their effect on society and norms to achieve electoral support. For example, the Liberal party is under pressure from Parti Québécois - the opposition party - to be tougher on those who display differences. As a result, we see media coverage about a niqabi sister getting expelled from school.
2. To create pressure on Muslims to abandon parts of the Ahkam of Islam: Muslims are a minority in the West so putting a spotlight on aspects that are clearly from Islam forces Muslims to take a stance – with the aim to make them leave the rules of Islam and adopt those of secularism. For example, according to the Globe and Mail, Mr. Bourque, the teacher of the Niqabi sister in the Quebec controversy commented that “this college program has helped a handful of women stop wearing veils over the past 10 years.”

Western countries such as Canada boast of a society that values the freedoms of all individuals. Yet when we examine the cases mentioned above, we notice an inherent contradiction between the rights and freedoms “promised” within secular countries and what actually happens on the ground.

Secularism and its Contradictions
The “claimed” and “promised” right of personal freedom has been violated in all of these cases as the secular system is inherently flawed and full of contradictions. The major flaw of the system is that it makes man the legislator. Man uses his own mind to judge what is right and what is wrong. Since man is prone to disparity, differences, contradictions and being influenced by the environment in which he lives; he is therefore liable to make rules and laws that will be unjust and flawed, leading to misery. Such laws change and shift according to the whims and desires of man as he can change or alter them to fit his desires. This was seen in the case of the Muslims that were captured by American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. To circumvent giving the POW’s their rights, the prisoners were reclassified as “enemy combatants.” As such, we saw methods of cruel and unusual punishment meted out against the Muslims in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram and countless other dungeons around the world. Today, Muslims are being singled out for the political gain of politicians who care for nothing more than attaining positions of power as is clearly present in the calls for the removal of hijab and niqab in public life. If that was not enough, calls are being made for Muslims in the West to abandon parts of the Akham of Islam in order to become members of Western (secular) societies. If we do not do it willingly, it is often enforced upon us through arbitrary laws and legislation. Allah (swt) revealed:

“They wish that you should compromise (in religion out of courtesy) with them, so they (too) would compromise with you.”
[TMQ 68:9]
Not the First Time
Reflecting on the life of the Prophet (saw) we can see that what the Muslims are going through today is not unique. Rather, the Prophet (saw) and the Sahabah (ra) were put through similar trials and pressures.

When the Prophet (saw) began to recount the events of Al-Isra wal Miraj, the kuffar quickly used this as an opportunity to pressure the Muslims to challenge their belief in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) and the message of Islam. When questioned about whether he believed in RasulAllah (saw)’s claim, Abu Bakr (ra) said, "If he said that, then he is truthful. I believe him”. In another instance, when Allah (swt) commanded the Muslims to change the direction of their Qibla, the unbelievers were again quick to challenge the Muslims’ claim, stating that earlier prophets had always faced the direction of Jerusalem. Allah (swt) revealed:

“ … And We made the Qiblah which you used to face, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels. Indeed it was great (heavy) except for those whom Allah guided. And Allah would never make your faith (prayers) to be lost. Truly, Allah is full of kindness, the Most Merciful towards mankind.”
[TMQ 2:143]
The aim in both instances was to pressure the Muslims to abandon both the Prophet (saw) and the Deen of Islam. However, the Sahabah (ra) stood firm and their belief in Allah (swt), in RasulAllah (saw) and in all of Islam did not waver. Today, Muslims are challenged to defend their ideas in the face of criticism and ridicule or face the danger of abandoning some of the Akham of Islam. We must behave as the Sahabah (ra) did, after the events of Isra wal Miraj and the changing of the Qibla, by adhering to Islam in the same way while resisting the call to abandon some of the Akham of Islam.

Take it to them
When RasulAllah (saw) was challenged, he did not fall into the trap of using an incorrect basis to defend Islam nor did he compromise on his belief or in the Ahkam of Islam. Rather he went to the point of challenging the disbelievers’ basis on which they were making their claims. For example, the Kafir 'Utbah Ibn Rabi'ah once said: “If what Muhammad (saw) says to his Companions about Paradise and its bliss is true, we will surely be better than them in the Hereafter as we are better than them in the life of this world.” Allah (swt) revealed:

“Shall We then treat the Muslims like the Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists and disbelievers)? What is the matter with you? How do you judge?”
[TMQ 68:35-36]
In the same manner, when Islam is attacked or Muslims are challenged in their implementation of Islamic rules, we should not allow ourselves to become defensive by attempting to defend Islam on an incorrect basis, such as the charter of rights and freedoms or the human rights code, as these concepts came from those who attack Islam and thus we would only be falling into their trap of adopting their ideas, instead of adopting ideas that emanate from Islam. Moreover, these secular principles are invoked and applied in a hypocritical manner, like the Niqab issue has demonstrated. We should instead, as Allah (swt) has told us, call attention to the question of what determines the correct basis for forming the ideas, emotions and laws of society. Is it secularism which says that Allah (swt) has no role in life and leaves man free to be ruled by his whims and desires? Or is it Islam which says that Allah (swt) should determine how man proceeds in life? We should then highlight the flaws and inherent contradictions of the secular system. We should show that it is incapable of dealing with the constant changing reality of man as it emanates from his own weak and limited mind. In contrast the rules of Islam come from the One who created man, Allah (swt) and are therefore not bound by any such limitation – who better to understand man’s reality than the One who created us.

Furthermore, we should illustrate how the Ahkam Shariah are commands from Allah (swt) and that believing in Him is not based upon blind faith nor on a shaky foundation. Rather the belief in Allah (swt) is a rational conclusion based on a deep study of the world around us – just as Ibrahim (as) had concluded:

“When he saw the sun rising in splendor, he said: "This is my Lord; this is the greatest (of all)." But when the sun set, he said: "O my people! I am indeed free from your (guilt) of giving partners to Allah.”
[TMQ 6:78]
We should also show how the Quran is the eternal miracle by Allah (swt) based on the challenge to mankind to reproduce a chapter in style and meaning:

“And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave, then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses besides Allah, if you are truthful.”
[TMQ 2:23]
By directing the discussion in this manner, we have an opportunity to present the Aqeedah of Islam and demonstrate how it is correct as it convinces the rational mind of its correctness and recognizes the human need to worship the Creator – Allah (swt) alone with no partners.

May Allah (swt) allow us to stand firm on the Haqq unwavering and uncompromising as RasulAllah (saw) and the Sahabah (ra) did. May He allow this Ummah to once again be the Sirajeen Muneera (guiding light) it once was.

“Oh you who believe! If you help (in the cause of) Allah, He will help you, and make your foothold firm.”
[TMQ 47:7]

THE daily, Kannada Prabha (Kannada language, Karnataka, India) carried an article titled ‘Purda hai Purda’ in its magazine section on 28^th February 2010. It was an article originally authored by Tasleema Nasreen and translated to Kannada by Sindhu. The article was full of provocative element and derogatory remarks against many Muslim beliefs, practices and their noble personalities. Naturally it lead to wide spread protests  in the state which   took a violent turn in certain parts of the state and caused the death of at least 2 persons. The newspaper on 2^nd March did publish an apology but the tone was more of justification and sermon rather than being a regret or apology. The publisher said, the article should have been a matter of intellectual debate. It is in this context that a few notes of purely ‘intellectual nature’ are being presented below.

The original writing of Tasleema Nasreen is full of distorted facts and blunt lies. Sindhu, the translator has only added further venom in the guise of translating it. The process of adding venomous lies begins from the very first paragraph of the Kannada article. This paragraph ends thus;

“My grandfather was a totally ignorant person. He used to threaten my mother of dire consequences if she did not wear Purda”.

Tasleema Nasreen would be shocked at this information. Because, her original article does not contain such a sentence at all. She would wonder whose grandfather is Sindhu talking about?

If this is the plight of the first paragraph, the last paragraph of the article is not more fortunate;

“Otherwise there is no way of survival for Muslim women” are the words Sindhu concludes the article with. That is again Sindu’s gift to Tasleema. Because, Tasleema has not written any such thing.

Such blunt lies both at the beginning and end of the article obviously indicate to the huge amount of lies found between them. Here is an interesting clue to the amount of distortions committed by the translator;

Tasleema in her article refers to “the Anglo-Saxon women of the middle ages”.  In Sindhu’s translation this takes the form of “middle aged Anglo-Saxon women”!

Does anybody need more examples to measure the quality of translation?

Tasleema has quoted the translation of verse 31 of the 24^th chapter of Quran;

“Tell the faithful women that they must keep their gaze focused below…….”.

Here, the translator adds “Women should keep their necks bowed down and should lower their gaze”. That means, the words “keep their necks bowed down”  are the generous contributions of the militant translator!

Tasleema mentions Safiya, one of the wives of the Prophet.  The translator (translaughteror?) improves it by calling her Sofiya.

There is a paragraph in Tasleema’s writing starting with these words:

“there are many views on why and how the Islamic Purda started”.

In the Kannada translation of this paragraph, we find views such as “this is the cruel reality of the Muslim world”.  But the terrifying reality is that this sentence cannot be traced in the entire article of Tasleema!

In the last paragraph of the translator mentions “Muslim women” twice. Whereas, Tasleema has not mentioned them in that paragraph even once.

The word “hundreds” in the text gets translated as “thousands” and “millions” as “crores”. Thus, the over enthusiasm of the translator is evident at every step.

All this is only the ‘story’ of the translation. Now get ready to encounter some horrific realities in the original writing of Tasleema Nasreen!

Tasleema refers to a chapter in Quran called Al-Hijab. But search through all the 114 chapters of Quran. You will not find any chapter by that name. However the verse quoted by her is partly found in chapter 33. But real the title of that chapter is Al-Ahzab.

If a person cannot properly name a chapter of a book available anytime, all over the world and almost in any language, can any view or opinion of such a person be taken seriously?

Tasleema names one ‘Uman’ as a disciple of the Prophet. But any person by that name is not found either among the disciples of the Prophet or in the camp of his enemies.

The worst case of distortion of facts by Tasleema is her quotation of 59^th verse of the 33^rd chapter of Quran. According to her, the verse reads thus:

“……..then nobody can recognize them and harass them….”

Now, compare these words with any translation of Quran and you will find her words representing exactly the opposite of what is said in the original Quranic  text and in all its authentic translations.

In the authentic translations the words found are: “…….so that they may be recognized and are not harassed”.

Tasleema resorts even to create her own verses and attributes them to Quran in her zeal to substantiate her irrational arguments.

For instance, according to her, the Quran says: “O friends of the Prophet, or holy men, never go to your friends’ house without an invitation. And if you do go, don’t go and ask anything of their wives”.

Now search through the entire Quran and you won’t be able to trace such a verse there! Of course, there are verses in Quran, such as follows:

“O believers, enter not houses other than your own until you have permission and you have saluted those in them……….” (24:27)

“O believers, enter not the Prophet’s house until leave is given to you for a meal…..”(33:53)

The difference between these verses and the one fabricated by Tasleema is quite obvious. Should we call it great courage of the writer that she feels she can repeatedly deceive the readers by such fabrications and get away with it?

Discussing the context of verse 59 of the 33^rd chapter of Quran, Tasleema quotes a few words and cites the reference as Bukhari Hadith, Book 26, No. 5397.  Apparently, this is an effort to create an impression that hers is a serious research work.  Now again, if you try to verify the facts you are bound to be shocked. Because, Hadith No. 5397 has absolutely nothing to do with Book No. 26 of Bukhari.  Book number 26 of Bukhari in fact begins with Hadith No. 589 and concludes at Hadith No. 823.  Again, if you try to trace Hadith No. 5397 in Bukhari, you will find it in Book number 79 of Bukhari which is totally devoted to matters related to health and medicines. There again, this specific Hadith No. 5397 is all about spread of plague in Syria and it is not even remotely related with the issues raised by Tasleema or the words quoted by her.

Tasleema concludes her article by giving an open call to burn the Burkha. That should help anybody to measure the level of her faith in peaceful, democratic and intellectual modes of debate.  Those who resorted to violence in course of their protest against her insensitive article were of course wrong.  However, some of the facts revealed above should suffice for anybody who wants to see the role played by Tasleema, her writings and her promoters in instigating violence and bloodshed.

The author is the Director of Madhyama Kendra, Mangalore, India.

By REUVEN FIRESTINE

WHILE on sabbatical as a family in Egypt a couple of years ago, we quickly became accustomed to seeing women wearing head coverings on the street. Nearly every single Muslim woman over the age of 12 wore one. The general word for these is hijab, which is a quranic term meaning “barrier” or “screen.” In a famous verse (33:53) it refers to a partition in the home of the prophet Muhammad to separate the women of his family from the eyes of the many people who would come to Muhammad’s home seeking an audience with him. Its meaning is basically the same as the Hebrew word mechitzah, the barrier that separates the women’s section from the men’s section in traditional synagogues.

The intent of the quranic verse was to protect the women of Muhammad’s family from the intrusion of strangers and the possible embarrassment that could result. Because of the egalitarian nature of Arabian society in general, religious interpreters applied the notion not only to the family of the prophet, but to all Muslim families, and soon the term was applied to a common form of modesty practiced also among Christian and Jewish and Zoroastrian women at the time — covering the hair. The purpose was to encourage modest dress and protect women from the prying eyes of men.

We found the issue of modest dress curious in Egypt. Modesty in Cairo today means covering every inch of skin aside from the face, hands and feet, and that includes covering the hair. But at the same time, teenage girls and young women often wear tight tops and jeans that reveal every bump and wrinkle of their bodies. It is rare to see a niqab in Egypt, the full-face covering or veil.

Burqa is an Arabic term that refers to any face covering with eye openings. It is common today to use burqa to refer to the Afghan garment that envelops a woman’s entire face and body except for a small square area around the eyes that is covered by a concealing net or grille. The more accurate term for that is actually chadri.

In any case, niqab or burqa refers to a piece of clothing that covers the entire face, or all the face except the eyes. The issue of covering has been a point of contention for Muslim religious scholars for many centuries. While all consider modest dress required, some scholars also consider covering the face obligatory. Others consider it highly recommended but not required. Still others actually consider it forbidden, and the issue continues to arouse debate in the Muslim world.

Surprising as it may seem, France has decided to weigh in on the issue and has begun the process to issue its own version of a fatwa on the matter. Already in 2004, Parliament passed a law banning the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in French government-operated schools. This outlawed not only the Muslim headscarf, but also kippot and outward wearing of the crucifix.

Last July, President Nicolas Sarkozy targeted the burqa as an affront to human and civil rights. “The burqa is not a religious problem,” he told the French Parliament. “It’s a problem of freedom and the dignity of women.” Later that same day, while visiting Muslim graves at a WWI cemetery, he said, “Islam is today the religion of many French people…. France can’t allow French Muslims to be stigmatized.”

Those are astonishing words. I don’t understand how banning religious expression is not a religious problem, and I cannot for the life of me understand how banning a garment indicative of Muslim modesty is not an act of stigmatization.

I do understand, however, why people might consider banning the burqa to be supportive of Muslim women’s dignity. We naturally want to help people who we imagine are being persecuted. But condemning the burqa is imposing one set of culturally and religiously defined values or an aesthetic standard onto people who may not agree. How do we know that wearing a burqa is a humiliation? How is it shameful? How do you or I know how a woman wearing a full-face veil feels about it? Personally, I find many outfits that are worn in Beverly Hills among a variety of men and women to be humiliating. Why not pass a law banning the wearing of miniskirts and low-cut tops among sagging, aging women? Or black toupees on graying old men?

Here’s an example closer to home. I personally find the practice of shaving a beautiful young woman’s head, even if intended for modesty, to be an act of chillul haShem. We were created in God’s image. We desecrate God’s image whenever we purposefully disfigure our bodies. And halachah does not require shaving married Jewish women’s heads. It is only custom, and only within some communities, yet it would be a terrible and unethical act of interference on the religious and cultural rights of Jews for any government to ban the practice.

Two weeks ago, a government commission in France recommended banning the burqa in public buildings such as schools and hospitals, but not on the streets. Jean-Francois Copé, leader of Sarkozy’s majority party in Parliament (the UMP) explained, “The two reasons why we have to implement legislation is to respect the rights of women and, second, it’s a question of security. Who can imagine that in a country like ours, people can walk everywhere in the country and also in our cities with a burqa, without the possibility to recognize their face?”

Banning someone from wearing a veil is not respecting a woman’s rights. It is exactly the opposite: It is a blatant act of disrespecting her right to choose what to wear. Security may be another matter, but if wearing a full-body burqa is forbidden in public buildings but allowed in the streets, how is that increasing security when a terrorist could walk anywhere on the streets of Paris wearing a burqa packed with explosives? I admit that I would make a terrible suicide bomber, but it seems to me that if I wanted to smuggle body explosives into a public place, I would wear a trench coat rather than traditional Islamic or Arab dress. Why invite scrutiny in the current climate?

These new developments in France remind me of a similar move almost exactly two centuries ago when Napoleon called a Grand Sanhedrin in 1807. That was when an assemblage of Jewish notables was put under intense government pressure to change thousands of years of Jewish tradition in order to conform to French sensibilities. The Jewish leaders were asked 12 questions that were intended to determine whether Jews were worthy of French citizenship. They included such questions as whether it was acceptable in Jewish law for Jews to marry Christians or whether Jews were allowed to be usurious toward non-Jews. The Jewish leaders fudged their answers, wrote in vague language and were not entirely forthcoming (to say the least). Their answers nevertheless passed muster, but “passing” required, among other stipulations, that the Jewish leaders condemn all “false interpretations of their religious laws.” How would that be determined? Who would rule on the so-called “false interpretations?” The trade-off for citizenship was the denial of the unique value of our religious culture and the vibrant nature of Jewish religious discourse. The result was, among other things, a huge wave of assimilation and loss of Jewish identity.

No, banning the burqa is not an attempt to protect the dignity of women or to increase security. It is an attempt to make “ethnics” conform to a flat and unimaginative sense of what it means to be French. It is legal enforcement of an outdated and oppressive ideology that does not respect the fundamental freedom to express one’s religious identity in public.

Reuven Firestone is a professor of Medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles

These were the questions posed by Bill Phipps, a retired reverend from Calgary who was in Victoria this weekend, speaking at the Epiphany Explorations conference, a five-day annual event hosted by First Metropolitan United Church.

His workshop, called Soul of the City, focused on whether people are willing to appreciate the city they live in and accept it as a part of nature.

Sunday evening, Chung Hyun Kyung, a professor and lay theologian of the Presbyterian Church of Korea, spoke about her year-long pilgrimage to 17 Muslim countries, during which she found out first-hand about the beliefs and attitudes of 200 Muslim women.

What she found is that there are profound misconceptions about women and Islam on the part of the Western world, namely that Muslim women are oppressed and that the Quran is the source of that oppression.

“The women’s liberation movement ... is based on the Quran and their commitment to faith,” Chung said in an interview before her talk, adding that wearing a hijab holds different meanings for different women and should not be solely viewed as a sign of inequality.

OVER the past few months, the niqab has once again been thrust into the political and media spotlight in various countries.

Last month, the scholar Sheikh Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi, head of Al-Azhar University in Egypt waded in on the argument when he ordered a school girl in Cairo to remove her niqab and stated that he would seek a ban on the face veil in all schools affiliated to Al-Azhar. The Sheikh is no stranger to supporting and rubber stamping the anti-Islamic actions of Western governments. His track record includes supporting the French hijab ban, advising Muslim girls to take off their hijabs to comply with this law, and shaking hands with Israeli President Shimon Peres – a butcher whose hands are soaked with the blood of thousands of Palestinian Muslims. His latest remarks have effectively given a “green light” to various Western governments to ban the niqab in their own countries. The day after his comments, the Northern League (the far right political party and a member of the Italian Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s coalition government) proposed legislation aimed at banning the face veil in Italy. Italian politicians such as Barbara Saltamartini, a member of Berlusconi’s People of Freedom Party, justified the bill by quoting Tantawi. She said, “Banning the burqa cannot be considered anti-Islamic because wearing it is not obligatory in Islam”.

Many have wondered why at a time when the world faces problems of such huge proportions such as the economic crisis, world poverty, and global warming, should so many Western leaders choose to focus political and media attention on a piece of cloth worn by a fraction of Muslim women living within their borders. Within the increasingly racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic climate currently raging across Europe and other Western nations, cheap jabs against Muslims or anything associated with Islam will undoubtedly gain politicians media air time and gain favour amongst the rising sector of right-wing voters within their electorate. However, the reasons behind this attack on the niqab extend beyond political populist stunts pull by opportunistic politicians hoping to bag a few extra votes. It is part of a cohort of desperate underhand efforts by particular Western governments to push any visible signs of Islam out of their societies in an attempt to quell the rise of Muslims adopting Islam wholesale and rejecting Western liberal values. John R. Bowen, author of “Why the French don’t like Headscarves: Islam, the State and Public Space”, has commented regarding the Muslim woman’s dress, “There is a sense that people who are publicly displaying their religious or ethnic characteristics are a slap in the face of French applied political theory.”

As with hijab bans, attacks on the niqab are aimed at forcing Muslims to embrace Western secular values and reject Islam. Andre Gerin, the French legislator who originally proposed the bill banning the face veil in France and who now chairs the French niqab parliamentary commission is on record commenting, “..the burqa is the tip of the iceberg.....Islamism really threatens us”.

The response of Muslims living in the West to this attack has to date been varied. Some who view the garment as a matter of choice in Islam rather than an obligation have not seen the relevance of the issue to their lives as Muslims, viewing calls for bans of the face veil with less importance than hijab bans. Others such as the Muslim Canadian Congress have enthusiastically supported government bans on the dress in their countries on the basis of the belief that it stems from tradition and not Islamic texts.

However, what is for sure, whether you are a Muslim who believes the face veil to be an Islamic obligation, recommendation or matter of choice in the religion, this current controversy surrounding the niqab is an issue that affects us all. In the first instance, the potential harmful repercussions upon the lives of Muslims living in the West - whether it be abuse, physical attacks or discrimination in society - of the anti-Islamic sentiments generated through the emotive debates on this issue, make no distinction between those Believers who wear niqab and those who don’t.

Moreover, as Muslims we must recognise that this attack against the niqab comes at a time when almost every Islamic belief, rule and obligation – Our life style; the hijab, jilbab; the Islamic marriage contract; the Islamic view on women, divorce and polygamy; its ruling and punishments systems; its view on homosexuality; its political beliefs, even the Islamic ruling of the segregation of men and women at weddings – has been placed under the political and media spotlight and labeled extreme, oppressive, barbaric, unacceptable and a threat to Western societies – all aimed at coercing Muslims to give up their Islamic beliefs in exchange for secular ones. We need to see the attack on the face veil within this framework and not separate.

Therefore it is not the niqab that is on trial here but ISLAM and its position in the West. The Muslim woman's dress is once again being used as a tool with which to attack Islam – not least to re-inforce the age old allegations of Islam’s mistreatment of women. In secular societies that increasingly label any visible signs of Islam as signs of radicalization, a threat to community relations, or a symbol of a failure to integrate, we need to recognise that calls for niqab bans are not the last target within Islam that will come under the radar of Western governments.

Therefore as Muslims, we need to speak out and defend our deen against any attack, whether it be on the niqab, the hijab, the Prophet (saw), the Islamic social rules, punishment system, or its political beliefs. We should break any lies about our Deen. We should not accept for any accusation to be levelled at our Islamic beliefs without objection and challenge. To be silent on such attacks would be to lay an open path for those who bear hatred towards Islam, to further vilify our deen, demonise Muslims and call for bans on other aspects of our religion.

Furthermore, we should not allow this issue to become a source of division between us as Muslims. The classical scholars of Islam and even some of the companions of the Prophet (saw) differed in their views regarding the face veil. However, they all recognised it as a valid Islamic opinion and therefore never allowed the issue to become a cause of division amongst them. Today, attacks on the niqab are aimed at dividing Muslims along the lines of those who believe it to be an obligation and those who do not. The agenda of Western governments to weaken the unity of the Muslims through generating potential causes for division should be nothing new to us. We are all familiar with attempts to divide the Muslim Ummah along moderate/extremist, modern/traditional, or Sunni/Shia and ethnic lines. So regardless of our Islamic opinion, we should stand united against this attack. The Prophet (saw) established the relationship between Muslims when he stated in the Covenant of Madinah,

“No Believer shall oppose the client of another Believer. Whosoever is rebellious, or seeks to spread injustice, enmity or sedition among the Believers, the hand of every man shall be against him, even if he be a son of one of them. A Believer shall not kill a Believer in retaliation of an unbeliever, nor shall he help an unbeliever against a Believer.”

Finally, we must engage in this debate regarding Islam and its place in Western society, with hikma and in a manner to lead the argument rather than be led. To argue against bans on the basis of personal freedom is to place our trust upon a flawed, non-Islamic liberal concept that has shown itself through hijab bans to be “here today and gone tomorrow”. To lead the debate is to place Western secular values in the dock in place of Islam.

How can the Islamic dress that guards the modesty and respect of the woman be accused of enslaving her, while the enslavement of women is legal under the law within secular societies - where brothels, pornography, and lap-dancing clubs are easily accessible under the premise of liberty or sexual freedom? How can the Islamic social rules that place strict regulations on the interaction of men and women be described as backward while liberal states grapple with widespread promiscuity, adultery, single mothers and broken families due to a free for all in relationships between the sexes? How can the Islamic punishments be labeled barbaric when Western governments are drowning in crime statistics, overflowing prisons, epidemic levels of anti-social behaviour, and clearly at a loss as to how to create a safe and secure environment for their citizens?

How can it be that while capitalist secular states grapple with economic chaos, political corruption, epidemic levels of crime, social and family meltdown, rising individualism and materialism, and increasing drug and alcohol abuse amongst their young that the niqab, hijab, and Islam are put on trial? How can it be, that in such a situation, Western politicians can dare to stand in judgment over Islam – an ideology that holds political, economic, social and moral values and laws that create an economically prosperous, stable, morally elevated and tranquil society? Is it not high time that as Muslims, we turn the tables on this debate?
Allah (swt) says,

وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ قَوْلًا مِّمَّن دَعَا إِلَى اللَّهِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا وَقَالَ إِنَّنِي مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

“Who is better in speech than the one who calls towards Allah, works righteousness and says I am one of the Muslims.” [Fussilat 41: 33]

A Sister’s Perspective

OVER the past few months, the niqab has once again been thrust into the political and media spotlight in various countries.

This month, the scholar Sheikh Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi, head of Al-Azhar University in Egypt waded in on the argument when he ordered a school girl in Cairo to remove her niqab and stated that he would seek a ban on the face veil in all schools affiliated to Al-Azhar. The Sheikh is no stranger to supporting and rubber stamping the anti-Islamic actions of Western governments. His track record includes supporting the French hijab ban, advising Muslim girls to take off their hijabs to comply with this law, and shaking hands with Israeli President Shimon Peres – a butcher whose hands are soaked with the blood of thousands of Palestinian Muslims. His latest remarks have effectively given a “green light” to various Western governments to ban the niqab in their own countries. The day after his comments, the Northern League (the far right political party and a member of the Italian Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s coalition government) proposed legislation aimed at banning the face veil in Italy. Italian politicians such as Barbara Saltamartini, a member of Berlusconi’s People of Freedom Party, justified the bill by quoting Tantawi. She said, “Banning the burqa cannot be considered anti-Islamic because wearing it is not obligatory in Islam”.

Many have wondered why at a time when the world faces problems of such huge proportions such as the economic crisis, world poverty, and global warming, should so many Western leaders choose to focus political and media attention on a piece of cloth worn by a fraction of Muslim women living within their borders. Within the increasingly racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic climate currently raging across Europe and other Western nations, cheap jabs against Muslims or anything associated with Islam will undoubtedly gain politicians media air time and gain favour amongst the rising sector of right-wing voters within their electorate. However, the reasons behind this attack on the niqab extend beyond political populist stunts pull by opportunistic politicians hoping to bag a few extra votes. It is part of a cohort of desperate underhand efforts by particular Western governments to push any visible signs of Islam out of their societies in an attempt to quell the rise of Muslims adopting Islam wholesale and rejecting Western liberal values. John R. Bowen, author of “Why the French don’t like Headscarves: Islam, the State and Public Space”, has commented regarding the Muslim woman’s dress, “There is a sense that people who are publicly displaying their religious or ethnic characteristics are a slap in the face of French applied political theory.”

As with hijab bans, attacks on the niqab are aimed at forcing Muslims to embrace Western secular values and reject Islam. Andre Gerin, the French legislator who originally proposed the bill banning the face veil in France and who now chairs the French niqab parliamentary commission is on record commenting, “..the burqa is the tip of the iceberg.....Islamism really threatens us”.

The response of Muslims living in the West to this attack has to date been varied. Some who view the garment as a matter of choice in Islam rather than an obligation have not seen the relevance of the issue to their lives as Muslims, viewing calls for bans of the face veil with less importance than hijab bans. Others such as the Muslim Canadian Congress have enthusiastically supported government bans on the dress in their countries on the basis of the belief that it stems from tradition and not Islamic texts.

However, what is for sure, whether you are a Muslim who believes the face veil to be an Islamic obligation, recommendation or matter of choice in the religion, this current controversy surrounding the niqab is an issue that affects us all. In the first instance, the potential harmful repercussions upon the lives of Muslims living in the West - whether it be abuse, physical attacks or discrimination in society - of the anti-Islamic sentiments generated through the emotive debates on this issue, make no distinction between those Believers who wear niqab and those who don’t.

Moreover, as Muslims we must recognise that this attack against the niqab comes at a time when almost every Islamic belief, rule and obligation – Our life style; the hijab, jilbab; the Islamic marriage contract; the Islamic view on women, divorce and polygamy; its ruling and punishments systems; its view on homosexuality; its political beliefs, even the Islamic ruling of the segregation of men and women at weddings – has been placed under the political and media spotlight and labeled extreme, oppressive, barbaric, unacceptable and a threat to Western societies – all aimed at coercing Muslims to give up their Islamic beliefs in exchange for secular ones. We need to see the attack on the face veil within this framework and not separate.

Therefore it is not the niqab that is on trial here but ISLAM and its position in the West. The Muslim woman's dress is once again being used as a tool with which to attack Islam – not least to re-inforce the age old allegations of Islam’s mistreatment of women. In secular societies that increasingly label any visible signs of Islam as signs of radicalization, a threat to community relations, or a symbol of a failure to integrate, we need to recognise that calls for niqab bans are not the last target within Islam that will come under the radar of Western governments.

Therefore as Muslims, we need to speak out and defend our deen against any attack, whether it be on the niqab, the hijab, the Prophet (saw), the Islamic social rules, punishment system, or its political beliefs. We should break any lies about our Deen. We should not accept for any accusation to be levelled at our Islamic beliefs without objection and challenge. To be silent on such attacks would be to lay an open path for those who bear hatred towards Islam, to further vilify our deen, demonise Muslims and call for bans on other aspects of our religion.

Furthermore, we should not allow this issue to become a source of division between us as Muslims. The classical scholars of Islam and even some of the companions of the Prophet (saw) differed in their views regarding the face veil. However, they all recognised it as a valid Islamic opinion and therefore never allowed the issue to become a cause of division amongst them. Today, attacks on the niqab are aimed at dividing Muslims along the lines of those who believe it to be an obligation and those who do not. The agenda of Western governments to weaken the unity of the Muslims through generating potential causes for division should be nothing new to us. We are all familiar with attempts to divide the Muslim Ummah along moderate/extremist, modern/traditional, or Sunni/Shia and ethnic lines. So regardless of our Islamic opinion, we should stand united against this attack. The Prophet (saw) established the relationship between Muslims when he stated in the Covenant of Madinah,

“No Believer shall oppose the client of another Believer. Whosoever is rebellious, or seeks to spread injustice, enmity or sedition among the Believers, the hand of every man shall be against him, even if he be a son of one of them. A Believer shall not kill a Believer in retaliation of an unbeliever, nor shall he help an unbeliever against a Believer.”

Finally, we must engage in this debate regarding Islam and its place in Western society, with hikma and in a manner to lead the argument rather than be led. To argue against bans on the basis of personal freedom is to place our trust upon a flawed, non-Islamic liberal concept that has shown itself through hijab bans to be “here today and gone tomorrow”. To lead the debate is to place Western secular values in the dock in place of Islam.

How can the Islamic dress that guards the modesty and respect of the woman be accused of enslaving her, while the enslavement of women is legal under the law within secular societies - where brothels, pornography, and lap-dancing clubs are easily accessible under the premise of liberty or sexual freedom? How can the Islamic social rules that place strict regulations on the interaction of men and women be described as backward while liberal states grapple with widespread promiscuity, adultery, single mothers and broken families due to a free for all in relationships between the sexes? How can the Islamic punishments be labeled barbaric when Western governments are drowning in crime statistics, overflowing prisons, epidemic levels of anti-social behaviour, and clearly at a loss as to how to create a safe and secure environment for their citizens?

How can it be that while capitalist secular states grapple with economic chaos, political corruption, epidemic levels of crime, social and family meltdown, rising individualism and materialism, and increasing drug and alcohol abuse amongst their young that the niqab, hijab, and Islam are put on trial? How can it be, that in such a situation, Western politicians can dare to stand in judgment over Islam – an ideology that holds political, economic, social and moral values and laws that create an economically prosperous, stable, morally elevated and tranquil society? Is it not high time that as Muslims, we turn the tables on this debate?
Allah (swt) says,

وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ قَوْلًا مِّمَّن دَعَا إِلَى اللَّهِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا وَقَالَ إِنَّنِي مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

“Who is better in speech than the one who calls towards Allah, works righteousness and says I am one of the Muslims.” [Fussilat 41: 33]

First posted at dailymuslims.com on June 26, 2008

WESTERN civilization has sunk itself deeper in the gutter of secularism. In the name of equality, State of Colorado passed a law which will make all public accommodation – malls, restaurants, schools, small and even home businesses gender free. It means that there will be no men and women signs on restrooms. Men can legally use women’s restrooms and women can legally use men’s restrooms. For pervert secularists, it is another victory for gender equality. For pervert feminists, it is another victory against gender discrimination.

View from any angle, this law has no merits. It does not serve the cause of any body in the society except the perverts – cross-dressers, trans-genders, gays, lesbians, sexual predators, child molesters, atheists etc. etc..

The surprising fact is that how a pervert minority has destroyed a traditional society like America in forty years. How every sin in Old Testaments, New Testament and Qur’an is legalized or accepted by society. Every sin in Old Testament, New Testament and Qur’an is legalized in the name of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Man can marry a man and woman can marry a woman. This is the hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Sodomy was once a crime; now if it two adults consent, it is not a crime. This is another hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Once having a child without marriage was not accepted by society; now out of wedlock children are permanent fixture of society. This is another hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Even teenagers are allowed to have children out of wedlock. This is another hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Once men and women living together as husbands and wives without marriages were not accepted by society; now men and women living together as husbands and wives are a permanent fixture of society. This is another hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization of western civilization.

Even today, in a population of 300 million there are only 35 millions perverts in American society. How this pervert minority has destroyed a traditional society in forty years? Why the majority of the Americans has allowed this tiny pervert minority to perverts the traditional society? Where is the leadership of ‘democratic America?’ Why the leadership of democratic America cares more for 35 millions perverts and ignores 365 millions Americans? The answer is very simple to all these questions. Democratic leadership of America itself is pervert.

Take the curse of homosexuality which is plaguing American society. Where the leadership of democratic America stands? Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) found herself being jeered and booed by thousands of New York firemen and policemen at a 9-11 benefit concert on Saturday evening. VH1 cameras caught New York's finest screaming at the Senator to get off the stage. One police officer yelled, "Get off the stage! We don't want you here!" Senator Clinton apparently cut short her speech and her time on stage. Senator Clinton, of course, found a far more receptive audience when she gave a speech at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) dinner on October 5. She is obviously more at home among homosexuals and leftists than with firemen and policemen. During her speech, she likened the terrorist attack on New York to a "hate crime" and suggested that Congress should pass pro-homosexual hate crime legislation. She also said she wanted federal legislation passed to legalize homosexual "domestic partners" so that homosexuals can have the same "rights" as married couples reports Traditional Value Coalition. Title of the report is ‘Hillary Clinton Booed By New York Heroes But Applauded By Homosexuals.’

“Domestic partner” is another name of marriage between man and man and between woman and woman.

Think about if this pervert is president of the United States, who will rule the United States and the world? The perverts like Senator Clinton.

And what about another pervert called Obama. How he views homosexuality? “In a sit-down interview with the "gay" magazine the Advocate, Sen. Barack Obama said, if elected, he foresees eliminating the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" and passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, opposed by many faith-based groups that argue it would force them to accept homosexuals in leadership. Obama also boasted he's been more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. Obama said that throughout his career he has fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Americans." (Obama promises 'gays' 'strongest possible bill'. Tells homosexual mag he's 'more vocal' for them than any candidate in history, WorldNetDaily, April 10, 2008)

The good news is that perverts secularists are facing a challenge from the value voters. “Congress may be adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, but a series of misguided state bills aren’t providing any relief for pro-family groups. Just ask the residents of Colorado, where locals are bracing themselves for an “anti-bias” law that is actually changing where people use the restroom. Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, “gender-free.” In other words, anyone–regardless of their biological identity–will be welcome in the men’s or ladies’ room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven’t made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines “public accommodations” as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation. Focus on the Family launched a statewide awareness campaign, but in the end, even Colorado’s largest Christian ministry couldn’t compete with Ritter’s desire to pay off liberal financier Tim Gill, who sank serious dollars into the governor’s election campaign in 2006. From here all eyes will turn to MontgomeryCounty, [Maryland], where a November ballot initiative will determine the fate of its bathroom bill.”(FRC Takes on Colorado Transgender ‘Bathroom Bills, American for Truth for homosexuality)

Pervert Obama who has a prime seat under his big tent for the pervert lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender, have no space for the Muslim mothers and sisters with head scarves. Note what happen to two Muslims ladies who wanted to attend the rally of pervert Obama. “They were attracted to his message of diversity and unity, but two Muslim women who went to Barack Osama’s rally at Joe Louis Arena on Monday went home feeling left out. They were barred from prime seats behind the stage because of their traditional Muslim head scarves, after campaign volunteers had invited their non-Muslim friends to the seats.” (FREE PRESS, June 19, 2008)

Introduction of free-gender restrooms demonstrate that Americans have no right to lecture other nations about morality and values. It is a nation of perverts, of the perverts and by the perverts.

Pervert defined: To cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right (Merriam-Webster dictionary