UK: Islamists pushing the burka, niqab, freedom sack… Bunglawussi applauds…

Defending the indefensible:

Its a stoopid thing to do, but the believers are eager to do it…


Fatima Burkatulla/Times

Fatima Burkatulla clears up “misconceptions” about the niqab.

1.The niqab is a symbol of female subjugation.

None of the niqab-wearing women who I know, wear it because they have been forced to. They see it as an act of devotion to their Creator: the culmination of a spiritual journey. In fact most of them are women who were born and brought up in the UK; many are White or Afro-Caribbean Muslim converts to Islam who have chosen to observe it. The hijab, niqab and abaya are outer garments and are worn only when outdoors or in the presence of men who are not close relatives and so, contrary to popular belief, underneath their robes, in family and female-only settings Muslim women are often very fashion conscious and outgoing. They dress in everyday clothing; they get their hair done, go on holiday and even buy lingerie!

2. Women who wear the niqab cannot possibly contribute to society

People are surprised to hear that niqab-wearers come from varied vocational backgrounds. They include doctors, teachers, dentists, authors, social workers, university graduates, lecturers and more. They usually prefer to work in a female environment and so would not wear the face-veil all the time. Other women say that wearing the niqab actually makes them feel more comfortable when they are working with men. It is ironic that the very women who are the subject of debate are far from being a burden on society: they don’t get drunk and disorderly, don’t smoke and are likely to be very good citizens. Many of them are full-time mothers who take pride in raising well-educated children who will be an asset to British society.

3. The niqab isn’t in the Qur’an

The Qur’anic worldview presents a complete system of living, which permeates the daily lives of observant Muslims. This includes everything from rituals of personal hygiene, advice on neighbourly behaviour and animal rights to regulations for dress. Some women see the niqab as a religious obligation, others, as an act of worship following in the footsteps of notable Muslim women of the past. Numerous verses in the Qur’an contain directives for Muslim women’s dress, amongst them:

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the Believers to draw their outer garments all over their bodies. That will be better, so that they may be known and so as not to be annoyed, and God is Ever-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (33:59)

The Qur’an was interpreted by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his disciples and their teachings form the basis of Islamic law. There are two orthodox schools of thought with regards to the interpretation of this verse. One orthodox interpretation is that it means covering the whole body including the face. The other school of thought is that, though not obligatory, covering the face is a virtue.

4. Wearing the niqab implies that all men are predatory

Just as locking our doors at night doesn’t imply that all members of society are burglars, wearing the niqab doesn’t imply that all men are predatory.

The Islamic worldview recognises that attraction between men and women exists and, if left unharnessed, has the potential to break down the moral fabric of society. It also acknowledges the physiological and physical differences between men and women and therefore Islamic legislation for dress and behaviour reflect these differences and aid adherents to avoid situations that could lead to extra-marital sexual relations. Hence both men and women have been commanded to lower their gazes and given directives on dress.

5. The niqab poses a security risk at banks and airports

By simply going to the side and showing their faces and ID to female members of staff, Muslim women who wear the niqab, have been, for decades, passing through airport security in major airports all over the world without cause for security concern. The same sort of arrangement can be made for any situation where ID needs to be checked.

6.Niqab wearers can’t possibly be teachers.

There are many highly qualified and experienced Muslim teachers. A Muslim teacher, who wears the niqab, would not need to do so if men were not present, therefore many female Muslim teachers choose to teach women or children and uncover their faces whilst teaching.

7. Banning the niqab will free those Muslim women who are coerced into wearing it.

Banning the face-veil would be totally counter-productive: it would cause many Muslim women to feel targeted and persecuted and is likely to cause many talented women to withdraw from society. The majority of niqab-wearing women in Europe, wear it out of personal choice, so if, for the sake of a suspected minority, the niqab was to be banned, this would be clear discrimination against the majority. If we want to empower women from any community who are oppressed or abused, effective public services where such abuse can be reported need to be made more available and accessible to the women involved.

Fatima Barkatulla is a regular columnist on SISTERS, the magazine for ‘fabulous Muslim women’

Salma Yaqoob wingeing over the BNP:

biog_pic_salma_yaqoob                                                       Salma & “Georgeous” Galloway/”Respect”

The canker is making its way to the core

The election of two BNP MEPs has removed the cover on a political sewer that should have been sealed for all time.

Nick Griffin, a man with a history of antisemitism and Holocaust denial, now calls for “chemotherapy” against the Islamic “cancer” in Europe. The echoes of the past are deliberate. The choice of words is chilling.

Griffin’s election has given the BNP unprecedented access to the media, and he is using it to promote the most vicious racism.

His genocidal rantings towards Muslims followed his call for the sinking of ships carrying migrants from Africa to Europe – in other words, the premeditated murder of men, women and children on a desperate voyage to escape poverty and oppression.

We should remind ourselves that almost one million people voted for the BNP in the European elections. If there is a cancer in Europe, then it is the cancer of racism.

Yet the response from the political establishment to Griffin’s remarks has, so far, been less than overwhelming.

Defensiveness and political compromise has marked the response of mainstream parties to the rise of the BNP. It should be clear enough by now. This is not a temporary blip before we return to business as usual.

Ignoring the BNP or playing down their successes will not make them go away. It is time for the anti-fascist movement to go on the offensive.

Griffin’s nazi-style outbursts cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant excess by a marginal figure.

He knows what he is doing. He wants to make legitimate what was once illegitimate. He aims to shift the centre of gravity of political debate sharply to the right.

He knows that his more extreme rhetoric is in tune with his party’s membership and large swathes of his voters.

But he also knows that, every time mainstream politicians bend to his agenda in an attempt to occupy ground he is staking out, the racist argument is strengthened.

It is a pattern we have seen all too frequently in recent years.

Faced with a rise in racism, politicians seek to ride both horses at once – deploring racism while conceding ever more political ground to the far right.

Isn’t this exactly what Gordon Brown was doing when he called for “local homes for local people?”

“It is not legitimate to blame immigrants for rising unemployment. They did not close our factories and devastate our manufacturing base”

Concerns about housing are undoubtedly genuine. There are too few affordable homes. But that is because successive governments have relied on the market to provide what it patently cannot do.

Tackling this policy failure would provide affordable homes for all those in need.

Furthermore, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has revealed that nine out of 10 social housing residents were born in Britain, giving a lie to the BNP myths bout “local people” losing out to immigrants and asylum seekers.

Instead of focusing on these realities, voters are told that their prejudices are justified and that the government will do what the BNP cannot.

It is a tactic that is both cynical and ineffective.

Let us be clear. The response to Griffin’s call to “sink the boats” cannot be one of pledging to do everything possible to keep out immigrants short of launching missiles at defenceless people.

His call for “chemotherapy” against Muslims must be met with robust challenge and not by conceding that fears of Islam in Europe are justified.

The alternative is to accept that ever more extreme and dangerous fascist rhetoric will define the nature of political debate in our society.

Those who promote fear and hatred of African immigrants knocking at our door, or of the Muslims already within the gates of Europe, have to be openly and directly confronted. Their arguments have to be dealt with head on.

It is not legitimate to blame migrants or refugees for the recession. They were not the ones who became rich beyond anyone’s dreams while gambling away our economy.

It is not legitimate to blame immigrants for rising unemployment. They did not close our factories and devastate our manufacturing base.

It is not legitimate to blame “outsiders” for the housing crisis. They are not the ones who passed legislation that strangled the ability of local councils to build new housing on the scale we need.

And it is not legitimate to scapegoat Muslims, who represent just 3 per cent of the population, for any supposed threat to British identity.

The recent Gallup poll on Muslim integration revealed that, while only half the UK population very strongly identifies with being British, 77 per cent of Muslims did so.

And only 17 per cent of British Muslims wanted to live in an area consisting mostly of people of the same religious and ethnic background as themselves, compared to 33 per cent of the population as a whole.

This is the positive side of our multicultural society. Being “different” is not a sign of alienation from society as a whole.

Yet, while Muslims increasingly identify with Britain and value its mix of people and faiths, more and more people conclude that Muslims are a breed apart. There is a gulf between the reality of our lives and the perception that is created by a constant stream of horror stories.

Today, it is anti-Muslim racism that is at the cutting edge of the fascist strategy. It is effective because it feeds on the suspicion and prejudice that is the theme of so much mainstream discussion of our lives as British Muslims.

Its consequences are real. Already, there are signs that attacks on mosques and individual Muslims may be rising. The police are warning of the danger of far-right terrorism.

And, earlier this month, we saw an openly racist provocation in Birmingham city centre, under the guise of a protest against “Islamic extremism”- a label that the organiser made clear applied to all Muslims.

We, as British Muslims, have a direct and immediate interest in defeating this fascist threat. The anti-fascist movement must reach out to Muslim communities who are at the sharp end of BNP attacks.

But the rise in racism is not only a threat to Muslims. The BNP may be playing down their anti-Semitism and anti-Black racism in order to drive a wedge between Muslims and the rest of society.

But to the BNP we are all “racial foreigners.” Our very existence as British people is denied.

Our task is not only to unite all those targeted by the BNP, with every possible ally who rejects racism and fascism.

We have to also positively assert our multicultural and pluralist society. It is a message of hope that is in tune in an increasingly interconnected world.

It is a source of strength and vibrancy. We are one society and many cultures. And we will only remain so if we are prepared to stand up and be counted.

Salma Yaqoob is councillor for Birmingham Sparkbrook, Leader of the Respect Party and chair of the Birmingham Stop the War Coalition.

9 thoughts on “UK: Islamists pushing the burka, niqab, freedom sack… Bunglawussi applauds…”

  1. I mean lets face it, some woman need a bag over their head in public. However, this is our culture and they can go F’k off back to their country of origin or if a convert ignoramus leave to a country where they will accept it more openly. In these places you can get the whole thing including a good stoning etc..

  2. ”Many of them are full time mothers who will raise well educated children who will be an asset to British society…” B/S…… No country needs people who are totally devoid of social skills or people who are fundamentally against the country they are living in.
    In Aussie , young Muslims are well educated but likely to be unemployed.

  3. “No country needs people who are totally devoid of social skills”

    But Gordon Brown needs them to tick that box and keep liebour in power! Why else would the flood continue? Labour need votes, and third worlders need a soft touch to get them ahead in life!

    Send them to the gallows, the traitorous swine, they would have Britain on it’s knee’s bowing to some mullah in order to collect their thirty pieces! My dog’s shit is more noble than these pieces of sub-human filth!

  4. 1st of all: I don’t see any satire here at all. You’re plainly, and unashamedly bashing Islam, and Muslims here and I don’t see any satire in that. But then again, maybe because as you say you are all “ignorant bigots, hypocrites and Islamophobes, and…prefer to remain that way” your definition of satire is different from mine.

    2nd: In response to the disclaimer “We welcome open, honest, thoughtful, and vigorous discussion in the comments threads, so do yourself a favour and don’t accuse us of being ‘haters’ because we love you. Don’t curse us, don’t threaten us with death or hellfire, and don’t accuse us of being “just like the terrorists” because we never do to Muslims what they do to us or to themselves.” It certainly does not seem like you “welcome open, honest, thoughtful, and vigorous discussion” with comments by people like Davey Crockett. There is noting “thoughtful” about calling Muslims “sub-human filth,” quite the opposite actually. It does not show your “love” for us at all *sarcastically* I feel hurt 🙁 Additionally, I myself don’t approve of harming innocent lives, but you can’t act all shocked and disgusted by the terrorists’ behaviour because frankly, British history shows the feud between Queens Mary and Elizabeth was in fact over religion. They were killing their own people! FYI: that’s where the name “bloody Mary” comes from. It was in reference to Queen Mary, although Queen Elizabeth committed similar crimes, but no one talks about that because they liked her.

    3rd: it’s a real shame that when you have a logical and well articulated article by Fatima Burkatulla (published in the renowned Times magazine mind you) you choose to overlook the educated information offered to you. Instead, you focus on trivial points. The comments above focus on generalizations instead of critically challenging the text. In regards to the heading of this page: if you notice the Burkatulla article does not “[push] the burka [or] niqab” she simply does not want it to be banned, as she points out that it be be purely discrimination than anything else.

    @Kafir Harby: it’s not true what they say: “what I don’t know can’t hurt me.” In fact, the government’s secret scientific innovations could be highly harmful to you. And seeing as how you are a “stupid cow” I’m guessing there are a lot of harmful things you do not know about!

    @Mullah Lodabullah: I don’t understand what your comment has to do with this topic at all. PLus, your logic is faulty because you can also eat haram meat other than pork (such as chicken, beef, lamb etc. if it’s not zibah). If meat is not blessed than it cannot be sacrificed to Allah either.

    @Geof: I will ignore the incredibly sexist comment for now since I cannot address everything. But I say one thing before moving on from this topic: I notice there are far more men on this site women, I guess that means that women are generally smarter than men, wouldn’t you agree? Now that I got that out of the way, I don’t understand how you can tell all hijab/niqab wearing women to leave the country?! I mean it is as much their country as it is yours. From what I can tell, the European settlers are not native to Australia but the Aboriginal people are.

    @theresaj: You are generalizing here. How can you speak of ALL Muslims and ALL countries world-wide?! How could you possibly know that ALL Muslims “are totally devoid of social skills” and that ALL Muslims are “fundamentally against the country they are living in” I’m certainly very sociable (0r I wouldn’t be interacting on the web!) and I’m not “fundamentally” against my government, although I am sometimes critical of their decisions–as are all educated citizens. And you point about young, “well educated” Muslims not being able to find work in Australia speaks more to the white European corruption than the Muslims on the account that they are “well educated.”

    1. Dear “Proud Muslimah”,

      Thanks for your grandiose effort, which is to be commended.

      2 questions for you: a) are you born into the cult or are you a revert?
      b) what exactly are you proud off?

      You are obviously a well educated Muslimah, able to read and write without too many spelling mistakes, something which is rare as hens teeth in Mohammedan countries.

      Letters published here are in the interest of free speech only. Please learn to separate between the articles and the commenters. If you have a problem with them, please take it up with them, not with Winds of Jihad. But anyway, you have done that already, as I can see from your writing.

      Your message was published in the interests of free speech, which doesn’t mean we agree with it. The same goes for all the hate-mail and the death-threats from your co-religionists, or for any other comments.

      We are not responsible for Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth or for Henry VIII, you could have mentioned the Borgias for example and a hundred more, but tu quoque doesn’t cut it, and ad hominem attacks fail to impress. It is Islam, Mohammedanism, which is stuck in the 7th century. We have moved on.

      There are places where you can live this kind of lifestyle, but not here. Not among us. You will not terrorize us, you will not commit honor killings, you will not sexually mutilate your daughters, neither will you marry them off at 9 years of age to 50 year old men, your men will not engage in polygamy, they will not engage in religiously mandated wife beating and you will not make Islam the dominant religion. Neither will you force us to pay the jiziya with willing submission. Just try it, and I promise you the cult of Muhammad will be gone for good.

      Burkatulla’s defense of the indefensible is just that: unacceptable trivia, nonsense, rubbish, gibberish.

      But why do we have the argument at all? Why do you even bother? You are a mere tilt, a female who is deficient in intelligence, who’s witness is only half of a man’s, a creature who needs a male guardian and a lot more.

      Please have a look here to see what Islam teaches about the treatment of women.

      Muhammad says, “Three things corrupt prayer: Women, dogs, and donkeys.” There are several other sayings in which Muhammad reduced women to the level of an animal. “Woman is a vile beast,” and “I think that women were created for nothing but evil.”

      Besides, hell is full of ’em. (Don’t blame me. That’s what you call ‘your religion’)

      So yes, we are happy to hear from you.

      Here you can practice your social skillz. (I promise it won’t hurt a bit!)

  5. @Mullah Lodabullah:

    “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no burden heavier than these necessary requirements–You must abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Keep yourselves clear of these things, and it will be well with you. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28&29)

    Anything sacrificed to idols is to be avoided, & I take that as meaning things sacrificed or dedicated to “allah” (aka satan). Thus, pork is unlikely to be sacrificed to allah, so I can eat it in reasonable certainty. It has the added benefit of being tasty.

  6. “You’re plainly, and unashamedly bashing Islam, and Muslims here and I don’t see any satire in that.”

    What do you see when “allah” exhorts its followers to kill and maim unbelievers? Some foolish politicians magically see a “religion of peace”.

Comments are closed.