In the last year or two in France, the third bill on this issue was proposed: the banning of the face-veil worn by Muslim women. Let us actually examine this bill and the motives behind it. After-all, when a government acts, it should help and benefit its people, within the limits of human rights and morality, and not for its own interests, motives, or agendas.

"(EPA) A young Muslim girl has a 'Fraternity' headband as she protests against a looming French ban" (source 1)

The bill originally wanted the burqa/burkha (an attire commonly worn in Afghanistan) or the Niqaab (meaning ‘face-veil’) to be banned in France. The reasons given for this have been security, giving women a choice by ending their supposed oppression by the Niqaab, inhibiting extremism, and in the interests of secularism. Some of these reasons are valid and they would show that the French Government is indeed behaving correctly, if true. However, when one examines these reasons, they fall apart, and reveal something else entirely.

1) “Ban the Niqaab for security”

The idea here is that identification of faces is necessary for the safety of a people to be ensured. This is a valid idea, but limited to certain areas. For example, a country has a right to demand that Muslimahs (Muslimah = Muslim woman) who wear the Niqaab, show their faces in passport photos. The supposed problem is that this conflicts with the fact that a Muslimah is wearing the Niqaab for religious reasons; but in actual fact, the Niqaab is only worn so that males (who have reached puberty) cannot see the face of a Muslimah. The solution here is simple: only females in the security teams of, say, airports have the right to see the passport photo of a Muslim with her face uncovered, and demand the Muslimah unveil her face in an enclosed area (i.e. not visible to the public or others). So here, a supposed problem has actually been simply resolved.

When it comes to minor issues of security, such as walking in the street or using public transport or going to hospitals, then it would be illogical to ban the Niqaab on the basis of security:

The first idea here is that it is necessary to see one’s face so that one identify the person. However this idea is not valid. A person with the intention to harm others in a public place can easily change his or her appearance. For example, growing a beard and moustache, dying your hair, getting a haircut (or shaving it all off) and changing your hairstyle, and many other methods, are all very effective means of changing your appearance to such an extent that you are no longer recognised. In-fact, the mentioned methods are so simply that anyone could do that. So clearly it is unimportant whether one’s face is shown or not when it comes to safety in common public places, for if someone really wanted to cause harm to the people present, then one could easily change their appearance. In-fact, it is not even necessary to hide one’s identity, by changing the appearance or covering the face, for a person could go ahead and cause harm to the people present, regardless of whatever may happen to him or her. Indeed, will a suicide bomber even care if his face is exposed, since he will also be killed?

The second idea is that when a Muslimah wears a Niqaab and loose-fitting outer garments, she can conceal weapons, and this represents a risk to public safety. On the contrary, anyone, be they Muslim or not, man or woman, could conceal weapons, even if they were wearing tight-clothing. We only need to think back to the recent incident of a man attempting to create a bomb on a British aeroplane by mixing concealed chemicals (an attempted attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253) to realise how simple it is to conceal a weapon.
Sikhs are required by their religion to carry around small knives. If the ban on Niqaab was truly on the basis of security, then a ban would also be set on carrying knives (in most circumstances). For while there is a small potential that a Muslimah has weapons on her person, there is a high probability that a practising Sikh will be carrying a weapon. The fact that no discussion has been held on this issue and no ban on Sikhs carrying knives has been suggested shows that the motive behind the ban on the Niqaab is not really about safety.

2) “Ban the Niqaab so Muslim women have a choice and aren’t forced into wearing it”

This supposed reason is very ironic. However, the first issue to consider is the claim that “Muslim women are forced into wearing the Niqaab”. This myth is often propagated, and often, if never, has evidence to back it up. It would only be necessary to help women being forced to wear the Niqaab if they were actually being forced to wear it. This is only logical.

A report by the French Interior Ministry showed that out of an estimated 5 million Muslims in France, only 1900 Muslim women actually wear the Niqaab (face-veil). This is 0.038%; less than even 1% of the population of Muslims. This, therefore, leads one to ask “Why then is there a widespread, national ban on something that is so small?” After-all, a government does not tackle issues which, relatively-speaking, affect hardly anyone. This is in-fact “tantamount to using a sledgehammer to swat a fly” (Qatar Living article).

Also, the fact that only about 0.038% of the Muslim population is actually wearing Niqaab, shows that the Muslim males are not forcing Muslim women to wear Niqaab; for if they were, then the percentage of those who wear Niqaab would be very high or at least significant, whereas the opposite is the case. Clearly then there is no oppression of Muslim women in France.
However even if a person was to insist that all of these 1900 Muslimahs wearing Niqaab were being forced to do so, then this claim needs to be proven. For it is nothing but a claim. For while there may be indeed some women who are being forced by Muslim men to wear Niqaab, we also need to remember that some Muslim women choose to wear the Niqaab. They want to wear it; (the question of whether the face-veil itself is an oppressive thing will be discussed later).  Why is those who continue to repeat the unproven myth, that all or most women who wear a face-veil are forced to do so, are so unwilling to accept the possibility that a Muslim woman can choose to wear it out of her own free will and desire?
At the very least, this exposes these supposed “supporters” of women’s rights as either being ignorant or being fundamentalists intent on spreading their beliefs, regardless of the truth.

Even if we assume that every single woman out of the 1900 is being forced to wear the Niqaab, then this is still problematic. For apart from the fact that 1900 is a very small number and less than 1% of the Muslim population in France, the French Government should be investigating ways into helping these (supposedly) oppressed women. For example, it should be sending the police to take a woman wearing Niqaab to a safe place to ask if she is being forced to wear it, and offer help. Not punishing the woman for being oppressed: For “Muslim women who wear the full Islamic veil in France will face a possible 750-euro (1,000-dollar) fine” (Qatar Living article). It is impossible to guarantee that it is the husbands/fathers of the Muslimahs who will pay the fine; and indeed it is the Muslim women who will have to pay the fine officially, not the males. If the French Government truly wanted to end the unproven oppression of these 1900 women, then it should be fining the male relatives/guardians of those who wear the Niqaab; by the logic of helping the oppressed, this is simply punishing the oppressed for being oppressed. It is also interesting to note that one of the punishments for wearing Niqaab is being refused to be treated at hospitals. So much for the pretence of helping the Muslimahs! Another of the punishments for the wearing of Niqaab is to for child support payments to be cut off. Does this really sound like the French Government cares about the Muslim woman, trying to practise her faith?

There is also another problem with fining, amongst the other deterrents and punishments, the Muslimahs who wear Niqaab: how is this supposed to guarantee that they will no longer be (supposedly) forced to wear it? The male oppressor could simply stop the woman from going out so that she still wears it. He could stop her from going to a hospital so that she still wears the Niqaab, risking her health, and perhaps even risking her life.

However let us assume not every single Muslim woman wearing Niqaab is being forced to do so, which is hardly a stretch. What has actually happened, contrary to the supposed reason of ending oppression of the women, is that the choice of these women has been taken away. For instead of being able to choose to wear the Niqaab, now she cannot because she will be fined and denied services, such as hospitals and transport. Forcing women to stop wearing the Niqaab, when they have chosen to do so, is nothing short of double standards. The French Government has banned women from wearing Niqaab in “public services”, which includes schools, hospitals, and public transport. This is taking away their choice to wear the Niqaab. Don’t forget that the headscarf is also partially banned, including in schools. If the French Government actually cared about the rights of the Muslim women, they wouldn’t be banning the headscarf, let alone the face-veil. It is a requirement in Islam that Muslim women wear the headscarf and there are plenty of Muslim women who wish to do so. The French Government is effectively banning both the headscarf and Niqaab in the name of giving women choice. In other words, the French Government is taking away the choice of Muslim women in the name of giving them choice. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. It exposes the supposed reason of helping the Muslim women as being nothing except a feeble pretence.

It is ironic how many of those who support the ban often insist that Muslim women are being oppressed, and yet have never bothered to actually ask a Muslim woman about this. What happened to letting women speak for themselves? Go talk to a practising Muslim woman and ask her if she is being oppressed. Perhaps a small minority will say they are, and some will say they are only practising part of their religion, including the headscarf or Niqaab, out of cultural reasons, but many will tell you that they are not and that the scarf or veil in-fact frees them. In-fact, it is not even necessary to ask a Muslim woman directly. One can check on the internet for discussions and comments about the headscarf and Niqaab by Muslim women themselves; (although one should beware of fake “Muslims” on the internet claiming to be oppressed, but who are intent on spreading the myth with lies in order to attack Islam). Here are a few links to some Muslimahs talking about the face-veil or headscarf or Muslimahs trying to show the myth that they are oppressed is a lie: SaudiWoman’s weblog,  Facebook group ‘Hijab is my choice‘,  a blog post by a Muslimah entitled ‘Hijab doesn’t stop me from anything‘ , a story about wearing the Niqaab, a petition against the ban on Niqaab signed by Muslimahs in Canada, a blog by a non-Muslim woman who sometimes wears the Niqaab – Non-Muslim Niqaabi, a youtube video by a Muslimah who wears Niqaab explaining why she loves the Niqaab, an article by a convert on why she loves the veil, and many more.

3) “Ban the Niqaab because it itself is oppressive”

The funny thing is that many people who claim this can’t actually specifically explain how a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the Niqaab is somehow being oppressed by a piece of cloth. In Islam, the Niqaab is recommended to be worn as even greater act of modesty. By wearing it, it is practically impossible for a man to “rate” or judge a woman by her body. Indeed, it is interesting to see that the majority who helping or supporting the ban, who supposedly care enough about the Muslim women to not want them to be oppressed by wearing a face-veil, are actually men. It is impossible to rationalise how choosing to be very modest is somehow oppressive. How on earth is a female not wanting men to judge her by looks being oppressed? How is this somehow an insult to gender equality?
Indeed, it is hypocritical to say this when in France women are allowed to walk around in miniskirts and very low-cut tops, nearly naked. Is gender equality being helped here? Is the female being judged for her qualities, personality, and the ideas she carries or is she simply being rated, out of ten, perhaps like a piece of meat? If the French Government actually cared about the equality of women, as well as Muslim women specifically, they would not take the right to modesty that women have to modesty. They would instead ban adverts on French television where products are advertised with females wearing little or behaving suggestively, which is simply promoting men judging women for their looks rather than for herself.

4) “Ban the Niqaab because it promotes extremism”

There is no logical connection between a woman choosing to wear a Niqaab and extremism rising. It is simply that Muslim extremists tend to be from the few countries which order all women to wear Niqaab; there is no other connection. How will a Muslim woman wearing Niqaab out of great piety and out of wanting to be modest, somehow promote extremism?

By effectively banning the Niqaab in France, French Muslims and other Muslims will increasingly have feelings of dislike towards the French Government and France in general, and some of them will move to do the opposite of this ban. I.e. some will defend it, and a few will even start to wear it. The irony is that this ban will anger the extremists and increase their hatred of the West in general, and France specifically, and so increase the risk of an extremist attack in France. So much for public safety or preventing extremism! It will also increase Islamophobia.

5) “Ban the Niqaab in the interests of secularism”

This is part of the only real reason for the ban of the Niqaab. Another part of the reason is Islamophobia. France, after having been oppressed by the Church for a few centuries, is now paranoid of religion. It is disturbing for it to see increasing numbers of French people, whether they are of French origin or immigrant descent, become religious. The headscarf and Niqaab are seen as symbols of religion (even though the former is an obligation), and so there are attempts to ‘squash’ them. And so the French Government has taken away women’s choice to wear them in the name of protecting women’s rights. The ban is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on Muslims practising their religion and Islam itself.

(source 2)

What has happened to freedom of religion in this supposedly free country? The irony is that secularism a particular ideology, just like religion, and could perhaps be even called a religion too, under the definition of “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects” (dictionary). The French government should explain what it gives it the right to force secularism on every French person, be they Muslim or not, and promote secularist thinking, and should stop trying to ‘squash’ any possible uprising religiosity in the name of giving freedom. It is ironic that the French Government attacks Muslims and Islam for supposedly forcing Muslim women to wear the Niqaab, yet it has effectively banned it, in an attempt to force Muslim to stop wearing it. The French Government could not completely ban the Niqaab, because of warnings it would be unconstitutional. What about the freedom to practice one’s religion?

“What about the Muslims who support the ban?”

Those who support the ban have no right to bear the title of “Muslim”, which comes with the principles of loyalty and brotherhood/sisterhood. Just because the Niqaab is not obligatory in Islam, does not make it “okay” and acceptable to ban it. If one were to suggest banning visiting the mosque on days other than Friday or banning any other Muslim practice which isn’t obligatory, these same people would complain. Why do they then allow, or even support, an attack on the Niqaab? The Niqaab is Sunnah and mustahab; for the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima az-Zahra, and the Prophet’s wives all wore the Niqaab. These are the role models for the Muslimahs. Would these same people try to stop these respected figures from wearing Niqaab? If they answer no, then why are they not protesting or even supporting such a ban?

In Canada, a Muslim group is asking the government to ban the Niqaab, and in Al-Azhar university, a sheikh is trying to ban the Niqaab. Their justification for attacking their own people and their own religion? Apparently the Niqaab is oppressive and it’s unnecessary, therefore it should be banned. The first has already been refuted and is very ironic considering the great female role-models of Islam, such as Fatima az-Zahra or the wives of the Prophet, wore Niqaab. It is also ironic because these are the same people who complain when Governments want to move one step after banning the Niqaab and want to ban the headscarf; they complain that people are just calling it oppression without letting women speak for themselves, and they insist it is not oppression. The other excuse given by the Canadian Muslim group and the sheikh in Al-Azhar university is that the Niqaab is not necessary, therefore it should be banned. Such an argument is not only illogical, but absurd. By that logic, everything Sunnah and mustahab in Islam should be banned because they are not obligatory. These people are causing splits and divisions in the Ummah; they are causing harm and preventing Muslim women from practising Islam. If these people are true Muslims, they must stop, for the sake of unity and so that they stop oppressing the Muslim women.

“What can I do?”

After examining the supposed reasons for the ban, we find that the ban is not about protecting Muslim women or safety, but simply an act on Islam and religion in general. This is both unfair and contradictory to the supposed freedom we are supposed to have in this “modern” and “free” country. Everyone must oppose the ban, because it is hypocritical, an attack on a woman’s right to modesty, and an attack on freedom of religion. This ban is worsening Muslim-nonMuslim relations and is increasing extremism. The French public are at a higher risk by terrorists.

The most important thing to do for the average person is to spread awareness of this issue. This bill is said to be supported by a large majority of the French people. If this is true, then this means a lot of the French are being duped by the false reasons given to attack Islam; they must be informed of the truth. Engage in debates and discussions with them and show them the truth about this ban and the consequences of this ban. If the people remain ignorant, the French Government will be able to continue along this hypocritical and dangerous path. People from countries other than France must be made aware of the problems with such a ban as well, in order to prevent such a thing happening in other non-Muslim countries. Raise awareness by protesting (peacefully), signing petitions, and organising events where speakers can talk about this issue.
With the help of Allah, we can end this oppression on those French women who want to practice Islam.

Source 1 = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7003246.ece

Source 2 = http://www.flickr.com/photos/23515821@N02/2244343793/

©2012 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

A Muslim may find it exasperating that after having shown to a non-Muslim that Islam does not encourage terrorism or suicide bombing but actually condemns it, the non-Muslim insists that Muslims and Muslim scholars are inclined to terrorism and use Islam as an excuse for their violent words and violent acts.

A group called Ihsanic Intelligence have put together a document with the words of famous Muslim thinkers, scholars, monarchs, and so on who all condemn suicide bombing.
This document refutes the idea that Muslims do not condemn suicide bombing or other acts of terrorism. The over whelming majority of Muslims follow Islam correctly in that they are against terrorism.
The document can be downloaded here: Condemnations of Suicide Bombing by Muslims (91)

The document was copied from here.

Related links:
-Audio: Muslims Against Terrorism by Sheikh Slimi (external link)
-(See here for more on Islam’s view on terrorism: http://www.pathofislam.net/peace-and-war/terrorism/no-terrorism-in-islam/.
-A Letter to Osama bin Laden by a Saudi Arabian Scholar (which denounces terrorism) http://www.pathofislam.net/peace-and-war/terrorism/letter-to-osama-bin-laden/
-More posts and articles on Islam’s view of terrorism: http://www.pathofislam.net/terrorism/

——-

©2012 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

To live or die for anything or nothing is the thinking of the unwise, whereas wise men and women do not live or die save for great and inspiring goals.

Thus, when the need arises, you find them willing to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of the lofty goals in which they believe. Some of them consider their own words and beliefs mere toys made of wax, but, whenever they have to die for or because of them, these words and beliefs turn into living, prime examples that inspire those who are left behind.

This is what one understands every time he or she reads the Glorious Qur’an, especially the narrative of the young boy whose story is briefly hinted at in Surat Al-Buruj (Surah 85). It is also elucidated in an authentic hadith narrated by Imam Muslim.

According to the story narrated there, after the miracles showed by Almighty Allah through the young boy’s hands had been revealed to everyone, the king intended to have him killed. The king sent him with his soldiers and said to them, “Take him to such and such mountain; make him climb up that mountain, and when you reach its top, ask him to renounce his faith; if he refuses to do so, throw him down the mountain.”

The soldiers took the boy and did what they were commanded to; upon that, the boy said, “O Allah, save me from them in any way You like.” Then, the mountain began to quake, and they all fell down except for the young boy, who came back to the king walking.

The king was surprised, yet he decided to make another attempt to have him killed. Again, he handed him to some of his courtiers and said to them, “Take him and carry him in a small boat, and when you reach the middle of the ocean, ask him to renounce his religion, and if he still refuses, then throw him into the water.”

So, they took him, and again, he said, “O Allah, save me from them and what they want to do.” It was quite soon that the boat capsized and they were drowned, and the boy came back once again walking to the surprise of the king.

Why did the young boy invoke Almighty Allah not to let him die in either way (falling from the top of the mountain or drowning in the sea), though any of these two deaths would have been martyrdom in the cause of Allah?

This and other questions arise every time one reads a similar story in the Qur’an or the Sunnah. The purpose of relating these stories is not entertainment. Rather, they are related in these two main sources of Shari`ah (i.e. the Qur’an and the Tradition of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him) to give us a chance to contemplate over their incidents and thus deduce lessons of wisdom that may help us go through this present life.

Therefore, there must be a capable deity that sustains the whole world; this Deity should be so powerful and mighty and must be the Lord of the young boy!

To my mind, the young boy supplicated Allah for salvation in the two incidents because should he die in this way, no one would ever hear of his death and thus he would have made no difference. It is true that if he died in any of these two attempts, he would have been a martyr. But, a discerning look at the whole story makes one believe that martyrdom was not his sole, final goal. He had something else in mind: To scheme a perfect plan aided by the Creator of everything.

His scheme was to expose the big fallacy engraved in the minds of people regarding the godhood of the king and his claimed infallibility. By this, he wanted to hit two birds with one stone: He wanted to earn martyrdom in the cause of Allah and, at the same time, persuade people to regard the king as a mere vulnerable human being, nothing less and nothing more.

He wanted them to revolt against the king and to voice their would-be newly discovered beliefs: You are not a god — you are just a human being like the rest of us; you need to eat and drink, and you also need to relieve yourself in the water closet. Therefore, there must be a capable deity that sustains the whole world; this Deity should be so powerful and mighty and must be the Lord of the young boy!

That is why the young boy came back walking to the king after surviving the second attempt to show him the only way in which he himself can be killed. Heedless as he was, the king rejoiced and missed the whole point: By the death of the young boy in the way he advised the king, the latter’s own kinghood would disappear and his own lies would be exposed.

The story continued as the young boy said to the king, “You cannot kill me until you do what I ask you to do.” The king asked, “What is that?” The young boy said, “You should gather the people in a plain and hang me by a trunk of a tree. Then, take hold of an arrow from the quiver and say, ‘In the name of Allah, the Lord of the young boy’ before shooting the arrow. Only in this way will you be able to kill me.”

Shrouded in his deep obliviousness, the king called the people in an open plain and tied the young boy to a trunk of a tree. Exactly as the young boy told him, he took hold of an arrow from his quiver and then placed the arrow in the bow and said loudly, “In the name of Allah, the Lord of the young boy.” He then shot the arrow, which hit the young boy’s temple.

The young boy placed his hands upon his temple and then died. Having witnessed this, the people said, “We affirm our faith in the Lord of this young boy; we affirm our faith in the Lord of this young boy; we affirm our faith in the Lord of this young boy.”

This is what the young boy exerted himself to do and this is what he strived for: To let the people, all people, see with their own eyes the truth about the Lord of all worlds and the falsehood and incapability of the king. Witnessing an event is indeed far more effective than only hearing about it. As the saying goes, an eyewitness is better than hearsay.

Afterward, the courtiers came to the king and said, “Do you not see that Allah has actually done the very thing you always wanted to avert? The people have affirmed their faith in the Lord.” The king commanded his courtiers to dig ditches at important points in the path. When these ditches were dug and fire was set in them, it was said to the people, “Those who refuse to leave the boy’s religion would be thrown in this fire.”

Indeed, that is how all tyrants deal with issues related to freedom of thought and freedom of belief: They burn people out! They commit those savageries without even discussing the basis on which the people made their own choice, whether it is right or wrong. They leave no place for discussion, no time for negotiation, and no will for initiating any change whatsoever. Either people accept the tyrant’s way or they get themselves thrown in the fire!

Eventually, the people preferred to die rather than renounce their newfound faith. Yet, among them was a woman who came with her baby between her arms and hesitated to jump into the fire. To her astonishment, the child — still a baby — said to her, “O mother, endure this ordeal, for it [the newfound religion] is the Truth.”

Yes, surely it is the Truth. Nowadays, in this critical time when Islam and its great Messenger, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), are defamed day and night, Allah’s religion requires us, all of us, to live by and for this truth in all aspects of life.

We should endeavor to achieve once more what was achieved by Prophet Muhammad and his Companions in the past. They succeeded in making Islam firmly established in the land with all people acknowledging and respecting it and with no fear of injustice or coercion whatsoever. They succeeded in rendering Islam a powerful and constructive entity that protects the weak, sustains the needy, and stands in the face of tyranny and injustice of whatever form or severity.

One day, one of my teachers told me that in one way or another, all characters of that story can be found in our time except for only one character. One can find the king, the soldiers, and of course the masses.

However, the only character that one cannot find is the young boy who had endeavored to call for Allah and at whose hands victory came in fulfillment of Allah’s promise; a promise to grant victory to those who believe and exert themselves for His sake. Almighty says in His glorious Qur’an:

[And indeed Allah shall definitely give victory to whomsoever vindicates Him. Surely Allah is indeed Ever-Powerful, Ever-Mighty.] (Al-Hajj 22:40)

Now, can you, yourself, be that young boy?

Ali Al-Halawani is a doctoral candidate, the managing editor of the Shari`ah Department (English IslamOnline.net), and deputy editor in chief of the the same site. He graduated from Al-Azhar University and got his MA in religious translation from the Faculty of Al-Alsun (Languages), Al-Minia University. He writes occasionally for Islamonline.net. You can reach him at ali.halawani@iolteam.com.

©2012 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.