Reflections on niqab and jilbab

I have never liked the niqab, the face covering worn by a minority of Muslim women.

I do not believe it is obligatory in Islam, nor makes a woman more pious. My personal logic is that Allah created the nose and mouth as means for breathing, so it would be rather illogical for Allah to prescribe a covering over them.

But it is simply not the job of the state to stipulate what people can and cannot wear.

A few days ago, Tory MP Phillip Hollobone introduced a private member’s bill that will attempt to ban the burqa and the niqab in Britain.

Let us make no mistake that this proposed bill is singling out the Muslim community.

Despite my views on the niqab, I am strongly against this proposed bill. I cannot see an eventual ban taking place in Britain, however, this gesture, alongside the views of the UKIP and far-right, helps to shift the debate about what the state can stipulate.

As for the burqa, or more commonly described by British Muslims as a jilbab, this should be utterly inoffensive to the masses, particularly where a similar dress is worn by monks and nuns, for example.

On a different note, while we need to staunchly oppose this proposed initiative, the Muslim community needs to be brave enough to admit that the niqab does little to build relations with non-Muslims. This might be an opportunity for a little introspection.

These are complex and difficult discussions about Muslims ‘integrating’ into the West: I actually agree that the niqab is misunderstood and scary to some. This is not me giving in to the islamophobic agenda, but saying that the niqab in Britain was never a good idea from the outset. Perhaps it’s about time we have that discussion.

Demonstration: A new dirty word

While I studied history as a teenager, I asked myself: Why do governments look on while innocent civilians are murdered and brutalised? It happens because governments let it happen.

The consolation for us as citizens is that we can protest and make our voices heard. Though utterly powerless, we can send a message to the victims that our heart-felt condolences go out to them.

But sometimes governments even want to take that right away from us.

In January 2009, a London protest against the Israeli war on Gaza became aggressive and violent, and ended with protestors being contained in. 78 men have been sentenced, and all but two of them were young Muslims. 15 have been convicted for sentences up to two-and-half years. Such figures do not reflect the make-up of those who took part. The arrests themselves were carried out in unnecessary dawn raids, where police smashed down doors and handcuffed family members.

While I believe in reprimanding violent acts, these charges and convictions are completely disproportionate. It sends the message out to British Muslims that British laws to them apply differently and more severely. Comparatively, no one from the G20 protests has been treated in the same way.

I attended that Gaza demonstration on a very cold winter’s day. I arrived late afternoon to see swarms of riots police all decked in riot gear storming onto the scene, as though we were on a battle scene. From the protestors end, I saw the smashed windows of Starbucks and the throwing of the bottles – which I would describe as pretty juvenile stuff. I arrived, however, too late to discern whether some of the violence was in response to inappropriate tactics from police. I was assured by some of the protestors that it was.

Before I knew it, I was contained in. We stood like this shivering for about one hour, after which six or seven people were permitted to leave at a time. I was made to stand in front of a camera and asked to give my details. I simply refused, said I did nothing wrong, and that it was my human right to protest. I was then patted down and my bag searched. My personal details were recorded.

It was a chilling experience to say the least.

I remember thinking that this sort of police behaviour might deter people from demonstrating, which was completely unhealthy for our British democracy. It would make protesting a bit of a dirty word, and something no longer virtuous to do in the face of injustice. So now imagine my utter concern when I hear about the sentences of 15 young men, each being given a disproportionate sentence.

People should never get off scot-free, but the sentences also ignore the fact that people were angry and hurt. It was not cold-blooded on their part. I will never forget hearing about the death toll rising every day, until it reached beyond 1000, and feeling physically sick.

Now is the time we make sure our civil liberties are not taken away from us.

Power to the People

I have faith that people care about the world within which they live, but mention the word ‘politics’ and many will run a mile. But I believe it is specifically party politics which has switched people off, not ‘politics’ in the wider substantive sense of the word. Ask somebody about the state of our healthcare, about taxes, about our schools, about wealth inequalities, about foreign policy and most will have an opinion.

What people are disillusioned about is politicians slinging mud at each other and politicians who pilfer public resources on second homes. They are switched off from dry, obscure narratives around ‘fiscal arrangements’ and frustrated by politicians who circumvent important policy questions, but bring up bread-and-butter issues, and many will be fired up by the injustices within our political and legal systems.

The trouble is that while people do genuinely care about the state of their locality and wider society they feel powerless, leading to low electoral turnout.  While I think voting is very important, I can see why others may choose not to vote because their constituency is a ‘safe seat’ or they do not want to vote for any of the parties. Or they simply think voting will not make one jot of a difference. This state of affairs is however extremely dangerous for our nation. The growth of the far-right and the expenses scandal are but a few from a sea of reasons as to why low turnout cannot continue as it is.

Power 2010 is trying to change all this.

This initiative has come out of the democratic crises which have been growing over the past few decades. What distinguishes this campaign is that it comes out of people’s views and not the politicians. The initiative works as follows: It firstly asked the public for submissions regarding the political, legal and constitutional reforms that people would like to see, and then distilled these 4000 suggestions into 58 reforms. These reform were then discussed at a ‘Deliberatiive Poll’ last weekend by roughly 130 people from across the country who were randomly selected by YouGov. The participants then voted on their top reforms to which the public at large are now being asked to vote on. These final reforms will be taken to the political parties at the general election. If you would like to vote then please see the Power 2010 website.

I was a facilitator at the Deliberative Poll. My group of seven contained a diverse group of people from across the country who had much to say about the state of our politics. The discussion was lively and relevant. They were very much switched on. My experiences convinced me that people may not wish to vote, but they do give a damn.

One reform up for discussion was whether the UK ought to have a bill of rights or a constitution. I do not have a conclusive view on this, but I do think that this is a debate which needs to take place. As a British Muslim, I am very concerned at the erosion of our civil liberties; of innocent young people stopped and searched under terrorist laws, of a plethora of CCTV cameras, and proposed ID cards. A constitution or bill of rights could make it to the final key reforms which are taken to our political parties which I think is really exciting stuff.

Time will tell as to whether this campaign has the potency to give our political parties a kick up the backside, but it is a positive start. If the final reforms are successfully taken on by the political parties it could radically shake up politics as we know it. Politics would no longer be bore-fest, a mere marking of a ballot sheet every five years, but could involve participating at citizen juries, proportionately elected MPs who have more legitimacy with the electorate and more. The most significant element of this movement is that the reforms will have come from the people themselves, and not from some toffy-nosed, Etonian Oxbridge politicians who are disconnected from the people, their views, and day-to-day lived realities. History has taught us about populist movements where people collectively campaigned for the political changes that they desired. Power 2010 is making a hearty effort to instill some of that energy and movement, so bring it on.

Engaging with the far-right

A dominant narrative is that the far-right should be ignored altogether, lest it gives a platform for advancing their cause. However, Nick Griffin’s platform on Question Time simply exposed the BNP and the reality that it is. And providing a platform to the far-right might be necessary in another context: 

Is it about time we engaged with members of the far-right, in order to debunk some of the myths around Islam and ethnic minorities? Perhaps it is no longer tenable for us to simply shove the problem under a rug; the British media has continued to paint a negative picture of Islam so British Muslims need to look to themselves for leading on change. I understand there are complex reasons as to the growth of the far-right, linked to poverty, unemployment and immigration, and that British Muslims simply cannot address this whole complex web. But maybe fostering dialogue is better than doing nothing. 

By engaging with the far-right we are bringing its ideology more into the ‘mainstream’ and that is to be lamented. I believe however the growing numbers is a fact we simply cannot ignore, and that perhaps engaging in dialogue which is done in a carefully considered manner is necessary.

I am fully aware that there are those who join simply because of their pure hatred and I do not suggest engaging with them. I also personally distinguish between the leaders and the blind followers; I have faith that most human beings are essentially good and that there is merit in dialogue with others who have genuinely misunderstood and who might listen. I’m not too sure whether counter-demonstrations are the most effective response to demonstrations outside mosques. It takes just a few angry people to taint the counter-demo, which the media would pounce on, completely missing the main point altogether.

So, when I heard about the Muslim Debate Initiative’s ‘The Islamification of Britain: Myth or Reality’ event last Thursday I was pleased that steps towards dialogue had been taken. Surprisingly, the event was a rather calm affair, rather than the heated furore I had expected. There were six speakers overall but I will only mention two of them:

Abdullah Al-Andalusi was the Muslim speaker and spoke well for the most part. He highlighted that debate was a strong tradition in Islam’s history and invited an open debate which did not spare controversy. Al-Andalusi also pointed out that Muslims are not calling for Sharia law in Britain, though members of the panel disagreed. He also highlighted a poll which found that 77% of Muslims identify themselves with Britain. Overall, I think his points were very relevant to debunking the myth around Islam’s supposed monolithic nature.

The most overt right-wing panelist on the panel was Jeffrey Marshall, a senior spokesperson for the BNP. He talked mainly of Tower Hamlets, highlighting that more than half of its population is Muslim, and around half of the Councillors are Muslim. In other words, he does not like to see the sight of brown people. Al-Andalusi responded that other parts of London are dominated by religious and ethnic groups including Stamford Hill by Jews, and Lambeth by Afro-Caribeans. Marshall also highlighted the attacks of Muslim youth on religious figures. While this is of concern, it was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. 

Talk about Sharia personal law surfaced continuously, which shows many people are still obsessed with it, despite there being no possibility of it affecting their rights. It indicates to me that Rowan Williams’ suggestion many months ago might be the root of this whole discussion about ‘islamisation’ and people aren’t ready to forget it. The increasing visibility of the niqab – the face veil – was also a problem for some.

Whether there was more understanding about British Muslim’s place in Britain, and that is holds no threat, is hard to discern. Although dialogue is not the only answer, perhaps it was a positive start.

Reflections on activism

The thirst for social justice is etched in my bones, it runs hot in my veins, it is interwoven into my very fibres. Injustice chokes and reviles me. I am preoccupied by injustice. 

 

It was stories about my father which sealed my fate. He died when I was just 10 months old. He was a truly remarkable man; he was born into humble beginnings but he educated himself into no less than four degrees, yet never forgot the poverty into which was was born. He stood up for truth. He campaigned against political tyranny around him, even at the risk to his own personal well being and security. 

 

I was and continue to be inspired by stories of him.

 

We live in a world in which narratives around human rights apply to the world out there, leaving our consciousness to inadvertently play down human abuses at home. I realise that while there are pressing issues within the international arena, there is a real danger of being too preoccupied with it, and at the expense of grim issues within our neighbourhoods. This preoccupation is damaging to our psychological frame of mind – particularly our youth – who grow up with a sense of futility regarding the horrific stories  with which we are bombarded at every waking moment.

 

Muslims in particular are preoccupied with the international world. I worked in Tower Hamlets for two years. Alhamdulilah, there is so much to celebrate in that borough, particularly the rich diversity and the growing spiritual awaking. But yet it is entrenched in raw issues, such as perpetuating poverty and growing levels of drugs amongst youth. The truth is that top-down policies from central and local government are not enough to change a locality despite spiel to the contrary. Local governments are pumped with money, but despite their efforts, wholesale changes are not made, and can never be made. Change is a dynamic process and needs to come about from people themselves. 

 

My reflections are not at odds with Islam’s notion of an Ummah. We ought to care about Muslim suffering around the world, but yet we are also enjoined to care about the well being of our neighbours – from those of faith to none. I am particularly aware of how Muslims need to urgently step up to the challenges of British civil society. I am proud of the thriving London Muslim activist scene, but we need to be mindful that we are not satisfied merely with the attending of talks, events, conferences and demonstrations – thinking that it is enough in this crazy world we live in. Talks and events create awareness and buzz around an issue, but can sometimes achieve little by way of tangible outcomes on the ground.

 

There are many kinds of worthy activism, but I believe Community organising is one of the most potent methods of transforming our neighbourhoods. It is a particular method of bringing about social change and can be summed up as the building of broad-based alliances in order to build power in order to act for the common good. This building of power allows communities to negotiate tangible outcomes for themselves; poverty, safer streets, refugee rights and so forth. Britain’s primary broad-based alliance is London Citizens which brings together churches, mosques, schools, civil society institutions, and trade unions which campaign collectively on many worthy issues.

 

A basic foundation of community organising is people coming together face-to-face to learn about each others hopes, values, aspirations and day-to-day lived realities.  I am convinced that this aspect of community organising is particularly important for British Muslim society. The relationships built through community organising are more powerful than those through interfaith discussion –  while the latter is necessary and builds dialogue on theological matters, community organising allows us to humanise one another further through the discovering of common issues, at a time when Muslims are being increasingly vilified. What-is-more, knowing one another from those of faith to none, is a powerful way to tackle the fragmented society around us and particularly the spectre of the growing far-right. A community which knows each other also feels each other’s pain and gives a damn. And  acting together on those concerns is what really cements those relationships.

 

I started off this article with a story about myself and what motivates me as an activist – and this is precisely what community organising does – it invites us to share our stories. It allows us to know one another in a modern society which is fragmented and in too much of a hurry. 

 

How and with whom will you share your story?