Working Women - Part 02

Legislation in Islam is derived from the fixed sources of Quran and Sunnah. To decide the legislation of the issue of the working woman, one must return to these sources. Women working in public are generally and specifically permitted as long it is within the limits of the legislation found in the Quran and Sunnah. While in Islam it is maintained that the basic and fundamental role of the woman in Islam is in the home, fulfilling her duty as a wife and a mother. These duties and responsibilities require time and effort as being the primary responsibility of the woman. However, the woman's primary role as mother and housewife does not mean she is confined to this role and prevented from pursuing other activities. Rather this means that Allah swt created man and woman with different roles and responsibilities in life, thus women were created so that man may live with her in harmony and tranquility and have children with her. Allah swt says:
وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَزْوَاجِكُمْ بَنِينَ وَحَفَدَةً وَرَزَقَكُمْ مِنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ أَفَبِالْبَاطِلِ يُؤْمِنُونَ وَبِنِعْمَةِ اللَّهِ هُمْ يَكْفُرُونَ

{And Allah has made for you mates (and companions) of your nature, and made for you, out of them, sons and daughters and grandchildren, and for you sustenance of the best: will They then believe In vain things, and be for Allah.s favours?} [An- Nahl: 72]

The husband is the one who bears the responsibility of seeking a livelihood to provide for his family. As Allah swt said:

الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنْفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ 

{Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because They support them from their means}. [Al-Nisa: 34] 

Evidences stating the permissibility of a female working: 

From the Quran: 

1. Regarding Prophet Musa (as): 

وَلَمَّا وَرَدَ مَاءَ مَدْيَنَ وَجَدَ عَلَيْهِ أُمَّةً مِنَ النَّاسِ يَسْقُونَ وَوَجَدَ مِنْ دُونِهِمُ امْرَأتَيْنِ تَذُودَانِ قَالَ مَا خَطْبُكُمَا قَالَتَا لَا نَسْقِي حَتَّى يُصْدِرَ الرِّعَاءُ وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ (23) فَسَقَى لَهُمَا ثُمَّ تَوَلَّى إِلَى الظِّلِّ فَقَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي لِمَا أَنْزَلْتَ إِلَيَّ مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَقِيرٌ (24) 

{ And when He arrived at the watering (place) In Madyan, He found there a group of men watering (Their flocks), and besides them He found two women who were keeping back (Their flocks). He said: "What is the matter with you?" They said: "We cannot water (Our flocks) until the shepherds take back (Their flocks): and Our father is a very old man." So He watered (Their flocks) for them; then He turned back to the shade, and said:"O My Lord! truly am I In (desperate) need of any good that Thou dost send me!" [Al-Qissas: 23-4] 

These two ayat explained the daughters’ need to work because their elderly father was unable to carry out his work. It was revealed in the ayah that the women should avoid mixing with other men and commit to modesty and dignity. 
2. In Surat Al-Baqara:

فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمْ أَنْ تَسْتَرْضِعُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذَا سَلَّمْتُمْ مَا آَتَيْتُمْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ 

There is no blame on them. if ye decide on a foster-mother for your offspring, there is no blame on you, provided ye pay (the mother) what ye offered, on equitable terms. but fear Allah and know that Allah sees well what ye do}. Ayah 233

It is permissible for a woman to breastfeed another infant in exchange for a wage. The infant’s guardian may provide a wage for the woman nursing the infant, which may take place in either the woman’s home or the infant’s home. This situation originates from the woman’s natural maternal character. 

Evidences from the Sunnah: 

1. It is narrated that Asmaa bint Abu Bakr (ra) said: Zubair married me and his wealth is in the land and he does not own anything prosperous. So I used feed his horse, draw water… and knead dough. But I did not perfect the baking of the bread hence my sincere Ansar neighbors used to bake the bread for me. I carry the straw on my head from Zubair’s land from a far distance. I came across the Prophet pbuh who saw me carrying the load. He prompted his camel to lower itself to carry me on his camel. I was too shy to ride because there were men with him and I remembered Zubair’s jealousy for he was the most jealous of men. The Prophet realized my shyness and left me. Later on, Abu Bakr sent a servant to free me from the burden of tending to Zubair’s horse.

2. As narrated by Jabir bin Abd-alqal: My maternal aunt divorced and wanted to harvest her palm trees. A man forbade her; therefore she went to the Prophet (pbuh). He said, yes harvest your palm trees, be that you give charity or perform a good deed.

3. As narrated by Ra’ita, the wife of Abdallah bin Masoud was a woman possessing a skill; she used to sell her hand-crafted goods to earn to support her husband, child, and herself. She complained to her husband that her work prevented her from doing good deeds or charity. Her husband replied, By Allah that is what He loves. She went to the Prophet pbuh and explained her situation that her husband is unable to work so she provides for her family and this work prevents her from giving charity. The Prophet pbuh told her to spend upon your family and she will be rewarded by Allah swt.

These hadeeths confirm the permissibility of a woman earning a wage or simply helping her husband. Also, for the woman to work outside of her home if the head of household is absent, unable or elderly. The Prophet pbuh agreed as Asmaa bint Abu Bakr (ra) used carry the straw and obtain water. He also permitted the working of Jabir’s aunt to benefit herself and others through charity. Abdullah bin Masoud’s wife received the reward in her financially supporting her husband as the reward of sadaqa. 

Allah swt created the woman who encompasses both a private and public role in life. The private as mentioned above being a mother and wife. The public role, being a dawah carrier and seeking appropriate knowledge necessary for her life. There is no specific prohibition against a woman a job whatever her reason. This is due to the general import of the Legislator's speech and the absence of prohibitions specific to women. Again it needs to be stressed that her line of work or profession is within the parameters of halal and without any forbidden action as outlined in the Quran and Sunnah. This will be discussed in detail in the third part of this series. (By; Manal Bader-Bayt Almaqdes)

Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

UK's Free SEMINAR: 'RAISING A NATION'

FREE AL MU'MINAAT & TAYYIBUN SISTERS SEMINAR: RAISING A NATION!

INSPIRATIONAL LECTURES TO BE DELIVERED:

-Mothers Who Raised Nations
-The Forgotten Obligation
-Key To A Victorious Ummah

LECTURES DELIVERED BY: (speakers will be fully segregated from the female audience)

Br. Assim Al Hakeem (Umm Al Qura University in Makkah Saudi Arabia)

Assim Al Hakeem graduated from the prestigious Umm Al Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia in 1998. At present Shaykh Assim is an Imam of a Masjid in Jeddah, a role which he has held for the past 19 years, where the Shaykh delivers the weekly Friday sermons and lectures on various Islamic Sciences. Shaykh Assim Al Hakeem also participates regularly on both Islamic radio and television programs to spread the authentic teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Shaykh also had close personal contact for several years with the great scholar Shaykh Salih Ibn Uthaymeen (ra).

Br. Shaqur Rehman (Egypt/Saudi Arabia)

Shaqur Rehman studied in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia whilst teaching English in various universities and institutions. Ustadh Shaqur Rehman is Hafidh ul Qur'an and holds Ijazats in recitation of the Qur'an and various Islamic Sciences including Aqeedah and Fiqh. The Ustadh is currently a course instructor for the Tayyibun Institute.

Br. Abu 'Abdissalaam (Dar Al Hadith Al Khairiyyah in Makkah Saudi Arabia)
Abu 'Abdissalam is a graduate from Dar Al Hadith Al Khayriyyah in Makkah Saudi Arabia. During the course of his studies he studied under many of the prominent scholars of our time and acquired Ijazas for all of the six major books of Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, Na'sai and Ibn Majah). In addition, he also has Ijazas for the Sharh of Aqidah Tahawiyyah of Ibn Abdil Izz al-Hanafi, Shaykh Muhammmad Amin al Harari's Sharh of Muqadimmah of Muslim and Nuzhat An-Nazr Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikr of Ibn Hajar.

EVENT ALSO INCLUDES:

-Free Al Mu'minaat Gift Chocolates
-Hot Food Stalls
-Bazaar
-Information Stalls
-Presentations
-Separate Facilities for Mothers with Children
 

EVENT DATE, DOORS OPEN AND EVENT CLOSE:

Saturday 1st January 2011, Doors Open 10.30am & Event Close: 3pm

EVENT TAKING PLACE AT:
The Brady Arts and Community Centre, 192-196 Hanbury Street, London E1 5HU
 

ALL SISTERS WELCOME, NO BOOKING REQUIRED, PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD AND INFORM ALL SISTERS SO THEY DONT MISS OUT!
www.almuminaat.com

Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Middle East Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi's silly thoughts & Qatar FIFA 2022 Vision

The FIFA announcement that Qatar is awarded hosting the 2022 World Cup represents the first time a Muslim country defeats the United States, the Doha-based Egyptian Middle East Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi (...?) said in his last Friday sermon. Read more

Working Women - Part 01

This series will cover specific issues related to women, primarily Western women in the workforce and its tremendous effect on the family and social structure. It will highlight this sensitive subject and its effect on the working Muslim women today. The first part is the introduction and women’s work in the West.

Introduction: 

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the role of men and women was clearly defined in society. Each gender had clear specific expectations that men and women were expected to uphold and honor, resulting in a more cohesive society. Young women matured into the path of motherhood and wifehood likewise with young men males guided into fatherhood as the head of household. Men were expected to be the anchor in the home to feed, clothe, and shelter his family. However this structure changed during and after World War I yielding devastating results. 

Women’s Work in the West:

As a result of World War I, ten million men were killed. Thereby, disrupting the fragile balance of the family structure. Women, now widowed with orphaned children, had to bear the burden of providing for their family. Faced with new hardships, women of all ages were pushed into the laborforce trying to maintain their broken households. Of course at that time, the majority of women were not physically apt to perform numerous jobs traditionally fulfilled held by men. Many unfortunately were forced into the path that heavily exploited their femininity and sexuality in order to provide their orphaned children with the basic necessities to survive. 

Furthermore, western society began to view the female gender as an important and vital contributor to the workforce. On a more basic level, a father of an eighteen year old is not legally responsible to provide for her because she is able to work and pay for her own necessities. Capitalism falsely led wives to believe in the notion of a two-income household where her income was crucial to her family’s living. Oftentimes, the husband needed or required his wife to work in order to lead a comfortable lifestyle according to western standards. Western women believed they were liberated when working alongside the opposite gender to attain wages. The widespread belief of one financially supporting an able-bodied person whether it may be his wife or daughter emphasized the greed and disgrace in society. Once again, highlighting the survival of the fittest law present in western society. It should be noted that Western societies live according to their whims and desires trying to satisfy them by any means possible. The woman was led to believe the more she flaunted her sexuality, the better the return for her; whether it may be more money, higher status, or attention from her clients or employers. As time went by, her presence became increasingly prevalent in the workforce to obtain a finer quality of life. 

One major factor is missing from the equation: Where does the role of a wife and, more importantly, mother fit into this picture? This is the topic that will be explored in detail over a series of articles: The discussion of the women’s role in the western workforce and society and its tremendous impact on the social structure.

So did the western woman find true happiness? Now that she considered herself liberated and financially stable, did this bring her happiness? According to several research studies, many appear doubtful in their responses. 

According to a French study, a whopping 70% of women live alone without a husband, working from an early age in life. Leading to another problem in society, when young adults leave home to work and reside alone; they neglect their elderly parents without any care or financial support. Incidentally 59% of the elderly are women in France. Nearly every year, three times the number of women enters the workforce than that of men, leaving the majority of men jobless while women struggle to balance work and home. Where is this so-called happiness from this grim picture?

Now turning to the Western social scientists and researchers’ opinions regarding women in the workforce:

Many modern Western sociologists do not want to approach this topic from the angle of whether a working woman is productive to the workforce while destructive to the social fabric of society. But this did not stop past thinkers from exploring and discussing this important issue in which we feel its disastrous results hundreds of years later. 

August Comte, a French philosopher considered the founder of sociology and of the doctrine of positivism claimed, the same people who call for women’s equality by claiming to defend these women do not realize that these women can not compete against their counterparts for equal jobs and pay. Rather this forces these women to enter a daily competitive struggle which will ultimately devour them regarding effort and time. This competition also destroys the natural relationship between men and women –one of mutual love.

A former US congressman stated that since God gave women the ability to have babies, they shouldn’t be expected to leave them to work. Who will then stay home to care for these babies? Samuel Smilles, a pioneer in Renaissance thinking, said when governments sought to employ women, despite their contribution to the nation’s wealth, it resulted in traumatic consequences as the entrance and dependence on women in the workforce increased. Attacking the structure of the domestic life, depriving children of their mothers, husbands of their wives, and children of their relatives, it robbed women of their right and duty to their families. 

Dr. Ida Ellen claimed in her research findings there is a high correlation between the number of working women and the high rate of crime in that society. She concluded that the root of the family crisis in America and the high level of crimes in the community are due to the wife leaving her home to double the family income. As the income level rose as did the level of morality decrease. Dr. Ellen called for the return of the wife to her home to rectify the society and its ethics being the only way to save the new generation of degradation.

According to Lady Cook Journal, the inter-mixing of men and women has led to the high rate of children born out of wedlock. But the statistics would be even higher if it were not for modern medicine to solve the great number of unwanted pregnancies. Lord Byron, an English poet and nobleman, claimed that women should tend to their homes and teach religion to their children while cautioning against the free mixing of men and women. 

Madam Hirkour, a women’s rights champion, wrote to the Socialist philosopher, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon asking of his position on women in the workforce. He replied that a working woman demonstrates a flaw or defect against her gender since this confirms the woman’s failure to realize her full capacity and potential when it comes to her affairs.

Economic philosopher, Jules Simon, stated in the Journal of Magazines v. 17, women have been introduced into different fields from sewing mills to banking institutions yet many of these women were far superior to their employers only to gain a few pounds. The husband now had the materialistic benefit of having a wage-earning wife; while simultaneously threatening to take his place in the workforce. Secondly, he noted that employers have stripped women of their homes and families.

Auguste Comte said in the case of an absent husband or father, the necessities of every woman must be deemed as the responsibility of social services. This is the real basis or meaning for the elevation of humanity. Women’s lives must be as domestic as possible by ridding herself of public work life to ensure her natural role in life. 

In The Magazines v18 , Eujom Feraro wrote, when women seek typical male jobs, they start to over-work to the point where they no longer seek a husband; forming a third gender, neither male nor female. Social scientists have realized the dire impact on the natural relationship between the two genders. She is the over-qualified woman who now competes for the same job as man, these women when unemployed are then seen as a burden upon society. Jules Simon believed women should remain as such in order to attain happiness to extend it onto others. We need to solve women’s problems without changing the nature of woman being aware of not altering them into men or else their positive characteristics may be diminished. We as a society then risk great loss. Nature created the perfect balance among its creatures. Let us study this nature to improve the situation. So let us not deviate from the laws of nature.

Annie Rorde, a famous English writer in an interview declared, if our daughters work in other people’s houses as maids or servants, it is better than factory jobs as not be contaminated by the ills of society. I wish we were like the Muslim countries, where modesty, chastity and purity are the norm, where the servant children play alongside the house children as equals. Yes it is a shame on our country, that the British expose their daughters to the vices of our society… women should be held in dignity in their homes rather than mixing frequently among men. Why shouldn’t we allow women to remain in their natural traditional place while leaving men’s work for the men? 

These are the late 19th and early 20th century thinkers and philosophers’ perspectives about the working woman’s role in society. Many unanimously believe that the source of the family break- up is due to the woman abandoning her home. 

Now western thinkers are faced with the growing dillemma of a quickly disintegrating society where women have abandoned their traditional domesic life to pursue a materialistic non-traditional lifestyle where she no longer seeks a husband for financial support. The reason for family breakup is due to her working in public places. Studies have shown that women have rebelled against the common values in society. Furthermore the woman is less likely to remain faithful to one man when she is financially independent. Western women started earning their own wages; paving a new path for themselves. She started desiring material wealth, status, and freedom. Severing herself from her husband, she no longer is dependant on him for spending allowances and so forth to buy what she desires. Furthermore, being financially stable meant she was no longer bound to find a husband, she was now free to seek someone to meet her expectations and even then she is not bound to the institution of marriage. She can mix freely with as many men as she desired. Her job also earned her this so-called animalistic liberation.

The capitalistic regime forced the woman out of her home enslaving and exploiting her while afflicting the man as well; with no regard to the traumatic consequences on society at all levels: the vices, the break-up of the nuclear family unit, and the confusion of roles between men and women… What is our motive as Muslims to tread down this path? Why would so many Muslim women insist on working outside the home when she has a husband or father proudly willing to support her? Probably due to the reason that Muslim women want to imitate the western woman or the craving for more money or the desire for luxury and adornment. This will be discussed further in the next part. (Manal Bader, Bayt Al-Maqdes)

Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)   

A Belgian face-veil ban would be senseless

Belgium appears to be the leading contender in the race to become Europe's first country to ban the face-veil, on the grounds that it is "not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society". France, Italy and the Netherlands, meanwhile, are also contemplating their own laws on the issue.

The proposed ban makes little sense, whether looked at from the perspective of principle or pragmatism. On the level of principle, it seems somewhat paradoxical to be upholding our European values of liberalism and tolerance by restricting the right of women to choose to dress as they wish, in accordance with their beliefs. I personally do not encourage the wearing of niqab, just as I may not support many of my fellow citizens' lifestyle choices, and I understand that not being able to view another's face can be uncomfortable for many.

But our personal disagreement or discomfort with another's choice does not give us the right to ban it. In this, I would seem to be more squarely within the liberal tradition than many European politicians. It seems that many of our basic principles evaporate when faced with the hysteria surrounding Muslim issues and particularly Muslim women.

On the level of pragmatism, the key stated purpose of the ban is to promote greater integration and interaction between communities. This is certainly an aim to be welcomed, but it rests on two flawed assumptions. First, it assumes that women who wear the niqab do not interact with the rest of society. This is not the case. I know a number of women wearing niqab who go about their daily lives with few problems. However, for those who do not wish to interact with others, forcing them to dress a certain way is unlikely to change their behaviour. Citizens simply cannot be forced to communicate with each other by stripping them of their right to choose how to dress.

Second, it is somewhat difficult to believe that the 30 or so women who actually wear the niqab in Belgium are the single biggest hindrance to integration. According to a 2006 survey at least 58.9% of Turks and 55.6% of Moroccans in Belgium are living under the EU mandated poverty line. The issue of 30 women wearing face-veils pales in comparison.

The level of hypocrisy in this debate beggars belief – while we criticise countries who force women to put clothes on, we can force them to take them off for the sake of "liberation". Under the guise of increasing opportunities for integration, we are closing the entire public space to women and restricting opportunities to interact with others simply because of an extra piece of fabric. While we claim to promote tolerance, we are licensing discrimination and hatred of a small group of women who are being blamed for all the failures of integration policies.

As a Muslim woman, I resent the fact that our role in the public imagination is restricted to burqas and niqabs. Europe's minority communities have many pressing concerns – discrimination, high rates of unemployment, educational underachievement, economic deprivation – yet the same tired, old debate about Muslim women rages on.

Huge progress is being made by Muslim women, who are entering new fields and rising to the top of their professions, slowly but surely. Rather than wasting precious energy on the same circular debates, it would be more worthwhile for politicians to listen to Muslim women and understand what would actually help them to integrate better. Quick-fix solutions, while they may reassure us, often do more harm than good. (By: Intissar Kherigi)

Intissar Kherigi studied Law at King's College, Cambridge, then specialised in human rights at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, London School of Economics. She has worked in the House of Lords, the United Nations in New York, and the European parliament in Brussels.

Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Europe must not ban the burka; byThomas Hammarberg

A proposed ban on full-face Muslim veils is alien to the European ideals of diversity and freedom of speech. A woman wearing a burka. France has denied citizenship to a Moroccan woman who wears a burka on the grounds of 'insufficient assimilation'. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

Prohibition of the burka and the niqab would not liberate oppressed women, but might instead lead to their further alienation in European societies. A general ban on such attire would be an ill-advised invasion of individual privacy. Depending on its precise terms, a prohibition also raises serious questions about whether such legislation would be compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Two rights in the convention are particularly relevant. One is the right to respect for one's private life and personal identity (article 8). The other is the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief "in worship, teaching, practice and observance" (article 9). Both articles specify that these human rights can only be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are notably necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Those who have argued for a general ban on the burka and niqab have not managed to show that these garments in any way undermine democracy, public safety, order or morals. The fact that a very small number of women wear such clothing has made the proposals even less convincing. Nor has it been possible to prove that these women are victims of more gender repression than others. Those who have been interviewed in the media have presented a diversity of religious, political and personal arguments for their decision to dress themselves as they do. There may of course be cases where they are under undue pressure – but it is not shown that a ban would be welcomed by these women.

No doubt, the status of women is an acute problem within some religious communities. This needs to be discussed, but prohibiting symptoms such as clothing is not the way to do it, especially as these may not always be the reflection of religious beliefs, but of broader cultural aspects. Rightly, we react strongly against any regime ruling that women must wear these garments. This is absolutely repressive and should not be accepted. However, this is not remedied by banning the same clothing in other countries.

A serious approach requires an assessment of the consequences of decisions in this area. For instance, the suggestion to ban women dressed in the burka or niqab from public institutions such as hospitals or government offices may only result in these women avoiding such places entirely.

The fact that public discussion in a number of European countries has almost exclusively focused on what is perceived as Muslim dress has created the impression of targeting one particular religion. Some of the arguments have been clearly Islamophobic and have certainly not built bridges or encouraged dialogue. Indeed, one effect is that full veils have become a means of protesting against intolerance in our communities. The insensitive discussion about prohibitions has provoked a polarisation.

In general, the approach should be that the state must avoid legislating on how people dress themselves. It is, however, legitimate to regulate that those who represent the state, for instance police officers and judges, do not wear clothes or carry symbols that signal a partisan religious – or party political – interest. Likewise, civil servants in contact with the public should not have their face covered. This is where the basic line should be drawn.

Beyond this, there are particular situations where there are compelling community interests that make it necessary for individuals to show themselves for the sake of safety or for identification. This is not controversial and there are no reports of serious problems in this regard in relation to the few women who normally wear a burka or a niqab.

A related problem has come under discussion in Sweden. An unemployed Muslim man lost his subsidy from a state agency for employment support because he refused to shake the hand of a female employer when turning up for a job interview. He had claimed religious reasons. A court ruled later, after a submission from the ombudsman against discrimination, that the agency decision was discriminatory and that the man should be compensated. Though this is in line with human rights standards, it was regarded as controversial in the public debate which followed.

It is likely that more issues of this kind will surface in the coming years and it is only healthy that they should be discussed — as long as Islamophobic tendencies are avoided. However, attempts should be made to broaden the discourse to cover essential matters, including how to promote understanding of different religions, cultures and customs. Pluralism and multiculturalism are essential European values and should remain so.

This in turn may require more discussion of the meaning of respect. In the debates about the Danish cartoons from 2005 it was repeatedly stated that there was a contradiction between demonstrating respect for believers and protecting freedom of expression as stipulated in article 10 of the European convention.

The Strasbourg court analysed this dilemma in the famous case of Otto Preminger Institut v Austria in which it stated that "those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion… cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith". In the same judgment the court stated that consideration should also be given to the risk that the respect for religious feelings of believers may be violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious significance and that "such portrayals can be regarded as malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which must also be a feature of democratic society". In other words, tolerance is a two-way street.

The political challenge is to promote diversity and respect for the beliefs of others and at the same time protect freedom of speech. If the wearing of a full-face veil is understood as an expression of a certain opinion, we are talking here about similar or identical rights – though seen from two different angles. A prohibition of the burka and the niqab would be as unfortunate as it would have been to criminalise the Danish cartoons. Such bans are alien to European values. Instead, we should promote multicultural dialogue and respect for human rights. (Thomas Hammarberg is Europe's commissioner for human rights)

Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)  

Syria bans niqab from universities

Regime fears face-covering Islamic veil poses threat to country's secular identity. Niqabs such as this will not be seen in any Syrian university once the country's new measures come into force. Photograph: Jonathan Hordle/Rex Features

Syria has banned the face-covering Islamic veil from the country's universities to prevent what it sees as a threat to its secular identity, as similar moves in Europe spark cries of discrimination against Muslims.

The education ministry issued the ban on Sunday, according to a government official. The ban, which affects public and private universities, is only against the niqab – a full Islamic veil that reveals just a woman's eyes – not headscarves, which are far more commonly worn by Syrian women.

The billowing black robe known as a niqab is not widespread in Syria, although it has become more common recently – a move that has not gone unnoticed in a country governed by a secular, authoritarian regime.

"We have given directives to all universities to ban niqab-wearing women from registering," the government official said today.

The niqab "contradicts university ethics," he added, saying the government was seeking to protect its secular identity.

He also confirmed that hundreds of primary school teachers who were wearing the niqab at government-run schools were transferred last month to administrative jobs.

Syria is the latest country to weigh in on the veil, perhaps the most visible hallmark of conservative Islam. The wearing of veils has spread in other secular-leaning Arab countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, with Jordan's government trying to discourage it by playing up reports of robbers who wear veils as masks.

Turkey also bans Muslim headscarves in universities, with many critics saying attempts to allow them in schools amount to an attack on modern Turkey's secular laws.

European countries including France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands are considering bans on the grounds that the veils are degrading to women.

France's lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on wearing burqa-style Islamic veils on 13 July in an effort to define and protect French values, a move that angered many in the country's large Muslim community.

Opponents say such bans violate freedom of religion and will stigmatise all Muslims.

Duaa, a 19-year-old university student in Damascus, said she hopes to continue wearing her niqab to classes when the next term begins in Autumn despite the ban.

Otherwise, she said, she will not be able to study.

"The niqab is a religious obligation," said Duaa, who asked that her surname not be used because she was not comfortable speaking publicly on the issue. "I cannot go without it." (Guardian-UK)

Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)  

Spanish city bans face-covering Islamic veils in public buildings

Lleida, located in north-eastern region of Catalonia, approved legislation in May but procedural issues delayed its implementation. Lleida has outlawd the wearing of face-covering veils in public buildings. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

The Spanish city of Lleida has became the first in the country to implement a ban on the wearing of face-covering Islamic veils in municipal buildings.

Lleida, in the north-eastern region of Catalonia, approved the legislation in May but procedural issues delayed its implementation.

"I feel proud that Lleida is the first city in Spain to regulate against something that is discriminatory against women," the mayor, Angel Ros, told state-run radio.

The gesture is largely symbolic because only about 3% of Lleida's population is Muslim and only a handful wear body-covering burqas or face-covering niqabs.

Spain has a population of 47 million, of which around 1 million are Muslim. Most live in Catalonia and the southern region of Andalucia, but burqas are rarely seen in public.

Other towns and cities including the Catalan capital, Barcelona, have taken similar steps – but bans are yet to take effect.

The Spanish government is considering including the ban in a future law covering a variety of religious issues. (Guardian-UK)


More Readings; here

Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)