Straw's veil comments spark anger

[Salahuddin]

Jack Straw, the ex-foreign secretary, has angered Muslim groups by suggesting women who wear veils can make relations between communities more difficult.
The Blackburn MP says the veil is a "visible statement of separation and of difference" and he asks women visiting his surgery to consider removing it.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission said the Commons leader's request was selective discrimination.

But the Muslim Council of Britain said it should be up to women to decide.

Muslims make up about a quarter of the population of Blackburn, and Mr Straw said he had carefully considered his remarks.

HAVE YOUR SAY
In these tense times, people should show a little more sensitivity to the society in which they live

Beverley Logue, London


Send us your comments

He wrote in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph that he feared "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult".

Asking women to consider showing the mouths and noses could lead to true "face-to-face" conversations with constituents, enabling him to "see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say".

He said he made sure he had a female colleague in the room when asking someone to show their mouth and nose - and his constituents had so far always agreed to do so.

'Different views'

Later Mr Straw, who has defended the right for women to wear headscarves, asked BBC Radio Lancashire: "Would those people who do wear the veil think about the implications for community relations?"

The remarks attracted an angry response from some organisations representing Muslims.


Find out about different styles of Muslim headscarf


In graphics

It was "astonishing" that Mr Straw chose to "selectively discriminate on the basis of religion", said Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked BBC News 24: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

Rajnaara Akhtar, who chairs the organisation Protect-Hijab, suggested the "appalling" comments showed "a deep lack of understanding".

Mr Straw was putting women "into a very awkward position by compromising the faith they believe in and that is ill-placed", Council of Lancashire Mosques chairman Hamid Kureshi told BBC Radio Five Live.

Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?

Halima Hussain Muslim Public Affairs Committee

And a political rival - Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes - questioned whether it was Mr Straw's place to question the way that members of the public dressed.

"I don't think it's the job for somebody who represents the whole community to say to somebody who comes through the door, 'Do you mind if you dress differently in order to talk to me?'," Mr Hughes said.

Oliver Letwin, the Conservatives' policy chief, told the BBC's Question Time programme that if women wanted to wear a veil they should do so. He described it as "dangerous" to suggest they should not be allowed to.

Dr Daud Abdullah of the Muslim Council of Britain said individual Muslim women could choose to remove part of their veil.

"Even within the Muslim community, the scholars have different views on this.


Jack Straw said he had carefully considered his remarks

"Our view is that if it is going to cause discomfort and that can be avoided then it can be done."

Dr Abdullah added, however, that covering hair remained "obligatory" for Muslim women.

Mr Straw was home secretary from 1997 to 2001, and then foreign secretary until 2005, a period which included the build-up to, and invasion of, Iraq.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

 

[Mick in England]

The vast majority of Brits couldn't care less if Muslim women want to be veied, why should we?
Straw was just being silly, politicians are very good at that..
I remember a few years ago when I worked in a shop in England, a Muslim woman came in fully-burkhared with just her eyes showing, but I greeted her with the exact same words and smile I used for all women customers - "Hello darling, can I help you?"

 

[Awesome]

Could've been Michael Jackson inside! Michael Jackson who has moved into my town these days roams the streets in a Burkha.

Thing about any piece of clothing that women wear out of their own freewill should not be asked to be removed by anybody. Unless its a matter of security of course. Now if there's someone teaching in a school, a person who is trusted, what difference does it make if you can see the teacher's face or not.

Now I don't agree with the veil either. But what I really don't agree with is forcibly removing a woman's piece of clothing.

 

[Mick in England]

In fact this veil business has got people joking in the west that women wear the veil so as not to provoke Muslim men into jumping on them in passion if they were to catch sight of their beauty..
Why exactly do they wear burkhars anyway?

 

[Awesome]

I believe it is to hide their beauty from every other person except their husbands and or men they absolutely trust like fathers and brothers... They have stricter notions of what constitutes as partial nudity, like exposing their hair.

I feel it is extreme. And in todays world you'd find men hornier about women which are surrounded between Burkha women. Prime Example is Saudi Arabia. So basically the Burkha is defeating its purpose.

 

[Thunder]

In fact this veil business has got people joking in the west that women wear the veil so as not to provoke Muslim men into jumping on them in passion if they were to catch sight of their beauty..
Why exactly do they wear burkhars anyway?

Muslim women cover them selves, because their bueaty is not for all to see, muslim womens do not sell their bodies like women do in the west, and in india( if you watched bollywood lately you'll know what i mean ) Muslim women are strong and do not depend on their beauty to clear their problams like some womens do in the west.

Also, it reduces the chances of a women getting raped and other things, i have yet to find out why the west keeps saying that wearing the burqa is against "women rights"

 

[Mick in England]

i have yet to find out why the west keeps saying that wearing the burqa is against "women rights"

The west isn't sure whether muslim women want to wear it, or whether they're ordered to.
The Koran permits men to beat up women if they suspect them of planning to desert them, so the west feels sorry for muslim women..

 

[araz]

I believe it is to hide their beauty from every other person except their husbands and or men they absolutely trust like fathers and brothers... They have stricter notions of what constitutes as partial nudity, like exposing their hair.

I feel it is extreme. And in todays world you'd find men hornier about women which are surrounded between Burkha women. Prime Example is Saudi Arabia. So basically the Burkha is defeating its purpose.

Brother I would disagree with you on that. I am afraid we have come so far from our religion that we have all forgotten the teachings of our beloved Prophet and the Ummahat ul Momeneen. Islam being a complete way of life gives a dress code. Just like there is Satr or minimum area covered by men in Islam, the minimum area to be covered by women is their full body, upto their ankles, and their wrists and Head to only leave their Face exposed. This is probably the minimum requirement. There are authentic Ahadeeth, Qouting Hazrat Ayesha Siddiqua(RA) which state that the Prophet(PBUH) asked the wives to expose their Faces during Haj Timings, but if a man were to cross their path, they would cover their faces. If we are to follow this Hadeeth, then there is adequate evidence for covering your face.
Whether men get Hornier or not seeing a woman in Burqa or not is besides the point. if a sister wants to Please Allah by hiding her face from the world,(and believe me it is difficult!!!), then that should be respected. Straws argument about Integration and communication also holds very little ground. Radio is one of the most influential medium for communication, yet has no faces attached to it. I think it is lack of understanding and failure to comprehend another view point which has brought this controversy about.
WaSalam
Araz

 

[A.Rahman]

The Koran permits men to beat up women if they suspect them of planning to desert them, so the west feels sorry for muslim women..

Stop spreading propaganda and lies, back uo your claim.

 

[Mick in England]

Stop spreading propaganda and lies, back uo your claim.

Are you saying this Koran verse is propaganda and lies? -
[4.34] "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

 

[Thunder]

34. 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. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

4:34



Don't know from which site mick in england got his translation of the Quran from, but i would like to know.

 

[A.Rahman]

Are you saying this Koran verse is propaganda and lies? -
[4.34] "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

"Beat them".

If even separation fails to work, then it is suggested that men use beating
. To this suggestion of the Holy Qur'an there have been two extreme reactions on the part of some Muslims. The first reaction is being apologetic or ashamed of the suggestion. The second is to use it as a justification for indulging in habitual wife battering. Needless to say that both these reactions are wrong. The Quran as we believe is the word of God and is thus every word in it is full of wisdom and love. To be apologetic about any part of the Quran is to lack both knowledge and faith. As for the second response, the suggestion to use beating is made specifically to deal with nushuz on the part of the wife, that is, to deal with her deliberately nasty behaviour that poses a threat to the marriage. Beating is to be done after due admonition and separation in beds and therefore by husbands who have some moral standards and have sufficient control over their sexual passions. Moreover, this beating is not to go on and on but is to be tried as a last step to save the marriage. Once it is clear that it is not working it is to be abandoned in favour of some other steps involving relatives of the husband and the wife mentioned in the next verse (4:35). There is therefore, absolutely no license here for the type of regular and continual wife beating that goes on in some homes, where each time the husband is angry with his wife or with someone else he turns against her and beats her up. In most such cases, the husband has no moral superiority over the wife: the only rule of Shariah that he cares about is this suggestion about beating. He also does not have the kind of control over his sexual passions needed to separate the wife in bed and often beats her the day before or the day after making love to her, an action specifically condemned by the Prophet. (4)

In regard to the suggestion about beating, the following further points should also be noted:

a) According to some traditions the Prophet said in his famous and well-attended speech on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage that the beating done according to the present verse should be ghayr mubarrih, i.e. in such a way that it should not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. On this basis some scholars like Tabari and Razi say even that it should be largely symbolic and should be administered "with a folded scarf" or "with a miswak or some such thing". However, to be effective in its purpose of shaking the wife out of her nasty mood it is important that it should provide an energetic demonstration of the anger, frustration and love of the husband. In other words, it should neither seriously hurt the wife nor reduce it to a set of meaningless motions devoid of emotions.

b) The wife has no religious obligation to take the beating. She can ask for and get divorce any time. The suggestion applies only in the case when the husband is seriously disturbed by a prolonged nasty behaviour on the part of the wife but neither he nor the wife is as yet seriously thinking of breaking up.

c) If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Quran and Hadith, then she can take him to court and if ruled in favor has the right to apply the law of retaliation and beat the husband as he beat her.

d) Some fuqaha (Muslim jurists) are of the opinion that beating is permissible but not advisable. They base their view on the fact that the Prophet intensely disliked the action. But to say that beating is only permissible but never advisable is to say that there is never any good in it but the husband can nevertheless resort to it if he wants to; in other words he can beat up his wife without any good reason. This, however, is a view that cannot possibly be attributed to the Book of God. We can expect the Holy Qur'an to mention beating only if there was some wisdom in that mention. Now there are two possible points of wisdom in the mention. First, the beating done within the limits defined by the Qur'an may indeed bring the husband and wife to some kind of understanding. This is not because of the pain involved, which in any case cannot be too much if the guidance in the Quran and Hadith are to be observed. Rather, the husband and wife may come closer together after beating because of the emotions involved. The wife may experience the depth of hurt and disturbance her nushuz is causing and if there is any love left among them may decide for that reason to change her conduct. It seems from observations of human behaviour know that a show of male physical energy can sometimes bring a woman out of a prolonged bad mood (5) even though this energy may be seemingly directed against her in the form of angry words or a slap, provided in this manifestation of energy there is an undercurrent of love and desire for the woman and no real harm is done to the woman. In the situation with which the present verse is dealing, it is understood that in his heart the husband does have some love and desire for the wife. For, he has the option of divorcing her but he is not taking that option. Of course, there are husbands who neither love their wives nor divorce them, but keep them to punish them or exploit them. But we are not dealing with this situation here, since the assumption is that ill-will (nushuz) is from the wife's side. As for the argument that the Prophet intensely disliked beating, we can say that his intense dislike was for the type of beating done outside the limits set down by God. Second, the mention of beating may have the wisdom, ironically, to protect wives against what is called wife battering. The Quran does not always combat undesirable behavior by legal prohibition but by some other means. Experience also shows that legal prohibition of an action may not always be the most effective method to stop it. The Quran by requiring that before any beating there should be admonishing and separation of beds is providing a more effective measure against wife battering, since battering is the result of uncontrollable anger or aggression and this anger or aggression can be tamed during admonishing and separation of beds. No statistics exist, but I feel confident that if we research the behavior of men in different religious groups over a long enough period and a vast enough area of the globe, we will find that the incidents of cases of wife battering and other forms of cruelty to women have been less, both in terms of numbers and seriousness, among Muslims than in other groups.

"But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them". Here obey means that the wife accepts the husband's fair and justified demands or expectations. "Seek nothing against them" means that after the wife has abandoned nushuz and returned to the decent way one partner in marriage should behave towards the other, the husband should forgive and forget the past and start a new page.

 

[Neo]

Thanks for elaborating Rahman.
Great post! :thumbsup:

 

[A.Rahman]

Thanks for elaborating Rahman.
Great post! :thumbsup:

As I said before Neo, its a must to get a good Tafsir book with Quran.

 

[Mick in England]

Ah, so different translations and interpretations of the Koran contradict each other..