It’s worthy to read this comment by David Edgar.
Arif
Sorry, but we can't just pick and choose what to tolerate
The furore over the right to wear the veil has exposed the double standards of the liberal anti-Islam agenda
David Edgar
Wednesday October 11, 2006
The Guardian
Well, who would have thought a bit of black cloth could have provoked such anger and such anguish. The anger is part of a growing and alarming trend. The general consensus among the anguished (such as this newspaper) is that, in Jack Straw's words, "there is an issue here".
Certainly there is. The veil question has exposed a staggering level of thoughtless illiberalism, and not just where you'd expect to find it. Hot off the mark, the Express consults its readers about a ban on the veil: "An astounding 97% of Daily Express readers agreed a ban would help to safeguard racial harmony." It's not quite clear how this ban would be implemented. (Policemen ripping veils from women's faces? Asbos? Flinging wearers in jail?)
Clearly there are precedents: the Dutch parliament has voted for a ban on wearing burkas in public places, and three Flemish towns have actually instituted a ban. In this country, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown supports a burka ban on feminist grounds, and the "progressive nationalist" David Goodhart, who edits the left-leaning Prospect magazine, calls for a ban on the burka in schools and public offices (which, depending on where Jack Straw holds his surgeries, might solve his problem at a stroke). The problems attendant upon such a policy are demonstrated by the Belgian municipalities, which had to define burka-wearing in a way that didn't criminalise carnival masks (and it is very hard to see a way of defining the burka that wouldn't incriminate the niqab).
That liberalism can so easily collapse into nativism is clearly seen in Rotterdam, where designs for mosques are rejected as "too Islamic" and a citizenship code makes it compulsory to speak only Dutch in the street. That Muslims will not be the only victims of cultural proscriptions is seen in Flanders, where the bans on burkas in public places have been followed by one on speaking French in schools. That bans on veils don't end there is shown in Germany, where several states are seeking - pace David Goodhart - to ban civil servants from wearing the hijab, including Baden-Württemberg - the first German state to bar headscarf-wearing teachers from the classroom.
So this furore has exposed the double standards of the liberal anti-Islam agenda. Like the Behzti and Jerry Springer controversies, the Danish cartoon affair was spun as a contest between universal western liberal values of tolerance and particularist religious fundamentalists who wanted to impose their sensitivities on everybody else. Now many people who defend free _expression_ to the death want to stop other people wearing what they want, in order to protect themselves from cultural offence.
Many Muslim women have pointed out they would be accused of rampant Islamofascism if they asked women with short skirts or naked midriffs to cover up. There is, one hopes, no call for Britain to follow the US state of Virginia in banning visible underwear from its streets. But you can't have it both ways: I can disagree with what you wear, but - if I am to remain true to universalist Enlightenment values - the other half of Voltaire's formulation has to click in too.
However, the question of the veil does put liberals on the spot. For most of the past 30 years, being in favour of free speech meant being in favour of good things (notably honesty about sexuality) and against denial and repression. Most of the causes célèbres of the battle against state censorship, from Lady Chatterley to The Romans in Britain, were works of worth; even where the worth was questionable, there were persuasive arguments that the work was either harmless (as in pornography) or progressive.
Now we are having to defend things we disapprove of, such as the glorification of terrorism or, indeed, calls for censorship. The conundrum that one of the things liberals have to tolerate is intolerance hasn't needed to be at the forefront of debates on free _expression_ before. It is now, and it should be.
So, yes, it's fine and right for Dutch gays to walk hand in hand in public, and for Dutch women to walk topless along beaches; but it's not OK to insist that prospective immigrants to the Netherlands be quizzed on their response to DVDs containing those images. Yes, it's good for immigrants to learn the language of the country where they live, but it is wrong to ban any language from being spoken in public. Yes, it is bad for wives to have to obey husbands, or for parents to renounce gay children, but such attitudes were common among this continent's indigenous peoples until relatively recently - and people coming to live in Europe should not be asked to disavow them as a condition of entry, any more than they should be forced to express opinions on any other matter.
And yes, the veil can be alienating to people trying to communicate with the person wearing it; it is sometimes (but not always) worn involuntarily, and (for me) is an _expression_ of devotion to a non-existent supernatural being whose worship excuses all kinds of barbarism. But if we want to have a leg to stand on when we stand up for The Satanic Verses or Behzti or Jerry Springer, we must defend to the death the right to wear it.
· David Edgar is a playwright and fellow of the Royal Society of Literature
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com __._,_.___
***************************************************************************
{Invite (mankind, O Muhammad ) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Qur'an) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided.} (Holy Quran-16:125)
{And who is better in speech than he who [says: "My Lord is Allah (believes in His Oneness)," and then stands straight (acts upon His Order), and] invites (men) to Allah's (Islamic Monotheism), and does righteous deeds, and says: "I am one of the Muslims."} (Holy Quran-41:33)
The prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "By Allah, if Allah guides one person by you, it is better for you than the best types of camels." [al-Bukhaaree, Muslim]
The prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said, "Whoever calls to guidance will have a reward similar to the reward of the one who follows him, without the reward of either of them being lessened at all." [Muslim, Ahmad, Aboo Daawood, an-Nasaa'ee, at-Tirmidhee, Ibn Maajah]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended:
http://www.ikhwanweb.com
http://www.islamonline.net
http://www.islam-guide.com
http://www.prophetmuhammadforall.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All views expressed herein belong to the individuals concerned and do not in any way reflect the official views of IslamCity unless sanctioned or approved otherwise.
If your mailbox clogged with mails from IslamCity, you may wish to get a daily digest of emails by logging-on to http://www.yahoogroups.com to change your mail delivery settings or email the moderators at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the title "change to daily digest".
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
