Calling
Muslims to support the Ban on Hijab; ‘Intellectual’
sophistry or ignorant ‘philosophy’?
By
Shaikh Riyad Nadwi M.A., PhD.
Compulsion
v Freedom
A group of people in Britain, recently describing
themselves as ‘Muslim intellectuals’,
have called on the Islamic community to accept the
French ban on hijab. They argue that, even if all
the Muslims were to start wearing hijab and growing
beards tomorrow, our worldwide problems would not
be solved, as if to assume that our problems could
be solved if we were to give up our beards and remove
the hijab. This argument is obviously intellectually
impoverished. It seeks to divert attention away
from the real issue at hand, which is the future
of freedom to practice Islam in Europe. The issue
is not one of ‘compulsion versus choice’
in the eyes of the Ulama but of ‘compulsion
versus freedom’ in the actions of policy makers
and politicians (who, incidentally, claim to be
the vanguard of liberty and freedom). Forcing anyone
to wear hijab is beyond the remit of the Ulama.
Our job is simply to encourage and convey the message
of the Quran, as practised by the Prophet (S.A.S).
He was the tarjuman al-Quran (the exemplar of the
Quran).
Throughout
the history of Islam, the obligation of wearing
hijab has been universally accepted as valid by
all traditions. There are varied opinions with respect
to the covering of the face, but when it comes to
the question of hijab, i.e. the covering of the
head, neck and chest, the scholars (male and female)
of the four main Sunni schools of thought (Hanafi,
Maliki, Shafii and Hanbali) have remained in agreement
on its validity. This is a consensus upon which
there has been historical consistency for over fourteen
hundred years.
Manipulation
and Fabrication of Shallow Roots
The group of ‘Muslim intellectuals’
has called for a soul-searching debate on CIA activities
in Afghanistan during the 1980s, which is an issue
I had raised concern about in my lecture on 11 September
2004 in Cardiff (to listen, visit www.occri.org.uk).
However, I believe the focus of this discussion
should not be restricted to the actions of certain
Ulama, for many from the so-called English speaking
elite were equally involved in the mediation and
manipulation that took place at that time.
In
this context, we also need to examine the track
record and consequences of manipulation by the so-called
‘intellectuals’, such as their soliciting
of death warrants (fatwa) from Imam Khomeini. As
Muslims, we need to demonstrate the mental capacity
to think for ourselves and refrain from regurgitating
quasi-academic analyses. We cannot call ourselves
intellectuals while we rely on spin produced by
non-Muslims with an agenda. A good example of this
is the preposterous idea that hijab only became
in issue of importance after the Iranian revolution
in 1979. Apart from demonstrating a serious lack
of familiarity with Islamic history, this spin argument
is part of an on-going attempt to create detachable
components within Islam by fabricating shallow roots
to replace genuine foundations. When a component
is traceable all the way back to the Prophet (S.A.S)
it is immeasurably more difficult to uproot. One
cannot challenge the validity of a practice traceable
through sanad back to the Sahabah. Therefore the
tactic that some (e.g. Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes
et al) have come to rely on is to fabricate artificial
roots further down the line in order to provide
the appearance of recency. With this, they convince
the simple-minded ‘intellectuals’ among
us that various aspects of Islamic practice such
as hijab, etc, have surfaced only recently, i.e.
only a few decades ago. Hence, it becomes reasonable
to ask Muslims to dispense with large chunks of
their faith and practice. My sincere advice to these
people is that if they wish to indulge in any ‘intellectual
discussion’ they should avoid reliance on
neo-conservative spin.
The
Spin of Modesty v Hijab
Another bundle of spin that is being disseminated
is the accusation against anyone who tries to defend
the right to wear hijab of being guilty of neglecting
the need for modesty. This is a perfect example
of the phenomenon of ‘spin’, where the
truth is turned upside down to produce what appears
to be a rational argument. An apparently dubious
statistic of girls in hijab being equally prone
to teenage pregnancy is offered to substantiate
the accusation. Even if this were true, it would
not be a reason for supporting the ban on hijab
in France. On the contrary, it would be a reason
to increase hijab consciousness, which teaches control
of the eyes and a sense of dignified bashfulness.
Neither of these is brought any closer by the uncovering
of our daughters. The public display of beauty in
one’s hair, neck and chest is not necessarily
a gesture of modesty. We must remember that teenagers
face an enormous amount of peer pressure coupled
with the intense biological vigour of youth. There
is an unquestionable correlation, irrespective of
gender, between the extent of exposure of the human
body and sexual attraction. We cannot complain about
teenage pregnancy whilst advocating more exposure
and expect to appear consistent. Modesty is not
merely a cognitive activity; it has to manifest
itself outwardly, in a way that communicates and
confirms its presence. If not, then it would be
of no value to the individual or society at large.
Dress and
Dividing the Community?
Emphasising
the need for freedom to practise Islam is not an
automatic denial of the importance of taqwa; heart
and body go hand in hand. The heart does not exist
in isolation from the body; indeed, the postures
and actions of the body often reflect the condition
of the heart. This is the reason why companies spend
billions of dollars every year to get people to
fall in love with their products through advertising,
so that they will act out this love by purchasing
their products. The importance of outward manifestation
of dress is demonstrated in the very fact that politicians
are seeking to outlaw certain forms of garment in
Europe. Our problem today is compounded by groups
of so-called intellectuals who denigrate the Sunnah
of the Prophet (S.A.S) with vile words such as ‘fetishism’
whilst they themselves emulate the likes of Peter
Stringfellow in appearance. These are the people
who are now trying to use fear of disunity to force
the Muslims into accepting the ban, along with their
tastes in clothes and sense of morality.
They
should remember that for over fourteen hundred years
the Muslims have always loved the Prophet (S.A.S)
more than they could ever love fading idols of dubious
popularity. The ‘Peter Stringfellow look’
is unlikely to appeal to anyone whose heart is genuinely
filled with the love of Allah and his Prophet (S.A.S).
Muslims in love deserve the freedom to emulate their
beloved. Essentially, it is a question of the heart.
We should inquire: why are we being asked to agree
to a ban on following the Sunnah of our beloved
while the right to emulate ageing playboys remains
unquestioned?
As
for splitting the community, at the moment we have
near global uniformity under the umbrella of a handful
of madhaahib (schools of thought). If these translation-dependent,
sunnah-resistant and heart-transplanted deformers
calling themselves ‘intellectual reformers’
are allowed free reign, we will see not only a split
in the community but a disintegration of the Ummah
into thousands of dissimilar and unrecognisable
religions. Islam has been held together under the
umbrella of madhaahib over the centuries. Any attempt
to discredit or replace them will result in catastrophic
consequences for our sense of identity and the future
of our children as Muslims.
Playing the blame game
Another
argument that has been raised by these ‘intellectuals’
is that Muslim affairs in the world would have turned
out otherwise if the Ulama had agreed to replace
the Islamic curriculum in India during the 19th
century with an English curriculum. Those who have
studied this history will know that this was not
simply a question of language. The Ulama resisted
the proposal to include English after becoming concerned
about the intentions of the British in India, especially
when Lord Macaulay, during the debate in the British
Parliament of India on 02 February 1835, declared
that:
“…I
am quite ready to take the oriental learning at
the valuation of the Orientalists…I have never
found one among them who could deny that a single
shelf of a good European library was worth the whole
native literature of India and Arabia…it is
impossible for us [the British Raj], with our limited
means, to educate the body of people. We must at
present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters
between us and the millions whom we govern; a class
of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English
in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect”.
(Macaulay, Thomas Babington; Complete works of Lord
Macaulay, 1899. Houghton Mifflin, p.729)
The
British had destroyed Shah Walliullah’s Madrasa
Rahimiyya in Delhi and the Ulama wanted to ensure
that the tastes, opinions, morals and intellect
of the Madrasa students remained Muslim.
In
reality, large numbers of Muslims were indeed taught
English in a network of colleges (e.g. Delhi College
1792, The Government College, Lahore 1896) and instead
of serving the interests of the Muslim community,
many were used as puppets to further the aims of
the British Raj in India. Some were encouraged to
declare that the Quran was superstition. The Ulama
were being cautious with good reason. In addition,
they were not opposed to modern science per se.
The Nadwatul Ulama Movement (1893) debated and passed
a resolution to include subjects such as astronomy,
mathematics, geography etc in the curriculum. English
language is taught as part of the curriculum in
Dar al-Ulum, Nadwatul Ulama at Lucknow.
However,
taking the Japanese as a case in point, one can
see that language is not the main criterion for
modernisation and progress. They have surpassed
most nations technologically, without having had
to change their language or discard their traditions.
To progress, we need to be more confident in ourselves
and less dismissive of our core heritage. The Japanese
cherish the islands of Japan as their core heritage.
As Muslims, our core heritage is Islam. When we
blame Islam for our failures and ridicule those
amongst us who have dedicated their lives to preserving
it, we create a negative and nebulous vision for
our own future. That is the vicious cycle that must
be broken if we are to succeed in both this world
and the Hereafter.
"Our Lord! Give us good in this world and good
in the Hereafter, and defend us from the torment
of the Fire"(Al-Baqarah 201)
Sh. Riyad Nadwi
24.10.04
Oxford, UK
