An alien passing by this small blue-green rock orbiting around an isolated yellow star would be quite frankly puzzled if it tapped into some of our recent media.
His (or more accurately "its") puzzlement would be on several levels.
Firstly, there would be the query as to what type of monstrous thing a "burka" was. Was it some fearsome weapon that could unleash death and destruction at a mere press of a button? Or perhaps a dreaded virus sweeping through the planet, infecting millions in its wake? Or was it an army of deadly assassins lying in wait in order to spring up and wreak havoc.
Our poor alien's multi-tentacled body would probably quiver in fear with beads of a substance resembling sweat forming on his many-browed face. This would be until he worked out that actually the niqab was just a small piece of cloth that covers the lower half of the face of a minority of devout Muslim women, and the only "havoc" they usually engaged in was dropping the kids off to school or perhaps taking the cat to the vet.
Given that he was an intelligent alien life-form he would probably want to know why exactly, if it was an innocuous item of women’s clothing, was there such a lot of global noise about banning it - especially with the concurrent cacophony of the "Freedom of Expression" brigade bleating about their rights to insult our blessed Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings be upon him).
The next quandary that our alien friend would have would be why exactly was there so much happiness and joy when one Muslim woman takes (most of) her clothes off and parades herself in public – namely the newly crowned Miss USA Rima Fakih (sorry no "halal" picture to hyperlink), and yet when other Muslim women in similarly liberal democracies put their clothes on and appear in public they are either fined or assaulted.
And why was there so much consternation when a video emerged of Rima Fakih taking part in a "pole-dancing" competition, with threats of ‘stripping’ her of her crown due to her lewd behaviour – despite the fact that she was wearing more clothes during the pole dancing competition than in the swimsuit section of Miss USA.
All these contradictions, all these aberrant beliefs, the complete lack of logic and insight despite the western world having achieved the highest rate of education and literacy since its conception two millennia ago. If this form of disordered thinking and deluded insight was present in just one person, a psychiatrist would be quickly sent for and a diagnosis of a delusional state probably made. When it is present in a population of people what is it called then? The answer is "groupthink".
Despite sounding distinctly Orwellian, groupthink is defined as a type of decision-making by a group characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to a prevailing point of view. The psychologist who developed the theory also devised a series of 8 symptoms of groupthink:
- Illusions of invulnerability: in this case it would apply to the idea of the west being culturally superior and requiring no critical examination or alteration.
- Ignoring and rationalizing warnings and any negative feedback.
- Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
- Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members with silence being viewed as agreement.
- Mind guards - self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
The symptoms of groupthink surrounding the niqab-ban are widespread and have permeated every echelon of society. Its stereotyping of the niqab-wearing woman as a dangerous subversive eroding the fabric of western society coupled with the unquestioned belief of the group-thinker’s own moral high ground in denouncing, criminalising and hounding her has devotees from every level of society. It is seen in the thug who looks in the mirror and sees not the baseball-capped EDL grunt but rather Winston Churchill – standing bulldog-like, cigar in hand, a bulwark against any threat to his nation whether it be the Nazi or a lone woman wearing a niqab; and the famous "We will fight them on the beaches" speech is paraphrased in his own mind to "We will insult them at Budgens, whilst they are trying to buy a pint of milk."
It is also seen in the opinions of the likes of Christopher Hitchens, who despite being a noted "thinker" has produced an opinion piece on the niqab that is a risible piece of intellectual flatulence – a combustible cloud reeking of prejudice and ignorance, probably written at the nadir of one of his famous alcohol-fuelled benders. It has effectively and systematically been dismantled elsewhere but is worth a read if only to pick out how many symptoms of groupthink are displayed and marvel at how one of western society's great intellectuals can fall so easily in line with mob mentality by lazy stereotyping and pandering to their own narrow-mindedness.
Another squalid opinion piece has been belched out by that cack-handed pallbearer of British journalism whose screeching, bug-eyed hatred of Islam is only matched by her great ignorance of it – Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Her groupthink repertoire has all the usual stereotyping and moral omnipotence; but also exhibits other hallmarks like that of self-censorship, i.e. giving the opinion that directly supports her argument, and her role as the "mind-guard" who shields the wider public from exposure to any other opinion. This is seen in her highlighting of Taj Hargey's (whom she describes as an ‘imam and theologian’) opinion that the niqab has no place in Islam. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe him as a dispenser of willow-the-wisp-fiqh to New Age Muslims with the moral steadfastness of a marshmallow who attempt to meld Allah's deen with their own Age of Aquarius acid-trip... but a Muslim theologian – no.
The vast majority of Muslim scholars throughout the centuries have deemed the wearing of the niqab as permissible, with some debate as to whether it is a compulsory requirement (fard), or an obligation (wajib), or a recommended act (sunnah) or a praiseworthy but optional action. To try and pretend that it has no basis in Islam from the pulpit of your national newspaper column is intellectually dishonest and has the distinct flavour of censorship of the truth.
As is the statement that preventing a woman's right to wear a burka is "not the same" as preventing her freedom of expression, when it patently, clearly and obviously is. As is the stupidity behind the accusation that those who use this argument are just taking advantage of freedom of expression as they do not support a woman's right to wear a bikini in public in Saudi Arabia. This again is false – Saudi Arabia is a conservative theocracy which makes no bones about its strict observance of public morality; the UK and other western European countries on the other hand are liberal democracies which fiercely guard every citizen's right to demonstrate their freedom of expression; and besides we are sitting in Europe, discussing a European issue about what other Europeans wear – what exactly does Saudi Arabia have to do with it? In order to be protected by Europe's laws on freedom of expression we don’t have to advocate for both sides of the argument – i.e. both the burka and the bikini. No other commentator is expected to argue both sides of the debate – does George Monbiot passionately argue for more air travel and a 3rd Heathrow runway as he does about the dangers of climate change? Do ignorant Swedish cartoonists draw beautiful images of the gentleness and nobility and inherent decency of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? Has Melanie Philips ever said anything nice about Islam?
There is a sameness about both the arguments against the niqab and for insulting cartoons of our Prophet (sallallāhu 'alaihi wassallam) – both are equally illogical. The argument advocating the drawing of insulting cartoons of our Prophet (sallallāhu 'alaihi wassallam) as well as advocating for the puerile "Draw Mohammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) Day" is that this protects our freedom of expression and our freedom of expression is an absolute right. How then can roughly the same people argue about curtailing the freedom of expression of some of their fellow citizens?
The fact of the matter is that the arguments used both against the niqab and for the cartoons are lazy and superficial and are only a figleaf for a large vein of anti-Muslim prejudice that runs through western media and politics. One only wishes that our society's intellectuals would spend more time seeking to uncover them rather than spending so much time seeking to uncover our Muslim sisters or unveil their naked hatred for our beloved Prophet (sallallāhu 'alaihi wassallam) who we believe with all our heart is the best of creation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment