The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not initiate the greeting of salaam with the Jews and Christians, and if you meet one of them on the road then let him go to the narrowest part of it.” (Muslim, al-Salaam, 2167).

You should note that the best of those who call people to Allaah is the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that the best of those who guide people to Allaah is the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). If we know that, then we should be skeptical about any interpretation of the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that does not make sense or does not seem to be wise. We should realize that our understanding of the Prophet’s words may be wrong. That does not mean that we should judge the ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the basis of our personal reasoning, because our reasoning and understanding may be lacking. But there are general guidelines in sharee’ah to which we may refer with regard to individual matters.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not initiate the greeting of salaam with the Jews and Christians, and if you meet one of them on the road then let him go to the narrowest part of it.” What this means is: do not give way to them if you meet them, so that the way is open for them and you cause restriction to yourself. Rather, continue on your way and leave the narrow gap – if there is a narrow gap – for them. It is known that the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when he saw a kaafir, was not to go and crowd him out of the way so that he would end up against the wall. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do this to the Jews of Madeenah and his Companions did not do that after their conquests of other regions.

What it means is that just as you do not initiate the greeting of salaam, you should not make room for them. If they meet a group of you, do not split up to let them pass, rather continue on your way and leave them the narrow space if there is a narrow part of the road. This hadeeth is not meant to put people off Islam, rather it is a manifestation of the Muslim’s pride and a sign that he does not humiliate himself for anyone except his Lord.

Source: Islam q&a

CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”

Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”

But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).

According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American has no image of his head of any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!

The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terroristy religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.

The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)

The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way. In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss. You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America. Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals? In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but no more so than the acts of terrorism committed by people of other faiths. So calm the bleep down, and continue living your life.

The FBI Terrorism Report shows:318 incidents 1980-2005 which averages out to one a month. The highest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. by region (90) took place in Puerto Rico. The total number of deaths due to terrorism incidents in the U.S. is 3,178 which means that aside from 9/11 and the OKC bombing the total number of terrorism deaths from 1980-2005 is 33. In 12 of the 26 years covered by the report there were no deaths or injuries from terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Source: LoonWatch.com

MPAC.ie Comment: We have our own nutjobs here in Ireland, those who regurgitate the tired ole shrieks and screams of of drama queens, Geller and Spencer ad nauseum. On Politics.ie, hatemongers speak of the threat of Islamic terrorism in Ireland, conveniently overlooking the fact that the only terrorism that has been perpetrated on this island has been at the hands of non-Muslim Irish men and women. You could include members of the Jewish community in that they have actively supported the terrorist entity wrongly called ‘Israel’ in their ongoing genocide of the Palestinians and acts of terrorism against neighbouring states such as Lebanon.

A similar study on the British mainland concluded that the biggest terrorist threat remained Irish Republicans.

Across Europe, governments are actively engaged in discussions on what it means to be a citizen of their respective countries. This spurt of national soul searching has been prompted by the influx of Muslim communities who all share a common tradition – Islam. And it is this bond and assurance of who Muslims are that has irked Europeans, because quite frankly they don’t have anything that vaguely resembles a culture.

Take France for example. Discussions are underway to try to tease out what it means to be French, all the rhetoric thus far points to a fascist, xenophobic and deeply Islamophobic state, but we’ll wait for the final outcome before we cast any stones. But for the French to attempt to define their society by virtue of its opposition and wanton subjugation of Muslim culture does point to the inadequacies of the former. After all, if a woman wearing a Burka is a threat to any European culture, then what does that say of the substance of western culture?

It seems that the targeting of Muslims and Islam has become a kind of national theatre in France. Unlike theatre, however, the disturbing trend can and will turn ugly — in fact to a degree it already has — if the French government doesn’t get a grip on reality. The world, including France, is a complex, multifaceted and fascinatingly diverse place; it cannot be co-opted to fit national specificities determined by a group of irritable far right racists with distorted interpretations of themselves and others.

Unfortunately, France is not alone; it merely highlights the most obvious manifestation of growing anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Europe. Unearthing the reasons behind the disturbing phenomena is hardly an easy task, for it arguably requires greater examination of the political, economic and social woes of European states than it does of the “shortcomings” of Islam.

Islam is a great religion in many respects; it has endured for over 1,400 years. Its membership is never confined by skin colour, culture, political ideology or geographic boundaries. Its views of antiquity, on equality, women rights and peace are considered progressive even by today’s standards.

The detractors of Islam fail to see all this. If Islam is dissected politically or “academically”, the investigation is done for the sake of destroying its repute, and discrediting or humiliating its followers.

The Swiss People’s Party (SVP) may claim that their commitment is to keep Switzerland secular, devoid of symbols of oppression (as in a mosque’s minaret), but this only sounds like incoherent blabber and reflects nothing but a growing tendency towards racism, intolerance and ethnocentrism.

These trends are glaring violations of the liberal philosophies associated with European countries that guarantee individual and collective rights, including those of self- expression and freedom of speech.

In France, the phenomenon is protracted and more dangerous. Considering that France is the home of five million French Muslims, rightwing tendencies threaten future discord.

The Washington Post reported on 19 December that Bilal Mosque in the tranquil French town of Castres was desecrated by unknown assailants. “Two pig’s ears and a poster of the French flag stapled to the door; a pig’s snout dangled from the doorknob. ‘White power’ and ‘Sieg heil’ were spray-painted on one side… and ‘France for the French’ on the other.”

Here, one must recall the alarming words of Britain’s first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik. Himself a victim of hate crimes, Malik lamented a year and a half ago that many Muslims feel targeted like the “Jews of Europe”, and that many British Muslims feel like “aliens in their own country”.

While Many Muslims share the same feeling of nationalism and patriotism in their homelands in Europe, rightwing racists — who are unfortunately becoming a dominant force in shaping public views in various European states — insist on a very narrow definition of what makes a French, a British, a German or a Swiss.

There is indeed an identity crisis that is real and frightening. And it’s one that is not engulfing Europe alone, but also affects and in some instances has devastated many cultures all over the world. While it is a by-product of misguided and unchecked globalisation, in the case of Europe itself the issue is very national and very personal.

The European Union, which started as a purely economic body, has morphed into a political and pan-nationalist organisation that is attempting, by accident or design, to define a united Europe and a prototypical European. This has raised fears of the loss of national identities or whatever remains of them. Expectedly, it is the politically underrepresented, socially marginalised and economically disadvantaged groups that often pay the price of this sort of national resurgence.

Targeting Muslims is a common denominator that now unifies a great proportion of European political elites and media. The reasons are numerous and obvious. Some European countries are at war (which they have chosen) in various Muslim countries; desperate and failed politicians are in need of constant distractions from their own failures and mishaps; associating Islam with terrorism is more than an acceptable intellectual diatribe, a topic of discussion that has occupied more radio and television airtime than any other; also, pushing Muslims around seems to have few political repercussions, unlike the subjugation or targeting of other groups with political or economic clout.

But is there more to it? A 2007-08 Gallup poll asked the following question: Does religion occupy an important place in your life? The vast majority in Western European countries answered with a resounding “No”. Only nine per cent of Turkish citizens — a country with a Muslim majority — shared the popular view. Most European Muslims strongly identify with their religion, which has preserved their sense of community and helped maintain a degree of cultural cohesion and a semblance of collective identity at a time when many in Europe are losing theirs. Muslims must not be blamed for this loss, nor should they be punished, derided or targeted for daring to hold onto their beliefs.

Returning again to France, what is most alarming about the anti-Muslim measures is that they are largely led by the government itself rather than a fanatical group of disenchanted ideologues. Eric Besson, the country’s immigration minister, stated on 16 December that Muslim veils would be grounds of denying citizenship and long- term residence. Besson was only echoing the disquieting policies of conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy who has started a “national identity campaign” for ensuring an exclusive identity of France — one that is occupied with the targeting of immigrants, particularly Muslims.

Sarkozy, Besson and Europe’s rightwing and far right politicians must understand the possible ramifications if they continue to press with their reckless and alienating policies. Radicalisation is an unavoidable offshoot of group alienation, which is sadly being used to further fuel the anti-immigrant fervour throughout the continent. It is a vicious cycle, the blame for which lies squarely with savvy politicians and their obvious agendas. As for those who insist on blaming Islam for Europe’s woes, they should really find another pastime; the self-indulgent game is too hazardous and must stop.

Source: Al Ahram

Europe, once depicted as the proud flag bearer of tolerance and multiculturalism has been exposed for the sham it always was. Religious minorities living within dominant ‘cultures’ have been all too aware of the two-tier system that is in place, a system that grants the recognized ‘state’ religion special status over and above other religions within said state. Ireland is no exception.

And perhaps Islam more than any other recognized religion has borne the brunt of this increasing repression as European states struggle to forge their own identities while facing down the threat of an established and universal culture that transcends time and place. As writers have pointed out, this fear is largely to do with their own cultural inadequacies, if they had any certainty in themselves and who they are, the threat would simply not exist.

Be that as it may, they have responded to their obvious inadequacies by targeting Muslims and their religion and we wholeheartedly agree with Bouthaina Shaaban and the call to list such countries as those which discriminate on religious grounds against Muslims. There simply cannot be double standards on rights abuses, as the Arabs would say, ‘when you point a finger, three more point back at you.’

Cases of Religious Discrimination in Europe: The Shocking Truth

France – Hijab bans in schools, Burka ban being mulled over, personal freedoms curtailed. ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.
Switzerland – Minaret bans, ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.
Germany – Mosque bans, hijab bans in place, ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.
Ireland – Hijab bans in An Garda Siochana, objections raised against minarets and domes on mosques. ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.
Netherlands – ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market. Hijab bans
Greece – Muslims “denied official recognition and freedom of expression & association.”
Croatia – Muslims denied “citizenship papers and fundamental legal rights.”
Belgium – hijab bans, freedom of religious expression denied, ‘Religious looking’ men and women denied entry into the job market.

In response to the increasing incidences of hijab bans throughout Europe, the Islamic Human Rights Commission put together a report of specific violations. Although the report addresses the hijab specifically, the points are broad enough to encompass a number of concerns.

VIOLATIONS OF LAW: INTERNATIONAL LAW

a. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 spoke of the ‘advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief’. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is considered a fundamental human right. Indeed, as noted by the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Belief 1981 (‘1981 Declaration’) ‘religion or belief, for anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements of his life’(vi). Under the A.9(1) of the ECHR,

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes…freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance (vii).

The European Court of Human Rights has consistently stated that this right is at the core of a democratic society, claiming that ‘[i]t is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been won over the centuries, depends on it’ (viii).

The second part of A.9(1) protects the freedom to ‘manifest’ ones religion or belief ‘in public or in private, alone or with others’. The manifestation may include ‘worship, teaching, practice or observance’. In Vereniging v Netherlands, (ix) the European Commission of Human Rights stated ‘A.9 primarily protects the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds….[i]n addition it protects acts which are intimately linked to these attitudes such as acts of worship or devotion which are aspects of the practice of the religion or belief in a recognised form’. Indeed, in Mannousakis v Greece (x), the Court held that the right of manifestation of belief excludes the discretion of states to determine ‘whether religious beliefs or the means used to express them are legitimate’.

Under A.9(2) ECHR, ‘[f]reedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are 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 rights and freedoms of others’. Indeed, the right enshrined in A.9 is so fundamental that the limitations in A.9(2) are even narrower than those relating to the freedom of expression, association and assembly contained in the ECHR. The European Court has consistently stated that there must be a narrow construction of these limitations together with a broad interpretation of the freedoms guaranteed. Any restrictions on freedoms must be ‘construed strictly’ and can be justified only by ‘convincing and compelling reasons’ (xi).

It is fundamental to remember that, to a Muslim woman, the wearing of the hijab is not merely a personal display of faith – it is an obligation imposed by her religion. Proponents of the ban claim that the hijab cannot be tolerated in a secular state educational system because the mere fact of wearing it amounts to proselytism. Yet for those who wear it, it is simply a matter of personal obedience to God. It is also imperative to remember that even if evidence is adduced to show that the hijab amounts to proselytism – this is not a legitimate reason under international human rights law to ban it from being worn. In fact, such a manifestation of one’s religion would be protected under ECHR provisions relating to freedom of expression. A.10 ECHR provides that this right includes, ‘freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference’. This right is often considered the cornerstone of personal freedom and is vigorously upheld. Indeed, the Court has stated that it ‘constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man’ and applies to the freedom to express an opinion, even when it might ‘offend, shock or disturb’ (xii). In reality, this is the same freedom of expression advocated by European countries which criticise states such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan for their human rights standards. Human rights law is not specific to culture or country – it exists precisely to contradict every form of state oppression – whether it be in the name of religion or secularism.

A further argument being made to support the ban is that childrens’ autonomy is being overridden by parents and communities who are coercing them into wearing the hijab. However, once again, there is little evidence to support this and even if this is the case – it is impossible to justify replacing parental control over a child’s actions with state control over the dress of individuals of an entire section of the community. Indeed, the idea of human rights is based on the notion that for each individual there is an area of personal liberty immune from state invasion. In recognition of this principle, A.2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (1952) (to which France, Germany and Belgium are signatories) states, ‘[n]o person shall be denied the right to education…the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions’. This is one example of the intention of international legislation to endorse the right of parents to protect children against the use of educational institutions by the state for ideological indoctrination of its own ideas. It seems that while the apparently proselytising nature of the hijab is being criticised by state authorities, the same authorities are also engaging in their own form of proselytism by banning religious symbols – that of furthering their own secular agenda. This has particularly serious consequences if we remember that it is precisely in the human mind that attitudes and prejudices take form. By imposing the fictional absence of religion in schools that exist within a multi-faith society, it is arguable that the Government is simply promoting the development of uniform intolerant attitudes within young minds.

b. Freedom from discrimination

Under the ECHR, the limitations on freedom under A.9(2) are subject to A.14 which provides that Convention rights ‘shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.’ (xiii) The European Court has stated that discrimination on the basis of certain grounds, such as race and sex, is particularly serious and has stated that ‘very weighty reasons’ would have to be advanced before such treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (xiv). A ban on the hijab, turban and kippa is unfairly discriminatory towards particular ethnic groups – namely Jews, Sikhs and generally Muslims from a particular racial group. Furthermore, in Germany, the ban is only applicable to the hijab and specifically excludes Jewish and other religious symbols – a clear instance of religious discrimination. Although Germany has purported to justify this on the grounds of the Christian nature of the country, it is unlikely that the European Court will consider Germany’s margin of appreciation in interpreting the ECHR wide enough to allow such flagrant discrimination.

Furthermore, a ban on the hijab would clearly affect women for whom this religious dress is considered mandatory under Islam. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979, to which France, Germany and Belgium are signatories, provides that the term ‘discrimination against women’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women…on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’ (A.1). A.2 places an obligation on states to ‘condemn discrimination against women in all its forms’ and ‘to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women…’.

c. The right to education and work

The right to education is recognised in many major human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (A.28) and CEDAW, which provides for equal rights for men and women the field of education (A.10) and employment (A.11) (xv). UNICEF has recently reported that millions of children worldwide are still denied the basic right to education – with gender disparity ensuring that the majority of those children (65 million) are girls (xvi), many of them being in the Arab states or sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps it is then ironic that the ban on headscarves in public schools will deny girls access to schooling in countries of the so-called ‘developed’ world. No child should have to choose between practicing the tenets of their faith and acquiring a basic education – yet for Muslim girls in certain European countries – this may be the stark choice that they face.
Furthermore, for the proponents of the ban to argue that the hijab inhibits the successful integration of Muslim girls into French society is paradoxical. Integration is, after all, a two way process. France cannot expect Muslim girls to become its integrated citizens while marginalising them by effectively denying them education. A ban would lead to increased educational exclusion, lack of employment opportunities and thus social deprivation – ironically adding to the myth of the ‘oppressed’ Muslim woman in a veil. The end result would be the creation of an ‘apartheid’ system in the heart of Europe – discrimination against a group of citizens who are denied education (or forced into substandard educational systems) and effectively the right to work thus forcing them into a spiral of economic and social isolation.

It’s time to put an end to the double standards of the EU and its respective states.

One of the posters used during the “stop the minarets” referendum campaign showed a menacing woman in a burqa beside minarets that resemble missiles being launched from the Swiss flag.

The poster must have had the desired effect because a housewife from a small town near Bern said: “If we give them a minaret, they’ll have us all wearing burqas. Before you know it, we’ll have sharia law and women being stoned to death in our streets. We won’t be Swiss any more.” Julia Onken, a feminist who fights against problems such as forced marriage and violence against women, argued that refusing the ban would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women.” (The Sunday Times, Nov. 29, 2009)

Once more we are facing symbolism in which women are representing an entire culture. In this situation there is a symbol that stands out more than minarets. How can we explain the effect a female figure wearing a burqa in a poster has created? Especially considering that Muslim women in Switzerland (Turks, Bosnians and Albanians) almost never wear chadors, veils and burqas and are the most well-integrated Muslim communities compared to other groups in Europe.

The covering — whether its called a burqa, headscarf, veil or niqab — used by women is seen as the symbol of many threats for non-Muslim Europeans such as increasing violence in cities, international terrorism and the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate.

Looking at it from this perspective, French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s attempt to ban the burqa and niqab, something that concerns 400 women at most, relies on the same symbol. The covering of Muslim women plays a central role in Europe’s expression of policies concerning Islam and immigrants. It is also the most visible target of racism and xenophobia.

‘Xenophobia’ directed at Muslim women

France is debating all of its problems in the age of globalization through the headscarf. How the tradition of secularism, democratic citizenship and republican egalitarianism will continue and how the pressure of multiculturalism from French-born third-generation immigrants will be resisted are debated on the basis of the headscarf. Thus the symbolic target of racism and xenophobia becomes the women’s covering. In other words, a wide range of political and social issues are addressed over the Muslim “culture” regarding women.

The transformation of culture into a space where intense political conflicts are experienced is one of the most visible qualities of the current period. Nowadays, people have started to use culture as a synonym for identity and it has evolved into a boundary that defines identity and draws out differences. The covering of Muslim women has come to be included in the war of symbols as a symbol that defines the culture and difference. Bhikhu Parekh, who has produced stimulating works on multiculturalism, provides a list of the most common practices that cause inter-cultural conflict. Six of the 12 issues on the list concern Muslims. All six of these issues except for the issue of the method used to slaughter animals are related to the status of women such as covering, polygamy, arranged marriages, the practice of withdrawing girls from coed sports activities and swimming classes and the lower social status of women.

How should we assess this finding? This finding, as well as other similar ones, present cultural conflicts as being focused on women. That is because when societies and cultures begin to communicate and compare themselves, the position of women and sex occupy a critical place in efforts to understand each other. In other words, “Women and their bodies are the symbolic-cultural site upon which human societies inscript their moral order,” says political scientist and philosopher Seyla Benhabib. Due to this symbolic importance, differences between cultures are mainly presented through women.

If we continue with the example of Parekh’s list, we can see that a particular theme was followed in the drawing up of the list and the determination of conflict areas. In the defining of conflict areas, there is a norm and then “cultural” tendencies considered to be a deviation from the norm. Norms are considered universal while differences are considered cultural. The norm is girls and boys participating in sports activities together, “cultural difference” is not participating in these activities; the norm is to not be covered, “cultural difference” is being covered and so on.

But there is one point we have learned from post-colonial criticism and that is labeling the other as different, partial and a deviation from the norm is a direct byproduct of the ruling power and exclusion. A particular point is always designated as the center when defining norms and drawing boundaries in identity/culture policies.

The positioning of the oppressed Muslim women’s rise and covering issue in the center of the Westerners’ narrative of Islam is directly related to the Europeans’ positioning in the Muslim world as colonialist forces. The creation of “oppressed Muslim women” and harem images goes beyond the general problem of women as images and can not be explained without considering the hegemonic structure of East-West or Muslim World-Europe relations.

The cultural mentality that factionalizes

The cultural mentality behind the European society’s globalization is the creation of the “other” as an external enemy. The external enemy coded as Muslim terrorists after Sept. 11 is the continuation of the external enemy called “Wild Africans” and “Barbarian Turks” during the period of colonialism. The “oppressed” Muslim women image which changes according to circumstances is very important and has a central role in the conflict and process to make the other an enemy and the factionalizing cultural mentality. Muslim women are either presented as victims that need to be saved and passive objects that are the address of the “Westerners’ adhesive benevolence” or retrogressive, oppressive, fundamentalist and, as added after Sept. 11, the symbol of a destructive world view that are represented as the “destructive other” from which the society needs to be freed.

And they are confined to the framework of the cultural conflict concept, which is inspired by the “clash of civilizations” thesis. Events like the Sept. 11 experience and the explosions in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 have led Europe to question policies on multiculturalism and difference. The presence of Muslims began to be assessed as a threat to the principle of liberal democracy, values and norms. It is for this reason that, for example, the Dutch government reversed policies that granted cultural autonomy to ethnic and religious minorities. Praying out in the open was banned in Italy and most recently the construction of minarets was banned in Switzerland. A number of “no to the Islamization of Europe” activities are being organized all across Europe and especially in Brussels. Both the assimilasionist and integrationist French model and the multicultural English and Dutch model need to determine the position they want to give to their Muslim communities and revaluate this entire process under the light of this position because these models are being reshaped by the “the threat of Islam” perception.

The debate over symbols such as the headscarf and the minaret reveals that on the one hand Europe’s capacity to self identify as a publicly multicultural and pluralist structure is being tested and on the other hand Muslims’ capacity and methods to reflect themselves on Europe’s canvas are being tested. But these bans show that Europe’s test requires a lot more effort than the Muslims.

Source: TodaysZaman

Suggested extra reading: West must understand that Islamophobia is as dangerous as anti-Semitism