Newspapers over the world have reprinted pictures of the woman they believe was behind a conspiracy to kill the degenerate cartoonist who defamed the holy Prophet. Sister Collen LaRose, dubbed ‘Jihad Jane’ by media pundits, has been plastered all over the media without her hijab and in an uncovered state.

In 2007 another Muslim woman filed a bias suit against San Bernardino County and its sheriff for violating her rights by forcing her to remove the head scarf she wears because of her religious beliefs.

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California filed the complaint on behalf of Jameelah Medina in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana — accusing the county and the Sheriff’s Department of breaching Medina’s right to practice her religion as well as a 2000 federal law enhancing protections of prisoners’ religious liberty.

If sister Colleen has been forced to remove her hijab, then we would strongly encourage her and Muslims who know her to avail of existing legislation to seek adequate reparations for the shame she has endured at the hands of a callous and crass media.

Walk into any hospital in Ireland and you’ll most likely be confronted with a diversity of nationalities, religions and cultures – to its credit the HSE despite its many failings is one of the few industries to truly embrace Ireland’s new multiculturalism. But this is one industry and no one would sensibly hold one example up as a demonstration of inclusivity and acceptance, would they?

Sadly, some posters on one of Ireland’s leading discussion boards did exactly that and castigated an unfortunate Muslim commentator for daring to suggest that Ireland by and large discriminates against its Muslim minorities in general and specifically against ‘visibly practicing Muslims’.

It’s a problem our UK neighbour is currently at pains to address. Zamila Bunglawala writing in the Independent states, “One third of Muslim men and two-thirds of Muslim women are not in work. Of those who are in work, most are marginalised in ethnic-based industries and are under-represented in the higher professions.”

As one of Ireland’s fastest growing demographic groups, and similar to UK predictions, Muslims will constitute a sizable portion of the available workforce in years to come. As such, there needs to be more inclusivity in the labour market and current undisclosed discriminations must be tackled if we are to avoid the dangers of exclusion and the many problems it can bring upon society.

Neither a beard nor a hijab, neither religion nor level of adherence should preclude members of the Muslim community from gainful employment and the fulfillment it brings. Ireland needs to move beyond the tokenism it has become comfortable with and demonstrate its willingness to accept all her sons and daughters regardless of colour or creed. In the words of Malcolm X, “Sitting at the table doesn’t make you a diner, unless you eat some of what’s on that plate”.

Let me open this by saying quite candidly, that it is my belief that the proposed French ban on the Hijab (the burka is simply a version of the hijab) has little to do with so-called French values and everything to do with good ‘ole French imperialism.

Ever since the French revolution, there has been a strong antipathy toward perceived religious encroachments into French public life. During the French colonial enterprises, France brought this extremist interpretation of secularism to its colonies, which unfortunately included a number of Muslim lands and one of their favourite torturous acts against Muslim women was to strip them naked and cover their heads. In this way, what the women denied them by covering was now on display, and the tables turned – the women couldn’t see the men. It is against this perverse backdrop that the French ban must be questioned.

When a liberal democratic state legislates against women covering, but has little to say about how much is removed – then it’s fair to ask whose interests the state is working for. Where does it stop?

European Muslim women have demonstrated quite visibly that they have the ability to engage in everyday activities without adorning themselves or removing essential items of clothing. They are very clear about why they go into the public domain and make a conscious effort to not be alluring or light entertainment for the opposite sex. But this wouldn’t be enough for the French because of their view of the Muslim woman in general. They feel denied the freedom of lusting after the female form and like many of their European counterparts insist that they remove their covers so that they might view and enjoy what non-Muslim women contentedly show off freely.

Unfortunately European women have learned that in order to obtain the pick of the crop, be it the best housing, careers or men, that something has to be removed, shortened or decorated with rouge and lipstick. In a recent educational article one professional pointed out that she managed to obtain her position because of her ‘looks’, knowing all along that the other candidates were far more experienced and qualified than herself.

But back to France, who is to police the numerous women who choose not to comply, Les Francais Taliban, no doubt! Their menfolk shunted of to prisons for aiding and abetting women in burqas. Imagine that, it’ll be a criminal offence to overdress! It does sound utterly ridiculous that a group of grown men and women would give way to such rampant emotions surrounding their own insecurities and identity crises. And what of the increasing number of indigenous Muslims, are they not French anymore because of their choice of religion? My only advice at this point – get a grip! What is distinctly French today will almost certainly evolve over time, as it has done so already. From where I’m standing the future looks decidedly Muslim – Vive la France.

Umm Is’mael

MPAC.ie
An’Nisa (Women’s) Faction

Source: MetroEireann (Print Edition)

France’s insidious war on Islam and Muslims took on an odious turn today as it was revealed that a Moroccan man had been denied French citizenship because he ‘apparently’ forces his wife to wear the veil, refuses to shake hands with the opposite sex and believes in segregation.

How they came to the conclusion that he ‘forced’ his wife to cover hasn’t been revealed and is unlikely to be as it would expose the secularist charade. The fact is the French don’t believe a woman could have the common sense to cover up of her own volition. As Sarkozy’s wife has indicated a predilection of baring her assets for public consumption, should we assume that he now forces his wife to cover up? Can he prove he doesn’t?

We would urge Muslim countries that have French citizens/expatriates to impose upon them the strictest dress codes possible and enforce 100% compliance with the Sharia. Any failure to meet Islamic standards should result in immediate deportation.

France’s Muslim population might also consider a mass emigration and plunge the country into a crisis. With the sudden loss of doctors, lawyers, police and army personnel etc – the country would come to a standstill. Gulf nationals who use French banks might contemplate switching to more tolerant states such as the UK and tourists from Muslim lands should ponder other destinations. All of this coupled with a total boycott of all French products in every Muslim country would indicate our collective resolve.

Fight them in the way they fight you O’Muslim, and let’s face it they need you much more than you need them.

Because:
- a man can marry up to 4 wives, a woman can marry only one man
- a man’s share of inheritance is bigger than a woman’s
- a man can marry a non-Muslim, a woman cannot
- women must wear the veil

This widely held misconception does not remotely follow from the reasons given. The first and most important observation to make about the popular question “Are men and women equal?” is that it is a badly-formed, unanswerable question. The problem which many people conveniently ignore is that “equal” is not defined. This is a very critical point: the equality must be specified with respect to some measurable property.

For example, women on average are superior to men if we ask who is shorter in height than the other (”Growth and Development”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). Women are also superior on average if we ask whom do children bond to deeper, mothers or fathers. Women are also superior on average if we ask who has a tendency to socialize more. On the other hand, men are superior on average if we ask who is taller in height than the other. And so on: every question can be turned around, and more importantly these are properties which are irrelevant.

What then, is the really important property which we are worried about in terms of gender equality? Naturally, from the point of view of the Qur’an and
Sunnah, the obvious important property is who is dearer to Allah, men or women? This question is emphatically answered in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:124]If any do deeds of righteousness – be they male or female – and have faith, they will enter Paradise, and not the least injustice will be done to them.

[33:35] For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for truthful men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.

The Qur’an and Sunnah repeat over and over again that Allah only favors one person over another based on that person’s awareness, consciousness, fear,love, and hope of Allah (the Arabic word is difficult to translate: Taqwa). All other criteria are excluded: gender, ethnic group, country, ancestry, etc.

Given that Allah does not favor one gender over the other in His attention to us (and it helps to remember that Allah is neither male nor female), we can
now address the differences between the genders in Islam. First, men and women are not the same as we know. The Creator states in the Qur’an
(translation),

[3:36] …and the male is not like the female…

Men and women are different in their composition, and in their responsibilities under Islam.

However, both are bound by obligations to one another, especially the following important one which must be understood in any discussion on men and women. From the Qur’an (translation),

[24:32] And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

In this verse, the Creator emphasizes that marriage is to be vigorously pursued by the Muslims: the state of being single is not to be maintained.

With this in mind, we can begin to understand the four reasons cited above for the nonetheless erroneous conclusion. Men and women are different in their responsibilities towards the families that they are strongly encouraged to set up. Women are not obligated to work, whereas men are obligated. The man must provide for the family, but the woman does not have to spend out of her money for it, though she gets a reward for doing so. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:34] Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[2:24:545] Narrated `Amr bin Al-Harith: Zainab, the wife of Abdullah said, “I was in the Mosque and saw the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saying, `O women! Give alms even from your ornaments.’” Zainab used to provide for `Abdullah and those orphans who were under her protection. So she said to `Abdullah, “Will you ask Allah’s Apostle whether it will be sufficient for me to spend part of the Zakat on you and the orphans who are under my protection?” He replied “Will you yourself ask Allah’s Apostle?” (Zainab added): So I went to the Prophet and I saw there an Ansari woman who was standing at the door (of the Prophet) with a similar problem as mine. Bilal passed by us and we asked him, `Ask the Prophet whether it is permissible for me to spend (the Zakat) on my husband and the orphans under my protection.’ And we requested Bilal not to inform the Prophet about us. So Bilal went inside and asked the Prophet regarding our problem. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked, “Who are those two?” Bilal replied that she was Zainab. The Prophet said, “Which Zainab?” Bilal said, “The wife of `Adullah (bin Masud).” The Prophet said, “Yes, (it is sufficient for her) and she will receive a double rewards (for that): One for helping relatives, and the other for giving Zakat.”

Given that husbands are obligated to provide for wives, and that marriage is a highly recommended goal of Islam, it is easy to see why women’s inheritance share is half that of men. We note also that men are obligated to provide a suitable dowry to women on marriage. In fact, it is preferable at this point to speak in terms of husbands and wives instead of men and women. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:4] And give women their dowries as a free gift, but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment and with wholesome result.

Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[2:228]…And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them…

This one degree in no way affects the position of the Creator in which He has stated that He does not hold women dearer to him than men, or vice versa. Rather it is simply a way of partitioning responsibilities in a household of two adults: someone must make the final decision on daily matters. As will be shown below in a section on a different misconception, though the final decision rests with the husband, it is through mutual consultation that decisions are best reached at.

While men are allowed to marry up to four wives, they are also commanded to meet the preconditions of being able to financially support them. They must also deal with each wife justly and fairly with respect to marital and economic obligations. Allah says in the Qur’an (translation),

[4:3] If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

Moreover, women are allowed to reject any marriage proposal made to her by prospective suitors, thus if she does not feel she can abide by the rules of the Qur’an and Sunnah if she marries a certain person, she can reject his proposal. While it is irrelevant to Islam, it is worthwhile to note that both Judaism and Christianity allow polygamy. The idea is not as foreign to the non-Muslims as is often claimed.

Finally, the wearing of the veil by women is also an illogical premise to claim that women are inferior to men. It is more appropriate to indict a society of female exploitation if it tolerates pornography rather than if it enforces the veil. Given that Allah is neither male nor female, given that He does not endear people to Himself based on their gender, given that the Creator cares about all of us male or female, given that the sexual and violent drive of men is stronger than that of women…given all this, it is illogical to cast a negative light on the following injunctions contained in the Qur’an (translation),

[33:59] O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not be annoyed…

[24:30-31] Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands…

On this misconception, there is a great deal more to write, most of it showing how current practices in many Muslim lands go against what the Qur’an and Sunnah have ordained, lands in which women are treated as property (unIslamic), are not educated (unIslamic), are forbidden their economic rights (unIslamic), and more. On this point in particular, we encourage everyone to consult the Qur’an and Sunnah before incriminating Islam. Always remember that Islam is a complete way of life from the Creator, and that Muslims are people who claim to follow that way of life. A Muslim may claim to follow Islam, but be wrong.

Source: The True Religion

By definition, femaleness has become pornographic. Whether making arguments for covering up women’s bodies or encouraging exuberant sexual expression in dress, these debates share a profound fear of women and their alleged voracious sexuality. Women must know their place, or pay the price. If they break the rules, they should expect a backlash.

For women even more than men, clothes have always been about identity. They signify belonging – whether to another man (a father or husband), a nation (Indian or British), a faith (Muslim or Jewish), or a cultural community (hippie or goth). In fearful times, when society is threatened by war, corruption and crumbling values, it becomes even more important to encourage or coerce women into taking up a symbolic role as upholders of morality and stability. Source

‘Muslim Women don’t know what is good for them’ and so extreme feminists like Martina Devlin feel duty bound to tell them. Choice doesn’t come into it because in the myopic world of Devlin ‘Even those who claim to do it willingly are brainwashed.’ This of course was the same individual who expressed a desire to strip off for photographer Spencer Tunick in 2008.

Interestingly in that article speaking of her body she stated, ‘As a body, it does the job adequately, but doesn’t measure up to the oppressive image of perfection — other people’s perfection — impressed on me every time I flick through a magazine.’

Herein lies one of the many flaws in Ms Devlin’s skewed logic. For while she laments the incessant subjugation of women to the fashion industry’s notion of ‘perfection’, she feels no such compunctions in dictating to Muslim women what she considers freedom. Additionally Devlin has rallied against the restrictiveness she perceives in Islam, hypocritically insisting on freedom of interpretation of religion, while denying others the same right when she disagrees with it.

Devlin is of course entitled to her opinion, no matter how moronic it is, but to impose her narrow interpretation of what the Burka means is to become the very repressive monster she rallies against. There appears to be little consistency in her thinking. Ms Devlin may be the sort to flaunt her body as an expression of ’social freedom’, Muslim women do the opposite under the same flag and it’s incredibly patronizing for her to suggest otherwise.

For a balanced feminist perspective on the veil, take a read of Naomi Wolf’s Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality

A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts. She passes under immense billboards on which other women swoon in sexual ecstasy, cavort in lingerie or simply stretch out languorously, almost fully naked. Could this image be any more iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam, and vice versa?

Ideological battles are often waged with women’s bodies as their emblems, and Western Islamophobia is no exception. When France banned headscarves in schools, it used the hijab as a proxy for Western values in general, including the appropriate status of women. When Americans were being prepared for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women; when the Taliban were overthrown, Western writers often noted that women had taken off their scarves.

But are we in the West radically misinterpreting Muslim sexual mores, particularly the meaning to many Muslim women of being veiled or wearing the chador? And are we blind to our own markers of the oppression and control of women?

The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling – toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.

Outside the walls of the typical Muslim households that I visited in Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt, all was demureness and propriety. But inside, women were as interested in allure, seduction and pleasure as women anywhere in the world.

At home, in the context of marital intimacy, Victoria’s Secret, elegant fashion and skin care lotions abounded. The bridal videos that I was shown, with the sensuous dancing that the bride learns as part of what makes her a wonderful wife, and which she proudly displays for her bridegroom, suggested that sensuality was not alien to Muslim women. Rather, pleasure and sexuality, both male and female, should not be displayed promiscuously – and possibly destructively – for all to see.

Indeed, many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualising Western gaze. Many women said something like this: “When I wear Western clothes, men stare at me, objectify me, or I am always measuring myself against the standards of models in magazines, which are hard to live up to – and even harder as you get older, not to mention how tiring it can be to be on display all the time. When I wear my headscarf or chador, people relate to me as an individual, not an object; I feel respected.” This may not be expressed in a traditional Western feminist set of images, but it is a recognisably Western feminist set of feelings.

I experienced it myself. I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market – the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me – I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.

Nor are Muslim women alone. The Western Christian tradition portrays all sexuality, even married sexuality, as sinful. Islam and Judaism never had that same kind of mind-body split. So, in both cultures, sexuality channeled into marriage and family life is seen as a source of great blessing, sanctioned by God.

This may explain why both Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women not only describe a sense of being liberated by their modest clothing and covered hair, but also express much higher levels of sensual joy in their married lives than is common in the West. When sexuality is kept private and directed in ways seen as sacred – and when one’s husband isn’t seeing his wife (or other women) half-naked all day long – one can feel great power and intensity when the headscarf or the chador comes off in the the home.

Among healthy young men in the West, who grow up on pornography and sexual imagery on every street corner, reduced libido is a growing epidemic, so it is easy to imagine the power that sexuality can carry in a more modest culture. And it is worth understanding the positive experiences that women – and men – can have in cultures where sexuality is more conservatively directed.

I do not mean to dismiss the many women leaders in the Muslim world who regard veiling as a means of controlling women. Choice is everything. But Westerners should recognise that when a woman in France or Britain chooses a veil, it is not necessarily a sign of her repression. And, more importantly, when you choose your own miniskirt and halter top – in a Western culture in which women are not so free to age, to be respected as mothers, workers or spiritual beings, and to disregard Madison Avenue – it’s worth thinking in a more nuanced way about what female freedom really means.

And while you’re at it, why not read what Muslim women have to say on the issue of the hijab (hijab means to cover and includes the all the variations we witness in the Muslim world including the niqab and burka).

As France moves to restrict the rights of Muslim women, we think it’s time Muslim countries looked at the law of reciprocation as a means of showing France and other states that each move they make can and will be matched.

For example, there are thousands of French nationals working in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, etc, so why not impose a ban on all French women who do not fully cover in public places. Similar to the proposed French ban, impose restrictions on public transport, public buildings, schools, etc. In other words make life extremely difficult for them unless they actually cover themselves, but like France – don’t impose a full ban, if they want to cavort in their own homes, they may do so!

Islamic culture is too important to allow the wanton display of flesh and the looseness of western morals to impinge on our culture and right to be free from such fitnah. We think this would be a good start, after all – if they can do it, why can’t we?

Walk into any store in Dublin and the likelihood of seeing a Muslim woman covered in the mandatory jilbab and hijab is as likely as seeing a pink elephant fly. Even less likely is the hope of seeing a bearded Muslim male sporting the mandatory loose and above the ankle clothing. The question is why?

I ask this question as Anjem Choudary has been castigated in the UK press for having the misfortune of being on social welfare, the insinuation being that such individuals have no right to an opinion, much less to voice that opinion, yet he is an extremely capable and erudite individual. Why is he not working?

It’s all too easy to simply say that such people don’t want to work and in my own personal experience that’s simply not the case at all, especially for Muslims. There are numerous ahadith (sayings of the Prophet) that speak of the blessings of labour and at the same time decry begging, and there is an unspoken shame attached to those who are not working. Yet with all the shame attached to not working, there are sadly Muslims who have no jobs.

Since I finished my business degree, I’ve been to numerous interviews. I suspect I get the interview because I use my ………. name and not my convert name but the interviewers can’t seem to hide their shock and even hate when they see me – I have a long flowing beard and wear my baggy trousers above the ankle. Even before I speak, they’ve profiled me and the questions that follow simply confirm my suspicions. Visible Muslims it seems are not welcome.

Two other Muslims in my degree class are now considering emigration and even though I grew up in Ireland, my mother came here from ……… when I was five years old, I too may have to consider emigration. The shame of not working is difficult enough, but the depression and humiliation of being on the receiving end of hateful discrimination is changing me and I don’t like what I’m becoming.

[Editor note: this article was constructed from an email we received, names and nationalities have been removed. There is a problem here in Ireland where visible Muslims (those who will not compromise their deen to suit the kuffar) are being actively discriminated against. This constructed story highlights the plight of many university graduates who must watch with humiliation as their largely non-educated, non-Muslim counterparts are given preference over them. With the removal of many organisations who fought for equality and minority rights there is a real danger of inculcating a seeming acceptance of discrimination, where outwardly religious adherents are made to suffer for having the audacity of wearing their religion on their sleeves. This is what non-Muslims mean when they say religion is something private, this is what they want when they speak of removing religion from the public sphere.

RTÉ WOULD welcome burqa clad participants on its religious shows, the station’s head of religious programming has said. Roger Childs, who oversees the station’s religious programming on both TV and radio, told Metro Éireann that Muslim women who wear the burqa – which covers the entire body except the hands and eyes – regard the garment as “part of who they are”, and a media platform would promote a “greater understanding” of why they wear it.

The editor, who previously made a film on a burqa-wearing woman for the BBC, added that such participants should not be limited to speaking about their religious wear, but on general topics affecting Irish society.

The burqa is worn by only a small proportion of Muslim women in Ireland, but has sparked controversial situations across western Europe.

Regarding television presenting Childs would have “concerns” over clarity of communication if a Muslim presenter opted for the burqa, and doubts over that person’s ability to engage a varied, contemporary audience. However, he added that he could see no problem with a Muslim woman or Sikh man, for example, wearing their respective hijabs (headscarves) and turbans in presenting roles.

Meanwhile, the editor said designating a specific programme for Muslims, or any religious faith, would be bowing to the “altar of PC” and described RTÉ as a “broadcaster, not a narrowcaster.” He said the aim was to “reflect the full diversity of religions in Ireland… in a way that engages a mainstream audience.”

Childs also pointed out that numerous religious programmes include minority faith voices including Spirit Level, Eye Witness, Does God Hate and Would You Believe, and that minorities would be “pushing an open door” in terms of seeking to engage RTÉ producers of mainstream shows.

MPAC.ie, a web-based movement of Muslims in Ireland, recently called on the national broadcaster to initiate a programme “dedicated to Muslims and presented by Muslims”.

Liam Egan of the group said RTÉ “cannot claim to be balanced, fair and inclusive and continue to promulgate a false homogeneity”, and that the suggested programme could be current affairs-themed, “viewing Irish and world issues through the eyes of Muslims”.

He said: “This would serve to break down barriers, open a public forum for dialogue and give Muslims some much needed positive representation in the media. “We’d also like to ensure that any potential presenters/ broadcasters include indigenous Irish Muslims. We’ve got to eradicate the prevalent idea that Islam is a religion for foreigners.”

Egan controversially added that it would be “wonderful” to have a burqa-clad TV or radio presenter on an Irish channel. “Muslim women in Saudi Arabia have demonstrated that burqas do not inhibit communication – they even host their own TV shows.”

As part of its campaign, MPAC.ie is also requesting that An Post consider introducing Eid celebratory stamps. “If they can print Christmas stamps for Christians, why not Eid stamps for Muslims?” he asked, adding that the US Postal Service already has a suitable prototype.“We’ll be encouraging Muslims to write to both RTÉ and An Post and we’ll also lobby the relevant government departments,” said Egan. “Admittedly it’ll be an uphill struggle. The Muslim ‘leaders’ have inculcated an indolence over the last few decades and getting people to act isn’t easy – but it’s changing and the youth seem more inclined”.

“I guess that’s MPAC.ie’s message. It’s only by active participation that we’ll bring about the changes we want.” Egan concluded that MPAC.ie, is a “virtual movement whose presence is web based”. No membership figures were available.

According to the 2006 census, there are officially over 30,000 Muslims in Ireland, although community sources suggest the true number is significantly higher.

As regards religious head garments such as hijabs and turbans being potentially worn by its presenters, an RTÉ spokesperson commented: “No issue along these lines has arisen as yet in terms of on-air presenter preferences and any such issue if arising will be considered appropriately.”

The spokesperson added that RTÉ “aims to make programmes for a mainstream audience, which reflect the lives, beliefs and practices of people of all faiths. ” She concluded that Mairéad Ní Nuadháin, commissioning editor for Irish Language, Multiculture and Education is currently seeking “new faces and programme proposals” for diversity programming.

Source: Metro Eireann (print edition)