One man’s (very polite) fight against media Islamophobia

News about Muslims in the British press is rarely positive, but it is never scarce. Consider these stories, published across a typical month towards the end of 2016. In the Times on 9 November 2016, an article announced: “Islamist School Can Segregate Boys and Girls.” On the Daily Express website, nine days later: “Anger as less than A THIRD of Muslim nations sign up to coalition against Isis.” In the Sun online, on 1 December: “SECRET IS SAFE: Half of British Muslims would not go to cops if they knew someone with Isis links.” On the Daily Express site the day after: “New £5 notes could be BANNED by religious groups as Bank CAN’T promise they’re Halal.” On ITV News, the same day: “Half of UK Muslims would not report extremism.” Two days later, in the Sunday Times: “Enclaves of Islam see UK as 75% Muslim.” The Mail on Sunday, that same day: “Isolated British Muslims are so cut off from the rest of society that they see the UK as 75% Islamic, shock report reveals.” And another version, in the Sun online: “British Muslims are so cut-off from society they think 75% of the UK is Islamic, report reveals.”

No other community in Britain receives such regular torrents of bad press. But that is not the most shocking thing about these articles. Every single one of them was misleading. And they were not just lightly dotted with inaccuracies. The chief premise of each piece – the premise articulated in the headline – was dead wrong.

In each case, the newspapers had to correct, retract or rewrite their work. There was no evidence, for instance, to suggest that only Muslim groups were concerned about the composition of the new banknotes, as the word “Halal” suggested. The tales about “isolated Muslims” who are “cut off from society” were all inaccurate. In fact, a government report had found exactly one secondary school whose overwhelmingly south Asian students, when surveyed, believed Britain’s population to be 50-90% Asian, “such had been their experience up to that point”. Contrary to the headlines, the report found no Islamic “enclaves”; actually, no references to religion at all.

These fabrications can all be found in an Excel spreadsheet maintained by Miqdaad Versi, an amiable, animated, sartorially rumpled man who has made it his personal mission to confront, very patiently and politely, the Islamophobia of the British press. Versi lodged formal objections to the errors in each of these articles with the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), a regulator whose rulings most British publications have agreed to abide by. Ipso forced the newspapers to correct all of them.

Full article

If you want to know about Muslim women's rights, ask Muslim women

Good points made by this amazing sister, let them tell their own stories! 

Within minutes of arriving to collect my professionally bound thesis, I found myself on the receiving end of an unsolicited and impenetrable rant about female genital mutilation.

“What’s your paper on?” the shop owner inquired.

“It’s on Muslim women and … ,” I began, but before I could finish my sentence, he had launched into the subject.

The fact that I hadn’t even mentioned the words “female genital mutilation” was irrelevant; merely saying “Muslim women” was a wide enough rabbit hole for him to dart down. My presence as a Muslim woman and my half-delivered topic were the only encouragement he needed.

 As a Muslim woman, I'm expected to detest Jacqui Lambie. I don't

Yusra Metwally

 

Read more

That he felt authorised to deliver a lecture to me about his understanding of the allegedly sexist treatment of women in Islam, the very subject of my years-long PhD dissertation, didn’t surprise me. This was not the first time a stranger had felt entitled to raise the potential religious interference of my genitals with me.

It’s uncanny how often people try to demonstrate their concern about the alleged oppression of Muslim women by humiliating them. Even finding out the details of my research findings doesn’t seem to deter them from baldly sharing opinions.

Full article

The twisting of Shariah

Shariah is a word many are terrified of these days. Muslims will be asked do you adhere to Shariah? Are you committed to implementing it? Are you trying to replace our (of course much more civilized laws) with it?

I am married according to Shariah, I eat meat slaughtered by its rules and have a bank account organized on its economical principles. I assure you that is nothing to panic about!

Shariah is simply laws that have been enacted on Islamic principles, they are not uniform, they should be pragmatic and above all justice should be the goal. However miscarriages of justice occur in all  legal systems, human beings are capable of making errors and justice is the casualty. This has occurred in Shariah too. In my homeland of India, triple talaq is upheld as part of Shariah, despite being banned in other Muslim countries. Pakistan unfortunately upholds blasphemy laws which many have argued contradict Shariah. Saudi Arabia refuses to let women drive citing all sorts of pseudo-religious/cultural reasons, none of which the vast majority of Muslims agree with.

Those in power will often twist or misinterpret Islam and its principles for their own benefit/ to suit their agenda. Indeed we must be wary of this and call it out every time. This is an ongoing struggle.

Being a history buff I enjoyed watching some clips/episodes of Turkish historical drama Magnificent Century. One of the most disturbing practices of the Ottomans was fraticide. (I certainly condemn the imperialism, incessant warring and entire concept of the Harem too) However it was quite sad to realize that Fatawa were given by the Ulema of Islam to Sultans to murder of their own brothers/half-brothers. Many Sheikhs argued it was better that a few princes were executed, rather than entire wars be fought between brothers for succession (for example the War of the Roses in Europe). One Sultan murdered nineteen brothers! Another killed his innocent and very capable son in a 'preemptive strike'!

Why the Ulema couldn't stress cooperation between brothers, the need to serve the wider Ummah not the Dynasty, the sanctity of human life, the great sin that is fratricide is a great shame. However it has to be noted many Ulema also opposed this barbaric practice and gave Fatawa against it. For details please read this excellent article.

As enacted in the clip above this particular Sheikh certainly misrepresented the Quran to give Sultan rather bogus reasoning to murder his own friend whom he had sworn to protect. (This may not be entirely historically accurate I am simply using as a possible example).  So Shariah is certainly not safe from being twisted to serve the needs of those in power. Indeed it has been argued quite robustly that Daesh are doing exactly that.

The interpretation of Shariah is dependent on the conscience of the people/scholars/jurists of Islam. Above all Shariah is a means to an end which is paramount. The end that is justice and compassion. That is what we must aspire to.

No discrimination between man and woman?

"Islam is the religion which gives woman highest level of priority in her life which she actually deserves. There is no discrimination of man and woman in Islam.

And their Lord responded to them, "Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another. [3:195]

This verse clearly shows no discrimination between man and woman. But regretfully the leader of Islamic society who are known as scholars are contributing in such concepts which only oppress a woman from her real rights which is given by Allah and never be un-declared by Prophet Muhammad. 

Some Hadith source might show you women were oppressed like woman beating or slave sex concept where 1st wife would have to see her husband’s romance with slave without marriage or the polygamy concept where no special condition is necessary or the concept of wife can’t refuse her man’s call for intercourse in anyway (even she is sick too or passing in bad mode too) or women are source of fitna etc. Can you believe these are authentic hadith proclaimed by Prophet Muhammad? No other words beside Quran could be authentic in 100 %. These are all fabricated hadith where really a woman is oppressed!! After Prophet’s death People who were in support of woman oppression (as it is a law of society) mixed their own words with his noble words and made this hadith where a man is shown as superior to woman.

But if you really look in Quran word’s (direct translation of the verses) nowhere you will find such conditions. Allah says in verse 2:228 that man and woman have similar rights over them. 
What is less from man a woman is only the physical structure, woman are weaker than man. This weakness is only for the pleasure of carnal relationship between man and woman. For the strength of man which more than woman, Allah also gives the man more trials than us in the same verse “But the men have a degree over them, women” which means man are responsible for financial activity and also for giving their wives pleasure in every possible way and also they will be protector of their women in verse 4;34.

Now some Islamic website and scholars held their opinion basing on some fabricated hadith and by some wrong interpretation of quranic words in chance of woman persecution, that Polygamy can be practiced for lust only by offering it to a younger woman. Which is the wrong concept of islam they are delivering to people. Allah in Quran 4:3 told “With respect to marrying widows, if you are afraid of not being able to maintain justice with her children, marry another woman of your choice or two or three or four (who have no children). If you cannot maintain equality with more than one wife, marry only one or your slave-girl. This keeps you from acting against justice”. Where it is clear plural marriage can be practiced only then when a man will be able to sacrifice his boundless love for his 1st wife because of humanity to give protection another woman who is widow and has orphan child. If he can’t take care of her orphan child then he should marry that woman who has no child. Now, the possibility of childless woman only goes to a woman who is widow or divorced not a younger wife. Or he can marry his slaves (for giving her freedom). So, all of the points for polygamy are only for humanity, not for lust. And also about permission of 1st wife Allah clearly denotes in 4:19 not to make any difficulty in his wife’s life to those services which he can deliver her. The service is not only confined in mahr but also in love/sex/passion. Now if a man gets married 2nd time without 1st wife’s permission will not it create difficulty in her life? 

And also For loving 1st wife more than other wives whom they marry for humanity, they will not be accused in Allah’s eye as per the verse 4:129, only they need to serve them equally in other services except love which will only be for the 1st wife whom he married for love or sexual desire.

And also on slave sex which is proclaimed by Islamic mollahs are also a wrongful or lustful thought by contributing themselves in a belief man need more than 4 women in their life, so they are permitted to take infinite number of women in bed as concubines from slaves. This is the most hateful speech of them which conflict with quran. But in Quran verse 23:5-6 Allah told by noble word “right hand possess” to those female slaves who are attached to you wedlock or who are legally your wives from your slaves.
According to their thought Allah prepared beautiful hoor only for them, men in jannah as their lust is infinite or they are not satisfied with the number of women whom they get in duniya (including 4 wives and many concubines), But women will not get any hoor in jannah. Do u really think allah can discriminate in giving gifts to the believers (men and women) who will get jannah?? Or Allah can grow the attitude in man’s mind not to be chaste-full but to be lustful?
What actually quran says hoor is both for man and woman. Al-Ahzab verse 35,

“Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and he humble women, and the charitable men and the charitable women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their chastity and women who guard their chastity, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember — Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.”
And also in quran 2:282 Allah told for adding 1 man with two women in case of financial witness. Here Allah doesn’t show woman are less intelligent/less dutiful. But here Allah told to guard those women from any danger by adding a man with them, from which they will not be able to protect as they are physically weaker than men. 
And also about the inheritance woman also have the right to get equal property as man in some circumstances too. 

(http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/writing_a_will_(P1413).html)
And also about beating wife: Quran never uses word for beating wife. 
(http://quransmessage.com/articles/a%20deeper%20look%20at%20the%20word%20dharaba%20FM3.htm)

- Farhana Hossain (Bangladesh)"

Taken from Muslim Feminists page on Facebook  

For  full comment pls see http://muslimfeminist587.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/islam-feminist.html
 

Misquoting Muhammad (Q&A) with Dr Jonathan Brown

Women's Testimony Half of Men's? Muslim Misconceptions