RE the sister getting told to remove her hijab by the armed Nice Police in France, no I won’t be sharing the image and shame on those who have done so already.
Where is your protective jealously for our sister? What if it was your wife, daughter, mother or sister, would you be happy with her image being shared and looked at by all these men on social media?
Yes the oppression in this case is terrible, part of the wider oppression felt by the Muslims in France, especially our sisters who are being literally forced by gun-toting cops to uncover themselves and take clothing off in public, but that in no way justifies you sharing such images.
Given the background of the image with semi-naked men and women do you even think it’s appropriate or even permissible to share such an image anyway even if the sisters face is not clear / blocked out?
It’s like all the people sharing images of models in Burkinis to show a visual image of the French ban on this item of clothing and claiming you are sharing such images to defend modesty… Stupid doesn’t even begin to cover such people.
Here is a Fatwah from Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid at Islam Q&A on women sharing their image on social media, I hope the intelligent among you would realize if this applies to sisters sharing images of themselves, it applies doubly to men sharing these pictures of sisters in hijab or even worst actual indecent images.
We need to remember such dhulm is a test, a trial and yes sometimes a punishment from Allaah and that to end such oppression doesn’t just mean denouncing it, but that as Muslims we need to wake up and return to our deen and that Allaah informs us in the Quran:
For each one are successive [angels] before and behind him who protect him by the decree of Allah . Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves. And when Allah intends for a people ill, there is no repelling it. And there is not for them besides Him any patron. Quran translation, Surah ar-Ra’d, 13:11
On Monday morning, without warning, a group of heavily armed French police descended on the Calais refugee camp to flatten a 100-metre buffer zone between the camp and the motorway. A church and a mosque were torn down, despite promises that they wouldn’t be touched. It’s all part of a wider effort by the French authorities to shift refugees into a new camp of numbered shipping containers, surrounded by a large wire fence.
This new camp affords the French a greater degree of administrative control – with biometric handprints being introduced as passes – and sucks refugees further into the French system. This can be seen as a tacit acknowledgment that the French have responsibility for processing their asylum claims in France.
But why don’t the refugees want asylum in France? One reason is because many of them perceive Britain to have a stronger tradition of religious tolerance than France. And this often surprises the French, because they pride themselves on their much-discussed notion of laïcité – roughly, secularism plus – so sacred a notion that it’s enshrined in article one of the French constitution.
For its defenders, laïcité is a way of ensuring the state’s systematic blindness when it comes to religion. It is an official pretence not to notice whether or where somebody prays. For its detractors, this supposed neutrality is nothing of the sort, but rather a cover for the eradication of religious visibility, indeed religious rights, from the public sphere. This week, both Amnesty InternationalandHuman Rights Watch condemned the French police’s human rights violations against Muslims.
Laïcité began as justification for eradicating the influence of the Catholic church – and involved the murder of thousands of priests during the revolution. It continues as a cover for discrimination against Muslims. It is no coincidence, for example, that the ban on the wearing of headscarves in public schools, a ban which also included Jewish boys wearing their kippot and Sikhs wearing their turbans, followed the electoral success of the far right in April 2002. Just as colour-blindness with respect to race is not the same thing as being anti-racist, so too laïcité is not the same thing as being anti-discriminatory. Indeed, this whole neutrality-as-blindness philosophy means that the French state won’t even collect statistics about ethnicity or religion, thus refusing to evaluate, or even face, the extent of their problem. For example, how many North Africans are there in top positions? The French state wont say. Indeed, it wont even ask.
And it’s this same official “blindness” that led the French police not to notice that the buildings they were destroying in Calais had any religious significance. As the Ethiopian pastor looked on, clutching a blue wooden cross he’d salvaged from the wreckage, the Gallic Robocops trampled all over his church, treating it as of no more emotional consequence than the disgusting Portaloos they were also removing. Religion’s comfortable despisers may sneer, but faith is one of the few things that people in the camp have to cling on to. Not noticing this is not a form of neutrality.
Secularism can mean many different things. For some it is the simple separation of church and state: no bishops in the House of Lords, no religion test for political office etc. For others, secularism is something much more: purging religion from the public sphere. It’s a bit like the Victorian attitude to sex: if you must do it, do it privately and don’t talk about it. Here, secularism treats religion as a dirty little secret, and manifests itself as a restriction of public prayer or the open expression of religious identity. And that’s about as neutral as the attitude to God taken by state communism.
In a recent survey in Le Journal du Dimanche, 56% of people said they would react badly if their daughter married a Muslim, 91% of people said that Jews in France “are very insular”, and 56% that they “have a lot of power”. State blindness isn’t helping. Laïcité doesn’t eradicate religious hatred. At best, it simply camouflages it. At worst, it provides it with an alibi.