Why I Boycott without believing in BDS

 

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in South Africa is currently engaged in a very energetic boycott campaign against Woolworths. I am not a supporter of the economic boycott, and harbour reservations about it. Nevertheless I have not bought a single item from Woolworths since the call was made. In particular I am suffering withdrawal symptoms from no longer drinking Woolworths milk… So do I have double standards or am I confused? I do not think either applies here. Acting contrary to one’s opinion is not the same as abandoning a principle. I shall seek to explain some of my reservations, but why I nevertheless heed the call.

The Racism of Palestinian Activism

To deny the importance of Palestine is to deny the Qurān and Ḥadīth. There are no two ways about it. Yet I am terribly disturbed how the blood of some Muslims is in effect regarded as less sacred than that of others. While Ghazzah was attacked during the Ramaḍān of 1435, Muslims were slaughtered in Central African Republic in far greater numbers. There were no calls for boycotts and no marches on embassies. The brutal fact is that Africa does not have the glamour of Palestine and still too many Muslims have less value for those of black skin. The very least one can expect from Muslim activists is a declaration that Palestine is being focussed on for strategic reasons, but our hearts are also with the other oppressed Muslims. Yet it seems that Africans, Kashmiris, Burmese, Uighurs and so many others do not deserve even such a modicum of respect.

Transforming Palestine into a secular idol

I accept that this heading is provocative and requires thorough explanation. If Allāh wills, I shall write separately on this and explain myself. For now, any act devoid of Allāh is not Islām. There are those who tout the economic benefits of Zakāh; the political dividend of Ḥajj, etc. without a mention of Allāh. Whatever secondary benefits may exist in a deed, the primary focus is the command of Allāh and drawing closer to Him. Removing Allāh from the equation secularises an outwardly Islāmic act, and so does Palestine become an idol to many.

Allāh’s Messenger cancelled sanctions

I find it incredibly dishonest of some who use the example of Thumāmah bin Uthāl رضي الله عنه as religious proof for a boycott, when the reverse should be true. Thumāmah رضي الله عنه was an ardent enemy of Islām and the chief of Banū Ḥanīfah, the main suppliers of wheat to Makkah. Upon his acceptance of Islām he banned exports to Makkah which was already suffering from a famine. The idolaters begged for mercy. They could have been starved into submission, but Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . ordered Thumāmah رضي الله عنه to cease sanctions against Makkah. So how do people clutch at straws and derive legal justification from a cancelled act?

Allāh’s Messenger’s politics and economics were proactive not reactive

When he entered al-Madīnah, the local Arabs were farmers and the Jews were traders. He established a new business district for the Muslims and instructed ‘Abduraḥmān bin Awf رضي الله عنه to teach the Arabs how to trade. In other words, Allāh’s Messneger صلى الله عليه وسلم taught the Muslims to be constructive, economically empowered and self-sufficient. Muslims today grab the other end of the stick. Jews control almost every aspect of economic activity in the world. Is there any processed food or manufactured item which can be guaranteed to be free of Jewish influence in terms of the ingredients and raw materials? (Most are not even aware that a flavouring can contain hundreds of ingredients in itself, let alone the other ingredients which can compose a food item.) The question is moot, for the Sunnah was not to boycott them but to establish the economy of the Muslims. There certainly are Muslim businessmen who empower the Ummah, but too often those with capital seek the quickest and easiest buck, or are princes who burn the Ummah’s wealth in the casinos and brothels of the west.

Liberation will only be with the sword

Palestine will only be liberated through war. That is clear from the Ḥadīth. Interim measures should remain in that context if we believe in the Ḥadīth. It seems to me that a focus on other methods distract from preparation for the real battle, however far off it may be. The two need not be contradictory, but interim measures should not become permanent, nor should sight on the ultimate goal be lost.

Legitimising partition?

I not comfortable with the position that atrocities, confiscations or other wrong doing is somehow worse if perpetrated in the West Bank as opposed to the land regarded as the “legitimate” Zionist state. Companies operating in the West Bank are somehow treated as if they are more evil than those assisting the Zionist terrorism elsewhere. To me this presents a problem in the long term, because if we agree with such a position, it tacitly confirms us as recognising the 1948 Usurpation and limiting our “disagreement” to only the rest of Palestine. All of Palestine has been usurped, and all must be liberated, whether the 1948 lands or the 1967 lands.

Targeting a fashionable and glamorous enemy

It is fashionable and glamorous to attack the Zionist entity. Whoever does so, is lauded as a good and heroic Muslim/ Socialist/ humanitarian etc, depending on who the audience is. Yet almost every Muslim organisation, government, leader and scholar remains unconscionably silent on the Saudi-Sisi axis laying siege to Ghazzah to the South. Whoever criticizes this axis is not lauded as a hero. Such a person is an unhinged radical who is in fact a traitor to the glorious Palestinian cause. Never mind that Ghazzah can have access to the world if a supposedly Muslim country no longer assists the Zionists in their siege. Never mind the billions the CIA lackeys of the House of Saud spend to prop up Pharaoh Sisi. For too long have the Muslims been complicit in allowing a Dajjāl-like regime to rule Makkah. However important Palestine or other issues might be, it makes no sense to at all to target our focus on the bleeding limbs of Islām, when the head of Islām is ruled by such a satanic regime.

So why have I heeded the boycott call?

The above arguments are my interpretation. Too many today act as if their personal interpretation is divine revelation and tolerate no dissent. Two years ago I was sorely disappointed when a scholar of oceans of knowledge, whose drop I cannot equal, mentioned during a presentation on differences of opinion, that scholars who differed with him on a particular issue will end up on the garbage dump of history… “…where they belong”! Let me point out again, that his topic was “Differences of opinion”.
I pray that I never attain such levels of arrogance and dogmatism. In this issue of boycott, a body of Muslims have made a decision on a certain tactic and method of engaging the enemy. I disagree. Yet I shall put all my arguments aside for the sake of a united front, concerted action and joining those who at least are doing something. Most importantly, this is an opportunity to save my soul from joining those who equate their personal views to the decree of Allāh.

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Why I Boycott without believing in BDS

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in South Africa is currently engaged in a very energetic boycott campaign against Woolworths. I am not a supporter of the economic boycott, and harbour reservations about it. Nevertheless I have not bought a single item from Woolworths since the call was made. In particular I am suffering withdrawal symptoms from no longer drinking Woolworths milk… So do I have double standards or am I confused? I do not think either applies here. Acting contrary to one’s opinion is not the same as abandoning a principle. I shall seek to explain some of my reservations, but why I nevertheless heed the call.

The Racism of Palestinian Activism

To deny the importance of Palestine is to deny the Qurān and Ḥadīth. There are no two ways about it. Yet I am terribly disturbed how the blood of some Muslims is in effect regarded as less sacred than that of others. While Ghazzah was attacked during the Ramaḍān of 1435, Muslims were slaughtered in Central African Republic in far greater numbers. There were no calls for boycotts and no marches on embassies. The brutal fact is that Africa does not have the glamour of Palestine and still too many Muslims have less value for those of black skin. The very least one can expect from Muslim activists is a declaration that Palestine is being focussed on for strategic reasons, but our hearts are also with the other oppressed Muslims. Yet it seems that Africans, Kashmiris, Burmese, Uighurs and so many others do not deserve even such a modicum of respect.

Transforming Palestine into a secular idol

I accept that this heading is provocative and requires thorough explanation. If Allāh wills, I shall write separately on this and explain myself. For now, any act devoid of Allāh is not Islām. There are those who tout the economic benefits of Zakāh; the political dividend of Ḥajj, etc. without a mention of Allāh. Whatever secondary benefits may exist in a deed, the primary focus is the command of Allāh and drawing closer to Him. Removing Allāh from the equation secularises an outwardly Islāmic act, and so does Palestine become an idol to many.

Allāh’s Messenger cancelled sanctions

I find it incredibly dishonest of some who use the example of Thumāmah bin Uthāl رضي الله عنه as religious proof for a boycott, when the reverse should be true. Thumāmah رضي الله عنه was an ardent enemy of Islām and the chief of Banū Ḥanīfah, the main suppliers of wheat to Makkah. Upon his acceptance of Islām he banned exports to Makkah which was already suffering from a famine. The idolaters begged for mercy. They could have been starved into submission, but Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . ordered Thumāmah رضي الله عنه to cease sanctions against Makkah. So how do people clutch at straws and derive legal justification from a cancelled act?

Allāh’s Messenger’s politics and economics were proactive not reactive

When he entered al-Madīnah, the local Arabs were farmers and the Jews were traders. He established a new business district for the Muslims and instructed ‘Abduraḥmān bin Awf رضي الله عنه to teach the Arabs how to trade. In other words, Allāh’s Messneger صلى الله عليه وسلم taught the Muslims to be constructive, economically empowered and self-sufficient. Muslims today grab the other end of the stick. Jews control almost every aspect of economic activity in the world. Is there any processed food or manufactured item which can be guaranteed to be free of Jewish influence in terms of the ingredients and raw materials? (Most are not even aware that a flavouring can contain hundreds of ingredients in itself, let alone the other ingredients which can compose a food item.) The question is moot, for the Sunnah was not to boycott them but to establish the economy of the Muslims. There certainly are Muslim businessmen who empower the Ummah, but too often those with capital seek the quickest and easiest buck, or are princes who burn the Ummah’s wealth in the casinos and brothels of the west.

Liberation will only be with the sword

Palestine will only be liberated through war. That is clear from the Ḥadīth. Interim measures should remain in that context if we believe in the Ḥadīth. It seems to me that a focus on other methods distract from preparation for the real battle, however far off it may be. The two need not be contradictory, but interim measures should not become permanent, nor should sight on the ultimate goal be lost.

Legitimising partition?

I not comfortable with the position that atrocities, confiscations or other wrong doing is somehow worse if perpetrated in the West Bank as opposed to the land regarded as the “legitimate” Zionist state. Companies operating in the West Bank are somehow treated as if they are more evil than those assisting the Zionist terrorism elsewhere. To me this presents a problem in the long term, because if we agree with such a position, it tacitly confirms us as recognising the 1948 Usurpation and limiting our “disagreement” to only the rest of Palestine. All of Palestine has been usurped, and all must be liberated, whether the 1948 lands or the 1967 lands.

Targeting a fashionable and glamorous enemy

It is fashionable and glamorous to attack the Zionist entity. Whoever does so, is lauded as a good and heroic Muslim/ Socialist/ humanitarian etc, depending on who the audience is. Yet almost every Muslim organisation, government, leader and scholar remains unconscionably silent on the Saudi-Sisi axis laying siege to Ghazzah to the South. Whoever criticizes this axis is not lauded as a hero. Such a person is an unhinged radical who is in fact a traitor to the glorious Palestinian cause. Never mind that Ghazzah can have access to the world if a supposedly Muslim country no longer assists the Zionists in their siege. Never mind the billions the CIA lackeys of the House of Saud spend to prop up Pharaoh Sisi. For too long have the Muslims been complicit in allowing a Dajjāl-like regime to rule Makkah. However important Palestine or other issues might be, it makes no sense to at all to target our focus on the bleeding limbs of Islām, when the head of Islām is ruled by such a satanic regime.

So why have I heeded the boycott call?

The above arguments are my interpretation. Too many today act as if their personal interpretation is divine revelation and tolerate no dissent. Two years ago I was sorely disappointed when a scholar of oceans of knowledge, whose drop I cannot equal, mentioned during a presentation on differences of opinion, that scholars who differed with him on a particular issue will end up on the garbage dump of history… “…where they belong”! Let me point out again, that his topic was “Differences of opinion”.
I pray that I never attain such levels of arrogance and dogmatism. In this issue of boycott, a body of Muslims have made a decision on a certain tactic and method of engaging the enemy. I disagree. Yet I shall put all my arguments aside for the sake of a united front, concerted action and joining those who at least are doing something. Most importantly, this is an opportunity to save my soul from joining those who equate their personal views to the decree of Allāh.

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Italy's Niqaab Ban - broader issues of reaction vs proaction

Having received an email from "a group of students opposed to ignorance and racism of any form:Veil-ation" regarding their inititive to address Italy's proposal of banning the Niqaab, I thought it appropriate to discuss an issue which has been on my mind for some time. As I mentioned in the article, Soccer Crosses vs Nabawi Banner," I too had had the mentality of reacting to every situation affecting Islam and never going beyond the box of even thinking of applying the Sunnah approach of being proactive.

Please see my response to the students below, followed by the original email.


سليمان الكندي

Muhtaramah

السلام عليكم

I certainly agree with the sentiment that silence might be construed as surrender and ask Allah to grant success to all your good ventures. My only concern is that when these kinds of issues arise, most Muslims, even intellectually capable ones, fall into the rut of reaction as opposed to the proactive approach of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

For example, the knee-jerk response to the spate of insults towards the sacred personality is the usual, "Death to America! Death to Denmark!" Would Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam not be more pleased with active dissemination on what an amazing personality he actually was? Should a Kaafir rightfully ask, “I do not understand this reaction of the Muslims to a man long dead. Please explain to me why you love him so,” how many Muslims would be able to explain anything about his beautiful personality for 15, 10 or even 5 minutes? Could they mutter anything beyond, “Born in Makkah died in Madinah”? Screaming “Death to America!” is so much easier.

After the building of the Masjid in al-Madinah, Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, examined the city. At that time trade was entirely in the hands of the Jews. The local Arabs were farmers and the Muhajirun from Makkah had no possessions to speak of. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam personally chose a land and appointed Abdurahmaan bin Awf radiyallahu anhu to set up a Muslim business district opposed to the Jewish monopoly, to teach trade to Muslims and supervise their weights and implementation of Shariah, etc. Nobody questions the sincerity of the promoters of BDS (Boycott, Disinvest, Sanctions) against the Zionist terrorist entity. One only asks that certain aspects be in line with the above Sunnah. Proactively provide an alternative first, then react.

As a well-wisher who has heard of your Islamic zeal and intellectual acumen, it is my hope that Allah uses you and your colleagues to disseminate an understanding amongst Muslims and Kuffar of the beauty of Hijaab, and not just settle for reacting to the latest hostilities. I also suggest that rather than add to the negativity with the phrase, “An initiative by a group of students opposed to ignorance and racism of any form: Veil-ation,” would a more positive phrase such as “Students promoting understanding and tolerance” not be more constructive?

Please note that these lines are written as a well-wisher addressing certain broad concepts I had been meaning to follow up on. I do not personally know any individual of this group and have no right to pass judgement.

و السلام

سليمان الكندي

From: XXXXX[mailto:XXXXXX@hotmail.com]
Sent: 13 September 2011 10:26 PM
To: XXXXXX

Subject: Spam: Veil-ation: Banning the Veil is a Fail

Italy is planning on becoming the third country in Europe to ban the Niqab. If something is not attempted by us to show our disapproval of these Islamophobic and ignorant laws being passed, our complaceny might be mistaken for surrender. Stand up in unity with Muslims around the world and let the Italian government, and any other leadership in the world too, know that we will NOT stand for our basic rights being violated. Doing your bit is easy, just follow these steps:

1. Copy this email address into the "send bar" to send an email directly to the office of the Italian President:  presidenza.repubblica@quirinale.it

2. Sign your name and the country you come from at the end of the letter below (translated into Italian as well) to personalise your request.

3. Forward this email to as many people as you can and let the movement spread- let us UNITE against injustice!

An initiative by a group of students opposed to ignorance and racism of any form: Veil-ation.

 

Ai rappresentanti del governo italiano

Vi imploro di riconsiderare con attenzione l’approvazione della legge intesa a bandire l’uso del niqab in Italia. Poiché l’Italia si vanta di essere un paese democratico che promuove i diritti umani e consente ai propri cittadini di vivere secondo le proprie convinzioni, il bando di un indumento religioso quale il niqab sarebbe molto ingiusto e mostrerebbe che il vostro paese usa due pesi e  due misure, non rispettando il diritto alla diversità. Il niqab è un simbolo di modestia per coloro che hanno fede nell’Islam, e un profondo significato religioso sta dietro il suo uso. Molti ignorano questo, per cui abbiamo deciso di illustrare i principali benefici e  le caratteristiche del Niqab.

Niqab significa semplicemente ‘coprirsi la faccia in pubblico’. Non è un comandamento prescritto da Dio, ma piuttosto un comandamento imposto come atto buono e casto. Si parla del niqab con reverenza e ammirazione, non come un segno di degradazione o oppressione. Perché mai Dio avrebbe voluto discriminare le donne, parte della Sua creazione? Nell’Islam quante vestono il niqab vengono apprezzate per le loro conoscenze, la pietà e per il contributo alla società. Esso è un supremo segno di purezza e dignità, e non solo permette alle donne il più alto grado di virtù ma serve anche cone garanzia  di sicurezza e come protezione dai mali della società. Considerate queste salde ragioni e i chiari benefici che stanno dietro il niqab, non si riesce a capire perché debba essere bandito. Per questo molte donne nel ventunesimo secolo scelgono di onorare il niqab, che garantisce loro più diritti e più rispetto di ogni minigonna.

Secondo Souad Sbai, membro del conservatore “Partito delle Libertà”, la proibizione del niqab “aiuta le donne a uscire dalla segregazione e dall’oppressione”. Come chiaramente detto sopra, il niqab non è segno di degradazione e oppressione, ma piuttosto una scelta da onorare e da garantire alle donne in Italia.

Un vecchio ragionamento a favore della proibizione del niqab allude a una minaccia per la sicurezza. Una qualche credibilità in questo ragionamento  deriverebbe dal fatto che il niqab fosse stato usato come travestimento per minacciare qualcuno. Ma nessun niqab, nella storia italiana, è stato mai usato da gruppi per compiere azioni violente. È stato solo usato da donne fedeli all’Islam per ragioni religiose. Oltre tutto bandire un costume religioso per queste ragioni giustificherebbe la grave assunzione anti-islamica che attribuisce tutti gli attachi terroristici a musulmani; i recenti atti di violenza commessi in Norvegia provano il contario.

Secondo Barbara Saltamartini, del medesimo “Partito delle libertà”, “L’approvazione di una legge proibizionista porrebbe fine alla sofferenza di molte donne obbligate a vestire il niqab o il burqa, che annullano la loro dignità, e le metterebbe sulla via dell’integrazione”. Il niqab è opzionale, e commenti come quello citato sopra provano il profondo fraintendimento e l’ignoranza presenti tra i leader politici in Italia. Occorre al contrario incoraggiare il riconoscimento della differenza e il rispetto per gli altri, piuttosto che promuovere boicottaggi e  proibizioni basati sul bigottismo.

È dunque chiaro che è interesse dell’Italia non bandire il niqab: approvare tale legge significherebbe violare i diritti delle donne. L’Italia è ampiamente stimata in tutto il mondo, e sarebbe dunque una grave ingiustiza per la storia del vostro paese l’approvazione di tale legge chiaramente razzista, che finirebbe col compromettere  tale immagine dell’Italia. Vi imploriamo dunque di astenervi dall’introdurre nel vostro ordinamento democratico né ora né in futuro una simile legge!

To the Leaders of Italy
I implore you to carefully consider the passing of the law in your country which will soon ban women from wearing the Niqab. As a country which prides itself on its democratic principles and affording its citizens the basic human right to choose how they should live, banning a religious garb such as the Niqab is most unjust and will only portray your country as one with double standards and a lack of general respect for diversity.  The Niqab is a symbol of modesty for those in the Islamic faith, and has a deep spiritual meaning behind its use. Many are ignorant of this, and so we have decided to outline the basic benefits and noble characteristics of the Niqab.

Niqab means, simply, to cover ones face when out in public. It is not a commandment that is compulsory as prescribed by God, but rather a commandment that has been deemed a good and chaste act. When we discuss the Niqab we do so with reverence and admiration, as the Niqab is not a sign of degradation or oppression. Why would God discriminate against women, a segment of His creation? By wearing the Niqab, women in Islam are appreciated for their knowledge, piety and contribution to society. It is the highest sign of purity and dignity, and not only affords women the highest degree of virtuousness but acts as a screen for her safety and protection from the evils of society as well.  With such strong reasoning behind its use and the benefits of the Niqab so obviously apparent, one finds it difficult to see why it was banned. One can also find it easy to see why so many women in the twenty first century are choosing to honour the Niqab, as it affords them more rights and respect than any short mini-skirt can. 

According to Souad Sbai, a member of the conservative Freedom People Party, the reasoning for the Niqab ban is because they feel they “...have to help women get out of this segregation … to get out of this submission.”   As has been clearly stated in the paragraph above, the Niqab is not a sign of degradation or oppression, but is rather a choice that should be honoured and afforded to the women of Italy. 

The age old reasoning for banning the Niqab is cited as that of it being a security threat. This reason would hold some form of credibility if the Niqab has ever been used as a disguise to pose a threat to anyone. On the contrary, in the history of Italy, not once has the Niqab been used by groups to carry out violent attacks. It has only ever been worn by women is Islam who have recognised its importance and decided to wear it out of religious reasons. Also, banning a religious custom on this basis would be making the most grave and Islamophobic assumption that all “terrorist attacks” are carried out by Muslims, and in light of recent events in Norway I think we can all agree that this is most certainly not the case.

Also, according to the vice president of the Freedom People party, Barbara Saltamartini, “Final approval will put an end to the suffering of many women who are often forced to wear the burqa or niqab, which annihilates their dignity and gets in the way of integration.”  The Niqab is optional, and comments like this only reveal the deep misunderstanding and misconceptions which exist amongst your leadership. Let us rather work towards recognition of each other’s adversity and respect for one another, instead of bans and boycott based on ideas of bigotry.

It is apparent from the above reasoning that not banning the Niqab is not only in the best interest of your country, but to pass this act is also in direct violation of the rights of a portion of the women in your country. Italy is spoken of only in the highest terms around the world, and so it would be a grave injustice to the natural history of your country as well as the current population to tarnish that reputation with the passing of a law so obviously racist in its foundation. We implore you, therefore, to refrain from passing this law- now, or anytime in the future of your democratic state!

Italy's Niqaab Ban - broader issues of reaction vs proaction

Having received an email from "a group of students opposed to ignorance and racism of any form:Veil-ation" regarding their inititive to address Italy's proposal of banning the Niqaab, I thought it appropriate to discuss an issue which has been on my mind for some time. As I mentioned in the article, Soccer Crosses vs Nabawi Banner," I too had had the mentality of reacting to every situation affecting Islam and never going beyond the box of even thinking of applying the Sunnah approach of being proactive.

Please see my response to the students below, followed by the original email.


سليمان الكندي

Muhtaramah

السلام عليكم

I certainly agree with the sentiment that silence might be construed as surrender and ask Allah to grant success to all your good ventures. My only concern is that when these kinds of issues arise, most Muslims, even intellectually capable ones, fall into the rut of reaction as opposed to the proactive approach of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

For example, the knee-jerk response to the spate of insults towards the sacred personality is the usual, "Death to America! Death to Denmark!" Would Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam not be more pleased with active dissemination on what an amazing personality he actually was? Should a Kaafir rightfully ask, “I do not understand this reaction of the Muslims to a man long dead. Please explain to me why you love him so,” how many Muslims would be able to explain anything about his beautiful personality for 15, 10 or even 5 minutes? Could they mutter anything beyond, “Born in Makkah died in Madinah”? Screaming “Death to America!” is so much easier.

After the building of the Masjid in al-Madinah, Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, examined the city. At that time trade was entirely in the hands of the Jews. The local Arabs were farmers and the Muhajirun from Makkah had no possessions to speak of. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam personally chose a land and appointed Abdurahmaan bin Awf radiyallahu anhu to set up a Muslim business district opposed to the Jewish monopoly, to teach trade to Muslims and supervise their weights and implementation of Shariah, etc. Nobody questions the sincerity of the promoters of BDS (Boycott, Disinvest, Sanctions) against the Zionist terrorist entity. One only asks that certain aspects be in line with the above Sunnah. Proactively provide an alternative first, then react.

As a well-wisher who has heard of your Islamic zeal and intellectual acumen, it is my hope that Allah uses you and your colleagues to disseminate an understanding amongst Muslims and Kuffar of the beauty of Hijaab, and not just settle for reacting to the latest hostilities. I also suggest that rather than add to the negativity with the phrase, “An initiative by a group of students opposed to ignorance and racism of any form: Veil-ation,” would a more positive phrase such as “Students promoting understanding and tolerance” not be more constructive?

Please note that these lines are written as a well-wisher addressing certain broad concepts I had been meaning to follow up on. I do not personally know any individual of this group and have no right to pass judgement.

و السلام

سليمان الكندي

From: XXXXX[mailto:XXXXXX@hotmail.com]
Sent: 13 September 2011 10:26 PM
To: XXXXXX

Subject: Spam: Veil-ation: Banning the Veil is a Fail

Italy is planning on becoming the third country in Europe to ban the Niqab. If something is not attempted by us to show our disapproval of these Islamophobic and ignorant laws being passed, our complaceny might be mistaken for surrender. Stand up in unity with Muslims around the world and let the Italian government, and any other leadership in the world too, know that we will NOT stand for our basic rights being violated. Doing your bit is easy, just follow these steps:

1. Copy this email address into the "send bar" to send an email directly to the office of the Italian President:  presidenza.repubblica@quirinale.it

2. Sign your name and the country you come from at the end of the letter below (translated into Italian as well) to personalise your request.

3. Forward this email to as many people as you can and let the movement spread- let us UNITE against injustice!

An initiative by a group of students opposed to ignorance and racism of any form: Veil-ation.

 

Ai rappresentanti del governo italiano

Vi imploro di riconsiderare con attenzione l’approvazione della legge intesa a bandire l’uso del niqab in Italia. Poiché l’Italia si vanta di essere un paese democratico che promuove i diritti umani e consente ai propri cittadini di vivere secondo le proprie convinzioni, il bando di un indumento religioso quale il niqab sarebbe molto ingiusto e mostrerebbe che il vostro paese usa due pesi e  due misure, non rispettando il diritto alla diversità. Il niqab è un simbolo di modestia per coloro che hanno fede nell’Islam, e un profondo significato religioso sta dietro il suo uso. Molti ignorano questo, per cui abbiamo deciso di illustrare i principali benefici e  le caratteristiche del Niqab.

Niqab significa semplicemente ‘coprirsi la faccia in pubblico’. Non è un comandamento prescritto da Dio, ma piuttosto un comandamento imposto come atto buono e casto. Si parla del niqab con reverenza e ammirazione, non come un segno di degradazione o oppressione. Perché mai Dio avrebbe voluto discriminare le donne, parte della Sua creazione? Nell’Islam quante vestono il niqab vengono apprezzate per le loro conoscenze, la pietà e per il contributo alla società. Esso è un supremo segno di purezza e dignità, e non solo permette alle donne il più alto grado di virtù ma serve anche cone garanzia  di sicurezza e come protezione dai mali della società. Considerate queste salde ragioni e i chiari benefici che stanno dietro il niqab, non si riesce a capire perché debba essere bandito. Per questo molte donne nel ventunesimo secolo scelgono di onorare il niqab, che garantisce loro più diritti e più rispetto di ogni minigonna.

Secondo Souad Sbai, membro del conservatore “Partito delle Libertà”, la proibizione del niqab “aiuta le donne a uscire dalla segregazione e dall’oppressione”. Come chiaramente detto sopra, il niqab non è segno di degradazione e oppressione, ma piuttosto una scelta da onorare e da garantire alle donne in Italia.

Un vecchio ragionamento a favore della proibizione del niqab allude a una minaccia per la sicurezza. Una qualche credibilità in questo ragionamento  deriverebbe dal fatto che il niqab fosse stato usato come travestimento per minacciare qualcuno. Ma nessun niqab, nella storia italiana, è stato mai usato da gruppi per compiere azioni violente. È stato solo usato da donne fedeli all’Islam per ragioni religiose. Oltre tutto bandire un costume religioso per queste ragioni giustificherebbe la grave assunzione anti-islamica che attribuisce tutti gli attachi terroristici a musulmani; i recenti atti di violenza commessi in Norvegia provano il contario.

Secondo Barbara Saltamartini, del medesimo “Partito delle libertà”, “L’approvazione di una legge proibizionista porrebbe fine alla sofferenza di molte donne obbligate a vestire il niqab o il burqa, che annullano la loro dignità, e le metterebbe sulla via dell’integrazione”. Il niqab è opzionale, e commenti come quello citato sopra provano il profondo fraintendimento e l’ignoranza presenti tra i leader politici in Italia. Occorre al contrario incoraggiare il riconoscimento della differenza e il rispetto per gli altri, piuttosto che promuovere boicottaggi e  proibizioni basati sul bigottismo.

È dunque chiaro che è interesse dell’Italia non bandire il niqab: approvare tale legge significherebbe violare i diritti delle donne. L’Italia è ampiamente stimata in tutto il mondo, e sarebbe dunque una grave ingiustiza per la storia del vostro paese l’approvazione di tale legge chiaramente razzista, che finirebbe col compromettere  tale immagine dell’Italia. Vi imploriamo dunque di astenervi dall’introdurre nel vostro ordinamento democratico né ora né in futuro una simile legge!

To the Leaders of Italy
I implore you to carefully consider the passing of the law in your country which will soon ban women from wearing the Niqab. As a country which prides itself on its democratic principles and affording its citizens the basic human right to choose how they should live, banning a religious garb such as the Niqab is most unjust and will only portray your country as one with double standards and a lack of general respect for diversity.  The Niqab is a symbol of modesty for those in the Islamic faith, and has a deep spiritual meaning behind its use. Many are ignorant of this, and so we have decided to outline the basic benefits and noble characteristics of the Niqab.

Niqab means, simply, to cover ones face when out in public. It is not a commandment that is compulsory as prescribed by God, but rather a commandment that has been deemed a good and chaste act. When we discuss the Niqab we do so with reverence and admiration, as the Niqab is not a sign of degradation or oppression. Why would God discriminate against women, a segment of His creation? By wearing the Niqab, women in Islam are appreciated for their knowledge, piety and contribution to society. It is the highest sign of purity and dignity, and not only affords women the highest degree of virtuousness but acts as a screen for her safety and protection from the evils of society as well.  With such strong reasoning behind its use and the benefits of the Niqab so obviously apparent, one finds it difficult to see why it was banned. One can also find it easy to see why so many women in the twenty first century are choosing to honour the Niqab, as it affords them more rights and respect than any short mini-skirt can. 

According to Souad Sbai, a member of the conservative Freedom People Party, the reasoning for the Niqab ban is because they feel they “...have to help women get out of this segregation … to get out of this submission.”   As has been clearly stated in the paragraph above, the Niqab is not a sign of degradation or oppression, but is rather a choice that should be honoured and afforded to the women of Italy. 

The age old reasoning for banning the Niqab is cited as that of it being a security threat. This reason would hold some form of credibility if the Niqab has ever been used as a disguise to pose a threat to anyone. On the contrary, in the history of Italy, not once has the Niqab been used by groups to carry out violent attacks. It has only ever been worn by women is Islam who have recognised its importance and decided to wear it out of religious reasons. Also, banning a religious custom on this basis would be making the most grave and Islamophobic assumption that all “terrorist attacks” are carried out by Muslims, and in light of recent events in Norway I think we can all agree that this is most certainly not the case.

Also, according to the vice president of the Freedom People party, Barbara Saltamartini, “Final approval will put an end to the suffering of many women who are often forced to wear the burqa or niqab, which annihilates their dignity and gets in the way of integration.”  The Niqab is optional, and comments like this only reveal the deep misunderstanding and misconceptions which exist amongst your leadership. Let us rather work towards recognition of each other’s adversity and respect for one another, instead of bans and boycott based on ideas of bigotry.

It is apparent from the above reasoning that not banning the Niqab is not only in the best interest of your country, but to pass this act is also in direct violation of the rights of a portion of the women in your country. Italy is spoken of only in the highest terms around the world, and so it would be a grave injustice to the natural history of your country as well as the current population to tarnish that reputation with the passing of a law so obviously racist in its foundation. We implore you, therefore, to refrain from passing this law- now, or anytime in the future of your democratic state!