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!

Othello & the Mental Dichotomy of Muslim intelligentsia

The following is in no way a judgement on the personal piety of any Muslim, but is simply a call to attention to the dichotomy Muslims follow, whether pious or not.

Leaving the Masjid after the 29^th Taraweeh, I passed the Imam’s son. He was telling a friend that they would be writing a test on Othello. “The Shakespeare story about the Muslim?” I asked.

I was met with blank stares as if I had asked, “Did they teach you that the moon is really made of cheese?”

Me: Did your teacher never tell you that Othello was a Muslim?

Student: No.

Me: Did you come across the word, “Moor” in the book?

Student: Yes.

Me: So did your teacher never explain how the Europeans used this word for Muslims?

Student: No.

Me: And you never asked what it means either?

Student: No.

Me: That’s amazing. The one book of Shakespeare mentioning a Muslim and that is not explained at the so-called Muslim school!

Student: But my teacher is quite geared up. She did English for 25 years at university.

Me: I don’t care if it’s a million years. They only tell you what they are programmed to do.

Student’s friend: They can only think in the box.

At last! A boy with intelligence! I hugged him and left.

The reader might fairly ask, “What’s the big deal?” The incident and Othello are not big deals, but the problem they reflect is a big deal. Here we have a situation where a “Muslim” school has an opportunity to discuss Muslims and Islam whilst still meeting the state’s syllabus requirements but the word “Muslim” is never even mentioned. What degrees are acquired in 25 years I do not know, but would one with much lesser qualifications not feel the need to explain a word which let alone appears in the book, but is actually part of the title, “Othello, the Moor of Venice.”?

The big deal is the dichotomy of Muslim intelligentsia, the separation of their religion and career into two distinct compartments. Muslims most certainly have to acquire mastery in every permissible field. The problem is that often this mastery is never used in service of Dien, but only for one’s personal career. Were Muslims to win the Nobel Prize in every field, in no way would the glory of Islam be elevated, simply because the winners would not see it as such.

There is no need for the Dichotomy the West has invented and which our Muslim youth slavishly ape. There is no reason why a university graduate cannot implement his knowledge with the outlook of a slave of Allah. Have you ever heard of a Muslim doctor, filled with awe, telling his fellow guests at a wedding how he sees the signs of his Creator in the human body? Have you ever heard of an architect advising a Muslim client on matters of Qiblah; separate entrances for females for when they’d host gatherings; or an Ibaadah room or area? Have you ever heard of a Muslim businessman channelling his investments (not charity) in such a way that the Ummah can benefit at the same time e.g. setting up a Halaal gelatine facility?

If you have, I would love to hear from you. Perhaps it just so happens that I have only heard of Muslim intelligentsia who are victims of this dichotomy, whilst the overwhelming majority whom I do not know are actually epitomes of the mantra of the past few decades, “Islam is a complete way of life,” or have coloured themselves with Islamic vision as Allah says in al-Baqarah: 138, “The colouring of Allah! Who is better in colouring than Allah! And we are His worshippers!”

One of the best examples I know of a professional coloured in Allah-vision is the chemist of Damascus. (Here chemist means an expert in chemistry, not the South African word for pharmacist). The Crusaders advanced with wooden siege towers against Akka. The Muslim defenders shot Greek Fire at the towers, but the Crusaders had devised a coating making the wood resistant to the Greek Fire. A chemist from Damascus who had settled in Akka informed Salaahudien rahimahullah that he had discovered a component which when added to the Greek Fire, would penetrate the Crusader coating. His invention proved effective. Salaahudien rahimahullah summoned him to reward him. He replied, “The only reward I desire is the pleasure of Allah.”

All I witness though, is a dichotomy so strong, that even when a reference is made to Islam in the title of a book, the teacher at a “Muslim” school is pre-programmed to be blind to it.

سليمان الكندي

Othello & the Mental Dichotomy of Muslim intelligentsia

The following is in no way a judgement on the personal piety of any Muslim, but is simply a call to attention to the dichotomy Muslims follow, whether pious or not.

Leaving the Masjid after the 29^th Taraweeh, I passed the Imam’s son. He was telling a friend that they would be writing a test on Othello. “The Shakespeare story about the Muslim?” I asked.

I was met with blank stares as if I had asked, “Did they teach you that the moon is really made of cheese?”

Me: Did your teacher never tell you that Othello was a Muslim?

Student: No.

Me: Did you come across the word, “Moor” in the book?

Student: Yes.

Me: So did your teacher never explain how the Europeans used this word for Muslims?

Student: No.

Me: And you never asked what it means either?

Student: No.

Me: That’s amazing. The one book of Shakespeare mentioning a Muslim and that is not explained at the so-called Muslim school!

Student: But my teacher is quite geared up. She did English for 25 years at university.

Me: I don’t care if it’s a million years. They only tell you what they are programmed to do.

Student’s friend: They can only think in the box.

At last! A boy with intelligence! I hugged him and left.

The reader might fairly ask, “What’s the big deal?” The incident and Othello are not big deals, but the problem they reflect is a big deal. Here we have a situation where a “Muslim” school has an opportunity to discuss Muslims and Islam whilst still meeting the state’s syllabus requirements but the word “Muslim” is never even mentioned. What degrees are acquired in 25 years I do not know, but would one with much lesser qualifications not feel the need to explain a word which let alone appears in the book, but is actually part of the title, “Othello, the Moor of Venice.”?

The big deal is the dichotomy of Muslim intelligentsia, the separation of their religion and career into two distinct compartments. Muslims most certainly have to acquire mastery in every permissible field. The problem is that often this mastery is never used in service of Dien, but only for one’s personal career. Were Muslims to win the Nobel Prize in every field, in no way would the glory of Islam be elevated, simply because the winners would not see it as such.

There is no need for the Dichotomy the West has invented and which our Muslim youth slavishly ape. There is no reason why a university graduate cannot implement his knowledge with the outlook of a slave of Allah. Have you ever heard of a Muslim doctor, filled with awe, telling his fellow guests at a wedding how he sees the signs of his Creator in the human body? Have you ever heard of an architect advising a Muslim client on matters of Qiblah; separate entrances for females for when they’d host gatherings; or an Ibaadah room or area? Have you ever heard of a Muslim businessman channelling his investments (not charity) in such a way that the Ummah can benefit at the same time e.g. setting up a Halaal gelatine facility?

If you have, I would love to hear from you. Perhaps it just so happens that I have only heard of Muslim intelligentsia who are victims of this dichotomy, whilst the overwhelming majority whom I do not know are actually epitomes of the mantra of the past few decades, “Islam is a complete way of life,” or have coloured themselves with Islamic vision as Allah says in al-Baqarah: 138, “The colouring of Allah! Who is better in colouring than Allah! And we are His worshippers!”

One of the best examples I know of a professional coloured in Allah-vision is the chemist of Damascus. (Here chemist means an expert in chemistry, not the South African word for pharmacist). The Crusaders advanced with wooden siege towers against Akka. The Muslim defenders shot Greek Fire at the towers, but the Crusaders had devised a coating making the wood resistant to the Greek Fire. A chemist from Damascus who had settled in Akka informed Salaahudien rahimahullah that he had discovered a component which when added to the Greek Fire, would penetrate the Crusader coating. His invention proved effective. Salaahudien rahimahullah summoned him to reward him. He replied, “The only reward I desire is the pleasure of Allah.”

All I witness though, is a dichotomy so strong, that even when a reference is made to Islam in the title of a book, the teacher at a “Muslim” school is pre-programmed to be blind to it.

سليمان الكندي

Why I cannot support the 2 state proposal

This morning I was sent a link asking me to sign a petition which requests European states in particular to support the bid for a Palestinian state. My refusal to sign such a petition may make me seem to be a traitor, both on Islamic and humanitarian grounds. I therefore state for the record my views on my opposition to these petitions, the recognition bid and the "Palestinian" state as it is currently envisaged. Let me first add that I respect the sincerity of activists who genuinely believe that the 2-state proposal is a solution to the conflict and hope to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians.

So why do I not sign?

1.       For years Jews have no longer been enticed by the Zionist puppet masters to leave their birth lands and colonise Palestine. More had in fact been leaving. Throw birth rates into the scenario, and the Zionist entity realised a long time ago that Palestinians would soon reconstitute a majority. What a nightmare for them! The only solution short of an “ethnic cleansing” is to give the Palestinians their little Bantustan and keep the remaining occupied land majority Zionist. The Zionists’ pretence that they are opposed to the Bantustan is just part of their usual manoeuvrings. The Apartheid Wall was part of preparation of this. These facts are well known. I don’t have the time now for full references, but researchers can start here with an article from the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?ID=196877&R=R1

2.       Once the Palestinians have their own scrap of a Bantustan, the same policy which the South African Apartheid regime implemented can be done here as well i.e. expel the undesirables from the white land to the Bantustan. This has been announced by the Minster of Foreign Affairs, see http://www.roytov.com/articles/hamasprotests.htm . So is the 2 state proposal really as humanitarian as some would have us believe? Besides the human suffering that a new expulsion will cause (in whatever form it will take), who is going to stop the demolishment of Masaajid and Islamic features once those areas have been “vacated”?

3.       As a South African citizen I am amazed that the same people who vehemently opposed the creation of Transkei etc, cannot see the difference with the Palestinian Bantustan.

4.       Fatah is asking for less than 20% of Palestine. This automatically means recognition and legitimising the occupation of more than 80% of the sacred land. Despite what might be on paper, anyone with at least two brain cells would know that al-Masjid al-Aqsa and al-Quds proper would be included in the 80%, not the Bantustan. While the fat cat elites of Fatah might be content with this, I would hope that those who subscribe to a slightly higher moral code will not accept this.

5.        Who will rule the Bantustan? Did the liberation movements rule Venda in Apartheid South Africa? Whatever your views of Hamas may be, they won the last democratic election, freely and fairly. Do I need to continue the argument here? Think!

6.       As a Muslim,  Palestine is inexorably linked to my faith. I cannot applaud a process which will leave a quasi-Atheistic movement in charge and de-Islamise the issue in the long term.  

سليمان الكندي

Why I cannot support the 2 state proposal

This morning I was sent a link asking me to sign a petition which requests European states in particular to support the bid for a Palestinian state. My refusal to sign such a petition may make me seem to be a traitor, both on Islamic and humanitarian grounds. I therefore state for the record my views on my opposition to these petitions, the recognition bid and the "Palestinian" state as it is currently envisaged. Let me first add that I respect the sincerity of activists who genuinely believe that the 2-state proposal is a solution to the conflict and hope to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians.

So why do I not sign?

1.       For years Jews have no longer been enticed by the Zionist puppet masters to leave their birth lands and colonise Palestine. More had in fact been leaving. Throw birth rates into the scenario, and the Zionist entity realised a long time ago that Palestinians would soon reconstitute a majority. What a nightmare for them! The only solution short of an “ethnic cleansing” is to give the Palestinians their little Bantustan and keep the remaining occupied land majority Zionist. The Zionists’ pretence that they are opposed to the Bantustan is just part of their usual manoeuvrings. The Apartheid Wall was part of preparation of this. These facts are well known. I don’t have the time now for full references, but researchers can start here with an article from the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?ID=196877&R=R1

2.       Once the Palestinians have their own scrap of a Bantustan, the same policy which the South African Apartheid regime implemented can be done here as well i.e. expel the undesirables from the white land to the Bantustan. This has been announced by the Minster of Foreign Affairs, see http://www.roytov.com/articles/hamasprotests.htm . So is the 2 state proposal really as humanitarian as some would have us believe? Besides the human suffering that a new expulsion will cause (in whatever form it will take), who is going to stop the demolishment of Masaajid and Islamic features once those areas have been “vacated”?

3.       As a South African citizen I am amazed that the same people who vehemently opposed the creation of Transkei etc, cannot see the difference with the Palestinian Bantustan.

4.       Fatah is asking for less than 20% of Palestine. This automatically means recognition and legitimising the occupation of more than 80% of the sacred land. Despite what might be on paper, anyone with at least two brain cells would know that al-Masjid al-Aqsa and al-Quds proper would be included in the 80%, not the Bantustan. While the fat cat elites of Fatah might be content with this, I would hope that those who subscribe to a slightly higher moral code will not accept this.

5.        Who will rule the Bantustan? Did the liberation movements rule Venda in Apartheid South Africa? Whatever your views of Hamas may be, they won the last democratic election, freely and fairly. Do I need to continue the argument here? Think!

6.       As a Muslim,  Palestine is inexorably linked to my faith. I cannot applaud a process which will leave a quasi-Atheistic movement in charge and de-Islamise the issue in the long term.  

سليمان الكندي

Plan in motion 300 years before Balfour

I am currently reading "The Secret History of the West" by Nicholas Hagger. Whilst the writing style is very difficult to follow, and most of the book is quite frankly plain conjecture, one little gem I gained from the book is a real must-share.

It is known that Edward I expelled the Jews from England in 1290, and that they could only return after Cromwell killed King Charles I in 1649. The author however proves that the Jews, under the leadership of Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel financed Cromwell. To what purpose? World Government? Why England?

Their belief was that the scattering of the Jews should be to the "angle" or end of the earth, interpreted as "Angle-Terre" or England. From there would be their springboard to Palestine, however long it might take (3 centuries actually).

The following extract from the Rabbi's address to Cromwell is interesting in itself (quoted from Jewish website):

My second Motive is, because the opinion of many Christians and mine doe concurre herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their Native Countrey, is very neer at hand; I believing more particularly, that this restauration cannot be, before these words of Daniel, Chap. 12. ver. 7. be first accomplished, when he saith, And when the dispersion of the Holy people shall be compleated in all places, then shall all these things be compleated: signifying therewith, that before all be fulfilled, the People of God must be first dispersed into all places and Countreyes of the World. Now we know, how our Nation at the present is spread all about, and hath its seat and dwelling in the most flourishing parts of all the Kingdomes, and Countreys of the World, as well in America, as in the other three parts thereof; except onely in this considerable and mighty Island. And therefore this remains onely in my judgement, before the Messia come and restore our ration, that first we must have our seat here likewise.

My third Motive is grounded on the profit that I conceive this Common-wealth is to reap, if it shall vouchsafe to receive us;

سليمان الكندي