By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam
08 April 2019
The deadly attack which left around fifty
Muslims dead in New Zealand was correctly called a terror attack by its
premier. Intended, with precision to strike terror within the immigrant
population, the target this time were Muslims but it could have been any other
group making up the emerging multicultural mosaic of New Zealand society.
Amidst the widespread condemnation of the barbaric event, we saw the Prime
Minister don the Islamic veil as a show of solidarity with Muslims. Not just
the prime minister, but prime time news anchors did the same as did many others
who came to show solidarity to Muslims at the first Friday prayer after the
attack. However, certain things within these series of events need to be called
out. In doing so, one is not arguing that empathy should not be shown to
victims of terror attacks but then the symbols that one chooses should not end
up misrecognizing the problem.
First Things First: There was certainly an attempt by sections of informed Islamists
to use the attack to parade Muslims as the victims of Islamophobia. This is not
to deny the existence of Islamophobia in much of the western world today but
then we should also not forget that this word has become abused to such an
extent that even genuine criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour is labelled
Islamophobic. Thus if one of critical of Islamists’ attempt to enforce gender
segregation, then one is conveniently labelled an Islamophobe. This is sinister
politics, the object of which is to silence any critique of criticism of
Islamists themselves. Post New Zealand, this has found new traction and will
most certainly be used no just to curb genuine disapproval of Islamist politics
but more importantly will be used to stamp out dissenting voices within Muslim
society itself.
Secondly, the choice of the veil as a
signifier of Muslim society also needs to be called out. May be the prime
minster was genuinely interested in showing empathy with Muslims, but then why
chose the veil to do that? The choice of the veil gave legitimacy to the
Islamist claim that the veil is an essential element of Muslim religion and
tradition and that one cannot be a Muslim without either donning the veil or
respecting it. The problem with this understanding is that in large parts of
Muslim society, the veil is considered a symbol of oppression by Muslim women
and increasingly by organised group of men as well. In Iran and elsewhere,
Muslim women are currently challenging the patriarchy enforced veil as the
prime symbol of their subordination.
Jacinda Ardern, being a politician on the
left, should have been aware of such struggles within the Muslim world. By
privileging the veil, she has thrown her weight behind Islamists and
traditionalists who think that Muslim society will collapse without the veil
being enforced. She has belittled the myriad contributions that Muslim women are
making to change the status quo within their respective societies. In short,
she has let down the progressive politics within Muslim societies. One is
tempted to ask if there was no better way to show solidarity with Muslims? Why
is that if she went without the veil, she would become any less empathetic to
Muslim suffering?
It must be understood that the veil is not
an Islamic requirement according to the Quran. It is first and foremost a
political symbol which was first enforced post the Iranian revolution.
Following this, the veil was adopted as part of the Sunni Wahhabi ideological
drive to extend their hegemony within the Islamic world, mostly funded by petro
dollars. The Islamist veil, far from representing Muslim piety, is actually an
expression of political Islam. What is worse is that in Jacinda Ardern, we have
a woman who is helping in the normalization of patriarchy within Muslim
societies. She must have scored brownie points with the Arab Salafists and
conservative Iranians, but has utterly failed her Muslim sisters who are
engaged in a daily struggle against patriarchal oppression by resisting the
veil. She has utterly failed someone like Nasrin Sotoudeh, the brilliant
Iranian lawyer who was condemned to 38 years in prison and 148 whip lashes for
defending those women who refused to wear the veil.
The veil is not a trivial issue. While it
may be a ‘choice’ for a privileged few in the west, for the vast majority of
Muslims, it is forced and therefore a garment of subjugation. It is being
increasingly felt that the left in the west has been more than willing to
accommodate the regressive version of Islam in the name of protecting minority
rights. Such an understanding can be counter-productive in the long run. If the
left starts defending Islamist practices such as the veil and sex segregation
in schools, then it is actually making space for the right wing anti-Muslim
agenda in their own societies. By being soft on homophobia which is rampant
within Muslim societies and which has theological justification, the left is
only digging its own grave as in the long run, voices which are critical of
such regressive tendencies within their societies will have no option but to
articulate their resentment through a right wing platform.
However, it seems that the left is
committed not to learn any lessons. In the name of protection of minority
rights, it is currently engaged in ‘outlawing’ Islamophobia in countries such
as Canada. Notwithstanding what is meant by such a nebulous term like
Islamophobia, one thing is clear that it will have a negative bearing on the
voices of dissent and reform within Muslim societies. In the name of protecting
Muslims, the left will end up advocating the causes and concerns of those
Muslims who actually have been responsible for the mess that Muslim societies
find themselves into.
Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com
10:53 AM
Moderate Islamist here
0 comments:
Post a Comment