Why so defensive?

Two things recently have really annoyed me. I hope you’re sitting back with a mug of tea and have nothing to do for the next ten minutes or so.

So where to begin?

Hanging up in London’s underground tube stations are posters bearing the faces of Muslim men and women who claim that they are ‘inspired by Muhammad.’
Inspired By Muhammad

The organisers of the campaign say: ‘The Inspired by Muhammad campaign is designed to improve the public understanding of Islam and Muslims. It showcases Britons demonstrating how Muhammad inspires them to contribute to society, with a focus on women’s rights, social justice and the environment.’ The campaign came about after the results of a national poll, the YouGov poll showed that

58% of people associate Islam with extremism
50% associate Islam with terrorism
69% believe that Islam encourages the repression of women
Only 6% of people associate Islam with justice
And a mere 6% believe that Islam promotes active measures to protect the environment.

Oh dear.

But I must say that with the negative media coverage Islam has been given, these results don’t particularly surprise me. If anything; they only advocate the already prevalent need for Muslims to do something to change these widespread misconceptions, which is why this campaign was initiated in the first place. However, just hours after the ‘Inspired by Muhammad’ posters went up, criticism flooded through newspapers, blogs and TV shows. BBCs ‘The Big Questions’ dedicated a whole debate on the topic ‘does Islam need better PR?’ where the response from some members of the audience was so cynical it was almost comical. One memeber of the audience, Peter Whittle, said to Kristine Backer, one of the initiators of the campaign, ‘You’re living in fairy land if you think Muhammad was an environmentalist and believer in women’s rights,’ Then he argued his point, as is always done by men of his calibre, by ‘pointing out’ that the Prophet (pbuh) was married to Aisha (RA) when she was very young and therefore cannot be an advocator of women’s rights.

click on the link below if you want to watch the debate:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwAMsQk7veI


Criticising along the same ignorant lines is Douglas Murray from the Telegraph. He began his blog post by saying:
‘This week sees the launch of a hilarious new campaign called “Inspired by Muhammad” (as we are now all expected to spell Mohammed). It claims to want to “improve the public understanding of Islam and Muslims”. It is being strongly pedalled by taxpayer-funded Muslim organisations. Which makes it another nice example of the British people being preached to and proselytised in an Islamic way, presumably at our own expense.’

Then, in the same arrogant tone he goes on to say:
‘The campaign posters show British Muslims saying things like: “I believe in protecting the environment. So did Mohammed.” Funniest of all is a woman barrister in a headscarf who fronts the poster: “I believe in women’s rights. So did Mohammed.” ‘

Clearly for Douglas Murray, the whole campaign is one big joke. Yet it’s because of men like himself that such campaigns exist!

The debate about the burqa is the second thing that’s been bothering me, it links back to issue of women’s rights brought up by the posters. Journalists who argued against the messages of the poster campaign are often the same journalists who are the keenest to argue that Muslim women are not liberated because they are ‘forced’ to cover from head to toe. The recent news coverage has been fuelling the debate on Muslim women’s dress in light of the ban in France and due to calls by a Conservative MP Philip Hollobone for a ban in the UK.

On Newsnight for example:


On the other hand, online newspapers and blog sites have been surprisingly unsupportive of the suggested UK Burqa ban, but not necessarily for the same reasons that a muslim woman wearing the burqa would have. Take the title of this article by the Guardian for example:

If Britain decides to ban the burqa I might just start wearing one.

Writer David Mitchell of this article seems to have grasped the point of the absurdity of such a ban-if women in the UK are free to wear practically nothing, then they should be free to cover up from head to toe if they choose:
“Governments and legislatures shouldn't tell people what they can and can't wear. By doing so, they would, in every sense, be taking a massive liberty. As long as people aren't wearing crotchless jeans outside primary schools or deely boppers with attached sparklers on petrol station forecourts, we've all got the right to wear exactly what the hell we like and I can barely believe that we're having this debate.”

Yet, like many of the anti- poster campaign journalists, he fails to grasp the point of the burqa, he sees it nothing short of oppressive:
“None of this means I think there's anything good about wearing a burqa. I think it's daft. I think any belief system that concludes that half the population should go around constantly covered from head to toe in black cloth, whether out of modesty, humility, tradition or stealth, has a massive flaw in it.”

Mitchell therefore argues solely on the grounds of freedom of choice in the UK, but pays no heed to the religious aspect of the burqa-or the niqab, as it should be called. This is an unsurprising fact, and considering that there are so many Muslims who fail to support sisters who choose to wear the niqab it would be totally revolutionary to find a non-Muslim journalist who does. To save this post from being any longer than it already is I’m going to skip writing about the Muslim perspective on the burqa, maybe I'll save that for another day.