By Nur Adilah Ramli
Faith, I believe, is private in nature. Between you and God, there’s no intermediary. No one – except God – can tell whether we are religious. Because of that, I believe that humans do not have the authority to impose on people matters concerning religious duty.
But I believe that our religious duty is not just about believing in God as religion is also about the way of life. And in life, we are bound by rules. The same goes with religion which comes with rules.
One of the religious injunctions is to cover ‘awrah, given Islam as the case in point. I maintain my statement that religion is a private matter in that what you profess can only be known to God. However, I need to add that religion is comprehensive and so it covers all aspects of life, whether it is practised in private or in public. Because of its comprehensiveness, it is incomplete to say that religion is what we believe in per se.
In Islam, Muslims are obliged to cover their ‘awrah. This is clearly mentioned in the Qur’an. I do not wish to go far into the discussion of this particular injunction although I do have my own take on this.
I am interested in digging into the discussion regarding hijab which is believed to be a matter of personal choice. My response to this is: if that’s what you believe in, then I don’t have the right to interfere. But that’s about those who choose to not wear hijab. What about those who choose to wear hijab but are disallowed to do so? So, this will be the topic of discussion.
Referring to the motion, it is proposed that in a western liberal democracy, people should be disallowed to display their faiths in public. It needs to be reminded that this is not just about Muslims; it extends to people of other faiths as well. But as I am a Muslim, I choose to discuss this further from my perspective as a Muslim.
My first reaction to the proposal is: What a bigot!
Honestly speaking, this motion, if passed, will be the epitome of bigotry.
I am aware that Muslims are represented as terrorists given the growth of extremist groups in the name of Islam. I am also aware that Muslims are ill-received in some western liberal democracies because of the religion they subscribe to. But the question is: Will disallowing them to publicly display their faith solve the root of the problem? What is actually the root of the problem?
Disallowing Muslims (as the case in point) to display their faith in public won’t solve the problem. Worse, it only aggravates the existing situation. As it stands now, Muslims are already perceived in a negative light. I’ve heard many first-hand stories from friends about how they are being mistreated because they wear scarves or have a Muslim name.
It is indeed sad that Muslims are perceived as terrorists. But I can’t put the blame solely on those who have the impression; their belief might have been shaped by the media which expose the extremism of those who are allegedly Muslims.
Nevertheless, the view they have on Muslims must be straightened out. Muslims are not terrorists; there are terrorists among the people of our faith, but their perverted view of religion is totally not endorsed by our religion. Much have been said about this, thus I will go back to the intended discussion.
Coming back to my question on the root of the problem. The proposed motion, I believe, is a so-called alternative to protect the Muslims from possible harms due to their being Muslims. This motion thus expects Muslims in a western liberal democracy to conceal their religious identity so as not to be recognised as Muslims who are equated with the terrorists. This motion is problematic. On one hand, it seeks to protect the Muslims from threats; on the other, it suppresses Muslims from manifesting their faith.
Let’s break this down into a simple analogy. I am a Muslim living in a western liberal democracy. People who share the same faith as mine are deemed to be terrorists. In order to protect ourselves from being harmed by those who resent us for our faith, we are told to show that we are not Muslims. In that situation, is that a fair measure? Why are we required to conceal our faith when those who have the extreme view towards our religion are the root of this issue?
If we allow the passing of the motion, this will effectively deny people of their rights to practise their religion. And clearly, it will contradict the values that western liberal democracies claim to embrace. This motion, if passed, is a clear transgression of freedom of expression.
Now, talking from their side, this proposal might be of a real concern – indeed it seeks to protect people from harm. Nonetheless, it is absurd for one to think that a Muslim woman wearing a scarf is a potential suicide bomber. It is now easier to tell whether one is a terrorist: if she covers up herself, if she has a Muslim name, then she is a terrorist.
Because of that stereotype, Muslims can be protected if they dress the same as those who resent them, so to speak. Muslims may have to live under constant threats if they publicly display their faith, thus this motion serves as a solution. The end goal is to protect the people.
Also, this motion does not mean that they have to let go of their faith. They can observe the religious obligations – wearing hijab as the case in point – in private. As long as they do not show which religion they are affiliated with, they are permitted to carry out the religious duties.
I believe the issue of phobia to a certain religion can be resolved through other means, and denying people of their rights is not one. ***