THE recent decision by a British Appeals Court in Luton to grant a Muslim girl permission to wear a jilbab to the school where she is no longer a student has made a mockery of the British judicial system. It’s an ideal example of how cowardly religious fanatics hide behind the veil of religion and use scapegoats to promote their preposterous agendas. Unlike its European neighbor, France, Britain is tolerant of all religions in its state schools; people are allowed to practice their religion and wear Muslim hijab, Jewish skullcaps and Sikh turbans in state schools.
One day in September 2002, Shabina Begum, a 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl who had been wearing a shalwar kameez (trousers and a long-sleeved knee-length overshirt), went to school wearing a jilbab. Accompanied by her brother, they both declared that Shabina would wear a jilbab to school and that there would be no compromise. Shabina said the shalwar kameez did not comply with Islamic requirements since it did not properly conceal her arms and legs.
The school gave Shabina an ultimatum: Go home and change or don’t come back. Unfortunately she chose the latter option and put aside her dreams of becoming a doctor; for two whole years she sat at home in protest.
In September 2004 she was accepted at another school which agreed to let her wear a jilbab. Nonetheless, she still pursued her case against her former school. At her old school, Denbigh High School, 79 percent of the pupils are Muslims and the business of uniforms is taken very seriously. The head teacher, Yasmin Devav, herself a Muslim, had the challenging task of insuring the amicable coexistence of religion and education.
The rules that Shabina feels were so unfair were in fact made by Muslims, for Muslims and with the knowledge and consent of Muslims. Parents, staff, students and local mosques were all consulted in making the school’s dress policy. The school’s governing body, of which four of the six members are Muslims, were unanimous in their support of the policy. Girls were given the option of wearing trousers, skirts or shalwar kameez.
The jilbab was banned because of the possibility that because of its length, the girls might trip on it. In addition, a balance was maintained so that girls wearing jilbabs would not feel themselves superior to girls who chose not to wear it.
It is patently obvious that the school was not persecuting Muslims and that the rules were there for the students’ benefit.
The school which was extremely upset at the picture Shabina was painting of it consulted several authoritative bodies: The Islamic Cultural Center, The Muslim Council of Britain and the London Central Mosque Trust. All confirmed that the dress code prescribed by the school was according to the tenets and teachings of Islam.
The London Central Mosque Trust said: “The committee decided that the shalwar kameez of the design illustrated as part of the school uniform policy, satisfied all the requirements of the Islamic dress code. Whilst accepting that the jilbab such as (Shabina Begum) wishes to wear constitutes proper Islamic dress for adult Muslim women in a public place, the evidence presented to the committee does not suggest that it is the only form of dress that meets these requirements.”
The point is absolutely clear — there is no “perfect” religious attire. As times change, so will clothing. According to her brother, the shalwar kameez is a form of dress worn by some Muslims and it has no basis in religion.
He went further and said that the jilbab is the only true Islamic dress and as such, it should be worn by all Muslim women. The shalwar kameez, it is true, has no basis in religion — but by the same token, since skirts, shirts, socks, gloves, hats, ties, pants and sneakers are not mentioned in the Qur’an, are they all also “haram” (prohibited)? There are certain guidelines set out by Islam, such as not wearing tight or revealing garments. All of the scholars consulted said that if one abides by the Islamic rules, any type of clothing is acceptable. Even if it isn’t mentioned in the Qur’an.
Young people looking for “the light” are often misguided by self-styled religious scholars. Can we blame this 16-year-old orphan for her actions? Is she responsible for taking such a big decision and staying home for two years? Was she financially well off enough to bear the costs of lengthy court battles? What did she gain from winning a court battle against a school she no longer went to nor has any intention of returning to?
Perhaps the religious group, Hizb-ul-Tahrir, banned in many countries due to its supposed terrorist links, which backed her, would like to answer these questions. As Muslims it is our duty to help those in need. In this case, those who should have spoken out and condemned Hizb-ul-Tahrir for its apparent brainwashing of Shabina remained quiet.
Shabina said her victory would bring hope to millions of Muslim women around the world. I would argue quite the opposite and say it is a defeat for all Muslims, males and females. Women will now feel themselves under pressure to become “better” Muslims and wear the jilbab. We have once again let ourselves become the pawns of fanatical Islamists who do nothing but hurt the Islamic cause and damage the religion.
This “victory” has given people such as Shabina more courage and more self-confidence; they may feel that even if all the odds are against them, they can still win. The hostility and distrust of Muslims is growing stronger, due largely to silence on the part of influential Muslim scholars. When will we Muslims wake up and condemn those who have hijacked our religion while we have the chance?
