Comments on: Giving civil liberties a bad name

By: Yusuf Smith

Yusuf Smith — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:19:10 +0000

I don’t think so, since Shabina Begum was not trying to draw attention to HT. It was others that pointed out that she and her family were HT - rather than a number of other groups in Islam which advocate jilbab or similar attire.

No, I don’t believe that jilbab exactly as Shabina Begum wore it is compulsory, but it is one way of fulfilling the Islamic commandments regarding female dress, which the “Islamic” school uniform was not.

By: George Carty

George Carty — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:22:20 +0000

I actually supported Lydia Playfoot until I discovered that she was the daughter of the couple that ran the enterprise in the UK. Then, it no longer appeared to be a matter of conscience but simply a publicity stunt.

Couldn’t it be similarly argued though that the Shabina Begum case was a publicity stunt for Hizb ut-Tahrir?

Incidentally, do you regard the jilbab as obligatory for Muslim women?

By: Yusuf Smith

Yusuf Smith — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:35:58 +0000

I actually supported Lydia Playfoot until I discovered that she was the daughter of the couple that ran the enterprise in the UK. Then, it no longer appeared to be a matter of conscience but simply a publicity stunt. In the case of Shabina Begum, it really was about her being able to follow her religion properly, which she could not while wearing the school’s inadequate “Islamic” uniform. She had a case; Playfoot did not.

By: George Carty

George Carty — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:47:04 +0000

Are you not applying double standards by opposing Lydia Playfoot while supporting Shabina Begum?

Especially given that a ring is much less conspicuous than a jilbab…