Denis MacEoin’s at it again!
It seems that every time there is a debate about the right of Muslim girls to wear headscarves to school, a guy called Denis MacEoin from Newcastle on Tyne gets his two pennies or cents in, usually in the Guardian’s or the Observer’s letters page. I made a point about this issue on my old blog, after an earlier incident where the Observer printed MacEoin’s wittering about human rights in the Muslim world.
This time, his writings are no more accurate than on previous occasions. In today’s Guardian letters page under “Dressing Down for Judge”, regarding the Shabina Begum case, he opines that a verse of the Qur’an (chapter 23, verse 59) ‘really means no more than “garments” or “outer garments”, and nowhere in the sacred text are details given for veiling etc.’. In fact, Arabic has other words which simply mean clothing. Look at any online clothing catalogue, and you will find that a jilbab is always a full-length coat or robe, sometimes worn over the head, but usually from the shoulders. There are other related words in Arabic, such as jelabba or jalabiyya, and they always mean the same thing. Is he ignorant of where Muslims find their religious laws on issues where the Qur’an itself is silent? From the Sunnah, of course. (MacEoin knows a lot more about the Baha’i religion than about Islam.)
He alleges that “modern fundamentalists are taking advantage of widespread ignorance about what constitutes proper dress for women and finding divine support where there is none”. This is a straightforward lie – any Muslim can find out what is required of a Muslim woman as regards dress by consulting a scholar of Islam, who need not be a “fundamentalist”, particularly if he means a political fundamentalist. It is part of the religion.
He then claims, “rigorous readings of texts such as these are divisive”. Rigorous, as in reading them as they are rather than by our own desires and opinions? We read them as our righteous predecessors read them. “Our school system protects moderates and helps young Muslim women understand the freedoms they may enjoy in society at large.” Nevertheless, as an earlier letter demonstrates, he approves of banning the headscarf as well, which demonstrates that the right of irreligious girls to rebel against religious families comes before the right of religious girls (and only girls – which is the irony here) to an education. While divisions in the classroom between “pious” and “non-pious” Muslims are intolerable to them, the divisions they might be causing in the community (for example, between those who back down under their pressure and those who don’t) are quite acceptable. The fact is, “moderates” to these people means irreligious or outright apostates. It is necessary for Muslims to ensure that those with contempt or enmity towards us and our religion, and who would use enticements to our women in order to tear our families and community apart, have no role in the education of our children.
