These ladies could attend the Citizenship Ceremony...
Source: Emc –
More than a decade after 9/11, there is still much we do not know about our Muslim brothers and sisters.
Rather than using the tragedy of that September day as a stepping stone towards greater understanding, it seems to have only hardened some people, and pushed the wall that little bit higher.
We still have a lot to learn – about each other.
There are any number of places where we can begin to underscore the seeming rift between Muslims and other Canadians and other western countries. Burka bans in France, proposed minaret bans in Switzerland, the Danish cartoon controversy, abuses by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Lowes hardware store’s decision to pull its advertising from the reality show American Muslim. The list goes on.
That is why, this past Saturday in Perth, members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association (AMYA) set up shop at the local library for an open house to let people know what their faith is really about.
People are surprised to find, for example, that the Virgin Mary has her very own chapter in the Holy Koran, and that Jesus is mentioned more by name in the Koran than the Prophet Mohammad.
The young men reported that they were pleased with the curiosity of their fellow Canadians about their faith, and the respect with which they approached the meetings.
But they were also frustrated with the lack of understanding some people have about concepts like jihad and suicide bombings, that that is not the real Islam, and that people so often take Koran quotes out of context.
The fear some people still have towards Islam is potent.
Earlier this month, Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney decreed that women wearing the burqua or any other item of clothing that obscured her face, would not be allowed to take part in the Canadian citizenship ceremony.
The AMYA actually expressed their support for this move, that a Muslim woman should not be afraid to lift their veil and publicly, and without reservation, announce to the world that they are now Canadian.
We approve of this move too. While Islam talks about modest dress for women, garments like the niqab and burqua are not required by their faith. They are cultural constructs. In most trials, for public documents like passport photos and driver’s licenses, and citizenship ceremonies, Muslim women can still respect their faith, modesty and dignity, with a head covering, and yet still publicly participate in the most public of Canadian documents, ceremonies and proceedings, by facing the public – literally.
Categories: Ahmadiyyat: True Islam, Americas, Canada
I don’t agree. Khulafaa have spoken many times on this that the proper purdah is to cover the face, but they can ease this for various reasons. One should not require a woman to cover her face, but on the other hand, one should not require her not to. The point is not assimilation, but forcibly enforcing your moral code on others. If a woman’s dignity and modesty compel her personal convictions to cover her face, in accordance with her understanding of her faith (and that of the Khulafaa also), then she should not have to be forced to remove it. Women should not be forced to do either, that is the point. What would be your/our reaction if the burqa/niqaab was forcibly removed from our Khalifa’s wife’s or daughter’s face? Would we not have a huge outcry at the indignity? The appeasing nature of the stance taken in this article is sad. No one should be forced to modify their behaviour, which is based on their faith, unless there is a compelling reason related to some strong reason. This stance should be re-examined in light of even our present Khalifa, not to mention previous ones, and the prophets.
Khalifahtul Masih IV’s video: Do women in Islam have to wear the Hijab?
http://islam4jesus.org/2011/12/29/khalifahtul-masih-ivs-video-do-women-in-islam-have-to-wear-the-hijab/
Assalamo Alaikum,
Please read the following Article ,it was written by our fellow ahmadi brother and I hope this should provide the answer to your comments.
There really is no reason for the recent controversy surrounding the law to unveil the face during the citizenship ceremony. A brief perusal of Islam’s teachings on this helps settle the issue. Particularly, there’s one specific incident from Prophet Muhammad’s life which bears significant relevance to the current situation. The Prophet was leaving the mosque late at night with his wife fully veiled when two adolescents passed by. Seeing the Prophet with a woman they didn’t recognize, they hurried away. The Prophet noticed and called them back, lifting his wife’s veil from her face to assure them that it was indeed her.
This clearly shows that if a Muslim woman who wears the veil is required to reveal her face temporarily for the greater good of society, then she should oblige and temporarily unveil her face. This would be entirely permissible, as demonstrated by the Prophet himself.
I have heard this, as well as many other Q/A and khutabaat on the subject. I would point out the present Khalifa’s khutba on this of 30 Jan 2004, where he even used his hand to show that the face should be covered, while also providing some exceptions. Note that even Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih IV (rh) spoke about this, and that his answers like this were being mis-used to allow free license to women, and that those who covered their faces should not “come here to the West and discard this tradition” because converts were not covering their faces. The point he made was that in which direction are they moving? Taking a step backwards would be a sign for the younger generation who will then take things further, whereas converts were taking many steps forward even if just covering their heads lightly. And, of course, the modesty of the heart is the most important thing, which again brings us back to the personal convictions of the ladies involved. This isolated incident of the Prophet (saw) was to teach a lesson, let’s not take it beyond that to give free license to any government to legislate or do what they will to restrict religious freedoms. Do you defend what’s happened in France? The point you yourself are making should be applied to this new rule of Immigration. “For the greater good of society…” What greater good is being achieved by requiring a woman, whose personal convictions tell her to cover her face, to uncover her face for a public ceremony? If there was a specific and credible immediate security threat requiring the police to be suspicious of any one person, and therefore needing to see some faces to save some lives, that’s one thing. But in general, at an occasion like this, goes beyond “an especially important interest of the government and/or society.”
We are fighting 2 jihads nowadays. One against extremism and corruption within our faith. The other is the open attack against Islam. Things like this are clearly in line with the current trend of attacking Islam. What greater good is served by a woman taking her oath with her face visible to all, as opposed to covered? The point is not whether a woman is responsible if she complies with the instruction – of course she is not. But we should not side with the government forcing a woman to do something that goes against her personal convictions.
Even U.S. law recognizes this, which I would point out is an Islamic teaching at the end of the day. 701 (j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful employment employment practice for an employer to fail to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business. Note that the burden is on the employer to show significant cause to NOT accommodate the religious practice, not upon the practicing individual. And this is for private business. When it comes to governmental matters, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that there should be some compelling reason – Justice O’Connor in one case argues a “two-pronged test” which requires the government to demonstrate that its objection to a religious practice be “of unusual importance and that granting an exemption would do substantial harm to the especially important government interest.”
When describing the “right” purdah, and that the face should be covered, the exceptions are noted by Huzoor, such as women working in fields where it is difficult for them, and other situations. Huzoor even described women not working in fields that may have difficulty breathing or something. So, we know the exceptions. And, if the government forces a woman, again she is not responsible. But the point is not defending a woman who is being forced by the government, it is agreeing with the government to do something that clearly targets her.
So once again, the point ultimately comes back to what especially important interest is there to force a woman to reveal her face at an immigration ceremony, when her personal convications tell her to cover her face? If recent moves like this do not smack of anti-Islam bias, I would suggest otherwise. Rushing to appease the government when they do something clearly targeting Muslims is not a good way to show we are law abiding citizens. We are law abiding citizens regardless, so we should rush to defend the woman who is forced by this new rule, assuring everyone that as law abiding citizens we’ll comply with the laws. However, that does not absolve us from opposing a rule that clearly does not do anything to protect the “especially important interests of the gov’t or society,” and I would argue, targets people of a particular faith because of prejudice against that faith.
While I do not endorse forcing a woman to cover her face, I don’t endorse forcing her to reveal it either, if she chooses to. Taking this one step further, this reaks of anti-Islam prejudice, which we should be against as well.