Home / Politics / Europe / Segregation and the Useful Idiot Paradigm
Segregation and the Useful Idiot Paradigm

Segregation and the Useful Idiot Paradigm

Also read: Liberal & Progressive Left? Not Really

Introduction

This week a report published last month by Universities UK (UUK), a union representing the nation’s Higher Education institutions, has received fresh criticisms from a new and somewhat surprising type of adversary.  They published a report advising universities on procedures pertaining to hosting events with external speakers.  It advised based upon relevant existing laws, such as the Education Act and the Equalities Act, including a case study of religious societies providing voluntary specific seating for male and female attendees, advising particularly on how equality and free speech obligations interact in banning speakers. The seemingly harmless report did the usual rounds to universities without much comment, until it was suddenly picked up by the media this week, with a surprising twist to it.  UUK and indeed universities in general have received attacks that they are sponsoring “gender apartheid”, “sexism” and “discrimination”, among a plethora of equally ridiculous and sensationalist terms, for merely stating the law on religious societies’ rights to voluntary seating plans.  While we are used to this wilful mis-framing of debates around allowing Muslims the freedom to practice aspects of their faith by the usual right-wing suspects, they seem to have recruited an army of what can only be described as “Useful Idiots”, to coin a phrase.  These new pawns seem to have a much more extensive reach into the mainstream media and politics, with the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky News, among others, openly promoting the mis-framed narrative of the debate, that instead of a harmless symbol of Islam in public, Islamic seating plans are actually due to a secret 1,400-year-old conspiracy against women.

Useful Idiots

Many are aware that the Islamophobia machine is geared towards shifting Britain from its more traditional liberalism and tolerance—under which minorities have flourished and become part of the fabric of society—to a ‘muscular liberalism’, intolerant to anything other than its own self-presuming set of universals.  By any other name it is a step in the direction of fascism, but it is gaining momentum in mainstream society.  Working hard on the ground, one of the islamophobia industry’s finest mercenaries, Student Rights, have been able to promote their ‘otherisation’ of Islam and Muslims through pulling the wool over the eyes of atheist, LGBT and now feminist and liberal student societies, convincing them that the Muslim students on campus seek to undermine all that they stand for, their growing autonomy posing a threat to them all.  In case we forgot, Student Rights is a pressure group without members, run by people—not students—with links to the Henry Jackson Society, a well-known right wing think tank with well-known right wing anti-Muslim individuals.  Doing little more than intellectualising hate, they do know how to get media coverage, and their list of Useful Idiots is growing.

Useful Idiots differ in their gullibility.  For some, the mere coincidence of the word ‘segregation’ is sufficient for them to envisage the Jim Crow laws and take to the streets and internet forums in protest.  For the slightly more astute, throw a few sensationalist terms like ‘apartheid’ (shamelessly especially in the run up to Nelson Mandela’s funeral) and ‘sexism’ and they will happily offer their services, foolishly thinking themselves as the new suffragettes [1].  For those too clever to fall for those heart string-tugs, a generous dose of slippery-slope fallacies leading to threats like “holocaust” and “gay discrimination” might just do the job (as tabloid radio LBC presenter, James O’Brien, yesterday showed us).  Unfortunately, many of those responsible for researching and reporting news in mainstream media have fallen into the trap and started attacking UUK’s “support of extremists” and “religious zealots” on grounds of the fallacious rhetoric that they have been fed.  So what are some of the fallacies of this mis-framed debate?

Mis-framing.

One of the most absurd—yet astoundingly still promulgated—fallacies is that segregation equals discrimination.  This is despite the initial report clearly outlining the simple fact that they are referring to a scenario where each gender was treated exactly the same—one would not have an advantage over the other.  Not only that, but Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of UUK, has repeatedly re-enforced this point, in the face of many a rude and obnoxious (Useful Idiot) interviewer [2].  That people wilfully turn this into an issue of women’s rights or sexism is absolutely bamboozling.  In an amusing exchange between Dandridge and a BBC news interviewer, she interrupted his monologue about the superior liberal way of university life allowing women to “sit wherever the heck they want”—“We are allowing women to “sit wherever the heck” they want, you’re the one who is saying they can’t!”  This fleeting clarification that those who seek to ban the provision of voluntary separate seating are in fact dictating where women should sit, was unfortunately drowned out and probably forgotten when the interviewer moved on swiftly to a different fallacious line of attack, one of perhaps only two clarifications which exists in mainstream media at the moment.  The other example is IERA’s Saleem Chaghtai on Channel 4 News, in response to another obnoxious interviewer preposterously asking, what gives Muslims “the right to bring this Medieval religious view into universities that are based on logic and learning?” Chagtai said that providing optional separate seating “is probably the most liberal and progressive piece of legislation that is enshrined in the Equalities Act 2010, where we have to provide for those people, they call it ‘providing access’—” only to be cut off mid-sentence for images of protestors waving anti “gender apartheid” placards.  Thank you, Channel 4.

Despite these pleas to rational and logical thinking, some people still cling on to this emotionally-charged false narrative, as though whatever anyone says—including women—this must be a matter of discrimination.  It just must be.  Don’t ask for proof or logic, it just… well, must be.

The Labour party’s resident Mufti, Jack Straw (of all people) interviewed by the BBC yesterday morning said “remarkably few devout Muslims take the view that men and women should be segregated at meetings,” and when told by the interviewer that this is allowed under English law, he responded: “I’d like to see that interpretation of the law tested in our highest courts… By permitting gatherings where men and women are separated, they [universities] are endorsing such a decision by these minority religious zealots [emphasis added].  The courts would say, “Well hang on, wait a minute, a basic human right is that men and women are treated equally and this is not equal”.”  I admit, listening to this, I did have to rewind the podcast a few times; he really did say that.  But why is a politician who is not running for re-election pushing this mis-framed narrative and turning a matter where men and women are treated the same into a breach of equality?  Furthermore, since—as the report clearly emphasises as did Nicola Dandridge—there is no discrimination here since men and women would be “segregated exactly the same”, why are people automatically referring to women being oppressed here?  This almost-Freudian latent misogyny in some people’s minds prevents them from realising it should equally be men being oppressed here too, since they are also being segregated.  As the BBC interviewer morosely attacked Dandridge, “You are more concerned about the free speech of someone who doesn’t like women and wants them to be put in a separate place in the room than you are about the rights of a woman to sit where she wants to.”  It seems the thought of the weak and frail woman, unable to make her own decisions as to where to sit, is a difficult picture to get out of some people’s heads.

Another usual suspect has also been kindly invited by Channel 4 News to air her vitriol against Muslims: Yasmin Alibhai Brown.  I am unsure whether she falls into the category of Useful Idiot, or Malicious Agent of Hate.  There’s something about her ridiculous outbursts against those she disagrees with that suggests a deluded sincerity, although if she was truly sincere in wanting to help women she probably wouldn’t be silencing their voices on where they wish to sit, let alone what they choose to wear [3].  Her mis-framing of this debate widened the scope of hate to turn this into an “Islamist” phenomenon (there’s that lovely new word, again), calling separate seating a “Saudi” import.  Perhaps someone should inform the poor soul that Islamic gender separation predates the existence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by over 1,300 years.  She and others at a pitifully low-turnout protest against UUK (which, all credit to them, managed to earn prime time news reports on Channel 4, BBC and Sky News, at least), also tried to splash in a bit of “appeasing extremists” and “foreign students” into the cauldron containing UUK’s secret motives for publishing the report.

Reframing

So where do we go from here?  Well, reframing the debate would be a good start.  UUK has thankfully defended the report, and attempted to highlight blatant fallacies spread against it to fire up the ignorant and the foolish, maybe with the hope of de-radicalising one Useful Idiot at a time.  Nicola Dandridge clarified in her BBC radio interview, that elements of gender segregation are “not alien to our culture” with of course separate gender facilities ranging from entire institutions to toilets being normal and completely acceptable in society.  I would clarify: that is, when non-Muslims provide them.  Funnily enough, rhetoric like “gender apartheid” doesn’t seem to apply to them, it’s a courtesy that seemingly only Muslims enjoy, when they provide separate facilities for men and women.  It’s a shame that Channel 4 and BBC et al. not only did nothing to reframe the debate, but continued to dig themselves deeper and deeper into the rhetoric to further mis-frame it (whatever sells, ey?).  Channel 4 even shamelessly quoted Student Rights’ lies about “enforced segregation” at a debate organised by IERA.  Only they failed to air Saleem Chagtai’s clarification that it was not enforced (they have recorded video evidence), but the hullabaloo was due to an atheist attendee who got up from his (unsegregated) seat next to his friends, and insisted on sitting within a group of Muslim sisters who chose to sit together (separately from men); they complained to the IERA stewards, who then asked him to leave them alone, and the rest is his-story.  Of course, Channel 4 forgot to include that clarification in the final broadcast since they probably ran out of time after spending two and a half minutes on the false accusation of enforced segregation in the first place [4].  Libel, anyone?

Another point to make when reframing the debate, is that the UUK report does not highlight new measures to give Muslims more power, or change anything at all; the report merely describes what the law is and how it applies to universities at the moment.  Despite this, they have been attacked as someone going against the status quo.  Two obnoxious examples of this are in Dandridge’s BBC interviewer and the infamous Alibhai Brown.  The former rounded off his interview with a melodramatic, “We believe in the canon of liberal values in universities that has led us to this point in our civilisation in our life, and if people believe differently then they can go and hold their lectures somewhere else!” Alibhai Brown’s offering was a seemingly uncontrolled outburst at Omar Ali, president of the federation of students’ Islamic societies (FOSIS), representing over 100,000 Muslim students across the country, whom she commanded to “go and make [their] own universities, why do [they] want to take over ours?!”  Examples all over the internet are replete, of people mis-framing this into an issue of Muslims taking over or wanting to impose something when, the facts are as clear as day that, this is a simple matter of what is already enshrined in legislation.  If people like Alibhai Brown don’t like it, they can go and open their own universities, we’re fine with ours, thanks.

Conclusion

Between writing and publishing this article, the Prime Minister David Cameron, in a tyrannical move unprecedented even from him, has put pressure on UUK to overturn their advice to universities regarding allowing voluntary segregation [5].  A spokesperson for 10 Downing Street made it clear that “Mr Cameron wanted a ban on gender-segregated audiences on campus even where men and women voluntarily separate themselves [Emphasis added].”  The Islamophobia industry is no doubt celebrating a victory in its list of Useful Idiots penetrating 10 Downing Street and the Ministry of Truth itself.  The industry transcends party-politics, embracing the opposition cabinet in the form of Shadow Business Secretary and MP for Streatham, Chuka Umunna [6].  Nicola Dandridge seems to have been put between the rock of integrity and truth, and the hard place of Useful Idiot intimidation.  She has enlisted the help of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review the report, although sadly stating that, “Meanwhile the case study which triggered this debate has been withdrawn pending this review.”

I would like to thank UUK for their resilience and standing by logic in the face of such intimidation, and I recommend other Muslims and non-Muslims to do similar.  We call upon Muslims and the tolerant side of wider society that still upholds the traditional values of Britain, to work hard to reshape and reframe this hijacked debate, and highlight the sad fact that the Prime Minister of 21st century Britain has the audacity to openly call for a ban on voluntary (yes, voluntary!) separate seating arrangements provided by Muslims.  We are confident that those in the legal profession can rely on their training in logic, rationale and rising above emotionally and politically-charged rhetoric.  They will, if Allah wills, treat this debate with the nuance, subtlety and intelligence it requires which, I am ashamed to say, the majority of the mainstream media and the Establishment has failed miserably to exhibit.  I look forward to the day when Muslims can practice Islam freely again, and their practices are given fair exposure, which Islam thrives upon.  Trying to stifle intellectual discourse with rhetoric and banning of free speech only proves that the enemies of Islam are unable to challenge Islam and Muslims on a level playing field.

I cannot help myself but to indulge in one last irony.  Those that are—intentionally or otherwise—protesting against Islam and Muslims, wave banners against apartheid, sexism and discrimination.  Their belief that these things are indeed evil, is due to their incidental existence in this point in history when, thankfully, the non-Muslim world has, through a long process of trial and error, come to generally view these as morally bad, due to social pressure and public opinion.  The Islam that they covertly or overtly attack, however, has consistently held these as vices since its inception, a millennium and a half ago.  The fact that some people are protesting against Islamic practices now due to the social pressure around them moulding their morality, makes me wish I could take them back in time, to 1920s’ UK, 1950s’ USA and 1970s’ South Africa, where social pressure—and therefore their moral values—would be in favour of sexual and racial discrimination and apartheid.  Those standing in opposition to those vices in fact would be the Muslims holding on to their consistent and unchanging values, that do not blow in the wind of public opinion.

Source; www.islam21c.com

[1] http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/12/11/we-ll-fight-them-like-the-suffragettes-protesters-target-uni] [2] Dandridge made the Islamophobe hit-list earlier this year when she appeared at an event in the House of Lords in support of Muslim students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWTfgYPWnoc&feature=c4-overview&list=UUnEUEhhP6IEDQj2eCW7tNrQ

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/afroze-zaidijivraj/niqab-ban_b_3932104.html

[4] http://www.channel4.com/news/universities-uk-uuk-gender-segregation-demo-protest

[5] http://news.sky.com/story/1181915/cameron-no-to-university-segregation

[6] http://news.sky.com/story/1181915/cameron-no-to-university-segregation

DISCLAIMER: All material found on Islam21c.com is for information purposes only. The views expressed on this site or on any linked sites do not necessarily represent those of MRDF & Islam21c.


 

About Dr Salman Butt

Salman studied Biochemistry at Imperial College London followed by a PhD in Chemical Biology, carrying out research into photosynthesis. During his years at university he became involved in Islamic society da'wah and activism, and general Muslim community projects. He is a Chief Editor and regular contributor at Islam21c.

14 comments

  1. When gender Segregation is practiced by Jews they’re called Orthodox Jews. When its by Muslim they’re extremist. I was disappointed that not a single Muslim was able to explain gender segregation eloquently on LBC ( James O’Brien’s show). The sad reality is that back a few years ago in ISOCS this was a complete non issue. I guess we are beginning to see the early stages of a modern day enforced form of liberalism, who knows what will be next in their agenda, maybe the beard? May Allah grant us steadfastness and allow the truth to be victorious.

    A recent report by Student Rights found that over a quarter of visits by Islamic speakers to British universities resulted in segregated meetings. Last week the controversy over gender segregation prompted the Prime Minister to intervene.

    Mr Cameron said: ‘I’m absolutely clear that there should not be segregated audiences for visiting speakers to universities in Britain. That is not the right approach, the guidance should say that universities should not allow this.’ I think David Cameron has failed to do his homework. He is trying to make capital out of a problem that isn’t there. I don’t agree that Muslims are “calling the shots” at British universities but lets not forget that we still separate males and females throughout their school life… so we’re not a completely “integrated” society are we? This isn’t about equal society or discrimination! Whoever said that? Mosques are segregated too! And so are some Muslim weddings..it’s just how it is, nothing to undermine females in any way. Honestly this is blown way out of proportion, it’s actually funny

    The Prime Minister David Cameron, in a tyrannical move unprecedented even from him, has put pressure on UUK to overturn their advice to universities regarding allowing voluntary segregation [5]. A spokesperson for 10 Downing Street made it clear that “Mr Cameron wanted a ban on gender-segregated audiences on campus even where men and women voluntarily separate themselves [Emphasis added].” The Islamophobia industry is no doubt celebrating a victory in its list of Useful Idiots penetrating 10 Downing Street and the Ministry of Truth itself. The industry transcends party-politics, embracing the opposition cabinet in the form of Shadow Business Secretary and MP for Streatham, Chukka Umunna [6]. Nicola Dandridge seems to have been put between the rock of integrity and truth, and the hard place of Useful Idiot intimidation. She has enlisted the help of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review the report, although sadly stating that, “Meanwhile the case study which triggered this debate has been withdrawn pending this review.”

    Isn’t it time David Cameron stopped making comments without thinking and without proper consultation? He already made a mistake in commenting on the Nigella Lawson court case in which he was censured by the Judge for speaking about an ongoing case. Who has he has consulted with regards to this matter? Wouldn’t it be wise for him to do the fair thing and consult with Orthodox Muslim leaders and seek to understand our position. If he wanted to consult on an issue to do with the Orthodox Jewish community we would hope that he wouldn’t consult ‘ham and cheese eating’ Jewish people. Similarly, on matters to do with Muslim Orthodoxy and normative religious practices, ‘liberal’ and ex-Muslims should not be ones advisers.

    Who cares. It’s an Islamic society, doing their own thing, minding their own business. They are not trying to force everyone else to do the same, so leave them to it. if Muslims do something then its a crime but if other people do it then its okay. A person who is Muslim will get a headline which would include Muslim whereas if people from other religion do something then their faith/religion is not put into headline. Why? Btw did anyone actually care or found out that recently due to Drone strike 16 people who were going to wedding were killed? To be honest, we actually don’t care if something happens to Muslims rather we feel happy. if that drone strike was in western countries it will be in the headline for weeks and everyone would feel sorry for the innocent people. Double standard!!! Don’t judge Islam just by less then 1% of people tend to do wrong. 99% of Muslims are not evil nor is Islam. It commonly done in any Islamic talk everywhere in the world . the main purpose of doing this is that , men and women aren’t allowed to sit around together . secondly, in Islam it is almost obligatory for men to take at at least one reminder per week and implement it in their daily lives too .So that’s why they’re given the slight priority than the women in talks like this . its not about discrimination, inequality or neither sexism . please do some research before you put up some false statement to insult other religion. Ultra Orthodox Jews do the same thing..in fact in Israel they force women to walk on different sides of the road..but the media would never expose for fear of being branded Anti Semitic.

    Muslim women are able to complain if they want to. If women don’t object, the universities should mind their own business. The women aren’t “forced” to sit anywhere! If women object, to being allocated seating areas, they can refuse to comply, sitting where they want to. They cannot be ousted or removed from seats that they choose to occupy. There is much discrimination against MEN at universities, e.g. “women’s room”, tennis courts allocated purely to women (none allocated specifically for men). Special privileges provided to women (e.g. special grants, not available to men). The whole point of segregation is to allow women of class and dignity to protect their modesty, that is why they sit at the back so they are not subject to direct gaze of men, of course I do not expect many in the west understand modesty! May be we should look to Kim Kardashian or Jordon as examples of independent and proud women. If the Muslim women don’t care, why should we? Muslim woman are not usually comfortable around men, and choose to sit separately. I knew a lot who would actually request to sit at the back when I was at uni. The men would tell me they sit at the front as women’s beauty is ‘distracting’!
    IA

  2. Interesting statistic:

    A 2006 study by The American Association of University Women indicates the following:

    62% of female college students report having been sexually harassed at their university, with 80% of the reported harassment being peer-to-peer.
    51% of male college students admit to sexually harassing someone in college, with 22% admitting to harassing someone often or occasionally.
    It is important to acknowledge that statistics do not give a complete picture of the pervasiveness of the problem as most sexual harassment situations go unreported.

    Taken from http://sapac.umich.edu/article/68

  3. Brilliantly written article. Masha’Allah tabarakata’ala – please submit to the independent, guardian et al.
    Jazakallah Khayr – you need much more public exposure to this article.

  4. Isn’t it time David Cameron stopped making comments without thinking and without proper consultation? He already made a mistake in commenting on the Nigella Lawson court case in which he was censured by the Judge for speaking about an ongoing case. Who has he has consulted with regards to this matter? Wouldn’t it be wise for him to do the fair thing and consult with Orthodox Muslim leaders and seek to understand our position. If he wanted to consult on an issue to do with the Orthodox Jewish community we would hope that he wouldn’t consult ‘ham and cheese eating’ Jewish people. Similarly, on matters to do with Muslim Orthodoxy and normative religious practices, ‘liberal’ and ex-Muslims should not be ones advisers.

  5. To clarify: we MUST go back to learning our dheen and examining our relationship with Allaah and each other, and our character, so we can change ourselves. In these times we need to learn Arabic to understand our dheen without falling to blind following; take the best examples like our Prophets, the four early generations, and the Waliullaahs up to now on how to conduct our affairs in a way that properly shows that Islam is all about peace, equality, psychospiritual and psychosocial protection; and watch the likes of the Shaykh on YouTube and not have our head in the sand so we become sitting ducks and useful idiots for the ignorant and the enemies of humanity to target us. May God help and protect us, ameen. I could go on but I have no time right now.

  6. This has got to be among the most comprehensive, insightful and witty pieces of them all!

  7. Nearly two thirds of women have had a male work colleague behave “inappropriately” towards them, new research reveals.

    And of the 60% who said they had experienced this behaviour in the workplace, 21% classed it as persistent.
    When it came to inappropriate comments and touching, more than half the offenders were more senior members of staff, and two thirds of women said the inappropriate behaviour came from a married man.
    But despite saying the behaviour of their colleagues was often degrading and embarrassing, only 27% reported the behaviour to someone senior.
    The research, which was commissioned by employment law specialists Slater & Gordon and polled 1,579 people, also found almost 40% of men surveyed said they had been victims of sexual harassment.
    Claire Dawson, an employment lawyer with the firm, said: “We deal with some really shocking cases of sexual harassment in the workplace, but it’s always surprising to hear how widespread the issue is and how many women don’t feel like they can report behaviour like this.”
    More than a third of women surveyed said a senior male colleague had made inappropriate comments about their breasts, sex life, backside, or the clothes they were wearing.
    One in six women had been forced to fend off a colleague who tried to kiss them and 12% had a colleague place his hand on her behind.
    Of the 24% of women who had a superior make a move on them, 5% then lost their job, and more than one in 10 said they had been turned down for a promotion.
    The most common places for women to experience inappropriate behaviour were at their desk while they were working late, at an office party or in a staff corridor or lift.
    The law firm says the legal definition of sexual harassment is if a person’s dignity has been violated or a perpetrator has created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
    The survey found that one quarter said they did not think people commenting on their body parts was sexual harassment, one third did not think someone viewing pornography near them was sexual harassment and more than half did not think inappropriate comments about their partner from a colleague or discussions about their sex life was harassment.
    Speaking on Sky News, entrepreneur Katie Hopkins cast doubt on some of the harassment claims. She said: “We have to question these people who make these complaints.
    “If you can see down the blouse, don’t wear the blouse.”
    Shadow women and equalities minister Gloria De Piero said: “This research shows just how far we still have to travel on women’s equality.
    “We should be doing more to empower women to challenge this behaviour and come forward and report it to their employer.”

    LEADING TO:
    -Loss of jobs
    -Abscenteism
    -Litigations and court cases
    -Loss of productivity/distraction
    -Psychological: anxiety, depression and suicidal ideas
    -Great economic loss
    -Adultery
    -Affairs
    -Stalking
    -Crimes
    -Plus a lot of sins
    IA
    http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

  8. May Allaah reward you for this post.

    Also, another point is that, these ‘events’ which they seem to have a problem with, are part of our worship. As Muslims, we are to be ‘separated’ (The word ‘Segregated’ naturally brings negative connotations to the minds of the average person) when we do worship. Likewise, our events are an act of worship, so to go in line with our beliefs and worship, we require separation.

    Is that a good argument to use when giving da’wah?

  9. Makes me wonder how the Nazi war machine operated and managed to commit their atrocities… I’m sure that the target communities must have had their share of useful idiots helping the propaganda machine at that time.  They say that lessons from history should have been learnt but the tyrants with their elite corporate masters are taking inspiration from history for more atrocities in their agenda for world domination.  The Muslims are the ultimate targets as Islam challenges their agendas and we need to wake up to the reality, try to reform ourselves and try to minimize the effects of what will be written for us in major prophecy by not loving this world so much and turning back to our dheen; just look how worse off Muslims are in other “democracies” and how we could be next!  WE’RE ASLEEP!  Shaykh Imraan Hussayn has a channel on YouTube to perhaps help wake us up

  10. Sorry I am not sure what is meant by the first line in my response which says ‘ comment is awaiting moderation’ nor am I sure of the method through which I can carr y out an amendment, so free to amend if you consider it to be appropriate. However, I did want to ask why the Commission for Equality and Human Rights has remained silent and has not acted in order to clarify the existing law, which one would have exoected them to have done by now. Their media normally issues statements to press on such issues.

  11. Have been feeling emotions ranging between astonishment, bemusement, anger and being horrified at the fact that so many people have blindly been taken in by the so called ‘ liberal upholders of equality’ , faiing to recognise that their actions are those of bigots who wish to marginalise and demonise muslims. May Allah subhanallah wa’ ta’allah protact his ummah against these plots and may muslims stand united with all of thise who do actually sincerely believe in promoting equality of opportunity, for all members of society, which must include muslims.
    Whilst the attacks of those against Islam is clear to muslims, how can we get this across to others who appear to be so easily gullible, when as your article makes clear, the media do not intend to allow a voice to anyone who might wish to engage in a rational discussion. Can we all take action to lobby our parliamentary representatives and educate them about the equality law as it stands.

  12. Beautifully written article on a hotly debated topic. The sad reality is that back a few years ago in ISOCS this was a complete non issue. I guess we are beginning to see the early stages of a modern day enforced form of liberalism, who knows what will be next in their agenda, maybe the beard? May Allah grant us steadfastness and allow the truth to be victorious.

  13. Safiya ibrahim

    When gender Segregation is practiced by Jews they’re calld Orthodox Jews. When its by muslim they’re extremist. I was disappointed that not a single muslim was able to explain gender segregation eloquently on LBC ( James o’briens show).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 
Scroll To Top