Friday, October 27

Rights Is Not A One-Way Street

I recently published the following article in The Muslim News

All of us seem to be obsessed with rights these days. Muslims too have quite rightly been demanding equal rights in British society, but this seems to be at the expense of the Islamic duty of ensuring that other Britons are at ease with us.

Everyone's favourite phrase these days begins with the words "It is my right to..." Particularly familiar sounding will be statements such as: "It is my right to offend other people". Others include: "It is my right to criticise", "It is my right to blaspheme" and even "It is my right to burn flags". We define ourselves by the rights we have. We see how far we can push the boundaries and in a mad rights-lust frenzy, we're out to secure as many rights for ourselves as we can.

Prophet Muhammed stated in the 7th century, "Surely God has a right over you, your self has a right over you and your wife has a right over you." Extrapolating from this, his great grandson Ali the son of al Husayn, wrote a document entitled The Treatise on Rights (Risalatul Huquq), as an exposition of the Islamic view of rights. Rather than starting with the rights of the individual, it starts at the opposite point of view - the rights of almost everyone you can imagine, over the individual.

Composed of only fifty paragraphs, each section is headed "The right of...", its essence being to describe the right of a person over you. For example, amongst a wife's rights is that her husband should "be a good companion" that he should "care for her" and he should "let her know that she is a comfort." One of a child's rights is that the parent should "teach good conduct". Mothers, fathers and siblings have rights, as do leaders, followers, lawyers, business partners, advisors, people you sit next to. Even someone who is kind to you has the right "that you should thank them."

In such a model - one that is conceptualised around defining the rights that other people have over you - we learn to be more measured and more compassionate. So why do we as a whole society insist on dogmatically asserting our rights (as though they were a god to be appeased), and deliberately stripping the courtesy and empathy out of our culture? Stepping back from the cartoon controversy earlier this year, I had to ask myself, as a country are we really fighting for the right to be as rude and offensive to other people as we can be? We can certainly disagree, and even do so passionately, but why the need - on all sides - to insult people?

The last few weeks have seen an increasing spotlight on the Muslim community. "Why are Muslims always in the news? All they do is demand their rights! Why can't they just get on with it?" These are common sentiments.

Making up only 3% of the population, Muslims get an awfully disproportionate amount of media coverage. Most of it is not by choice, and is at the hands of a selective media. For example, on the day that the press reported Jack Straw's comments about the veil, the police discovered the largest stash of chemicals ever found in this country, along with rocket launchers and a nuclear biological suit in the houses of two men in Lancashire. The media had determined that the veil was more frightening than two white BNP members who had a destructive 'masterplan' and the technology to carry it out.

The Muslim community split into two camps over the issue of the veil: those who cried "Discard the cloth and integrate!" and those who defended the veil as a matter of a woman's choice. Alas, the way that the debate panned out, we didn't hear the shades of grey between the two. More to the shame of the Muslim community was that we totally missed the fact that people said they felt 'uncomfortable' seeing or talking to women who wear veils. We got huffy. Why should people feel uncomfortable? If a woman wants to wear a veil, it's her choice. And indeed it is. Muslims certainly had a right to insist they would wear the veil if they chose to.

But we missed honouring a right which is as important as the right of women choosing to veil: the right of our neighbours to feel comfortable and at ease. Every right has an accompanying responsibility, and in this case the Muslim community did not step up to the mark.

As a collective society, we could and should have found a way to honour both rights. Instead we all chose to entrench our positions and only insist on what we wanted, not what others wanted. More generosity and less selfishness were called for all round.

If Muslim women want to wear a veil then Muslims must first acknowledge that veils can make people uncomfortable. This doesn't mean what people are saying is necessarily right, and it doesn't necessarily mean giving up the veil. But we have to at least recognise these feelings and assume that at least for some people this is a genuine concern. Once this is done, then we''e making progress. The next step is to find ways to alleviate this discomfort within the parameters of maintaining the dignity and principles of everyone involved.

Let's be frank though, people do complain that all Muslims do is "want, want, want". So we need to ask ourselves, why is that? Without doubt some of it lies within the hostile climate we're living in, and I wrote about this in my last piece (and boy, did I get a heated debate about it on my blog afterwards). But whether that is right or wrong, as Muslims we need to find out why this image exists. Simply using modern day rhetoric ("if they feel uncomfortable that's their problem") is not mature enough, and it isn't Muslim enough. As Muslims we need to go beyond this and bring something new to the table.

As Muslims we have a responsibility - other people have rights over us - to dispel the fear and work towards building a human connection. Muslims need to look to their own heritage within the Islamic tradition and learn about honouring the rights of others. In this case our neighbours have the right to feel safe. We can't say that the fact they are fearful is their problem, not ours. It is our problem. Most importantly, for our neighbours and for ourselves, they have the right to know Muslims for truly who we are. Not hidden, not alien, not violent, not backwards, not blinded by faith. Muslims have to see the irony and futility in the act of burning flags to prove we're not violent. Surely conversation with your neighbour over the fence about last night's football match is a better way to create a human connection and to get your message across?

On the other hand, Muslims face a huge amount of disadvantage, discrimination and prejudice. There is much work to be done to redress these imbalances. Muslims have a right to ask for these equalities which are already enjoyed by others, and they have the right to ask for the hostile media and political climate to be halted. If a Muslim asks for a right in the UK, the merit of that request must not be judged by comparison to what non-Muslims can and can't do in Muslim countries. Muslims in this country are British Muslims and cannot be held to ransom for what happens elsewhere.

Muslims must be accepted as part of "our country" and "our way" and this can only be done if everyone involved stops digging their heels in and myopically demanding only their own rights, instead of learning to honour the rights of others. We all choose to live in Britain, and we all wish to be part of building a better British community.

Labels:

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get ready for some traffic!

Hope you are well.

Graham (Harry's Place)

7:55 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I like the way you've framed the issue in the language of rights and responsibilities/duties, I'm not sure I agree. People have a right to wear whatever they want, and to order their own lives in the manner that sees fit for them: free from discrimination. I don't think that there is a concomitant obligation to explain why one has made a particular choice. Frankly, the notion that Muslims have some sort of duty to allay the fears of others is one I find objectionable. That it might be prudent or good politics to do so is quite a different matter. However, a positive obligation to defend one's way of life, or to make concessions because of the fears of others, is something which robs the choice to explain of its essential voluntary nature.

The essence of your argument, though, I agree with entirely. What worries people about the veil issue, I think, is that it symbolises - rightly in some cases, wrongly in others - a conscious withdrawal from a pluralist, multifaceted identity, and a retreat into a monocultural identity politics. Moreover, the concern is that that identity politics is one which is essentially separatist and antagonists. This is evidently not the rationale which motivates many to assume the veil, but it is for some.

A parallel issue might be the use of the Cross of St George. For some people, that is a symbol of an exclusive ethnic Englishness. For others, it is simply an affiliation to an attachment to one aspect of their identity, or a sign of support for a national football team.

In both cases, it isn't the symbol which matters. It is the thinking which accompanies it which matters.

I have seen people I know retreat into simplistic identity politics, and it is that which worries me: precisely because it signifies a choice to reject the multiple and complex attachments which bind us together.

9:18 pm  
Blogger The Pedant-General said...

Shelina,

This is a great article and a valuable contribution in what is - as you rightly say - a hostile climate for many.

One thing I would like to clarify:
"The Muslim community split into two camps over the issue of the veil: those who cried "Discard the cloth and integrate!" and those who defended the veil as a matter of a woman's choice. Alas, the way that the debate panned out, we didn't hear the shades of grey between the two. "

No politician - as far as I am aware - nor any commentator has ever suggested that, in this country, Muslim women should be denied the choice to wear the veil. If I'm wrong, a single link will suffice.

This is important, because it illustrates very clearly the extent to which many non-Muslims see self-selected Muslim spokesmen go on the defensive unnecessarily.

There IS a huge overtone that many non-Muslims suspect that the veil is not currently worn from choice and that is something that would be wrong. Defensiveness by Muslim spokesmen on this issue can very easily be construed as a tacit admission that they are closing ranks to hide their oppression of women. That construal probably is wrong, but it is easy to see how it can be taken that way.

That's my take.

PG

10:29 pm  
Blogger Unknown said...

Here! Here! As I pound on my HP desk!

11:16 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Surely conversation with your neighbour over the fence about last night's football match is a better way to create a human connection and to get your message across?"

Better still, Shelina, let your kids make friends with theirs. That's how we come together in the end.

I expect you're happy for your sons to marry their daughters. As am I.

When you're happy for your daughters to marry their sons we'll be equal. We'll all be family.

Best wishes.

1:33 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's nothing quite like a Harrylanche, eh?

12:39 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think the problem is with people living next to each other not knowing each other. Every study going shows that anyone who knows a Muslim is less Islamophobic.

Problem is that there are only so many Muslims to go around to live next to. The rest read the Daily Mail for their knowledge of Muslims.

1:17 pm  
Blogger flyingrodent said...

Call me unhinged if you will, but basic rights on the autonomy of the individual have been at the core of our society for hundreds of years. They're as British as complaining, rain and dull field sports.

Before we get the avalanche of assertions that responsibilities trump rights, can anyone tell me which rights they would want to live without? Bear in mind that the only enforcable rights in law are those laid out in the European Convention on Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

The right not to be killed, tortured or subject to forced labour? The right to a fair trial? The right to a private life?

I feel I shouldn't have to say this, but we should think long and hard before we tamper with our legal framework in response to perceived threats.

2:27 pm  
Blogger Unknown said...

I left a comment but obviously something happened to it. Anyway, your opinion is refreshing and I enjoyed your site.

6:43 pm  
Blogger PeterP said...

A lucid and thought-provoking article Shelina.

It would be good, methinks, if there were a 'European Convention on Human Responsibilities' as well as the one on Rights.

A small example from yesterday's newspapers: a jeweller had caught a conman on CCTV and wanted to post the picture in similar shops to warn people to be on the lookout for this person, only to be warned off by the Police who said that to do so might 'infringe the human rights of the thief'!

The Risalatul Huquq you refer to - thank you for that as I'd not heard of it - is this a good translation?:

http://www.hujjat-workshop.org/docs/Risalatul_Huquq.pdf

8:21 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure that's true, Osama.

But then, there are also the studies which show a majority of people in Britain have favourable opinions of Muslims; while a significant majority of British Muslims think that we are "selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1804078,00.html

Then there are the surveys showing preference for sharia, belief in conspiracy theories, and so on.

http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf

Now, that's not unique to Muslims. You'll find lots of people of all ethnicities who think odd and stupid things.

But, let's face it, Osama: your organisation is an important global and national player in the fight for a British Muslim identity. And - to put it politely - you're not helping.

8:41 pm  
Blogger flyingrodent said...

Peter Palladas, there's no injunction on publishing pictures of criminals in the HRA.

If the cops are wary of publishing pictures, that's their problem, not a failure of the system - they don't understand their basic obligations, and the answer is training.

There's nothing in ECHR or HRA or any other HR treaty that forbids publishing pictures of criminals - if they contravene the law, they forfeit their right to privacy.

I'm really pleased that this thread hasn't attracted the lunacy I would've predicted - I'll assume it's because Brits are keen on their rights.

It makes me feel better, every other thread I've ever been on that addresses human rights issues has degenerated into an ignorant debate on criminal law.

3:11 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no problem at all with muslim people. I enjoy the food and the relaxed air of Sparkbrook in Birmingham.

It helps that I don't accept the official conspiracies about 9/11, 7/7, and other false flag operations.

Who set up Al Ciadea....don't ask Robin Cook.

2:03 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting that Risalatul Huquq defines "rights" in terms of other peoples' obligations, rather than as we traditionally define them in England - as freedoms. If Islam defines rights as claims on others, it is perhaps not so surprising that Muslims sometimes irritate English people. It may also explain the weird alliance between Islamic extremism and the Hard Left. Leftists are also keen on binding people with obligations, rather than leaving them to live their way.

To us a "right to life" means a right not to be killed. There is no requirement in English Law, for example, to assist someone drowning in a lake. We have a moral obligation, but no legal one.

Your commenter who says the only rights are those given by law, is speaking from the European legal tradition, not the English. In our tradition we have an absolute right to do anything we are not expressly forbidden to do. Therefore, to us new laws - by definition - reduce rights.

We cannot be "given" a right by the State. We already had it. The State can, however, take rights. New Labour has been doing so at the rate of one per day by criminalising previously legal activities.

Interestingly, the conflict in this discussion may be no more acute between Muslim and English ways of thinking that it is between English and European/Socialist ways. That's particularly ironic given Muslims' misogynistic and homophobic social attitudes.

The existence of all these ways of looking at rights, responsibilities and laws need not necessarily lead to conflict, as long as we make an effort to understand each others' approach.

It seems to me that Muslim thinking on rights is fair enough as a set of voluntary religious duties, but entirely incompatible with our views on law. The lack of any concept in Islamic thought of the separation of religious and civil law is obviously a major obstacle in that respect.

4:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alhamdulilah! I agree with too many people's obsession with rights, and too little with obligations...Keep it up!

9:55 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PG says

"No politician - as far as I am aware - nor any commentator has ever suggested that, in this country, Muslim women should be denied the choice to wear the veil. If I'm wrong, a single link will suffice."

well here it is. Politicians started it, and bigots helpfully tipped the fragile balance.

10:09 am  
Blogger PeterP said...

In reply to fly:

I wish it were the case that criminals' "human rights" should not be used as a mechanism for allowing them to roam free and commit more crime.

Sadly, as you can read here [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2174107,00.html] a decision that an imposed full life tariff on Anthony Rice, a convicted violent rapist, had to be rescinded because of his 'human rights' directly led to the death of an innocent woman.

This was not one of those sad cases where parole boards simply got it wrong in making a risk assessment, it was a matter of the HRA being used as a tool to influence their decision.

Personal liberty and freedom is vital to a healthy society, but so too is the exercise of individual and collective responsibility. Rights for one have no meaning unless they are rights for all.

11:20 am  
Blogger The Pedant-General said...

Anon:

"Education leaders yesterday confirmed "

"leaders"? Is that it? Who or what are they? Councillors? LEA officials? Would you consider the head of the MCB to be a politician? He is routinely described as a "Muslim leader" but he is not a politician by any stretch of the imagination.

Whilst I don't doubt for a moment that bigots "helpfully" tipped the fragile balance, I don't think it is fair to describe the major politicians who have given a view on this as having "started" anything.

In any event, you have quoted an article that was published on 24th October. That postdates - by a very substantial margin - the comments that form the substance of my original comment:

"This is important, because it illustrates very clearly the extent to which many non-Muslims see self-selected Muslim spokesmen go on the defensive unnecessarily."

Take, for example, the MCB's response on the 6th Oct to the original comments by Jack Straw:
"There may be a difference of opinion on niqab (face-veil), but we have to respect a woman’s right to choose to adopt it. Mr Straw's comments have the potential of further undermining civil liberties in our country, which appear to be gradually eroding in the aftermath of the terrible atrocities of July last year."

I think this comment is inflammatory: it is attempting to pin onto Jack Straw motives for which there is no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Jack Straw was extremely clear that the veil is a matter of choice. Here is the full text of his original article.
"Now, I always ensure that a female member of my staff is with me. "
Not the action of an intolerant bigot.

"I explain that this is a country built on freedoms. I defend absolutely the right of any woman to wear a headscarf. As for the full veil, wearing it breaks no laws." "built on freedoms" - obviously the words of man itching to shut down civil liberties as fast as he can.

"I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face. Indeed, the value of a meeting, as opposed to a letter or phone call, is so that you can - almost literally - see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say."
Where, exactly, is the coercion here? where is the refusal to deal with anyone until the veil is removed?

"I thought it may be hard going when I made my request for face-to-face interviews in these circumstances. However, I can't recall a single occasion when the lady concerned refused to lift her veil; and most I ask seem relieved I have done so. "
I just can't see how anyone can go from this article to a suggestion that the veil is in danger of being banned.

So, the question is what to do now: the issue is out there and there are morons and bigots in equal proportions on both sides. MY suggestion is that - amongst others - the MCB's immediate reaction to Jack Straw's entirely understated article has played a large part in polarising this issue rather than engaging with the substance of Jack Straw's comments.

12:12 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home