Government Intellectuals – Weapons of the State to target Islam

Muslims around the world are still reeling from the decision of the highest court in the European Union, declaring that an employer can fire, or refuse to employ a Muslim woman if she refuses to take off her hijab. The decision was triggered by the case of two Muslim women – both professionals – who refused to take off their hijab when their employers told them that they were embarrassing clients and misrepresenting the company because of the way they dress. The court, in trying to balance its decision, declared that this could only be justified if the company had a policy of neutrality, which means that it banned all other religious/political symbols as well.

While it is obvious to any fair-minded person that this logic of neutrality is specifically designed to disempower one of the most vulnerable groups in Europe – visibly identifiable Muslim women – by forcing them to remove articles of clothing in order to please their employers, Muslims in Canada are no strangers to this kind of bigotry.

In Canada, the government of Quebec has – time and time again – proposed legislation that would force women to remove their niqabs and hijabs by government decree. The previous federal government even spent the last of its political capital targeting a Muslim woman who refused to take off her niqab during the citizenship oath ceremony. Indeed, Muslims often find themselves at the receiving-end of campaigns of demonization and criminalization run by unprincipled and xenophobic politicians.

The real question is how such repugnant bigotry finds purchase in “respectable” circles, and how blatant hatred finds itself being seriously discussed in the highest halls of power.

Unprincipled intellectuals

While Muslims in Canada are aware of the Quebec government’s attacks against Zunera Ishaq’s niqab case, the common variable between it and other similar cases of bigotry against Muslims – including the recent EU court case – has not been properly explored. This common factor is: unprincipled intellectuals.

Charles Taylor – a leading Canadian philosopher and political thinker, hailed as a left-leaning thinker – was originally in favor of diversity and tolerance. However, when put in the key position of co-presiding over a provincial commission on religious accommodation in Quebec – a province known for being hostile to immigration – he made a series of recommendations that included imposing a secular dress code on the province’s judges and police forces.

The report made other suggestions that were more inclusive in nature as well, but those were quickly ignored. What endured in the minds of the people and became fodder for those who wanted to attack the religious beliefs of Muslims was the idea of “secular dress codes.” Charles Taylor’s advocacy of this idea was used in courts of law, as well as public opinion, to champion the cause of banning Muslim women dress.

What is most revealing of this report’s lack of integrity is that Taylor admitted that he didn’t even believe in the idea of secular dress codes, but he included the suggestion in the report only to make it more acceptable to Quebec’s political climate, thus betraying his intellectual integrity in order to appease public opinion and further his career. And, worse yet, during all the years that his words were used to create a climate of hatred and distrust towards Muslims, he remained silent about this fact the entire time. It took the savage attack on the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec (the Quebec mosque) a few months ago for him to finally speak up, condemn the report, and be open about his reason for recommending the secular dress code.

But it is not uncommon for intellectuals to sell out their integrity to increase their likability and level of access to those in power. In compromising facts for the sake of expediency, Taylor was doing more than empowering xenophobia – he was actively defending the ideology of the state, which is built upon such compromises. The class of politically connected academics and intellectuals are asked to compromise their integrity time and time again to preserve the system of the ruling elite.

Preserving the ideology of the state

Oftentimes, when a situation becomes politically difficult for the wealthy and ruling elite of a liberal democratic society, they turn to their intellectuals to find some form of compromise in order to maintain the status quo, while adjusting it slightly to address the anxieties of the masses.

The actual source of this concept of “compromise as a way of life” is the Capitalist ideology itself – an ideology whose creed was established based on a compromise solution. This compromise solution arose in the dark ages of Europe, as a result of the bloody conflict between the Church and its subordinate kings on one side, and the new breed of Western thinkers and philosophers on the other side. The former group viewed Christianity as capable of solving all of life's affairs, while the second group took the view that Christianity was incapable of doing this, and considered it the cause of much humiliation and backwardness of their societies. They saw the human mind as the only entity that could produce a system capable of organizing life's affairs and solving its problems.

After a bitter conflict between the two groups, rather than attempting to determine which group was on the path of truth, or whether there was a religion other than Christianity that could correctly organize life’s affairs – as Islam was flourishing as the world’s leader in all areas of material and intellectual progress - they instead decided on a compromise solution between the two sides. Their focus was to settle the dispute above all else, and paid no attention to seeking the true solution for mankind’s problems. The compromise they arrived at was to reduce the influence of religion to personal matters only, while man would take charge of public and societal affairs.

This creed of compromise, which is the backbone of the secular way of life, was prominent in every aspect of liberal democratic legislation and solutions.

So, when the European nations feel the need to maintain the facade of individual freedom and religious tolerance, but also appeal to a growing nationalist sentiment across the continent, the country’s top legal minds came up with a strategy that does not ban the hijab outright, but empowers those who hate our deen to make life more difficult for our Muslim sisters.

The Quebec government is part of a society that needs immigration to preserve its economic interests, but it also seeks a community whom it can scapegoat and sacrifice as an offering to xenophobes. Consequently, it commissions a leading intellectual to make the case for religious accommodation, but also introduces an oppressive dress code.

What is most malicious about this situation is that the Capitalist elite then present their refusal to discuss the reality as being “moderate,” and “balanced,” and even “neutral.” They claim they are simply “not taking a side” in the debate by ignoring it. Under this guise of “neutrality,” the elite protect and even promote a set of values that it finds politically useful, while banning and criminalizing others that it finds politically inconvenient. It then relies on its commissioned, politically-connected intellectuals to make its case to the public.

The truth is, there is nothing neutral in what they are doing. Why else would it be acceptable for a company in Europe to fire someone for “embarrassing” them by dressing in a way that reflects their purpose of existence, but it is not acceptable to fire someone for “embarrassing” a company for being in an open, same-sex relationship? Is “religious freedom,” according to them, really inferior to the “personal freedom”? Or are Muslim women simply more politically expendable than the LGBT community?

In fact, it is this ideology of compromise that allows the Capitalist elite to apply all kinds of factually baseless and often wholly untrue theories to be applied on the Muslim community. Consider the “conveyor belt” theory, which claims that Muslims are “radicalized” into political violence after studying their Deen with more comprehensiveness and seriousness. Not only has this theory been found to be completely baseless, but it also hides the inconvenient truth about political violence, which is that its true conveyor belt is Capitalist colonial adventures, not “radical imams.”

The intellectual leadership of Islam

The Aqeedah of Islam, unlike the ideology of the West, is not based on intellectual half-measures and unjust compromises; rather, it presents a clear system of beliefs, systems for all of man’s actions in life, and solutions for all of man’s problems, revealed by the Creator of the Universe.

Allah (swt), in His infinite Knowledge, Wisdom and Mercy, has revealed to us a way of life that is designed to provide real solutions to the personal and collective problems that we face as a human family. Only Islam can solve the problems of inequality, tribalism, dignity for women, and the protection of innocent life – be it Muslim or non-Muslim. And it falls upon the Muslims to convey this message to the world.

As Muslims living in the West, we have to collectively strive to connect with the sincere intellectuals of the non-Muslim societies in which we live, to present them with the solutions of Islam, and show them how it is a refuge from the mercilessness of Capitalism. We must encourage them to respond to the call of their Creator by presenting the message of Islam to them with eloquence, wisdom, and without compromise.

It is only then that we can hope that they will, by the Will of Allah (swt) accept this message, or, at least find value and dignity in our way of life.

“O believers! Respond to the calling of Allah and Messenger, when the Messenger calls you for a thing that willgive you life; and know that Allah's command comes between man and his heart's desire and this that you areto be raised towards Him…And remember, when you were few down trodden in the land, and were fearful, lest the people should snatch you away, then He gave you shelter, and strengthened you with His help, and provide you with good things, that haply you might be thankful. ” [8:24-26]