Monday, March 18, 2013

BBS ready for another fight, after mistakenly believing they have won on Halal!

Emboldened by the mistaken sense of importance over the Halal issue, which in retrospect was a non issue, which as I have pointed out earlier, a Hijacked ACJU fell victim to of their own extremists, the BBS have entered a more dangerous and incendiary phase of going to the heart of places of worship.
They have not given up the demand for the ban on the Hijab, as they are now brainstorming how best to do it, with maximum publicity for them, and maximum hatred heaped on the Muslim community. I believe they intend making the true claim that it was not worn 50 years ago, and is just a new way of expressing one’s religion due to the foreign and mainly Wahabist influence, and therefore it is best for them to revert to the previous practice of hundreds of years for Muslim women to use the sari to cover their faces. It will be interesting to see how this will be played out and I am sure the Muslim community is itself planning their response to this impending attack on their freedoms.
In the end it is infringing on our freedom of expression. Wearing clothes we wish is our and nobody else’s business, and when it is used by certain groups, be it religious or racial to make a statement of their power and influence, it irritates a majority community when it becomes to frequent or appears a threat. In my opinion it does not pose a threat, however, I personally am against it as we don’t know who hides behind the hijab, and I honestly feel uncomfortable in this respect.
That said I do not wish to disrespect Islam or its practitioners, but I do believe I also have some rights in that regard, and I am a very tolerant person. Just as I would not wish to see naked people on the roads, or walking with next to nothing on I do not wish to see people who hide behind a cloak, where I am unable to distinguish or identify the person.
No doubt the BBS now armed with Qurans are reading off it and showing the Muslims that none of the practices they are in are sanctioned by it. I know that it is all about interpretation, and in all religions people interpret it for their own ends.
The purists will always maintain there is nothing to interpret, but I personally do not accept that, as all texts were written in times, so as the people for whom it was written understood what it meant. People of today have to be told in a different way to understand the same point, but have taken to literal interpretations that were not meant at the time. This holds for Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, and is a common failing of the teachers of the religions of being inflexible with the practitioners. I trust that in time we will be able to get over this hill, and throw the Charlatans in all these religions into the sea. Just hope it is soon.


  1. // In my opinion it does not pose a threat, //
    Thank you. It's refreshing to see rational thoughts in the blogsphere.

    // however, I personally am against it as we don’t know who hides behind the hijab, and I honestly feel uncomfortable in this respect. //

    There are several issues here. First of all Hijab does not cover the face. Technically, Hijab is the bare minimum Islamic requirement of covering the body for both men and women. In women's case, Hijab should cover the body and the head. In contemporary context, hijab is taken to mean the head covering for women.

    Please see the distinction between the hijab, niqab, abaya, etc

    BBS "seems" to be opposed to the face covering, although they refer to it by various (incorrect) names.

    Practicing muslim women have been always worn the hijab in its various manifestations. As for the niqab, the face veil, prior to fall of the Ottoman empire, it was not unusual for muslim women around the world to cover their faces. And it was a sign of honor (some times you see in movies princesses have this skimpy thing covering their faces)

    But when the western influence was felt strongly during the colonial times, people of every faith distanced from their traditional ways, and muslims were no exception. Now the old ways are sought and embraced once again (this goes to buddhists, hindus as well as muslims).

    In the face of globalization, we see people gravitating towards the American mono-culture. Buddhists in Sri Lanka for example are seen wearing denims and such clothing. However for muslims, there is another optional cultural superpower to gravitate to: the islamic culture. Therefore we see muslims wearing hijabs, abayas and jubbas (men's garb) made in china.

    1. Great so just wear the Sari as before and cover ones head or face as one wished, it covers all concerns literally and figuratively as I suggested. We in Sri Lanka always had the answers we do not require anyone from outside to tell us.

      The Best compromise I am sure you will agree.

    2. "Wearing the sari as before" is a fallacy. Muslims in Sri Lanka come from different backgrounds, and not all women wore sari even back then. Shalwar for example is another dress. And most importantly, regardless what their base dress was, the practicing women always covered their heads with the dupatta (a.k.a shawl )
      So if we were to bring back a dress code "as before" the hijab will come back too. And in some cases niqab will also come back because it was also there before.

      Just wondering; while you advocate "wearing the sari as before" for muslim women, do you also advocate relinquishing pants and wearing sarong as before for sinhalese men? If you want one group (say, sinhala males) to be able to embrace a foreign dress code such as pants, why not allow the same freedom to another group - muslim women?

      The best compromise in my opinion is to let people wear whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate laws

    3. Sari is still worn by Muslim women and as many are of Sinhala origin and perhaps you are too, it is just a normal form of dress. It was worn by over 95% of Muslim women till the 1960s, so why a sudden rush to wear Hijab, Niqab etc. the effect is the same.

      Anything that looks attractive on a woman is fair game I guess, even Shalwar, but something that makes them look frightening God forbid please

      Shalwar is also OK, but anything that covers the face I have a very serious problem with, just as I have with Forces personnel covering their faces when going about their business of searching people.

      It is the I can see you but you cannot see me attitude that I object to.