Issues About Veil

Most Muslims in the UK are now fully aware of the comments made by Jack Straw concerning his request for Muslim women to remove their face veils [niqaabs] in his surgeries. Considering what has happened before and after his comments, it appears that his views are not one minister’s concerns for better communication and community relations but rather the start signal of a much wider orchestrated campaign by the British establishment. A campaign to bring harm to the Muslims and incite further hatred against them and increase opposition from the general non-Muslim public.

The comments made by Straw initiated a whole range of comments by government ministers (John Prescott, Ruth Kelly, Peter Hain etc) and more lately the Prime Minister himself. The nature of these comments is that Muslims should be grateful that Britain has been tolerant enough to accept other cultures and religions (even though firstly, according to the definition of citizenship, the Muslims here are citizens and thus not in a position of being ‘tolerated’ and secondly, original mass immigrations to UK were made at request of British government due to labour needs).

The barrage of cloaked attacks from Ministers has been combined with more overtly vicious attacks in the main stream media. If we look to the headlines of some of the Newspapers we see that their intentions, rather than being to report News and distribute informed opinion, are nothing other than to incite hatred and violence against Muslims and to focus all aggression for the country’s ills upon Muslims. For example, one day after Jack Straw addressed the Media concerning his original article about the veil, a Muslim woman was attacked in Liverpool and her hijab was torn off. Instead of the Media coming out in a unified declaration of disgust and hostility to such a barbaric attack on a woman’s security, religion and honour, the best selling tabloid Newspaper ‘The Sun’ made sure the next day’s headline was an attack on Muslims rather than demonstrating the dormant hatred of some people towards Islam and Muslims. The headline read - 'HOUNDED OUT - Hero Soldiers Home Wrecked By Muslims' The claim was that Muslims were guilty of daubing the driveway of a rented soldier’s house with graffiti and had smashed the windows. On further investigation with local press and police, the police declared that they have not connected the attack and the vandalism to Muslims at all. But this shows the free reign that a Media outlet has if it wants to divert attention from its own failed treatment of crime and disorder, and more importantly divert attention from its own criminal mass murder and destruction in Muslim countries. Not only the tabloid papers were guilty but the BBC website, the main government funded Media outlet, found it appropriate to publish members of the public ridiculing the attack on the Muslim woman as though it was nothing. A clear intention to anaesthetize the public towards attacks on Muslim women.

Other tabloid newspapers such as the ‘Daily Express’, which itself carries the emblem of a crusader, has taken the opportunity to launch its own malicious campaign against Islam in general and the dignity and honour of Muslim women in particular. This hate driven Newspaper has not had one but two front page headlines on separate days calling for the veiling of Muslim women to be banned. Its 17th October headline declaring ‘Veil should be banned say 98%’. Later on they expose their own dishonesty by saying that in fact the 98% are only Express readers who participated in the small sample poll and that the ban only referred to the ban in Hospitals! Amazing considering a lot of non-Muslims and nurses and doctors veil their faces in hospital for reasons of preventing the spread of disease! But perhaps some of these twisted Editors and newspaper columnists would rather be infected by the plague than see the signs of Islamic revival.

The television has also seen a synchronized increase of attacks on Islam since Straw’s comments. Trevor McDonald’s ‘Tonight’ programme saw Suzanne Moore (the Daily Mail’s anti-Islamic feminist warrior in chief) collaborate with (surprise , surprise) Saira Khan, former contestant of Alan Sugar’s ‘The Apprentice’ to put the veil under the spotlight. As usual, the Media find those most far removed from the Islamic beliefs and way of life (such as the much used illiterate. Yasmin Ali Bhai Brown, who is member of the deviant kaafir Ismaili sect and so dedicated to Islam she is married to a Christian, this being explicitly prohibited in the Quran)

1) WHY A DEBATE NOW?
Jack Straw said he wrote the article on the issue of veiling because he wanted to raise a 'debate'. So what does this mean for the people of Britain and what does this mean for the Muslims of Britain? What is the aim of such a debate? Let us consider the following points:-

1. Firstly what does Jack Straw mean by debate? Is he referring to the pathetic ramblings that take place in the House of Commons debates, where usually one man stands and waffles while an almost empty house jeers while others fall asleep? Is he referring to the televised debates where one proponent speaks for about two minutes and his opponent likewise, the whole debate lasting less than an hour with any participant not having more than 3 minutes to speak? Is he referring to the newspapers and mainstream media , which are often owned by the same few families and who openly declare their hostility towards Islam publishing a few sensationalist articles such as ‘Ban the Veil’ while others condemn it but in more subtle language? The typical Media debate where both the defence and the opposition are against you? A debate among the British public who know virtually nothing of the Islamic belief, laws and culture?

1. Jack Straw’s political demise (since being sacked as Foreign Secretary for making known his feelings that another invasion, this time, into Iran would be out of the question….this not being in line with the Anglo-American establishment’s psychological operations against the Muslim world).

1. Jack Straw who has had a wealth of experience in dealing with Muslims in his own constituency, for instance those large amount of Muslims by name who continuously voted for him despite him being one of the backers of the murderous Iraq and Afghanistan wars on Muslims and a negotiator with Iran

1. Jack Straw who has seen the continuous media onslaught against Islam and Muslims

1. As for the Muslims, they should be fully aware that as far as their affairs are concerned, Niqab [face veil] is not an issue of debate for disbelievers in terms of an outcome relevant to Islam and Muslims as the disbelievers follow their hawaa' [desires] anyway. i.e. the disbelievers reject all of the sharia'h [revealed laws of Islam] so what is the significance of debating one detail of it? The debate among Muslims is one of ikhtilaaf shara'ee, i.e. No definite conclusion is reached in this life, but rather it is judged in the next life. Ijtihaad by definition is of zanni nature. Ijtihad is thus possessing the following characteristics:-

a) From Muslims only. The effort to extract a rule from Islamic text by a disbeliever is given no consideration.

b) Mujtahideen. Not simply any ‘Muslim by name’ with titles (such as ‘muftee’, ‘imaam’, ‘shaykh’, ‘scholar’ etc) bestowed by taaghoot-friendly regimes or colonial puppet masters (such as institutions supported by the British government) will be valid. Rather the true ijtihaad will only come from one whose belief is in accordance with the original sources of Islam and who does not contradict that which is known from the deen by necessity in his statements and dealings (such as the necessity of Muslims knowing that Islam is a comprehensive and unique system of life revealed to replace and dominate over all other religions, systems, laws and ideologies) and whose competence in the Islamic legal sciences (such as u’loomul quran, u’loomul hadeeth, fiqh, usoolul fiqh, naskh [abrogation] etc) is established through genuine Islamic study and not by orientalist manipulation and distortion.

c) Based on Islamic Evidence [daleel] and Principles [qawaai’d], which themselves are based on evidence. This, as opposed to modern fabricated concepts such as ‘majority decides’, ‘democracy’, ‘in accordance with integration’, ‘acceptable to the international community (i.e. aggressor nations)’ etc

d) Not contradicting clear and accepted text [nass] (as do for instance half of the fataawa widely propagated in the taaghoot-government supported institutions of today)

e) Characterized by reward for correct Islamic juristic process and respect of the Muslims in case of difference. Reward is even for one who errs in ijtihad. "If a haakim [judge] makes ijtihad and gets it wrong he gets one reward…" (BUKHAARI) Therefore even those opinions which individual Muslims or groups of Muslims do not follow, but which are based upon Islamic reasoning and juristic process as demonstrated by the classical schools of law and sanctioned by that which is derived from the Quran and Sunnah, then Muslims will not attack such opinions in order to gain the favour of disbelievers and governments which have made clear their hatred of Islam and made clear their intentions to prevent its revival.

1. As seeing as in general non-Muslims are not interested in the juristic discussions concerning points of Islamic law, then we can only expect that calling for a debate among the British public is about whether they want Muslims living according to Islam among them or not. So really the debate translates into ‘Do you want Muslims by name amongst you or do you want Muslims who try to maintain their identity, beliefs and culture?’ When non-Muslims have a debate about such an issue, what is their reference point and motivation for reaching conclusions? Either it will be the liberal spirit of ‘toleration’ or more likely, under the influence of the manifestly hostile media, it will be driven by the general setting of revived British colonialism and illiterate savage hatred for all things alien to pub crawling and football.

2) DISBELIEVERS DEBATES DO NOT CHANGE ISLAMIC OPINIONS
The conclusions reached by the disbelievers will never affect Islamic opinions as Islamic opinions are based upon:-

i) A different source to the disbelievers. Muslims derive their opinions, laws, culture from the Islamic guidance, i.e. the revelation from Allah [God] which guides in all affairs. As for the disbelievers they follow conjecture and their own desires or false or distorted religions and ideologies.

ii) Serving Islamic objectives and not kufr ones. The Islamic culture and the opinions which surround it are supposed to also serve objectives which are Islamic. Thus an opinion about the legal status of the face veil revolves around what serves Islamic objectives. This means the issue will be related to the objectives of the social system and clothing in Islam. It will have nothing to do with integrating into kufr society or culture as that is not an Islamic objective in the first place. Rather, interaction with different communities is an objective for the purpose of spreading Islam and for fulfilling the necessities of life through normal social and economic transactions etc.

iii) With an Islamic Aim connected to life as a whole and its reason for existence. Muslims have an overall aim in life, not to have short term material enjoyment, or to make money but to worship Allah alone in order to gain Paradise and avoid Hell, or out of Gratefulness to Allah and out of all He has given us.

iv) Islamic Law does not change, that which is perfect, revealed by the All Knowing, All Wise and All Aware Creator of the Universe for all times and all places….has no need of changing.

3) THE WOMEN’S DRESS CODE IS PART OF THE ISLAMIC SOCIAL SYSTEM
Niqaab is related to ahkaam of clothing and rules of social system in Islam. Part of our worship of Allah is through submitting our societal transactions to Him (swt). So in Islam and to Muslims of awareness, clothing is not simply about personal choice, although that does generally apply in choosing colour, quality and style. Rather the clothing has rules and objectives and those objectives do not work in isolation but rather with the rest of the Islamic social system.

4) ALL ISLAMIC OPINIONS IN FIQH ARE PART OF THE ISLAMIC CULTURE REGARDLESS OF DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG JURISTS AND REGARDLESS OF THE OPPOSITION OF THE IGNORANT
Irrelevant whether we regard niqab as fard, mandoob or mubah, the fact is that it is an Islamic opinion and is part of Islamic culture [thaqafah]. As is for instance:-

i) Ta’addud az Zawjaat [Polygamy] (even if regarded as mandoob or mubah and even if there are differences concerning some its subsidiary rulings and even though the Anglo-American establishment call it a crime, whereas they regard adultery, fornication, pornography and homosexuality as permissible…..even celebrating those who have copulated like animals with dozens of married and non-married ‘partners’.)

ii) Jihad [the striving to make Islam dominant as a way of life] (even though there are differences on fiqh in some of its details and subsidiary rulings among the jurists and even though the Anglo-American establishment  describes it as ‘terrorism’, as they don’t take kindly to those who resist their tomahawk cruise missile raids, cluster bombing, nuclear blackmail all under the guise of ‘liberation and democracy’.)

iii) Rajm [Stoning as a punishment for specific crimes such as adultery] (even though there are differences among the jurists concerning aspects of its application and even though secular nations regard it as barbaric, themselves preferring a society where hundreds of thousands of women are raped, millions enslaved to prostitution and pornography, and millions of children misguided by birth out of wedlock, and the family structure something replaced by ‘same sex parents’! )

iv) Chopping of hands (even though there are differences among the jurists concerning its details and even though secular nations regard it as barbaric…and they prefer to have societies held to ransom by thieves under the guise of ‘human rights’ that is the right of the thief to steal from a member of the public without any fear of a deterrent to stop him!)

v) Slavery (even though there are differences, and even though ‘international secular law’ prohibits it, while openly continuing the human traffic of ‘sex workers’ in their thousands from country to country.)

vi) U'loomul Hadeeth (even though there are some differences concerning principles of authentication and thus on the status of narrations and narrators and even though Hadeeth have been erroneously criticized by European orientalists)

vi) Tafseer [Explanation of the Quranic text] (even though there are differences of interpretation of some verses)

vii) Usoolul Fiqh and Fiqh (even though there are differences among the Islamic schools of thought concerning some of these foundations and principles and even though the Anglo-American establishment regards its own legal system as superior, the one where you have to be a millionaire to win a court case, where you never get charged if you are part of the establishment, where you are guilty after the first judgment and innocent on the appeal if there is political intervention and where your freedom or imprisonment is put in the hands of twelve drug addicts picked of the street and called a ‘jury’.)

viii) Salah (The five daily prayers not permissible to abandon at all, again there are differences in the details of the application of it and its subsidiary rules and even though the secular establishment regards it as ‘inconvenient’…they prefer their workers to have cigarette breaks and have office affairs.)

ix) Zakah (The purification of an individuals wealth by a percentage given to specifically designated recipients, again there are are differences of opinion in some of its details.)

x) Ahkaam of Buyoo' [rules of trading] (which prohibit many of the transactions present in today’s economic systems and even though there are differences on the permissibility of some transactions and even though the secular establishment would rather people did not have a code of transactions to adhere to while they are busy convincing their gullible populations to participate in national lotteries where the chances of winning are fourteen million to one!)

xi) Prohibition of Ribaa'  [Usury] (Which means Muslims reject established principles of the global secular economic system such as interest, insurance, usurious banking, renting of money etc)

xii) Tasawwuf (even though differences on the name and various details it emanates from rules of tazkeeyah and akhlaq and is from the Islamic sciences….and even though the secular media establishment would rather turn their attention to the mysteries of UFO’s, witchcraft, movies and computer games.)

a) All of the above remain part of Islamic culture regardless of differences among mujtahideen concerning details.  Difference of opinion is a natural result in spheres of human effort, intellect and understanding as indeed man varies in these things with various causes of variation. Allah being the Creator of man and knowing him best revealed the Islamic way of life Knowing that there will be difference in interpretation and understanding. Allah made some matters clear by which the sound mind is not justified in rejecting a matter and He made other matters an issue of effort, research and use of the mind in which differences were permissible (even though here the processes of derivation were limited by the Creator to valid ones and invalid ones). Also Allah made some matters, issues of choice and personal preference whereby people could exercise their own minds and choices for their own and others benefit and also for their tranquility.

b) If 'differences among Muslims in details of laws' means something is debated with aim of change we see that this leads to dismantling of shariah, which is actually their the true aim as the Quran makes clear as do their own declared feelings and actions.

c) Many journalists, political commentators and politicians have justified their call for Muslim women to remove their veils based on the fact that there is difference of opinion among Muslim scholars concerning whether the veil is an obligation or not. It’s interesting to note that they, on this occasion, recognize that classical scholars who derive from Islamic sources are an authority for legitimate differences of Muslim opinion rather than their usual reference to secularist disbelievers with Muslim names, who have no interest in the processes and sources of Islamic law! However on a point of consistency, if differences are basis of dismantling an affair, then for sure DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM have to be dismantled as:-

i) Democracies don't agree on laws in different countries
ii) A country's citizens do not agree on laws when legislated
iii) The legislature does not agree on laws when legislated
iv) A country does not agree on law over a period of time
v) They do not in fact agree upon any values, principles or beliefs....so all of them are invalidated.

5) FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY HAS NO BINDING SOURCE OF AUTHORITY OR GUIDANCE EVEN FOR THOSE WHO PROMOTE IT
Freedom and Democracy has no source or binding authority to even reach agreement or a sound conclusion except for voting...and even this does not make the decisions in any of the democracies except in a minority of issues (not effecting the establishment).

Freedom and Democracy being contradictory concepts, one implying no restrictions but the other implying restriction to the rule of the people can obviously possess no authority derived from both of them. Similarly, ‘Freedom’ having no agreed upon definition by its adherents can have no authoritative source as such a source would be disputed with no binding defence to refute it. Similarly ‘democracy’ when taken by itself also has no agreed upon definition but only a linguistic origin [‘rule by the people’] whose literal implication is impossible in theory and thus never existing in practice.

So one who wants to stand for freedom and democracy then what does he do? Does he cling to linguistic meaning of freedom and thus contradict the meaning of democracy or does he cling to the linguistic meaning of democracy and contradict the meaning of freedom? Does he abandon the linguistic meanings and refer to the most powerful democracy, thus opposing philosophical foundations of democracy and return to justifying force and tyranny? Does he refer to the most populous democracy regardless of its adherence to principles? Does he refer to the founding fathers of European revolutions which made way for the modern democracies, even though each of these founding fathers had something different to say? Does he refer to the products of those democracies which each went on to become as tyrannical as the regimes they claimed to be replacing? Does the democrat refer to the political philosophers whose ideas change in time and  who differ with each other? Does the democrat refer to elected governments of the day, even though they are often elected by a minority, voted against by a majority and not representative of the people but rather representative of their own and other covert interests whom they serve while implementing laws in which the people are not consulted and not supporting?

Indeed the contradictions and absence of binding guidance concerning democracies and those calling for freedom is manifest in its unending debates about principle, and the sharp contradictions among democracies in practice.

6) THE CALL TO REMOVE THE VEIL CONTRADICTS THE SECULARIST’S PRINCIPLE OF ‘PERSONAL FREEDOM’
The call to remove the veil contradicts the claim of western democracies to have a basis of ‘personal freedom.’ This means that in general people can behave as they wish concerning themselves, their person and their activities, as long as it does not harm anyone directly and (although contradicting the principle in a way that renders it meaningless) as long as it contradicts no specific law (i.e. the principle can be legislated away whenever it serves the undeclared objectives of the establishment). In fact, the fundamental principles of democracies with regards to the freedoms are supposed to precede the law. That is, the laws are supposed to be constructed around them and to serve their objectives. So that laws which conflict with those fundamental principles will be regarded as contradicting the foundations of democracy. So to claim that a society is based on ‘allowing people freedom with themselves,’ and then to restrict this freedom while it harms no-one, is an abandonment of principle. In which case the society should be honest and declare that it only accepts those who submit to the personal feelings of the establishment or rulers.

This concept of ‘personal freedom’ is one of the fundamental principles which democratic states claim to base themselves upon’ is not only something they seek to justify their citizens (and politicians, priests and over elevated celebrities) practice of homosexuality, cross-dressing, pornography etc but is also the principle which they themselves use to attack the social laws of Muslim culture due to its restrictions or prohibitions of such practices. Therefore, they contradict themselves - on one hand declaring ‘Muslim women are oppressed as they have to wear hijaab in their societies instead of being free to wander the streets half naked’ and then on the other hand, when those Muslim women in their own non-Muslim societies choose to dress according to the Islamic dress code, practicing (in the view of the Secular State) this misguided principle of ‘personal freedom’ they demand the principle to be abolished. This exposes the fact that actually, as proven by many other examples, their governments are not in fact based upon this principle and that those calling for it do not believe in it either.

7) THE CALL TO REMOVE THE VEIL CONTRADICTS THE SECULARIST’S PRINCIPLE OF ‘RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’
Call to remove contradicts religious freedom. The society also claims that there is religious freedom, democracies claim that they allow their citizens to have freedom of religion, and that just as they state that religion should not interfere with state affairs ‘in secular democracies’ they also state that the ‘state will not interfere with people’s religions’ as the principle is a separation between ‘religion’ and ‘state.’ This means that when such a principle is contradicted by an intervention by the State in people’s religious expression, whether it be by speech, action or clothing, then indeed this is a contradiction of their foundations. Indeed when a State such as France starts to interfere in people’s clothing under the guise of ‘separating religion and state’ then it has itself nullified its claim by recognizing people according to religion only due to their clothing. If it had been true to its claim, it would have ignored these matters as not being the state’s role, it would have seen the people all as citizens and ignored possible manifestations of religion. Separation of State and religion is the objective of the State’s collective application of policy and law, it does not refer to the individual expression of the citizens, which obviously is not a matter of collective policy or enactment of law. The State is supposed to implement law on behalf of the people via the apparatus of government, the people are not supposed to implement State policy on behalf of government, this would mean there is no distinction between private sector and public sector, no distinction between, government and civilians, and no distinction between government and alternative political perspectives, which would in fact make it an autocracy, dictatorship or communist state rather than a democracy. Further to this, the government of the United Kingdom is not established as a totally secular one, rather it is a constitutional monarchy where the King or Queen is the head of State and head of the State religion, in this case head of the Protestant Christian Church of England. Religion then is intertwined in many ceremonies of the State and is not totally denied as significant by the unwritten constitution, and in terms of the culture, history and heritage of the country and its various political developments we see religion is highly significant. Furthermore, the existing laws and constitution do not demand adherence to the State religion but recognize a role for people’s religions in their life’s affairs, thus the State’s not only permitting but also funding of ‘faith schools’. As for States like France who try to maintain a contradictory and irrational system where right to religion is claimed to be granted along with separation from State but then coupled with the State’s insistence that religion will not relate to the affairs and transactions of the people (that itself being a judgement of the State concerning the nature and practice of religion), then it is upon them to enact that viewpoint through their own policy rather than blame a section of the citizens to be ‘secular enough.’ In such a case the State has interfered in the religious life of the citizens and has also declared a judgement on the legitimate extent of all religion. It is not only here where the contradictions exist, but through a stance the State also restricts the political freedom of the people and freedom of thought and expression which manifest in variations of political thought, as now political thought and activity becomes free with the abrogating caveat ‘unless it has any religious motivation’ in which case the further contradiction is born, that being, the atheist or secular anti-religious politics itself being a religious viewpoint.

8) HATING ANY ISLAMIC LAW IS KUFR
Regardless of a Muslim’s opinion on whether the veil is obligatory, preferable or permissible, hating any Islamic law is kufr [disbelief]. We therefore do not mock any Islamic opinions even if not our own madh-hab, as ijtihad could be wrong. Therefore the outcome of any discussion among Muslims about what opinion they adopt on the issue of the veil is one of fiqh and the relative shariah objectives and benefits served by the veil and not wearing it. It is not an opinion which results in hatred for differing opinions. Any Muslim who follows the plot of Shaytaan and his allies into mocking Islam or hating the Islamic opinions adopted by others is in danger of major kufr and nullifying their deeds. This was continuously stressed in the Quran and Sunnah:-

i) "But no by your Lord, they can have no imaan until they set you (O Muhammad) judge in any disputes that arise among them and then find in themselves no resistance against your decisions but submit to them with fullest submission (yusallimu tasleema)." (an Nisaa 4:65)

ii) "Indeed the firmest handhold on imaan is that you love for Allah and hate for Allah" (AHMAD [4/286] IBN ABI SHAYBAH in 'al-Imaan' [no.110] AT-TAYAALISI [2/48] from Baraa bin Aa'zib) and Abu Umaamah reported that Nabi (saw) said "He who loves for Allah and hates for Allah and gives for Allah and withholds for Allah has perfected imaan." (ABU DAWOOD [no.3664] TIRMIDHI [2521] AHMAD [3/438, 440])

iii) "He indeed has tasted the relish of eemaan: One who is pleased with Allah as a Lord, with Islam as a deen and with Muhammad as a Prophet" (MUSLIM, TIRMIDHI, AHMAD, BAGHAWI, BAYHAQI from A'bbaas Ibn A'bdul Muttalib)

iv) "None of you believe until his desires are in accordance with what I have come" (BAGHAWI)

v) "That is because they are averse to that which Allah hath revealed, therefor He maketh their action fruitless." (Muhammad 47:9)

vi) "Then how (will it be with them) when the angels gather them, smiting their faces and their backs! That will be because they followed that which angered Allah, and hated that which Pleased Him. Therefore He has made their actions vain. Or do those in whose hearts is a disease deem that Allah will not bring to light their (secret) hates?" (Muhammad 47:27-29)

vii) “Verily those who have turned back after the guidance has been made clear to them, Shaytaan has beautified for them and prolonged their term. This is because they said to those who hate what Allah has sent down ‘We will obey you in part of the matter,’ but Allah knows their secrets.” (Muhammad 47:25-26)

9) THE CALL TO UNVEIL IS REALLY AIMED AT DISMANTLING THE RULES OF ISLAM
The call to remove the veil manifests the desire to dismantle the rules of Islam. This is not a new thing of course, the British establishment has a long history of working to dismantle the Islamic way of life and the Islamic civilization as a whole.

c) The kuffar dismantled Islam before when Muslims were attacked by orientalists (those from European countries such as England, France and Germany who studied Islam and wrote about it, often with the aim of misrepresenting and distorting it) on all such issues as:-

i) Qadaa wal Qadr [Divine Decision <Fate> and Decree]. They claimed the Islamic belief lead people to be free from responsibilities from their actions and that motivation for actions became redundant as things were pre-decreed.
ii) Divorce. They claimed women were oppressed by divorce rules in Islam and that women could not be separated from a harmful marriage.
iii) Polygamy. They claimed women were oppressed by polygamy and that polygamy was proof of fabricated revelation in Islam as it was a road to sexual pleasure, and sexual pleasure is opposed to religious belief and practice.
iv) Slavery. They claimed Islam was oppressive due to its permission of slavery. On the other hand there were those orientalists who tried to demonstrate that Islam had abolished slavery.
v) Nizaam al U'qoobaat [Islamic Punishment System]. They claimed that the Islamic punishment system was barbaric and a proof that Islam was devoid of mercy.
vi) Jihad. They claimed on one hand that Islam was aggressive and incapable of reason due to its use of force. On the other hand there were those orientalists, and they are now perhaps in the majority, who claimed that either jihad was mainly an inward spiritual struggle or that jihad as a military concept was only ever used in a defensive capacity.
vii) Khilaafah. They claimed that khilaafah was like a dictatorship and thus was oppressive to people and prevented political progress.
viii) Niqab/Hijab. They then, just as now, claimed that hijab/niqab was a measure that oppressed Muslim women as they should be free to display themselves.

•  “Many among the people of the Book wish to turn you back from your faith toward kufr due to their envy even after the truth has been known to them but forgive and excuse them until Allah brings about His command. Indeed Allah has power over everything” (al Baqarah 2:109)

•  “The Jews and Christians will not be pleased with you unless you follow their way. Say: ‘Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the true guidance.’ And if, after this knowledge has come to you, you follow their desires, then you will find no helper or protector against Allah” (al Baqarah 2:120)

•  “O you who believe! If you follow a party of the People of the Book, they will return you to kufr after you have believed” (aali I’mraan 3:100)

•  “O you who believe! Do not take into your intimacy those outside your ranks. They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire for you to suffer. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths and what their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the signs if you have wisdom….” (aali I’mraan 3:118)

• “And those who disbelieve are awliyaa of one another, unless you do so there will be calamities on the earth and great corruption.” (al Anfaal 8:73)

•  “O ye who believe! If ye obey the Unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heels, and ye will turn back (from Faith) to your own loss.” (aali I’mraan 3:149)

• “So obey not the deniers, they wish that you should compromise with them so they would compromise with you.” (al Qalam 68:9)

• “And thus We have set up in every town great ones of its wicked people to plot therein. But they plot not except against their ownselves and they perceive it not.” (al Ana’m 6:123)

•  “Verily those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend it, but in the end it will become a regret for them. Then they will be overcome [yughlaboon].” (al Anfaal 8:36)

•  “Verily najwaa are only from shaytaan in order that he may cause grief to the believers. But he can not harm them in the least, except as Allah permits. And in Allah let the believers put their trust.” (al Mujaadilah 58:10)

•  “They intend to put out the light of Allah with their mouths. But Allah will bring his Light to perfection even if the disbelievers hate it.” (as Saff 61:8)

•  “And they will never stop fighting you until they turn you back from your deen if they can. And whoever of you turns back from his deen and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and the hereafter and they will be dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever.” (al Baqarah 2:217)

(To be continued in Part Two)