Something to chew on - Muslims' support for a dentist who turned away a female patient with no headscarf reflects a widespread misunderstanding.

The text of this post on" Comment is Free" - Guardian, UK will be presented and some comments follows.
*****

The recent case of a dentist in Manchester who refused to help a patient unless she wore a scarf actually found sympathy with many Muslims. There is a widespread idea that such behaviour is commendable when it is nothing of the sort.

What the dentist in Manchester did was misunderstand both Islamic law and practice - and as a result a travesty of the highest nature occurred. The Prophet Muhammad once told the story of a prostitute who went to heaven for saving a dog that was dying of thirst. Prostitution is forbidden in Islam and dogs aren't the most liked of creatures, so there are interesting interpretations of these stories, but the main point here is not to judge the prostitute. The fallen are not always evil.

While a prostitute would make an unlikely religious figure she is certainly a human being and must be treated as such. Were she to fall ill she must be afforded medical assistance. And no Muslim is allowed to refuse that. To refuse it would be relinquishing one's duty as a Muslim towards a fellow human being and betraying the trust God has put into Muslims. Rather than please God, the dentist has almost certainly angered Him.

The case of the dentist is a good example of how ignorance in the Muslim community has led to Muslims needing reform in their own lives more than ever before. Islam does judge actions. It tells Muslims that homosexuality is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that killing is wrong and that judging others is also wrong. But nowhere does it say that a homosexual or a thief or a murderer should be treated as anything less than a human being. What Muslims have done is mix the Islamic condemnation of actions with the person who has carried them out. This creates hatred and animosity - two feelings that Islam condemns.

Maybe this results from the backward, patriarchal tribal nature of the Indian subcontinent or the Arab world with their "moral vigilantism" and misplaced male egoism mixed with Islamic teachings. But this mixture which has resulted in honour killings, hounding homosexuals and now refusing to treat patients cannot be allowed to go on. If it does, then the reason and logic with which Muslims wish others to use in judging them can only make Muslims be judged in the worst possible light.

-------

My response:

This issue is quite serious: the refusal of treatment, in whatever form, by someone who is liscenced to do so is alarming. There must be some fudamentals within which we all operate and where our personal beliefs and prejudices do not crowd our duties and responsibilities.

This issue is also compounded with issues such as the clash of religion with evolution as it relates to the training of doctors and other medical professionals; will they invoke their beliefs to refuse certain medical practices? This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The world is diverse and we will never have homogeniety in belief; however, we need a common civil structure and law that we are all adherents to. I believe this is where our civil structures play a role and this is how this matter should be treated.

****

I also found an eloquent rebuttal to the articl by one NoorAza:

Abdurrahman, it's not about "misplaced male egoism" but the oppression of women in Islam, which is real enough, is about systematic elite-male constructed dogmas based on rigidly institutionalised male-misogynist thinking and attitude. In order to liberate Islamic followers (rather than as "Muslims") from being racially denounced, they must first of all deracialised themselves as based on their religious Islamic faith. The Islamic followers have fallen into the trap of the capitalist class of racializing the "Other" (their resistant enemy) within that Nazism-adopted ideology "Clash of Civilisation" by politicizing religion, in order to continuously sustain their dominance and oppression. In the Nazi days the "Jews" were racialized as the main deviant "Other", in the present history it's the main deviant "Muslims" as the "Other". Thus, for the Islamic followers to free themselves from the racist trap is by depoliticizing Islam and moving it towards the personal cultural sphere. Thus, only then the Islamic followers can integrate within mutual understanding, debate and dialogue with other more progressive civilisations. Progressive here implies betterment for humanity and the world through better values, not about superiority. And further, it's significant that the Islamic followers should let go of the irrational ideal of identifying themselves as based on their religion, in totality. And instead to recognize that many other diverse identities can exist simultaneously within one's being for example as a British, an activist, a hippy, a gay and so on; hence it will make such integration with other civilisations easier. And also fundamentally, only then the Islamic followers can truly launch a genuine reformation in order to address with firm honesty, humility and integrity of the diverse systematic oppression that do exist in the religion, especially on women's and girls' rights that include the imposition of veil, mainly through manufactured consent and force, not out of free will of the women, and honor killing and violence. By such genuine reformation, only then the Islamic followers can be adaptable to progressive values as befitting of integrating mutually and with true consciousness with the modern world and humanity.

Sunny Hundal on Muslims and Free Speech

Muslims should embrace free speech
Religious groups instinctively want to censor ridicule of their religion. But it harms them in the longer term.

Another week, another media-fuelled controversy on Muslims apparently being against freedom of speech. On Monday morning on BBC Asian Network and yesterday morning on Radio 5 Live I was called in to defend the right to be offensive.

The controversy goes like this: someone on Facebook started a group called "Fuck Islam", and in retaliation several Muslims started groups calling for it to be shut down. Some said they would leave Facebook if it wasn't closed. Now here's the rub - the group owner clearly isn't some BNP supporter because he/she goes out of their way to say they hate all religions and don't want to demonise ordinary Muslims themselves. He/she adds "fuck Christianity", "fuck Judaism" to their intro and clearly is an atheist.

Should Facebook shut the group down? It isn't doing anything illegal according to UK or US law. Nor does the group contravene Facebook's own rules, since insulting any religion (as opposed to the followers) is not banned. There is only one argument left - it should be closed on grounds of taste and decency.

But rather than argue why it should be allowed to remain open on the basis that Britons have fought for Enlightenment values etc, or that shutting a Facebook group would herald the end of western civilisation as we know it, I want to make a different point.
Even when it is uncomfortable or downright offensive, freedom of speech and expression is especially important for minorities to cherish and hold on to tightly. They should argue for more of it, not less. It is a sign of political immaturity of religious "community leaders" (the MCB, HFB etc) and outdated thinking on the side of the race relations activists that they don't buy this argument. But it is a very important one nevertheless.Here are two examples to show why this is the case.

Most people who demand censorship on criticism or ridicule of their religion do so because it is their primary identity. They personally feel under attack. Why can't people respect my identity, they ask. Good question. But if people were forced by law to respect other people's identities, you couldn't criticise anything. For example, a highly patriotic American or Indian could argue that criticising their country of origin felt offensive and should not be allowed. That would make life very difficult for Muslim and Sikh groups. Respect for all identities? Certainly not - I value my right to criticise governments, public figures, organisations and religious rituals.
If religious groups want to restrict ridicule of their religion, they have to accept that criticism of other identities like nationality would not be allowed. Furthermore, it would mean anyone declaring that other religions are "false" and theirs is the only true path would also be carted off to jail.

The second point is this. Freedom of speech and expression has allowed minorities in the UK to dress in the ways they want to, live how they want to and practice their own beliefs within the law. It doesn't matter if some don't like the turban, the hijab or the niqab - as long as a person does not personally infringe on the rights of others, freedom of religion is paramount. And most of the arguments for banning them are facile. By arguing for restrictions for others, religious groups only foster a hostile environment where others may demand that these freedoms be taken back. We need more freedom, not less. And that involves taking the good with the bad.
So, for my fellow panellist from MPAC (on Asian Network) to argue that criticism of Muslims should be restricted during these "difficult times", while they continue attacking "Zionists" despite an upsurge of anti-semitic attacks on Jews in Britain (by Muslims) is a tad hypocritical. It took a decade before Inayat Bunglawala saw the light.

To be fair, religious minorities aren't the only ones who misunderstand free speech and expression. It isn't uncommon for readers on Cif and elsewhere to demand that the niqab be banned because it offends them. Similarly, I recall Brownie on Harry's Place calling for Neil Clark's article on Cif to be censored; and Norm Geras saying Columbia University should never have invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently. I find it amusing when people are happy for the BNP to make idiots of themselves in the media, but not others.
I understand that many Muslims feel under attack right now, given that xenophobic attacks on them have become commonplace. The problem is that most people don't think logically; they think emotionally. While Jews and Christians have become more politically astute in realising that creating a stink only backfires in their faces, most Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims are woefully immature in this regard. Free speech is especially important for minority groups because when there is a crackdown through legislation on "unpopular" thoughts, it usually affects them disproportionately. It's about time they realised this.

*********
Excellent articulation of arguments by Mr. Hundal; however I disagree on some fronts. While I agree that we must be critical and perhaps no topic or subject is taboo, I find it disturbing that we defend such writings in the name of freedom of speech. In my humble opinion, this is nothing but a repugnant expression of soft prejudices and it should be characterised as such. In the same vein that you defend the right of having such disgusting material, organised groups mush have the very right to express their revulsion. While I am hesitant to call for banning of anything per se, it is undeniable that it is quite fashionable to denigrate Islam (or other “foreign” religious philosophies) today. Are we at a juncture where we are postulating that there are no limits to expression? Where do we draw the lines and how can such a notion of not infringing on others’ rights be operationalised without having limits?