The ABC, Islamic arbiter

Adorning oneself with Anzac biscuits is also haram.

 Rabbits, prickly pear, cane toads, st john’s wort, deer, cape broom — how much better off would Australia be had those noxious imports been required to obtain the correct visa before being ushered into the country. Americans know better, having just sent Yasmeen Abdel-Magied packing for reporting to the airport immigration counter under the pretense that she was but a humble tourist, rather than a paid speaker at a PEN conference. It was all racist exclusionism (of course it was), said the Greens, quick to decry US xenophobia. And no doubt the ABC agrees, perhaps planning by way of cultural compensation to award their favourite Islamic token a few more episodes of the upcoming series that will teach Australian women how to dress like the chattels of a seventh century warlord.

Yes, preaching on the taxpayer dollar about the equality of all cultures engenders a rosy glow in those un-veiled sorts who have commissioned the Hijab Show, but have they taken into account the additional security costs that will be needed when Ms Abdel-Magied goes before the cameras to wrap misogyny in colourful scarves?

They had better look into it and quick because — and this will come as a shock at the ABC — Muslims are a fractious and disputatious lot with a considerable body of opinion decrying the national broadcaster’s favourite mosque maiden and her trademark turban as gross violations of Allah’s will.

According to AboutIslam.com, that handy source of guidance about all things Islamic, Ms Abdel-Magied’s headgear is a heresy, as the online imam explains while laying out the obligation to modesty imposed by the Koran 24:31:

The turban uncovers more of the woman’s adornment than what she is allowed or instructed to reveal in public among non-mahrams (close relative).

While the conditions of the veil would allow only the face and hands to be revealed at most, the turban further exposes the neck and ears and chest; and so it is not in line with what was described in the Quran and Sunnah of the Messenger as the most pure and noble garment befitting to believing women.

Mind you, a Muslim woman is instructed to observe the hijab and modesty only in public among non-mahrams. So, she is not deprived of showcasing her beauty, she can freely reveal them in the right time and place as this is the way Allah chose for her to honor her and guard her and elevate her.

Showcasing the adornments in public and among non-mahrams often result in the woman receiving inappropriate/unacceptable glances and comments from those who are strange to her. Allah wants to protect and honor women from being exposed to men’s inappropriate glances, words, or actions.

Other Islamic arbiters also have stern things to say about earrings and the sinfulness of revealing them. Presumably this goes twice for lobes transformed into epicentres of lust by a pair of Anzac biscuits.

So what does the ABC think it is doing in taking sides in this doctrinal dispute? More worrying, in what other theological wrangles is it inclined to insert itself? Can the day be far off when Michelle Guthrie’s minions weigh in on the validity of consubstantiation over transubstantiation or vice versa?

If readers would care to alert the ABC to the dangers of endorsing one interpretation of Islam over another, those warnings can be lodged here.

Stay tuned. This could be fun.

AboutIslam.com’s ruling on the wickedness of turbans (with or without earrings) can be read at this link or the one below.

— roger franklin

Read More