An interesting story...SkySports presenters Andy Gray (now sacked) and Richard Keys (now resigned) were reprimanded for ‘sexist comments’, made under the impression that their comments were made while ‘off air’.
Now, some of you may be wondering, what’s a Muslim doing commenting on a story like this? Surely, all Muslim males agree with the Sky presenters? As do their down trodden females, as they know their place isn’t on the touchline, but in the kitchen, ‘putting the kettle on’, as Karen ‘boiling blood’ Brady retorted.
This isn’t the first time, of course, people have been caught in flagrante. Gordon Brown (‘a bigoted woman’), Ron Atkinson (‘...lazy thick nigger.’) in reference to Marcel Desailly, or Ronald Reagan (‘We begin bombing in five minutes’), about Russia, to name just a few.
So what is the real issue here? The media have concentrated on ‘gender bias’ in football as being the problem. Karen Brady herself, a premier league director and successful individual, latterly known for her foray into Sir Alan’s boardroom), vented her understandable frustration, saying, ‘What really upsets me is the fact that only females in our industry are judged by their gender...’
My challenge to Karen would be however, surely it isn’t just the football industry that judges women based on gender? Isn’t the mindset of the society as a whole, one which judges all women on how they look, dress (or undress) and pout, rather than what her grey matter can contribute to society? That’s not denying that individual women in this society have deservedly made progress in all fields of life, occupying senior positions in the fields of politics, science and industry.
But, unfortunately, outweighing these examples of success, we see the flip side. The porn industry (which is estimated to contribute £1bn to GDP) is basically legalised exploitation of females; women are relentlessly marketed to sell everything (from chocolate to shampoos, motor cars to household cleaners); women are recruited for their beauty rather than ability in a certain role (e.g. secretaries, air hostesses, pop industry); as well as the worrying trend of marketing sexuality to an ever younger age group. Even more worrying when viewed in a society where the entertainment industry portrays successful women as those with the greatest assets, where women succumb at the altar of fame, and fragile young minds are indoctrinated by the media machine, with incessant programming such as ‘X-Factor’, ‘I’m a Celebrity...’ promoting celebrity lifestyles through a simple message (to be successful, I need to be rich or famous). The murky world of the barely legal porn industry, playing on the unstable emotions of young girls, crosses over into the illegal areas of prostitution and trafficking.
Programmes like the ‘Carry On...’ series or the ‘Benny Hill Show’ belong to a different era, but have societal values really changed that much...’lads mags’ are now top shelf rather than under the shelf, women’s magazines maximise sales through articles about sex. Sexist attitudes are perpetuated in various ways. Even the seemingly innocuous terms of endearment used by men – ‘luv’, ‘darling’, or ‘honey’ – betray a mindset that views women in a certain way. Once you dismiss the intellectual contribution someone can make, what remains is a piece of meat – easy or otherwise.
Until men’s attitudes to women, women’s attitude towards men - and also men’s / women’s attitude of themselves - change; until every member of the society is respected for what he / she can achieve or contribute; and until relations between men and women are established on the principle of benefit to society rather than the individual, the strides an exceptional few women make will not change the lot for ‘womankind’, who will continue to be valued for their vital statistics rather than their understanding of the offside rule.
A second issue worthy of comment from this incident is the acceptability, or otherwise, of holding onto private opinion, but publicly airing a different opinion; usually as the private opinion is seen to be politically incorrect, outdated, or racist, sexist etc. Corporations can suffer because of this same problem, whereby changes to operations or policy decisions may be supported publicly, but opposed privately, giving rise to secret agendas, misaligned objectives and disunity. In an era of free speech, will we be held liable for the opinions we carry?
The microphone gaffes demonstrate the point quite well. Is it okay for Ron Atkinson to be a racist, as long as he does not allow that opinion to discriminate against someone? Are all us men allowed to view white women as ‘easy meat’, as long as we don’t act upon it? Am I okay to oppose the updated company policy on overtime working hours on the shop floor, as long I support it in the boardroom? Is the ‘dinner table’ talk about Muslims similarly acceptable, as long as it is undertaken in private and not followed up on in the public domain?
Further, is it actually possible for one to have an opinion about a certain matter, and then refrain from allowing that belief from impacting his or her actions in daily life? Surely, at some point, somewhere along the line, I will be compromised into revealing my real convictions through my speech or action?
Are thoughts and opinion something society can regulate? Or should regulate on? Is it compatible with the idea of freedoms? Isn’t what goes on behind closed doors is our own and no-one else’s business?
As Muslims, the concept of privacy is central in life. A commonly quoted hadith indicates that a person spying through a key-hole has the right to be poked in the eye, due to infringing on someone’s private affairs, even if he witnessed the occupant engaging in a forbidden act.
Actions apart, what about censorship of thought? Another Prophetic tradition (reported in Muslim) indicates ‘Allah will excuse my Ummah for anything that occurs to their minds, so long as they do not speak about it or act upon it.’ So does that indicate free licence to hate, hold racist or sexist opinions?
Certainly not, because other evidences clearly forbid harbouring inclinations such as hatred based on race, religion or gender. Desiring for your ‘brother’ what you desire for yourself is essentially a thought or concept setting a lofty aspiration. In the Quraan, a whole surah is devoted to this subject of private conduct and moral conduct. The surah itself is called ‘The Private Apartments’, eluding to the importance of conduct when in isolation from others. A few verses are translated below:
‘O you who believe! Let not a group mock another group; it maybe that these are better than they; nor should women mock other women, it maybe that they are better than they.’ (49 – 11)
‘Do not taunt one another nor call one another by nicknames. It is an evil thing to be called a bad name after faith. Those who do not desist are wrongdoers. O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, for in some cases suspicion is a crime. Do not spy on one another nor backbite one another. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Surely you would abhor it. Have fear of Allah. He is Forgiving, Merciful.’ (49-12)
‘O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).’ (49-13)
On the subject of back-biting, a prophetic Tradition defines it as ‘speaking of your brother in a way that is irksome to him.’ The Companions asked, 'What if the defect being talked of is present in my brother?' The Prophet answered, ' If it is present in him, it would be backbiting, and if it is not present, it would be slander.'
What becomes apparent is the need for public and private personalities to be aligned. This can only be achieved through the adoption of a set of core principles that dictate actions, both private and public. It is this alone that can bring about the refined character; political correctness, ‘the done thing’ and legislation will always be secondary.
Hence solutions to such thorny issues will not emerge, until a holistic view is taken of man, his innate nature, his most fundamental thoughts about life, the ideas he carries, and the impact of these in society. This means addressing the current secular basis of society we live in. Only then would we not have to worry whether the microphone was on or off.
Hamid Chaudry
Bayyina Foundation
No comments:
Post a Comment