Jack Straw would like to ask you to kindly remove your face veil...

[Blessed]

Salaams,

It’s not at all wrong to say that the veil hinders integration. Facial expressions are powerful tools in individual communications. How can you tell if the person you’re talking to is interested in what you say if you can’t see what their face looks like? Are they sad, happy, indifferent, bored? They eyes of course help in conveying some messages, but, so too do the lips, the nose and the facial muscles.

Zooooooms back to the 1920's . In the age of telephones, text messaging, collaborative online work, that argument is weak.

 

 

I'm not agiants a debate on the issue as there is a need for explanation and (a willingness) to understand, but that's a two way street. What's wrong with mr. Straws approach is his assumption that the veil is so trivial, it can be dropped to accomodate the lazy :rolleyes:

 

Hijabis and veiled women in particular are excluded from society by being barred from work and even some educational institutions. What's left is a society that relies heavily on representation provided by hostile tabloid media and politicians that make unhelpful asinine remarks. Community relations or the lack of it runs far deeper than the veil, Islamic schools. The sooner the government realizes that, the better for all.

 

*glad to be out of the shidhhole*

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Then he has the gall to complain about it in public. Opinions that have little basis in facts are much like hot air - easily dimissed.

 

 

Hot air? He's elected public official. It's his duty to broach any topic he deems of importance to the public eye. It don't matter one whit if the issues are spurrious or worthy. If he felt uncomfortable about members of his constituency covered head to toe save the eyes, he is justified to bring up for discussion the merit of people dressed head to toe in his community. It's only through talking that problems and misgivings can be ameliorated. Not ignoring them and letting them fester till they blow up unmanageably to the detriment of all involved.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by ThePoint:

Then he has the gall to complain about it in public. Opinions that have little basis in facts are much like hot air - easily dimissed.

 

 

Hot air? He's elected public official. It's his duty to broach any topic he deems of importance to the public eye. It don't matter one whit if the issues are spurrious or worthy. If he felt uncomfortable about members of his constituency covered head to toe save the eyes, he is justified to bring up for discussion the merit of people dressed head to toe in his community. It's only through talking that problems and misgivings can be ameliorated. Not ignoring them and letting them fester till they blow up unmanageably to the detriment of all involved.

It is his DUTY to broach ANY topic? That most definitely needs some major qualifiers. One's discomfort with another hardly results in justification to air said discomfort(you certainly have the right but not justification). In polite, civilized society one gets over it and refrains from mentioning it. It's only through talking about problems etc? I don't see a problem with women who wear the face veil - the problem lies with Mr. Straw's discomfort and irrational fears regarding 'separateness'.

 

If it really was Mr. Straw's intention to spark a debate - he could have readily begun it - with the women in his constituency who wear the face veil. He could've spoken with them and tried to understand their experiences in British society. At THAT point - when he has some basis of anecdotal knowledge - he could've taken the debate to a wider level. At the end of the day - this is about personal freedom - any fears about lack of integration/separateness have to be established before they can be included in a debate about face veils.

 

After many years of dealing with these women in his constituency and the women obliging Mr. Straw's discomfort by removing their face veils - it is odd that he would choose this time to spark a 'debate' in good faith. I'm not sure - but my hunch is this yet another example of political opportunism.

 

As to letting things 'fester till they blow up' - hopefully it is Mr. Straw's chances at Deputy Leader of the Labour party. Don't see face veiled women blowing things up anytime soon

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Lady Blessed:

Salaams,

quote:

---

It’s not at all wrong to say that the veil hinders integration. Facial expressions are powerful tools in individual communications. How can you tell if the person you’re talking to is interested in what you say if you can’t see what their face looks like? Are they sad, happy, indifferent, bored? They eyes of course help in conveying some messages, but, so too do the lips, the nose and the facial muscles.

Zooooooms back to the 1920's . In the age of telephones, text messaging, collaborative online work, that argument is weak.

 

 

I'm not agiants a debate on the issue as there is a need for explanation and (a willingness) to understand, but that's a two way street. What's wrong with mr. Straws approach is his assumption that the veil is so trivial, it can be dropped to accomodate the lazy :rolleyes:

 

Hijabis and veiled women in particular are excluded from society by being barred from work and even some educational institutions. What's left is a society that relies heavily on representation provided by hostile tabloid media and politicians that make unhelpful asinine remarks. Community relations or the lack of it runs far deeper than the veil, Islamic schools. The sooner the government realizes that, the better for all.

 

*glad to be out of the shidhhole*

You say it’s a weak argument yet you don’t point out the weakness, ayaayo!

Jack Straw is a politician and politicians are naturally opportunistic. Everything to do with Islam is the ‘in’ thing these days and he’s only doing what every other politician is doing.

 

However, on the actual issue of the veil, it’s very clear that many non-Muslims are uncomfortable with it (nothing to do with being lazy). You and I may be used to it and have grown to accept it as the norm. Mr Straw and others are not. What makes it worse is that when they ask about it, many Muslims tell them that the veil is not really an obligation and that women should only wear it in certain (extenuating) circumstances! In this light, I really can’t blame him and others for bringing this topic up and wishing to discuss it.

 

On the other hand, it’s also very clear that the media’s war against Islam is now in full flow. One day after Straw spoke about the veil, the headline on The Times was about a suspected terrorist that was alleged to have got away from the police by wearing a veil!

 

Now, are we discussing this here from the angle of the veil and the West’s perception of it or from the angle of propaganda against Islam and our natural defensiveness against it?

[AYOUB]

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Amidst it all, we forget that this

right

of his to air his displeasure with Hijab (the kind that leaves bare only the eyes) is the

same

right

that allows muslim women to wear the Hijab.

Socoto, we're only expressing our right to say what we think Straw is: beady-eyed rodent-faced opportunist.

[N.O.R.F]

[N.O.R.F]

If someone freely chooses to wear a niqab, what skin is it off your nose?

 

Pink-faced Englishmen in crimson braces make me feel uncomfortable. But let's concentrate on what really matters

 

Timothy Garton Ash

Thursday October 12, 2006

The Guardian

 

 

I have been meaning for some time to write a column in defence of the hijab, on the same grounds on which I defended free speech last week. In a free country people should be able to wear what they like, just as they should be able to say what they like, so long as it does not imperil the life or liberty of others. My only reason for hesitating was the thought that I, as a non-Muslim man, am not self-evidently well qualified to judge what the hijab means to Muslim women. If a female Muslim journalist were to write about, say, the problems of jockstrap-wearing among rugby forwards, a similar objection might be made. But if we could only write about those things of which we have direct personal experience, there wouldn't be much journalism or literature left.

 

Article continues

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None the less, our respective articles' credibility would be significantly enhanced if that female Muslim journalist had talked to a wide range of jockstrap-wearing (or, perish the painful thought, non-jockstrap-wearing) rugby forwards, and if I had talked to a range of hijab-wearing and non-hijab-wearing Muslim women - which is what I hoped to do, and have not yet done. But since a debate has now been kick-started by another non-Muslim man, Jack Straw, and has raged for a week in the British media, I feel impelled to intervene without having done the kind of research I would normally wish to have done. Reader, you have been warned.

Straw's comments referred specifically to the veil that covers the whole of the face except the eyes (niqab), or even hides the eyes (burka), not to the many variants of the headscarf which are the more usual version of hijab in Britain. It would be absurd to pretend that this is not, in practice, a slightly different matter. The headscarf is no obstacle to human interaction, "face to face". I believe France is quite mistaken to ban adult women from wearing the headscarf (sometimes confusingly called "the veil" in French debate) in public offices. Returning to Heathrow from the United States the other day, I was glad to be greeted by one of Her Majesty's passport officials wearing a black hijab, covering everything except the face. Why not?

 

The niqab or burka is obviously a greater obstacle to communication - and even identification. In certain limited contexts it's reasonable for a liberal state to insist that the face-covering be temporarily removed: the taking of a passport photograph, for example, or that passport control at Heathrow (although these days the identity check might be more reliably done by finger and iris scans). Equally, it would be too much to expect of a schoolteacher to identify, by voice alone, row upon row of identically niqabbed schoolgirls.

 

Beyond that, the niqab plainly doesn't make a personal conversation easier. As Straw rightly observed, in his sensitively written article in a local newspaper, when you talk face to face you can almost literally "see what the other person means". Fareena Alam, the editor of the excellent British Muslim magazine Q-News, who wears a headscarf, tells me that she too feels uncomfortable talking to women in the niqab, because of that missing face-to-face contact. Yes, there's an issue here - though whether Straw was right to raise it in a newspaper article, prompting a predictable stream of if-they-want-to-live-here-why-can't-they-be-like-us whingeing from the Sun, the Daily Mail and assorted xenophobes anonymous, with no fine distinctions being drawn between niqab wearers and Muslims in general, is another question.

 

In any case, I don't think Straw was right to suggest to niqab-wearing women at his MP's constituency surgery that they might like to remove the face-covering, however courteously it was done. After all, he was in a position of power in relation to them. Presumably they had come to him with a problem they hoped he could solve. In that context, the distinction between a request and a command is somewhat blurred. Indeed "you might like to do X" is a familiar English syntax of polite command. Given that these women were availing themselves of a classic democratic channel of redress - and thereby demonstrating, in a far more important way than what they wore, a degree of integration into British society - I think he might just have worked a little harder to get their meaning.

 

And just how difficult is that anyway? I recently took part in a degree ceremony at Sheffield Hallam University. It was a heart-warming event. Many of the graduands were Asian British women - often, I was told, the first in the history of their family to go to university - and some of them came on stage to collect their degrees wearing a hijab. There was polite applause for each student and louder cheering for a few who were especially popular. One of the loudest cheers went up for a female student in a full niqab. Clearly her fellow students knew the woman behind the veil.

 

Suppose I had done the kind of research I would like to have done for this column. I could have talked to niqab-wearing women by email, on the telephone and in person, in English or through an interpreter. Yes, that 10 or 20% of extra, non-verbal communication would have been lost. Tough. After all, we're not talking romance or a life-long relationship here. We're talking getting things done and getting by in an increasingly diverse society.

 

The most tiresome argument in this whole debate is that the niqab makes white, middle-class English people feel "uncomfortable" or "threatened". Well, I want to say, what a load of whingeing wusses. Threatened by drunken football hooligans or muggers - that I can understand. But threatened by a woman quietly going about her business in a veil? As for uncomfortable: myself, I feel uncomfortable with a certain kind of pink-faced Englishman wearing crimson braces, a white-cuffed pinstriped shirt and a bow tie. Their clothing is a fair predictor of the views that will come out of their mouths. But I don't ask them to take off their braces.

 

As the the communities minister, Ruth Kelly, rightly said in a speech yesterday, "This is ultimately an issue of informed personal choice." Fareena Alam, who has talked to a great many of her fellow Muslim women, says most of the British niqab wearers she has met do so from a free personal choice. Those who are simply continuing the tradition of their lands of origin are a minority within what is anyway a tiny minority of British Muslim women; and those who are pressured or compelled to do so by husbands or fathers are a minority within that minority of a minority. I have not been able to verify this myself, so to speak statistically - and every single case of coercion, let alone of using the niqab to cover up evidence of physical abuse, is a case too many. But even a quick web search reveals some fascinating stories of educated young women freely choosing to put on the veil.

 

Why shouldn't they? What skin is it off your nose? As our society becomes more diverse, we will have to become more tolerant of diversity. We need to make a triage between the fundamentals of a free society on which we cannot compromise, matters that are properly the subject of intercommunal negotiation, and third-order issues best left to time and the quiet tides of social adaptation. Free speech belongs in the first category; the veil in the last.

 

timothygartonash.com

[N.O.R.F]

'Even other Muslims turn and look at me'

 

Muslim journalist Zaiba Malik had never worn the niqab. But with everyone from Jack Straw to Tessa Jowell weighing in with their views on the veil, she decided to put one on for the day. She was shocked by how it made her feel - and how strongly strangers reacted to it

 

Tuesday October 17, 2006

The Guardian

 

 

'Idon't wear the niqab because I don't think it's necessary," says the woman behind the counter in the Islamic dress shop in east London. "We do sell quite a few of them, though." She shows me how to wear the full veil. I would have thought that one size fits all but it turns out I'm a size 54. I pay my £39 and leave with three pieces of black cloth folded inside a bag.

 

Article continues

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The next morning I put these three pieces on as I've been shown. First the black robe, or jilbab, which zips up at the front. Then the long rectangular hijab that wraps around my head and is secured with safety pins. Finally the niqab, which is a square of synthetic material with adjustable straps, a slit of about five inches for my eyes and a tiny heart-shaped bit of netting, which I assume is to let some air in.

I look at myself in my full-length mirror. I'm horrified. I have disappeared and somebody I don't recognise is looking back at me. I cannot tell how old she is, how much she weighs, whether she has a kind or a sad face, whether she has long or short hair, whether she has any distinctive facial features at all. I've seen this person in black on the television and in newspapers, in the mountains of Afghanistan and the cities of Saudi Arabia, but she doesn't look right here, in my bedroom in a terraced house in west London. I do what little I can to personalise my appearance. I put on my oversized man's watch and make sure the bottoms of my jeans are visible. I'm so taken aback by how dissociated I feel from my own reflection that it takes me over an hour to pluck up the courage to leave the house.

 

I've never worn the niqab, the hijab or the jilbab before. Growing up in a Muslim household in Bradford in the 1970s and 80s, my Islamic dress code consisted of a school uniform worn with trousers underneath. At home I wore the salwar kameez, the long tunic and baggy trousers, and a scarf around my shoulders. My parents only instructed me to cover my hair when I was in the presence of the imam, reading the Qur'an, or during the call to prayer. Today I see Muslim girls 10, 20 years younger than me shrouding themselves in fabric. They talk about identity, self-assurance and faith. Am I missing out on something?

 

On the street it takes just seconds for me to discover that there are different categories of stare. Elderly people stop dead in their tracks and glare; women tend to wait until you have passed and then turn round when they think you can't see; men just look out of the corners of their eyes. And young children - well, they just stare, point and laugh.

 

I have coffee with a friend on the high street. She greets my new appearance with laughter and then with honesty. "Even though I can't see your face, I can tell you're nervous. I can hear it in your voice and you keep tugging at the veil."

 

The reality is, I'm finding it hard to breathe. There is no real inlet for air and I can feel the heat of every breath I exhale, so my face just gets hotter and hotter. The slit for my eyes keeps slipping down to my nose, so I can barely see a thing. Throughout the day I trip up more times than I care to remember. As for peripheral vision, it's as if I'm stuck in a car buried in black snow. I can't fathom a way to drink my cappuccino and when I become aware that everybody in the coffee shop is wondering the same thing, I give up and just gaze at it.

 

At the supermarket a baby no more than two years old takes one look at me and bursts into tears. I move towards him. "It's OK," I murmur. "I'm not a monster. I'm a real person." I show him the only part of me that is visible - my hands - but it's too late. His mother has whisked him away. I don't blame her. Every time I catch a glimpse of myself in the mirrored refrigerators, I scare myself. For a ridiculous few moments I stand there practicing a happy and approachable look using just my eyes. But I'm stuck looking aloof and inhospitable, and am not surprised that my day lacks the civilities I normally receive, the hellos, thank-yous and goodbyes.

 

After a few hours I get used to the gawping and the sniggering, am unsurprised when passengers on a bus prefer to stand up rather than sit next to me. What does surprise me is what happens when I get off the bus. I've arranged to meet a friend at the National Portrait Gallery. In the 15-minute walk from the bus stop to the gallery, two things happen. A man in his 30s, who I think might be Dutch, stops in front of me and asks: "Can I see your face?"

 

"Why do you want to see my face?"

 

"Because I want to see if you are pretty. Are you pretty?"

 

Before I can reply, he walks away and shouts: "You ******* tease!"

 

Then I hear the loud and impatient beeping of a horn. A middle-aged man is leering at me from behind the wheel of a white van. "Watch where you're going, you ****** Paki!" he screams. This time I'm a bit faster.

 

"How do you know I'm Pakistani?" I shout. He responds by driving so close that when he yells, "Terrorist!" I can feel his breath on my veil.

 

Things don't get much better at the National Portrait Gallery. I suppose I was half expecting the cultured crowd to be too polite to stare. But I might as well be one of the exhibits. As I float from room to room, like some apparition, I ask myself if wearing orthodox garments forces me to adopt more orthodox views. I look at paintings of Queen Anne and Mary II. They are in extravagant ermines and taffetas and their ample bosoms are on display. I look at David Hockney's famous painting of Celia Birtwell, who is modestly dressed from head to toe. And all I can think is that if all women wore the niqab how sad and strange this place would be. I cannot even bear to look at my own shadow. Vain as it may sound, I miss seeing my own face, my own shape. I miss myself. Yet at the same time I feel completely naked.

 

The women I have met who have taken to wearing the niqab tell me that it gives them confidence. I find that it saps mine. Nobody has forced me to wear it but I feel like I have oppressed and isolated myself.

 

Maybe I will feel more comfortable among women who dress in a similar fashion, so over 24 hours I visit various parts of London with a large number of Muslims - Edgware Road (known to some Londoners as "Arab Street"), Whitechapel Road (predominantly Bangladeshi) and Southall (Pakistani and Indian). Not one woman is wearing the niqab. I see many with their hair covered, but I can see their faces. Even in these areas I feel a minority within a minority. Even in these areas other Muslims turn and look at me. I head to the Central Mosque in Regent's Park. After three failed attempts to hail a black cab, I decide to walk.

 

A middle-aged American tourist stops me. "Do you mind if I take a photograph of you?" I think for a second. I suppose in strict terms I should say no but she is about the first person who has smiled at me all day, so I oblige. She fires questions at me. "Could I try it on?" No. "Is it uncomfortable?" Yes. "Do you sleep in it?" No. Then she says: "Oh, you must be very, very religious." I'm not sure how to respond to that, so I just walk away.

 

At the mosque, hundreds of women sit on the floor surrounded by samosas, onion bhajis, dates and Black Forest gateaux, about to break their fast. I look up and down every line of worshippers. I can't believe it - I am the only person wearing the niqab. I ask a Scottish convert next to me why this is.

 

"It is seen as something quite extreme. There is no real reason why you should wear it. Allah gave us faces and we should not hide our faces. We should celebrate our beauty."

 

I'm reassured. I think deep down my anxiety about having to wear the niqab, even for a day, was based on guilt - that I am not a true Muslim unless I cover myself from head to toe. But the Qur'an says: "Allah has given you clothes to cover your shameful parts, and garments pleasing to the eye: but the finest of all these is the robe of piety."

 

I don't understand the need to wear something as severe as the niqab, but I respect those who bear this endurance test - the staring, the swearing, the discomfort, the loss of identity. I wear my robes to meet a friend in Notting Hill for dinner that night. "It's not you really, is it?" she asks.

 

No, it's not. I prefer not to wear my religion on my sleeve ... or on my face.

[Valenteenah.]

^^ Gee, she is a bit dramatic, ain't she? It can't be that traumatic to put on a niqab for one day, surely? Altho I do believe the looks and wierd comments she got.

 

LoL @ Ruth Kelly: The Equaliser.

[N.O.R.F]

^^ She is the Epitome of the 'modern' muslima (in the eyes of the media)

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by AYOUB_SHEIKH:

quote:Originally posted by Socod_badne: Amidst it all, we forget that this

right

of his to air his displeasure with Hijab (the kind that leaves bare only the eyes) is the

same

right

that allows muslim women to wear the Hijab.

Socoto, we're only expressing our right to say what we think Straw is: beady-eyed rodent-faced opportunist.

Ayuub-sheikho, maandheey, not all expressions are created equal.

 

 

The-point,

 

I owe you a reply, strapped for time now so you'll have bear with me.

[SeeKer]

^^Gee I wonder why? Why didn't they interview/follow a normal niqab'd woman who works and go to school. I am sure she could have found one of them. I can go undercover for a day as a basketballer and live the baller life but that doesn't tell me the gruelling hours they put in practice nor the joy they feel when they win a game. Its flawed to think living in someone's skin in one day will give you proper understanding of their viewpoint when the experimenter herself comes into the experiment obviously jaded!

 

And thats what they call journalism these days.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

any fears about lack of integration/separateness have to be established before they can be included in a debate about face veils.

What do you mean have to be established? What's there to be established? Are there not muslim women in the UK who refuse to integrate into British society and show their separateness by donning eyes-only Burqas/Jilbaabs?

 

I'm afraid your problem here is you're missing the forest for the trees. Getting caught up in minute details while missing The Point.

 

The issue is not what muslim women wear per se. You can be naked in the comfort of your house. No cop will arrest you or reproach you. Go outside naked and you're liable to get handcuffed. NOw, why is that? When in you're in the privacy of your home, your nakedness might be troublesome only to you. But when you're sashaying outside bare naked, it becomes a problem since others share the outdoors with you. You'll be in flagrant breach of social etiquette. A social mores that's not imposed by few but reached by consensus... therefore, ethical.

 

While cognizant the eyes-only Hijab issue is not comparable to public nudity in the absolute, the analogy I painted suffices. Wear the Hijab in your home, holy place, outdoors, public indoors etc... no problemo. But the moment you interact with others, the Hijab becomes problematic. People feel uneasy dealing with someone you can't even see how they look. Someone who could be your next desk co-worker for ages even though you can't pick her out of a crowd of Hijabed muslimahs. Because you never seen what she looks like. In the West this is goes against the grain of sociality. It also becomes law enforcement problem. How do you deal with uncomprimising Hijabed muslimah about showing her face for photo ID. Do you change the law in the books to propitiate her? Or how does aspiring fully hijabed muslimah astronaut overcome the absolute, bare minimum requirement of space suit for any space bound astronaut?

 

You see, the problem of eyes-only Hijabs transcends simple personal dislike. It's an issue that touches on many facets of everyday life. To dismiss anyone who calls for public debate on the issue as someone motivated by less than honourable reasons or is prejudiced is to insult our intelligence, do disservice to discernment and discourage open and frank debate.

 

Lastly, let us not for a moment be tempted into think this eyes-only Hijab issue has only binary outcome: either eschew the Hijab altogether or keep it. These aren't the only options available. In reality, there are a 1001 different styles and flairs to the Hijab. Everything from simple headscarf to face-only Hijabs. Reasonable people can reach reasonable outcome.

[Shakti]

Tony Blair has said the wearing of full face veils by Muslim women is a "mark of separation" and made some "outside the community feel uncomfortable".

Source

 

Now Blair joins the debate on muslim veil?

 

what else u people(uk) waiting for?? As many of you have already said, they r just pointing out the door .. which (by the way) is not far From the day they kick u out..

[N.O.R.F]

If this onslaught was about Jews, I would be looking for my passport

 

Politicians and media have turned a debate about integration into an ugly drumbeat of hysteria against British Muslims

 

Jonathan Freedland

Wednesday October 18, 2006

The Guardian

 

 

I've been trying to imagine what it must be like to be a Muslim in Britain. I guess there's a sense of dread about switching on the radio or television, even about walking into a newsagents. What will they be saying about us today? Will we be under assault for the way we dress? Or the schools we go to, or the mosques we build? Who will be on the front page: a terror suspect, a woman in a veil or, the best of both worlds, a veiled terror suspect.

 

Don't laugh. Last week the Times splashed on "Suspect in terror hunt used veil to evade arrest". That sat alongside yesterday's lead in the Daily Express: "Veil should be banned say 98%". Nearly all those who rang the Express agreed that "a restriction would help to safeguard racial harmony and improve communication". At the weekend the Sunday Telegraph led on "Tories accuse Muslims of 'creating apartheid by shutting themselves off' ".

 

That's how it's been almost every day since Jack Straw raised the matter of the veil nearly two weeks ago. Even before, Muslims could barely open a paper without seeing themselves on the front of it. David Cameron's speech to the Tories a week earlier was trailed in advance as an appeal for Muslims to open up their single-faith schools: "Ban Muslim ghettos" was one headline.

 

Taken alone, each one of these topics could be the topic of a thoughtful, nuanced debate. The veil, for example, has found feminists among both its champions and critics, proving that it's no straightforward matter. There should be nothing automatically anti-Muslim about raising the subject, not least since many Muslim women question the niqab themselves.

 

Similarly, Ruth Kelly was hardly out of line in suggesting, as she did last week, that the government needs to be careful about which Muslim groups it funds and with whom it engages, ensuring it leans towards those who are actively "tackling extremism". Other things being equal, that was a perfectly sensible thing to say.

 

Except other things are not equal. Each one of these perfectly rational subjects, taken together, has created a perfectly irrational mood: a kind of drumbeat of hysteria in which both politicians and media have turned again and again on a single, small minority, first prodding them, then pounding them as if they represented the single biggest problem in national life.

 

The result is turning ugly and has, predictably, spilled on to the streets. Muslim organisations report a surge in physical and verbal attacks on Muslims; women have had their head coverings removed by force. A mosque in Falkirk was firebombed while another in Preston was attacked by a gang throwing bricks and concrete blocks.

 

Of course, such violence would be condemned by any politician asked about it. But a climate is developing here and every time a politician raises a question that would, on its own and in the quiet of the seminar room, be legitimate for debate, they are adding to it. They should feel shame for their reckless spraying of petrol on a growing blaze. Instead they applaud themselves, and are applauded in the press, for their bravery in daring to say what needs to be said.

 

In fact, the courageous politician would refuse to join this open season on Muslims and seek to cool things down - beginning with an explanation of how we got here. The elements include many of those that feature in any build-up of hostility to a single, derided group, here or across the world.

 

The foundation is fear. Many Britons have since 9/11, and especially since July 7, come to fear their Muslim neighbours: they worry that the young man next to them on the train might have more than an extra sweater in his backpack. Next comes ignorance, a simple lack of knowledge about Muslim life which leaves non-Muslims open to all kinds of misconceptions. That feeds into a simple discomfort, personified, in its most extreme form, by a woman whose face we cannot see.

 

What's more, the set of issues that Islam raises for Britain are ones that do not break down on the usual ideological lines, allowing liberals and traditional anti-racists reflexively to line up alongside Muslims. The veil, and the queasiness it stirs in many feminists, is one example. Faith schools are another, prompting the ardent secularist to feel a sympathy for the government position that ordinarily would come more slowly. The result is that the Muslim community finds itself suddenly friendless. When it came to opposing the war in Iraq, British Muslims had no shortage of allies, but they face the latest bombardment virtually alone.

 

Muslims are not entirely passive in this drama. For one thing, the tiny handful of Islamist groups such as al-Ghurabaa or the Saviour Sect tend to confirm the wildest prejudices of those who fear Islam: they glorify those who kill civilians, they show contempt for democracy and declare that, yes, they are indeed determined to transform Britain into an Islamic state. Every time they open their mouths, life for Muslims in Britain gets harder. (Which is why the Today programme had no business giving over the prestigious 8.10am slot to Omar Brooks, whose sole qualification was his heckling of John Reid the previous day.)

 

The majority of British Muslims could have done themselves a favour if they had found a way to show just how unrepresentative Brooks and his ilk are. How powerful it would have been if, after 7/7, hundreds of thousands of British Muslims had taken to the streets to repudiate utterly the four bombers who had killed in the name of Islam. The model might have been the 2000 Basque march in Bilbao in protest against ETA violence. Or perhaps the 1992 funeral of an assassinated anti-mafia judge in Palermo, which turned into a rally of Sicilians against the crime organisation. The slogan for the British Muslim equivalent would have been obvious: Not in our name.

 

But Muslims would be right to reply that they should be under no more obligation to distance themselves from the 7/7 bombers than Britain's Irish community were expected to denounce the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s. And this, too, is a prime task for politicians and media alike - to distinguish between radical, violent Islamism and mainstream British Islam. Too often, the line between the two gets blurred, lazily and casually. Helpfully, the 1990 Trust yesterday published a survey which deserves wide dissemination. They found that the number of Muslims who believed acts of terrorism against civilians in the UK were justified was between 1% and 2%. Not good, but less than the 20% or higher found by some newspaper polls. The trust reckons those earlier polls asked a loaded question - and got a highly charged answer.

 

Politicians and media need to be similarly careful when discussing multiculturalism, refusing to play to those who believe it means a licence to secession and Balkanisation. It doesn't. Multiculturalism means allowing every group its own distinct identity and, at the same time, seeking an integrated Britishness we all share. Tony Blair was correct yesterday to say that the goal, never easy, is "getting the balance right".

 

Right now, we're getting it badly wrong - bombarding Muslims with pressure and prejudice, laying one social problem after another at their door. I try to imagine how I would feel if this rainstorm of headlines substituted the word "Jew" for "Muslim": Jews creating apartheid, Jews whose strange customs and costume should be banned. I wouldn't just feel frightened. I would be looking for my passport.

 

freedland@guardian.co.uk