There is nothing medieval about a hijab – Marks and Spencer is right to sell them for children

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

‘The hijab has never been a hindrance to our education or careers and we do not suffer any inferiority complex because of it’ (PA)

Maajid Nawaz’s tweet that Marks and Spencer “facilitates medievalism” by selling children’s hijabs in the schoolwear category is deplorable. Comments like Nawaz’s fuel the flames of antagonism against visibly Muslims women and are sowing the seeds of hatred in society.

Yesterday a security guard in a reputable and well-known department store behaved in a bullying manner with a Muslim woman leaving the store, following up by moaning loudly with his colleague and making comments about Muslims. I ignored him as I thought he was highly incompetent and unprofessional. However, shockingly, he aggressively stood in front of me outside the store with his arms crossed and was disrespectful. He may have wrongly assumed I am an oppressed Muslim woman in a hijab without a voice who he could bully and disrespect. I assertively told him that I would not allow him to insult me and immediately went back into the store and reported the incident to the manger, who seemed sincerely apologetic.

The hijab has never been a hindrance to our education or careers and we do not suffer any inferiority complex because of it. As Muslim women we are aware of our rights in Islam and in society. If Nawaz wishes to promote the views of feminists and activists, he should do in a manner which will not jeopardise Muslim girls and women who choose to observe the hijab, turning them into a target of ridicule and harassment.

Navida Sayed
London

In response to the hijab making big news once again, rather tiresomely, might I add, I would like to make it clear that to call the sacred hijab “medieval” is not only hurtful but also incorrect.

Islam has absolutely no rule or law which would even suggest – let alone force – girls as young as three to wear the hijab. The hijab should no longer be up for debate, instead, we must engage in open dialogue with Muslim women to learn why they wear it.

Young girls wearing the hijab is usually about trying to emulate their mothers, as they would in other cases too. As a young girl, I would play with my mother’s hijabs the same way I played with her lipsticks and high heels. Now unless we decide to ban all makeup that is marketed towards young girls and high-heeled shoes in children’s sizes, I don’t see why the hijab should come under such a vicious attack.

There is nothing political about the hijab. It is a comfort for many women, including myself, and I am tired of it being politicised and polemicised into something that is so far from the true meaning of the hijab. By politicising it, we are fuelling a fire of hate crimes and general social discord. The fact that it is consistently debated is politicising the lives and basic rights of those who wish to do nothing more than practice their religion in a country where freedom of religion and belief is a great asset to our democracy.

I believe Marks and Spencer have taken a brave step in the route to social cohesion and understanding.

Iffat Mirza
London SW20

We need to think about why natural disasters are so devastating

While increased incidents of extreme weather events caused by climate change may partially explain the widespread damage caused by recent hurricanes, it is worth pointing out that the population of Florida has increased dramatically in recent decades, thus exposing more people and property to damage.

Since Hurricane Camille hit in 1969, the population of Florida has trebled from just under 7 million people to a 2018 estimate of 21 million. A threefold increase in the number of people living in an established hurricane zone is bound to have a greater impact on lives and property when one does strike. California, prone to even more natural hazards – earthquakes, firestorms, flooding, drought, has seen similar population rises and hence increase damage.

Surely, while humans are prepared to risk living in hazardous areas, and they consider the present, everyday positives as outweighing occasional potentially destructive and life-changing negatives, there will be more and more damage caused, and lives lost.

Adam Potterton
Address supplied

Supporting controlled migration does not make me racist

I’m tired of continuously listening to the intelligent classes (who I mix with and work for) – who mostly live in leafy city villages with their fat pensions and investments, who are in control of their own destiny due to their general higher education, intelligence and financial means – putting down all the “dumb racists” that voted for Brexit whose children can’t afford housing and barely rent, who struggle to compete with first-generation hard-working immigrants, who on a daily basis hear less and less of their own language going about their daily lives.

Of course, what could be better for the economy than a seemingly infinite supply of young, extremely hard-working immigrants to get jobs done quickly and cheaply. Businesses (whose owners and investors live in the expensive leafy city villages) love it. (It will of course be interesting to see just how hard working the second and third generation are.)

Perhaps we should take a little more responsibility for our own problems and look to improve our own workforce through training, encouragement and fairer rewards. I’m genuinely in favour of what I would consider a healthy level of immigration as it brings vitality, diversity in culture and skills, which I believe impact both society and the economy positively. But what I’m not in favour of is a complete unregulated open-door policy with no regard for less measurable (in terms of money) effects to the society just because it’s great for maintaining economic growth. Perhaps it’s time to start not being so focused on economic growth above everything else. Perhaps it’s time to start to think about economic balance instead – even if, god forbid, it means economic growth falters a little. And what really pisses me off is being called a racist because these are my thoughts.

Lloyd Peters
London

Another fine mess on the horizon

After the shambles of a negotiation regarding the rollout of rural broadband, I wonder what sort of a mess our government will make of Brexit; it will probably put a dog’s dinner to shame.

Liam Power
Dundalk

Pope Francis’s shameful blind spot for women

Let’s just say it: today’s comments by the Pontiff comparing a woman’s right to choose over her own body to contracting a killer was shameful. Full stop.

It was the latest of many comments that make it evidently clear that, despite a seemingly pastoral approach, Pope Francis has a cruel blind spot when it comes to trusting women.

These comments were all the more hurtful in the midst of a crisis of confidence within our church, and the hierarchy, around its handling of sexual abuse allegations. This massive failure has exposed deep wounds. But it has also revealed the hierarchy’s inability to trust its faithful, to be accountable to them and to advance a sexual ethic that is in accord with their lived reality.

In particular, Pope Francis has shown a glaring inability to reconcile his progressive worldview with his patriarchal view of women. He espouses a devotion to the poor and the planet. But he refuses to recognise that almost 50,000 of the poorest women globally die due to unsafe abortion every year. And that many more struggle to feed and nurture the children they have due to food insecurity and climate shocks. He neglects to reconsider the Vatican policy on birth control, in effect for half a century, which has left the world’s most vulnerable women trapped in poverty without family planning options and unprotected from the spread of HIV/Aids. And he refuses to recognise women’s equal disposition to serve as church leaders.

For Pope Francis to not only condemn the world’s poorest women through Vatican-promoted policies that limit their access to care, but to also judge so harshly their complex decision-making around their bodies is beggars belief. And it is completely out of touch with the views of the faithful.

The majority of Catholics know and deserve better. As we have seen in Ireland, Chile and elsewhere around the globe, many Catholics are pro-choice because of their faith, not in spite of it. They know God bestowed equally the gift of individual conscience to women and men – this moral compass that guides us in making decisions based on what is right. And they trust women to make autonomous choices over their bodies and their reproduction. Catholics stand by women and trust them to be moral agents of their own lives.

Catholics deeply revere our church’s social justice tradition and know that women can face many vicissitudes in life that can influence whether and when they can have children. Catholic women have abortions at similar rates as women of other faiths or no faith. More than 60 per cent of US Catholics believe abortion should be legal; 6 in 10 US Catholic voters say that abortion can be a moral choice. Majorities of Catholics in Spain (88 per cent), Poland (82 per cent), Italy (83 per cent), Brazil (81 per cent) and Mexico (72 per cent) feel abortion should be permitted under some or all circumstances.

It is shameful that the Pontiff ignores the voices and the needs of more than half of our Church’s population. It is especially disappointing that he would judge so harshly the world’s poorest women who are hurt the most by lack of access to safe and legal abortion. Simply put: we cannot be a church in service of the poor if we do not trust women. It’s time for Pope Francis to confront his blind spot if we are to heal our church and move it forward.

Jon O’Brien, president – Catholics for Choice