'The most powerful response to hate is forgiveness' – Muslim woman responds to the 'punish a Muslim' letter

As Jo Cox’s brutal murder approaches its second anniversary and we continue our efforts to join hands in support of the enduring message that came of that tragedy – one of hope not hate – we continue to be challenged by forces that seek fervently to divide and create discord in our society. We have seen this in recent weeks with concerns being expressed over antisemitic discourse and we are witnessing it in targeted attacks geared at Muslims, notably visible Muslim women, who have increasingly fallen prey to acid attacks during the past year. However, in perhaps an unprecedented campaign, “Punish a Muslim Day” is being celebrated in the UK, with various rewards on offer in return for harm afflicted on any Muslim.

It is hard to conceive that such vigilantism and racism could inform a modern, liberal society today. Through the ages, this country has remained a strong supporter of diverse communities and safeguarded the ideals of pluralism. Today, the biggest threat to these democratic principles is coming from within society, fractured by the incessant polarised discourse around religion and culture being spewed by pundits and politicians alike.

As a visible Muslim woman who calls this country home, I feel it is time we reclaim the true notions of peaceful coexistence and tolerance across denominations that have been a hallmark of this nation. The most powerful response to hate is forgiveness, compassion and kindness. Every adversity presents an opportunity, if perceived as such, and intercommunal engagement must refashion lost virtues of human dignity and mutual respect.

Ayesha Malik
Hindhead

As a hijab-wearing Muslim mother, I have been touched by the voice of the National Education Union challenging the oppressive stance of the head of Ofsted in the matter of wearing hijabs in primary school. It brings great reassurance to me to hear their unanimous response to Ofsted in this regard. It is a strong reminder that as a society we will not tolerate unjust oppression, even by a most esteemed organisation. The speakers are very correct in their description of the complete inappropriateness of a powerful inspector interrogating young children about their values in school.

For an educational authority to take such a stance about Islam serves only to further entrench Islamophobia and unjustly present Islam in a negative fashion. Worst of all it will serve only to confuse innocent young minds, and cause them unnecessary anxiety and stress.

Schools have a unique role to play in integrating and uniting their surrounding population – not fuelling the flames of Islamophobia. I’m very glad that St Stephen’s School, which made the initial ban, has acknowledged the error of its ways and hope that Ofsted will do so too having heard the voice of our enlightened teachers.

Maleeha Mansur
London SW20

Ben Chu’s article (Company gender pay gap reporting is already helping, and will continue to help tackle inequalities, 1 April) displays a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the stance Friedrich Hayek would have taken around the publication of gender pay gap statistics. He is right to say that Hayek is the intellectual godfather of my own think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and, indeed of the modern classical liberal movement more generally. He is also correct to say that Hayek wrote compellingly about the power of decentralised knowledge. However, the implication that Hayek would have seen the mandatory state collection and publication of individual companies’ gender pay statistics as an example of this “decentralised knowledge” is miles wide of the mark.

A key theme of Hayek’s work was to show that state bureaucrats, however benign their intentions, could not hope to sensibly direct or control an economy that relied on an almost infinite series of individual decisions. Mr Chu is, of course, at liberty to put forward his own view about the merits of the state legally obliging companies to publish information about their employees’ remuneration, but in claiming that Friedrich Hayek would have been an ally of his on this matter, he is plain wrong.

Mark Littlewood
Director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs

One of the many wrongs of our internet era seems, in my view, to be that most individuals promote, through social networks, an often misleading image of themselves. Moreover, too few people seem to care about another person’s education and moral values. Instead their chief interest seems to be the person’s physical appearance and material wealth – whether they are slim, good-looking and rich.

People go out more, in order to be seen, photographed, networked, and to show off their new and expensive attire and gadgets rather than truly enjoy themselves. Therefore, the public projection of their own physical, intellectual and spiritual appearance does not necessarily agree with their true self and often deviates, significantly, from reality.

Furthermore, many people often have small imperfections in their physical appearance, which trouble their lives. The normally small defect is noticed and one spends a great deal of time in front of a mirror contemplating it. Unfortunately, when one has something bothering them and they are mulling over it all the time, gradually the problem grows bigger and bigger. One may become preoccupied with it all the time. Eventually, a minor issue may become a terrible problem. In this way, one may make a mountain out of a molehill. All these issues are becoming a serious problem, especially to the young.

Lysandros Lysandrou
Address supplied