Rabia Mughal: A news story in the British paper Daily Mail last week revealed that teaching assistant Ayesha Azmi worships at the same mosque as Mohammed Sidique Khan, one of the July 7th suicide bombers. Azmi recently made headlines when she was suspended from the Headfield Church of England Junior School for refusing to take off her veil at work, lost a discrimination case, and received 1100 pounds for victimization.

Even though the Daily Mail has a right-wing stance, and has been accused of racism by some critics, there is still something disturbing about the construction of this story. According to the paper, since Azmi is a woman, she probably worships at home, but her family, who are regulars at the mosque “may have encountered Khan before his terrorist act.” The paper is quick to follow up with, “however, there is no suggestion that Miss Azmi or anyone in her family have any connection with terrorism.” What then, one wonders, is the point of this story?

The mosque probably services hundreds of people, which means hundreds of people are likely to have “encountered Khan before his terrorist attack.” So, maybe the paper’s motivation in unveiling this information was that since Azmi is in the public eye for a messy conflict about her religious beliefs, this vague link to terrorism is fair game.

However, in the absence of any concrete connection to terrorism, the prominent play given to this vague link can mean only one thing. Azmi’s family may not have any clear links to terrorists, but she is still someone to be suspicious and wary of, because her insistence on wearing the full veil at her work place is a product of the same kind of conditioning that makes a terrorist blow up a tube station— same mosque, same community, same values. There is a highly irresponsible implication here— that all forms of religious devoutness are similar in some way, leading to similar mindsets and actions. Azmi is fighting an ideological, legal, battle and the terrorists are waging an unholy, illegal, war. To view her case in context of terrorism is unjust.

The story then gives the readers a string of facts. Azmi’s father was the joint headmaster of the mosque’s school. The school has been criticized by inspectors for an over emphasis on religious studies. The mosque is run by a radical Islamic movement, Tablighi Jamaat, which emerged as a link between several of the July 7th suicide bombers. Packaged together, placed one after the other, the facts portray an ominous picture, one which implies that Azmi is part of a grand system of religious extremism, maybe even terrorism. In fact, the school’s syllabus and the influence of Tabligi Jamaat in creating violent extremists are irrelevant to Azmi’s case.

Jack Straw’s recent comments, and the resulting media debate about the full veil raised some perfectly valid concerns about the functionality of this garment in British society. But to take this largely cultural issue, and link it to terrorism, sets a dangerous precedent. There are probably hundreds of women who take the full vein in the UK, and to equate this practice (on however obscure a level) to terrorism creates a kind of hysteria and makes constructive cultural debate impossible.

Rabia Mughal is a graduate student at New York University.