Pak Tea House » Islam, Justice, Pakistan, Society, Women » Islamic Laws and Women:Why Reinterpretation is Needed
Islamic Laws and Women:Why Reinterpretation is Needed
This is an intelligently argued article sent to us by Miss Kiran Rizvi. She rightly argues that laws are eventually an outcome of the peculiar circumstances of the prevalent time period. Therefore laws have to be judged in the context of those circumstances. This way of looking at the laws also makes it essential to rethink the current interpretation which is rooted in those times. Miss Kiran’s argument is that the spirit of Islam itself provides justification for reinterpretation of the laws, particularly those which pertain to women.
by Kiran Rizvi
Contrary to the popular belief Islam neither favors nor victimizes women. What I mean by this is that Islam doesn’t go out of its way to hurt or protect women because of their special status in the society. The current interpretation of Islamic laws is more consistent with the circumstances and laws prevalent in the 7th century Arabia. Therefore it affords the same treatment of compassion to ALL members of the society which are disadvantaged, such as slaves, orphans, women and seniors. However no special treatment is given to women outside the general category of the ‘disadvantaged’.
Feminists believe that Islamic laws are barbaric and demeaning to women. They site divorce laws, rape laws, bearing witness, wife-beating, unfair distribution of property and lack of autonomy to make decisions etc. to make their case. They are correct and incorrect at the same time. Islamic laws are a combination of tribal laws as they existed (and were well accepted in the society at the time) and some modifications brought out by Islam to steer these laws in favor of those who ended up holding the short end of the stick. It is not the “Islamic” portion of the tribal laws that is barbaric, but the “tribal” portion of the Islamic law! And yes, it is very hard to distinguish one from the other.
Islamists, on the other hand try to prove that Islam is partial to women. They argue that Islam mandates men to earn, relieving women of this burden; lets women keep their wealth but use their husband’s wealth at will; gives exalted status to mothers; discourages divorces; prohibits female infanticide; gives right to own property and other such concessions as afforded by women in an ideal Islamic society. These examples are of Islamic ‘guidelines’ and not the ‘laws’, and therefore up for interpretation. The problem we have is that because Islam appears to “endorse” the tribal laws, Islamists feel they have to defend the tribal laws in the name of Islam.
So why does Islam ‘endorse’ tribal laws? Well it doesn’t really endorse or reject these laws, it inherits them. Islam was not born in a cultural vacuum. Everything about Islam reflects the culture, beliefs and practices of 7th century Arabia. Back when humans were a commodity, slavery was common, and survival of the fittest was the word on the dunes (as there were no streets in towns.) Laws that were created to regulate such a society will, of course, appear harsh, barbaric and demeaning to societies that have evolved (for better or for worse) and are quite different from the tribal societies of 7th century Arabia.
Take the example of slavery. Just because Islam did not outright prohibit slavery in all shapes and forms, doesn’t mean it endorses it either! Had Islam banned slavery outright, there would be a civil war among tribes (as in America, a thousand years later) because the society built on the concept of slavery would cease to function. What Islam realizes is that WHATEVER laws society has to keep it functional, should be IMPROVED so that they are as humane as possible without dismantling the fabric of society. If slaves are needed to keep the plantations, well, at least they should be treated humanely, fed well and given a fair chance to freedom by paying for themselves etc.
Similarly just because Islam asks men to take care of women, make their decisions for them and keep them under strict surveillance (the grounds for wife-beating), may not mean that Islam endorses total control of men over women. It can be argued that such guidelines were to ensure the well-being of women in the society they lived in. In a tribal society, women needed men and men needed the tribe to protect them. This hierarchy of protection ensured the safety of every member of the society. A man without a tribe was as unprotected as a woman without a man. The tribal council, judiciary and financial matters were settled by men, if women didn’t have a male representative they were cheated out of their rights. Women existed in the society in association with a male figure. Therefore women who had no male family members had to marry to keep their protection.
Widows, therefore, were encouraged to re-marry and young girls were married off in a hurry to powerful males, to guarantee their future protection. However, in today’s society the concept of protection has changed from that of 7th century Arabia. Governments are required to protect all citizens regardless of their gender or age. There are no grounds for men controlling the will and property of women. The argument would be that Islam did not mean to subdue women; it only meant to protect them. And all these changes can be brought without labeling them as ‘un-Islamic’. Women should be able to make their own decisions, travel alone, live alone and should be able to exist in the society without having any male associations. If a woman does not feel safe travelling without a man, then the debate should be on how to make it safer for her, rather than how to find a suitable man to accompany her on her journey!
Arguing for literal interpretation and practice of Islam is as flawed as arguing that keeping slaves is required by Islam. Can one argue that one needs to keep slaves, so they can be freed to atone for one’s sins? Obviously no one will buy this reverse logic in this day and age. Why do we, then, buy the reverse logic that women need to be controlled by men because they are incapable of taking care of themselves? Obviously it is not the lack of faith in their capability but the makeup of the society that lead Islam to set the guidelines that it did, back in the 7thcentury. Quran explicitly says that two women constitute as one witness in the matters of financial agreements. Is it to give women at least SOME say, who otherwise wouldn’t have ANY right to bear witness in such matters, or to demean the female intellect? The decision is ours. By upholding the literal laws of Quran, we would be confirming that the level of awareness, education, morality, sense of justice and rational decision making of the entire Muslim Ummah has not improved in 1500 years. All of these being the very goal of Islam!!!!
By giving us examples on how to slowly introduce the concept of justice and fair dealing in the tribal laws of Arabia, Islam has not given us rigid laws, but a golden principle. The true spirit of Islam, therefore, is not to follow the ISLAMIC LAWS written by the letter, but to improve the existing laws of each society along the ISLAMIC PRINCIPLES of justice.
126 Responses to "Islamic Laws and Women:Why Reinterpretation is Needed"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- MA
said Hehehe, Well-said wolf. Its funny, I mean what th... - real muslim
said tahir is jews agent. we can sacrifice millions of... - Dark Knight
said @Sachbol (May 18, 2012 at 12:19 am)
//...There is... - Rex Minor
said @Kalchakra
Very well said! But do you have any... - Sachbol
said Parliament-Certified Muslim
Ahmadis are not p... - Milestogo said There is no such thing as Sunni Islam. There is on...
- kaalchakra said Not sure what the problem is with seeing Pakistan...
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu...
- tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
Dear Amna
Kindly enlighten us with those verse .
Dear Humane
We are not judging History, nor the Society in pre Islam Arabia . We are judging the Word of God which is suppose to make the world Perfect . Word of God is Universal , it shall fit in the ancient times as well as modern Times .
what you are saying is that quran was improvement over Pre Islam Society but doesnt fit in the Ethics of modern times .
If you are not even aware of the verse then why did u bother to comment on it?
i had deduced
2:282 O you who believe, when you contract a debt for a fixed time, write it down. And let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; nor should the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so let him write. And let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should observe his duty to Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it. But if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness. These words form the basis of the guardian and ward law, as they point out when a guardian may be appointed for one who is not able to manage his own property. The word which I have translated as weak really signifies one too young (i.e. a minor) or one too old (Bd). Thus a guardian may be appointed not only when the owner is a minor, but also when his understanding is not sound on account of age or any other reason And call to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the one may remind the other. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. And be not averse to writing it whether it is small or large along with the time of its falling due. This is more equitable in the sight of Allah and makes testimony surer and the best way to keep away from doubts.
The point which pessimists are tend to suggest that taking of (two women and one man) witnesses could mean “valuing their word as half of that of men” but they find it hard to discern that it could also mean Quran ensured double participation of women as compared to male participation in legal and social affairs of the society.
The case stated in above verse is about having a witness or witnesses when a guardian is sealing the legal contract at behalf of a person who is unsound in understanding or weak. The point which is overlooked here is a witness or witnesses are only asked to bear witness of a deal to ensure that guardian dictates the terms with fairness. Their role is more like of the legal advisors. This is not the case where witnesses are called upon to testify against someone or their testimonies are collected about some incident. In this scenario some may take liberty to suggest that calling of two female witnesses vs. a male witness results in giving less credibility to a woman’s testimony. This DEfINITELY not the case in the verse under discussion. Since at this point witnesses are not required to give their testimonies thus “valuing of one’s word as half of that of men” is out of the question.
In addition to this it should be noted that guardian and scribe could be a male or female, no specific gender is mentioned. For instance it isn’t advised that if one can’t choose a guardian and a scribe from among men then one man and two women guardians should be taken. If Allah has really meant to establish any such law then a distinction should be made in selection of the guardian and the scribe too which we supposedly observe in the case of witnesses later. A guardian’s position, who has taken the responsibility to pay the debt, is as sensitive as, if not more than, the position of a witness whose job is to make sure no injustice is done to the person who is unsound in understanding or weak. This is enough to shut those up who suggest that Quran “values women’s word as half of that of men.”
It is necessary to comment on the significance of Arabic term “shahid or shuhda” which is translated as “witness or witnesses”.
Shahid – meaning one who gives information of what he has witnessed, or one who knows and declares what he knows, or one possessing much knowledge (Arabic English Lexicon by Edward William Lane) – Shahid also means an imam or a leader.
The bearers of witness are the persons who carry knowledge to others, bearing testimony to its truth in their own person.
The understanding of Arabic term clearly negates the remotest possibility that any tom, dick and harry could be called in to witness the contract. Those who are called in are those who possess much knowledge of their profession or duty. In above verse this Arabic term should be used with the context of verse. Context of the verse supports that those who are called in should be considered the legal advisors because they are required to bear witness to the truth of their knowledge regarding their profession in their own person.
As far as the question of one’s forgetfulness is concerned it should be noted that this is a written legal document. Witnesses\legal advisors are only required to scrutinize that the guardian has done his or her job with fairness. They will attest the contract and it is now in official record. If any of the terms and conditions isn’t met (with the time of its falling due) then one can acquire the copy of the contract from the official record for further proceedings. The legal advisors or witnesses in whose presence the contract was sealed may be called upon to clarify their attestation of the document, if required. (And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned). One may ask if the whole process is dependent on one’s memory then what is the use of this official record keeping and what is the status of this legal document? It doesn’t make any sense that in the presence of legal document (the best way to keep away from doubts) anyone would need to depend on the memory of witnesses or legal advisors etc at any point.
Witnesses or the legal advisors don’t need to memorize the contract’s clauses either because professional witnesses or legal advisors are required to keep the record. For the sake of argument if any one of them has the slightest doubt that he\she could forget about what they have borne witness to – they have the option to keep a copy of it as a reminder for future use easily. Hence weak memory of both genders is also not in question in the questioned verse. However it doesn’t make any sense at all that those, who are witnessing the contract at behalf of the one who is unsound in understanding or weak, are also unsound in understanding or weak too.
On this footing we can attempt to interpret the words of verse which are taken out of context by the so-called critics of Islam. We can’t overlook the subject of the verse i.e. to ensure that guardian would dictate the terms in presences of a witness or witnesses with fairness.
… And call to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, …
The word used is wa-stashhidû, which means ‘call to witness’ or ‘ask a person to be a witness’. The choice is from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses.
According to my understanding One person will attest this legal contract, after making sure that none of its clauses violate any of the rights of the person who is unsound in understanding or weak, from among the team of two male legal advisors but if there are not two of them available then a team of one male and two female legal advisors. The choice is given for the convenience of those who seek legal assistance and they are free to choose one from among those whom they choose to be witnesses. That person could either be a male of female who would attest the contract after consultation with his or her colleagues.
This relaxation in choice is also in favour of the witnesses because And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. This responsibility would bind them, to a certain period of time agreed upon in the contract, to make sure that all clauses of the contract are met on time of their falling due. In this scenario one can’t ignore the specific needs of a woman and hence the distinction should be made to give her relief. One can’t ignore the fact that Quran has not ignored the needs and rights of any member of the society. The selection of the words is so precise that no matter how hard we try we can’t find any flaw in them.
The Position of Official Witness
Ibn Khaldun
This is a religious position depending on the office of judge and connected with court practice. The men who hold it give testimony – with judge’s permission – for or against people’s (claims). They serve as witness when testimony is to be taken, testify during a lawsuit, and fill in the registers which record the rights, possessions, and debts of people and other legal transactions.
We have mentioned ‘the judge’s permission’ because people may have become confused, and then only the judge knows who is reliable and who is not. Thus, in a way, he gives permission to those of whose probity he is sure, so that people’s affairs and transactions will be properly safeguarded.
The prerequisite governing this position is the incumbent’s possession of the quality of probity according to the religious la, his freedom from unreliability. Furthermore, he must be able to fill in the (court) records and make out contracts in the right form and proper order and correctly, (observing) the conditions and stipulations governing them from the point of view of the religious law. Thus, he must have such knowledge of jurisprudence as is necessary for the purpose. Because of these conditions and the experience and practice required, (the office) came to be restricted to persons of probity. Probity came to be (considered) the particular quality of person who exercise this function. But this is not so. Probity is one of the prerequisite qualifying them for office.
The judge must examine their conditions and look into their ways of life, to make sure that they fulfill the condition of probity. He must not neglect to do so, because it is his duty to safeguard the rights of the people. The responsibility for everything rests with him, and he is accountable for the outcome.
Once (official witnesses) have been shown clearly to be qualified for the position, they become more generally useful (to the judges). (They can be used) to find out about the reliability of other men whose probity is not known to the judges, because of the large size of cities and their confused conditions. In assessing the reliability of (the evidence), they usually count upon these professional witnesses. In every city, they have their own shops and benches where they always sit, so that people who have transactions to make can engage them to function as witnesses and register the (testimony) in writing.
The term ‘probity’ (‘adalah) thus came to be used both for the position whose significance has just been explained and for ‘probity (reliability)’ as required by the religious law, which is used paired with ‘unreliability’. The two are the same, but still, they are different.
The Muqaddimah – page 177-178
mullahs (who learn theory from hearsay) should avoid this subject its beyond their reasoning skills and knowledge.
Dear Amna
We were talking about Wife beating verse , you dont need to cut and paste something which is not relevant to this discussion
are u suffering from memory loss?
Momin
July 22, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Dear Amna
“two women constitute as one witness ” Is it to give women at least SOME say, who otherwise wouldn’t have ANY right to bear witness in such matters
This Means that one Man is equal to two women . Please remember if Quran is perfect book for perfect world then God shall make a perfect world and not imperfect world from imperfect world .
Also Please Note that Quran itself says that it is simple to understand .
@Momin
“We are judging the Word of God which is suppose to make the world Perfect .”
dear momin
obviously your understanding of perfection is the correct understanding. Maybe you should give God some lessons on what it means to be perfect.
@ amna
your exposition of the verse is truly enlightening and educational. thanks for that post.
@ rabbit
“tell me my friend what if the man does something wrong do wives have right to beat their husband too ??”
My question to you is
1) What would your reaction be if you wife repeatedly cheats on you?
2)if you have a wife, please ask her what her reaction would be if you repeatedly cheat on her.
The Holy Quran along with the The holy prophet expect the best behavior and utmost respect and benevolence between husbands and wives. That is the actual point the Holy Quran stresses which you chose to ignore. However it is actually a testament to the Holy Quran that it realizes the unidealistic nature of life and teaches us possible ways to bring about reform. I have already explained that the verse about punishing the wive should be understood in the light of the commentary the Holy Prophet himself has given.
Aamna…that was a long winded answer for something that should be ‘simple and easy to understand’. I commend your passion to try and manipulate the clear words in Quran so they conform to the modern understanding but there are gaping holes in your theory. The fact that “witnesses” are to “err” and have to be reminded by each other clearly means that are not ‘legal advisors’ (advisors don’t err and remind each other). Also the gender of the noun used for other scribe etc. is male.
Now…some scholars have tried to run around this ayat and give the most convoluted meaning that can be extracted, but most have come up with ‘simple’ explanations…In my article I am arguing that we need not manipulate the WORDS to get the meaning we want because some words are beyond explanation..such as beating of the wife NO MATTER HOW HORRIDLY SHE BEHAVES!!! It is not the physical abuse that matters but the idea that she can be chastised by her husband but husband cannot be chastised by her (or her male relatives)…
If we look at the “intentions” of all Islamic laws, which I believe is JUSTICE, then we can create laws that are JUST in today’s society…they will be unjust for yesterday’s society and maybe tomorrow’s society but we live in the present.
@ KR
What you say makes sense to me. However, the dogma is that the law is for all time. This feature has to be addressed and the explanation convincing for this construct to work. Thanks though for a very thoughtful piece. Many muslims struggle (if they are honest to themselves) with these aspects of the good religion in the context of the underlying intent of justice. It certainly helps to get different views.
@KR
“It is not the physical abuse that matters but the idea that she can be chastised by her husband but husband cannot be chastised by her (or her male relatives)…”
This may require research but the Holy Quran hasn’t stated that husbands cannot be chastised for their wrong deeds.
Dear Skarlok
if you have something to debate on please go ahead and rebutt my point .
@Sharlok
“What would your reaction be if you wife repeatedly cheats on you?”
I know what would my reaction not be. I would certainly not beat her. The idea that you should beat you wife for cheating confirms that you think of women more like cattle.
@Amna
your very long explanation of the testimony verse did not explain why two women are equal to one man. The only hint of an explanation was your mention of “one can’t ignore the specific needs of a woman and hence the distinction should be made to give her relief” which does not sound very convincing… or at least I didn’t get what you are aiming at here.
In the Quran there’s a troubling trend of repeatedly regarding women as lesser than men. I would refer your to verses 53:19-53:22 where it is plainly stated that women are lesser than men. I discussed verses 53:19-53:22 in my Blog. They are specially important because they cannot be explained in terms of social and cultural habits of Arabs at the time.
@Amna… where r u? we r waiting for u in afghanistan.
@mubarak
Thanks. Ibn Khaldun (12 or 13 century well known Jurist) understanding of official witnesses helped me further to see that work of an official witness and its availibility could affact a woman’s homelife. If men can have two shares in property because of their duties towards family then why married women should not be compensated in their work life as well because of their duty as mothers. why they are expected to work like men (i do not mean working like maids at their husband’s place as it is expected in Pakistan).
@ others
Allah has not differentiated between men and women – dictinction is only made when the subject is about their duties and rights.
Consult Ibn Khaldun’s explanation of “official witness”. Judges appoint “official witnesses” based on “some merit”. the verse in question does not speak of “valuing one’s word half”. whoever is up to merit will be recommended as “official witness” by the judge
there is no comparison of one gender’s intellect or morals with the other in the verse. i have no idea that on what basis mullahs demand male gender superiority over female gender by using the verse in question. they only show disrespect to Allah by uttering such nonsense.
I wonder how mullahs have concluded that taking of two women as witnesses could mean one man is equal to two women? Why it can’t mean that “quota” for women in legal affairs is double than men?
fact of the matter is – quote “The word used is wa-stashhidû, which means ‘call to witness’ or ‘ask a person to be a witness’. In this case only one person bears witness, which is clear from the words “if one of the two errs”. This means that the word of a woman has the same weight as the word of a man.”
So, at the time of testimony only two witnesses are required. If two men are not found, then one man and two women will suffice of which only one woman will bear witness – Two woman are called in the first place because if one of the women is incapacitated then the other must take her place; so the word of a woman has the same weight as the word of a man.”
some interpret the term ‘err’ as “incapacitated” as well.
another opinion – “I like to return to the point that the testimony of a man and a woman have the same weight. When you read the Qur’an verses 24:6 and 24:8, you will see that in case of accusation of adultery (which is of course much more serious than some business transaction; marriage is at stake), the husband has to testify fives times and that the wife has to testify also fives times (and not ten times). [see: 24:6-11]”
Above verse should silent those who think a woman’s testimony is less credible. how rdiculous.
the verse 2:282 is certainly not about giving of testimony but witnessing of a contract. big difference!
another dogma – wife beating
quote – As for those women on whose part ye fear rebellion (nushuz), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, (and last) beat (adriboo) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them.
The key to the problem is the mistranslation of the two key words ‘nushuz’ and ‘adriboo’. Some of the possible meanings for both the words, according to the lexicon are given below. Again, the appropriate meaning will depend on the context of the verse.
Nushuz: Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord, violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.
Adriboo (root Daraba): to beat, to strike, to hit, to separate, to part etc.
In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is ‘marital discord’ (ill-will, animosity etc), and that for ‘adriboo’ is ‘to separate’ or ‘to part’. Otherwise it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure and this will contravene the Qur’anic guidance as shown in verse 4:35 below. The separation could be temporary or permanent depending on the reconciliation procedure, and this fits in very well with the divorce procedure outlined in the Qur’an (see 8.5). Therefore the more accurate translation of the above verse would be:
Surah al Nisa 4:34 As for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.
The verse following the above verse gives further weight to the above translation.
Surah al Nisa 4:35 And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and the wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever knower, Aware.
An added weight to the meanings outlined above is given by verse (4:128) quoted below, where in the case of a man the same word nushuz is used, but it is translated as ‘ill-treatment’ as against ‘rebellion’ in the case of a woman in verse 4:34. Also as the ill-treatment is from the husband, a process of reconciliation is encouraged!
Surah al Nisa 4:128
If a wife fears ill-treatment (nushuz) or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best.
This obviously is a double standard and the only way to reconcile the meanings of the two verses, in the contexts they are being used, is to accept the meaning of adriboo as: ‘to separate’ or to ‘part’. In this connection I would like to refer the reader to an excellent article from which I quote:
Qur’anic commentators and translators experience problems with the term Adribu in the Qur’an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. ‘Daraba’ can be translated in more than a hundred different ways.
The translation of Adribu as ‘to strike’ in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than:
(i) The authority of hadiths (Abu Daud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) that this is what Adribu means in this context.
(ii) The prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur’an which led them to assume that ‘to strike’, given the overall context of the verse, is the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of Adribu.
>>
Prophet’s own practice negate this – he too separation from his wives when they demanded wordly riches – if he had understood the verse to “correct” their behaviour by beating them then he should have done that. Unfortunaltely some followers of islam prefer the influence of “animal” in them. they dun tame or subdue it using God’s word.
Qur’an (2:228) – “and the men are a degree above them [women]”
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: ……… I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you…….” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “(Q-2.282) Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence……………(Sahih Bukhari).
@rabbit
“I know what would my reaction not be. I would certainly not beat her. The idea that you should beat you wife for cheating confirms that you think of women more like cattle.”
dear rabbit you have not answered my question. I didn’t ask what your response wouldn’t be. I am trying to learn what the “perfect” response would be according to you. Also, you have made an assumption about me that I would beat my wife. I am simply trying to learn different people’s approach to what the solution should be. After critisizing something an alternative solution should be presented as well so we can analyze which solution is better.
@ rabbit
by the way I would also not beat my wife.
@sharlok
When couples have problems due to extramarital affairs or any other reason they usually: talk, seek therapy, forgive, separate, etc. It really depends on the specific situation.
Beating (violence) however is considered a crime in all developed countries. I also don’t think that beating deters an adult person from committing cheating. Unfortunately Arabs/Muslims are used and accepting of violence. Kids are beaten at home and school. Wives are beaten by husbands. Men are beaten by figures of authority (policemen, military men, etc). I expect the Quran (divine word of God) to know better….
Qur’an (2:228) – “and the men are a degree above them [women]”
why do u take verses out of context?
2:228 And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses. And it is not lawful for them to conceal that which Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation. And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and men are a degree above them. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
There is comparison of rights in this verse – this verse also fails to establish the “superiority of men either in morals or intellect” over women as well.
…And their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation. And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and men are a degree above them.
Father is bound to financially support his children until they attain maturity and he is also bound to support his wife (divorced one) for 2 years after delivery in case of male child and more than 2 years in case of female child.
men’s duties a degree above women. i do agree.
”
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: ……… I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you…….” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “(Q-2.282) Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence……………(Sahih Bukhari).”
u did not give exact reference of hadith.
The Prophet said that women
totally dominate men of intellect and possessors of hearts, But ignorant men dominate women,
for they are shackled by the ferocity of animals.
Dear Amna
You are inserting lot of words to justify something which is not there . Duties ??? where is duties mentioned there ?? it just says men are degree above women .
Also Please note that men are not bound to wait for three months women are. doesn’t that make it injustice?
Quran in Sura 4:34 says:
Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 329)
Sura 2:282:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” (Bukhari,
It is an interesting article by Miss Kiran. I hope we start discussing our touchy issues, without hurting anyone, So people can move on to 21st century, without losing so may wonderful teachings of Islam.
>>You are inserting lot of words to justify something which is not there . Duties ??? where is duties mentioned there ?? it just says men are degree above women .>>
1. One is entiltled to certain rights because of their
duties.
2. The verse declares that men and women have same rights and then these words are added “men are a degree above them” – they are above them in matter of their rights – not because of their morals or intellect.
3. In this case if a woman insists on divorce then man is the loser not the woman because according to Islamic law she and her child will be entitled to get financial support. He will not lose his family but he will have to provide for their basic needs too. He won’t be able to start a new family if he can’t financially support them.
it would be better for the sake of child’s welfare that he\she gets a chance to live with their father “And their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation”.
>>Also Please note that men are not bound to wait for three months women are. doesn’t that make it injustice?>>
irrelevant
>>
Quran in Sura 4:34 says:
Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 329)>>
Men are the maintainers of woman, with what Allah has made of them to excel others, and with what they spend out of their property (4:34).
This is for married women. This verse entitles them to get financial support from their husband “with what they spend out of their property”.
It is these extra responsibilities that give man a degree over woman in some economic aspects. It is not a higher degree in humanity or in character. Nor is it a dominance of one over the other or suppression of one by the other.
It would be better that you first understand the context of verse and then speak about it. After marriage a woman has to live in her husband’s house and he has to “maintain” her in his home accoridng to his means.
Let Allah be the sole authority or Let Hima lone dominate or Be Superior because he won’t do injustice to anyone. Human should avoid such aspirations.
The verses of the Quran, in relation to women, should be examined in the broader perspective. Essentially, we are dealing with two issues here:
1. Rights of women
2. Answerability of women
With respect to the rights of women, the Quran states in lucid terms that they enjoy equal as well as similar rights as men. God says: “…and they (women) have rights similar and equal to those (of men) in equity…” [Quran 2:228]. The Quran proceeds to say, in the same verse: “…and men have a degree of advantage over them (women)…” [Quran 2:228]. In another verse God explains the rationale of this “darajah” or degree of advantage that men have been granted over women. God says: “…men are appointed guardians over women on account of that, in respect of which, Allah has made some of them excel others due to the fact that they spend of their wealth…” [Quran 4:34]. In this verse, the Arabic term used is “qawwaamoon” which some translators have inappropriately translated as “superiors”, whereas by any standards, “guardians” would be closest to the real meaning. The reason for men having been placed as guardians is stated as “due to the fact that they spend of their wealth” – which means to say that the Quran places the responsibility of serving as the breadwinner on man of the house. Obviously, this relationship comes to exist only within the domain of the family – not between male and female per se. This does not mean to say that the Quran in any way discourages women from pursuing a profession. It only means that within the domain of the family, the burden of managerial “answerability” has been placed on men. For the woman, earning is her sweet choice. For the man it is a responsibility for which he is answerable to God. Thus the guardianship awarded to men is linked to their answerability and their answerability is on account of their guardianship. As far as individual fundamental rights of the genders are concerned, they remain both equal and similar [Quran 2:228].
Regarding the verse about two women witnesses [2:282], we must not forget that this relates to domestic financial loans, not to female finance professionals. Actually, if you study the verse more carefully you will appreciate that in principle, only one woman replaces one man as a witness. The second woman’s involvement is conditional to the woman witness admittedly forgetting. Thus the second woman is more of a back-up. Essentially, here again, the answerability of the woman has been thus halved, in the event of a memory lapse.
The Quran is not only open to interpretations, it invites interpretations. Undoubtedly medieval interpretations need to be replaced with those that serve the needs of our age. Moreover, we do not have to necessarily throw a fit each time we come across a new interpretation.
Thanks for your exposition on some of these matters. I’ve also felt the Quran says [Quran 2:228] that men have a “daraja” over women due to their physical structures being different from women. After all, we don’t we women boxers compete with men boxers, or women athletes with men athletes in general at the professional level.
I would like to know you comments on the verse regarding men being allowed to chastise their wives and if the vice versa is allowed?
This may allow us to clear up some of the confusion between skarlok and rabbit. After all domestic violence against women is truly a very lowly act in my opinion, does the Quran really endorse such a thing?
@mubarak (July 26, 2010 at 3:57 am)
“…..After all, why don’t women boxers compete with men boxers…..”
Just wondering. If you tossed this question to a maulana, he would perhaps have replied that men should indeed have boxing matches with women, so that they can fulfill the commandment of “fadriboo hunna” [4:34], which of course all maulvis, given the choice, would love to translate as “beat the hell out of them”.
Actually whenever the task of translation is assigned to the literalists, they invariably come up with the most wonderful ideas. If a literalist were to read, leave aside translate, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, when he would arrive at “…Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears…”, he would be imagining people physically lending their auditory organs, by detaching them from the sides of their heads. If a person overhears me, for instance, saying, “the mullahs ride my nerves” and infers that my entire nervous system is studded with mullahs, one mullah per neuron, and each straddled on a nerve cell of mine, this person could safely be categorized as a literalist.
The expression “fadriboo hunna” [4:34] could be translated as “strike them”, “chastise them”, “reprimand them”, “part with them” or even “explain to them”. The term “darb al amsaal” refers to “elaborately explaining by means of examples”. Let us not forget that the root word “darb” means strike as well as explain.
The issue needs to be examined in its entirety. Muhammad who termed women “qawaareer” meaning glassware, could not possibly have ever translated “fadriboo hunna” as beat them. He, most definitely would have understood this expression as meaning either “part with them” or “offer them counsel”.
Regards.
…And call to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the one may remind the other. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. And be not averse to writing it whether it is small or large along with the time of its falling due. This is more equitable in the sight of Allah and makes testimony surer and the best way to keep away from doubts.
memory lapse is out of question since this is a written document (makes testimony surer and the best way to keep away from doubts).
English term ‘witness’ can’t be a substitute of arabic term. eg You may be the bearers of witness to the people and (that) the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you
it is clear that duty of prophet is not only to deliver the message but to stand as authority (witness) that people do not misinterpret religion.
It is more likely that “so that if one of the two errs, the one may remind the other” the two witnesses are the guardian (who has to implement terms by bearing witness to them) and the one who has to make sure that guardian dictates the terms fairly and implement them.
it is required that there is a check on guardian and should be reminded if s\he errs.
4:5 And make not over your property, which Allah has made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, and clothe them and give them a good education.
4:6 And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property, and consume it not extravagantly and hastily against their growing up. And whoever is rich, let him abstain, and whoever is poor let him consume reasonably. And when you make over to them their property, call witnesses in their presence. And Allah is enough as a Reckoner.
one has to keep in mind all the relevant verses on this subject. this speaks of the duties of guardian and witnesses.
>>And when you make over to them their property, call witnesses in their presence. And Allah is enough as a Reckoner
it would be convenient if witnesses’ comfort is taken into consideration if their duties can prolong for a long time of period.
Why did “god” do the foolishness of choosing to talk in a language that has so many ambiguities in it?
bin ismail wrote: “Let us not forget that the root word “darb” means strike as well as explain.”
A language wherein two such opposite meanings are made to sit on the same root – such a language is not suited for divine talk.
If A wants to communicate with B then the two must first agree on a common, clear, unambiguous, mutually comprehensible language and definitions of words to be used.
How much time people are wasting on old worn-out languages that have no solutions for our problems of today.
They waste their time and energy on these languages and the so-called god’s instructions in them and then come home and produce children like rabbits (because that is the only activity that they can then perform – their brain is so dead and stultified) and then complain that their problems are getting worse.
What I see here is an attempt by some to convince themselves that “idrubuhunna” does not mean “beat them”. However, explanations provided so far are weak at best. The whole argument sounds like a smart lawyer trying to defend a clearly guilty client. I see the follwoing problems with your explanation:
- The fact that you need to write long articles to explain something as simple as “you are not allowed to beat your wife” indicates that the verse itself is not very clear. Otherwise it would not be an issue of debate. And this is a shortcoming of what is supposed to be a divine text.
- Irrespective of your interpretation, one can argue that it does not matter what God really meant in this verse. What really matters is what his followers think he meant.
- This is not the only verse which is the subject of debate. Somehow it seems that whenever God is referring to women there is controversy. Is he always not properly explaining himself when it comes to women or is it something else? What about verses 53:19-53:22 where God clearly states that having females as daughters as opposed to males is unfair? What is the explanation here?
to rabbit
when I wrote producing children like rabbits then I certainly did not mean you!!!
But, as every honest person can see, the whole god-concept of this old arabic book is a humbug leading men and women to disaster. Your intelligent comment shows this clearly.
What god is this who can’t talk clearly to the people of the 21st century? Do we need such a god in the present times? Just look at the confusions, endless-meaningless debates, linguistic shows, waste of time, violence, arrogance and oppression in the name of god etc. that he is causing. But some are so intimidated or made crooked in their beliefs by this god-concept that they will rather go down the drain and pull many along with them than accept that the whole show is bizzarely atrocious.
“After my death I want to be gurarateed a place in some god’s heaven” – this motivation is proving to be a source and cause of much hypocrisy and crookedness.
@ Amna (July 26, 2010 at 7:55 pm)
“…..It is more likely that “so that if one of the two errs, the one may remind the other”…..”
A memory lapse does not at all suggest amnesia. It simply suggests forgetting something, which of course is perfectly human. Moreover, when you use the expression “remind”, you imply naturally that there is a memory lapse in question. Only the “forgotten” is reminded.
@rabbit
“….. Otherwise it would not be an issue of debate. And this is a shortcoming of what is supposed to be a divine text…..”
Notes of dissent written by judges who are members of a larger panel, do not suggest that there was an inherent “shortcoming” in the language or text of the written law. It simply suggests that there was a difference of opinion in interpreting it.
@rationlist
1.”…..Why did “god” do the foolishness of choosing to talk in a language that has so many ambiguities in it?…..”
The ambiguity itself can be due to the foolishness, prejudice or haste of the person attempting to judge the Word of God.
2.”…..A language wherein two such opposite meanings are made to sit on the same root – such a language is not suited for divine talk…..”
Herein lies the test for man’s intelligence and serious mindedness and search for truth.
3.”…..If A wants to communicate with B then the two must first agree on a common, clear, unambiguous, mutually comprehensible language and definitions of words to be used…..”
If both are equal in station. When the Creator and Master chooses to speak to His creation and servants, He makes the choices.
4.”…..the whole god-concept of this old arabic book is a humbug…..”
Humbug mentalities are know to hold everyone and everything but themselves as humbug.
5.”…..What god is this who can’t talk clearly to the people of the 21st century?…..”
God has spoken to man from the days of Adam, and will continue to address man till the end of days. Clarity is a permanent attribute of His Word. Skepticism, on the other hand, has been an attribute exhibited by man.
“God has spoken to man from the days of Adam, and will continue to address man till the end of days. ”
I thought the 700 AD hotline was the final and ultimate one. Anybody who questions this is not a true Muslim.
@bin ismail
Please remember that rationlist is an all-knowing being and knows everything about the collective psychology of human society, God should just follow his dictates.
@Abhi
“I thought the 700 AD hotline was the final and ultimate one. Anybody who questions this is not a true Muslim.”
Yes the mulla’s phone got disconnected after 700 AD and they didn’t bother to reconnect.
@ Bin ismail
“A memory lapse does not at all suggest amnesia. It simply suggests forgetting something, which of course is perfectly human. Moreover, when you use the expression “remind”, you imply naturally that there is a memory lapse in question. Only the “forgotten” is reminded.”
There is a verse which speaks of quality of believers and of their qualities is that they enjoin good.
One stands in need of reminding because of different state of minds as result of one’s circumstances, men and women alike. 5 times prayer is a reminder too that one should not forget the purpose i.e to serve Allah.
it seems like that guardian is more in need of reminding than others.
two women’s memory(its abilities) is not in question at all because they do not need to memorise the legal document as it is in written form.
@Amna
One stands in need of being reminded because:
1. one is liable to forget
2. one is liable to lose sight of something
3. one is liable to be oblivious
If you happened to have gone through my earlier post, I’ve offered an explanation that the role of the second female witness is essentially that of a “back-up”, who would become operational only in case of need, and whose purpose is basically to minimize the accountability of the female witness by 50%.
The point that you’ve raised, does indeed make a lot of sense, that the idea of having two females in lieu of one male is to double women’s involvement in these matters. Very rational and well argued, I must say.
yes i have read your posts. I do understand your points. thanks.
i was asked – “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?”
i agree with thise view “At least, the above are not words of Quran. Hence the reader is at more liberty to accept, reject, imply, deduce and contextualize the “intelligent” side of these opinions.”
i searched on internet and could not find better translation except.
>>Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
On ‘Id ul Fitr or ‘Id ul Adha Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) went out to the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms. He said, “O people! Give alms.” Then he went towards the women and said. “O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women).” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?” He replied, “O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray.” Then he left. And when he reached his house, Zainab, the wife of Ibn Masud, came and asked permission to enter It was said, “O Allah’s Apostle! It is Zainab.” He asked, ‘Which Zainab?” The reply was that she was the wife of Ibn Mas’ub. He said, “Yes, allow her to enter.” And she was admitted. Then she said, “O Prophet of Allah! Today you ordered people to give alms and I had an ornament and intended to give it as alms, but Ibn Masud said that he and his children deserved it more than anybody else.” The Prophet replied, “Ibn Masud had spoken the truth. Your husband and your children had more right to it than anybody else.”
>>
Usually interpreters neglect the basics and complicate the issue. I do not know if it is the best translation of the hadith but if we can still try to understand it. We have to bear in mind that we can’t be compared with an audience which was educated by prophet and had the required knowledge to understand his words. We have to be clear of certain concepts and use of vocabulary (meanings of giving alms, religion, zawj etc) before interpreting them in other languages.
>> Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. >>
General understanding of these words which is prevalent that majority of women will be in hell or prophet might have encouraged giving of alms for fear of ending in hell is wrong.
One is asked to be charitable for the love of Allah only. Quran encourages doing of good for the sake of nourishing and development of his own faculties (Taking of Allah’s colour). Once that understanding is attained then making a choice between what is beneficial for self (source of food for soul) and harmful for self (misuse of abilities which leads to grieving and fear) is easy.
Hell is conceived by many a place of torture but it is a condition which one suffers for loss of his spiritual health. It is conditional and curable if one changes his course.
I read that >>In another prophecy, after referring to chastisement it is stated at the end:
Why should Allah chastise you if you are grateful and believe? (The Holy Quran, 4:147).
That is, what purpose will it serve God to chastise you if you become grateful and believing? In this prophecy it is meant to convey that the chastisement to come will be averted by gratefulness and faith.>> Does God hear man’s prayers? By Mirza Ghulam Ahamd.>>
“O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).”
These words can be reconciled with his 2nd argument only if we interpret them as – O women (women also stands for weak conscience\carnal soul) – Give Alms (nourish your faculties and use them properly for your and others’ welfare) – as I have seen that majority of hell-fire (lack or misuse of faculties) were you (women) (those under influence of carnal soul).
If hell fire is not avertable or he for sure knew that majority of women will end in hell fire he would not need to mention the remedy i.e. Give alms.
Literal meanings can’t be reconciled with >> they asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. >> because prophet has already stated the reason why majority of women are in hell – it is because they do not give alms. There was no need for his audience to further inquire “They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?”
It seems that charity of money is not in question but charity of one’s abilities\character is in question.
His reply was – You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you
This is not general address to all women. It is an address to particular women who are guilty of that behaviour. He would not address them like that if he was not aware of their practice personally. It is not likely that he was assuming all women (nature varies) have such personality traits. He was specifically speaking of married women.
One characteristic of prophet which is spoken in Quran is – that if your manners were rough they would not have gathered around u (paraphrasing).
He may be pointing out to them that these two things cursing and ungratefulness can cause ill feeling and destroy family life. If one can’t see what one’s choices can lead to then that person is definitely deficient in intelligence (which helps one to see the consequences) and religion (which makes one morally and socially better person).
If we take cursing and ungratefulness of carnal soul (one characteristic of devil is hopelessness) to Divine soul, which is breathed in us all – then it is easy to interpret these words – rebellion of carnal soul against divine soul makes one deficient in intelligence and religion. (Such ppl are called worse than animals in Quran).
>>A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.”>>
According to Quran’s law no one is responsible for others’ actions.
If he meant that discord between couples can affect one emotionally then it is acceptable.
It is also acceptable that carnal soul can led some of us astray.
>>The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative.>>
I do not understand this argument – it is already mentioned by him that “cursing and being ungrateful to husbands” makes him think that they r deficient in intelligence and religion – why would they need further explanation? Like he already told them that through his prophetic vision he saw that majority of women in hell and they could escape by giving alms – why women need to ask him again “why is it so”.
This is not an intelligent dialogue or we need better and authentic translation.
I agree with this view ” We can’t construct general principles contrary to the teachings of the Quran on the basis of such reports.”
bin ismail’s defence of his god-concept leads to a fascist society in the name of god. The one who questions is devilized, ridiculed, humiliated. A god who approves of such methods (as displayed by bin ismail) in his justification will end up supporting and strengthening a fascist society.
The point is: if A communicates with B and B is confused about it then it is largely or basically A’s mistake. No point ridiculing B in order to flatter A.
Since we know that a muslim is not allowed to question the kuran, hence any dialogue with muslims on this issue is a waste of effort. Thus fascism becomes stronger in muslim societies top to bottom and bottom to top. People like bin ismail, even (or especially) with their pious airs, carry a big guilt in this process. Islamic arguments convince those who have decided to be dumb. Those who reject being reduced to a dumb level have to endure the wrath of the fascist bosses in muslim societies. I know this from personal experience. And this fascism hides itself, whenever convenient or necessary, under piety.
@ rationlist
Speaking hypothetically, yes, in the A-B dialogue, B could be confused. Agreed. Again, speaking hypothetically, B could also be biased and prejudiced. In that case, too, I believe you would agree with me, that B would not be willing to understand.
To bin ismail
This matter of B being biased or unwilling to understand (vis-a-vis A) etc. is possible in interhuman relationships. God – your arab god – does not have this excuse at his disposal. If the one who is supposed to play the god-role cannot convince or causes confusions leading to conflicts then why blame the one playing the human-being-role?
You are repeatedly committing the blunder of using human excuses to justify your arab god. I think god does not (or should not) need that. In fact you are making your god into a ridiculous figure by forwarding human excuses (excuses which may have some weight if used by human beings) for defending your god’s faults and failures.
As regards fascism – it has a very subtle method of capturing a society or a religion or a family or a human mind, sometimes in a very harmless-looking or pious-sounding fashion. I wish that you make yourself aware of these subtelities. The developments in arab-religion-based societies are alarming.
Yasser Latif Hamdani / Kiran Rizvi / Amna… : i have a suggestion. You guys write wonderfully. I will draw a rough-sketch (outline). You refine the thought-process.
Point # 1. Islam gave freedom to women 1400 yrs ago. The maximum freedom possible. A daughter’s share in her father’s estate. UK gave women equal rights., just a century ago. 2 centuries ago, there was a market (like the Bakra Mandi or Cattle Market) in Italy where women were sold openly, as cattle ! In US, the blacks got the right to vote., a few decades back… .So this is just to refresh the memory… before people generalise with sweeping statements (without solid scholarship… unfortunately).
Point # 2. However the literal translations, have made life difficult for muslim girls. PURDAH and BURQA have nothing to do with Islam. The Burqa as we know today., is of Turkish Origin (originally for Turkish ROYALTY !). The peasant-woman never observed Purdah over the past 14 centuries., working with her husband in the fields. An average muslim like HAKKU (and not Raja Saheb Ali Mohammed Khan of Mahmudabad or Nawab Ismail Khan of Rampur); have always been close to the “heart” of Islam ! So what is meant by Purdah ? Purdah = Modest Dressing. Decent Dressing. So if you ask me, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi observes “Purdah” perfectly ! Then what is non-purdah : Rakhi Sawant. Thats it.
Point # 3 : Gold Jewelry is “not allowed” (Haraam) for men in Islam. Everyone knows this. What few people know is the fact that GOLD JEWELRY is looked down upon… EVEN FOR WOMEN… in Islamic thought and culture. (The Prophet turned back when he saw his daugher wearing a gold chain). So YLH/ Amna/Kiran… write an article highlighting the fact that Muslims must boycott GOLD JEWELRY. Muslim women must ideally, NOT wear jewelry at all. The amount of money spent on the UGLY Gold., must be spent on Books. How about giving 100 books to a girl (in Dowry / Dahej) instead of 10 tola Gold ?
A Muslim woman’s Jewelry is her Ilm. Develop this thought. However the desire to look good is basic… so… a make-shift compromise could be : go for FANCY JEWELRY., but for God’s sake., BOYCOTT GOLD silently… It is not sync with 2010. It is very expensive… ugly… and a dead-asset. Muslims must go for books., and knowledge-acquisition. That must be the IN Jewelry for the Muslim girl-child.
Purdah-Wurdah chhoro.. Physics-Math ki baat karo.
@ rationalist (July 29, 2010 at 1:13 pm)
Let’s assume, to suit your convenience of course, that God was a declared non-Arab and showed you the shining sun, and told you that this was the sun, and you very expectedly chose to deny it, the manifesting shortcoming would, in my humble opinion, be yours, not God’s.
@Dastagir (July 29, 2010 at 1:36 pm)
Your rough-sketch (outline) is hardly wanting in refinement. Very well said indeed.
There is a verse – Allah has made subervient to you whatever in heavens and on earth.
Make best use of spiritual and phsical means provided by Allah. excel in both.
Gold is one of the blessings and there is no harm in using it.
it would be better if she could use her own knowledge and reasoning to write her own books. There is no harm in to take benefit of others’ research but dun subject to ur self to that only. Use it in a manner to advance further
The term khimar is used in Quran whicg does not mean hijab or veil.
to bin ismail
A non-arab god would talk to me in my own mother-tongue – and not expect me to learn someone else’s ambiguity-filled mother-tongue before he can talk to me.
The example of the shining sun that you give does not correspond even 1% to what is actually happening in terms of confusions and conflicts due to thes arabic book and relgion in the real world of today.
I don’t choose to deny anything – as you would like to postulate about me for the convenience of your arguments – but reject only when I recognize that I and others around me are being fooled or misused or intimidated. Denial by choice is what Pakistan does in order to save its face when terror strikes. Honesty by choice would be a better alternative for all. Fooling, misusing or intimidating human beings is especially bad when done in the name of a god (whichever god or god-concept).
@ Dastagir
Last time I checked, diamonds are a girl’s best friend. I would love to see the expression on the receiving girl’s face when she gets the latest addition of ‘Nuclear and Particle Physics’ by WSC. Williams. Worthy thought though:)
i would like to add
If a woman (You may be the bearers of witness to the people and (that) the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you) can bear witness to the legacy of prophet than it is far greater than witness a financial transaction.
From among those (your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women) whom you choose to be witnesses.
The choice to appoint witnesses is given to whom?
I do not think it is given to guardian because if s\he has an ill intention then they can take witnesses of their choice.
Scribe and witnesses should be those who work for the judge or Islamic courts.
Judge should appoint witnesses. The written document will then have some legal position in an Islamic society and each party (guardian and the minor) can claim its rights by using it in future.
Judge has to decide on “availability” of witnesses alone. S\he needs two witnesses either two men or one man and two women.
That could mean
1. Two options (either two men or one and two women) are mentioned. It is not stated further that in a condition in which no man is available then would two women suffice as witnesses? Or one man’s availability as witness is a must.
2. That begs this question – Is the one, who has to choose witnesses, is at liberty to use another option in above state a scenario? Or s\he should wait until one man is available?
3. What in that scenario if only a male and female are available – then should judge delay the contract until another male and female could be found – so the condition is fulfilled?
4. I do not think Allah would have wanted it to make it difficult for the judge. We can sort this out if we assume that at least two witnesses or not more than 3 witnesses are required regardless of their genders.
5. In sets when we make pairs of two sets we do this – Set A – [male1, male2] Set B [male1, female1, female2] – the combination of pairs could be if we have to take at least two in a set and not more than three in a set – combination of two pairs will be [male1 of set A and male1 of set B] (two males), [male1 of set A, Female1 of set B] (one male and one female), [male1 of set A and Female2 of set B] (one male and one female), [male2 of set A and male1 of set B] (two males), [male2 of set A, Female1 of set B] (one male and one female), [male2 of set A and Female2 of set B] (one male and one female) – combination of three pairs will be [male1 of set A, male1 and female1 of set B] (two males and one female), [male1 of set A, Female1 and female2 of set B] (one male and two females), [male1 of set A, male1 and Female2 of set B] (two males and one female) etc
The options will only be
Two males
Two females
One male and one female
Two males and one female
One male and two females
I think the options can only be workable if the flexibility of choice is given to judge and s\he can choose between minimum availibility of witnesses i.e atleast two and maximum availibility of witnesses i.e three. Judge can deal with any scenario. it can’t work if we bound ourselves with just two options mentioned in verse.
@Dastagir
“Islam gave freedom to women 1400 yrs ago. The maximum freedom possible.”
This is one big myth perpetuated by Muslims to justify the harsh Islamic Sharia laws that are unacceptable by any standard. It is well known that the winner gets to write history and so the myth of mistreatment of women and burying of daughters alive in aj-jaheliyyah somehow became an established fact. However, I am not going to dispute whether Islam did indeed free women. I have one point to make. You mentioned how women in western societies did not gain their rights till the last century. This is true. What are important are the laws and moral standards of today not a hundred or a thousand years ago. And today western democracies are ages ahead of Islam when it comes to women rights. Comparing the status of women before and after Islam in the Arab peninsula is no longer a valid excuse. It is time to move on…