A woman’s testimony

There are a number of Quranic references to men and women acting as witnesses, where both are regarded as equal.

By Dr Riffat Hassan

A COMMON assumption in Muslim societies, namely, that the testimony of one man equals that of two women, is based on a reading of Surah 2: 282.

It states: “O you who have attained faith! Whenever you give or take credit for a stated term, set it down in writing. And let a scribe write it down equitably between you; and no scribe shall refuse to write as God has taught him: thus shall he write. And let him who contracts the debt dictate; and let him be conscious of God, his Sustainer, and not weaken anything of his undertaking. And if he who contracts the debt is weak of mind or body, or is not able to dictate himself then let him who watches over his interests dictate equitably. And call upon two of your men to act as witnesses; and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses, so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her.” It is explicated in the above verse — the longest in the Quran — that the following steps that should be taken when a financial arrangement involving credit is being made. Whenever credit is given or taken for a stated term, it should be documented in the form of a written contract. The scribe writing down the contract should do so honestly, in accordance with the laws promulgated in the Quran. The person dictating the contract should do so honestly and not “diminish anything thereof”.

If the person who is contracting the debt is not able to dictate himself due to physical or mental weakness, or any other reason, then the person watching over his interests, should do so. The written contract should be witnessed by two men. If two men are not available then one man and two women can be called, “so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her”.

Commenting on the last point, Dr Fathi Osman states: “When the Quran requires two women to substitute a man in witnessing a credit, this does not imply any devaluation of the physical or moral abilities of a woman, but it just refers to the fact that women in many cases, may be less familiar with business procedures — especially the detailed specifics and legal aspects — than men, and therefore they may be more liable for errors in this respect. Accordingly, it may be wise to make sure that if one of them should make a mistake, the oth er could remind her.” Since, in seventh-century Arabia, women were rarely called to be a witness to a financial contract, the Quran allowed for the presence of a second woman. However, it is to be noted that the two women are not both witnesses who are called upon to testify one after the other, or together. Only one of the two women is a witness, the other woman is a “helper”, who is to “remind” the woman witness in case she makes a mistake. Here, it is implicit that if the woman witness does not make a mistake, she would not need to be “reminded” by the woman who is there to help her.

Here, it is pertinent to point out that there are a number of Quranic references to men and women acting as witnesses. In all of them, both are regarded as equal. In fact, in the case of li’an, the wife’s testimony has priority over the husband’s, as stated in Surah 4: 6-9: “And as for those who accuse their own wives (of adultery), but have no witnesses except themselves, let each of these (accusers) call God four times to witness that he is indeed telling the truth, and the fifth time, that God’s curse be upon him if he is telling a lie.” But (as for the wife, all) chastisement shall be averted from her by her calling God four times to witness that her husband is indeed telling a lie, and the fifth time, God’s curse be upon her if he is telling the truth.

The Quranic perspective on witnessing is summed up by Dr Fathi Osman in the following statement: “A testimony of a woman is equal to that of a man in principle, and each has to be evaluated according to one’s intellectual and moral merits in a given case.” ¦ The writer is a scholar of Iqbal and Islam and teaches at the University of Louisville, US.

http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.a...2_2009_006_018

Taliban and the Sharia

By Dr Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 06 Mar, 2009

Francoise Rose-Auvet stands on stage before a row of inquisitive faces and introduces the puppets of Amiens to her youthful, restless audience. There are the three little pigs and their mother, and the wolf who blows down their houses. And then, she says, there are Sandrine and Lafleur, the Punch and Judy of local puppetry. “But they don’t speak French,” she explains. “They only speak Picard.”

Rose-Auvet, artistic director of the Theatre de Marionettes, has no doubt in her mind about her own cultural identity. Born and brought up in the region around Amiens in north-eastern France, she is Picard and fiercely proud of it.

But, after a career spent celebrating the language, culture and history of her lifelong home, she is now faced with the possibility that it could cease to exist. Under proposals being submitted to Nicolas Sarkozy, the ancient region of Picardie may be wiped off the map. “It’s as if someone took away your surname,” she says. “It is part of us. We are French but we are Picard too. We are one big family.”

When he asked former prime minister Edouard Balladur to look into the reform of France’s complex administrative system, the president said he hoped the result would be a road map to a more efficient and streamlined country.

France is the most thoroughly administrated nation in the world, with 22 metropolitan regions, 100 departments and 36,783 communes forming a three-tier system through which the policies of local government are filtered down. Critics say that cutting the number of regions to 15 would save the state money, reinforce the power of local authorities and help slash France’s notoriously sticky red tape.

But Balladur’s proposals have provoked horror among those who face having their boundaries redrawn, their capitals changed or — in the case of Picardie and western Poitou Charentes — their names erased altogether. The outlying suburbs of the capital fear being encroached on by the creation of a “greater Paris”. Rennes fears it will lose out to Nantes at the head of a newly enlarged Brittany. The central Auvergne region fears it will lose its local flavour by being lumped together with the upper Rhone valley and the French Alps.

In Picardie, where residents lay claim to an easygoing regional temperament and joke that even 1789 passed through their homeland with relative calm, the proposals have unleashed a storm of protest. Deemed to be an artificial region made up of three departments with little in common, the Balladur report recommends removing Picardie altogether. The northern Somme would be taken into Nord-Pas de Calais, the southern Oise into Ile de France, and the western Oise into Champagne Ardenne.

But 63,000 Picardians have signed a petition, and a Facebook group aimed at spreading the movement has 27,000 members. The Socialist president of the regional council, Claude Gewerc, has decried the proposed mergers as “one stupidity too far”. He said: “Picardie is a real historical land. It’s not a modern region that was born just like that very recently. It was in Picardie that the French language was born.”

Others have questioned the motives of Sarkozy and his right-wing administration. Describing the proposed carve-up as the return of the “ancien regime”, the Communist newspaper L’Humanité said it was reminiscent of an age when the ruling monarch would decide the fate of others in an arbitrary and self-serving fashion.

Balladur said in an interview with Le Monde that reform was needed, and the changes were necessary with an impending recession. “Having a local system based on about 15 regions with extended economic powers ... would contribute to this dynamism,” he said.

— The Guardian, London
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...and+the+sharia

__________________
No signature...

Gender equality before God

Friday, 13 Mar, 2009
By Dr Riffat Hassan

THE equality of man and woman in the sight of God is unequivocally affirmed by the Quran, which has assigned the duty of “enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong” to both men and women.

That piety, righteousness and good deeds of both men and women will be equally recognised and rewarded by God is stated in many passages, including the following: “And thus does their (the believers’) Sustainer answer their prayer: ‘I shall not lose sight of the labour of any of you who labours (in My way), be it man or woman: each of you is an issue of the other’.” (Surah 3:195)
“Anyone — be it man or woman — who does (whatever he can) of good deeds and is a believer withal, shall enter paradise, and shall not be wronged by as much as (would fill) the groove of a date-stone.”

(Surah 4: 124) “And (as for) the believers, both men and women — they are close unto one another (awliya): they (all) enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and are constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues, and pay heed unto God and His Apostle. It is they upon whom God will bestow His grace: verily, God is Almighty, Wise!”

“God has promised the believers, both men and women, gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide, and goodly dwellings in gardens of perpetual bliss: but God’s goodly acceptance is the greatest (bliss of all) — for this, this is the triumph supreme!” (Surah 9: 71-72)

“As for anyone — be it man or woman — who does righteous deeds, and is a believer withal — him shall We most certainly cause to live a good life; and most certainly shall We grant unto such as these their reward in accordance with the best that they ever did.” (Surah 16: 97)

“Verily, for all men and women who have surrendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves (before God), and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remember God unceasingly: for (all of) them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward…. Now whenever God and His Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to claim freedom of choice insofar as they themselves are concerned.” (Surah 33: 35-36)

With reference to the word ‘awliya’, Dr Fathi Osman has stated that this word, “used in the Quran (Surah 9: 71) to show the mutual rights and obligations of men and women in society underlines both the ‘responsibility’ and the ‘authority’ that men and women should equally share as inseparable members of … society as a whole.”

In the case of punishment for wrongdoing, as in the case of reward for good deeds, man and woman are treated equally, as stated in Surah 24: 2: “As for the adulteress and the adulterer — flog each of them with a hundred stripes, and let not compassion with them keep you from (carrying out) this law of God, if you (truly) believe in God and the Last Day”.

It is noteworthy that while the Quran prescribes identical punishments for a man or a woman who is proved guilty of fornication or adultery (zina), it differentiates between different classes of women. For the same crime, a slave woman would receive half, and a consort of the Prophet (PBUH) double the punishment given to a free Muslim woman. The reason for this differentiation in punishment awarded to three different classes of women was that they were not equally placed in society.

Thus, while upholding the principle that men and women should receive the same punishment for the same crime, the Quran recognises a slave woman’s vulnerability, and the normative, social significance of the actions of the wives of the Holy Prophet. Therefore, it shows compassion in the case of the former, and holds up a higher ethical standard in the case of the latter. n

The writer is a scholar of Islam and Iqbal teaching at the University of Louisville, US.
rshass01@gwise.louisville.edu

__________________
No signature...

Little focus on Quranic values

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 20 Mar, 2009

ON the occasion of Miladun Nabi recently, the ulema showed their skills of oratory saying that Islam is the solution to all our problems. The rhetoric is repeated year after year.

No one used the auspicious occasion to reflect on why the Muslim world is in turmoil and riddled with serious problems if this is the case. The Muslim world must be able to put its own house in order, and also have a leading global role in solving modern-day problems. The harsh reality is that we use such rhetoric to hide the truth about the Muslim world. It needs not only honest reflection but also calls for a serious rethinking of issues.

We should also know, if we care to face the truth, that what is happening in the Muslim world today is contrary to what the Quran teaches, and we are never tired of talking about those lofty teachings. For example, we say Islam gives equal rights to woman, but in the Muslim world women are most backward and oppressed and facing serious problems. Unfortunately, the whole world has come to think that Islam suppresses women’s rights more than other religions do.

We say that the Quran places a great deal of emphasis on knowledge, and there are innumerable verses, perhaps more than on any other subject, on ilm. But we find the Muslim world swamped with illiteracy. It has never tried to excel in the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in the modern world. It is a pity that it does not have a single university which can be listed among the top 100 in the world.

It is also unfortunate that it has not produced any Nobel laureate in the natural sciences. Instead of being proud of his achievements, Pakistan was more concerned that Professor Abdus Salam, who worked and did his research in the US and set up an institute in Italy, was an Ahmadi. His proposal to Saudi Arabia to finance his laboratory for research in particle physics was rejected. It was then financed by Unesco.

The Quran lays great emphasis on justice which is one of the names of Allah (Allah is Adil) but we hardly find traces of justice in the Muslim world. In fact, like the five pillars of Islam there are five most fundamental values in the Quran i.e. truth (haq), justice (adl), benevolence (ihsan), compassion (rahmah) and wisdom (hikmah). These all derive from Allah’s own names, and hence these values are most fundamental. We emphasise the five pillars of Islam — and rightly so — but never the five basic Quranic values.

Take a look at the Islamic world and you will find Muslims enthusiastically emphasising and even practising the five pillars of Islam but you will hardly find any practising Quranic values. These values are very modern and indeed represent the solution to many of our problems today. But while the Quran greatly emphasises these values, the Muslim world totally neglects them in practice.

If we go beyond the rhetoric and start grappling with reality, the starting point will be to make a serious attempt to establish the causes of our lack of enthusiasm in the Muslim world for Quranic values. We should ask ourselves as to why our great orators outdo one another in emphasising the five pillars but not the five Quranic values. The fact is that in modern times no other system ever emphasised these values so much as the Quran; yet, the whole history of Islam is bereft of these values.

Is it not true that the Muslim ruling classes found these values great obstacles in the way of their interests and saw to it that these values were not emphasised at all? Any serious student of the Quran, reflecting honestly on its teachings, would know that the five pillars of Islam and the five values of the Quran not only complement each other but also that one is incomplete without the other. Yet, we emphasise one without the other.

It will be of great benefit to Muslim masses everywhere if both the pillars and the values are emphasised simultaneously. But we know that the ruling classes exert their influence on the entire political and educational system to smother any attempt to emphasise these values. And without practising these values, the Muslim world can never take the lead in the world. ‘Islam is the solution’ will remain only empty rhetoric, repeated as it may be endlessly.

It is precisely for this reason that along with these pillars and values, the Quran lays so much emphasis on knowledge. It is knowledge which brings awareness, and awareness translates into action. In the Muslim world today, there is neither awareness nor action, and any popular movement is put down by the ruling classes. Does not this state of dismal affairs, then, demand some serious rethinking by Muslim intellectuals?

The writer is an Islamic scholar who heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.

__________________
No signature...

Stress on judicial impartiality

By Syed Imad-ud-Din Asad
Friday, 27 Mar, 2009

Regarding the administration of justice, the Quran declares: “Surely We have revealed the Book to you with truth so that you may judge between people by means of what Allah has taught you. And be not one pleading the cause of the dishonest.” (4: 105) The verse lays down that dishonesty must be punished, and the balance of justice must be held equal between friends and foes, Muslims and non-Muslims.

Judges are required to be upright so as not to be swayed by ties of relationship or by considerations of fear, favour or the kind. The Quran says: “O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of testimony for Allah, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether one be rich or poor….” (4: 135) And then, “... And not let hatred of a people keep you from acting equitably….” (5: 8) “... So judge between men justly and follow not desire....” (38: 26)

The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was known for his fair and impartial administration of justice. He strictly implemented equality before law, and never made any distinction between litigants on the basis of faith or relations. Instead of claiming any legal immunity, he laid down the rule that even the head of state may be challenged, in both official and private capacities, in a court.

His following statement demonstrates it all: “Verily those who were before you were destroyed because when a man of stature from among them committed theft, they passed no sentence on him. By Allah, had Fatima, the daughter of Mohammad (PBUH), committed theft, I would have cut off her hand.”

The successors of the Prophet also ensured the implementation of judicial independence and impartiality. Caliph Umar once went to a judge for the settlement of a dispute. The judge, on seeing the caliph, rose to his feet as a sign of respect. Umar, considering the act as an unforgivable weakness, immediately dismissed him from office. On another occasion, Umar caused his son to be publicly flogged for drinking alcohol.

These instances show the extent to which impartiality is expected of a Muslim judge. The following portion of a letter, written by Ali to one of his governors, eloquently explains the status and role of the judiciary in Islam:

“Select as your chief judge one from the people who by far is the best among them; one who is not obsessed with domestic worries; one who cannot be intimidated; one who does not err too often; one who does not turn back from the right path once he finds it; one who is not self-centred or avaricious; one who will not decide before knowing full facts; one who will weigh with care every attendant doubt and pronounce a clear verdict after taking everything into full consideration; one who will not grow restive over the arguments of advocates; one who will examine with patience every new disclosure of facts; one who will be strictly impartial in his decision; one whom flattery cannot mislead; one who does not exult over his position.

“But it is not easy to find such men. Once you have selected the right man for the office, pay him handsomely enough to let him live in comfort and in keeping with his position, enough to keep him above temptations. Give him a position in your court so high that none can even dream of coveting it, and so high that neither backbiting nor intrigue can touch him.”

Thus, we see that Islam provides for an independent and impartial judiciary. As law in Islam stands at the apex of social organisation, those who administer the law must likewise be elevated and kept independent of executive control.

Also, it is the duty of the judges to stand firm for justice though doing so may become detrimental to their own interests.

The writer is a Harvard Law School graduate based in Lahore.

syed_asad@post.harvard.edu

__________________
No signature...

Going back to the Quran

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 03 Apr, 2009

But first the one in the English-language daily. This report was based on interviews with young madressah-going girl students from Kerala. The madressah authorities had banned the press from talking to the girls. It is interesting to note that these girls, like others elsewhere, conveyed aspirations of their own. A 15-year-old said, “I want to become a pilot”, another said, “I wish to become a doctor.” A third girl said she wanted to become a civil servant. Most other girls also showed similar aspirations to achieve something great in life.

The other story in the Urdu daily reported a speech by Maulana Shamsuddin Chaturvedi who, while conferring the ‘turban of merit’ on students who had completed memorising the Quran, said that Islam was a complete code of life and that we must observe its teachings, not allow our women outside the home and make them observe the veil.

The maulana further said that women were the embellishment of the home and that they should not venture out; that unlike our ancestors, we do not observe the teachings of Islam today; that we dishonour our families by allowing women to become ‘lax’ in their morals.

The sum and substance of his exhortations was that Muslims should exercise strict control over their women. It is such ideas that have contributed significantly to decline amongst Muslims today.

Going back to the madressah girls’ story, what does the contrast in their thinking and that of the maulana show? That Muslim women want what some of our ‘ulema’ don’t desire for them. It clearly shows that many sections of the ulema today live in a world of their own. This, while they keep saying that even they do not live in an ideal world as endorsed by Islam. They live in the world of Islam but with a mediaeval mindset.

This is precisely the world in which the Taliban also live, and that is why they persecute, harass and even kill those, including women, who want to achieve something in this life. Just before I read these reports I was surrounded by some Hindu women who worked among Muslim women for their uplift in Bihar. They asked me why so many restrictions were put on women and why Muslims could divorce their wives by pronouncing the word talaq thrice. I began to explain to them that it was not the true teaching but that some Muslims used controversial traditions to allow these things to happen.

Two Muslim journalists who had come to interview me were also sitting by my side. When I used the words ‘controversial traditions’, they became angry and began arguing with me as to ‘whose’ Islam I was talking about. It is your Islam, not the real Islam, they said. They were apparently ‘educated’; yet they had a similar attitude to the faith as our traditionalist ulema do. These days our institute in Mumbai is conducting interviews with noted ulema in order to codify the Sharia laws pertaining to Muslim marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. as they are applied today very loosely in India. When they were asked about codifying rules for regulating polygamy, most of them maintained it could not be regulated as men had the ‘right’ to take up to four wives without even consulting the existing wife or wives.

This is necessary, they maintained, to check prostitution. The Holy Quran does not even indirectly justify polygamy on such grounds. When one points out that the verse on polygamy was revealed after the battle of Uhad, in which 10 per cent of Muslim males were killed and it was meant for taking care of widows and orphans, not to check prostitution, they say it is one’s own invention.

Some of the ulema interviewed even showed ignorance of Verse 129, which says you cannot do justice to more than one wife, even if you desire and do not leave the first wife suspended (mu’allaqatan). They still argued that a man had the unrestricted right to marry four wives. It is ironical that to such traditional ulema, the tradition as practised in mediaeval times should be more important than what the Quran spells out in clear terms.

There is thus an urgent need to re-educate our ulema running the madressahs so that Muslim women can breathe easy and be able to realise their potential in society, something on which we spend so much of our oratorical skills but then go on to deny them these rights in practice. One form of jihad in our times must be to struggle for women’s rights which are so concretely and precisely spelled out in the Quran, and which they continue to be denied.

The faith can no more be practised the way it was during the mediaeval ages. Islam must always be seen as being in conformity with the Quran over and above all else. The Quran is the revealed word of Allah; any departure from it and giving mediaeval tribal traditions precedence over it can only produce the Islam practised by the Taliban.

The writer is an Islamic scholar, who also heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.

__________________
No signature...

Girl’s flogging not Islamic

By Dr Riffat Hassan
Friday, 10 Apr, 2009

THE horrific sight purportedly of the Taliban’s public flogging of a girl and the sound of her heartrending screams have outraged many Pakistanis who have condemned this act of cruelty in the strongest terms.

It has also been condemned by some religious leaders. There is no question that the sight of the merciless flogging by a man of a powerless girl lying on the ground, being held down by other two men while others watched, evokes feelings that are too deep for tears.

This has been demonstrated by the outpouring of protests in many places in Pakistan. As a theologian who has worked for more than three decades on the rights of women in Islam, I am gravely concerned about the girl who has suffered such dreadful humiliation and pain.

The faceless, nameless and hapless girl seen in the soul-searing video clips must not be regarded simply as a statistic — as one of hundreds of girls and women who are routinely subjected to domestic and societal violence in a country that was created to provide safety and protection to all its citizens. It is a source of satisfaction to know that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken suo motu notice of the case, and has asked for the victim to appear in court. By doing this the court has recognised the girl’s fundamental right to be treated as a human being.

It is a moral and legal imperative now that all the particulars of the girl in question be known and scrutinised rigorously. At this time the story is shrouded in mystery. We do not know with certainty as to the offence, alleged or actual, for which the girl was flogged. Different statements have been made in this regard in the media. For instance, it has been insinuated that she had been living and thus having illicit relations with her father-in-law, and that was why she was flogged. I have also heard a rights activist say that she had been flogged because she had refused to marry one of the Taliban, whose proposal had been sent to her family.

Such statements have little logical or legal weight. Living in the same house with one’s father-in-law does not constitute any wrongdoing in terms of Islamic law. Incidentally, it should also be noted that a father-in-law is, in fact, a mehram and not a non-mehram, as clarified by verse 24: 31. Islam has made voluntary consent a precondition for marriage, therefore, non-acceptance of a proposal for any reason whatsoever does not constitute a wrongdoing for which one can be punished.

With regard to the insinuation that the girl had illicit relations with her father-in-law, and was, therefore, guilty of a hadd crime, the question arises: was she proved guilty beyond any doubt according to the conditions specified for an indictment of fornication under the Sharia? If so, where are the four witnesses who are known to be truthful, just, of upright, good moral character and unimpeachable integrity, who saw the commission of the act with their own eyes?

Also, if she was proved guilty in accordance with Islamic law, why was no punishment given to her father-in-law who would also be deemed equally guilty according to the following lines in verse 24:2? “As for the adulteress and the adulterer — flog each of them a 100 stripes, and let not compassion with them keep you from (carrying out) this law of God, if you (truly) believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of believers witness their chastisement.”

Apparently, the girl was flogged 34 times. The hadd punishment for zina is 100 lashes. Why did the 100 lashes get reduced to 34 lashes if the girl was actually found guilty? Under the Sharia, every person is regarded as innocent until proved guilty. Since no evidence has been produced so far — in any court or even in the media — to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the girl who was flogged was guilty of any wrongdoing, she must be deemed innocent, and the cruel punishment meted out to her must be deemed to be totally unjust and in blatant violation of Quranic teachings and Islamic law.

The writer is a scholar of Islam and Iqbal, and teaches at the University of Louisville, US.

rshass01@gwise.louisville.edu

__________________
No signature...

Purdah: Quranic and social

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 17 Apr, 2009

A FEW days ago I read in a newspaper based in Lucknow that a Muslim lady, about 50 years old and head of a Muslim women’s welfare organisation, declared her candidature for the forthcoming parliamentary election in India. She wanted to contest in order to project women’s problems in parliament.

It was also reported that as soon as her candidature was declared, she began to receive phone calls from some maulvis that women were supposed to be purdah-nashin (one who wears the veil and stays at home), and are not supposed to contest elections. She did not pay much heed and was determined to contest the election.

A few years ago, a Muslim woman candidate, under the 33 per cent reservation, filed her nomination for the municipal election from Deoband, which is the seat of the famous Islamic seminary Darul Uloom.

A fatwa was issued back then that a woman could not contest elections as she was supposed to observe purdah. She too did not care and fought the election but was told to wear the veil while campaigning. Now the question arises: is observing purdah as traditionalists say obligatory as per the Quran, or is it a social custom, which is strictly observed in certain families?

I have read many articles in the Urdu press which glorify purdah and maintain it to be no obstruction in carrying out a normal day’s activities; many argue that it enhances women’s capacity to work. However, the truth remains that we tend to accept anything in the name of Islam and begin to praise or justify it.

It is also to be noted that there are different types of purdah observed in different Islamic countries or communities. Women wear the abaya in Saudi Arabia which covers a woman’s entire body from head to toe. In Iran women are required to wear headscarves to cover their head only. In the subcontinent some Muslim women wear the burka covering their entire face and body, others with their eyes showing. Others wear the burka but do not cover their face.

Thus, the kind of purdah we observe differs from country to country and from one community to the other. What is the Quranic position? In Arabic, the veil is called ‘hijab’ which means to cover, to hide or to stand in between. The Quran does not use the word ‘hijab’ for women in general. Instead it exhorts women not to display their zeenah (adornments, charms) publicly (verse 24:31).

This was to check rich and neo-rich women displaying their most charming dresses and embellishments publicly. However, they were permitted to do so before all those men and women who were their close relations, and men they were not allowed to marry. The Quran nowhere requires women to cover their faces or much less sit at home. Verse 31 of Chapter 24 begins by exhorting both men and women to lower their gaze when they meet each other. If women were required to wear the veil, covering their face, where was the question of lowering their gaze?

The word ‘hijab’ has been used in the Quran only for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH). Verse 33:53 exhorts men not to enter the Prophet’s house except when invited, and not to linger on talking to his wives; if at all one had to ask for something, it should be done so from behind a hijab. This was because some tended to linger on after dining to indulge in talk with the Holy Prophet and his wives.

What some of us make our women observe in the name of hijab or being purdah-nashin is more of a social custom from the tribal, feudal ages when all sorts of restrictions were imposed on women, and it was thought that the position of women was at home to serve their husbands and children. Even most orthodox ulema agree that verse 24:31 does not imply that women cover their faces. In fact, there is consensus (ijma) that women should only cover their heads and other parts of body, except the face and the two hands, as observed at Haj.

Since the crucial word in the Quranic verse is ‘zeenah’, and not ‘hijab’, ulema agree that women can not only keep their faces exposed but also apply kohl to their eyes and wear rings on their fingers. The Quran places no restrictions on women such as we find in many Muslim societies today. They are free to move, exercise their rights and even earn a living.

One does not find a culture of purdah, as observed today, anywhere in the Quran. Women are supposed to be active members of society alongside men. They even took part in battles during the Prophet’s time. In fact it was a woman who saved the Prophet’s life in the battle of Uhad by taking the sword’s blow on herself. They also took part in public debates, and Hazrat Umar even appointed a woman as a market inspector.

Let us thus follow the Quran and not the social customs and traditions of yore which only reflect certain mediaeval values more than the actual Quranic injunctions. Let us not paralyse half the Muslim population in the name of Islam. If women too become active members of Muslim society, the order emerging will be much more dynamic and socially healthier.

The writer is an Islamic scholar who heads the Centre for Study of Secularism and Society, Mumbai.

__________________
No signature...

Dispelling myths about Sharia

By Dr Riffat Hassan
Friday, 24 Apr, 2009

I HAVE received a number of emails in response to my article entitled ‘Girl’s flogging not Islamic’ published on April 10 in this space.

Some of them have accused me of lying in order to protect Islam, and of being in a state of denial and ignoring events such as the flogging of a 75-year-old woman in Saudi Arabia, and acts of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims in India and elsewhere.

The majority of these emails — which I would characterise as hate mail — came from Indians and non-Muslims. However, the reservations about the Sharia expressed in these emails are similar to what has been voiced by a number of Pakistani Muslims in the contexts of the Lal Masjid episode, suicide bombings, and more recently, the prospect of having a Sharia-based Nizam-i-Adl in Swat.

As an educator who has taught Islamic Studies for more than three decades, I have learnt from experience that though there are many people who strongly support or oppose what they call the Sharia, there are very few, including Muslims, who have a clear idea of what this term denotes or connotes. Generally, Sharia is used as a blanket term to refer to a code of law which regulates all aspects of a Muslim’s life. It is often used synonymously and interchangeably with Islam and Islamic law.

Due to the Islamisation process in Pakistan, which began in the 1970s, and targeted women through the promulgation of Ziaul Haq’s Hudood laws, the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about the Sharia is its penal law, particularly the fixed punishments for certain crimes. It is, however, of utmost importance to know — particularly in today’s bitterly divided Pakistan — that the meaning attached to Sharia in classical Islamic law and theology is very different from the meaning given to it both by those who have a very rigid, narrow and literal understanding of Islam, and by those who have never studied Islam but believe that it is incompatible with human rights, particularly women’s rights.

What we are witnessing today is a shouting match between people representing the two opposing mindsets neither of which seems to be aware of the classical perspective that Sharia was grounded in normative Islamic ideas of universalism, rationalism, moderation, social justice and compassion.

There are a number of urgent and important reasons as to why Pakistanis in general, and youth in particular, should be educated regarding the original concept, historical development and current relevance of Sharia. In this context it should be borne in mind that Islam is the matrix in which the lives of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are rooted.

Given this fact, Islamic Studies should be the best-taught subject, but it is often the most neglected and badly-taught subject. There are a number of outstanding, progressive Muslim scholars, both in Pakistan and other countries who understand the lack of knowledge that exists about the fundamental and universal teachings of Islam — not only amongst non-Muslims, but also amongst Muslims.

They also know that the future of the Muslim ‘ummah’ depends on how well we educate the next generation about Islam, particularly its ethical principles which inform all other aspects of its teaching. Help from these scholars should be sought in order to dispel the confusions that exist in the minds of young Pakistanis about Islam, so that they do not end up internalising the flawed understanding of Sharia that is widely prevalent today.

Dr Fathi Osman, an internationally venerated Egyptian scholar, despite his advanced age and frail health, came to Pakistan on short teaching trips in 2006-2007 to share his vast knowledge of Islam with local students. Amongst what he taught was that the fundamental purpose of the Sharia is to facilitate life, its primary emphasis being on recognising and safeguarding human dignity conferred by God on all Children of Adam as stated in Surah 17: Al-Isra, verse 70.

Sharia is not restricted to penal laws but covers all known areas of law including modern laws (e.g., national, international, constitutional, administrative, socio-economic, civil, commercial, labour, public sector and mixed economic entities). The penal law is a very small part of the Islamic legal system, and ‘hudood’ is a very small part of Islamic penal law whose major part has been left to the human continuous legislative and judicial intellect.

The writer is a scholar of Islam and Iqbal, teaching at the University of Louisville, US.

rshass01@gwise.louisville.edu

__________________
No signature...

Islam prohibits ‘marital rape’

A man cannot force his wife to fulfil his lust just because he has paid her the ‘mehr’.

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 01 May, 2009

A CONTROVERSY has ensued after the Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a supposedly Sharia bill that says a woman can be forced into physical intimacy by her husband against her will. Rights organisations and many western governments were outraged, and he reportedly agreed to review the bill.
This, however, raises the question: does Islam allow what is now called ‘marital rape’ i.e. can a woman be forced by her husband into physical intimacy? Many Muslim jurists in all probability will say ‘yes’. After paying the compulsory dowry money (mehr), according to traditional Islamic jurists, the husband acquires the right over his wife, and she cannot refuse him intimacy.

However, if we look at the Quranic pronouncements, it is not so. Mehr is certainly a necessary part of Islamic marriage and without paying the mehr a husband cannot go near his wife. But it is not true that as soon as he pays the dowry money, it becomes his unconditional right to have physical intimacy with her. Nikah and mehr do not make him the ‘owner’ of his wife’s body. No one except she herself owns her body.

Let us look at some of the Quranic pronouncements in this respect. It is well-known that marriage is a contract in Islam and the Quran calls it a strong covenant (4:21). However, any contract is subject to certain conditions, especially when it comes to a marital contract between two individuals. That is why the Quran, while describing marriage as a covenant, goes much beyond just that and terms this relationship between man and wife as tender and sensitive.

The Quran describes man and his wife as libas (apparel, garment) for each other (2:187), thereby implying that marriage or the desire for intimacy is much more than just fulfilling a natural instinct like hunger or thirst. It has a higher end, and a marital contract is a means of protection for each other, comfort and embellishment for each other; that is what an apparel or garment is meant for. Thus describing husband and wife as each other’s libas, the Quran has beautifully described this relationship.

Also, the Quran describes this relationship as mawaddah and rahmah (30:21) i.e. love and compassion, and also seeking solace in each other (li taskunu). This is a very sensitive description of a marital relationship. Force and compulsion have no place in it. It will destroy this relationship.

Mawaddah and rahmah are the very basis of this relationship. A marriage cannot persist without love and sacrifice for each other. It is not a piece of land that one can acquire the right over after paying for it.

Nowhere does the Quran say that a husband acquires the right over his wife’s body after he pays mehr to her. This is a very crude concept of marriage that defies Quranic logic and values. The Holy Book is so sensitive to a wife’s rights that it allows her even to refuse to suckle her child, if she so decides. Just consider the following important verse (65:6): “Lodge them where you live according to your means and injure them not to discipline them. And if they are pregnant, spend on them until they lay down their burden. Then if they suckle for you, give them their recompense, and consult one another in a fair manner, and if you both disagree (that mother should suckle the child), another woman should suckle (the child) for her.” Thus, the verse makes it clear that a man cannot even force his wife to suckle their child, and if she does so, he should pay her for it. Thus, it can be forcefully argued that the Quran gives a woman undisputed right over her body, and not her husband. It is for her to decide whether to suckle her child or not.

Unfortunately, traditional jurisprudence has ignored many Quranic pronouncements. It tends to read the Quran while under the influence of patriarchal values of yore, the time at which this jurisprudence or Sharia (an interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah) took shape. It is equally important to remember that the existing jurisprudence is as manmade as a review of it would be in our time and age.

It is the right of the present generation of Muslims to re-read and reunderstand the Quran in the light of the prevailing social values created by a new awareness of woman’s rights and sensibilities, in particular. We must construct jurisprudence in the light of the Quran to give Muslim women and other obviously wronged and disadvantaged sections of society their due. Traditional jurisprudence has been deeply influenced by its medieval, patriarchal and tribal values, and women lost many of their rights which the Quran had given them.

If we go by Allah’s word and its logical understanding, a man certainly cannot force his wife to fulfill his lust just because he has paid her the dowry money. It is a tribal, and certainly not a Quranic, value. The Quran is highly sensitive to a woman’s individuality and her rights. Thus, forced sex in marriage will constitute what modern jurisprudence calls ‘marital rape’, under a Quranic value system. It must be prohibited, not sanctioned. ¦ The writer is an Islamic scholar, who also heads The Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.

__________________
No signature...