The Lesson of Karbala

By Murtaza Razvi
Friday, 25 Dec, 2009

So what has changed since Hussain’s heroic refusal to endorse Yazid’s tyranny in 680 AD? Very little, indeed, if truth be told uncoated. Yet more than any other event in Muslim history, the spirit inherent in the tragedy of Karbala is one that defies injustice and coercion — unto death if that’s what it must take.

Repression and cruelty could not get Hussain, or indeed his survivors, to endorse the authoritarian order Yazid set out to impose. The assassination of Hussain and his companions at Karbala 61 years after the proclamation of Islam, which set a people enslaved by superstition and tribal tyranny free to bow only before one God, caused repulsion all around. It prompted a revolt in Hejaz led by Abdullah Ibn Zubair.

Yazid’s army responded by sacking Madina and laying siege to Makkah. But the flame of human dignity and independence of action, as guaranteed by the new social contract that Islam had brought to Arabia, was rekindled by the martyrs at Karbala. It consumed Yazid within three years of the atrocity, and confined his reign of terror to oblivion.

What survived in the hearts and minds of the people was Hussain’s refusal to endorse rule by terror. And that indeed is divine justice in action. Hypocrites and tyrants (kufi-o-shami) will come and go, as Iqbal says, but the perpetual reality (haqiqat-i-abadi), the spirit of defiance in the face of coercion that is Hussain, shall remain. The vanquished of yore is the hero of history and the historical victor has become synonymous with tyranny.

The new, revolutionary social contract that Islam gave to Arabia in the 7th century, and which Hussain salvaged, remains the ideal for Muslims to pursue around the world today. Though Muslims may largely continue to be ruled by autocratic regimes, their value system has not been obscured; bogus referendum and votes aside, no one, since the time of Yazid, has managed to get public endorsement of his autocratic rule.

A tyranny, in the form of the erstwhile Taliban rule in Afghanistan, may last awhile, but it must do so without the backing of the people. Closer home, ask the people of Swat who were subjected to repression and coercion by the Pakistani militants until last year, and they will tell you how blessed they feel having seen the back of their tormentors. Tyranny is called tyranny because it goes against the will of those on whom it is imposed; it cannot be justified under any pretext, garb or excuse — be it religious, secular or ideological.

Tyranny is all about self-aggrandisement and power play, and not the people it seeks to control for their own benefit. In our times, it has reared its head in varied forms, including military dictatorship by self-proclaimed messiahs, autocratic rule by elected representatives, bigotry and intolerance, extremism and, last but not least, the tele-evangelism of self-righteous preachers and anchors. It is also about whipping up mob psychology and the hysteria that causes the baying for blood of those labelled as heretics or accused of blasphemy, for instance.

What happened earlier this year to Christians in Gojra, and in 2007 to the Ahmadi community in Mandi Bahauddin, was no less than what happened on Ashura in the desert of Iraq centuries ago. The attacks by extremists on our shopping centres, vital installations, schools, mosques, imambargahs and other places of public gathering are equally repulsive. Analyst Hasan Nisar is right when he says that Muslim history is replete with shameful examples of genocide, murder and mayhem committed against fellow Muslims, not necessarily their religious adversaries. This calls for serious introspection.

Hussain had to die because he alone refused to live in denial of the fact that Yazid was establishing a tyranny, one that he would not endorse even though a majority of those around him chose to look the other way. The lesson of Karbala is to stand up to oppression and coercion at all times. The denial so prevalent in Pakistan today that no Muslim can indulge in causing the kind of death and destruction the Taliban and Al Qaeda are accused of unleashing on our cities must give way to the realisation that a bigger enemy lurks within. It must not be allowed to cow us into submission.

Intolerance, extremism and the coercion the militants seek to impose on society must be condemned, stood up against and disowned. Those who died in the desert of Iraq hundreds of years ago were innocent, just like those who die today when suicide bombers strike, killing and maiming our men, women and children. This tyranny, too, must be resisted.

__________________
Regards,
Khanabadosh

“And among men there is one who selleth his self (soul) seeking the pleasure of God; and verily, God is affectionate unto His (faithful) servants.” 2:207

Capitalism vs Islam

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 01 Jan, 2010

A FEW days ago a press conference was held in Mumbai by some Muslim organisations and theologians claiming that Islam was against capitalism and imperialism and that they would launch a campaign against both.

It was indeed a crude attempt at comparing or contrasting modern political ideologies with Islam as it emerged as a new social and political order in seventh-century Arabia. Islam has its central values like truth, justice and equality for all human beings at its core. These values compare very favourably with modern concepts of human rights, human dignity and social justice. However, modern economic conditions and political ideologies have their own origins, which have nothing to do with the economic conditions prevailing after Islam appeared on the Arabian scene.

On my visit to Cairo a few decades ago I found a book Al-yamin wa al-yasar fil Islam (‘The right and left in Islam’). I found this book quite interesting as the entire discussion was with reference to the then prevailing conditions and how the first four rightly-guided caliphs followed different economic policies which had a deep impact on social conditions in the then Islamic world.

Another book in this respect was published in 1977 by Prof Khurshid Ahmad Fariq, who taught Arabic at the Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi. The title of the book was Khilafat-i-Rashida ka iqtisadi jaiza (‘An economic survey of the period of the rightly-guided caliphs’). This book also discussed the economic conditions then prevailing without any reference to modern ideologies.

Undoubtedly Islam tried to create a just society in every respect as justice happens to be its core value. It was this core value of Islam which made W.C. Smith, a noted Islamic scholar who taught at Government College, Lahore in the 1930s, to conclude that Islam was the first systematic attempt in human history to create a socio-economically just society. But soon, this attempt failed because much depended on the personal inclinations of the reigning dynasties rather than on any systematic ideology.

According to the Egyptian author of Al-yameen wa al-yasar fil Islam, Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar in the early period followed centrist economic policies but in the later period Hazrat Omar took advice from Ali and became rigorous in enforcing economically just policies. However, it was rather late, as soon after that he was assassinated by his slave.

Then, Hazrat Usman, being a lenient administrator, came under pressure and changed the land policy which Hazrat Omar had followed and allowed the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) to exchange their land for land in Hijaz. This caused much turmoil and also as Usman, according to Khurshid Ahmed Fariq, in his discretion gave generous gifts to his relatives and friends from the baitul maal, this too led to unrest. Of course, there were other factors that contributed to the turmoil than just the caliph’s policies.

Dr Taha Husain, another eminent historian and scholar of Islam from Egypt, discusses these factors in his book Al-fitnat al-kubra (‘The great insurrection’). Some companions of the Prophet, like Hazrat Talha and Zubair for instance, had accumulated a lot of wealth. Thus we find in Tabqat ibn Saad that when they died they left behind a great deal of gold, silver and more than 1,000 horses, besides a large number of slaves. Prof Fariq, quoting sources, estimates that Hazrat Usman left behind more than a billion dirhams when he was assassinated; all this wealth was looted by the hooligans who had surrounded his house.

This kind of wealth was generated from two sources: one, from trade and two, by way of ghanima i.e. war booty collected after a conquest. Baladhuri has given figures in his Futuh al-buldan, (‘Conquest of countries’). With these conquests the whole economic scenario, especially of the Bedouin Arabs, changed and they began to lead comfortable lives.

We should also remember that the then Arab economy was basically a mercantile economy which depended on trade and production of date palms from a few oases. Thus, it cannot be compared with the modern industrial economy and its problems. And with the development of the monarchy starting with Yazid’s ascent to the throne, the economy underwent further changes; it became more feudal than mercantile over time.

Thus, one must understand these specifics of early Islamic society before comparing it with modern political and economic ideologies. However, one can say that the greatest contribution of Islam was the concept of a welfare state and the establishment of the baitul maal in its early years. But, with the establishment of monarchy and feudalisation of society, the baitul maal also ceased to be a source of welfare for the people.

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

__________________
No signature...

__________________
You are an eagle, flight is your vocation:
You have other skies stretching out before you.

The burka debate

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 15 Jan, 2010

This is for the first time that women would be penalised for wearing the burka. Earlier France banned Muslim girls from wearing the hijab in schools. It argued that these religious symbols interfered with the state’s commitment to secularism and the French culture. In fact nothing happens without political ideology behind it. This measure is being championed by rightwing politicians who are exploiting anti-Islam feelings in France among a section of the people under the cover of secularism.

However socialists are opposed to any ban on the burka though they are not in favour of women wearing the burka. They feel women should be discouraged rather than banning the burka (which includes covering the face). Socialist spokesman Benoit Hamon announced that wearing the burka was not desirable but he did not favour a ban which would amount to an inconsistent ad hoc measure. “We are totally opposed to the burka. The burka is a prison for women and has no place in the French Republic,” he said. “But an ad hoc law would not have the anticipated effect.”

The stand taken by the socialists appears to be quite logical. One cannot stop women from wearing the burka through a ban. It is quite undemocratic to punish one for wearing a certain type of dress. It is anti-democratic and anti-secular for a multicultural society. Let it be very clear that to cover the entire body, including the face, is not necessarily an Islamic way. The Al-Azhar in Cairo has banned such a cover under an Islamic edict.

The ulema hold different views on the subject. A majority of them hold that covering the face and hands is not prescribed by the Quran or Sunnah. Only very few theologians and jurists want women to be fully covered. To compel women to so cover their bodies and face is indeed against women’s rights and dignity. And a woman should be a free agent to decide for herself what to wear within decent limits and the cultural ethos.

However, this freedom also includes the right of women to cover their face, if they so desire and if they think it is a requirement of their religion. When I was lecturing at Bukhara University in a class of women students all of whom were wearing skirts with their heads uncovered, two women came fully covered including their faces. All other women demanded that these two burka-clad women be thrown out.

I told them to imagine that the burka-clad women were in a majority and two women had come wearing skirts with their heads uncovered, and the majority of the burka-clad women had demanded that those two women be thrown out — how would they feel? I, therefore, argued against getting violent just because someone dresses unlike us. We should have a dialogue with them and persuade them, if we can.

There could be a number of reasons why one prefers to wear a certain kind of dress. Maybe there is coercion by parents or husband which is undesirable. Or maybe one thinks it is a religious requirement or one tries to assert one’s right. Or maybe one is trying to fight cultural alienation. Certain dresses also become identity markers. Many Muslims who migrate from Asia and Africa experience a cultural shock when they see French or other European women wearing scanty dresses like bikinis. Thus they feel all the more compelled to wear their traditional dress.

Also, in France and several other European countries migrants are marginalised and feel alienated which pushes them into practising their own cultural norms. And then it is also to be remembered that all Muslim women in France do not wear such dress covering themselves fully. In fact many Muslim women have integrated themselves in French society by taking to western dressing.

A ban will only build up resistance among traditional Muslim women and they would try to defy the law resulting in social tension. It would be far better to resort to persuasive ways to discourage the more traditional women from wearing the all-covering burka.

Persuasion alone will not work unless backed by other measures, economic as well as social, to fight the alienation of religious and cultural minorities.

Thus, one needs multi-pronged measures to contain this problem. The Muslim ulema and intellectuals living in France also have to adopt creative ways to interpret Islamic traditional sources to address emerging conditions. It is necessary to revisit traditional sources which were rooted in a medieval, tribal/feudal culture.

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

__________________
No signature...

Recitation of the Quran

By Atif Noor Khan
Friday, 22 Jan, 2010


INDEED, to reflect on Allah’s verses is a form of worship that will draw one close to Him. The Quran is not a book like any other; it is a timeless guide for life, death and the Hereafter.

Therefore, it is necessary that the reader return to the early narrations of those who witnessed its revelation and heard its explanation by the one deputed by Allah to explain His words to humanity. So every sincere Muslim who hopes to earn Allah’s love by reciting and reflecting on His book should hold on to the meaning explained by the Prophet (PBUH), his companions and the early scholars of Islam.

Reciting and reflecting on the Quran has tremendous benefits. Each one of these explained here stands as an encouragement to read and try to understand the Holy Quran. The Prophet summarised the faith as naseehah (sincerity). When Hazrat Tameem ibn Aws inquired, “To whom?” He said: “To Allah, His book, His Messenger, the leaders of the people and their common folk.” Thus, sincerity is due to the Quran, its recitation, learning the rules of reciting it beautifully, learning about its interpretation and the reasons for its revelation, abiding by the orders found in it, teaching it and calling the faithful to it.

So by reading and reflecting on the Quran, one fulfils an obligation and is rewarded for it. Upon fulfilling this obligation, the Quran then becomes a witness for one on the Day of Judgment. The Holy Prophet said, “The Quran is a proof for you or against you.”

It will either be in your favour, a proof for you on the day when you will need every single good deed, or it will be something against you, the very speech of your Creator, a proof against you!

The Quran will intercede for us on the Day of Judgment. Hazrat Abu Umaamah relates that the Prophet said: “Read the Quran, for verily it will come on the Day of Judgment as an intercessor for its companions.” According to Saheeh al-Muslim, there is a story about how Hazrat Umar understood this principle. Some men once asked him “Who do you have to govern Makkah?” He said, “Ibn Abzaa.” They asked, “Who is Ibn Abzaa?” Umar replied, “A freed slave.”

They remarked, “You have left a freed slave in charge of the people of the valley (the noble tribes of the Quraish)?” He answered them, “Verily, he is a reader of the Book of Allah and is knowledgeable about the obligations of Muslims. Haven’t you heard the statement of your Messenger — ‘Allah raises some people by this Book and lowers others by it’?”

Hazrat Usman also narrates the Holy Prophet as having said: “The best among you are the ones who learn the Quran and teach it to others,” according to Saheeh al-Bukhari.

There are 10 rewards for each letter you recite from the Quran. A hadith in Al-Tirmizi says: “Whoever reads a letter from the Book of Allah will have a reward. And that reward will be multiplied by 10. I am not saying that ‘Alif, Laam, Meem’ is one letter, rather ‘Alif’ is a letter, ‘Laam’ is a letter and ‘Meem’ is a letter.”

Hazrat Ayesha, too, relates that the Prophet once said: “One who recites the Quran beautifully, smoothly and precisely will be in the company of noble angels. As for the one who recites it with difficulty, stammering or stumbling through its verses, (s)he will have twice that reward.”

Hazrat Abdullaah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas narrates the Holy Prophet as saying: “It will be said to the companion of the Quran: ‘Read and elevate (through the levels of paradise) and beautify your voice as you used to do when you were (alive). For verily, your position in paradise will be at the last verse you recited’!”

The Prophet also said: “The Quran is an intercessor, is given the permission to intercede, and it is rightfully believed in. Whoever puts it in front of himself, will be led to paradise; whoever puts it behind him, will be steered to hellfire.” This hadith about the Quran is on the authority of Hazrat Abdullaah ibn Masood, summarising for the faithful the importance of reading the Quran and reflecting on its universal message.

__________________
No signature...

Reason and faith

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 29 Jan, 2010

ARE reason and faith antagonistic or complimentary? It depends from what perspective you look at them. The 19th century was a century of reason and faith came to be challenged by rationalists. Even today rationalists reject faith as mere superstition.

The Quran, however, treads the middle path and emphasises the importance of both — faith as well as reason. Today, this truth is dawning upon us that neither faith alone nor reason by itself can suffice. Both are needed for a successful and meaningful life.

Reason alone can make us sceptical and faith alone can make many superstitious. Since rationalists were severely persecuted by organised religion, they adopted the extreme position of denouncing faith altogether and stressing the sufficiency of reason. The Quran invites human beings to have faith as well as to reflect and think.

While reason gives us light, faith gives us deeper conviction and, it should be noted, no action is possible without deeper conviction (imaan). The synthesis of reason and faith (aql and imaan) can be called ‘rational faith’. As escapticism (reason without faith) can paralyse action, blind faith (faith without reason) can reduce us to the level of unthinking zealots. And both trends can be harmful to society.

Islam arose amongst Makkah’s Arabs to begin with, who were quite a practicable people. The creamy layer in Makkah was indulging in trade and commerce and hence they tended to be practical in outlook, unlike the agriculturists who tended to be more superstitious as their life depended primarily on natural forces. Thus Makkah’s Arabs believed in practical rationality.

They did not have much time for reflection and the finer values of life and otherworldly matters. For them everything was here and now — profit, accumulation of wealth and the comforts of life. Achieving these objectives was the main purpose of life for them. They were least bothered that their way of life was causing misery to the lower classes that were immersed in superstition.

The Quran stressed on values like equality, human dignity, compassion and caring for the poor and downtrodden, something neglected and ridiculed by this creamy layer of Arabs. Thus Quranic teachings meant a revolution for them. It gave them light of reason as well as of faith to give their lives a new meaning and direction.

However, when Islam spread to other countries like Iraq, Iran and Egypt, it came face to face with more complex cultures and weltanschauung. Also, unlike the Umayyads, the Abbasids depended more on the newly emerging Iranian middle class for administrative support and hence the Mutazillites acquired primacy during their rule. And translation of Greek tomes of philosophy deeply influenced Muslim intellectuals, as Darul Hikmah in Baghdad became the storehouse of wisdom.

Thus reason began to acquire primacy in the Islamic world and philosophers like Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and others, mostly of Iranian origin, rose to great prominence and prestige; so much so that their books became valuable sources of study in European universities also. This caused unrest among a section of Muslim ulema and orthodox scholars.

Many prominent ulema refused to accept the Mutazila doctrines which the Abbasids rulers tried to enforce with the might of the government. The bitter controversy about the createdness of the Quran (the belief that the Quran was created and not co-eternal with Allah) divided the Muslim scholars at the time. The Sufis were also not comfortable with emphasis placed on reason as against spirituality.

Also, there was an interesting controversy that while the Mutazillites maintained that something is good because reason says so and hence it becomes good in the Sharia law, the orthodox ulema maintained that something is good because the Sharia says it is good. Thus, the Sharia is absolute and God-given, according to the latter.

The Sufis in general, and Ghazali in particular, were quite uncomfortable with the widespread influence of reason in the Islamic world at the cost of spirituality and orthodoxy. An interesting debate took place between Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Ghazali. Ghazali wrote the book Tahafut al-Falasifa (bewilderment of philosophers) to which Averroes replied by writing Tahafut-Tahafut al-Falasifa (bewilderment of the bewilderment of philosophers).

This debate between reason and faith is a milestone in the intellectual history of Islam. The masses went with Ghazali, not with Averroes. Averroes is known only to a few intellectuals and philosophers whereas Ghazali, like other Sufis, has a great following among Muslim masses. Ghazali maintains that reason leads only to doubt and uncertainty whereas faith leads to a deeper conviction.

Well, philosophers may be comfortable with uncertainty and consider this a price worth paying for a better understanding. But, many others, with a spiritual bent of mind, opt for a deeper conviction which faith alone can provide. The Quran emphasises both, for one without the other leaves us either intellectually blind or unable to act.

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

__________________
No signature...

The principle of modesty

By Dr Riffat Hassan
Friday, 05 Feb, 2010

The Quran asks both men and women to ‘lower their gaze’ and be ‘mindful of their chastity’.

IN the context of proper attire and conduct, the Quran lays down one basic principle, namely, modesty which is stated in Surah 24: 30-31: Tell the believing men to lower their gaze (avoiding its concentration on a person’s body, or a certain part of it) and to be mindful of their chastity; in this they will be more considerate for their own well-being and purity, and surely God is fully aware of all that they do.
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (avoiding its concentration on a person’s body, or a certain part of it) and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display the charms of their bodies (in public) beyond what may (decently) be apparent thereof; hence, let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms.

And let them not display (more of) their charms to any but their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their womenfolk, or those whom they rightfully possess, or such male attendants as are beyond all sexual desire, or children that are as yet unaware of (the physical attractions of) women’s nakedness; and let them not swing their legs (or other actions in their walking) that may aim to draw attention to their hidden charms.

The injunctions in the cited passages are discussed briefly below:

Lowering of gaze: The Quranic injunction enjoining the believers to lower their gaze and behave modestly applies to both Muslim men and women. There are no Quranic statements which justify the extremely rigid restrictions regarding segregation and hijab which have been imposed on Muslim women by some societies or groups like the Taliban. If the Quran intended for women to be completely secluded and covered from head to foot, why would it command the men to “lower their gaze”?

Dress code for both men and women: Dr Fathi Osman has pointed out that “modesty is required in the outdoor dress of both Muslim women and men”. In his view, “All the points of special attraction in the male body have to be covered, and displaying the muscles or most of the body merely for attraction is against a man’s mindfulness of chastity and decency and extends the temptation for evil-doing.” What may ‘decently’ be apparent in the case of women: Elaborating on this point, Muhammad Asad states: “My interpolation of the word ‘decently’ reflects the interpretation of the phrase illa ma zahara minha by several of the earliest Islamic scholars, and particularly by Al-Qiffal (quoted by Razi), as ‘that which a human being may openly show in accordance with prevailing custom (al-adah al-jariyah)’.

The pivotal clause in the above injunction is the demand addressed in identical terms to men as well as to women, to ‘lower their gaze and be mindful of their chastity’: and this determines the extent of what, at any given time, may legitimately, i.e. in consonance with the Quranic principle of social morality, be considered ‘decent’ or ‘indecent’ in a person’s outward appearance.” Expressing a similar view, Dr Fathi Osman states: “The prominent commentators reflected … flexibility in their commentary on the verses 24:30-31. Al-Fakhr al-Razi stated that what should be covered is left to the prevailing custom, while al-Zamakshari left it to the custom and nature. Al-Wahidi and Ibn Atiyya allowed half of the arm to be uncovered, while al-Nisaburi allowed the uncovering of the arm to the elbow. Ibn Hayyan, in addition to considering custom and nature in what may be uncovered, considered the needs of poor women.” Drawing khimar over the bosom: Muslim women are enjoined to draw their khimar over their bosoms.

Explicating what khimar denotes, Muhammad Asad states: “The noun khimar (of which khumar is the plural) denotes the head-covering customarily used by Arabian women before and after the advent of Islam. According to most of the classical commentators, it was worn in pre-Islamic times more or less like an ornament and was let down loosely over the wearer’s back; and since, in accordance with the fashion prevalent at the time, the upper part of a woman’s tunic had a wide opening in the front, her breasts were left bare. Hence, the injunction to cover the bosom by means of a khimar (a term so familiar to the contemporaries of the Holy Prophet [PBUH]) does not necessarily relate to the use of a khimar as such but is, rather, meant to make it clear that a woman’s breasts are not included in the concept of ‘what may decently be apparent’ of her body and should not, therefore, be displayed.” Provocative gait: In keeping with the general law of modesty, Muslim women are instructed not to walk in such a way as to attract unnecessary attention. Muhammad Asad has pointed out that the expression “yadribna bi-arjulihinna … alludes to a deliberately provocative gait.”

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

__________________
No signature...

Muslim women and change

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 12 Feb, 2010

MANY non-Muslims think that Muslim women are oppressed, forced to wear the veil and confined within the four walls of their houses. This is because we read everyday in the newspapers that the Taliban burn down girls’ schools and force women into wearing the veil, in fact have their women wrapped completely from head to foot.

This image of Muslim women has been further reinforced by the burka controversy which erupted in France. It would be justified if all Muslim women followed the strict code propounded by Muslim theologians which was evolved in the medieval ages and which they keep on justifying even today. But there is a big difference in what is theologically projected and the ground reality.

It may not be wrong if I venture to say that Muslim women have been defying the so-called theological code for more than a century now, and have gone even further in their public achievements. It is true that even today some Muslim theologians debate whether women are naqisul aql (have defective reasoning power) or not, but many Muslim women have superseded even Muslim men in several fields.

In Saudi Arabia where women are not even permitted to drive cars, a woman became a licensed pilot and has been flying aircraft. Now we get news from Malaysia that Farah al-Habshi, an engineer by profession, has been appointed as deputy of weapons and electrical officer onboard a spanking new Malaysian warship K.D. Perak. She has donned the white and blue Royal Malaysian Navy uniform. What is interesting is that she also wears the hijab to cover her head though not her face. She feels her hijab in no way comes in the way of performing her duties.

Malaysia is a Muslim country where orthodox ulema exercise a great deal of control over people’s lives. Recently even the government of Malaysia chickened out when the ulema took the stand that Christians in Malaysia could not use the word ‘Allah’ in their religious literature or in a newspaper. Muslim women face several problems in that country at the hands of conservative ulema in respect of family laws.

It is in the same country that a woman has been appointed naval officer for combat duty. Even in India women have not won the right to be on combat duty in the navy. Nor are they permitted to fly fighter planes or take up combat arms. They are also not allowed seafaring in warships. On the contrary, the Pakistan Army has women officers; the air force also has women fighter pilots on duty alongside their male counterparts.

Likewise, Ms Farah al-Habshi has recently participated in a naval exercise in Milan along with some other women. She was very articulate while answering questions by journalists. She is only one example out of many. Muslim women have excelled even in theological fields and quite independently of the traditional theologians. They have shown courage to challenge the orthodox ulema. Here I can give the example of Amina Wudud of the US who teaches Islamic Studies in Washington.

She believes that women can lead mixed prayer congregations, and led around 100 men and women in a Friday prayer a few years ago and delivered the sermon; this is quite unthinkable in the traditional Muslim world. It raised a storm of controversy, and Yusuf Qardawi, a traditional theologian from Qatar, wrote an article opposing a woman’s leading a mixed prayer congregation.

Some Kuwaiti women, who were elected to the Kuwaiti parliament after a great deal of struggle, fought for their right to go to parliament without the headgear. They fought their case in the supreme court of Kuwait and won. Many more examples can be cited of Muslim women daring the authorities, in pursuit of their rights.

But the vernacular media, which is interested in sensationalising issues, refuses to highlight Muslim women’s achievements and continues to portray them as submissive to traditional authorities and meekly accepting of their situation. This image of Muslim women has to change and the reality, which is much more complex, has to be understood.

This is not to deny that in many countries Muslim women are facing difficult problems and their liberation is not a foregone conclusion. However, it is also true that many of them are fighting and refusing to submit meekly. What gives us hope is their continued struggle and defiance of traditional authority.

It should also be mentioned here that many ulema and jurists have realised that medieval formulations on women cannot be easily enforced any more. Some of them, like Muhammad Abduh of Egypt, Maulvi Mumtaz Ali Khan of India and Maulana Umar Ahmed Usmani of Pakistan have expressed serious reservations about traditional theological formulations on women. The determined struggle on the part of Muslim women will force many more theologians to revise their positions and take the Quran, and not medieval theology, more seriously on women’s issues.

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

__________________
No signature...

The concept of honour

By Dr Riffat Hassan
Friday, 19 Feb, 2010

VIOLENCE seen against women in Muslim cultures is rooted in the concepts of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’. In his essay on Honour and shame among the Bedouins of Egypt, A.A. Zeid states: “Of all the value concepts employed by the Bedouins of the western desert of Egypt, those of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ are the most vague, most complicated and most difficult to grasp and to analyse.”

He points out that Egyptian Bedouins have a separate word for ‘honour’ that is used in the context of women: “This exclusive term, ‘ird’, is rather difficult to translate, for it is used only in connection with female chastity, prudence and continence.”

B. Fares, in his comprehensive study of family honour among pre-Islamic Arabs, describes ird as follows: “Ird from its etymology seems to be a partition which separates its possessor from the rest of mankind. This partition is certainly fragile since it was easily destroyed ... (In the jahiliyya period) ird was intense and of momentous importance; besides, it was the guiding motive in the acts and deeds of all the Arabs except those of Yemen ... on account of its sacred nature, it was entitled to take the place of religion; the Arabs put it in the highest place and defended it arms in hand.”

The writer asserts, “Among the modern Bedouins we still find ird with all its pre-Islamic force ... the use of the term ‘ird’, in its traditional sense, though less rich in meaning, has continued, keeping its sacred character and its relation with insult. In the present day, the meaning of the word has become restricted, in Transjordania it is associated with the virtue of a woman or even with her beauty. In Egypt, the ird of a man depends on his wife’s reputation and that of all his female relatives.”

The pre-Islamic Arabs, living in a state of constant warfare with their inhospitable environment and each other, were insecure in many ways. They were particularly fearful of a girl or woman from their tribe or group being captured and molested. This would bring shame to them, affecting their ird, and they would become duty bound to avenge the wrong done. In the opinion of A.A. Zeid, “ird once lost cannot be regained” but according to Peter C. Dodd, “ird does not have this all-or-none quality and though it may take generations to restore, yet ird may be regained”.

Whatever be the case it is clear that a very strong connection existed in the Bedouin mind between male honour and female chastity. To quote A.A. Zeid once again: “In a paternalistic society like the Bedouins’ where the male occupies a dominant social position in all aspects and activities of life, it is only natural that the honour of the group is determined primarily by the behaviour and achievements of the men rather than the women. Nevertheless, the woman can, and indeed does, play a conspicuous part in determining the honour of her family and lineage in a unique and decisive way that cannot be ignored or minimised … The woman’s own conduct in daily life bears heavily on the honour of her people … this is the clearest with regard to her sexual activities and especially her chastity.

“The Bedouins do not impose sexual segregation but they do respect severe rules for the behaviour of one sex towards the other. Deviation from these rules results in the murder of the offender. Thus a girl with a bad reputation may disappear suddenly from the camp. Everyone guesses what has happened to her, but no one speaks about it, let alone approaches the authorities. Rape on the other hand is considered a more humiliating offence than homicide.

“The offender himself is usually killed in retaliation ... Yet this is not regarded as sufficient to wipe out the shame. The girl herself is therefore killed, especially if it is thought that intercourse took place with her consent and her disgraced kinsmen usually desert traditional homeland and migrate in a voluntary exile in a region where no one knows about their ird.”

It is important to note that the term ‘ird’ does not appear in the Quran. Nevertheless, just as in the case of the Bedouins, many Muslim men’s concept of ‘honour’ revolves largely around the orbit of female chastity, and they do not react differently from the Bedouins to instances of ‘dishonour’.

Though a linkage is seldom made between female infanticide in pre-Islamic Arabia and honour killings in present-day Muslim societies, a deeper analysis of both suggests that they are similar in some ways. Both are examples of domestic violence though this term is relatively new and was not in usage in pre-Islamic Arabia.

One of the main reasons why some pre-Islamic Arabs killed their daughters at birth was their apprehension that these offspring were a potential threat to their honour. Fear of shame and loss of honour also play a pivotal role in the commission of many honour-related crimes. According to Amnesty International, “The number of honour killings is on the rise as the perception of what constitute honour … widens”.

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

__________________
No signature...