All Comments (109)

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

HIJAAB FOR WOMEN

Question:

Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?

Answer:

The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam

1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust

The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:

Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.

Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.

Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.

Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.

Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.

2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.

Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.

Hijaab for men

People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

Hijaab for women.

The next verse of Surah Noor, says:

" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]

3. Six criteria for Hijaab.

According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:

Extent:

The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.

All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.

The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.

The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.

The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things

Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.

5. Hijaab prevents molestation

The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]

The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.

6. Example of twin sisters

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.

7. Capital punishment for the rapists

Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?

8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women

Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.

9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes

Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.

our hypocritical "concern" is only a thin veneer to attempt to mask your own islam bashing-
you confuse religion withthe cultural acts of people-

its not islamic- fgm- honor killings-
no muslim with any reason or knowledge of their religion suppots such barbaric acts.

islam is a religion that calls for equity and justice.

yes, anonymous/casual observer- there is injustice in the world

people do strange things-
aghori indians have sex with corpses and are cannibals, but no one thinks this is what hindus endorse, even though aghoris claim to be hindu.

i invite you to learn more about the religion of peace-
one doesnt have to renounce islam to renounce such horrific traditions by some cultures-
and not only muslims indulge in these practices-

if youre speaking up against female genital mutilation, speak for ALL the women affected, not just the muslims. but the christians too, as they also indulge in this terrible desecration of women.

"your muslim-bashing for the sake of getting your yayas out.'

Victoria what you call "muslim-bashing" is concern for victims of FGM, oppression of Muslim women, honour killings, and Muslim against Muslim violence. It is support of Muslims who often have no voice. You are dedicated to Islamic propaganda that pretends there is no problem with Islam. You are the one doing the bashing and trying to stifle free speech.

I commend the Muslims, ex-Muslims and others here who have found their voices and are speaking against Islamic atrocities.

friends, actually the issue here is hijab.

there are lots of places on these boards that i speak about issues relevant to muslims, vioence etc.

if anon was brave enough to have an identity- i wouldnt make any slur-
but people who hide dont deserve the respect that people who stand behind their statements get.

go to the islam and violence question-
ive practically written a book on the topic-

to keep repeating off topic- whats already been said would be- redundant.
peace kids have fun with your muslim-bashing for the sake of getting your yayas out.

Victoria MUST resort to CAPS and slurs because she cannot address the real issue. Muslim violence against other Muslims.

Anon wins because power comes with truth.

victoria, as the new year begins- weep for your coreligionists who are being killed by their own. and as the muslim against muslim hatred and violence escalates -remember my words..

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=IS+PANDEMIC+IN&ei=UTF-8

I JUST GOOGLED 'IS PANDEMIC IN'

ITS ALL ABOUT EPIDEMIC DISEASES AROUND THE WORLD

(as i stated, the usage of pandemic as a noun refers to disease around the world)

you actually GIVE me the information to prove your stupidity
YOU REALLY TRULY ARE A MORON

wait, youre a moronic idiot

(hint, thats a redundancy too)

redundancy
1. the state of being redundant.
2. SUPERFLUOUS REPTITION or overlapping, esp. of words.
3. a redundant thing, part, or amount; superfluity.
4. the provision of additional or DUPLICATE systems, equipment, etc., that function in case an operating part or system fails, as in a spacecraft.
5. Linguistics. a. the INCLUSION OF MORE INFORMATION THAN IS NECESSARY for communication, as in those cars, where both words are marked for plurality.
b. the additional, predictable information so included.
c. the degree of predictability thereby created.

American Heritage Dictionary adj.
Widespread; general.
Medicine Epidemic over a wide geographic area and affecting a large proportion of the population: pandemic influenza.

n. A pandemic disease.

global

adjective
1. involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope; "global war"; "global monetary policy"; "neither national nor continental but planetary"; "a world crisis"; "of worldwide significance"

YOURE AN IDIOT

"first- global pandemic is a redundancy"

really? google "is pandemic in"

"second- pandemic is an adjective- not a noun"

really? google- "the pandemic is"

careful victoria, you have become a serial liar.

lets start again-

"muslims try to kill other muslims. victoria- "allahu akbar" has lost control".

"another day. more examples."

"muslims are killing muslims in a global pandemic and you are in denial."

instead of your weak attempts to defend the indefensible, you should take a moment to weep for the people you have chosen to identify as your own.

Another Muslim killed by Muslim extremists-

"Ever since her return to Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto had been a target of opportunity for Muslim extremists belonging to Al Qaeda, Taliban and assorted group of Muslim extremists. Being an educated and liberal-minded woman, she was most hated by these Muslim extremists and they declared a war against her even before her arrival. For them, a woman as head of government is totally unacceptable.

But the murder of Benazir Bhutto is only symptomatic of larger mass murders carried out by extremists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries. In Pakistan, al-Qaeda and its Taliban surrogates have been carrying out regular suicide bombings, killing ordinary Pakistanis in the name of Islam. Only a week before Bhutto's assassination, they carries out a bloody suicide bombing during Eid-ul-Azha in a mosque, killing and injuring scores of ordinary Pakistanis.

Considering that ordinary Muslims are being killed by these terrorist groups, it is surprising that the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain highly popular in many parts of Pakistan. This may be case of a larger what is called Stockholm Syndrome in which the victims feel sympathetic towards their tormentors and believe in a scapegoat provided by their oppressors.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda are killing fellow Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and Iraq) while blaming it on the Americans. As Daily Times columnist Khaled Ahmed wrote: "In Sudan and Somalia, Muslims are killing Muslims. In Afghanistan Muslims killed Muslims in the civil war before the world moved in with daisy-cutters with a UN legal cover. In Pakistan, Muslims kill Muslims then blame it on India ... Muslims have learnt to kill [Muslims] in many ways. When convenient, they blame it on America and India."

With such a ready-made scapegoat available, it is not surprising that the Taliban and al- Qaeda can carry out mass murders of fellow Muslims and still retain their popularity. In Iraq, the Sunni extremists have been systematically slaughtering their fellow Shiite Muslims. They have bombed Shia mosques filled with worshippers. They have bombed Shiite schools and hospitals, killing women and children. In 2006, they destroyed the Golden Mosque at Samarra, one of holiest Shiite shrines -- all the while blaming the Americans.

In Palestine, Hamas, which won the election, has been brutalising its rival Fatah while blaming the Israelis for their misfortune. During recent fighting for Gaza, Hamas was accused by Human Rights Watch of "violations international humanitarian law, in some cases amounting to war crimes." According to Human Rights Watch: "Hamas military forces captured 28-year-old Muhammad Swairki, a cook for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's presidential guards, and executed him by throwing him to his death, with his hands and legs tied, from a 15-story aparment building in the Gaza City."

The unspeakable brutality of Hamas toward fellow Palestinians stands in stark contrast with the moderation it has shown to kidnapped BBC journalist Allan Johnston by arranging his release. Why Hamas showed no mercy to Muhammad Swairki, a poor Palestinian cook? The answer may be that Hamas has no sympathy with a fellow Palestinian who doesn't share its vision.

In Iran, the ruling Shiite mullahs are regularly slaughtering fellow Iranians who don't share their vision of Shia Islam. Iranian writer Azar Nafisi tells us about the brutality of Shiite mullahs in her book Reading Lolita in Tehran. Her story of Iran is a struggle for survival in a country where Shia mullahs regularly "hang people in the streets," -- a country where educated women are viewed as enemies of the state. If Benazir were an Iranian leader, she would have met the same fate in the hands on extremist Muslims.

This leads us to the question: Can democracy function in a country like Pakistan where extremist Muslims are carrying out mass murder of fellow Muslims who don't share their vision of a mythical pure Islamic society? The answer may be a qualified no. Unless Pakistanis can find a way to stand up against the Taliban, al-Qaeda and their fanatical acolytes, and not provide them with moral support, democracy will not be able to function.

Look at how Hamas, which won the election, is brutalising fellow Palestinians who support the rival Fatah. Democracy cannot function if the people are filled with hatred and extremists can continue to systematically murder those they consider as heretics and deserve to be killed.

Benazir Bhutto is only one, albeit the most famous, of many victims of al-Qaeda and the Taliban who have turned Pakistan into a veritable Terroristan. Unless they are contained, election will not bring any change."

mr mahfouz-

i am more and more seriously questioning your claim that you were ever outside of texas- let alone a muslim country-


NIQAB is the FACE VEIL-
AND THE FACE VEIL ONLY!
brought and started by the byzantines to persia-
with no religious association whatsoever-

that came later-

you are talking about BURQA

anon-
first- global pandemic is a redundancy
second- pandemic is an adjective- not a noun

it could be, in a pandemic reaction, pandemic fear-

the only time it is used as a noun (as you have) is in reference to an actual epidemic disease worldwide

despite your skills as a writer-

all youve shown is that you can look at the frontpage of yahoo-
paste a story-

and that a muslim boy scout rescued a muslim president in a muslim country from a mulsim would-be politial assassin

i think your usage is somewhat overstated, and off topic

fyi- that was an UNDERstatement on my part

no, im not denying the heroic actions of that boy scout

Re: Niqab
Niqab is the type of shroud that the wives of the Prophet were made to wear in public. It covers the whole body except for a slit for the eyes. Some Muslim women wear this niqab in imitation of the "Mothers of the believers". It was recently banned in Jordan,Syria and Afghanistan because it was determined that most of those who wore it were either prostitutes or male suicide bombers.

muslims are killing muslims in a global pandemic and you are in denial.

you got this from your yahoo frontpage?
wow-

what dedicated research-

so what exactly is your point?

a MUSLIM BOY SCOUT stopped a would be MUSLIM assassin against a MUSLIM president in a MUSLIM country!

WOW!
and your point is?

"The young man who tried to stab President Gayoom believes "the President is against Islam," a neighbour told Minivan News today."

that the neighbor if the would be assassin says he "believes the president is against islam"?

are you mental?

or are you so unbelievably arrogant, that you somehow imagined since the rescuer is a boy scout, he must be an american or something?

a good muslim stopped a bad muslim from doing something wrong

well, that IS conclusive proof of the...what?

"muslims try to kill other muslims. victoria- "allahu akbar" has lost control".

"another day. more examples."

victoria asks

"how old is that story? and what does it have to do with islam?"

out of touch with reality, islamic propagandist-

if you don't know a topic and only want to defend islam as flawless. please keep posting. readers here need to see how blind to truth you are.

This AP article was posted 6 hours ago.

"Gayoom survived an assassination attempt Tuesday January 8, 2008, when a teenage boy grabbed the knife of an attacker who jumped out of a crowed of people greeting the president, an official said."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2IuVgHukJ_GWOTg73MBEIA4tiOQD8U1QIK00

"The young man who tried to stab President Gayoom believes "the President is against Islam," a neighbour told Minivan News today.

The attacker shouted "Allahu Akbar" [God is great] as he tried to stab the President, according to the boy who intercepted him.

Police confirmed they have arrested the suspect, Mohamed Murushid, but would not give any motive for the attempt on the President's life.

Murushid, 20, tried to stab Gayoom as he greeted locals on a visit to Haa Alif Hoarafushi this morning.

Murushid, from Hoarafushi, brought out a knife hidden in a national flag, but local scout Mohamed Jaisham, 15, intervened."

http://www.minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=4000

another example of another person with no knowledge whatsoever of the topic, an agenda-
and no point to make of relevance

maldives?
gayoom?
isnt there an opposition party there wo are trying to form a democracy but being oppressed by the president?

how old is that story? and what does it have to do with islam?

there ispolitical unrest in maldives because the president wont allow the opposing democratic unity party to congregate-

is this a story of political oppression?

how out of context, old, and irrelevant is this?

"not all arabs are muslims,
not all muslims are arabs."

muslims try to kill other muslims. victoria- "allahu akbar" has lost control".

another day. more examples.

"A quick-thinking boy scout has thwarted an assassination bid against the president of the Maldives.

Officials said Mohamed Murshid, 20, tried to plunge a knife into President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom's stomach, but Asia's longest serving president was unhurt thanks to Mahamed Jaisham, 15, who wrestled with the attacker before he was detained.

Mr Murshid, who had no previous criminal record - had hidden the knife wrapped in a national flag, the president's spokesman Mohamed Hussain Shareef said.

"He was an idling youth,'' he said.

Mohamed's hand was injured, and he was being treated in the island's health centre.

Mr Gayoom said in a nationwide address after the attack that he had survived "thanks to Mohamed Jaisham and Allah.''

The attack took place on Hoarafushi in the north of the Maldives, a chain of 1192 coral and white sand islands off the southern tip of India.

Assistant Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz said investigators were trying to establish a motive for the attack.

"It's still at a very, very early stage. We are questioning him. Investigations are still going on. It is too early to say if he has links to any Islamic militant groups,'' he said.

The Maldives, a top destination for well-heeled tourists and honeymooners, has been tense since a September bomb attack in the capital Male injured 12 foreign tourists.

Authorities blamed the bombing on Islamic extremists seeking to wreck the country's vital tourism industry, which accounts for a third of the nation's economy.

Three men convicted of carrying out the bombing - the holiday archipelago's first ever terror attack - were last month each jailed for 15 years.

Police are also looking out for foreign militant groups after press reports said some of the suspects had links to a Muslim separatist group fighting Indian rule over part of the Himalayan region of Kashmir.

Mr Gayoom, who has ruled the islands since 1978, responded to the bombing by ordering a tough crackdown on what he considers to be Islamic extremism.

The measures include bans on women wearing the full veil and foreign preachers, as well as unlicensed Muslim prayer groups.

In a recent interview Mr Gayoom said the bomb attack targeting foreign tourists followed by violent clashes with police and security forces had alerted the country to the "very serious threat of extremism''. "

anonymous- there have been no disagreements of even the mildest kind here-

mr mahfouz is a christian who hates islam with a frothing at the mouth delirium.

not all arabs are muslims,
not all muslims are arabs.

now america has somehow provoked muslims to kill each other-

in truly epidemic proportions- iraq, darfur, pakistan, palestine, even killing their own daughters in honor killings..

wtf are you saying?

Anonymous says its 21st century and muslims kill each other....

America, which prides itself for values like freedom, democracy and human rights, has killed largest number of innocent people around the world after Second World War. Such behaviour naturally breeds terrorism in certain sections of population. Terrorism can never be fought with terrorism. This violence torn world needs more peace than ever before. America talks of freedom and democracy but freedom and democracy can flourish only if there is peace and justice in the whole world.

*****************************************

one finds in the Qur’an full support for sexual equality in several verses. The Qur’an was certainly mindful of what was just in that era when it was revealed and what ought to be just in the transcendental sense. When the Prophet permitted a Muslim wife retaliation against her husband as a measure of justice, the Qur’an overruled him and permitted a measure of conditional male domination, though conditionality of justice was stipulated (see the verse 4:34). It would have been thought to be unjust if the Qur’an had permitted wife to retaliate against her husband and it would not have found acceptability in that society.

However, the Qur’an also did not intend to eternalise the then acceptable notion of justice. The dynamics of ‘is’ and ‘ought’ or interaction between history and eternity informs the whole spirit of Qur’an. Unfortunately the orthodox miss this very spirit while reading the Qur’an form their own perspective. The verse 33:35 is much more fundamental in this respect as it clearly accords women equality with men in all respects. While 4:34 is informed by the spirit of that era, the verse 33:34 deals with the eternal dimension. The orthodox, however, do not wish to go beyond the divine injunction expressed in 4:34. They have frozen their minds in the classical age of Islam. What was temporal has become permanent for them and what is permanent is just brushed aside as of no consequence.

The Qur’an must be re-read and re-interpreted in today’s context as the classical jurists read and interpreted it in their own context. No reformation is possible without such re-reading and re-interpreting the Qur’anic verses. The real intention of the Qur’an - that of sexual equality - comes through several verses. Those verses need to be re-emphasised. The verse 2:228 (“And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner”) is quite definitive in this respect. It hardly needs any comment. Maulana Muhammad Ali, a noted Pakistani commentator says commenting on the above verse, “The rights of women against their husbands are here stated to be similar to those which the husbands have against their wives. The statement must, no doubt, have caused a stir in a society which never recognised any rights for the woman. The change in this respect was really was a revolutionising one, for the Arabs hitherto regarded women as mere chattels. Women were given a position equal in all respects to that of men, for they were declared to have rights similar to those which were exercised against them. This declaration brought about a revolution not only in Arabia but in the whole world, for the equality of rights of women with those of men was never previously recognized by any nation or any reformer. The woman could no longer be discarded at the will of her `lord’, but she could either claim equality as a wife or demand a divorce.” (Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1973,Pp-97).

However, much of this spirit of justice and equality was lost when the Islamic doctors legislated under the influence of their own social ethos. The Qur’anic categorical imperatives were ignored, as pointed out before, in favour of those verses which were of the nature of concession to the age.

Also, normatively speaking the Qur’an has conceded all rights to women which were available earlier only to men. She could exercise her right to divorce her husband as men could divorce her at will. The Prophet permitted a woman called Jamila to divorce her husband - against his will and without consultingg him - just because she did not approve of his looks. While the verse 2:229 permits her to liberate herself from an unsatisfactory marriage by suitable compensation to husband (i.e. returning the dower amount) the verse 4:35 gives her right to appoint an arbiter of her own to settle the marital dispute or agree to divorce. Also, the Qur’an requires of men to keep their wives in goodly manner and to leave them, if necessary, in a benevolent manner. And the verse 4:19 lays down that women could not be inherited or taken as wives against their will. men are also exhorted in this verse not to take a portion of what they have given to their wives and to treat them kindly. It was also emphasised in 9:71 that believing men and believing women are each others friends and they (both men and women) enjoin good and forbid evil. Thus both enjoy equal obligations and from this verse jurists like Abu Hanifa have concluded that a woman can become Qadi i.e.judge as it is her obligation also to enjoin good and forbid evil.

It is argued from the verse 4:11 that a daughter inherits half that of son and hence man is superior. Some modernists also argue on the basis of this verse that it is injustice to a daughter as she has been given half that of son and hence it is bias against female sex. It is simply not true. From one perspective one can say it was a cautious reform in favour of daughters. In pre-Islamic society daughters did not inherit at all and now they were given right to inherit half that of son. From another perspective it could be argued that it was not bias against daughter that they were given half that of son but daughters were duly compensated by mehr (dower amount at the time of marriage) whereas sons had to loose out by paying dower to their wives. And the wives do not have to spend anything by way of maintenance as it is enjoined upon the husbands to maintain their wives. Also, a woman inherited as wife and mother too. Moreover she did not contribute to family wealth in those days by way of earning but now she does and her portion could be increased in view of the changed conditions. Thus the Qur’an has done no injustice to her in matters of inheritance also.

Another question is of hijab (veil). There is no injunction in the Qur’an that she veil her face. The verse 24:31 only lays down that women should not display their adornment and fineries publicly and that they should cover their breasts (tribal women in those days used to leave their breasts uncovered) and that they should not strike heir feet with anklets in public so as to draw attention to their adornments. In this verse both men and women have been asked to lower their gaze (4:30-31) and to restrain their sexual passions. As for what constitutes adornment and what should be displayed and what should be not, there are sharp differences of opinion. These differences are human and every commentator has his views. But Tabari, the noted classical commentator has summarised the views of many eminent jurists in his Jami‘ al-Bayan. According to him adornment means 1) adornment of dress or the clothes that a woman wears; in other words, she is not required to cover the clothes she wears; 2) it means the adornment which the woman is not required to cover, such as collyrium, rings, bracelets and her face; 3) the exception (illa ma zahara minha) relates to a woman’s clothing and her face.

These were opinions of the theologians of those days. Today the sensibilities in this respect are very different and the scope of the exception can be made much wider subject to - and that is real intention behind it - to restrain sexual passion and protect ones chastity. To prevent extra-marital sex is the responsibility of both men and women and not of women alone, as per the Qur’an. Also, both should avoid wearing sexually stimulating dress. They should wear dignified dress. Covering of face by women is not required in the Qur’an at all. It was cultural practice of some post-Islamic societies.On the contrary they could earn and what they earned was theirs alone as per 4:32 (And for women is the benefit of what they earn). The cultural practices like confining women to home were sought to be legitimised later by inventing suitable ahadith or by far fetched interpretations of the Qur’an.

In conclusion it should be said that if one goes by those verses of the Qur’an which belong to the normative category or which are of the nature of laying down principles and givers of value, men and women should enjoy equal rights in every respect. It would be necessary to re-read and re-interpret many verses which were used for centuries to subjugate women in Muslim societies. This subjugation was more cultural and patriarchal than Islamic or Qur’anic. The whole corpus juris of Islam relating to women needs to be seriously re-thought on the basis of Qur’an.

It's fun to see all the different comments by Muslims about other Muslims. Kind of shows there isn't a monolithic Muslim movement, only branches, sects and splinter groups...like Christians! When I hear a Muslim call another Muslim out for their "wrong" interpretation of the holy writings and told they are worse than the nonbelievers because they distort Islam...makes me happy to know they are going through the same schisms and arguments the Christian churches have gone through on their way to being a part of modern civilization. Unfortunately, it's the 21st Century and Muslims are STILL killing each other over religious differences. Disagree with each other, but put away the bombs, swords and guns. If Islam is supposed to be so peaceful, how about a month long period of peace by Islamic extremists to show that it can be done? Like Ramadan, but without using it as an excuse to kill your enemies when they let down their guard for the holy period.

Just to clarify for anyone whom Ibrahim may have caused doubt in regarding Female Circumcision and FGM.

The majority of Muslim countries (except in parts of sub-Saharan Africa) do not practice Female circumcision. It is considered to be a pre-Islamic custom and is not exclusive to Islam, but is indicative of certain regions. People indigenous to all parts of the world, of all beliefs and religions still practice it, including Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and Animists living in Asia, Africa, and even Mexico.

According to Sayed Sistani (a Shi'a Grand Scholar):

Q: in Holland there was uproar over the circumcision of women. There are some Somalians who circumcise their woman, but the Government prohibited them. These Somalians claim that this practice stems from a hadeeth that the family of the Prophet pbuh used to practice female circumcision. What is the veracity of this hadeeth and what is the ruling for female circumcision.

A:There is no evidence of this in hadeeth (traditions) about the family of the Prophet, and we do not find its recommendation narrated in hadeeth considered authentic. What has been narrated in authentic hadeeths is, circumcision of the male is sunnah and 'lessening' for female is not of the sunnah.

Q: What is the ruling for circumcising of the female and is it wajib (required) or mustahab (recommended)
A: It is not wajib and it is impermissible to do after she reaches puberty.

According to: Shaykh Faraz Rabbani (SunniPath Academy Teacher)

Q: I have a Question regarding female circumcision in Hanafi fiqh. I've heard from several sources that this is wajib according to Shafi'i fiqh, while according to Hanafi fiqh the decision lies in the hands of the husband. Can you shed some light on this and give the legal proofs for this ruling?!

A: Walaikum assalam,

That which is wajib in the Shafi`i texts is merely slight 'trimming' of the tip of the clitoral hood - prepuce. It is neither excision nor FGM, nor anything else harmful to the woman or her ability to derive sexual pleasure. This is what the Hanafis considered a 'token' for the husband. It is not recommended per se.

As for excision, FGM, or other harmful practices, which have become culturally widespread, none of these are in any way permitted. This is why the scholars generally say that the proper practice is almost a lost art.

And Allah alone gives success.

Wassalam,
Faraz Rabbani

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1702&CATE=89

Ibrahim Mahfouz - Please stop posting. You and your fake Sunnah's are hurting Muslims more than anything and causing fitnah.

Hejab is prescribed in the Qur'an for both Women AND MEN.

FGM is illegal in Islam.

and a quick trip thru algeria and youre next door in tunisia (where the author lived 35 years ago for a bit)

where the government as forbidden wome to wear the hijab in government buildings!
(simialr to what happened in turkey last decades)

barring women from involvement in public offices!
(just ask merve kavakci)
she also has written on this blog- why didnt they ask her?
she was barred from the parliament for wearing hijab!!!!!!!!!!! and kicked out of turkey!!!!!!!

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/merve_kavaki.html

Muslim Observer, Commentary, Yvonne Ridley, Posted: Jul 23, 2007

Why do journalists choose to ignore the Amnesty International report which outlines in clinical detail how the Tunisian authorities have increased their “harassment of women who wear the hijab”?

I have a bee in my bonnet or hijab to be more precise.

On an almost daily basis there are horrific stories pouring out of Tunisia about how the state police are ripping off the hijabs of women living there.

Some of these women, who are merely fulfilling their religious obligation to wear a hijab, have been assaulted, sexually abused and even locked up in prison by the authorities.

Unbelievable when you consider western tourists are topless sunbathing on the coastal resorts, soaking up the Tunisian sun.

So it is okay to get your kit off if you are a western tourist who pays handsomely for sun, sand, sex and sangria but try wearing a hijab and see what happens in this so-called liberal, Muslim country.

she dopesnt even seem to be aware that the reactions of the moroccan women are a symbol ALSO of unity and right to express theirreligious identity which is being suppressed next door in tunisia to please the western americans!!!!

so, you can see- it is increasingly senseless to be misrepresented by an observer who simply doesnt know- when there are women right here on these blogs with so very mnuch experience!

and you can go to turkey right now and see plenty of girls both with, and without hijab!!!!!

google this author mike-

she writes she lived in marrakech in the 80s and 90s-
she was there 7 years.
she was collecting stories for her books.

SHE decided on her own,in 1997 when she went for a visit that the girls were havng an identity crisis-
and then wrote 4 paragraphs about her own identity crisis and projected it right onto the girls -

she had all those years before to investigate the meaning of hijab for moroocan women-
she could have asked any time -while she was finding stories!
when the women were NOT (according to her) having identity crises-

actually, all we have here is a woman who lived in marakech- Not all of morroco-
for a short period of time when she didnt bother to find out about the local csutoms-

but many years alter feels qualified to write about a subject she never understood to begin with-

moroccan women have been wearing hijab for centuries-

their liberation movement,much like in america- started in the 1970s.

and women dont wear a jheelaba anywhere
its a jheelab (actually jilbab)

i just googled jheelaba and jheelbab-
there was nothing-
but jilbab turns pages and pages of links
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=jilbab&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

i know, i have some of them in my bookmark-
i actually wear jilbab too-

most of the article centers around her own confusion on being a good/girl bad/girl in the catholic church

why is she writing about a subject with no research, just opinions? (and culturally inaccurate ones at that)

when there are better qualified women on the staff here- who actually know?

its more misleading than anything- and makes people have misinformation (like you think moroccan women wore scarves before and just now adopted hijab)

its just kind of goofy

Victoria,
The point was surely that the head covering worn by most Moroccan women until recently resembled the headscarf that the author wore. And that Moroccan women have now changed from a "headscarf" to the hijab. Also, you don't have to go round asking when it's obvious they are undergoing a struggle about their faith and identity.

islam is a cult that demands death or submission to it. why does anyone care if you wear a scarf.

well, im an american, and also wear hijab.

and the author apparently, even though she traveled in morocco- didnt wear hijab, and never experienced it- still for some odd reason feels complelled to give her projected ideas on something she observed without understanding.

she didnt understand even the defintion of what hijab is- confused it with scarves- made judgements based on her own biases-
and it seems in 7 years she could have managed to ask one woman somewhere WHY she wore hijab!

of more than 70 posts here, most of the loudest posters also are completely clueless about it.

if she spoke intelligently on the subject, or added any info- it would be relevant.

but how is her obvious misconception about the subject even relevant, or an opinion sought?

only to be further joined in by a choir of others who have no idea! but only bizarre projections of what they imagine.

if only she, and the commentators here would listen for once before they talk without knowledge.
there are 2 women who are panelists here- ad could speak eloquently about hijab.
and wear hijab- are neither oppressed, silenced or faceless, and have their photos on this board.

why a wouldnt they be asked about this , instead of this strange biased article?
(how could someone live for 7 years with a people, and never ASK the people around them why they do what they do?)

Spare Me: "Two words : ugly american"

Response: Two words: truculent foreigner.

Ever notice how when an American writer has a different opinion than another nationality, they are being the "ugly american?" Guess that doesn't apply to other nationalities when they speak about things they know nothing about. You know, kind of like their opinions about how Americans think or the attitudes of Americans towards other peoples. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion based on their own experiences. If you disagree on the facts, fine. But don't presume to use a phrase like "ugly american" as a catch-all for your disagreement...."truculent foreigner."

Islam institutionalized Female Genital Mutilation as explained below:
Clitoridectomyis full or partial amputation of
the clitoris. Twenty seven percent of the female circumcisions are of this type. It is called the “Sunna” or “tradition of the Prophet Mohammed” circumcision. Another variation of the Sunna circumcision is the “Intermediate” where the amputation includes besides the clitoris, a portion or all of the inner vaginal lips. Some form or the other of female circumcision was practiced by people of North Africa long before Islam, but was institutionalized by Islam. There is an accepted dictum assigned to the prophet Mohammed that says “(circumcision) is the merit for girls”. A version of Hadith; Muslim tradition, relates words attributed to the prophet addressing Um Attiyyah, the circumciser: “Circumcise girls but do not exaggerate {in circumcision} as {the way of performing the circumcision} is best liked by the husband and makes {the wife’s} face radiant in the best possible way”.

I am "surprised, alarmed even" to read that you have lived in both Tunisia and Morocco and have the audacity, to write this. I'm american and I find this offensive. You were shocked by hijab in a muslim country? And why, if these girls are wearing it as you say with clothes of their choosing does hijab automatically equal some kind of oppression? This is what you're implying, that it's impossible to carry any muslim cache without it being something from the dark ages.

I'd suspect if the girls were bible toting christians nothing would warrant comment. For the women I know who have chosen hijab (and yes, you can still CHOOSE hijab) it was a decision they made after thought, not in some kind of weird Tiger Beat, oh I love Audrey Hepburn phase like you are comparing it to. Nor is it at all similar to catholic girls scarves. Two words : ugly american.

Correction:
In my post of Jan.6 about the roots of the veil in Islam I stated that Omar was one of the Prophet's sons in law. He, instead, was one of the prophet's fathers in law.

"...Moroccan women combine the hijab with figure-revealing blue or black jeans, elaborate glittering belts, modern sexy tops and designer sunglasses. Equally striking is the glossy-magazine-style make-up, heavy on the lipstick and black kohl eye-liner."

Modesty? What a crock.

Modest hijab = just another Islamic oxymoron designed to obscure and deflect form the real propose.

The real purpose of the hijab is to be a religious and political symbol. We all know this except those who are asleep.

If these symbols were not important, then why not let a Christian woman with a gold cross on walk around the streets of Mecca. Let the Christian woman say it is just an expression of her modesty while sporting a tight pair of jeans and sexy makeup and let's see what happens. Islamic authorities would not be fooled by the rhetoric.

A modest person does not cause controversy or push their religion in the face of others. That is arrogance and that is what an Islamic woman demonstrates when she conspicuously wears the hijab in a predominately Western, Christian society. It is arrogance on display, not modesty.

Islam has over the years developed all these clever terms and side discussions to cover up the true purpose. In Morocco, the hijab is probably worn with sexy jeans because Daddy might kill you or some guy seeing you walk by may feel obligated to otherwise stand up for the honor of Islam. That hijab with sexy jeans is there as a protective shield. It says, "I still respect Daddy and the males who dominate our society and I want to live another day. I have not crossed the line."

It seems that the hijab has become the last line of defense for Islam in an increasingly Westernized world. It is a symbol that sums up everything. You know, a symbol like the star of David that Hitler forced the Jews to wear.

BTW - Honor killing = Islamic oxymoron designed to obscure the act of child sacrifice to an idol called Allah. Just another stone age practice.

will really like 2 contribute to the debete.i happen to belong to the protestant faith bt with due respect we dont need giorgio armani hijabs to knopw they should be relegated to the gallows.just last week a muslim taxi driver killed her daughter becoz she had decided to do away with it.dont we respect the sanctity of life?we live in the 21st century and proff women should be allowed to look modern.it wont compromise their morals abit.in modern religions women are allowed to wear headscarfs only in church.they should follow this.dont they have a choice?parting shot;if u find 2 women drowning one with hijab n ano with no hijab who will u save?al save the one with hijab and tell her 2 remove it to set a precedent.it aint fair to shout abt affirmative action and women are not taking the lead.take a cue from fatuma hirsi ali

The veil is an excuse for not washing the hair. People who have fleas should not be allowed to cover an itchy head with a covering. In Libya during the 1969 Revolution such filthy people were "ripped off" of their veils and forced to wear a state-issued uniform. Flea powder and anti-tick shampoo was given out as their "benefits."

However the Libyans follow other Islamic dicates.

J. Ringo,

Reference supporting your claim that OT Jewish men were veils????

There is nothing to be torn between. Just read “Mental Bondage in the Name of God” by Aidid Safar.

Only sex-starved Muslims lurch at women with uncovered hair. Is the hair that erotic? Some human civilizations go around naked but you don’t hear of rape in that community. Tsk! Tsk!

Aidid Safar's work is a must read. More at my website, "My No Brainer", where you can read his work plus where to get the full copy.

The first honor killing in the Bible was done by Jacob's (aka Israel) sons because Shechem had sex with their sister (Genesis chapter 34). They wanted to get married by her brothers kiled Sechem, his father Hamor, kidnapped their sister, plundered the city, and kidnapped the children and women.

The Israelites/Hebrews/Jewish women wore veils. Even Moses wore one. It was a Semite custom. It probably started out as a simple way to keep women from getting sun-burned in the desert and to keep sand off of their faces. Later on the religious nuts made it part of their primitive religions and now the women who wear it should start evolving it as part of their skins.

Speaking of religions, who knows why people believe what they believe? Everything is a jumble of countless myths and superstitions. It's been my observation that most people are ignorant about their religion and think that they know what it's about when in fact they don't have a clue.

UmmSultan,

You noted:

"And lastly Islam is not a flawed religion everything in the Quran and Hadith are perfect."

Hmmm, not so if one looks at the history of it all.

A synopsis of the flaws in the founders and foundations of the major religions for those that have not seen them before or did not take the time to look:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Those who may not have seen what Islmic modesty for women means requiring khimars, take a look and buy some for your daughters ... she will be wearing them soon enough ... seriously, no kidding.

http://www.alhadeeqah.com/

Below is the historical root for the "veil" in Islam:
In the book Sahih Bukhari on the chapter of "Ablution' and the topic of 'Defecating Women", it states that the wives of the Prophet used to go out at night to defecate in a clearing just outside the neighborhood. Omar ibn Khattab, one of the Prophet’s sons in law and friend, advised the Prophet to veil his wives so they would not be recognized, but the Prophet resisted. Until one dark night Omar recognized Sauda bint Zum‘a, one of the Prophet’s wives who happened to be very tall. He called out her name and she answered. It was only then that the Prophet agreed to veil his wives.

I find it shocking that you've lived in North Africa for 10 years and have written a book about Morocco yet you do not know what a hijab is. The 'headscarf' you mention as being a somewhat more liberal alternative to the hijab is a hijab -- the different styles of wearing it may reflect differences in levels of religious observance or geographic or ethnic origin, buy they are one and the same thing. Both are called 'hijab' in casual conversation, while the proper Islamic name for both garments is 'khimar'.

I find it shocking that you've lived in North Africa for 10 years and have written a book about Morocco yet you do not know what a hijab is. The 'headscarf' you mention as being a somewhat more liberal alternative to the hijab is a hijab -- the different styles of wearing it may reflect differences in levels of religious observance or geographic or ethnic origin, buy they are one and the same thing. Both are called 'hijab' in casual conversation, while the proper Islamic name for both garments is 'khimar'.