The Limits on Women’s Lives

Anita zaidi

I think you have misunderstood translations and some other stuff.

Koran is complete book,please tell me

Liberties of Women by west has given them more problems and pains than happines. I have lived in New york,london and pakistan.

In the name of liberty and love , Men of west and

other who have misunderstood islam have explioted

women in west and east.

In the name of LOVE, Men have sexual LUST for Women.

I think ,if we all understand Islam comprehensively and correctly than, it does not limit women to progress. But be clear , Women better place is home and it is only when necessary she should work.

You see children in west are not today raised morally ,as women go to work. It is only exception when women work and raise good kids.

I hope you and other will comment on it and communicate with and among each other in positive manner.

Dr Ali Imran

EmaiL: drpublichealth@hotmail.com

Dear Anita,

My parents used to beat me , probably for minor reasons. But that was part of life. We appreciate

modesty so much that asking for DNA testing is not possible. Thses are something that is possible in the West. Hey! do you have a card that says you don`t have STD/AIDS. The person I have spent the last night with had one. Anything is possible there. But for me, doubting my wife is as good as first step for divorce. May be not for those non-Muslims who have attained superiority in the world today, this is no factor. But once you loose head you lost everything. In time we will win. Its just a bad period of time in the history.From my experience I can tell Western style promotion of feminism can not sustain marriage lasting for a long time. Family is made irrelevant. How about open marriage! common law marriage! gay marriage! incest! why what`s wrong with these to a atheist.

Can you answer just one thing: why do you think atheist who smirks at Islamic dress code, they themselves even wear a clothe. They don`t have any regulations. Why don`t they be more exposive? Why only in sea beach, why not every where? You can not answer that question, right?

The a good number of people of America may have Christian names but they are in fact faithless.

Same goes for us. You are right human are not perfect. We need strict rules. Can you develop feminism based on Islamic values, but strictly maintaining Islamic values? Don`t follow the Westerners , the Biblical Romans, or we will face the same fate as they will face.

Resposnse to the ``Limit on womens Life`` by Anita Zaidi .

Assalam-alaikum ,

Are you religious ? I know its not my business to ask you that , but I would like to answer this in a religious way first , and the bottomline is you cannot get answers to all of your whys? As the Quran says something like `` we have given limited knowledge to man beyond which they cannot see/think``. So our reasoning is very limited and we cannot make out the sense of each and every thing.Islam asked women to wear hijab and not men , because womens have attraction ,they are capable of getting men`s attention this makes sense and muslims accept it.

Quran also orders wives to be obedient to their husband , but why? I don`t know

refer to para I.

Islam ask working women to spend her money the way she wants and don`t bother about household expenses , Why? I don`t know , refer to para I.

And if you are not religous then its because of centuries of man`s role as

bread earner for the family ( who asked them to be bread earner ? ). so its the

economics.

Economics has significant impact in our life , it changes the way we think , live

talk and behave. Try to think of two persons ( say two man ) sharing an appartment

and household chores, if one of them loses job and sits home then I bet you , he will be doing

more work at home then who is going to job. So if you get the meaning of this story then I am sure you will not blame it all on the men alone. what women can blame on is their inability to assume the role of bread earner because they were biologically different .

OH look where have we come again , the question of creation.

Darwins theory or Allah (SWT) , Choice is yours.

I have no intention of hurting any one`s feeling ,

Thanks for Reading.

Javed Akhtar.

Today accidently I clicked on Anita Zaidi` old article ``The limits on women` lives`` and then the replies. I was amused first by finding out the number of responses to it. I spent about more than an hour reading some of the responses as their were gaps in the letters (missing letters).

I am a Muslim, not only because I was born in a Muslim family, but because this religion attracted me and I decided to read about it. I admit I do not have in depth knowledge of Islam as I am not an Arab and don`t know Arabic language but whatever I picked up from various translations, I became more and more convinced that it is a divine religion and the book Quran is divine, the prophet Muhammad was one of the true messenger of Allah, the only one God worth worshiping.

Now with this information given and out of my way, I would like to express my opinion about this matter.

First - To all those people who call themselves ``Muslim`` but in fact do not believe in Allah the only God worth worshiping, Muhammad as one of his true massagers, and the Quran as the final testament, be honest to yourself and others and stop calling yourself Muslim, before doubting the words of Quran. Because if you don`t believe the Quran to be the true revelation from the Allah Almighty and still call yourself Muslim, Quran has another name for such people and that is ``Munafiq``. A munafiq is worse than a Kafir because he/she hurts Islam more then its opponents.

Once these people call themselves non-Muslim, then they have a right to question Quran`s words, and I have no problem with that. May be a scholar will be able to satisfy their curiosity. Besides when you don`t believe in a religion and it says something you do not agree with, it should not bother you. There are so many religions in this world which have so many things which do not appeal to my sense of reasoning, it does not bother me, I just simply put it aside thinking it is not correct. I do not use bad language about the originators of those religion or their leaders. I was hurt by reading whatever was quoted by others from Rushdie`s Satanic Verses but I was not angry. And may be that is why Islam forbids to be disrespectful for other`s faith.

Because there is so much truth in what Quran says that I believe it to be Gods words. And once I believed in it, I started to read it, think about the things that don`t look reasonable like the issues Anita Zaidi raised, but I do not doubt it, because I cannot. I have a choice not to believe in it and declare it that I am a non-Muslim, or believe in it and think may be it is not interpreted correctly, or may be there is a reason for it which I cannot comprehend.

I fast in the month of Ramadan because that is God`s command, I do not look for any benefit or reasoning for it. I say my prayers and ask Allah`s guidance to understand things that I do not otherwise understand, and ask for His forgiveness for the moments of my weaknesses. I tray to do all those things what Allah says to do and tray to stay away from all what Allah forbids. By the way I believe only in the book Quran and not the books which were compiled after 200 years of the prophet`s death.

I am not one of those hijabi women. I have worked all my life outside the house. I am happy as anyone can be in this world, with usual problems like any other woman. But I am very content with my faith and I believe this life is not the end but a mean to a much greater end, the life hereafter. For that end, we can work in this life and do as much good deeds as possible by helping others and not hurting anyone, be it a man or a woman.

May Allah bless you all.

Saida

Dear Anita,

Your article is well written, but unfortunately, it gives conflicting statements and devoid of certain realities such as writing Quranic verses and yet not accepting it. There is much more to know to comment like this. Before, we start commenting on any point, we must read the matter carefully.

Let me tell you by example. Two people were looking at a glass of water, which was half filled. One said it is half empty and the other said it is half filled. Both are right, but psychologically one is thinking healthier and meaningful than the other.

First, as you know, Islam has always been there since Prohet Adam. Different books were revealed by Allah, but people of that time made fun and the holy books could not be kept intact. Women of that time were quite free and in a recent well explained Tafseer, Ahsan ul Biyan, it is narrated how badly the women were treated before revelation of the Last testament. Finally, Allah revealed the Holy Quran, mentioning in one of the Ayas, that I take the responsibility of keeping it intact. So, all the Ayas have been kept intact. I am not telling you something new, but just to support of my point of view.

Yes, you are right that Quran does mention in Surah Nissah and other Surahs about women`s obedience to husband, but not the discrimination, except in the case where the husband asks a woman to be disobedient to Allah`s commandments, for instance not to pray fard salah. We cannot doubt Quranic verses. Same way, we cannot doubt on sound hadiths e.g. the method of performing salah is from Prophet PBUH and not in Quran. In one of the authentic hadiths, it is mentioned that for a woman who is the best for her to take care of, Prophet PBUH replied, her husband. For a man, he said his mother and then father.

Secondly, I also agree that Men have been created to sponsor woman by getting into wedlocks. They are supposed to take care of all woman`s needs, yet they have not been asked to stop the woman from getting into the world`s business e.g education, business, earning money through proper means etc. Remember, even if the woman -wife- is earning more than the man -husband, the husband still remains duty bound to take care monetarily the home affairs. The money earned by woman belongs totally to her and she is allowed to spend whichever she chooses. Freedom should be concentrated on these things, not the dress and like matters. The dress code is given in the Quran supported by authentic hadiths. Moreover, nowhere in Quran it is written that woman should be discriminated nor should a man try to do it. My point of view is that a woman can be a very respectable personality yet it can be worst too. The same goes for a man too.

You must have noticed that there are no woman prophets, imams, messenger of Allah or any revelation from Allah to them. There seem certain reasons that Allah has not done so, Who knows all. What comes to my mind is that a woman is generally emotional and she has biological reasons.

Yet, I understand your point of view and would like to say that Allah has not allowed a man to beat or admonish his wife or send them to beds apart except only in extreme circumstances. Don`t do bad to woman by misinterpreting Quranic verses please. I urge strongly that Quranic verses should not be misused for own satisfaction or show authority. A man is definitely physically more powerful, but to use it over woman is very sad. Remember, a woman like a man has all rights over her husband. She has a right to ask and discuss the matters if the husband does wrong. That is why the woman is also allowed to divorce her husband before Quran was revealed, I think this was not the situation. Allah has given a lot of rights to woman, and like a man she has been allowed to do the worldly regular business. Such permission should not be misused to allow immorality and indecency. But, the husband has a slight edge over the woman. If the husband misusing this slight edge, he is going to be responsible for ridiculing the Quranic verses.

In conclusion, I believe it is not Islam that discriminates, but the people who do it. Islam has given rights and duties to both of them and anyone going out of it does the wrong and should repent. With all this, woman plays a lot important role to maintain social and moral aspects of the family and society. Woman is an extremely important part of the family. Please don`t play, beat or admonish them. It is only allowed in very extreme cases e.g. a married woman involved with another man. Even, the beating is only allowed on the back and not to hurt or on the face. Women also have equal rights to question the husbands for their extreme wrong-doings. I believe literacy and common sense plays an important role here than an education. You may find thousands of graduates mistreating woman. There is so much to write, but I think this is sufficient at this moment.

May Allah forgive me if I have written anything wrong.

Sikhism!!!! Started by Guru Nanak Dev is the only religion in world where women are treated totally equally. East Punjab is 68% literate according to latest survey by GOI (total population is 33 million, out of which 70% are Sikh, 25 percent are hindus, rest muslims and christians).

Due to negative influences by Majority muslim population before 1947, Sikhs also kept their women in purdah and deployed the same tactics as muslim folks. Now, it is much changed, Sikh women now are at least 30-40% of work force of punjab, majority in health and education fields.

I think Hindus and Sikhs are much more liberal to and allow their women to achieve their aspirations.

Evidence is Arundhati Roy, Chawla (NASA Astronaut), etc.

Many Sikhs practice rituals that are directly in contrast with Sikhism due to the Hindu ancestory, just like Muslims. Indian women (Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs, Christians, etc) have undoubtly surpassed their counterparts in Pakistan in all fields. Reason being is freeddom.

Indian women (all Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs, Christians, Zorastrians, etc) at this time enjoy same standards of freedom as in west. India has cricket, hockey, gymnastics, weightlifting, field and track and other sports teams where women have excelled.

Indian women is in Army, Air force (as transport pilot), commercial airplane pilots, navy, and other physically and mentally demanding sports.

Indian women are winning beauty pagents, the world over. Eventhough I shun these pagents but I respect

the freedom that allows these women to participate in such events.

I believe all the above was possible only because of freedom that is guaranteed in Hinduism and Sikhism and in Islam. You have to figure out which is more important ``freedom or wrong interpretation of quran by semi-literate mullahs``

NO OFFENSE!!!!

Best Regards,

Sandeep Singh Bajwa

sbajwa@fyi.net

Re: Farouq shaib,

Thank you for finally admitting that you are totally committed to an ideology you inherited and that you are unwilling (or unable) to question the basis regardless of the argument or reference.

Now this clarifies the confusion some of us may have harbored. We should have known that when you made bold claims of ``searching for answers`` you only meant those answers which were within the context of your pre-existing boundry of belief systems. Allah indeed knows all things (as She knew this too). It has indeed been revealing, even though you never actually attempted answering the questions about Quran raised earlier. But don`t worry, your seat in Janaat-ul-Firdaus is inshallah booked and confirmed.

May you live in Blissful Peace basking in the glow of Allah`s Mercy.

...SR

Dear Umar sahib:
I know very well what Islam teaches, thank you. The difference is that I saw through the apologetic spin a long long time ago.

You didn`t get my point. I didn`t expect that you would. I can say it all over again, but it`d be a waste of time. Kindly read my comments again.

Ibrahim was born of Maria who was a concubine sent as gift to Muhammad from the king Najashi or Abyssinia.

And since you were frank enough to call me a charlatan, let me reciprocate the candor by pointing out that half the time, you don`t even understand what the other side is saying before responding.


Rgds
MNI

Rehan Rizvi`s comments:
``..when we reject God, we are left essentially with animal instincts. Why not follow them when nothing`s stopping us? In this country people
do things that fall into extremely hedonistic categories...``

Old ruse.

After finding out that there is no rational and relevant argument to validate Islam, this irrelevancy is brought in. Either there is divinity or there isn`t. Either Islam is divine,or it isn`t. All these are ONTOLOGICAL questions. It is very strange to bring in ethics, to support a claim about physical (or metaphysical) reality.

First and foremost, what you consider appropriate morality is what your religion considers moral. Adultery, fornication, drinking are all immoral because your religion doesn`t allow it. Then you say that if you abandon religion, you`ll become immoral. That`s eithera tautology, or you have, in the back of your mind, an idea of morality (your `animal` instinct :)) independent of, yet similar to Islamic ethics. Why else do you think people will be threatened bythe specter of widespread ``immorality``?

Morality is based on practical considerations of perpetuating and preserving human society. Of course it`s no accident that the ethics
taught in hundreds of societies has been similar. Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism all teach the same basic morals. There were many thinkers
who formulated rules of morality without any appeal to God or his torture chamber upstairs. Religion has been very much like the
jin-bhoot stories we hear from our parents to scare us into heeding advice. But kids are kids. But religious moralists seem to think of
everyone as a little child who can`t see the utilitarian foundation of ``morality``. Or they`re too lazy to formulate a rational argument
because that needs more work. It`s convenient to invent a story of a policeman up in heaven and scare the population of the fire in hell. And it didn`t stop there. Perverse and sickening moral dogma was invented to further the cause of the religion. Very often greed, ambition to conquer and suppress, also got mixed up in morality. It became moral to kill, plunder, mutilate and enslave other human beings in the name of godly morality.

You say people need to fear god to stay on the right path. If the fear of god is enough to inculcate morals, why the penal laws in Islam? Isn`t the fear of god enough? Fact is that fear of god stops very few people from playing foul. You always need the worldly danda. In fact, when you think you are a part of god`s favorite ``ummah``, you start taking liberties in the hopes that god will forgive. Socratic morality that is univeral, takes a back seat. Pietist morality takes precedence. Hence Mother Teresa goes to hell and the plunderer Mahmood becomes god`s great soldier. Historically, religious societies have hardly been embodiments of moral values. Making religion the basis of morality is a very very insidious lure for the lazy who are unwilling to think and rethink about morality and the nature of it.

Regarding your statement about this country...WAKE UP!! You think nothing ``hedonistic`` happened in Islamic socieities. Let me remind you...Muhammad had NINE wives at one time and at least TWO concubines. You know what a concubine is? You know how Muhammad`s son Ibrahim was born? ``Hedonistic`` things have been happening in EVERY society.
The difference is that a class, gender or race doesn`t get suppressed to keep it all hush-hush.

Re:BG
No Muslims and humanists aren`t mutually exclusive as long as the Muslim remembers that there`s a basis for his ethics independent of god and religion. The probability of that happening is rather low because typically Islamic morality isn`t identical to what you`d arrive at after thinking as a humanist. In a way, this whole women`s issues debate stems from this problem.


Re: Sabrina
``Well...proof was never needed when we were kids...but I need proof that it isn`t the word of god..``

Suppose you, as a kid were taught to believe that there`s an invisible demon that sits on your head. Would you ask for proof? Now tell me
how one can go about proving that such a proposition is not true. I hope you see what I am saying...


Re: SR and Sabrina

It takes a bold step of reason to get off this ``sharaab-e-tahoor`` of faith. It is understandable that people are reluctant to take this step and play mental games instead. I wouldn`t judge such people too harshly. At least they are trying to question. They are inquiring. Quite different from Mr.Rizvi who thinks one shouldn`t even question.
(Somewhere I smell al manqadh min Dalal :))

Re:SR:
You are right. Faith is an intoxicant. It gives you a high. The key to being reasonable (and this addresses AZ`s point a bit) is to realize that faith is a high. Everyone doesn`t and shouldn`t get that high. And any conclusion reached from there is for your own emotional needs. It should have nothing to do with objective reality or universal morality. Maybe such awareness invalidates faith. But that`s the only way I can think of, that you can stay a Muslim, and still be ``secular``.

Rgds
MNI

Re: SR.

``I think those who have this flame burning inside them are indeed fortunate,``

I truly believe so too. And when that flame just extinguishes, one tries desperately to get it back. But how can that happen when the matches aren`t in the hands any longer? Your reply following this was just beautiful. Full of truths. You knew exactly how useless it would be yourself, don`t you see? It was precisely because of that I was a little irritated. And not just with you or MNI, but Mr Rizvi as well. I merely wished people would stick to things more tangible like the Quran versus who, why, how this universe was created. With the Quran we can dissect and make sense of it or not make sense of it. Something along the lines of your most recent reply to GSM.

However, I have read Mr Rizvi`s post. And I believe this debate is coming to an end now;)

Oh yes, please do post an article on your days of innocence and the transition. When, how, why? What did you do? It will be most interesting to read.

Re: Rehan Rizvi.

I am amused. When was drinking martini an extreme pleasure? Are any pleasures extreme in the first place? Reading a good book for me is pure bliss. Acceptable pleasure?

Abandoning Islam does not mean a person loses all sense of responsibility, morality and ethics. The values instilled in me by my religion are not exclusive to me. I see them in my non-Muslim friends as well. Perhaps, you say that these people have also been within the confines of religious boundaries of their own. That would be accurate. However, you forget that we all live in an ordered society whether or not religion exists for the individual. Many Muslims do not follow all of their religion, yet they will abide by society`s dictates. What it appears is that you seem to think Islam`s regulation on sexual habits and diet/drink are essential to continuation of proper and decent life. Well, the reality of the situation is that Muslims do not follow their regulations anyways. Why? Perhaps, the Muslims on the straight path should when they find out about the sins, take punishment into their own hands. Flogging? Well, if done in America, that will be basis for abuse and he will end up in imprisonment. Fact of the matter is, what exactly is regulating our lives most of the time? It`s our own conscience and innate desire not to hurt others by our own personal actions (for the majority of us).

I amd kinda busy with stuff so I`ll have to just end abruptly or end up just rambling, if I haven`t already!

sabrina.

Re: Wasiq Bokhari

``The question arises ``Why do these disparities arise?`` If they are in every society from day one, then perhaps they are due to some difference in the psychological traits of men and women. True, it gets very murky when one tries to disentangle the effects of socialization from inherent abilities, but differences in the way males and females react to the world around them may lead to the onset of these differences.... It is hard to come across scientific studies that investigate this matter thoroughly (if you know of any let ne know)...``

Wasiq, as with much else, we seek answers from the past about questions we want answered today. You can`t find scientific studies because there are none - only theories. Why did women come to occupy a socially inferior position in society? The traditional (scientific) view, to which I subscribe to a certain extent, is teleological, rooted in biology and phylogenetics. It focuses on woman`s reproductive role as her major function, a species necessity, without which humankind would not have survived. This view also holds male biology as having given men a major advantage - greater physical strength, more aggressiveness, therefore a hunting role, a protective role for the vulnerable female and children.

This theory is vigorously disputed by most feminists who counter with their own theories of primitive matriarchal societies, and regard female subordination as a very early accident of history, much as the enslavement of blacks.

In reality, as with everything else this complex, the ``origin`` of female subordination is probably multifactorial - no single cause can explain everything. The new view holds that whatever the origin, those early traits that made men superior and women inferior in the biological push for species growth are no longer relevant today - male aggressive behaviour is definitely more of a problem in modern society, than an advantage, and women no longer spend the majority of their lifespan bearing and rearing children. Where these changes have occurred, women have, to a large extent succeeded in their quest for equality, and biological deterministic ideas are no longer relevant. In areas where these changes have not occurred, such biological determinism is a harsh fact of life.

Anita

Re SR and Faith
wonderful stuff!! i totally agree. ultimately, faith is (or should be?) about love. its problematic when other people try to convince you that you are `wrong` and you should think differently.

RE MNI
humanists? rejected god, etc. as basis of morality?

are muslim and humanist mutually exclusive, especially if i define muslim loosely?

no, just becuase i dont agree with how the quran defines gender relations does not mean that it has NOTHING to offer in terms of morality in other areas. I think it does. I just dont agree i have to accept everything lock stock and barrel. in the same way, i am open to other religions and what they teach. if it makes sense, why not?

RE Sabrina

Sabrina, i`m not sure i dont want to argue for women`s rights in an islamic framework becuase i think its risky -- i just dont think it makes sense.

Rizvi sahib:

You have raised very interesting points that I’d like to discuss at greater length, but first I want to request an honest answer to ONE simple question. Your answer will enlighten us as to where you are coming from. So, if it pleases you could you kindly answer (only YES / NO) the following question:

Have you, as an ADULT, ever studied all 6,666 verses of the Quran, i.e., from cover to cover?

I don’t mean Arabic recitation, or even a casual reading of its translation under the maulana sahib’s guidance, or even attending a series of ‘ders’ by some ‘alim’, but actually having taken the time to sit down and undertake a personal project to STUDY it in a language you understand. Please, if you don’t mind, sir, could you kindly answer this one question? It will really help me understand your argument better.

Expectantly yours,

...SR

Re: Umer Farouq, GSM, Rehan Rizvi et al.

Gentlemen:

There is no logic or rationalization that is ever necessary to justify one’s faith. Faith is not dependent on reason or knowledge or evidence or even common sense. Faith is transcendent and requires no proof and needs no debate. FAITH is an act of LOVE, DEVOTION and LOYALTY. It stands above and beyond man’s limited thinking and knowledge. The entire world’s knowledge cannot shake the conviction of this love. The force of this love knows no bounds.

The dazzling flame of this love can neither be created, nor destroyed. In the words of Mirza Ghalib:

...Ishq per zoor nehi, hae yeh vo aatish Ghalib
...Kay laga-ay na lagay aur bujhay na banay

I think that those who have this flame burning inside them are indeed fortunate.

I have said this a thousand times and will repeat again that the question of argument and debate does not arise when your only claim is faith. It is like trying to argue against love. Neither I nor any other rational human being in his or her right mind can ever argue against faith: its like pissing in the wind, its all sprays back on the one doing it.

The root of the problem is that those with this flame burning in their hearts at times forget that it is not shared by everyone else. Thus when those of you gentlemen (who bask in the glow of your heart’s flame) enter a discussion (about ordinary, measurable worldly matters) which is being clumsily built with such lowly and uninspired raw material as didactic reason, evidence and observation, you have to be aware that you are entering a cesspool of human muck where your esoteric ideals could be dragged down into the mud. So please don’t be self righteous and indignant. If you enter the gutter, be prepared for the contamination of your perfumed shervani.

Manure only hits the fan when people get into mental contortions and try to hammer round arguments of faith into the square hole of reason.

Having said this, I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the steadfastness in the display of your patience and courtesy. This only does your faith more honor than that of those who would have resorted to curses and inflammatory invective.

Re: GSM : Thu Apr 16 7:25:54 1998

(“...this discussion ... has gone circuitous. I believe in Quran to be the Final Word, as revealed to Prophet Muhammed. ...END OF DISCUSSION!!! ...”)

Well said, sir, I fully respect your prerogative, but then let’s really stick to it. You made a big deal about putting “every verse of the Quran under the microscope”, instead of “looking at the over all message and the spirit” of Islam.

And then this message:- gsm : Sat Apr 25 21:52:59 1998

(“... the issue of ``limits on women`s lives`` must be approached from a socio-econo-politico context. Approaching it from a strictly religious perspective ain`t going to get us nowhere, in either Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Athiesm or Agnosticism...”)


I have a nagging suspicion that you are playing a dirty trick here. This is an old ideological propagandist’s trick that is very transparent. :))

Having perhaps realized that the participants of this discussion are not intimidated by threats of hell-fire and the ‘azaab of Allah’ against those who dare to question the barbaric, primitive and inhuman dictums of orthodox religion against women’s rights, you want to change the subject and thus this subterfuge of “socio-econo-politico context”. This is not what started this debate. Let us remember that the original question in Anita’s article pertained to her puzzlement over the role of women as defined in Islam.

For your reminder I quote her: (“...why do Muslim men spend ... time worrying about what Muslim women are or aren`t allowed to do? ... does Islam ``discriminate`` against women and if so why...”)

Her question is in plain English for all to read. She didn’t ask why present day society or present economic system or political structure, or Christianity or Judaism discriminate against women. Those are all legitimate questions but they are the subjects of a different debate. Here the question is pointed towards Islam. Please answer it if you wish, but please don’t create a smokescrean to cover up the flaws (by today’s standards) in the ancient sayings which you rigidly wish to cling on to.

If you really have an undying faith in Quran as the ABSOLUTE WORD of God than what are you waiting for? Tell them like it is: Quran clearly says that men are given the right over women and that is the command of Allah, take it or leave it. If you don’t like it then that’s too bad because Allah is Almighty and if anyone should dare to reject Allah’s word they will go to hell. “END OF DISCUSSION”.

But no, you have tried to soften the harsh blow by saying things like we cannot put each and “every verse of the Quran under the microscope”. What exactly do you mean by that? Are you pulling back from the claim that EACH AND EVERY WORD of Quran is the DIRECT WORD of Allah? Or are you saying that maybe some verses are wrong, or outdated, or irrelevant? What are you really trying to say? Frankly I think your reasoning is extremely muddled up and you are looking for ways to pull wool over your own eyes if not the eyes of other readers.

I pointed out some absurd things that the Quran contains and that message upset you and you said “END OF DISCUSSION” instead of trying to explain them. Then Umer Farouq sahib gallantly stepped in and started to explain things but he conveniently forgot to address the question about (1) Zaid’s wife, (2) the Prophet’s wives, (3) the shooting stars and (4) the secret in the mother’s womb, to name just a few.

Now why are these things important to look at? Why should we not “put them under the microscope”?

It is important because the claim being made is absolutely outlandish and fantastic. It is a claim based only on faith but you guys want to “discuss it in the light of knowledge”, as Farouq sahib repeatedly goes on saying. (BTW Farouq sahib, some of us may not be as utterly ignorant about history and religion as you would like to think. Has it occurred to you that perhaps some of us may have already spent time and energy searching for some of these answers? Please don’t judge so harshly.)

If you only said that the SPIRIT of the Quran was inspired by God and that Quran is really only the sayings of the Prophet while he was in an altered state of mind then, AND ONLY THEN, would it be okay for you to say that “lets look at the total message and the Spirit” of the Quran and not “put every verse under the microscope”. Any reasonable person could over look the fact that the Prophet was a camel riding desert dweller who could not be expected to know about modern astronomy or ultrasound technology. So what if he made a mistake about minor details like not knowing that shootings stars are really meteorites and instead called them shots of fire that the angels hit those demons with who dare to sneak up to the heavens to spy on the proceedings of Gods court (quite a cleaver and cute explanation actually!). Furthermore, it would have been perfectly understandable that the Prophet could not have predicted that medical technology will be able to tell much about the unborn baby and thus he put those things in the Quran, and it would have been no big deal. I mean for 1400 years ago that was pretty good.

But no, you have to claim that it is the direct word of Allah Himself. Well, that changes things because what the Prophet could have gotten away with, Allah cannot. IF Allah really was the ‘author’ of Quran, then it makes no sense that He could have committed such blunders. I mean, after all isn’t He the one who made the world? If so how could He have not knows these things? Thus the only reasonable conclusion is that either:
(1) Quran is not the Word of Allah,
(2) Quran has been changed (which it claims it cannot be),
(3) Allah has lied about these things,

which one is it?

There is no way you can get an exemption against each and every verse being “put under the microscope” if you are going to make such tall claims as to the source of the Quran.

If you claim that Quran is the Word of God then people will “put every verse under the microscope” and ask for answer to these weaknesses and absurdities which anyone who is not intoxicated by ‘shiraab-e-tahoora’ of faith can see for what they are: inconsistencies and contradictions. Are you afraid that God has made dictation errors and that it will reflect poorly on the Celestial Secretariat?

Make up your mind: is this a black zebra with white stripes, or is it a white zebra with black stripes? You cannot have it both ways.

Re: sabrina : Fri Apr 24 8:19:46 1998

(“... you are ridiculous...For real, SR? Surely, you have been a believer before. What is not to be understood from the expected response? ...But you know this! So why bother with this line?...”)

Yes Sabrina, indeed I have been an innocent believer before. I’ll say more about my days of innocence at some later time but let me tell you first why I brought up that line of reasoning. For two reasons:

First, when the faithful venture outside of faith and think that they have a God sanctioned right to argue logically yet define the boundaries of the discussion on the spurious axioms of their faith, they make very inviting targets.

Second, in a public forum there are many open minded young people who are not biased and are entitled to see all sides of the debate.

So chill out and stop trying to win over those who are never going to bend. Look to the future generations and tell them in no uncertain terms what kind of “clothes” the emperor wears. If there is any hope it is in liberating the minds of our young. You cannot do that by running all scared and pussyfooting around in a pit of snakes. You have to fight fire with fire and quit crawling on all fours for fear that some one may accuse you of the capital crime of heresy. This is not the 12th century for crying out loud. The world is reaching for the stars while we debate whether the voo-zu is broken by passing a tiny bit of gas or not. Yes, exactly my sentiments: FOR REAL.


...SR

Re: Sabrina

Sabrina, Thx for untangling the tangled rope!

Regardless of the label ... Islamic Humanism or
Secularism ... the issue of ``limits on women`s lives`` must be approached from a socio-econo-politico context. Approaching it from a strictly religious perspective ain`t going to get us nowhere, in either Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Athiesm or Agnosticism.

Re: MNI

[... calling him ``Farhan``. I don`t know what I was
thinking. Maybe it`s old age. I will keep on enjoying my martini :).]

MNI, I AM ROTFLMAO! No, it`s not the old age syndrome of CRS ... yo bin imbibing in those martinis tooooo much!

Re: GSM.

I have not rejected God nor the Quran as a standard-setter of morality. I may question its validity today and may ask probing questions but that is my way of coming to terms with the contradictions I see. What is the use of being a namesake believer? Better to confront the uncertainty and deal with it...

A lot of my values and morals do stem from religion and I cannot deny that it has taught me good. So I have NOT rejected anything I was taught in terms of morality. I will probably stay that way as well.

BG and myself had agreed that defining womens` rights by the Quran and the Shari`ah was too much of a risk. Anita on the other hand appears to advocate reinterpretations that will bring Islam`s spirit into consonance with universal human rights. Both two approaches seems to shy away from the real ugly issue-ie Islam does not give Muslim women in Muslim majority countries the rights that are available for a woman in secular places. Some of these laws stem from the Quran, others from the Prophet`s Sunnah. Myself, I want to know if there is some reason for this. Maybe women are indeed ``weaker`` in all sense? And yet, that will be a really hard thing for me, probably BG and Anita to accept as well.

BG refers to them as inherent contradictions. Anita wants reinterpretation-but I`ve already asked how far were we willing to play with the words of God? Right? How shall inheritance issues be dealt with? That`s why BG wants secularism. Anita is a little more ambitious-she wants Islamic Humanism.

I believe it was because of our responses to the issues that MNI sees us as rejecting the Quran and God, even if we may keep them aside for our spiritual, and yes, BG even mentioned political identity. We were not truly addressing these problems from the Quran, God`s words but suggesting ideas that stemmed from elsewhere and that which suited our terms.

When we think about it more...Isn`t he partly right?

Sigh, what has education done to us women....?;)

Re:MNI

I knew what GSM was refering to earlier on in rgd to his circuitous route remark. I perhaps should have excluded his name from my usage of that phrase because it was I who felt that this with Rehan Rizvi and yourself, SR was along similar battlelines-ie Rizvi believes in God, hence his perceptions will be along that line. Same thing will divineness of Quran, right? You don`t believe in God, or perhaps you don`t know for sure, so your answers will reflect that as well.

Anyways, the point about faith and science and their differences is taken.

As for focusing on the Quran. Well, proof was never needed when we were kids...But I need proof that it isn`t the word of God and this proof had better not be my own subjective feelings influenced by my perception of what I desire my life to be or these philosophical works that I read or my ideals coloured by the West...I want to see how well believers respond to queries..If they can come up with better arguments than what I have already.

Each of us have our own way...

sabrina.