Here Are the Muslim Feminist Voices, Mr. Rushdie!

I think this sigalph fellow needs to be made US ambassador to some of these backwerds countries and shut up. Boy is more `loyal than the king` when it comes to USA. Poor fool would probably find Nixon and Reagan to `leftist` for him.

suxena #122,

and why don`t you do me a favor and stop cheering/snickering from the sidelines....i know you feel left out but this kind of behavior is childish.

and don`t deny things that you do, we call all read the interacts and decide for ourselves.

NECESSISITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION.AND IF ANY BODY NEEDED TO INVENT GENDER SELECTION SOO BADLY ,IT WERE ,INDIAN DOC ,DOING ULTRA SOUND CUM ABORTION COMBO IN DELHI & OTHER PLACESES

Baby sex choice kit could tip India`s gender



imbalance

The wealthy prefer to have boys



Celia W. Dugger, New York Times Sunday, November 25, 2001

New Delhi -- The advertisement in The Times of India would be easy to overlook. It`s small -- not quite 3 by 4 inches -- and features a plump, jolly baby with a fringe of bangs.

But the product it offers ``new from the United States`` -- a kit that claims to improve the odds of picking your baby`s sex -- seems sinister to women`s groups and government agencies here that are fighting discrimination against girls in a society with a powerful preference for sons.

A.R. Nanda, a senior civil servant in the health ministry, said Thursday that the advertisement clearly violates a 1994 law against prenatal sex determination tests. Three lawyers have filed a complaint against The Times for printing the ad, and Vibha Parthasarathi, the head of the National Commission for Women, an independent body established by Parliament, denounced the product as unethical.

``This is highly discriminatory against the girl child even before she is conceived,`` Parthasarathi said in a telephone interview.

The Times replied to its critics Thursday in an unsigned editorial titled ``Sophie`s Choice.`` The national newspaper, one of India`s most widely circulated dailies, declared itself in the clear legally, contending that laws do not prohibit sex selection techniques used before conception.

The newspaper also defended a couple`s right to use such methods, even while conceding that ``they are nearly always aimed at eliminating the girl child`` and noting that some doctors have described the claims of success for such techniques as dubious.

The Web site for the product says its approach takes account of factors ``ranging from the frequency of male ejaculation, the composition of vaginal secretions, cervical mucus, etc. . . . up to the fluid immediately surrounding the unfertilized egg.``

The debate here over the ethics of using new technologies to pick the sex of a child echoes one that has been going on in the United States since the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recently endorsed the use of in vitro fertilization techniques to help parents determine the sex of their second child, so long as it`s the opposite of the first child.

But the danger of such methods seems even more acute to authorities here because of new findings in India`s 2001 census. The results show that the ratio of girls to boys in the richest states of the north and west has fallen sharply over the past decade, a phenomenon that most experts attribute to the rising use of ultrasound tests to determine the sex of a fetus and the abortion of females.

For example, the ratio of girls to boys 6 years old and under has declined to 793 girls per 1,000 boys from 875 in Punjab, and to 878 from 928 in Gujarat.

Many Indians fear that this growing imbalance will have serious long-term social consequences. The Supreme Court this year ordered the government to more aggressively enforce laws against sex-determination tests and sex selective abortions.

So the recurring advertisement in The Times that cheerfully proclaims ``Gender selection is now a reality!`` and brags that Gen-Select`s product is ``up to 96 percent effective!`` seemed chilling to authorities here.

But Thursday, at least, couples desperate for a boy and willing to buy the kit coded blue would have been disappointed. A phone call to the toll-free number listed in the advertisement produced only a recorded voice that said the number had been disconnected.



·

http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940

Religion/Islam/In the U.S.

Freer, But Not Friedan



BY DAVID VAN BIEMA

Monday, Dec. 03, 2001

The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.

Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.

Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``

If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.

Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.

Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York







SEARCH THE ARCHIVE





Magazine All of TIME.com





Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.

GO TO THE ARCHIVE

See our most-popular articles

http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940

Religion/Islam/In the U.S.

Freer, But Not Friedan



BY DAVID VAN BIEMA

Monday, Dec. 03, 2001

The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.

Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.

Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``

If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.

Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.

Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York







SEARCH THE ARCHIVE





Magazine All of TIME.com





Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.

GO TO THE ARCHIVE

See our most-popular articles

http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940

Religion/Islam/In the U.S.

Freer, But Not Friedan



BY DAVID VAN BIEMA

Monday, Dec. 03, 2001

The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.

Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.

Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``

If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.

Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.

Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York







SEARCH THE ARCHIVE





Magazine All of TIME.com





Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.

GO TO THE ARCHIVE

See our most-popular articles

re: hobbyty # 133

I personally have nothing against according people respect. I give a great deal of respect to people wiser than me (almost everyone on Chowk), older than me, more tolerant than me, etc. In every field of human endeavor, people garner titles recognizing their specific achievements. So, Mr. Hobbyty becomes Dr. Hobbyty, and poor Mr. Shukla is reborn as redoubtable Dr. Shukla.

But these titles and recognitions are entirely different from those displaying servile obeisance to specific individuals - and these latter are by no means limited to Islamists; you would be shocked by the sheer number of Hindu religious leaders staking claims to mile long, tortuous appellations. There is no generally recognized institution that tests, certifies, and vouches for the special abilities of Sri Sri 1120 Oopar Neeche Andar Bahar Most Holy Perfectly Divine and Eternally Able Sant Shukla.

Making claims to mile-long titles for which there exist no generally recognized, capable monitoring bodies is, at best, a fraudelent practice. Matters become far uglier when Sri Sri 1120 Oopar Neeche Andar Bahar Most Holy Perfectly Divine and Eternally Able Sant Shukla begins to use his appellation to claim/assert a semi ``divine`` status among the rest of us ``less divine`` creatures. A great advantage of Islam over Hinduism is that traditionally Hinduism had no special mechanism (at least none that I am aware of) to call the bluff of these holy and divine men.

If respect to certain individuals is born out of our deliberate, conscious choice to respect our and dear ones` traditions - and nothing more - then that respect can be a beautiful thing. We respect our parents, even though as we grow older we realize that they are not always the best judge of things, and that we can not be forever enslaved to them. I respect Shankaracharyas though I think a couple of them talk like absolute morons, and I would rather listen to my nonexistent dog than to these divine men. Similarly, I can pay full respects to various Imams for the tradition they represent though I would pity any person who shapes his or her life according to the opinions of these men.

Perhaps a few hundred years ago, when most of us were uneducated; had little independent access to information, knowledge, or books; had no time to think for ourselves because we were busy killing goats for lunch and saving our hinies from the hungry tiger next door, it made sense to place our fragile souls in the hands of any one else who claimed to know more than us. Surely not now, when we can read and understand things for ourselves, and when we know very well that some of these divines have feet of very poor-quality clay, and brains full of mud.

``there exist rules of hermenutics. It is in this regard that the statement about personal interpretation as a path to hell, may be viewed as valid.``

Hobbyty, you surely know more about Islam than I do, so I can not argue with you on this one. But does the Quran (if one were to take that as the ultimate authority) say that there exist rules of hermeneutics and that one would go to hell if one interpreted the book inaccurately? What rules does the Quran establish for its exegesis?

If Quran clearly lays down the law that it could be understood only by a band of special divine men, then I have no hesitation in saying that it is nothing better than the much (and rightly) detested ManuSmriti, and that Islam is nothing other than Old Style Brahminism. That there are some Muslims whose beliefs and behaviors are identical to those of old-style brahmins does show that at least some people continue to think along these lines.

I, however, do not believe so. I think Islam`s early promise was one of individual liberation, rationality, and thought. That promise remains even today BUT ONLY IF Muslims themselves recognize that promise, and begin to take responsibility for shaping their own lives - as many Muslims, Hindus, Christians already do.

``Islam and Islamic knowledge can by definition never be the same; Islam is Devine revelation, whereas Islamic knowledge is the human endeavor to seek to understand Revelation. Devine Revelation remains a constant (by definition) whereas human understanding of Devine Revelation is continuously evolving, as our presuppositions and the knowledge of our times, is evoling.``

Hmmmm...I dont entirely buy that kind of reasoning but I can accept it so long as we recognize that whenever we speak of Islam in concrete terms we are speaking of Islamic knowledge, and accept that Islamic knowledge is not the exclusive domain of some specific individuals.

hamzad, hobbyty, prem: So it looks like we are basically in agreement on the issue of titles. I agree with hamzad that it is just as bad to address someone in an insulting manner as it is to address someone in a worshipful manner. The appropriate way of course is to address EVERYONE (including people whose views or actions we dont care for) in the same respectful manner. (I find it interesting how some newspapers have a policy of using the title Mr. or Ms. for everyone, be they convicted criminals or Nobel Prize winners).

Solitude #130 ``The restoration of religion to the sphere of the personal, its depoliticization, is the nettle that all Muslim societies must grasp in order to become modern.``

Depoliticization of religion would be a nettle to only those who seek to usurp power through politicization of religion. Most muslims would be relieved to be able to be able to practice their religion in peace and dignity, and to see an end to the scandalous manner in which mullahs and terrorists have dragged religion into politics in order to serve their own narrow agendas.

re: spout

``and why don`t you do me a favor and stop cheering/snickering from the sidelines....i know you feel left out but this kind of behavior is childish.``

....i`ll cheer whatever i want to....what`s it to you?...are you the chowk gestapo?...

``and don`t deny things that you do, we call all read the interacts and decide for ourselves.``

fact stands...i had not addressed any posts to you...nothing to deny or admit...

YLH

``She was a brilliant woman and a Hindu if I am not mistaken. Kindly dont make stupid comments like that about people who have given so much to Pakistan.``

Rana Liaquat Khan was from a Kumaon Brahmin family but was a convert to Christianity. I am not sure if she was the one who converted or one generation before her. She did convert to Islam at the time of her wedding.

re: ylh & Tibor

``What is there in what Mr. Hamazad says which remotely resembles what I say? Or is it that you just want to paint me with the same brush?``

umm..i`d have to agree with ylh here...he has said some deluded things, but i don`t think he has proselytized or preached medieval islam here.

Ylh, (Reply to 137)

Read post 92 by Hamzad and you will know what I mean.

By the way Ylh, is that you or your evil twin....

Why to you people (muslims) find such glee in conversions? Is it that you want to justify that your conversion (ansestorial) weren`t political, economic, or security coersion but out of geniune faith??????????

Prem #146

``Sri Sri 1120 Oopar Neeche Andar Bahar Most Holy Perfectly Divine and Eternally Able Sant Shukla. ``

Rajan,

Thats a good ready to use generic title for pretentious ,phony ,superficial & `banawte` log of all rasces.

or just

`Turrum khan`;-)