Women in Religious Scriptures

Debate rages over women and Sharia

By Jane Little
Religious affairs correspondent

Stoning for adultery and the introduction of vice and virtue squads were
hallmarks of Afghanistan`s Taleban regime.

Now the debate over Islamic law is raging globally, among Muslim women`s
groups alarmed by cases in Nigeria and Pakistan.

``I believe in the justice of God. So if justice is not done to me here on earth it
will be done in the hereafter,`` says Amina Lawal.

Ms Lawal, divorced mother-of-three, retains a strong faith in her Islamic
religion, even though she has become what many see as a victim of Islamic
law.

She was sentenced to death in March 2002 by a Sharia court in northern
Nigeria. Her crime was getting pregnant out of wedlock. The man has not been
charged. But she is now appealing against being buried up to her neck and
stoned to death.

Last week, her second appeal against the sentence was adjourned. It will be
heard at a later date. Her case has provoked international outcry and cast the
spotlight on what many see as the barbaric and discriminatory penal codes in
Islamic law. Or the interpretation of Islamic law.

There are four schools of Islamic law and the one in northern Nigeria - the
Maliki one - is particularly strict.

Dawud Noibi, a Nigerian scholar of Islamic law, says: ``The provisions of the law
are such that rather than being punitive, it is a deterrent, it`s meant to be a
deterrent.``

He adds that the law encourages repentance which will attract forgiveness
from God.

We do not have in modern times any state which has
introduced Sharia and has been able to respect women`s
rights
Ziba Mir Hosseini


But human rights groups say that is not how it is being implemented in northern
Nigeria. At the same time they fear that the government of North-West Frontier
Province in Pakistan, which is implementing Sharia, will violate the rights of women.
Are there real grounds for concern?

According to a human rights report in Pakistan, of 1,800 women in jail, 80% are
there for so-called ``huddud`` offences.

Huddud is the part of Islamic law dealing with punishments for crimes such as
``illegal sex`` - or sex outside marriage. There is no equivalent number of men in jail
for the same offences, which raises the question: who are these women having sex
with?

But is Islamic law inherently mysogynistic? No, it is the men who interpret it, say a
growing number of Islamic women`s networks, which are hitting back at those they
say are abusing the law for their own political ends.

The law, which is regarded as sacred, is based on the Koran and the traditions of
the Prophet. It does outlaw ``zina`` or illegal sex, but to prove such sex has taken
place is, according to the classical texts, almost impossible.

It requires four witnesses - often interpreted to mean four male witnesses - to the
sexual act. So that in practice should mean that few end up in court for such an
offence.

According to Zainah Anwar of Malaysian advocacy group Sisters in Islam, this law
was intended originally to protect a woman`s reputation against slander, but it is
being distorted.

``What was particularly outrageous in the law was that a woman who reports she
has been raped will be charged for slanderous accusation and flogged 80 lashes if
she is unable to prove the rape,`` she says.

``Under the huddud law you have to produce four pious male Muslim eyewitnesses
in order to prove illicit sex has taken place and it`s impossible.``

Perversely, if there were four witnesses to a rape, they would have been
accessories to the crime.

Justice and equality

Ziba Mir Hosseini, author of Islam and Gender, says: ``We do not have in modern
times any state which has introduced Sharia and has been able to respect women`s
rights.``

She says nowhere does the punishment of stoning appear in the Koran. She adds
that pre-modern interpretations of the Sharia, which often have a heavy overlay of
cultural prejudices, are not in keeping with the spirit of Islam, which is about justice
and equality.

So what is the answer? For some it is to get rid of patriarchal structures and allow
women to act as jurists.

But in the meantime, Amina Lawal in Nigeria has to hope that the non-Islamic
appeal court will overturn her conviction. In her culture, the shame will be more
difficult to remove.

#312 by m_souza on June 7, 2003 6:13pm PT

yes, you probably read about that in the Koran so kindly published for your reference by vedic socitey

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#311 by Tipu on June 7, 2003 2:20pm PT

And the tawayaf concept? the `rakhalis`? mujraa? harems?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#302 by m_souza on June 6, 2003 7:18am PT

good to see you in a lighter mood.

#302 by m_souza on June 6, 2003 7:18am PT

My intention is not to prove wether hinduism is Horrible or not. Just to put the facts in proper prospective to counter your glossing over.

YOu are obssed with the Great Great ancesstors. If I had ancesstors from the theiving tribes of Madhaya Pradesh I still would have to be proud of them? Or the Prostitute communities of Andhra, would their Porgeny have to express pride about thier ancesstors.

Your line of Logic is simply silly.

I have no problem with the dress code. However the argument given is not of Uniformity but of tradition and ritual ie the right dress is the Saree. YOu could wear a salwar Kameez and go and that would not be right.

I remember some of older ladies of South whom I know were Prohibited to wear the Salwar Kameez and It was considered scandalous to wear one instead of the regulation Pavade (Lehga and blouse with a thin duppatta like covering the breasts somewhat in a fashion of a saree only it was smalleer and consisting of a single layer) for the Unmarried girls and for the married girls a Saree. Looks like they did not have much freedom of choice earlier.

#301 by dost-mittar on June 6, 2003 1:45am PT

I agree that this new militancy is not in line with what is acceptable by both muslims as well as rest of the world. However one does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Iranian revlution is a product of the colonial and Neo-Imperialist actions against the people of Iran. However to say that the iranian revelution is some how a danger to the rest of the world is plain wrong.

The Americans and the west tried to demonise Iran to hide their complicity in over throwing a legitimate govt and replacing it by a Monarchy which handed over the controls of the countrys wealth to the western intrests.
Im sure that if India undergoes such a situation there will be unpredictable reaction from some section of the socitey or the other.
Remember that when the Shah came to power he prohibited the Friday prayers, In a country which had severe financial problems he forced banks and financial institutions to give first priority to bussiness like Cabrets, Bars in what was essentially a conservative socitey. Just think what will happen if one gives permission to dozens of Cabrets in small towns of India in 70`s.
Most people fail to appreciate the cultural assualts of the west in Muslim countries in this century. It is intresting as to how blatant the west was in attempting to change the social and cultural landscape of Muslim countries with the convivance of the subservient and rootless elite.

#301 by dost-mittar on June 6, 2003 1:45am PT

Singapore..
this kind of notinal equtiy is of no use. what matters that religious rights and other fundamental rights are adhered to. The life and property and right to livelyhood are protected.

This is the bottom line. The concept of Unbridled freedom while basic neccesties and equites are denied is a western imposed concept. Even the west did not grow this way.
I spoke to a friend of mine in Qutar and another in Dubai (both hindu)yesterday. They mentioned how safe those countries are for ordinary people. This is a reccuring theme in conversations with non-muslim as well as muslim people whenever I happen to Interact. It goes to show what are the priorities of people. I have Hindu friends who lived in Iran for more than a decade they also report the same so the Islamic revolution was certainly not a problem for them. In fact they point out to the deep friendships they made. One of my colleauges has joined us after being on an assignment In Jordan for a year. He and his wife recall the days with nostalgia saying that that was the best experience of their life.
All this hardly sounds like the Ummah is threatning to others.

#301 by dost-mittar on June 6, 2003 1:45am PT
the concept of Dar- Ul Harab was true and reflected the realites of earlier times where in europe and what was Bayzantine(now Iran) where mere profession of another or even a slightly different belif system meant prosecution or expulsion To this was added the concept of removing taranny(at least in some cases this was met with releif with the concured populaces). It was misused of course for personal ends as everthing in this world tends to be.
However todays countries are quite different the inter-religious tolerance as muslims genrally practiced (as did the hindus with exception of the tarrany of caste) has become a world wide phenomena(and surprisingly some of the muslim countries showing regression in this aspect).

Today the muslim religon as well as other religons can be practiced in all countries with some noteable exceptions. The existance of Dar Ul Harab cant be justified. Though there may be some here or there who make some hairsplitting and convulted arguments for it is accpeted by most muslims and their ulema that the concept for Dar Ul Harab at least on a genral scale is rendered not applicable due to changed cricumstances of the world.

#300 by ali87 on June 5, 2003 11:27pm PT
So much for freedom to do what you want.....

Tirupati temple imposes dress code
------

dress code...that`s very good..no `bhed-bhaav` ..uniformity with no display of fashions etc..

Anyway..Ali ji...maan gaye...the wealth of knowledge you have about Hinduism
..either
1. Your great great ancestors were Hindus..so u are mysteriously drawn towards it.
2. You were a Hindu in your previous incarnation..hahaha
3. Your secret desire is to become a hindu(this will `ruffle` u)
or
4. Your more secret desire is to change(`mutate` as u said in gujrat post) all Hindus into muslims, by highlighting how horrible hinduism is

But if it is just your `General Knowledge` about one of the religions of your Great country...then ..keep it up..no harm..

ali87(#?)
I could not respond to you earlier because I did not have access to my computer. So, here goes.
I agree with a number of things you said in your post to me. No one can have anything against a benign, fraternal ummah as you have experienced. It is when this concept is married to that of a dar-ul-harb that it assumes a different dimension. This ``marriage`` was more or less dormant until about the Iranian revolution and, especially, the fatwa against Rushdie. Muslims in the West until then were treated no different from others. But dormant does not mean absent. The Kashmiri muslims` desire for secession from India against their self-interest, as you concede, is a less benign manifestation of this marriage,as is a similar desire by muslims in Philippines.
BTW I am surprised that you did not find anything wrong in Singapore denying muslims the right to join its air force.

So much for freedom to do what you want.....

Tirupati temple imposes dress code

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Tirupati+temple+imposes+dress+code&id=38928

Friday, June 6, 2003 (Tirupati):


Devotees will have to dress in traditional South Indian clothes to get a darshan of the Lord of the Seven Hills at Tirumala.

Starting this week, devotees coming for special pujas have been asked to follow a dress code. They have to necessarily wear traditional South Indian attire -- sarees for women and dhoti, angavastram for men.

``When you sit before God for such a long time, obviously you need to have basic respect for the temple`s traditions,`` maintained Ajeya Kallam, Executive Officer, TTD.

As of now, those seeking a general darshan have been excluded. But it is only a matter of time before this rule applies to all pilgrims.

``If the TTD prescribes a particular dress code for entering a particular puja, I am totally in support of it,`` said a pilgrim.

However, there is reluctance among some people.

``Both should be allowed -- sarees as well as salwars. I am unmarried and cannot wear a saree and go to a temple,`` said a devotee.

With the practice of tonsuring very popular among visitors here, it would seem an unwritten hairdressers code is already in place. With the new sartorial code, Tirumala joins other temples in South India where traditional dress is a must for getting a glimpse of the Almighty.