The Limits on Women’s Lives Re: Rizvi sahib`s comments

``I`m just pointing out that you are defending science with passion akin to the religious fervor you are so opposed to.``

Just to clarify this a little bit. I am NOT defending scientific theories. I am not defending any ontological statement made by a scientist, past or present. I leave that for scientific journals. I AM defending reason and rationality as a method of inquiry and it is not restricted to scientists only. I am contrasting that to the idea of faith, where one sticks to a statement of ontology because one has faith, and with great certainty claims that everyone else is wrong. Just like it was done vis a vis Darwin`s theory and now Big Bang.

``Since you believe in science, you must believe in the theory of the Big Bang, which is unanimously agreed upon by all scientists. Let me ask you this: How exactly did the Big Bang occur? What couldhave caused it? What was there before the Big Bang? Can you show another example of something that has suddenly appeared out of thin air from nothing?``

What caused the big bang? I don`t know. Let`s say Einstein`s god caused it :). Beyond the speculation that he created the Big Bang (and maybe the laws of Physics), Einstein or me can`t say anything about him. We (or anyone else) have no rational basis to claim that this god sent down prophets and holy books; or that he has prepared a hell and a heaven. And if I can speak on behalf of many other scientists, we refuse to invent answers where we can`t find any. :-)
Now let me turn the question back on you. Let`s say Allah caused everything. Who caused Allah? All you can say is, that no one caused Allah. If you can accept that statement for Allah, why not the Big Bang?


``Well, is the universe a deception? Do we really exist? Or is it that we have so much faith in science that whatever they say, we believe it without question?``

These questions that you pose are useless for a scientist. He`s not even claiming to answer them. Where the rational inquirer humbly and graciously accepts the bounds of his comprehension, the believer invokes God. But God is no explanation. It is maybe, a synonym for ``inexplicable``. Problem arises when many other fabricated peripheral `facts` are attached to this ``God`` concept and sold as a package. We call such packages organized religion.

``Its all a matter of faith.``

No it is not a matter of faith. One should come to terms with the reality that some things cannot be explained. Why do the followers of ``faith`` find this reality so hard to digest?

Rehan sahib, sorry if I sounded confrontational. Maybe it is my style. I tried to tone down the rhetoric this time. If it still offends you, my apologies.

Regards,
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Re: Sabrina

Sabrina, I think you`re sounding more and more like me ;).

MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Rehan Rizvi`s comment:
``Our knowledge of this universe and this world has definitely increased. But to claim that from what we know, we can determine with absolute certainty the origin of the universe and life is a bold claim. We must remember that science has always held some theories sacred at one time or another and many of these theories were rejected, modified or replaced later on. Doesn`t that tell us that we should be cautious about making science a religion in itself?``

No scientist in her (or his) right mind would claim that the current body of scientific knowledge is absolutely certain and immutable. Such absurd claims are usually made about the ``truths`` and ``facts`` contained in various holy books.

Darwin was absolutely silent about the origin of the universe. Unlike prophets and saadhus, he knew the limits of his knowledge. Everything he said, he backed up with some evidence; maybe not unshakeable evidence, but evidence nevertheless. He understood where he was getting into speculation, not unlike any good scientist. While you unjustly condemn scientists for considering their theories immutable, (they`d be closing shop if they did) you do the same for your holy books without batting an eyelid.

Believers often consider the holy books as a short-cut to the mountain of ``truth``. The long and meandering path of a scientist -or any rational inquirer for that matter- is thought to lead to this same moutain. Scientist is considered headstrong and misguided for not listening to the divine call and get a perch on this sacred mount. The only basis for the believer`s blissful satisfaction is this anti-rational thing called faith; faith in people they have never met, in a god they have never seen; faith that everything they are fed as children is the immutable truth. High on ``opium of the masses``, they imagine theirs to be the only true mount of truth, even though there are as many of them as there are people.

Sorry for rambling

Rgds
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives BG`s comments:
``By secular, no one is suggesting a wholesale rejection of islam, merely that institutions such as the law treat women and men as equals. what people believe and practice in their own lives is
no concern of anyone, but their beliefs should not be used to discriminate against half the population of the society.``

BG, when you say that you want laws that treat men and women as equals, you are repudiating the Shari`ah. I realize that you are ready to live with Islam if it remains in the private sphere. That is, afterall, secularism. But this can be seen as confrontation by those who think that their religion SHOULD be applied in all spheres of life. By pointing out one area in which you are unwilling to accept Islam, you are in fact rejecting all of it. Secularist runs into a dilemma here. Religious freedom is all nice and good, but there`s no way secularism can exist after accomodating Islam in its entirity, and Islam, in its entirity does not tolerate any secularist influence. Hence the lines are drawn for a confrontation. Islam is to be rejected in principle even if aspects of it should be tolerated and protected.

Some people are justifiably wary of the inevitable confrontation. They try to re-interpret Islam, to bring it in consonance with secularist ideals. We have all agreed, that such efforts are at most partially successful. But that little progress is valuable. However when one prong of this ``dual`` approach runs against the other, sparks are going to fly.

People are all different. Some tactless folks like me are going to confront Islam up front. Others are going to try getting around it. Sometimes we`ll be at odds. But we ``secularists`` should all remember that we are striving for one and the same ideal: equality of people regardless of gender, race or religion. And we all agree that this principle is independent of any holy book.

Regards
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Throughout history, people with authority have tried to pass it off as a responsibility. Denying the other gender, race or people the right to be free has often been euphemized as ``protection``; supposedly too difficult or dirty for the innocent weakling to do by herself. Behind this talk of responsibility is actually the desire to control; genetic or otherwise. One person gave it away by his ``captain of the ship`` metaphor.

Of course women have been the target of this condescension since the beginning of time. The whole idea behind the feminist movement was to get rid of this historical male arrogance. No, women don`t need to be looked after. They want equal rights and equal responsibilities. And most of all, they don`t need these men to control their lives AND have the chutzpah to tell them that they got a better deal!

Regarding Farooq sahib`s commentary on 4:34.

The Qur`an says in no uncertain terms that a man is allowed to beat his wife. For the life of me I cannot understand how any Hadith or any act of the prophet can over rule this Qur`anic permission, except that you consider this verse abrogated. I assume you don`t. Okay, Muhammad advised avoiding hitting if possible. But I have a problem with anything less than outlawing wife-beating, much less give an explicit permission for it, regardless of how serious the offense is. Don`t you?

It is a consistent pattern in Islam that men are by law given more control of the society, while the woman`s welfare is left to the inclinations of men. Only ``kindness`` is advised.

As an aside, Farooq sahib: is violent beating of slaves allowed in Islam? That doesn`t sound like the picture of Islamic slavery that was painted by another gentleman. There`s a tradition about how Ali beat a slave woman in front of Muhammad, to make her fess up to something regarding A`isha`s alleged affair. What are your thoughts about that?

Regards
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Forgot this:

SR:
I didn`t know that Ali and Abu Bakr had 13 wives too. Was that four at a time? Of course Muhammad himself had nine wives and a couple of concubines when he died. But he was granted special permission in the Qur`an.

Yes, and could I have your email address too?

Thanks

MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Re: GSM

Long-winded mental gymnastics...
Maybe men beat their wives in Mohammad`s time, and yes 4:34 sanctions hitting your wife as a last resort. STILL, why is it there in the first place in God`s last word to mankind? Your spin control would work if you consider Qur`an as some sort of a first step, open to change and reform -not just ``re-interpretation``. But that is emphatically denied and Qur`an is considered the most perfect book ever written. My other queries remain unanswered.

Re: Sabrina
``These Muslim feminists are practical people-let them win over the masses (more importantly women themselves) first with the dual approach.``

But they are not even TRYING to win over the masses. They don`t even address the masses. They write their books in English and French. How many Algerian, Moroccan or Pakistani women can read these languages? Let`s get real. They address the elite who have had Western education, are converted to the idea of feminism and desperately looking to reconcile it to some nebulous faith of theirs.

Islam has gotten a bad rep in the West. Muslim women and men who come here cannot stand this. Why? Because they look at themselves and the Muslim stereotype that the media projects. They see a world of difference. Even without finding out if there is SOME truth in these projected images, the visceral reaction is to deny all this. Islam is great for women. Women are free in Islam. See? We are all free out here and we are Muslims. That`s the mind frame of an apologist. Mernissi, Leila Ahmed et all cater to the needs of such people with their half-truth scholarship.

There is a world of difference between reform and apologetics. A reformist addresses the clergy, establishment, rulers, etc. The apologists address the critics (in this case the Western readership) and tell them that there is nothing wrong with the system. It`s just that the people are bad.

Do you in principle agree that the final objective is to can Islam and define feminism in secular terms; and that this ``dual approach`` is just an inconvenience for the sake of pragmatism?

Re: SR

Well said sir!

Regards
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Oops..forgot this one:
Re:Saima

Point well-taken about the verse in al-Nisa. But I don`t think there`s a verse that there`ll be more women in hell. That`s a Hadith.

Regards
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Sabrina`s comment:

``Feminism and the quest for rights cannot be solely defined in secular terms and neither can it be perceived as being only applicable when within a religious framework``

Quite frankly, I don`t follow what you are saying. Feminism can surely be DEFINED in secular terms even if it is hard to market among people like our Farooq sahib here. Trying to define feminism in religious terms is IMO denunciation of feminism. You advocate a dual approach. That would be alright if the two ways -secular definition and religious reinvention- complimented each other. They don`t always do so. Often I encounter feminists who are content with marginal progress that reinterpretation has to offer. They are then not only content with that much, but actively resist anyone who goes for more, especially if that is a challenge to their re-interpreted Islam.

Re: GSM:

Okay you got rid of all Hadith.
Now tell me why god thinks that a woman is more likely to forget?

Why can a husband hit his wife under ANY circumstance?

Why does the husband have more rights (al-rijaal `ala al-nisaa darajah) and maybe responsibilities. Why not the other way around?

Regards
Mohammad Noorul Islam

The Limits on Women’s Lives Sabrina`s comment:
``First off, you should NOT discount the good work these women have done (FM and LA). They have brought to light the appearance of so-called Islamic laws that were deemed as commandments that no one would have even questioned before...``

Admittedly, these women have correctly questioned the validity of some norms and customs that have no or little basis in Islam. But in the process of doing so, they have conceded that the rights of women are to be defined within the Islamic framework only. The battle is then about who can bring in more traditions: the mullahs or these women. Even if you can make some marginal progress on this front, you cannot white-wash everything. The mullah will still thump his Qur`an, show you 4:34 and beat you.

Feminist cause cannot be furthered if you are arguing on the mullah`s turf. It has to be realized and argued that the rights of women are to be given regardless of whether Islam grants them or not. The sooner someone has the courage to stand up and say this, the sooner we`ll have some progress in women`s rights.

Ms.Mernissi has won admirers like you. But you were already `converted`. She just provided a rationale for something you already believes. Institutional change will be brought about when the institutions themselves are challenged.

Regards
MNI

The Rape of Khairpur University I`d like to express my admiration for Dr.Hoodbhoy`s candor. It`s easy for us to sit in the US and talk big. We know no one can touch us here. It takes greater courage to live in Pakistan and still be so forthright.

Is this Dr.Alvi the same one who was a professor and dean at NED? If yes, what a shameful irony!

Regards,
MNI

Please spare the poor animals this Eid! Shehryaar Ahmed sahib:
Are you related to Khomeni? Jokes aside, I don`t want to cause grief to the Chowkwallahs. If they feel that my comments will cause them danger, they can delete. There`ll be no bitterness on my part. I wish I`d learn to be more tactful.

SR:
On your building metaphor...
If the old building has crumbling foundations, then we need to build a new one. No one`s saying we can`t still save money by re-using some old doors and windows in our new building. Afterall, everything isn`t crumbling. While we are at it, our next-door neighbors` house went down before ours. We might want to look at how they built their new house; copy what we like, and ignore what we don`t.

Rgds
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives The discussion is going on a tangent, but hey...it`s not my hard drive.

Re: Anita`s remarks ``Many, if not most Hadith`s authenticity may be questionable especially as regards to women. In the larger context of recorded history - women`s contributions and achievements have not been written or mentioned anyway - b/c men were doing the writing.``

This is again a typical apologist argument straight out of a book by Mernissi or Leila Ahmed. The underlying premise is that Muhammad himself was a very liberal man beyond his times, in fact ``progressive`` enough to satisfy feminists of today. And all misogyny in Islam is because of foul play by all men from hadith writers to Omar b. al-Khattab. But there is NO evidence to substantiate the innocence of Muhammad except to point out that hadith writers were male. But wasn`t Muhammad a man himself too? ``But``, you say, ``Muhammad was a prophet of god and the message of god is infallible``. That`s what I meant when I refered to rigid adherence to doctrine :).

Regarding your second remark:
The Prophet was a statesman. I don`t believe he was infallible. He wanted to create a new ideology, a new state - and he did what was necessary. He can be judged with the best of men (and women), and come out pretty darn on top. If he had only been the founder of a new civilization (without getting a new religion) nobody would have had any trouble calling him the greatest leader history has seen.

If the prophet was actually just a human statesman, then he was a liar and an impostor. There is no getting around that. There were many other men and women who taught morality way before Muhammad and who never claimed to be prophets, angels or god.

Regards
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Simpla sahib:
You are correct that people who question Hadith have a point. Oral tradition carried for over a hundred years is always suspect. With this general agreement, let me point out that Bukhari was not someone who came out of the blue and slammed a ``Jami-al-saHiH`` on us. The historiographical study of traditions was born soon after Muhammad`s death. Traditionists like al-Zuhuri and Ibrahim al-Nakha`i learned ``hadith`` and transmitted them to their pupils, in a generally rigorous manner. But spurious traditions did surface, and people like Bukhari and Malik sought to sift through the collections and find what they thought were sound traditions. The fact that their ``acceptance rate`` was as low as 0.1% reflects on the rigor of their methods as much as on the abundance of carelessly transmitted traditions.

But my main gripe with the apologists is their tendency to discredit or ignore Hadith that they don`t like, while ad nauseum repeating those that substantiate their claims. You are right. The argument against the Qur`anic verses is powerful enough. But when one Hadith is offered as evidence to affirm their reinterpretation, then another should also be admissible as damning evidence. No?

Regards
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Pardon me for bluntness, but you seem to just regurgitate what the apologist Muslims have to say, without questioning their knowledge, reasoning or methods because they agree with your own likes and dislikes. And it has the additional benefit of providing you with a flimsy rationalization that leaves you dangling to your faith.
The usual spiel goes like this: Islam is great for women. All aspects of Islam that we don`t like are the doing of the misogynist camp. That includes many Muslim men, all ``fundamentalists`` and Omar b. Khattab, et. al. although Aisha put up a good fight against these chauvinists.
Under this assumption, A`isha`s political activism after Usman`s death is offered as proof of how woman-friendly Islam is and any tradition transmitted by A`isha is automatically considered authentic. After selectively discarding all unpleasant traditions as inauthentic, our apologist friends are still left with some embarassing verses in the Qur`an of which 4:34 is an example. Utmost energy is spent to whitewash over a clear sanction to hit women.
Ahmed Ali, the `pretty liberal man` (read ``apologist``) claims that ``daraba`` here means, to have intercourse, based on a rare and obscure idiomatic usage of the verb. Assuming this meaning, Ahmed Ali`s translation goes like this:

``...As to women you feel are unyielding, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (until they are willing) ; and then have intercourse with them``

In a sequence of what is clearly supposed to be three steps of increasingly drastic measures, the third one is the opposite of second. So if the wife is still `unyielding` after being abandoned in her bed, you have sex to tame her? What kind of logic is that? Ahmed Ali goes on to cite two traditions that allegedly support his interpretation, ignoring all those that do not. Tabari, in his famous commentary cited traditions that order men to excercise restraint when hitting their wives. According to one tradition, Muhammad indicated that the verse 3:34 went against his own proclivities, clearly undercutting Ahmed Ali`s little excercise in mental gymnastics.

Verse 3:34 is by no means the only place where Islam appears unfriendly or discriminatory towards women. The general attitude of Islam towards women is that of contempt or condescension. A woman is considered half a witness because she`s more likely to forget. The domination of the man in a marriage is assumed and recommended, even if he`s ordered to treat his wife with ``kindness``. The books of Hadith are replete with misogynistic utterings attributed to the prophet. You can`t just sweep all of them under the rug. There`s too much to cover.

Mohammad might not have been as terrible to women as Omar b. Khattab, but he represented the same society and the same times. He might not have been a wife-beater, but he considered women as weaklings dependent on men and subservient to them; yielding when they`re tested, grateful when they`re indulged.

We do see a conflict between Mohammad`s own relative gentleness to women and the political imperative of pleasing his trusted allies. The contradictions between traditions reflect that struggle. But this historical perspective is lost in rigid adherence to doctrine. What is left is useless apologetics.


Regards
MNI

Please spare the poor animals this Eid! The second sentence in my last note should read:
``Let`s not forget the raison d`etre ....``

mni