INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Guest · #1

INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL Story Filed: Monday, August 05, 2002 4:26 PM EST NEW DELHI, Aug 5, 2002 (Inter Press Service via COMTEX) -- India's 65 million Muslim women, often called a minority within a minority for their double handicap of gender and faith, are challenging medieval religious laws that have oppressed them for centuries -- and for a change some "mullahs" (high clergy) are listening. In recent years, Muslim women have fought fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law (sharia) -- which have long allowed men in India to divorce their wives for trivial matters and deny them financial support -- by asking the courts to take into consideration basic human rights. Recently a new war opened up between the right of a school principal to run a school according to secular principles and fundamentalist attempts to make the school bow to perceived Islamic ideals. Last week, Safia Iqbal, principal of the Scholar's School, which provides secular education for children living in the Muslim- dominated Jamia Nagar area of the city, got support from the Darul-Uloom (House of Knowledge) school at Deoband town in northern Uttar Pradesh to run her school as she sees fit and not as a "madrasah" (Koranic seminary). The Darul-Uloom, a spiritual powerhouse which has produced some of Islam's most prominent preachers (many of them serving in mosques around the world, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Britain and the United States) issued a "fatwa" (a religious edict) against Mohammed Shafi Moonis, a trustee of the Scholar's School. The fact that Moonis is a man of high standing in the local Islamic community, and vice president of the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (Islamic Congregation of India), did not prevent Darul-Uloom from declaring Moonis' attempts to seize control of Iqbal's school as "haram" (not permissible) and "kabeera" (a major sin). Iqbal, herself a member of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board and author of the book: "Women and Islamic Law," said the fatwa against Moonis "upheld the dignity of women" and was a landmark at a time when the status of women in Islamic society is low. *****At a press conference last week, Iqbal BLAMED institutions like the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind for women's subservient position, which, she said, was far removed from that originally envisioned by Islam. "They exercise a MAFIA-like grip over Muslims in the name of religion," she said. And while Iqbal has found many supporters for her cause, so too has Moonis. All last week, leaflets championing both sides were distributed in Jamia Nagar (home of the prestigious Jamia Milia Islamia, an independent university) and other Muslim-dominated areas, such as the medieval walled city built around the historic Lal Qila, or Red Fort. Moonis accuses Iqbal of misleading The "mufti" (chief) of the Darul- Uloom, Habeed-ur-Rehman, by not putting the facts before him. "Questions were misleading and far from the facts," Moonis said. In fact, Moonis had approached the Delhi High Court in February requesting an order that Iqbal vacate her school. But Iqbal stayed put for a while, and although she was able to win the support of parents, she was later forced to shut down the school in the dispute. "Such a popular school should not be closed down," said Syed Imam Bukhari, a hereditary "Imam" (religious leader) of the sprawling 17th century Jama Masjid, built by the Mughal emperor Shah Jehan, opposite the Red Fort. The "Shahi Imam" (the Imperial Imam) declined to take sides, saying the matter should have been settled peacefully. *****But Iqbal's brief triumph was small in comparison to a ruling in May by the Bombay High Court granted to Rahim Bi, another Muslim woman. The court banned the Muslim custom under which an Indian man can utter the "talaq" ("I divorce thee") three times, even in the absence of his wife, thereby making his marriage void. In ruling on Bi's petition asking for financial assistance from her former husband for herself and their three daughters, the court declared that Muslim men can only seek divorce through the courts, and left it up to the judges to decide matters of support. Importantly, the court also said that women had to be present in court. Under divorces based on Islamic sharia law, reasons for seeking a divorce can be trivial, such as a poorly cooked meal, a woman's appearance or simply arguing. As a result the dreaded talaq has been responsible for the destitution of many Muslim women across all social classes and educational levels in India. The ruling helps to ensure transparency in divorce cases and puts an end to the capricious use of the talaq and the denial of maintenance, said Anees Ahmed, a prominent legal advocate. Seventeen years ago another Muslim woman, Shah Bano, asked a court to ensure support from her husband, who had divorced her after 43 years of marriage and thrown her out on the street. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that it could not accept the plea by Bano's husband that he was only bound by Islamic law, The court ruled that a husband must assist his wife financially after a divorce if she has no other means. But such was the uproar by fundamentalist Muslims against the ruling in the Bano case that the central government was compelled in 1986 to dilute it through legislation in parliament. The result was that in several Indian states a divorced woman could not claim maintenance beyond the "iddat" (three menstrual cycles) period. Attempts by women's rights groups to have it extended have been strongly opposed by fundamentalist groups like Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and even the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board. But other groups such as the Muslim Women's Forum, led by Sayeeda Hameed, have been working quietly to ensure that Muslim women in India get equal benefits to those of several other Islamic societies like Turkey. "The Bombay High Court ruling is as historic a case as the one by the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case, and although divorce gives relief when a marriage becomes intolerable it was being misused too often," Hameed said. Those who insist that Islamic law prevails for Muslims are silent when it comes to issues such as the giving of large dowries, a largely Hindu custom, which is rapidly gaining acceptance among Muslims, Hameed added. Copyright (c) 2002 IPS-Inter Press Service. All Rights Reserved.

Guest · #2

Few weeks ago a Hindu widow was burned to death on his husband pyre in ritual known as Sati. You should talk about Indian women and not bash Muslim always. People would get wrong ideas regarding Islam with your post.. You need to separate what is Islam and Indian culture. Talk about uneducated Muslim if you must but don’t say these people are representing Islam.

Guest · #3

Sister JinxASYou do not expect anything better from mate like Hafeez. You know his slogan.

Guest · #4

Jinx Says: "People would get wrong ideas regarding Islam with your post.. "What wrong ideas would that be - jinx? You want the world to lie about Islam's out-dated position on women, for example, as reflected in their practise?Women, under sharia laws (interpretations) are 1/2 of men whose role is to serve & please their husbands and are CLASSIFIED as Majority in Hell for having failed to please their husbands!If you are so concerned about the IMAGE of islam then do something about the interpretations (sharia laws) that ABUSE women. DEMAND that they - the laws evolve!Think - you can do that?

Guest · #5

Beavis,State the shariah law which says that women are 1/2 of men.

Guest · #6

Ismailis have all this to say about women's rights and here we have an ismaili donkey, fighting and insulting a women.Not a very good role model for those who are thinking about becoming immodest Ismaili donkeys.

Guest · #7

Hafeez may be referring to law of inheritance where women receive half of what men receive. This is the view of Sunnis, I believe. However, someone may care to reference Quranic ayat in support of this. I have not found it yet.

Guest · #8

Porus,That is not the same as concluding that Islam says that women are 1/2 of men.Does any one even know why a women's share is 1/2 that of the man?

Guest · #9

Anajmi,You are correct. Just because women inherit half of what men inherit does not lead to the conclusion that women are 1/2 of men.My reading of the Quraan is that both men and women are equally dear to God and they both will be judged on the same scaleds of justice without favor to either sex.However, Quran is specific on different roles for men and women and the reason why women's share of inheritance is 1/2 of men is justified by some scholars on the basis of extra responsibilities that men have been assigned for caring of women and children, orphans and the community.

Guest · #10

Please also note that usually women is married and her husband inharits full share form his parents.Please also note that Islam does not prevent you from giving full share to your daughter. While you are alive you may give all of your property to your daughter and bar your sons from receiving any. You may give all your property to other then your children.This formulae kicks in only when you have not made plans for disposal of your property while you are alive.Women worth 1/2 is argument only forwarded by Ignorants.Wasalaam

Guest · #11

anajmi and any others who are interestedfor the record, there is a hadith in the sahih of Muslim regarding the 1/2 men issue. A tradition reports that the Prophet said women are less than men because, by virtue of their menstrual cycles, are ritually impure for periods of time and cannot engage in religious observance such as reading the Qur'an or salah.I believe a similar tradition is attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib in the Nahj ulBalagha as well.I firmly believe that these reports are fabrications, but they do exist.

Guest · #12

THE VEIL It is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of 'holiness' when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic Nuns, is reviled as a sign of 'oppression' when worn for the purpose of protection by Muslim women. Finally, let us shed some light on what is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women's oppression and servitude, the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? Let us set the record straight. According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying," It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty." Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity". Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense." Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. The veil signified a woman's self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable. Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare-headed. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig. What about the Christian tradition? It is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10). St. Paul's rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for man. St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..." Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is that "The head covering is a symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God", which is the same logic introduced by St. Paul in the New Testament. From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent the head cover. However, Islam did endorse it. The Quran urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom: "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty......And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms...." (24:30,31). The Quran is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? The Quran is still clear: "O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested" (33:59). This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man's authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman's subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women. The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the purpose of protecting women, all women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry. In fact, the Quran is so concerned with protecting women's bodies and women's reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished: "And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors" (24:4) Compare this strict Quranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible: " If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" (Deut. 22:28-30) One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies? Another question that also should be asked is this: which is more protective of women, the Quranic strict attitude or the Biblical lax attitude? Some people, especially in the West, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilised behaviour, and self restraint. We would say: fine but not enough. If 'civilization' is enough protection, then why is it that women in North America dare not walk alone in a dark street - or even across an empty parking lot ? If Education is the solution, then why is it that a respected university like Queen's has a 'walk home service' mainly for female students on campus? If self restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years, includes: Navy officers, Managers, University professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the United States! I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women's office at Queen's University: In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes, 1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives, 1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime, 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and A study found 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn't get caught. Something is fundamentally wrong in the society we live in. A radical change in the society's life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed, modesty in dress, in speech, and in manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price. Actually, we all suffer but as K. Gibran has said, "...for the person who receives the blows is not like the one who counts them." [84] Therefore, a society like France which expels young women from schools because of their modest dress is, in the end, simply harming itself.

Guest · #13

So I guess every sane person on this board is clear about the status of women in Islam as followed by the Muslims.Now somebody please explain this to the Vishnu worshippers on this board.

Guest · #14

THE VEIL It is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of 'holiness' when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic Nuns, is reviled as a sign of 'oppression' when worn for the purpose of protection by Muslim women. The difference is that one is done voluntarily while in Islamic societies the veil is imposed, often with the threat of brutal and inhuman punishment, on women. -N

qutub_mamajiwala · #15

http://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/ar ... 203613.cms

'Life of a Muslim girl turned model'

No journey is easy and especially when you belong to a Muslim family things become even worse.
Most of you know about my Miss India journey and also about my modelling career but what you all need to know is about the shaming and the boycott I have to face along with my parents.

I am one educated person who is legally eligible to decide her fate. It is my decision to be or not to be a model. To wear or not to wear whatever I want. I do not give anybody the right to correct me except for my parents.

It's my life. I can not be you and you definitely can not be me.
And seriously, even if I was you, I'd wanna be me too."
- Andleeb Zaidi
Can we just let the girl fly and stop being so judgemental?

http://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/ar ... 203613.cms

Dawoodi Bohra Forum

INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Re: INDIA: MUSLIM WOMEN FIGHTING THE VEIL

Login • Register