All about the flurry of fatwas and duties of 'Gutter Masters'

Comments posted on TOI website over Yogi Sikand's article - Flurry of Fatwas :

If Yogi is so much against Ulama, why he goes out searching their websites like a gutter master. Why he does not stick to being positive and if he has now converted to Islam and married a Muslim woman, he should now change his old habits and start looking Islam from insides. He is still hung up like a fellow traveler. Deoband has no power to impose any Islamic injunction. They are fully within India's constitutional space, using the freedom to put out what they feel is Islam by their own reckoning. If Yogi has other interpretations, he should work for better acceptability within the Ummah, which will hardly come by to him, with his mischief mongering through obliging Islamophobes in Indian print and electronic media.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Misogynist-Mullahs-and-their-flurry-of-fatwas/articleshow/5924096.cms#write

Misogynist Mullahs and their flurry of fatwas

Yoginder Sikand, May 13, 2010, 03.48am IST

Article

Comments (2)

Tags:mullahs|Fatwas|Madrassas

Over the years, I have read considerable material by and about the madrassas and visited several dozens of them across India. Although charges about madrassas being involved in training terrorists are unfounded, the allegation that they teach obscurantist and ultra-reactionary beliefs in the garb of Islam can't be dismissed. Nor can the assertion that such beliefs lead to extremism and even violence be ignored. Such beliefs constitute a major hurdle in Muslims' progress and play a vital role in keeping Muslims shackled under the sway of a class of patriarchal and narrow-minded clerics.

Certain views widely-shared among the ulema regarding matters like women's rights are simply unacceptable in any civilized society. Reformist Muslims might argue that these views represent a distortion of "true" Islam, that they are based largely on fake stories wrongly attributed to the Prophet or patriarchal inventions of the 'fuqaha' (specialists in Islamic jurisprudence) but the mullahs have a ready answer to shut them up. In accordance with a report that they attribute to the Prophet, it's they (so they insist) who are the heirs of the Prophet (waris-e anbiya), and, hence, entitled to speak on Islam. The madrassas, they claim, are "fortresses of the faith".

Hence, they pompously insist, they have the sole right to arbitrate on Islamic affairs. This, they do through their pronouncements and a stream of fatwas, which, although technically only opinions, are taken as gospel Islamic truth by their unthinking followers.

Probably the largest madrassa in the world, the Dar ul-Uloom at Deoband, styles itself as the 'Umm ul-Madaris' or the 'Mother of Madrassas', having birthed several thousand madrassas associated with the Deobandi school across the subcontinent.

After Deoband created a storm with a fatwa declaring it unlawful for Muslim women to work outside homes, I read the website of Darul-Ifta, the house of fatwas, in which a section is devoted to fatwa on women's issues. A random search revealed some blood-curdling examples of Deobandi wisdom. These are reproduced verbatim: Asalamu-Alikum: Can Muslim women in India do govt or pvt jobs? Shall their salary be Halal, Haram or Prohibited? It's unlawful for Muslim women to do job in government or private institutions where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without veil.

Mufti Saab, please guide me on the issue that why women have to cover the face? Kindly provide proofs. May Allah reward you in abandon. If a young lady comes in front of 'ghair mahram' with open face, there is fear of 'fitnah', hence it's necessary for her to cover her face.

Can a man along with his 'mahram' travel with a 'ghair mahram'? If yes, upto what distance? Can a women travel with a male servant (driver) who is a 'ghair mahram' in the city for educational reasons, etc? If yes, upto what distance?

She can travel within 78km observing hijab. She is not allowed to travel alone with non-mahram driver, even if within 78km. Then also it's unlawful; since she will be in privacy with a non-mahram. Deoband's mullahs have the temerity to insist that their peculiar version of Islam not just guarantees women's rights but even stands for the best form of gender justice.

If imprisoning women in their homes, grudgingly permitting them to step out only under very severe conditions, compelling them to spend their lives manufacturing children, forcing them to be veiled from head to toe, muffling even their voices and reducing them to servile and repressed beings is Deobandi-style Islamic justice, is it any wonder that hardly any educated Muslim woman takes the Deobandi mullahs seriously?

Non-Muslims, in general, are forced to think that Islam stands for untamed patriarchy and increasing numbers of Muslims now consider mullahs as the major cause for their backwardness.

A whole new class of Muslim women believe that they need to study and interpret Islam from a feminist perspective, cleansing it of its deep-rooted patriarchal, indeed misogynist, tradition of mullah scholarship.

It's vital for Muslims concerned about their faith and its image and also about their co-religionists and their ability to function in the modern world to take the mullahs by their horns and immerse themselves in the battle to promote more meaningful and humane understanding of Islam.

(The writer works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at Bangalore's National Law School)

----------------------------

A fuller version of the same article being in circulation in Leftist circles:

A Flurry of Fatwas from Misogynist Mullahs Yoginder Sikand For over a decade now, I have been writing on the hotly-debated subject ofmadrasas or Islamic seminaries that train Islamic religious specialists. What ignited my interest in the subject was what I considered to be the wholly unfair charges against the madrasas of being ‘factories of terror’. Over the years, I have read much material by and about the madrasas, and have visited several dozens of them across India and even abroad. Although charges about Indian madrasas being involved in training terrorists are unfounded and unfair, the allegation that, generally speaking, they teach, preach, and foment obscurantist and ultra-reactionary beliefs on a wide range of issues in the garb of Islam certainly cannot be dismissed easily.  Nor can the assertion that, under certain circumstances, such beliefs can indeed lead to extremism and even violence, as the case of Pakistan so tragically illustrates, be ignored. Likewise, the argument that such beliefs, projected by the mullahs as normative and binding, constitute a major hurdle to Muslim progress and that they play a vital role in keeping Muslims shackled under the sway of a class of self-serving, patriarchal narrow-minded clerics, largely ignorant of the demands of the contemporary world, has to be recognized as legitimate.  Based on my reading of madrasa-related literature and personal observations, I must unhesitatingly state that certain views widely-shared among the ulemaregarding such matters as women’s rights and relations with non-Muslims are simply unacceptable in any civilized society, and constitute a major challenge to Muslim advancement and to efforts to promote decent relations between Muslims and people of other faiths. Reformist Muslims might argue that these views represent a complete distortion of ‘true’ Islam, that they are based largely on fake stories wrongly attributed to the Prophet or patriarchal inventions of thefuqaha, specialists of fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence, but the ulema have a ready answer to shut them up: In accordance with a hadith which they attribute to the Prophet, it is they, so they insist, who are the ‘heirs of the prophets’ (waris-e anbiya), and, hence, entitled to speak on and about Islam. Themadrasas that they run are, as they put it (note the militant metaphor) ‘the fortresses of the faith’ (deen ke qile). Hence, they pompously insist, they have the sole right to arbitrate on Islamic affairs. This they do through their pronouncements and a steady stream offatwas, which, although technically only opinions, are taken as gospel Islamic truth by the hordes of their unthinking followers.                                                            * Probably the largest traditional madrasanot just in India but, indeed, in the entire world, the Dar ul-Uloom at Deoband styles itself as the Umm ul-Madaris or ‘The Mother of the Madrasas’, having birthed several thousand madrasas associated with the Deobandi school of thought across India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and in various countries home to sizeable South Asian Muslim diasporic communities. The Deobandis are the most organized of all ulema groups, running a vast number of maktabs, madrasas, and publishing houses. They also control tens of thousands of mosques and other community institutions. In Pakistan and Bangladesh they are organized as political parties, while in Afghanistan they are represented by the Taliban. They present themselves (in the same manner as all the other, rival Islamic sectarian communities) as the sole upholders of what they regard as ‘true Islam’, considering other Muslim sects as deviant or, quite simply, outside the Islamic pale. Political parties vie with each other to appease the mullahs of Deoband, recognizing the immense political clout that they command among the largely illiterate Muslim electorate. In India, the Congress Party has for years enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Deobandis, and some Deobandi mullahs have even become Members of Parliament on Congress tickets. The All-India Muslim Personal Board, which styles itself as the authoritative body of all the 200 million or more Muslims of India, is almost completely under Deobandi hegemony.                                                            * Surfing the Internet last night, I chanced upon the website of the Dar ul-Ifta, the ‘House of Fatwas’ of the Deoband madrasa (http://darulifta- deoband.org) . This fatwa-dispensing site hosts almost 4000 fatwas in English issued by the official Muftis of Deoband. The fatwas cover a wide range of topics. A special section of the website is devoted to fatwas about ‘Women’s Issues’. That there is no similar section for ‘Men’s Issues’ is hardly surprising. After all, men are not seen to need to be minutely monitored and carefully controlled. A random search of the almost 90fatwas listed in this section reveals some blood-curdling ‘gems’ of Deobandi ‘wisdom’ (the nauseatingly pathetic English of both the questioners and the Deoband Muftis may please be excused): Question 1: Asalamu-Alikum: Can Muslim women in India do Govt. or Pvt. Jobs? Shall their salary be Halal or Haram or Prohibited? Answer: It is unlawful for Muslim women to do job in government or private institutions where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without veil. Question 2: Mufti Saab, please guide me on the issue that why woman have to cover the face? Kindly provide with proofs. May Allah reward you in abundon. Answer: If a young lady comes in front of ghair mahram with open face there is fear of fitnah, hence it is necessary for her to cover her face.  Question 3: Can a man along with his mahram travel with a ghair mehram? If yes, upto what distance? Can a women travel with a male servant (driver) who is a ghair mehram in the city for educational reasons etc..? If yes, upto what distance? Answer: She can travel within 78 kilometres observing hijab. She is not allowed to travel alone with non-mahram driver, even if it is within 78 km, then also it is unlawful; since she will be in privacy with a non-mahram. Question 4:  (a) Is it permissible for a woman to leave her house while unaccompanied by a mahram? (b) Is it permissible for a woman to drive a car? Answer:  (a) She can go in nearby places without a mahram observing hijab provided there is no fear of fitnah(evil/mischief) . But for a journey, she should be accompanied by any mahram. (b) It is not allowed. Question 5: Is covering the face compulsory for women while wearing burqa?. In Malaysia it is a hot issue. Please give a detailed reply. Answer: If she fears fitnah she should cover her face. In this age, there is no doubt that it causes fitnah, therefore it is regarded necessary. Question 6: Is it compulsory to observe purdah when with another Muslim woman? Is it compulsory to observe purdah when with a non-Muslim woman? Answer: It is necessary to observe purdah with the women whether Muslims and non-Muslims. Question 7: Assalamualaykum. Please can you tell me is it fardh (compulsory) to cover the face of females when they go out? Or, if relatives come home, do they have to cover the face as well? I am confused on that. Wassalam. Answer:  When outside, it is absolutely obligatory; since the face is centre of attraction, the verses of the Holy Quran (Surah Ahzab 33:59, Surah Noor 24:31) indicate to the same. What do you mean by relatives? The non-Mahram relatives have the same ruling as mentioned in No 1. Question 8:  Assalamualeikum, I am a working woman and my job is compulsory for my family. I used to wear salwar-kameez with full sleeves, scarf fully covered my hair and neck,dupatta till stmouch. according shariah can i go out like this? Answer: It is allowable for you to do job observing full hijab (with covering face) and provided you do not talk and mingle with non-mahram men unnecessarily. Question 9: Assalamu alaykum w.w mufti shab My quistion is here in south africa they is radio station called radio islam and it is very beneficial for evry one.but my qustion is on that radio station evry hour women read out the news is that permissible? it is permissible for ger mahram man to listen to here voise ?because thru out the world 1000 of litsener and many of them ger mahram?so plz replay me with answerd as soon as possible is it permisseble for women to broadcast on radio whey she is not invoved with man or camera?please please replay me soon i'm waiting for your replay. Salam. Answer: Women have bee prohibited to speak loudly, read out something in melody and talk softly. The scholars of Fiqh say that voice of a woman is alsosatr [something that needs to be ‘covered-up’ or ‘veiled’—YS]. That is why women have been stopped to call Azan and recite talbia loudly in Hajj. Yes, in cases of necessity, they can talk as they can have some words with a doctor etc. However, without any need, it is not right for women to broadcast news at radio stations as well it is not permissible for non-Mahram men to hear their voice without a need. Question 10: I would like to know the views of the different school of thoughts regarding ladies covering their face in front of non-mahrams. If a school of thought different from the one i am following does not think it is necessery is that reason enough for me to say that its not really necessery for me either?    Answer: The Quran and Hadith have commanded women to cover their faces due to fear of mischief. This is whatHanafis believe. If you are a Hanafi then it is unlawful for you to follow other Fiqhi schools. Question 11: As salamu alaikum, I would like to know if it is permissible for a muslimah to work as a translator for the tribunal. JazakAllah, Answer: It is not a good thing for women to do jobs in offices. They will have to face strange men (non-mahram) though in veil. She will have to talk and deal with each other which are the things of fitna(evils). A father is committed to provide maintenance to his daughter and a husband is asked to provide maintenance to his wife. So, there is no need for women to do jobs which always pose harms and mischief.    Question 12: As-salmualykum I wanted to find out does a muslim women have to cover(cover arms etc) infront of a non muslim women?how much is she alowed to show? please answer my question in the light of qur'an & sunnah, and is there any strong prrof and evidence? jazzakallah may Allah reward you! Answer: A woman should cover her entire body except her face, palms and feet, the matter of treatment is exceptional. Question 13: How far is it permissible for a woman to go without a mehram? Can she go?    Answer: The Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم)said: "Any it is now allowed for a woman who has belief in Allah and His messenger that she travels to a destination of more than 78 kms alone. Yes, she can travel this distance or more with a mehram (immediate relatives like father, son, husband, nephew). Some traditions refer to a distance of only three miles while some absolutely prohibit from traveling. All these traditions differ as per the worsening conditions of different ages and times. As much thefitna (mischief, evil) will prevail as much the cautiousness will be required.   Question 14: I am married for 4 years and we are having a family planning as my wife is not doing well , she has got an injury in the head and the injury is 10 years old, she gets severe pain very frequently. Please advice. Family planning is haram and unlawful in Islam. You should apprise your wife of the commandment of Shariah and get her head injury treated. If she faces unbearable pain due to conception or she fears her life or the life of the baby in case of pregnancy then in such conditions she can adopt any contraceptive measure temporarily.                                                            * Faced with mounting protests from women (including Muslim women, too) against the torrent of anti-women fatwas they have been churning out over the years, the mullahs of Deoband have the temerity to insist in their defence that [their peculiar version of] Islam not just guarantees women’s rights but, more than that, stands for the best and most perfect form of gender justice. If imprisoning women in their homes, grudgingly permitting them to step out only under very severe conditions, compelling them to spend their entire lives simply manufacturing children, forcing them to veil from head and face to toe, ‘veiling’ even their voices and thereby totally silencing them, insisting that they observe purdah even in front of other women—in short, reducing them to invisiblised, servile, repressed and hyper-sexualised beings—is Deobandi-style ‘Islamic justice’, is it any wonder if hardly any educated Muslim women take the Deobandi mullahs seriously? That non-Muslims, in general, are forced to think that Islam stands for raw, untamed patriarchy and male chauvinism? That increasing numbers of Muslims now consider the mullahs are a heavy burden on Muslim society and the major cause for Muslim backwardness the world over? That a whole new class of Muslim women (and some men) believe that they need to study and interpret Islam from a distinctive feminist perspective, cleansing it from the deep-rooted patriarchal, indeed misogynist, tradition of mullah scholarship?                                                            * Being now a hardened skeptic in all matters of religion (for which I must thank the mullahs, in particular) I am not in a position to opine on whose version of Islam as it relates to women—that of the mullahs or that of the progressive Islamic feminists—represents the sole ‘true’ or ‘authentic’ version or vision of the faith. As far as I am concerned, that question simply cannot be answered at all. For me it is meaningless, although, still, academically interesting. The same holds true with regard to the larger question of the Deobandi mullahs’ claims (as reflected in the numerous fatwas in the section on the Dar ul-Ifta’s website titled ‘Deviant Groups and Sects’ that brand other Muslim sectarian groups, both Sunni as well as Shia, as deviants or even as out of the Islamic fold) that they alone represent ‘true’ Islam. The Deobandis and their Muslim sectarian rivals will, one expects, continue to hurlfatwas of infidelity against each other and bandy about their respective claims of being the sole true Muslims till the Day of Judgment comes upon us. Given the nature of their absolutist claims, no consensus as to what precisely ‘true’ Islam is, and what exactly this ‘true’ Islam has to say about Islam, is ever possible. Be that as it may, I would still argue that it is vital for Muslims concerned about their faith and its image and also about their co-religionists and their ability to function in the modern world to take the mullahs by their horns and immerse themselves in the discursive battle to promote more meaningful, humane and just understandings of Islam. There is simply no other way.  Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore. ==================================  Yogi quotes Buddha at the end of his writings as if advising all his readers to abjure hate, while all his writing writings about Deoband Ulama are dripping with hate and scorn. Physician, heal thyself first. Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai -- Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule. --The Buddha

Times of India Does it Again – VIII

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&GZ=T

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Times of India Does it Again – VIII

The Times of India is on the rampage again. Tired of presenting its Front Page as the prime repository of news all the evils of the corruption and deep fissures in Indian politics and society, it has decided to bring in the Muslims in the focus to divert the attention of its harried readership to savour the rich store of inanities that its so-called progressives, including S. Balakrishnan and M. Wajihuddin, can dish out as quickly as any fast food in the now news-hungry land that has develop the acquired taste, nay the addiction to now feed on the sleaze and filth.

The distortion, disinformation and misinformation is deliberate and verging on criminal when Times of India owners allow its staff to sow seeds of dissension, division and strife in the community. While on the one side, it is burning midnight oil to feed the flames of ‘Asha ke deep’, making up friends with Pakistan, it has gone on to attack Sharia laws with its typical treatment of news in headlines, that has no bearing to the truth. This double dealing newsmaking can only earn deep resentment in 200 million Muslims of India, for deliberate provocation of India’s prime newspaper to take on the supposed might of the Mullahs, by distorted representation of Islam to open it to public derision and scorn.

It would have been fitness of objective reporting, if Times of India, had published the full scan of the Deoband fatwa, which according to TOI report headline has declared --- Women’s earnings Haram. Apparently TOI headline is being used by its editors without full knowledge of what the word ‘Haram’ connotes in Sharia. It merely exposes the open ignorance of the TOI staff, who have been allowed to frame headlines to inflame emotions and outrage among Muslims of India. The whole fatwa needs lots of context to be available for such mischievous and provocative headline. TOI’s S. Balakrishnan himself uses the same word ‘Haram’ in the next report on inside pages as describing proximity between males and females in a confined space, that can lead to unwanted consequences. Islamic Sharia from Malaysia to Saudi Arabia being Muslim dominated states; promote the same norms of Sharia that Deoband is plainly expounding. Deoband is not coming out with anything new or of its own exclusive authorship and copyright. The motive behind such attacks on Deoband, Sharia and Muslim society is to stop their commanding role in the newly emerging political clout of the Muslim voters that practically all political parties at all level are fully apprehensive of and have set the commercially handicapped mainstream media to start a campaign of distortion, disinformation and division among the Muslims. Muslims are neither uninformed of such Machiavellian shenanigans, nor are prepared to let barking dogs keep on barking. The quotes of harebrained women scholars who may be academically informed but woefully ignorant of the conspiracies hatched against Indian Muslims and therefore can only earn widespread derision and scorn for their almost automatic and programmed intervention in the national debate without any overall societal mandate.

India of today is not free of foreign domination and investor money rules the roost. The western capitalist and socialist model that promote consumerism have not gone full circle to fully grasp the difference between Sharia model of preferring distinct roles of men and women and family life in overall economic system. Those who are of open mind, can easily make out how the West is suffering from so many ills of the New Society, geared to ‘women’s liberation’ while throwing them to wolves who would rather feed on their earnings and have comfortable lives. The kind of traumas that single women suffer in the western countries have yet to get any sympathy from these progressive brigades. Western movies unabashedly show how women are desperate for a ‘nightcap’ with any man, just not to go to an empty apartment at night, once they have put in their days work. The trafficking of women, the lonely lives of women, the childless misery of whole generations forced to go for adoption and artificial insemination and the most horrible and immoral route of surrogate pregnancies, are yet to get the attention of social reformers in right earnest. Is it not strange an India that should be rightly proud of its traditions, should be so brain-washed that nothing seems to be odd when gay Israelis are descending on our poor women and rent their bodies for pittances, so that they can live their immoral lives with the help of our impoverished womanhood. The national and nationalist media is silent. It has more urgent business to tackle Mullahs first. That’s where the moolah is.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.GhulamMuhammed.Blogspot.com

Times of India Does it Again – VIII

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&GZ=T

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Times of India Does it Again – VIII

The Times of India is on the rampage again. Tired of presenting its Front Page as the prime repository of news all the evils of the corruption and deep fissures in Indian politics and society, it has decided to bring in the Muslims in the focus to divert the attention of its harried readership to savour the rich store of inanities that its so-called progressives, including S. Balakrishnan and M. Wajihuddin, can dish out as quickly as any fast food in the now news-hungry land that has develop the acquired taste, nay the addiction to now feed on the sleaze and filth.

The distortion, disinformation and misinformation is deliberate and verging on criminal when Times of India owners allow its staff to sow seeds of dissension, division and strife in the community. While on the one side, it is burning midnight oil to feed the flames of ‘Asha ke deep’, making up friends with Pakistan, it has gone on to attack Sharia laws with its typical treatment of news in headlines, that has no bearing to the truth. This double dealing newsmaking can only earn deep resentment in 200 million Muslims of India, for deliberate provocation of India’s prime newspaper to take on the supposed might of the Mullahs, by distorted representation of Islam to open it to public derision and scorn.

It would have been fitness of objective reporting, if Times of India, had published the full scan of the Deoband fatwa, which according to TOI report headline has declared --- Women’s earnings Haram. Apparently TOI headline is being used by its editors without full knowledge of what the word ‘Haram’ connotes in Sharia. It merely exposes the open ignorance of the TOI staff, who have been allowed to frame headlines to inflame emotions and outrage among Muslims of India. The whole fatwa needs lots of context to be available for such mischievous and provocative headline. TOI’s S. Balakrishnan himself uses the same word ‘Haram’ in the next report on inside pages as describing proximity between males and females in a confined space, that can lead to unwanted consequences. Islamic Sharia from Malaysia to Saudi Arabia being Muslim dominated states; promote the same norms of Sharia that Deoband is plainly expounding. Deoband is not coming out with anything new or of its own exclusive authorship and copyright. The motive behind such attacks on Deoband, Sharia and Muslim society is to stop their commanding role in the newly emerging political clout of the Muslim voters that practically all political parties at all level are fully apprehensive of and have set the commercially handicapped mainstream media to start a campaign of distortion, disinformation and division among the Muslims. Muslims are neither uninformed of such Machiavellian shenanigans, nor are prepared to let barking dogs keep on barking. The quotes of harebrained women scholars who may be academically informed but woefully ignorant of the conspiracies hatched against Indian Muslims and therefore can only earn widespread derision and scorn for their almost automatic and programmed intervention in the national debate without any overall societal mandate.

India of today is not free of foreign domination and investor money rules the roost. The western capitalist and socialist model that promote consumerism have not gone full circle to fully grasp the difference between Sharia model of preferring distinct roles of men and women and family life in overall economic system. Those who are of open mind, can easily make out how the West is suffering from so many ills of the new society, geared to ‘women’s liberation’ while throwing them to wolves who would rather feed on their earnings and have comfortable lives. The kind of traumas that single women suffer in the western countries have yet to get any sympathy from these progressive brigades. The trafficking of women, the lonely lives of women, the childless misery of whole generations forced to go for adoption and artificial insemination and the most horrible and immoral route of surrogate pregnancies, are yet to get the attention of social reformers in right earnest. Is it not strange an India that should be rightly proud of its traditions, should be so brain-washed that nothing seems to be odd when gay Israelis are descending on our poor women and rent their bodies for pittances, so that they can live their immoral lives with the help of our impoverished womanhood. The national and nationalist media is silent. It has more urgent business to tackle Mullahs first. Thats where the moolah is.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.GhulamMuhammed.Blogspot.com

--------------------------------------------------

. .

The veil: Identity or modesty? By A. G. Noorani, FRONTLINE MAGAZINE

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20091204262408200.htm

Volume 26 - Issue 24 :: Nov. 21-Dec. 04, 2009

BOOKS

The veil: Identity or modesty?

A.G. NOORANI

Deoband’s fatwa on the veil may be dismissed. But not the issues the veil has raised, especially in Europe, the U.S. and indeed in South Asia.

BY now Deoband’s fatwas have become predictable for their narrowness of outlook and a theology which has little concern with reason or, at times, even with learning. Its fatwa on the veil may be dismissed. But not the issue the veil has raised; especially in Europe, the United States and indeed in South Asia.

The Economist of October 17, 2009, reported the debate in Egypt, which has been raging for a century: “The veil has been put off and on as fast as hemlines in Paris have gone up and down.” By the 1970s most women had thrown it off. But it has crept back as a wave of religiosity prompted many to embrace a more distinctively Muslim look. Is the veil, then, a symbol of identity or a protection of modesty? Faced with the onslaught, women adopt a variety of the symbolic attire from the black niqab, which covers the face leaving just a bit for the eyes, to “lighter novelties such as a colourful Spanish-style scarf wrapped around hair tied in a bun”.

In October, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Cairo’s 1,000-year-old Islamic University, Sheikh Tantawi, lost his temper when he saw an 11-year-old student at a girl’s school wearing the niqab. He ordered her immediately to remove it and issued a blanket order banning it in all the girls’ schools. The reason he gave is noteworthy: “[T]he full face-covering is an innovation that represents too extreme an interpretation of Islamic modesty.” Islam does not prescribe the niqab. It is an “innovation” by some Muslims who reacted to Western influences in fashion as a “return” to the faith and an assertion of Muslim identity. The Religious Affairs Ministry of Egypt will be printing a leaflet called “Niqab: Custom not Worship”.

This is not enough. The crucial question remains to be answered. Precisely what does the Quran say on this subject? Marnia Lazreg is Professor of Sociology at the Graduate Centre and Hunter College, City University of New York. The sub-title of her work is “Open Letters to Muslim Women”.

She has interviewed women widely and done careful research. “In my previously published work, I have consistently objected to the manner in which Muslim women have been portrayed in books as well as the media”. On the one hand, they have been represented as oppressed by their religion, typically understood as being fundamentally inimical to women’s social progress. From this perspective, the veil has traditionally been discussed as the most tangible sign of women’s oppression. “On the other hand, Muslim women have been described as the weakest link in Muslim societies, which should be targeted for political propaganda aimed at killing two birds with one stone showing that Islam is a backward and misogynous religion, and underscoring the callousness or cruelty of the men who use Islam for political aims. Such a view made it acceptable to hail the war launched against Afghanistan in 2001 as a war of ‘liberation’ of women. Subsequently, the American-sponsored constitutions of both Afghanistan and Iraq were lauded as protecting the ‘rights’ of women in spite of evidence to the contrary. In this context, any Muslim woman who takes cheap shots at Islam and crudely indicts Muslim cultures is perceived as speaking the truth and is elevated to stardom.” Witness the empty-headed but raucous Milsi of the Netherlands and Nagi of Canada. Neither is known for learning.

In India, any Muslim who denounces Islam or Muslims becomes a hero, and not only in the eyes of the Sangh Parivar. The soft-secularist or, if you prefer, the soft Sanghi shares the approach. The author was born to a Muslim family in a predominantly Muslim country, Algieria, and is proud of her heritage.

Relevant to all

She decided to write these letters to women whose religion is Islam and who either have taken up the veil or are thinking or wearing it. However, writing about women necessarily means writing about men. “To many in the Muslim world, well-meaning individuals beleaguered by geopolitical events, these letters may seem pointless. But perhaps such individuals need to resolve the apparently unimportant issue of veiling before they can defend themselves more effectively. These letters are also relevant to all people, women and men, seeking to understand the human experience. I have reached a point in my life when I can no longer keep quiet about an issue, the veil, that has in recent years been so politicised that it threatens to shape and distort the identity of young women and girls throughout the Muslim world as well as in Europe and North America.”

In France, the state passed a law (referred to as laicite) on March 17, 2004, denying young French Muslim women the right to attend the public schools if they wear headscarves. Turkey reinforced a long-standing prohibition against veiling in public educational institutions and compels faculty members to report and expel from their classes female students wearing headscarves. The Recep Tayyip Erdogan government’s attempt to remove the ban on headscarves in the spring of 2008 threw Turkey into turmoil. The attempt was overturned by the Turkish High Court as unconstitutional. The veil has become politicised.

The author holds that “the religious texts lack clarity and determinacy in the matter”. Shunning extremist positions, her letters are an invitation to reflection based on the Quranic texts: “Quranic words referring to women’s proper attire have been interpreted and translated in various ways that add to the instability of meaning. Nevertheless, at present, four words are commonly used to refer to major styles of veiling: hijab, jilbab, niqab, and khimar. The hijab has emerged as the standardised form of veiling across the Muslim world, coexisting with local styles. It comprises a headscarf wrapped in more or less intricate ways covering the neck but not the face, atop a long skirt, long baggy pants, or combination of both. Often the hijab is reduced to a headscarf draped around head and neck, worn over any modern style of dress. The jilbab consists of a long garment covering the body, a headscarf, thick socks worn with flat shoes (usually sandals), and gloves. Frequently, a black face cover (niqab) is added to the jilbab, primarily by women affiliated with a specific Islamist movement such as the Salafi (or adherents to a conservative interpretation of Islam). Khimar today refers to a specific way of executing a head cover that usually hugs the head tightly and cascades over neck and shoulders in a cape-like fashion.”

What the Quran says

AMR NABIL/AP 

In Cairo, Egypt, students wearing the face-covering veil, known as the “niqab”, walk with another wearing the “khimar”, on October 8. Sheikh Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Cairo’s 1,000-year-old Islamic University, issued a blanket order that month banning the “niqab” in all girls’ schools. The reason he gave: “The full face-covering is an innovation that represents too extreme an interpretation of Islamic modesty.”

What the Quran says deserves quotation in full: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.”

The references Prof. Marnia Lazreg cites are important: Sura 24.31. The Glorious Quran, text and explanatory trans, Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall (Islamic Call Society: Socialist People’s Ar ab Jamahiriya, n.d.). “I am using this old translation because it denotes the translator’s desire to be ‘modest’ in translating the word furuj, or pudents, and represents a standard rendition of the original. Contemporary male advocates of veiling also use ‘modesty’ in the translation of this sura. See Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, Women’s Rights in Islam (New Delhi; Adam 2008), Ahmed Ali translatesfuruj as ‘private parts’. See Al-Quran: A Contemporary Translation by Ahmed Ali (Princeton; Princeton University Press, 1993).”

Interestingly men too are exhorted in the Quran to protect their pudenda (also translated as “modesty”). “However, this exhortation has not given rise to multiple interpretations, nor has it been used to conflate dress with moral character, as has been the case with women.” Sura 24-30 enjoins the believing men to lower their gaze and “be modest”.

Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, a 19th century reformer, defined modesty as an individual’s restraint from evil deeds. The author poses questions few dare to ask and demands answers. “If a woman conceals her breasts and legs but leaves her face bare, is she less desirable to a man? What if a man is attracted to a woman’s eyes or lips more than to her breasts or legs? If one agrees that men’s desire floats from one part of a woman’s body to another, there is no way a woman can be ‘protected’ from it. Men’s desire is the root cause of veils that cover the body and face, such as the Afghan burqa-veils that obliterate a woman’s physical self. She must bear the body she was born with, just as a convict must bear the ball and chain. Concealment of the body is thus a form of punishment as well as an apology for having been born female, when it is not a means of redemption.”

She points out that while “it is commonly understood that an ‘older’ woman may discard her veil rather than wear it, the text of the sura shows otherwise: ‘As for women past the age of child bearing, who have no hope of marriage, there is no harm if they take off their (outer) garment, but in such a way as that they do not display their charms. But if they avoid this, it would be better for them. God is all hearing and all knowing.’” (Sura 24.60). But commentators do not quite agree on its precise meaning.

Al Azhar University acknowledged that poor women are not under the obligation to wear the veil or refrain from work outside the home. Many a woman took to the veil to escape sexual harassment, which is the subject of an entire chapter. Often, advocates of veiling ground their view that it protects women in the following sura: “Oh Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the women of the faithful to draw their wraps a little over them. They will thus be recognised and no harm will come to them. God is forgiving and kind.” The veil in Muslim society is clearly not a symbol of identity; nor is there a clear injunction in its support.

Irrefutable assertion

Prof. Lazrag’s assertion cannot be refuted. In Islam the hijab is not a pillar of faith. “Nowhere in the Quran is there an indication that the veil is a condition of a woman’s acceptance of her faith.” She constantly draws on her interview with Muslim women to make her point and to demonstrate the havoc religious bigotry and ignorance have caused in the lives of Muslim women. The last chapter on “Why women should not wear the veil” sums up the author’s views. They are based on Islamic teachings, as well as the history of Muslims. “The history of Muslim societies is fraught with instances when women wore no veil without there being much ado. The veil rose and fell depending on local political circumstances. Its evolution mirrored women’s changed perceptions of themselves…. The current revival of the veil, often in a style imported from Egypt (a headscarf and long overcoat) coincided with a failed development policy, a civil war that pitted the government against a radical and splintered Islamist movement, and the emergence of an intraregional movement of cultural identity inflicted by geopolitical events. What goes on in Baghdad and Cairo, Washington, D.C., and Paris has resonance in Algiers, Rabat or Amman. In the history of domination, resistance, and protest in Middle Eastern societies, the veil has been an enduring symbol and fertile ground for dramatising political ideologies.”

In the Shah’s Iran the veil was used by women as a form of protest. In Khomeni’s Iran it became an oppressive mandate from men to women.

“Unlike religious prescriptions pertaining to dogma, the veil is a historical, if not the most historical, exhortation and therefore amenable to change. It carried no heretical connotation or penalty. Going out without it is not a prohibition, as usury or drinking alcohol is. This explains why nineteenth century Muslim reformists called for improvements in women’s social lives – largely held back by veiling. However, even the most liberal among them fell short of declaring the veil a non-religious practice in its essence. In 1879 Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani warned his contemporaries ‘that you should not ignore that it is impossible for us to emerge from stupidity, from the prison of humiliation and distress, and the depths of weakness and ignominy as long as women are deprived of rights and ignorant of their duties, for they are the moths from whom will come elementary education and primary morality.”

The veil should not be glorified. It retards women’s progress in society especially at the work place and in public offices. Advocates as well as opponents of the veil cite the West in support of these views, albeit for opposing reasons.

Freedom to choose

The author’s conclusions, based on case studies, are sound. “Modesty is neither secured nor enhanced by the veil. If chastity is the flip side of modesty, the veil is no guarantee for it either, it lies instead with a woman’s conscious decision to manage her sexuality according to her conception of herself in awareness of the social forces (whether religious or mundane) that seek to wrest from her the moral autonomy necessary for her to make that decision. Similarly, the veil is no protection from sexual harassment. In reality, it may even stimulate more harassment as a number of men are not sure that a woman is not wearing a veil because she is seeking greater freedom from her family rather than out of religious conviction. Besides, men themselves may be ambivalent about the religious status of the veil; they may not see it as an impediment to making sexual advance to a woman or even committing rape. For example, a veiled Saudi woman was raped as she was sitting in a car with a former boyfriend. Nevertheless, the reveiling trend acutely poses the question of a woman’s agency, her freedom to choose.”

The West’s repression will be counterproductive. “A woman veiling herself in Paris is making a statement about her place in French society that has refused to treat her as a full-fledged citizen; it perceives her as ‘allogenic’ and permanently marked as an ‘immigrant’ no matter the depth of her French roots. The veil for this woman signifies the appropriation of a sign that has been so politicised as to mean the rejection of French society. To the use of French culture as a weapon with which she was bludgeoned, this woman uses an equally powerful cultural weapon to defend herself. By the same token, she finds comfort in acknowledging and assuming her Islamic heritage, which she may have repressed for the sake of assimilation into the dominant value system of her society. She revels in her new visibility as a wearer of a reviled custom. A woman veiling herself in New York also makes a statement about the positivity of her culture in a social climate strained by the Iraq and Afghan wars.”

The veil’s revival is part of the revivalist fervour of the last three decades. Women face a political as well as intellectual challenge. They have to fight the recent trends as well as the perversions of centuries past. “Ultimately there is no compelling justification for veiling, not even faith. For it, too, needs to confront the power nexus that sustains the repetition of the history of the veil. No one is entitled to turn the veil into a political flag, and no one should derive satisfaction from its removal except women themselves.”