Dear Editor,
Every now and again people gratuitously mount unwarranted attacks on Islam, generally premised on ignorance of the structure of revealed religion and quoting a person or two whose blasphemic views coincide with theirs. This is the case with Mr Justin de Freitas’s recent letter captioned ‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.’
First I fail completely to see the connection between orphaned and maimed Muslim children in Iraq and Afghanistan and homosexuality. Even several leaps of the imagination fail to establish a connection. Maybe Mr De Freitas can explain this irrelevancy in a subsequent letter!
The question of the status of Muslim women is too wide to deal with in a letter. Before I answer the specific points raised please note some points on the status of women at the advent of Islam. In Arabia women were inherited as property by sons on the death of their husbands; some female infants were buried alive; the number of wives that a man may have was unlimited; the property owned by the woman automatically became the property of her husband on marriage and so on. It was Islam that conferred on women the honor and dignity that was rightfully theirs as human beings.
Islamic law specifies that when women leave their homes they must be covered except for the hands and face. The burkha, which is additional cover, is therefore a choice of the woman involved. Note that I have said ‘a choice of the woman involved’ because no one including the husband can order her to do it because Islamic law is clear on the subject. The extensive coverage of the female body is specified to preserve morality in the society among other purposes. The hijab indicates to the people on the street that the wearer is a decent person and should not be molested. On a broader scale Islam saves women from being viewed and acting as sex objects. Mr Editor, walk any day on the street and you will see western women dressed to emphasise their shape and flaunt their sex.
Apparently westerners are unable to make the connection between (un)dress and innumerable teenage pregnancies, the uncontrollable spread of HIV/AIDS, a spiralling divorce rate, etc. Western clothes also dehumanise women into sex objects indicating a massive disrespect for women as human beings. The atmosphere generated by having badly and scantily dressed women must also be conducive to the high incidence of rape which is a kind of violence against women.
The dehumanisation of women leads to their maltreatment which permeates the western society. I will advance one instance of the continuing treatment of women as sex objects. If you looked at the recently concluded Wimbledon tournament you would have seen that the pants of the men extended to the knee but the covering of the women stopped at the hips with a very mini-skirt, which flies in the wind, to cover it. We could go on about spread of diseases, etc, which are all related to Islam’s laws on the subject. For the records the Holy Prophet (May the peace and blessings of God be with you) is reported as saying that as immorality increases Allaah will send more and greater diseases and this is clearly evidenced by the advent of HIV/AIDS which now appears uncontrollable.
Ayaan Hirsi is probably not a good person to quote with her record of conviction for visa fraud. Mr de Freitas probably does not know of Tasleema Nasreen of Bangladesh who holds similar views or he may have quoted her as well. These and a few others seek to re-invent and modify revealed religion and this simply cannot be done.
When someone accepts, as Muslims do, that this Quran is the revealed word of God (Allaah), then he has to accept the whole thing because rejection of a part or some parts of the Quran makes that person an infidel.
Why it makes the person an infidel is because Allaah is saying one thing and the person rejects that by saying otherwise thereby trying to improve or be more knowledgeable than Allaah. Ibn Warraq is free to believe what he wants – Islam allows freedom of belief. What he means by “uncritical acceptance” needs further elaboration to warrant a reply.
Islam has set the rules that set the framework in which people relate to each other and the persons concerned should make an effort to avail themselves of the information. That person would need to have his head examined who believe that Islam permits the maltreatment and enslavement of women, or any other group in the society. The spread of Islam saw some absorption of local customs and the retention of some practices which were un-Islamic. Islam cannot be blamed for that.
In conclusion Mr de Freitas speaks of whether I advocate the continued observance of archaic Sharia rules.
Is he talking about children being respectful to parents; or honesty in business dealings; or praying and fasting regularly; or refraining from adultery and fornication; or not permitting cheating, lying and backbiting; or by the state establishing a framework under which all its citizens can live peacefully and obtain justice; or to fight in legitimate self defence?
The charge of ‘archaic’ was obviously taken from the air and not based on research because the modern world needs those qualities which Islam propagates.
And more recently I saw a letter which states that men must have nothing to do with the way women dress! Here we have ignorance of two things at least – one is the nature of revealed religion setting its standards and these are not available for manipulation by anyone and the second is the integrated nature of a society.
Because any society is an integrated whole what some sections do matters to all of us. One is reminded of Donne’s poem “Ask not for whom the bell tolls…”
Yours faithfully,
Al Haj Mujtaba Nasir
General Secretary
CIOG
