Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Women in Hijab

Western Female Politicians in Hijab
For years it has been the tradition of any dignitary to wear the costumes of the host country.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Princess Diana in hijab.
Hilary Clinton, when she was still wife of the U.S. president in 1997, traveled to Eritrea and put on a headscarf. Interestingly, her daughter Chelsea, seen in the background, did not.



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

Hillary Rodham Clinton traveling in Eritrea in 1997 with a headscarf on.
But on another occasion, Chelsea joined her in wearing a hijab.






------------------------------------------------------------------
Mother and daughter, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, wearing hijabs.
Prince Charles' wife, Camilla Parker Bowles, got into complete Egyptian Muslim garb, including hijab, on a visit to Al-Azhar.






------------------------------------------------------------------
Camilla Parker Bowles with Prince Charles in Egypt.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visiting a mosque in Dushanbe, Tajikistan in October 2005, wearing a black cover on her hair.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, donned a headscarf when she visited Damascus on April 3, 2007.











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

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus.
On June 27, 2007, three senior Bush administration staffers wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to the president address an audience at Washington's Islamic Center.
















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

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Fran Townsend (far left), NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Judy Ansley (left), and Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes (right) listen to President Bush wearing makeshift hijabs.






\
-------------------------------------------------------------
On a trip to Saudi Arabia in October 2007, George W. Bush's wife Laura wore a particularly severe-looking hijab.













Laura Bush in Saudi Arabia.
Switzerland's Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey met with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran, on March 17, wearing a hijab as she signed a natural gas deal with him. (March 19, 2008)
-----------------------------------------------------------


Switzerland's Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey meets with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Gender Equality Now

A peace maker constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. His or Her words and actions do not make things worse, but bring some sense and understanding to the situation. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; indeed that is the purpose religion. – Mike Ghouse

Special issue: International Women’s day 20 Articles from around the World

GENDER EQUALITY NOW
Mike Ghouse, March 8, 2008

The great poet Philosopher Sir Mohammad Iqbal had said "Wajood-e-zan say hai kayanaat may khushboo" in his beautiful Poetry in Urdu. The essence of which is presence of a woman makes the universe beautiful and complete and vice verse.

Men and women are each others protectors, saviors and serve each other in living a purposeful life. One is incomplete without the other, adds the Qur'aan, "Men and Women are each others garments". Just as the garments shield one from the cold and heat, the metaphor encompasses every aspect of life including the vows; in happiness and sorrow, sickness and health, poverty or wealth, weakness or strength, difficulties and comforts, men and women are indeed each other's garment. No matter what faith or culture you follow, the essence of the vows is the same; justice.
Justice is the basis for peace, be it between spouses, family members, business partners, stockholders and consumers, president and the public, minorities and majorities, communities, nations or the globe. Whenever one takes advantage of the other, the balance is lost and the unit is crippled. In personal relationships, the disadvantaged ones are patiently waiting for the moment to get even or get justice. It is the hope that keeps the life moving forward.

A disgruntled couple was traveling in the country side; neither was speaking with the other. As they drove by a preserve, both of them spotted the wild boars on the roadside fighting each other. The spouting Husband opens his murderous mouth and looks at his wife "Your relatives?" She retorts right back "Yes, in-laws".
It is time for men and women to pledge to be fair and just, there is joy in it. When there is justness, peace is the outcome.

Men need to outgrow their insecurities. To feel secure, some men scream, shout, suppress and oppress the other, deep down that makes them even more insecure. Men need to learn that to be secure; they have to learn to be equal with their partner in life. Accept it when you or she is wrong, there is no need to pretend and feed the insecurity. She is there to protect you and vice versa. You are each others respect and dignity.

From an Afghan to a Texan to a Zulu; from an Atheist to a Muslim to a Zoroastrian and every one in between, men have not been just to women. No one needs to rejoice as no one group can cast the first stone. The problem is with individuals and not with education, ethnicity, religion or race. So, let's treat this is an individual problem one family at a time.

Mothers have more influence with the kids than the fathers; it behooves them to train their kids to grow up respecting every human regardless of their gender, age, race, face or faith. Let the kids learn that work is genderless; with a few well defined exceptions, each person is capable of doing every work. Two generations from now, you can expect the men and women to be true partners and true garments of each other.

Change does not have to happen with a Tsunami, it should happen with each single effort. We should not demand others to do it, we have to do it ourselves first, and let others do it with their own volition. At least we can we say, we have don our part and it will serve us well.

I will do my part.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

ROUND UP FROM AROUND THE WORLD
Available at: http://www.mikeghouse.net/

  1. Best countries to be a woman
  2. Ten best countries for women
  3. Ten worst countries for women
  4. Income gaps
  5. Literacy gaps
  6. Political gender bar still high
  7. Women are still victims!
  8. Harassed South African women: 'Leave our miniskirts alone'
  9. Canada's women must share their success with the world
  10. Israel marks Int'l Women's Day with music, drama and art
  11. Fund-raising starts in Beijing to help disfigured low-income women
  12. New Zealand -Women still fill traditional roles
  13. Is Islam Really Stuck in the 12th Century on Women's Rights?
  14. Karzai Urges More Freedoms for Women
  15. Iraqi women demand equality, end to violence
  16. Rallies, Celebrations Mark International Women's Day
  17. India - Women more equipped with skills
  18. If you want more sex, do the dishes
  19. UN chief calls for end of violence against women
  20. 'Support and protect our women'

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

A Woman President for India

A Woman President for India


Dr. Pratibha Patil may win the election on July 19th and become the first woman President of India on the 60th anniversary of independence. However, the question at large is - what does it take to find at least 5 competitive candidates? We are a billion plus people and yet, we have not developed our institutions to produce 5 competitive candidates?

Why did we not look into others from the field of Science, Agriculture, Medical and Law professions? Dr. Kalam made a massive difference to the Presidency because he was not a darn political candidate, he was a scientist and was conditioned to thinking in terms of goals, means and achievement.

India should never make the decision based on how the candidate appears on the stage with XYZ, it should be based on what that person can contribute towards taking the nation forward with cohesiveness.


You are invited to share your comments at the end of this article by New York Times.

Mike Ghouse
http://www.mikeghouse.net/
http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/
http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/

Indians Question Fitness of Presidential Pick http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/world/asia/17cnd-india.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

By AMELIA GENTLEMAN
Published: July 17, 2007

NEW DELHI, July 17 — India’s first female president is likely to be voted into office on Thursday, but this milestone event has been overshadowed in recent weeks by an unusually savage debate over whether she is fit to become head of state.

When the leader of the governing Congress party, Sonia Gandhi, announced in June that Pratibha Patil, 72, was her party’s official choice for the post, she added that to have a woman president would be a matter of “great pride” and a “historic moment in the 60th year of our republic.”

But Gandhi’s attempt to promote this as a triumph for gender equality has won Ms. Patil little support.

Instead, the pre-election campaigning has been dominated by a series of vitriolic attacks on Ms. Patil’s credentials.

The opposition has alleged, among other things, that she shielded her brother in a murder investigation, protected her husband in a suicide scandal, and was herself involved in numerous financial irregularities.

And then there are Ms. Patil’s own peculiar statements — most notably, her revelation that she had heard the voice of a dead guru predicting she would rise to power.

National and local elected lawmakers will vote in a secret ballot for the new president, a figurehead role that is meant to be broadly apolitical and ceremonial.

If, as expected, voting follows party lines, Ms. Patil is assured of an easy victory over the only other candidate who is standing, the country’s current vice president, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, 83, who is affiliated to the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP.

Initially, Ms. Patil’s nomination was widely greeted with bemusement.

Despite 45 years in politics, she remained largely an unknown, far from being a household name. An old ally of the late prime minister Indira Gandhi, and a loyal long-term supporter of the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty, Ms. Patil enjoys good relations with Indira’s daughter-in-law, Sonia. But beyond this intimate circle, Ms. Patil’s enthusiastic backers have been few.

Congress party officials were unable to disguise the fact that she was a compromise choice, selected by the leadership as a last-ditch suggestion, after half a dozen other, more high-profile names, were rejected by the government’s coalition allies as unacceptable.

After her nomination, Ms. Patil’s journey from obscurity was swift and rude. The opposition BJP issued a booklet titled “Does This Tainted Person Deserve to Become the President of India?”. As journalists shook more apparent skeletons from the closet, a website was set up by party supporters (knowpratibhapatil.com) to accommodate the full range of accusations.

Even neutral or usually pro-Congress commentators have been startled by a number of Ms. Patil’s own pronouncements.

On hearing of her nomination, Ms. Patil remarked on live television that she knew she was destined for higher things because she had had a “divine premonition.” A dead religious leader, Baba Lekhraj, had recently spoken to her through “the body” one of his living disciples, she said, and he had informed her that “great responsibility” would be handed to her.

“The future president of India speaks to dead people,” wrote Tavleen Singh, a columnist in the Indian Express, a daily national newspaper. “This is almost worse than her shady past.”

Ms. Patil’s support for forced sterilizations to curb population growth in the 1980s has also attracted negative comment and her recent suggestion that Indian women originally veiled their heads to shield themselves from marauding Muslim invaders has outraged Muslim leaders.

The weekly news magazine India Today featured her on its cover, with the headline “Embarrassing Choice.” Inside, reporters detailed how a bank she set up to empower women in the 1970s was liquidated two decades later amid allegations from the bank’s workers union that Ms. Patil had loaned large sums to her own relatives — men as well as women — which were never returned.

The magazine also described how her brother was caught up in a murder investigation, hinted at family involvement in the misappropriation of tsunami relief funds, and gave details of how her husband was accused of involvement in the suicide of a school teacher. Legal proceedings are under way in both the suicide and murder cases.

T.N. Ninan, editor of the Business Standard, a national newspaper, called in a recent column for the Congress party to withdraw her nomination. “The whole country now knows that she is not a suitable candidate for being made head of state,” he wrote. ”For five long years, she will be a national embarrassment in a way that no president so far has been. And if the courts move against her close relatives in ongoing cases, her position will become untenable.”

At first, Ms. Patil fought back, declaring that the charges were politically motivated and “false, baseless and malicious”.

More recently, she has remained silent, allowing a team of Congress party officials to mount what the news media here have described as a “Save Pratibha” campaign.

Parliamentary affairs minister P.R. Dasmunsi, who has spearheaded her defense, said he was “too busy” to comment when contacted by telephone today, but he has repeatedly told the Indian media that the allegations are “nonsense.”

The director of the Delhi-based Center for Policy Alternatives, Mohan Guruswamy, said the Congress Party had mounted a dubious defense of its candidate over the collapse of her bank.

“Their argument is that there is not a single cooperative bank in India which has not been similarly defrauded, so why blame her alone,” he said.

This was not a line of argument likely to be widely accepted, he added.

“The office of president has previously been held by people of reasonable eminence and stature,” he said. “The office is invested with a moral authority. Here we have taken a provincial politician and catapulted her into the highest office of the country. She is a small-time crook, a political hanger on, with no constituency. Whether she will be able to fulfill her role is a matter of debate now.”

Votes will be counted on July 21 and the new president will start work on July 25.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Burqa to no Burqa

Burqa to no Burqa
Mike Ghouse, July 4, 2007



When the President of the United States abuses the authority given to him and violates the constitution and trust of the people (low approval ratings), when the Pope abuses his authority and utters words that create gratuitous chaos, when the Mufti of Saudi Arabia abuses his authority in pre-empting God’s authority and issues a fatwa declaring another Muslim as a non-Muslim, and when people in power abuse their authority; the people in power over their family also abuse the imposition of Burqa as an instrument of control. However, not all the Presidents, not all the Pope’s, not all the Clerics and not all the people abuse the privileges, some do and I estimate that to be no more than 1/10th of 1% when it comes to the general public.

A majority of Muslim women wear the Burqa out of their own volition, however there are a few men out there who compel them to wear, and it is certainly an oppressive situation. When you take a principled stand, women are indeed oppressed by all societies, The insecure men; whether it is a Bubba, Mullah or a Prince, be it in China, United States, India, Brazil or Saudi Arabia, they all behave the same, take it out on their women. Idiots do not have the guts to fight some one equally strong or independent; but they always prey on the weak or the dependent. They are the one’s that need education and not the Burqa elimination. Once we learn about the essence of Burqa, we may find oursleves to become pro-choicers, i.e., respecting the right of choice of the woman and not dictate what she does and does not wear, just as we are divided on Roe V. Wade.


Burqa is used from the Shuttle-Cock format in Afghanistan to the Hijab format (a bare scarf in the United States, Canada, India, Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan and some other nations. The Original Islamic idea was for a woman to be modest in public places, hold on from jumping to conclusions, it is not only women, it is men as well. Men in most Muslim societies do not wear shorts, they wear full length pants, they do not go bare chested even in their homes. That is range of modesty in practice. For an average American to understand this concept of modesty, all they have to do is compare the society of a higher threshold where, some families walk around the house with barely any clothes on, but most American families have modesty, what they wear in front of their children, especially of the opposite gender, when their sister, daughters or cousins are around is not the same.

If some woman wants to drop the Hijab, she can, but she has to feel comfortable with it. It would be hypocritical of us to impose our values onto others, let alone our own relatives.
We have an obligation to maintain a balance in the society and it is our duty to keep law and order and faithfully guard the safety of every citizen. If we can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each individual, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.
Prejudice against any one is one of the many sources of disrupting the peace in a society and it is our duty to track down the source of such hate and work on mitigating it. if we let hate mongers, hate sermons and hate lectures creep in our societies, we lose that desired balance in the society.

First, we have to believe that the societal balance begins with each one of us; we see goodness around if we upload good values in ourselves. It is in our interest to treat the world as one nation under God, one family and one people with liberty and justice for all. We are on the bus.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: "good for Muslims and good for the world." His personal Website is www.MikeGhouse.net and his articles can be found on the Websites mentioned above and in his Blogs: http://MikeGhouseforAmerica.Blogspot.com and http://MikeGhouse.Sulekha.com . He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com . Mike lives in Carrollton with his family and has been a Dallasite since 1980

Two articles to refer to:

Pakistani cleric captured under Burqa

By MUNIR AHMED, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Security forces besieging a radical mosque in the Pakistani capital captured its top cleric Wednesday as he tried to sneak out of the complex in a woman's Burqa, and more than 1,000 of his followers surrendered.

But heavy gunfire raged into the night, and it was unclear if his capture would lead other hard-liners to give up the fight at the mosque.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf deployed the army to subdue the militants holed up at Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, whose clerics have boldly challenged the government for months with a drive to impose a Taliban-style version of Islamic law in Islamabad.

The peaceful arrest of the mosque's prayer leader, Maulana Abdul Aziz, was a coup for the government. The firebrand Aziz has been a vociferous opponent of Musharraf and threatened suicide attacks to defend the mosque. His thousands of male students have been at the forefront of anti-government and anti-U.S. rallies.

Tensions exploded into a daylong battle Tuesday between security forces and militant students, some heavily armed and masked. Officials said 16 people died, including militants, security officers and bystanders. Mosque leaders put the death toll among just students at 20.

The government ordered the militants to lay down their arms and surrender by Wednesday morning as it positioned armored vehicles and helicopters around the mosque in a show of strength.

A security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to journalists, said Aziz was captured when he tried to get away disguised as a woman, wearing a full-length black burqa, and a female police officer tried to search him.

The officer began shouting "This is not a woman," the official said, prompting male officers to seize Aziz. "The suspect later turned out to be the mosque's chief cleric," the official said.
An AP Television News cameraman saw plainclothes police bundling the gray-bearded cleric into the back of a car, which sped away.

Javed Iqbal Cheeman, an Interior Ministry official, said Aziz's wife, the principal of the mosque's religious school, was also arrested.

"The entire operation will end in further success, and we will be able to give you and the nation more good news," Deputy Interior Minister Zafar Iqbal Warriach said.

He said the whereabouts of the mosque's deputy leader, Abdul Rashid Ghazi, who is Aziz's brother, was unclear. Ghazi said earlier Wednesday that "we will continue to defend ourselves."

Cheema said at least 1,100 people surrendered during the day, with some of the women in tears. All women and children will be granted amnesty, but males involved in killings and the top mosque leaders will face legal action, Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said.
Cheema claimed that "not many more" people were left inside the mosque complex.
One who decided to give up, 15-year-old Maryam Qayyeum, said those who stayed in the seminary "only want martyrdom."

"They are happy," she said. "They don't want to go home."
Qayyeum said mosque leaders were not trying to stop students from giving up. But her mother, who had come to take her home, disputed that "They are making speeches. They want to incite them," she said of the leaders.

Over the past six months, the Red Mosque clerics have challenged the government by sending students to kidnap alleged prostitutes and police in an anti-vice campaign.
The bloodshed has added to a sense of crisis in Pakistan, where Musharraf — a major ally of President Bush — already faces emboldened militants near the Afghan border and a democracy movement triggered by his botched attempt to fire the country's chief justice.
The mosque siege sparked street protests Tuesday in the cities of Lahore and Quetta organized by radical religious parties.

On Wednesday, officials said a suicide car bomber rammed a vehicle into a Pakistan army convoy near the Afghan border, killing five soldiers and five civilians. In northwestern Pakistan, unidentified assailants fired a rocket at a police station, killing one officer and wounding four, and an explosive killed four people and injured two district officials.
It was not known if the incidents were linked to the mosque crisis.
___
Associated Press reporters Sadaqat Jan and Stephen Graham in Islamabad and Riaz Khan in Peshawar contributed to this report.

.____________________

International Herald Tribune.

Head-to-toe Muslim veils test tolerance of stridently secular Britain
By Jane Perlez
Thursday, June 21, 2007

LONDON: Increasingly, Muslim women in Britain take their children to school and run errands covered head to toe in flowing black gowns that allow only a slit for their eyes.
Like little else, their appearance has unnerved Britons, testing the limits of tolerance in this stridently secular nation. Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. At the same time, efforts are growing to place legal curbs on the full Muslim veil, known as the niqab.
The past year has seen numerous examples: A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear her. A teacher wearing a niqab was told by a provincial school to go home. A student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the courts, and lost. In fact, the British education authorities are proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether.

David Sexton, a columnist for The Evening Standard, wrote recently that Britain has been "too deferential" toward the veil. "I find such garb, in the context of a London street, first ridiculous and then directly offensive," he said.

Although the number of women wearing the niqab has increased in the past several years, only a tiny percentage of women among Britain's two million Muslims cover themselves completely. It is impossible to say how many exactly.

Some who wear the niqab, particularly younger women who have taken it up recently, concede that it is a frontal expression of Islamic identity, which they have embraced since Sept. 11, 2001, as a form of rebellion against the policies of the Blair government in Iraq and at home.

"For me it is not just a piece of clothing, it's an act of faith, it's solidarity," said a 24-year-old program scheduler at a broadcasting company in London, who would allow only her last name, Al Shaikh, to be printed, saying she wanted to protect her privacy. "9/11 was a wake-up call for young Muslims," she said.

At times she receives rude comments, including, Shaikh said, when a woman at her workplace told her she had no right to be there. Shaikh said she planned to file a complaint.
When she is on the street, she often answers barbs. "A few weeks ago a lady said: 'I think you look crazy.' I said: 'How dare you go around telling people how to dress,' and walked off. Sometimes I feel I have to reply. Islam does teach you that you must defend your religion."
Other Muslims find the niqab objectionable, a step backward for an immigrant group that is under pressure after the terror attack on London's transit system in July 2005.

"After the July 7 attacks, this is not the time to be antagonizing Britain by presenting Muslims as something sinister," said Imran Ahmad, author of "Unimagined," an autobiography of growing up Muslim in Britain, and the head of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. "The veil is so steeped in subjugation, I find it so offensive someone would want to create such barriers. It's retrograde."

Since South Asians started coming to Britain in large numbers in the 1960s, a small group of usually older, undereducated women have worn the niqab. It was most often seen as a sign of subjugation.

Many more Muslim women wear the headscarf, called the hijab, covering all or some of their hair. Unlike in France, Turkey and Tunisia, where students in state schools and female civil servants are banned from covering their hair, British Muslim women can wear the headscarf, and indeed the niqab, almost anywhere, for now.

But that tolerance is eroding. Even some who wear the niqab, like Faatema Mayata, a 24-year-old psychology and religious studies teacher, agreed there were limits. "How can you teach when you are covering your face?" she said, sitting with a cup of tea in her living room in Blackburn, a town in the north of England, her niqab tucked away because she was within the confines of her home.

She has worn the niqab since she was 12, when she was sent by her parents to an all-girls boarding school. The niqab was not, as many Britons seemed to think, a sign of extremism, she said. The niqab, to her, was about identity. "If I dressed in a Western way I could be a Hindu, I could be anything," she said. "This way I feel comfortable in my identity as a Muslim woman."

No one else in the family wore the niqab. Her husband, Ibrahim Boodi, a social worker, was indifferent, she said. "If I took it off today, he wouldn't care."

When she is walking, she is often stopped, she said. "People ask, 'Why do you wear that?' A lot of people assume I'm oppressed, that I don't speak English. I don't care, I've got a brain."

Some commentators have complained that mosques encourage women to wear the niqab, a practice they have said should be stopped. At the East London Mosque, one of the largest in the capital, the chief imam, Abdul Qayyum, studied in Saudi Arabia and is trained in the Wahhabi school of Islam. According to the community relations officer at the mosque, Ehsan Abdullah Hannan, the imam's daughter wears the niqab.

At Friday prayers recently, the women worshipers were crowded into a small upstairs windowless room away from the main hall for the men.

A handful of young women wore the niqab and spoke effusively about their reasons. "Wearing the niqab means you will get a good grade and go to paradise," said Hodo Muse, 19, a Somali woman. "Every day people are giving me dirty looks for wearing it, but when you wear something for Allah you get a boost."

Friday, May 11, 2007

Brutalized Hindu Brides

Brutalized Hindu Brides
It has nothing to do with Hinduism

Mike Ghouse, May 10, 2007


Hinduism does not approve any one of these atrocities, they are a product of greedy people and these acts come under civil jurisdiction. It is painful and disgusting to 99% of the Hindus to hear their religion maligned. I invite people of all conscience to speak up against maligning any religion for the acts of the individuals.

For the wrongs people do, blame them for Christ’s sake, not their religion or their nation. As a society we have always barked at the wrong tree, this has to stop if we envisage building societies that respect and honor individuals while punishing and hauling them for their crimes.

It is perhaps that 1/10th of 1 % of extremists in all faiths, yes; every extremist belonging to Atheists to Zoroastrians and every one in between is cherishing this tragedy and pointing fingers at Hindu faith. The fanatics like Pat Robertson and Falwell must be having a heyday, as they want to harvest human souls from the heathenish cultures.

It would be wrong to laugh at any one, as all the faiths have their 1/10th of 1% of extremists living among them. With a few exceptions, who are way too small to be arrogant, every group has their proportionate contribution to the world violence.

The language of a few writers broad brushes Hinduism, as a civil society we need to set standards, and take a principle stand in encouraging a language that causes community building in public medium, as opposed to presenting opinions that enflame prejudices.

The phrases like:

  1. Hindu women are commodities.

  2. Hindu women are expected to birth males. If they don’t, they are beaten or slain.

  3. There are the baby girls who, simply because they are female, are put on piles of dry grass and burned. Or they are placed in bags and fatally stabbed.

  4. The father doesn't kill the man who rapes his daughter; instead, they dispose of her,

  5. And a wife who was tortured with cigarette butts by her husband because she bore only girls.

  6. Then there is the woman whose husband poured hot coals on her abdomen after she bore a daughter


Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. In the year 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy. Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 reports knowing someone their age who has been hit or knowing someone has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend. – (Resources: www.endabuse.org - www.ncadv.org www.ndvh.org - www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/help/dv.htm - www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/help/dv.htm and others).

Thousands of women in the United States were killed by their husbands/boy friend, this is how the animalistic man behaves. Would blaming Christianity serve the purpose? Absolutely not. Men were no different 2000 years ago regardless of their religion, ethnicity or national origins. My contention is that, it has nothing to do with the religion; it is the violent instinct in men DNA'd into us, these violent men need to feel safe and secure, as a society we need to help them.

So, let’s not point fingers at any religion, as we cannot wiggle out of our own ills. Blaming religion is an act of gutlessness that builds avoidance to deal with the problem squarely, let’s take the stand against all evils in the society and place the blame where it belongs; humans, and not their religion.

Let’s consider placing long term plans together; it involves education for the coming generations, to teach the children at home and schools to treat other humans with dignity or there are consequences to it in the civil society, in addition to the morality of their personal faith. There are homes where this nurturing cannot be achieved, if each one of us can do more than our own share, we can plan on retiring with fewer violent men in the society. If we have violence today, it is because it was allowed it earlier; it is in our selfish interests to create societies that value co-existence, harmony and peace.

The short term solution is to develop citizen’s council of individuals who are not biased towards other humans to monitor and report these incidents in an open manner. Details have to be worked out to create appropriate checks and balances. Each one of us is responsible to do at least our share, and let that begin with you and I before we look to others.
-- -- --

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: "good for Muslims and good for the world." His personal Website is www.MikeGhouse.net and his articles can be found on the Websites mentioned above and in his blogs: http://MikeGhouseforAmerica.Blogspot.com and http://MikeGhouse.Sulekha.com . He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com. Mike lives in Carrollton with his family and has been a Dallasite since 1980.

# # # # # #


by Grant Swank
Brutalized Hindu Brides
May 10, 2007 12:00 PM EST
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24963.html


"Varsha Hitkari's husband, Rakesh Kumar, hung her from the showerhead after she gave birth to a second girl. Her brother found her in time to save her life but she was in a coma for six weeks and has not been the same since," per Mary F. Calvert of The Washington Times.

"May you be the mother of a hundred sons" -- a Sanskrit blessing
Hindu women are commodities.

When they marry, father must pay up. He gives TV, DVD, cash and more to the future husband. If the husband then is not satisfied with the goods, he can demand more. If he does not get it, the bride may be found aflame in the night, set on fire in the meadow.

Hindu women are discarded, mistreated, somewhat like unto those in Muslim environs.
If a female is found in a Hindu womb, she is likely to be murdered in the mother’s body, per Julia Duin of The Washington Times.

Hindu women are expected to birth males. If they don’t, they are beaten or slain.
"There are the baby girls who, simply because they are female, are put on piles of dry grass and burned. Or they are placed in bags and fatally stabbed.
"Then, there are the acid attacks. If a woman refuses a man's advances, he may throw sulfuric acid in her face, disfiguring her and rendering the woman unfit for marriage. Women are defenseless against such attacks as criminal prosecution is rare.

"’The father doesn't kill the man who rapes his daughter; instead, they dispose of her,’ said Dr. Veronica Jacob, a volunteer with human rights advocate Sakhi Kendra. ‘The thinking here is warped. Even if India has advanced far in technology, the mind-set has not changed."

"Sahki Kendra is sheltering one doe-eyed young woman, Aradhana Rawat, 17, whose father would tie her to a bed and sexually abuse her. At one point, he tried to slit her throat with a machete. Tears pour down her face as she clutches a blue scarf and tells her story through a translator.

"’My father said, "If you tell others about this, I'll make sure others do the same thing to you,"’ she remembers. A brother finally brought her to Sakhi Kendra.
"Other cases brought to Sakhi Kendra include a mother who was told she must not feed her fourth daughter. Then there is the woman whose husband poured hot coals on her abdomen after she bore a daughter. And a wife who was tortured with cigarette butts by her husband because she bore only girls. Summoned to the scene, local police only took a report."

THE BIBLE AND ABORTION
J. Grant Swank, Jr.

It is alarming to realize the nonchalance on the part of many concerning abortion. But it is not new. A popular newsmagazine quoted one medical opinion: "Abortion is finding its place as a perfectly acceptable and valid health measure. We no longer think of it as a crime."

There are those who say that every woman has a right to control her own body. That is true. Then, having control over her own body, she should not become pregnant if she does not want children. That is control! When she becomes pregnant, then she has lost her control over that situation.

But more importantly, only God has final rights to any person's body. He brought that body into life and someday will take that body out of life. In the meantime He provides the very sustaining power for the body's life to continue.

The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person. "In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then 'God breathes a soul into it.' They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself' (Joseph Breig, "Life Forms Matter," The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).

"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk ... and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit" (Job 10:8-12 NIV).
"Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name...and now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..." (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13-16).

"Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him" (Psalm 127:3).
Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:
"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit... As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (1:41, 44).

Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother's womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):
"But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles..." (Gal. 1: 15-16).
Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.

Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Also, read Exodus 23:7: "Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Note I Peter 4:15: "If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer..."

"For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause" (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).


Saturday, March 31, 2007

Fatwa Condemned - Taslima

Murderous Fatwa condemned
Not acceptable to Muslims
Mike Ghouse March 19, 2007

A shadow organization, sounding similar to All India Muslim Personal Law board has issued a decree against exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen, who has been seeking Indian citizenship. A bounty of 5 Lakh Rupees has been offered to the one who murders her.

The government of India should prosecute Maulana Ashraf Khan for ordering Murder of another human being under IPC and punish him accordingly. The Qur'aan, the book that he believes in, does not authorize him to issue a death Fatwa against any one. The Qur'aan reminds in various ways: There is no compulsion in religion, to her is her faith and to him is his faith, and Killing a single life is like killing the whole humanity. “Qur’aan [6:104] Enlightenments have come to you from your Lord. As for those who can see, they do so for their own good, and those who turn blind, do so to their own detriment. I am not your guardian.” Maulana is not the protector of Religion.

Maulana Ashraf Khan is committing three crimes; the first one is acting God to kill another individual; acting against the Indian Penal Code in a civil society to murder another being and finally ruining the name of his religion more than Taslima Nasreen can ever do. She is not the only one who does Islam-bashing, there are several like her. That is the case with all religions, there will always be bad-mouthers, let them. Islam simply does not vanish by these; it has been around for 14 centuries and has probably seen 14,000 Nasreen’s since.As an individual she has the right to express her opinions whether we agree or not, as much as the Maulana has a right to condemn her statements. I do exercise that right and condemn her irresponsible statements.

Ms. Nasreen is a bellyacher and not a reformer. A reformer brings solutions to the issues and presents his or her research and asks the scholars to review and build consensus for a gradual acceptance of the proposed ideas. Instead, she agitates and builds resentment and does exactly opposite of what she claims to do; reform. Her approach is wrong and her statements may please the Islam-bashers and earn some circulation. However, her opinion does not affect the world or the religion of Islam.

Maulana's words do affect the perceptions of Islam; he is representative of an organization and was speaking in behalf of the organization which by name is representative of Muslims in India. He was claiming support of some 150 Imams and Scholars for his Fatwa, by implication all Muslims. We are making a statement to denounce this Fatwa, as it is not the will of Muslims, nor it is allowed in Qur’aan.

Issuing Fatwa is an act of deliberation, issued after painful investigations and not at some one's whims. That is arrogance and becoming God to judge and condemn people. It is simply not acceptable to the majority of Muslims of India and the world.

I urge Muslims to speak out against this Fatwa, and then I would ask all Muslims as individuals and groups to write to all the Newspapers in India to condemn the acts of this man and earnestly request the media to publish it.

To paraphrase a famous truth “It is not the evil committed by bad men that I worry; it is the silence of good men and women that worries me.”

-----Mike Ghouse is an activist based in Dallas. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and the World Muslim Congress, organizations dedicated to peaceful coexistence. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com. © copyright 2007 by Mike Ghouse.

Wife Beating: Jamil/Ghouse

Wife Beating in Qur'aan
Wife Beating; in the Modern Context by Dr. Javed Jamil
Wife Beating; Discipline or abuse? by Mike Ghouse
March 25, 2007
Wife Beating: Discipline or Abuse?
By Mike Ghouse
I encourage every one to do the ground work, when more of us can focus and subject the research to consensus among Muslims of all hues, most certainly Islamic Scholars and Imams, we can come to an understanding and set a benchmark resolution. The word of God is final, however, our understanding of the word isn’t. For this century, let’s start the work and finish it by the end of this Islamic year and develop the consensus, Insha Allah on the first day of Muharram Hijri 1429, we need to pass a resolution on the subject.
In the year 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. Around the world, at least one in every three women hasbeen beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy. Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or knowing someone has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend. – (Resources: http://www.endabuse.org/, http://www.ncadv.org/ http://www.ndvh.org/, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/help/dv.htm www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/help/dv.htm and more)
Here is the title of my column in process “Wife Beating; Discipline or Abuse?” My contention is given the fact that no man, whether a Texan Cowboy, Brazilian Coffee picker, Tibetian Lama or an Arab Sheikh; Whether a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim or an Atheist , can watch his wife in bed with a strange man. (or a woman can stand her husband in bed with a strange woman) and not react violently. It is nothing to do with civility or even religion; it is the possessive animal instinct in men and women DNA'd into us.
Thousands of women in the United States were killed by their husbands/boy friend, this is how the animalistic man behaves, and probably men were no different 2000 years ago regardless of their religion, ethnicity or national origins. Given this, God admonishes men, Hey guys, when you find your wife in bed with another man (full research is warranted on the word referenced above before we draw the conclusions), don’t kill them, hold yourselves, let her go, reconcile or discipline her. (Beating a child as are release of anger is abuse, feather touching them to let them know that it is a not an allowable behavior is disciplining the kids – that is what they refer to, hit by a pencil thin stick).
Again, I welcome to see Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar’s break through work. She has propelled research on the subject and we acknowledge her leadership on the issue. (http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/03/woman-re-interprets-quraan.html.) It is going to reinvigorate research on the word. The word "Idribuhunna" is usually translated as "beat them" in Sura 4:34. This word with the root "Dharaba" has a very long list of meanings. The word is used in Qur’aan in 10 different ways – for example the meaning is used 2 times, is used 9 times and is used 17 times (check the comment section below for all the words) http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/03/wife-beating.html ).
I am glad to see your effort; I have highlighted one of your paragraphs and repeated it at the beginning of your article below. Some of the ground work from Mohammad Irtaza and Irfan are listed in the comments section with their names. We will re-open the comments section for the public after we post a few comments from our members, then we will open up for the public. The word of God is final, however, our understanding of the word isn’t. Two thousand years ago, if God ordered Moses to go to Sinai, he would have gone on the back of a camel or walked. Today, he would fly. Meaning is still the same, but modes of understanding are different.
Mike Ghouse
http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/
_____________________________________________________
Wife Beating in Qur'aan -- the Modern Context

Dr. Javed JamilThe recent translation of the Quran by a woman is in the news all over the world just because it suits the designs of the forces of economic fundamentalism and feminists spawned by the culture that they created. In particular, verse number 4:34 of the Quran has come into focus with an attempt to disseminate the message that the Quran is cruel to women and even allows wife beating. There are apologetic Muslims who have been arguing that the context of the verse was set in the old Arabic world, and it has to be reinterpreted according to the modern context. Before discussing the meaning of the verse in question, let us first try to understand what the modern contexts of feminism and domestic violence are.
The biggest and perhaps the most destructive impact of the on-going march of economic fundamentalism was systematic, steady and substantial erosion of family system. This was the result of both the orchestrated designs to undermine family as well as the unintended adverse effects of the socio-economic transformation that was being pushed by the big business with all the possible means at their disposal. Misogamy grew in intensity. Making early marriage illegal, (while promoting premarital sex) banning polygamy (while promoting promiscuity and prostitution), making both the marriage and divorce difficult so that marriages become unpopular (while promoting live-in) highlighting incidences of atrocities on women within families (while trying to normalise the ever rising incidence of rapes) have been the chief steps in destroying the family system. This was obviously aimed at dissociating sex from marriage.
Thus the social apparatus built by the economic fundamentalists has led not only to the destabilisation of family, but also to almost its total annihilation. This has resulted in a number of social problems: domestic violence including abuse of women and children, divorces and separations, single parenthood, etc. Free mixing of men and women, the rise in sexual aggressiveness among women and the decreasing financial dependence of women on men have all contributed to the development of affairs both before and after marriage. Due to an increasing intolerance towards each other and total absence of endeavours to adjust with the spouse, extramarital affairs, sooner than later, lead to the break-up of marriages.
It is almost a universal fact that couples do expect primariness in their relationships; in places like India and Islamic countries, men and women do not even tolerate past relationships of their spouses. A man is highly unlikely to accept a woman in marriage if he knows about her intimate relationship in the past. They do not feel like entering where others have entered. Even women do have an exaggerated sense of exclusiveness and the knowledge of any past relationships of their spouses does not go particularly well with them.
In West, previous relationships are almost always not much of a problem for a new relationship to commence. But once they are in a relationship, they too do not tolerate any body else in the lives of their spouses. But such is the freedom in air and the provocation all around, that extramarital liaisons have become routine affairs. The new "Sexual Revolution" has given rise to domestic violence, which is different but much more dangerous than the Domestic violence in the old style family system.
Note the following facts about the ever rising incidence of domestic violence:
  • Every fifteen seconds, a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1991)
  • National surveys indicate that at least 2 million women are assaulted by their male partners each year. (Straus and Gelles, 1990)
  • The American Medical Association estimates that almost 4 million women are the victims of severe assaults by boyfriends and husbands each year, and about one in four women is likely to be abused by a partner in her lifetime. (Sarah Glazer, "Violence Against Women," CQ Researcher, Congressional Quarterly Inc., February 1993
  • Approximately 97% of the victims of domestic violence are women. (U.S. Dept. of Justice)
  • Violence by intimate partners is the leading cause of injury for women, "responsible for more injuries than car crashes, rapes, and muggings combined." (Centres for Disease Control)
  • In the United States, a women is more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped or killed by a male partner than by any other type of assailant. (Browne, A. and K.R. Williams, 1989)
  • Females are victims of family violence at a rate of three times that of males. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993)
  • Abused women make up approximately 22-35% of women who seek medical attention at hospital emergency rooms. (Randall, 1988)
  • More than 50% of women are battered at some time in their lives; over one-third are battered repeatedly. (Peachey, 1988)
  • Approximately 70% of murdered women are killed by a husband, lover, or estranged husband or lover.
  • Approximately two-thirds of those murdered by intimate partners or ex-partners have been physically abused before they were killed. (Campbell, 1981, 1992; Wallace, 1986)
  • More than twice as many women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends as are murdered by strangers. (Kellerman, 1992)
  • Every day in this country approximately four women are killed by a male intimate partner. (Stout, 1991)
  • The nation's police spend approximately one-third of their time responding to domestic violence calls. (Domestic Violence: A Guide for Health Care Professionals, New Jersey Dept. of Community Affairs, 1990)
  • Estimates of the percentage of pregnant women who are battered run as high as 25%. (Flitcraft, 1990)
  • Abuse of pregnant women is the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality. (March of Dimes study)
  • Most prevalence rate studies estimate that 28% of all adult women in a relationship are victims of domestic violence on an annual basis. (Anna Wilson, ed., Introduction to Homocide: The Victim/Offender, 1993)
  • Separated or divorced women were 14 times more likely than married women to report having been a victim of violence by a spouse or ex-spouse, accounting for 75% of all reports of battering. (Bureau of Justice, 1991)
  • As many as 50% of women killed by partners/husbands are murdered at or after separation. (Wilson and Daly, 1991; Barnard, 1981)
  • As much as 90% of the hostage-taking in this country is domestic. Domestic hostage-taking attempts to coerce a partner to return or remain in a marriage or relationship. 100% of these hostage-takers are men. (FBI, 1989)
  • 40 children are abducted by a parent each hour in the U.S. More than half occur in the context of domestic violence. More than 80% of abductions by parents occur after separation. Almost 40% of the abductions by fathers involve force or violence. (Finklehor et al, 1990; Grief and Hegar, 1992)
  • Domestic violence is increasing in Russia, with 14,000 women dying every year at the hands of their husbands or other relatives. (Amnesty Internatic)

Now, in this background, examine the verse that is supposed to support wife beating: " As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), next refuse to share beds with them (and last) beat them lightly. But if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Most Great." (4: 34) It is clear from the verse that:

It is clear from the verse that:

The over-all aim of the directions is to save the family from breaking;

The strategy is not to let the issue going out of the house and giving it a chance to get resolved within the family;

The directions involve a situation where wife is arrogant or disloyal, and does not apply to women whose behaviour is within normal limits;

The steps to be taken are in an increasing order of harshness.

First, the husband is asked to use verbal tactics like lecturing, persuasion and admonition.

Second, if this fails, the husband is advised to isolate her within the house. Sexual separation is a very potent weapon for reform within the marriage.

Third, even if this fails, the husband is allowed to use physical measures.

Only when this fails, the husband must take the issue out of the family, either by seeking arbitration or by initiating the procedure of divorce or by seeking criminal action, in case she has engaged in any forbidden activity.

Whenever she reforms herself, the husband is warned against continuing mistreating her; he must return to her and live with her in love.

Though this verse is primarily addressed to men, its indirect application should also be there for situations where husbands are arrogant or disloyal to wives and are engaged in forbidden activities. There are various situations in the Quran where the instructions are either for men or women but they need to be applied in reverse cases too.

For example, the above verse talks of "disloyalty" by women. But there is no verse about what should be done if husbands prove disloyal and are engaged in extramarital relationships. Does this not mean that women too must first try to resolve the issue within their houses, first by admonishing them, second by refusing sex and last by seeking intervention of the other members in the family (like fathers and elder brothers) who can even use physical assault as means to reform them? This last one is necessary as women are normally not physically strong enough to beat their husbands and if they do so it may invite greater violence.

I have however heard cases where women actually beat their husbands (sometimes even by shoes) for their misdemeanours like drinking, gambling, etc. Similarly, the Quran talks of "80 lashes" for those men who label false allegations of disloyalty on their wives. (Surah Nur) But what if the wives label false allegations against men? As the underlying principle is that men and women committing equal crimes under similar circumstances must receive similar punishments, it applies that women must also be given 80 lashes if they make unsubstantiated allegations against their husbands or other men.

Wife beating allowed in the Quran is surely different from wife battering that is routinely seen in the world, more so in the Western societies. In the Quran, mild beating is allowed only in cases of disloyalty for the purpose of reforming women within the family and not let others know about their misbehaviours. In the modern world, wife battering is mostly the result of silencing them into submission, alcohol and other addictions and to continue their own extramarital affairs. It is almost always aimed at causing them pain or taking revenge rather than reforming them. Islam creates social conditions where women do not face problems of physical security on account of the drinking, gambling and other bad habits of their husbands. It is also to be stressed here that market forces have used the issues of wife beating and child beating for their own selfish ends.

It is clear that if women are battered for no fault of theirs or they are battered more than what is permissible, they can always seek revenge from the court. The Islamic court will have to use the principle of "punishment equal to the crime" in order to fulfil the demands of justice.

Dr. Javed Jamil is a Chairman of International Centre for Applied Islamics, India. His columns regularly appear at WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com and now it will appear at this blog and eventually he will have a blog of his own at the new upcoming website http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/


Woman re-interprets Qur’aan

Woman re-interprets Qur’aan

Mike Ghouse March 24, 2007

AA,

Sometimes, our faithfulness to our understanding of anything in life makes us eager to reject any other expression, and prevents us from enlightening ourselves. We assume that seeing a different point of view is being disloyal, it is not. Islam is consistent in advising us to learn, whether from Romans or going as far away as China, we have to learn and we have to be open to learning.

First of all, we welcome this new additional translation of Qur'aan. In the spirit of learning, and learning well, the alternatives available to us will simply open up our up minds to understand the concept of Justness in God's word in every aspect of life.

There was a time when most of the non-Arabic speaking Muslims (>75%) relied on translation in English or other languages, what was given to us, was all we knew. We did not know how close the translations reflected the values of Qur'aan, but that was the only source available to us one time. We also had translations where due to the inadequate comprehension of the audience, certain words were injected into the translations to explain the meaning of the terms. People have taken that literally and some people have been hurt with these unintended wrong translations. (Apology and Qur'aan translations power point presentations at http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/ )

Indeed, when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) made the knowledge available to every human through the Qur'aan, he meant for every one to read and understand it. It was common for the Prophet SAW to ask the Sahaba to think a bit before he told them the actual meaning of anything. He sometimes used to initiate a conversation by asking a question "Do you know what xyz means?" It was simply a means of encouraging the Sahaba to think.

Thanks to the variations in translations, it shows us the limitations of human understanding, and challenges us to strive to grasp the whole truth. What was hitherto cut and dry is no more. May be it is Allah's hint to us to get closer to understanding the truth. The monopolies would be gone and focus would be on the essence rather than literal meaning. Presently the 14 translations are available at http://www.islamawakened.com/ and Insha Allah it will be at http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/ soon.

Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar offers another meaning to the translation of the Arabic word "Idrib," traditionally translated as "beat," which has been mis-understood and abused over the centuries by men who would be abusive any way, whether they are Muslim or not. "Why choose to interpret the word as 'to beat' when it can also mean 'to go away' - either one from the other, may be it meant separation as a process of re-evaluation.

Insha Allah, I am working on presenting a paper on the myth of "wife beating" to our scholars and Imams to review, and if it is consistent with the essence of Qur'aan and if they concur, it will be a relief to the Muslim women around the world consistent with God being a just God.

I am optimistic with this particular development and welcome this new translation, even if it has a few flaws, it would wash off by the 15 other translations, but will take us closer to the essence.


Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse

tt

Woman re-interprets Koran with feminist view

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-03-23T002513Z_01_N21290159_RTRUKOC_0_US-KORAN-FEMINIST.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

By Manuela Badawy

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A new English-language interpretation of the Muslim Holy book the Koran challenges the use of words that feminists say have been used to justify the abuse of Islamic women.

The new version, translated by an Iranian-American, will be published in April and comes after Muslim feminists from around the world gathered in New York last November and vowed to create the first women's council to interpret the Koran and make the religion more friendly toward women.

In the new book, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, a former lecturer on Islam at the University of Chicago, challenges the translation of the Arab word "idrib," traditionally translated as "beat," which feminists say has been used to justify abuse of women.

"Why choose to interpret the word as 'to beat' when it can also mean 'to go away'," she writes in the introduction to the new book.

The passage is generally translated: "And as for those women whose ill will you have reason to fear, admonish them; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!"
Instead, Bakhtiar suggests "Husbands at that point should submit to God, let God handle it -- go away from them and let God work His Will instead of a human being inflicting pain and suffering on another human being in the Name of God."

Some Muslims said the new interpretation strayed from the original. Omar Abu-Namous, imam at the New York Islamic Cultural Center Mosque, questioned Bakhtiar's interpretation.

"There is nothing to stop a woman from translating the Holy Koran. The translator should have good command of the Arabic language in order to convey it and translate it into other languages. I don't know if Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar has good command of Arabic," Imam Abu-Namous said.

"Maybe she is depending on other translations, not on the original," he said.

BAKHTIAR DEFENDS HER WORK

Bakhtiar defended her work, telling Reuters she translated from the Arabic text and that she "reads and knows classical Arabic."

The New York imam also said the passage she is challenging speaks of when a woman wants a divorce, and only allows a man to "hit his wife, according to the Prophet, with a 'miswak,'" or a twig of a pencil's length, on her hand.

Arabic Language Professor at the American University in Cairo Siham Serry said her interpretation of the word "idrib," was "to push away," similar but slightly different from Bakhtiar's "to go away."

She said she agrees with the imam that 'miswak' means twig and that the Koran does not encourage the harm of women. But she also said that men can interpret that passage to justify their own behavior.

"How can you hurt someone by hitting her with a very small, short and weak thing?" she asked by telephone from Cairo. "But sometimes the interpretation of the Koran is according to men, and sometimes they try to humiliate the woman."

Bakhtiar writes in the book that she found a lack of internal consistency in previous English translations, and found little attention given to the woman's point of view.

In other changes to the text, she cites the most accurate translation of the word traditionally translated to mean "infidel" as "ungrateful."

And she uses "God" instead of "Allah," saying that God is the universal English term.
Bakhtiar has been schooled in Sufism which includes both the Shia and Sunni points of view. As an adult, she lived nine years in a Shia community in Iran and has lived in a Sunni community in Chicago for the past 15 years.

"While I understand the positions of each group, I do not represent any specific one as I find living in America makes it difficult enough to be a Muslim, much less to choose to follow one sect or another," she writes.


The new text is published by Islamic specialty bookseller Kazi Publications, which has a store in Chicago and online

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