Ghazali On Women In Islam

Re: krashid

``I would commend Shiraz, not for maligning Islam, but showing the real face of Mullahs in the name of Islam.

People are talking about distant past and are forgetting that in the great tradition of Ghazzali, Taliban in Afghanistan have banned education for women, banned work by women. If Taliban is not real face of Thekedars of Islam then where it is. In Saudi Arabia women cannot drive car, nor can women enter Saudi Arabia without Mahram.``

If you are saying what I think you are saying, then I just have new found respect for you. Congratulations.

It never hurts to admit flaws. For example, I never shy from bashing my country`s incompetence, criminal apathy for its poor, and foolish boasting about IT success when half the country doesn`t have a sewage system.

I am so sick and tired of the phrase

``The door of Ijtehad were shut 1000 years ago``.

What a convenient excuse not to look what is happening around you. Please contact an Islamic center near you or a book center near you. If you are not finding something that you can agree with does not mean that rest of the world has stopped doing anything. All it takes is to take your boney butts off of your easy chairs. Islamic websites on the net is not the only thing there is.

``My friend`s response in punjabi was ...
if a man does not have any answer to a question raised by a woman, he questions her worth because even her witness as per law is half ...`` - Reply #: 29 Humsab

A wise friend to have. It is not the question of : men and women misusing Islam. It is not if people are abusing Islam. It is Islam that howls throughout the Quran and ahadith : here use me! use me to gather in hate, use me to plot and murder and rape! use me to create divisions - I will provide you with the proper reasons!

Islam is the knife that is made sacrosanct (holy). You cannot even defend yourself and your fellows against this knife because if you do you are being ``insensitive towards the feelings`` of all those weild this knife.

You may mentally and physically gut a person with Islam (NOT in the name of Islam - but within Islam and with the aid of Islam) but we the victims are not even allowed to raise our voices against it for fear of execution, crucifixion, lynching (in Muslim lands) to verbal assaults and death sentences. As Muslims greedily rush towards the west they have started murdering publishers and authors from Japan to Sweden.

Islam is the framework from within psychotic, sick men and women operate. It is the killing machine that is operated by blindfolded, brainwashed men and women. Some of them are more involved with the killing machine while others (who are plain ignorant of Islam yet are Muslims) are used as human shields (they are the gloss on an apple rotten to the core). We cannot even confront this killing machine because the first people who we hurt are those who know least about Islam.

What men say to women is what Prophet Mohammad said to women (note the similarity between what your friend said and what the prophet - the following are solid ahadith which are cross corroborated by Muslim and Bukhari.):

- The Prophet said, ``Isn`t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?`` The women said, ``Yes.`` He said, ``This is because of the deficiency of a woman`s mind.`` - Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826.

- The Prophet said, ``I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.`` Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 464

- The Prophet went towards the women and said. ``O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women).`` The women asked, ``O Allah`s Apostle! What is the reason for it?`` He replied, ``O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray.``

The women asked, ``O Allah`s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?`` He said, ``Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?`` They replied in the affirmative. He said, ``This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn`t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?`` The women replied in the affirmative. He said, ``This is the deficiency in her religion.``

Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301

The misogyny in our society is a direct result of attitude men and women have towards Islam. We elevate the Prophet as a role model - and so we get men who are vicious, tyrannical, cruel, unjust men who hate men and women equally.

To all those who have been used by Islam : we are all innocent! Come down from your tower and share our joys and happiness as an equal ! find out about all the beauty you possess and let yourself believe that we are born innocent.

Hi all

Meri taraf se sabko Ramzaan ka mahina mubarak ho.

Cheers

Fairdinkum (re. #309)

“Given the nature/structure of society in the early period of Islamic movement, TMP was probably a better/more effective strategy compared to prohibition.”

It is odd that there is no compromise on principles, no fancy TMP, wrt to the rights of women –at lest to the extent that they were liberated from the strictures of pre-Islamic norms—something good Muslims never fail to point out.

The good Maulana’s thesis that “Islam, through measures, which dealt with the root causes rather than with the symptom, effectively reduced these sources.” Is terribly flawed on the following counts:

Consider:

“Islam initially permitted slavery from only two sources - slavery through descent and slavery from POWs of a legitimate war.”

And

“The provision of slavery through wars was no longer important after the Islamic civilisation redefined the mode of interaction between nations - from power struggle to peaceful and productive coexistence. Virtually, there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Indirectly but effectively Islam has closed another source of slavery.”

Leaving aside the incredulity of the suggestion that “ there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims”, it is obvious that Abdul Razak, or you, or both, are failing to distinguish between Islam the Religion and Islamic history and civilization. Whether or not “the Islamic CIVILIZATION redefined the mode of interaction between nations” – itself a highly dubious assertion-- the attempt to justify a position with the benefit of retrospection, with little regard to original intent, is rather dishonest and seems like clutching at straws. But then, it seems to be the preoccupation of all learned scholars who it would seem spend much of their time indulging in such apologetics.

“Islam made the act of freeing the slave a part of punishment for any criminal act as well as for non-conformity of the Islamic rituals. There are several verses in the Holy Quran, which specifically mentioned the requirement of freeing the slave as a way of meeting the punishment for wrongdoings.”

Fairdinkum, perhaps my knowledge of the Quran is limited, but I can only recall verses in which the freeing of a slave is presented as an OPTION (and where are all the holier-than-thous who otherwise cry “objectifcation!!”?) – NOT A REQUIREMENT. I could be wrong, in which case I’d appreciate your correction.

“Islam never became a force or a party that promoted and condoned slavery. A balanced analysis of this issue would recognise the wisdom of Islam in managing the heinous practice of slavery and in effectively putting an end to it.”

Perhaps Islam never PROMOTED slavery, and yes, when one reads the Quran and hadith, it is clear that slaves are to be treated ‘kindly’ (though some would say in a benighted manner). However, please read Sura 4:3 and tell me whether or any amount of TMP-thoerizing and intellectual contortion can interpret that ayat as non-condoning of slavery.

Btw, on the personal side, do you hold Islam to be ‘perfect’ in every sense? If not, why not just accept that it doesn’t have it right on ALL issues and get on with life, instead of indulging in this intellectual origami?

Oh, and if these are the lengths to which scholars go to defend Islam, I’m sure F_K must be truly impressed, huh?

Regards,

Interesting article. But too many glaring inconsistencies. It uses one person`s view on Islam as the standard for every Muslim`s view on Islam. Just on statistical basis, the idea of qualifying one person`s view as the view of a population over one billion, is extremely inaccurate. I am surprised so many people are trying to bend over backwards to prove that what Ghazali had to say is actual Islam.

I have been a Muslim all my life, and have never read a single line of Ghazali. Does that make me a non-Muslim? I would say that over 99% of the Muslim population of the world has never read (or even heard of) Ghazali (considering that around 70% of the Muslims in the world are illiterate, I don`t think my estimates are too far off). At best, the only point this article succeeds in making is that man called Ghazali had very biased views on women, and that any Muslim preaching those views also has biased views on women. There is no mathematical way in which the views of one person about as abstract a subject as Islam (and that too, only women in Islam, in this case) can be extrapolated to be the considered to be the final verdict on that subject.

``Today there is a struggle between the non practicing Muslims and the devout Muslims. ``

de·vout (d-vout) adj. de·vout·er, de·vout·est.

1. Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations. See Synonyms at religious.

2. Displaying reverence or piety.

3. Sincere; earnest: devout wishes for their success.

Who exactly is a devout Muslim? There are many practicing sincere and earnest (hence devout by the above-given definition) Muslims who would disagree with what Ghazali has said. Apparently every single practicing Muslim on this thread seems to consider Ghazali`s ideas on women to be incorrect. The actual struggle currently is between Muslims who tend to interpret the Quran word by word, and others who tend to interpret it at a more abstract level. This has absolutely nothing to do with the, ``devout``-ness or, ``non-practicing``-ness of the individuals doing the respective interpretations.

``The devout Muslims are clerics, scholars and professional salesmen of Islam who are ready to use everything from desperate violence to mental terror.``

There are many devout Muslims who do not fall into any of the above categories. In fact much less than 1% of the Muslims of the world are clerics, scholars, and salesman of Islam by profession (this holds true for all religions).

``The famous and revered leader (Imam) Ghazali (1058-1111) represents the pinnacle of understanding of Islam``

Once again the author is using the views of the people who consider Ghazali a pinnacle of understanding, and applying those views to every Muslim, and to Islam itself. Even in science, just because a scientist has a community that supports his/her views, doesn`t mean the scientist`s views are accepted as the final answer by everyone.

``What is the mentality of the greatest teacher and preacher of Islam ?``

In an attempt to prove that Islam is backwards, the author has assumed that all Muslims consider Ghazali the greatest teacher of Islam. Ghazali is only considered the greatest preacher of Islam by the people who follow him. Once again, imposing that group`s views on all the Muslims, and on Islam as a whole.

``The compiler of above loves human beings be they Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Buddhists.``

Can practicing Muslims who do not follow (or even know of) Ghazali (this group is the overwhelming majority of Muslims) love human beings? Or does one have to be a non-practicing Muslim?

The author, unfortunately, has done exactly what he is accusing Ghazali of doing, i.e. taking personal views about something, and presenting that as a complete picture of the subject.

I personally do not think Islam has anything to do with what has been quoted from Ghazali, here. However, even for anyone who is not convinced one way or the other on the subject, this article does not hold up statistically; it uses Ghazali (a unit sample) and considers his views to be the views of the whole population of samples (all Muslims, well over 1 billion in number). This would not work even in well-defined fields like mathematics, much less in an abstract a subject, as religion.

Since religion is topic of the week, I though I would share this insightful website with all chowkwallahs.

sincerely

http://www.onion.com/archive/archive_religion.html

It is also quite interesting to see people attempt to cling onto Islam, while continuosly criticising every part of, to the extent of calling for its removal. Why do people, who have a low view of Islam, and not consider it anything significant, practice it in the first place? Why not disengage themselves from the religion all together?

If I do not agree with religion of the ancient tribes of Hbotu, I do not have to follow it. What do I gain from clinging to it, and terming it useless at the same time? If I do want to cling to those practices, then it means I do not think those practices themselves are wrong; I just have a different interpretation of them than other groups.

I may not agree with certain aspects of the Hindu religion. That does not mean I have to tell everyone who practices Hinduism that they are all ignorant, and criticise their religion. That would be just an attempt to mask my own insecurities. I should respect that religion, but not practice it, thereby not making it a part of my life, if I don`t find it appealing. If a group of Hindus try to kill me because of the way they interpret their religion, then I should blame them, not their religion. They only time I call blame Hinduism as a whole is if every Hindu in the world was trying to harm me because of their religion. Same is true for all religions, including Islam.

It`s useless and incorrect to make blanket statements about any religion by picking and chosing single interpreters of that religion. This wouldn`t hold up in a court of law, or in a laboratory experiment. And for people who consider a certain religion useless; why are they associating themselves with it in the first place. They don`t need it, it doesn`t need them. Why the interest?

P.S. I think the term, ``non-practising Muslim (or non-practicing Christian etc.) is an oxymoron. If someone considers themselves a Muslim, then they are practicing it, just by accepting it. They may not practice it like other Muslims, but they are definitely practicing it. If someone doesn`t want to practice it altogether, then why accept it in the first place? And why attempt to use one-sided arguments to try to degrade it?

This is analogous to people who live in America, yet spend every living day of their lives denouncing America as the cause of all their problems. Why do those people chose to live in America in the first place? Hypocrites, in my opinion.

Re: shankar

``Why do we continually use religion to cause stife & dissention amongst us? Religions are supposed to bring people closer to each other, not the other way around. When you twist religion to cause strife, you insult the basic tenets of religion.``

You are incredibly naive for a shrink.

Re: PM

``Perhaps most are unaware of the equal status of women in Plato’s republic .....``

So, you have read the ``Republic``. Good for you. Do find some time to read some Greek history also.

``Furthermore, if the examples of Zoroaster, the Buddha and Jesus are followed, one finds great stress laid on fair treatment of all people- men and women alike. Jesus was known to have women friends, which must have been quite scandalous in first-century Palestine.``

You really don`t want to get into which religion- is-better-debate Patrick Sahib. We both have enough ammunition to crash the Chowk hard disks. It would be a waste of time. Your bitterness against the ``Islamic`` Republic of Pakistan is understandable and justified, though.

``Islam is perhaps unique in that is legislates the rights of women. But then, most other religions, barring Judaism, are not legalistic in temper anyway.``

In a way yes. But I stick to my statement. Islam was a revolution for that time period in general and for the Arabs in particular. We are told that that ``Allah nay aik lakh chaubees hazar payghambar bajay hain`` And it seems that those we know of have come from the middle-east. Tells you something about these people. They simply can`t get their act together. Every now and then, they need the Divine Danda. And our ulemas want us to be like them.

As for your statement about tahmed`s comments. The answer is YES. He is absolutely correct.

What was the point in this article??

Does the author really think muslims would abandon/condemn their faith based on what some sanctimonious sadistic oafs - who are incapable of a normal relationship based on equality of genders, who are so insecure that they view women as threats and who are badly in need of a crutch - preach???

It is ridiculous to say that Islam is just these things alone. True - these things do exist but why concentrate on the just the bad and ignore the good?

As for Ghazali and his ilk - their vneemous preoccupation with women - case of sour grapes OR unfortunate fallout of own teachings - who knows and who cares!

FUZAIR #25:

:) Does that make up for it? I really am very sorry - it was an oversight on my part.

[On a more serious note, do I detect in your views a belief that the gates of ijtima (ijtihad? what is the correct usage?) have not closed forever and a serious rethink of Islam is necessary? Dare we hope for a 21st century Islam rather than a 12th century one?]

--Ijtihad I`d say... I think. Yes, I do believe Ijtihad is still possible - in fact, it is reviving - and that there is a serious need for REFORMS in Islam. I don`t see why we can`t hope for a 21st century Islam - PM might call it wishful thinking but hey, if Solitude is free to run away with his ``visions``, why should we remain behind with ours? :)

However, it`s not going to be plain sailing. Many of the Islamic scholars trying to revive Ijtihad nowadays do face a lot of problems. I don`t have the time right now to provide you with the names of and references to some of the scholars I`ve read about who`re working for reforms in various areas - maybe later if you or anyone else is interested? Maybe someone else on this message board can give some names as well? Someone did mention a couple of names I believe. The ones I`ve read about are mainly working on issues related to women.

The main opposition for these scholars is in the form of the clergy who, of course, have their own interests in mind as krashid very rightly points out. Fairdinkum had a couple of very interesting posts related to this on the other board, and shabber #31 on this board also touches upon some of the reasons that hold true even today for the reluctance of many Islamists when it comes to Ijtihad. And you can`t blame them either. I mean, wouldn`t you oppose something that threatened your interests? Sad isn`t it?

Another form of opposition for these reformists - and I see this as the biggest hurdle and have mentioned it a number of times - is the mentality of the average Muslim. Now, I`m not talking about people like you and me and many others on this board. I`m talking about the average uneducated (in regards to Islam) Muslim Pakistani, Saudi, Egyptian, etc. Their cultural/social attitudes are so entwined with religious practices/beliefs that it is very difficult to make these people differentiate between the two. Any attempts to do so are met with very passionate reactions - very understandable considering the fact that that is what ``Islam`` is for them. Most of these people are not educated at all as to what the Quran actually says. They usually follow the guidelines laid out by the local mullah or someone. One very obvious example of an issue is that of female genital mutilation. Female circumcision is an Arab-African tribal custom that has over the years become associated with Islam and is now a very controversial issue because many believe it to be a Sunnah, some even view it as a Farz. And so the debate continues between those who believe this practice needs to be abolished on the grounds that it is unIslamic and inhumane, and those who believe it is very much a part of Islam. I can`t remember the details exactly but not too long ago there was some controversy in Egypt over some Shariah court ruling where a decision by another court banning female circumcision in hospitals was overturned or something.

Remembered something else - this was on TV some years back - they were questioning some high-ranking Islamic scholar from Saudi who also happened to be involved with the govt. He was explaining why they had such strict laws re women (am giving the gist of what he was saying): the state is responsible for the protection of all its citizens and because women are not that ``capable`` of protecting themselves from various threats (esp in the form of men), the laws are stricter for them. Basically, it`s for the benefit of women that these laws exist. Later in the program someone on the phone made a very interesting suggestion to him: how about re-evaluating their ``values``. Instead of spending so much time, effort and money on laws that make Saudi a safe place for women, why not remove the threat - why not spend more time, effort and money on ``educating`` the youth - changing their attitudes towards women, teaching them to respect the other gender. Then maybe they won`t feel the need for such laws. The scholar didn`t have anything to say in response to that. He was clearly very disturbed by the suggestion.

[``When Eve ate fruit which He had forbidden to her from the tree in Paradise, the Lord, be He praised, cursed women with eighteen punishments:

- childbirth;

- pregnancy;]

--Why would the Lord bestow a HUGE responsibility such as continuation of humanity upon the ``weak`` shoulders of Woman if He meant to ``punish`` her? And I`m sure many women view pregnancy/childbirth as something beautiful. Imam Ghazali would not have existed had it not been for his mother. Wonder where she went wrong raising this guy..... big mistake.

Sheraz

I am afraid that the question of sick and demented individuals is up in the air considering your post. However I do think you are performing a very constructive task for the Muslims.. so keep up the good work...

Yasser Hamdani

There are a few things I do want to clarify ...at this point and I dont wish to take away from your thesis Sheraz but I think truth should be told.

a) Sex is bad, and the concept of original sin are inherently christian. Islam doesnot look down upon sex nor does it concern itself with original sin.

b)To fulfil the sexual needs of the wife is duty for the man. Numerous Ahadith make it absolutely clear.

c)Ghazali nonwithstanding, Muhammad`s teachings clearly enjoin pursuit of knowledge upon women and appreciates their role in human development, perhaps the first religion to allow women a right to property. Remember the right to property for women in the US only materialized in late 1800s...

Women were not allowed to inherit property in many states of the USA till 1890s.

So let us be fair.

Shiraz, Just read your article. Talk about beating a dead horse - this one has been dead for a 1000 years.