Ghazali On Women In Islam

Just to point out. The religion is not based on any so called ``scholars``. Scholars opinions are based on their upbringing their culture etc... if they are revered the people who revere them`s opinion is also based on the same things. Please don`t confuse religion with culture. Hindus burn widows with their husbands and husbands are considered gods, christianity has been known for witchhunting and even now they go around practicing violence against people based on their sexual preferences.. i don`t know much about other religions but I`m sure if you want I could find a lot of things that lie in the history of any religious group which can be used to condemn them. Being a muslim does not mean you do as all other people of the muslim religious group have done. Therefore, I find what the following implies rather offensive and uncalled for... and just to point out, I not a follower of the Islamic faith:

What is the mentality of the greatest teacher and preacher of Islam ? Particularly how did Ghazali view women ? While you read the following keep asking yourself the question ``Would I as a decent human being`` (assuming you want to be one) ``would I associate myself with such a religion ? Would I let my mothers and sisters and daughters live under such a religion ?``

anyway, take care

Dear All,

The author of this piece ends his article, an expression of his opinions with the sentiment that he loves all people of all religions. However in saying so, he does not negate the fact that his opinions are expressed in such a fashion that will belign Muslims and respectful observers of Islam and possibly other religions (the reach of this man is not known to me).

Now you ask yourself, why would he infuriate others when most of what he says is true and representative of a religion where 1 in 6 people in this world follow. The reason being that in observing the teachings of Ghazali he fails to account for the basic fundamentals of the evolution of Islam.

As any student of Islam will know, much of what is Islam evolved through the process of Ijtihad or interpretation. What they would also know is that this process of interpretation and in many cases elaboration was made by a few Muslim clerics of importance in the early glorious days of Islam`s emergence. The consequcne of which has been that since initial translation, the infamous `Gates of Ijtihad` were closed - in that no scholar was to interpret the Quran from its source but rather from the teachings of these clerics.

What the world was left behind with was 4 different schools of thought on Islam, with 4 different views on many issues, worringly including fundamental issues and concerns. A favourite issue of debate being polygamy where opinions ranged from allowing men to marry more than one women but only in strict circumstances to not affording any man such a right as no Muslim can duplicate the perfection of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in serving two.

So you ask, what has this to do with Ghazali? The answer, everything. Ghazali being a scholar is not a muslim cleric ordained to interpret the Quran but was rather involved in the discussion of Islam, as it was in the 11th century. A discussion with many other scholars and therefore embroiled in the local culture and traditions of that region and era. Therefore his opinions, although of interest for historians and socioligists, bears little importance for the daily practices and beliefs of todays Muslims. I being a practising Muslim myself, have no qualms in making such a statement.

As is the common mistake, equating the feelings and opinions of one man with the true essence of a religion will only do injustice to both the religion and the faithful followers. True understanding of any religion is earned and not bestowed. To follow the 900 year old teachings of a scholar alone through the channels of a popular (and might I say impressive) website would be the largest misfortune.

I would like to leave you with a last thought to ponder upon. Aristotle and Socrates, the founders of modern stoic logic and social sciences, always considered the issue of slaves a logical and natural means for both society and the greater order to survive and prosper. So much so, that little was debated or written on this subject. How differently that would have been stated, had either one been alive in the more politically correct 20th or 21st century.

Enjoy!

Ghazali`s view on women ( as abhorrent as they may be) are no different from those of any medieval scholar - Islamic or otherwise..... - Women were in a state of bondage.. and were considered as property.

Consequently Ghazali`s views are neither applicable in this modern day and age, nor will they be endorsed by any clergy ( islamic or ortherise) - at least not the sane ones anyway.

I fail to see the intent of the author`s article, - Is it an critique of Ghazali`s philosophy - is there an insenuation that Islamic thought is soley based on Ghazali`s philosophy and is therefoe static and moribund in this day and age....

Or is this a rally cry for the femi-Nazis amongst us to assail Islam and its ensuing legacy... ( the good , the bad and the ugly)

If the purpose of this article is to inflame passions on both sides of the divide .... then it is in poor taste... if it is an academic study of Ghazali, then it has a very parochial and biased perspective.... After all we dont judge lincoln on his racist views ( which were consistent with those of the majority of the white emancipators), or Gandhi and his experiments in human sexuality .....

This article is so typical of highly inflammatory and polarised desi mind process which views issues in black and white and without regard to context or the times in which this was written. Consequently debate
is mired in rhetorical arguments based on academic assumptions. Therefore it is just debate for the sake of debate.... - I would have liked to have ssen a more balanced perspective of Ghazali and his philosophy...

ghazali was a philospher..not a prophet.

free people with any religious inclinations..if
your intentions are just to be a decent human
being, pick on all religions, religious
institutions etc...dont categorically hide behind
good intentions.

i have no doubt omar or the rest of the yahoos
you mentined said stuff like that...didnt they
steal the khilafat after all? i mean, it wasnt
religion for them, it was pure and simple
politics ( like it was for the medici who
became popes)..they never really had respect
for women since their culture dictated it to be
so and they only really accepted islam at a
face, not heart value.

but at my original point, i agree with s
ahmed..veiled boring attack on islam. go back
two hundred years in us history, women didnt
have rights and we had slaves...you cant
compare then to now.

worry about freeing yourself...let go of hang
ups...let others worry about themsevles.
believe it or not, as a semi practicing muslim, i
am just as capabe as you to make decisions
and think clearly and decide waht is best for
me.

rizvi.

Re: Replies 1 & 2

I agree that Imam Ghazali would be an easily forgetable, if somewhat repulsive, example of medieval barbarism if he was only read/studied in a purely academic context. That is, if he was used only by scholars of medieval Islam trying to figure out what made Muslims then tick.

However, I believe the author`s point is that Ghazali is still being used as a standard reference work by modern day ulema trying to fashion an `Islamic society.` The author does a less-than stellar job of making this aspect of the argument clear, simply alluding to the fact that Ghazali is still revered today.

If Ghazali is seen as a historical curiosity, then using his works to criticize Islam is pointless twaddle. If he is still a standard reference on what status an islamic society should accord women, then we have some problems. So which is it?

The facts mentioned in this article are ytterly outrageous and nothing but an heinous attempt to malify Islam.

Islam is the only religion in the world that has issued guidelines from the very begining to safeguard women`s rights and given them respect that was (and still is) unknown in any other religion, culture and society.

Mr. Shiraz` evil Twin, please get your home work done before getting to pen and paper. Thanx.

Mansoor.

Re : The compiler of above loves human beings be they Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Buddhists

what about women!

I see a fire.. and ooo, it`s being stoked!

if you want to criticize the people of Prophet Mohammad`s time, and later so called scholars of islam, by all means go ahead. However, the negative view of women that you attribute to Prophet Mohammed is absolutley repulsive. Rememeber that Prophet Mohammed introduced Islam to a society that used to bury their daughters alive at birth..The men of that society, and even the societies that followed after the Prophet`s time have used Islam as an excuse to oppress women. Thier views of the Prophet`s sayings were biased by their bigotrous manhood. This is why you will come across supposed ``sayings`` of the prophet that bashed women, but these sayings are completely off base. Just look at the way he behaved towards his wife Bibi Khadija, and his daughter Janabe Fatima Zehra (A.S.) Whenever Janabe Fatima Zehra walked into the room, he always rose to great her out of respect and love for her. How many fathers do you know today that do that?

zehra #2 is correct in her assumption that

``i have no doubt omar or the rest of the yahoos

you mentined said stuff like that...didnt they

steal the khilafat after all?

however these ``yahoos`` do not include the holy prophet of islam.

Zehra, good point: Ghazali is NOT regarded as prophet; just one of those imams (ok, maybe THE imam) that devout souls spend 20-30 years poring over in madarassas in Qumm and Damascus. What influence could / *he/ * possibly have on the direction global Islam takes, huh?

Syed Ahmed: (on context): Do your really believe that Imam Ghazali believed these dictums/principle to be merely temporally or spatially confined?? Puh-leez...gimme a break!

BTW, for those of you that are dying to know, I`m not the author.

this is funneee:

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

What a load of useless, biased, idiotic BULLSH-T!

Who the hell is Ghazali, and why should we be worried about him in this century?

I agree completely with Syed and Zehra`s posts (#1,2).

Women were always subjugated to be men`s toys and slaves in the past, regardless of religion or culture.

As for the role of the ``religiously`` inclined Muslim women of today, it`s not much different from many Orthodox Jewish communities. Although I may not agree with their role in society, they`re satisfied with it. And they aren`t doing anything horribly wrong. What`s the big deal?

So their children will have a strong maternal presence in the house, which has proven to have positive consequences anyway.

We have learned that Ghazali has no respect for women… The references provided by the author seem authentic. It would have been good to debate Ghazali, his works, his philosophy etc. in light of author’s description of Ghazali’s teachings.
The problem is that the author then jumps to the conclusion that since Ghazali is so well-respected amongst the Muslim clergy, his views must represent ISLAM’s position on rights of women.

Would you, as an educated, enlightened, free thinker, go along with author’s conclusion? In my view, the author of this article simply lacks prudence. He/She is definitely biased since the article totally ignores the view-point of all the Muslim scholars who would disagree with Ghazali on the question of status of women in Islam.
What does the author of this article wishes to achieve by presenting such a biased and ignorant account of women’s rights in Islam?

Following is an excerpt from “Hajj” by Ali Shariati – another respected Muslim scholar of our times. Let’s see if he agrees with Ghazali or with Shiraz` Evil Twin on the status of women in Islam: (in the last paragraph, shariati addresses the likes of Shiraz & his Evil Twin)

“Toward the west of Kaaba there is a semi-circular short wall which faces Kaaba. It is called Ismail`s Hajar. Hajar signifies lap or skirt. The semi lunar wall resembles a skirt.

Sarah, the wife of Ibrahim had a black maid (Ethiopian) called Hajar. She was extremely poor and humbled to the degree that Sarah did not object to her becoming a bed-mate of her husband, Ibrahim, in order to bear him a child. Here was a woman who was not honored enough to become a second wife to Ibrahim yet Allah connected the symbol of Hajar`s skirt to His symbol, Kaaba. The skirt of Hajar was the area in which Ismail was raised. The house of Hajar is there. Her grave is near the third column of Kaaba.

What a surprise since no one, not even prophets, is supposed to be buried in mosques but in this case, the house of a black maid is located next to
Allah`s house! Hajar, the mother of Ismail is buried there. Kaaba extends toward her grave. As a result, Allah`s house is directed toward her skirt!

There is a narrow passage between the wall (Hajar`s skirt) and Kaaba. When circumambulating around Kaaba, Allah commanded that you must go around the wall (not through the passage) otherwise your Hajj will not be accepted.

Those who believe in monotheism and those who have accepted Allah`s invitation to go to Hajj must touch this skirt when circumambulating the
Kaaba. The grave of a black African maid, [a WOMAN] and a good mother is now a part of Kaaba; it will be circumambulated by man forever!

Allah, the Almighty, in His great and glorious Divinity is all alone by Himself. He needs nobody and nothing. Nevertheless, among all His countless
and eternal creatures, He has chosen one, mankind, the noblest of them.

From among all humanity: a WOMAN,
From among all women: a slave,
And from among all slaves: a black maid!

The weakest and most humiliated one of His creatures was given a place at His side and a room in His house. He has come to her house and become her neighbor and roommate. So now, there are two, Allah and Hajar, under the ceiling of this ``house``!

IN THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY, THE ``UNKNOWN SOLDIER`` IS SO ELECTED!

The rituals of Hajj are a memory of Hajar. The word Higrah (migration) has its root in her name as does the word Mahajir (immigrant). ``The ideal
immigrant is the one who behaved like Hajar.`` Mohammad (PBUH)

Higrah is what Hajar did. It is also a transition from savagery to becoming civilized and from Kofr to Islam.

In Hajar`s mother language her name means ``the city``. Even the name of this black Ethiopian slave is symbolic of civilization. Furthermore, any migration like hers is a move toward civilization!

Hajar`s grave is in the midst of man`s circumambulation of Kaaba. You, the mohajir (immigrant), who has divorced himself from everything and accepted Allah`s invitation to go to Hajj, you will circumambulate Hajar`s grave and
the Kaaba of Allah simultaneously.

What is being said in these paragraphs? It is difficult to realize. But for those who think they live in freedom and defend humanism, the significance of these incidents transgresses the scope of their understanding!”

Source: HAJJ By Dr. Ali Shariati

This just proves that those men quoted in this article were idiots!!!!

Islam is still a great religion.


Bina (feminazi)

lets just decide people, if anyone of you think that he/she can interpret islam or quran... thats fine... but one way or the other.. an overwhelming majority of the religious whole of muslims do believe in the teachings and interpretations of clerics like Ghazali directly or indirectly... thats what actually the Dominant perception prevail STILL NOW about women in the circle of enlightened/narrowminded/watever ulemas who endorse Ghazali`s teachings ......

If you do not agree with THEM then PUHLEEZE next time u go for haj or umra then beware not to pray behind the Imam-e-Kaaba and Mir-e-Haj (that blind guy) coz they DO certainly rever Ghazali and the likes of those....

btw nice homework Shiraz with all the references.....

Re: zehra

``i have no doubt omar or the rest of the yahoos you mentined said stuff like that...didnt they steal the khilafat after all?``

Never heard anyone use the word ``yahoo`` for Umar ibn al-Khitab before. He was a very conservative fella - but yahoo? No, that just doesn`t fit. Not for Umar. Your comments would probably draw a lot of fire. Maybe bring out Naqshbandi from his hiding place.

re: Syed Ahmed

``Consequently Ghazali`s views are neither applicable in this modern day and age, nor will they be endorsed by any clergy ( islamic or ortherise) - at least not the sane ones anyway.``

Ghazali is the final word for Sunni clergy (sane or insane and most of them are insane) even today. Ghazali is gospel for them.

``I fail to see the intent of the author`s article, - Is it an critique of Ghazali`s philosophy - is there an insenuation that Islamic thought is soley based on Ghazali`s philosophy and is therefoe static and moribund in this day and age....``

I thought the article is relevant. We are reminded often by orthodox muslims that the reason for our downfall is deviation from the teachings of the Prophet and our inability to enforce the Shariah - the Islamic Law. The Shariah has been defined by people like Ghazali and has not changed for the last many centuries. The article gives you an idea of how absurd these laws/ideas are in the present day. I think Shiraz trivialized his writing by using words like `al-bud`. He has also failed to mention that most modern historians consider Muhammad as one of the first emancipators of women and Islam to be the first religions to give rights to women, previously unheard of. In the context of previous conditions, Islam was no less than a revolution for women. The problem is that there was no progress made after the his death. Rather, there was a degeneration back to the times of jahiliya. In the present context, though, that emancipation seems too little. Instead of making progress our ulemas want us to go back and start living in the 7th century. The article provides a good idea of how that would turn out to be.

p.s. Ghazali has b.s.ed on numerous other topics also.

I think Sheraz is doing a great service for the Muslims ... it is time Muslims were slapped like this to wake up to the realities of the Modern World and this century (and millenium)...

Well done.. God Bless

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Re: zehra

``i have no doubt omar or the rest of the yahoos you mentined said stuff like that...didnt they steal the khilafat after all?``

Never heard anyone use the word ``yahoo`` for Umar ibn al-Khitab before. He was a very conservative fella - but yahoo? No, that just doesn`t fit. Not for Umar. Your comments would probably draw a lot of fire. Maybe bring out Naqshbandi from his hiding place.

re: Syed Ahmed

``Consequently Ghazali`s views are neither applicable in this modern day and age, nor will they be endorsed by any clergy ( islamic or ortherise) - at least not the sane ones anyway.``

Ghazali is the final word for Sunni clergy (sane or insane and most of them are insane) even today. Ghazali is gospel for them.

``I fail to see the intent of the author`s article, - Is it an critique of Ghazali`s philosophy - is there an insenuation that Islamic thought is soley based on Ghazali`s philosophy and is therefoe static and moribund in this day and age....``

I thought the article is relevant. We are reminded often by orthodox muslims that the reason for our downfall is deviation from the teachings of the Prophet and our inability to enforce the Shariah - the Islamic Law. The Shariah has been defined by people like Ghazali and has not changed for the last many centuries. The article gives you an idea of how absurd these laws/ideas are in the present day. I think Shiraz trivialized his writing by using words like `al-bud`. He has also failed to mention that most modern historians consider Muhammad as one of the first emancipators of women and Islam to be the first religions to give rights to women, previously unheard of. In the context of previous conditions, Islam was no less than a revolution for women. The problem is that there was no progress made after the his death. Rather, there was a degeneration back to the times of jahiliya. In the present context, though, that emancipation seems too little. Instead of making progress our ulemas want us to go back and start living in the 7th century. The article provides a good idea of how that would turn out to be.

p.s. Ghazali has b.s.ed on numerous other topics also.

By the way Sheraz what do you think of Averroes and how do you envisage the Muslim World if we had not rejected Averroes and rejected Ghazali instead?

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Zehra,

I understand your criticism of Omar... but let us not forget that Ali then wasnt any better atleast when he beat up Ayesha`s slave girl to get her to admit that Ayesha was an adulterous woman of loose character.

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

YLH

fairdinkum:

May Allah bless you.

Dr.Ali Shariati & Allama Iqbal,Iranians tell me,are the prime movers of the Iranian revolution.

Alongwith other mujtahids of Iran,they are one the leading Ijtihadees in of 20th century.

``Tehraan ho jo aalum-e mashrique ka Geneva

mumkin hai kay aquwaam kee taqdeer badal jaayay``

ALLAMA IQBAL.

Keep it up.You are doing a great job.

__________________________________________________

WASSALAAM.

WOMEN IN ISLAM

What is the first impression you get from reading this article, well i agree that it varies from person to person but for me it is an abhorent propaganda against Islam and Muslims propelled by hatred and animosity prevailing in rest of the world.

The contents of this article need not be commented as they clearly represent a purely biased state of mind from the first stroke of the key to the last.

Islam is by far the most tolerant of all religions , it follows a pragmatic approach towards all aspects of human experience. The concept of Women in Islam as preached by the Holy prophet is quite rational.

following are some excerpts from Quran and Hadith that reflect and verify this viewpoint.

SPIRITUAL STATUS OF WOMEN

The Qur`an states categorically that men and women who practice the principles of Islam will receive equal reward for their efforts:

1- ``Surely for men who submit (to Allah) and for women who submit (to Allah), for believing men and believing women, for devout men and devout women, for truthful men and truthful women, for steadfast men and steadfast women, for humble men and humble women, for charitable men and charitable women, for men who fast and women who fast, for men who guard their chastity and women who guard, for

men who remember Allah much and for women who remember ¾ for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a mighty reward`` (AL QUR`AN 33:35).

Notice that this Ayah is addressed to both Men and Women and never for once Allah forgets to Mention the role of Women so that someday the disbelievers like the author would not comment on them being Neglected.

2- Again Allah says:

``Whosoever performs good deeds, whether male or female, and is a believer, We shall surely make him live a good life, and We will certainly reward them for the best of what they did`` (AL Qur`an 16:97).

In this Ayal the lord talks abt whole life of a person inclusive of all their deeds. There is no segregation between reward to a devout man or a DEVOUT WOMEN.



INTELLECTUAL STATUS OF WOMEN

3- ``The search for knowledge is a duty for every Muslim male or female`` (Al Hadith Source: Sahi bukhari)

Women in Islam have equal freedom as men to educate and enlighten themselves in Religious as well as Worldly Disciplines of Knowlegde. Note in the quote cited, it is written ``Search of Knowledge`` which encompasses all forms of knowledge and is not restricted to Religious knowledge alone.

``Knowledge`` for a Muslim is not divided into sacred and secular, and the implication of these sayings of the Prophet, in modern terms, is

that every Muslim boy or girl, man or woman, should pursue his or her education as far as it is possible, bearing in mind the words of Allah in

the Qur`an:

4- ``Only those of His Servants who are learned truly fear Allah`` (AL QUR`AN 35:28)

One of the most famous women in the history of Islam is Umm-ul- Momineen Hazrat A`isha, the Prophet`s wife. And the quality for which she is remembered primarily is that of her intelligence and outstanding memory. She is considered to be one of the most reliable sources of hadith by virtue of these qualities. More than a thousand ahadith are reported by her and she is

regarded as one of the greatest teachers of the hadith.

There are numerous other examples of Women like RABIYAH and NAFISA who were greatest of clergy in their times and Commanded the Respect of Whole Ummah.

MAIRRIAGE IN ISLAM

The treatment expected from the husband, whether or not he is on good terms with his wife, is clearly laid down in the Qur`an:

5- ``Live with them in kindness; even if you dislike them, perhaps you dislike something in which Allah has placed much good`` (AL QUR`AN 4:19).

6- ``Then keep them (your women) in all decency or part from them decently. It is not lawful for you to take anything you have given them`` (AL QUR`AN2:229).

The Holy prophet was quoted as saying

7- ``The best among you are those wh are who are kindest to their wives``.(Al Hadith: Sahi Muslim)

Kind treatment of wives and families is a part of the religion in Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad has said:

8- ``From among the believers are those who have the kindest disposition and are kindest to their families, such are those who show most perfect

faith``.(Al Hadith)

On the Issue of Divorce, Islam imposes Stringent requirements on Man as follows:

9- ``Of all the things Allah has permitted, the one He most dislikes is divorce``. (Al Hadith)

The Shariyah Enforces on all Muslim men to Pay the ``Mahr`` on divorcing their wife. This Mahr is always agreed to in advance between the two parties. This reflects an inherent mechanism on part of Islam to provide security to women in marital agreement.

The list could go on for ever, but i hope the reader must be able to detect the stark constrast in author`s portrayal of Islam and REALITY..

With the Grace of Allah, Islam offers answers to all question be them moral, social, economic, political etc... and the ``Shariyah`` (encompasing Quran, Hadith, Sunna, Fiqh, legislature) has long been evolved to a point, where it offer solutions to all kind of questions.

It should be clear to the author that Islam is not Christianity nor Hinduism nor Budhism which can be discarded as mere dogma.

Islam has evolved into a unique civilization as cited by Political Scientist like `Samuel P. Huttington` and theologians like `Karen Armstrong`. They all refer Islam as a social order that is organically related to all aspects of human life.

The author is advised that a sincere approach would be that instead of become the mouth piece of western propaganda, he should make a sincere effort to discover the re-interpretations of Islam. Such interpretations have been given by several Mujadids of present time.

My intent is not to offend any individual or group of people belonging to different sects. And i believe this should be approach to run a healthy debate. In this respect i would humbly request ``Zehra/Rizvi`` not to contaminate this forum with secterian views.

Wassalam

Muzammil Iqbal Khan

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. My mother was unable to go inspite of my sister, brother in law and cousins in Saudi Arabia.

The critique or criticism by Shiraz hurt, because we are playing Islam Islam for centuries.

I can have my own vision and version of Islam as long as I am living in a Kafir state (USA). But if Islamic society is imposed according to the will of custodians of Islam, who would like to live.

I would beg all the women supporters to abandon their American nationality and go to live in Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan if they are Sunni or in Iran if they are Shia. Instead of playing Islam Islam here.

As far as the Arabian society goes, it was strongly patriarchal, with strong male chauvinism. As far as behaviour of our prophet PBUH goes, it was extremely fair.

The Hadiths are enough evidence of humane face of Prophet PBUH. There are many examples. Sophisticated ones will abhor at such behaviour of our Prophet PBUH.

AS far as Omar RZAH snatching Khilafat.Whether there was a right and whose right was it is still to be determined. But the only legal survivor of prophet`s PBUH family is Karim Aga Khan. Any thoughts on giving Khilafah to the only authentic known Quraish and descendent of Fatima, Ali, Hasan, Hussain, Imam Jafar Sadiq and Ismail. Or still waiting for the 1200 years old Imam Ghaib, the rightful heir and son of Hasan Askari.

Shiraz (or his evil twin):

[What would happen if non practicing Muslims began following Islam ? What would happen if they listened to their clerics, scholars and Ulama ( knowers ) like Ghazali ?]

--Oh, you think our minds are so malleable? That we can be influenced so easily by the words of Ghazali and likes? It`s at a person`s own discretion to decide whether or not he/she wants to heed to what some cleric/ulama/scholar is blabbering about. If he/she chooses to act upon the instructions given by men like Ghazali, then obviously it says a lot about the mentality of that person.

As fairdinkum pointed out (thanks for the interesting post btw), Ghazali`s PERSONAL views do not do justice to Islam`s position on women at all. On the contrary, some of the ``facts`` given by Ghazali are in contrast to what the Quran and Sunnah actually say. There are countless other clerics/scholars/ulama who back these Quranic injunctions and have opposing views to Ghazali - how about presenting us with their viewpoints as well oh learned one?

I agree with Syed Ahmed, one needs to view Ghazali`s opinions in the context of the cultural and social conditions of the Arabs at the time. Even in this day and age, many Arabs don`t even accord their women their rights as laid out in the Shariah, forget about fighting for more reforms. You can`t hold Islam responsible for their attitudes - that`s always been the way a lot of Arabs have treated their women - throughout history. You have to keep in mind many Islamic laws regarding women were a huge watershed for the rights of women, in at least the Arab world, when they were first introduced. These laws set a precedent - at least the door had been pushed open a crack.

PM:

[Do your really believe that Imam Ghazali believed these dictums/principle to be merely temporally or spatially confined?? Puh-leez...gimme a break!]

--No, of course not! And as I see it, that`s the evil ingenuity of Ghazali`s thinking. He understood the menatlity of the common Arab man very well and so he expressed views he knew would touch cords with thousands of them - esp views regarding women. He expressed his personal views very cleverly by combining them with the ``word of God`` and thus lending them ``credibility`` to ensure that the average illiterate Arab would be fooled to take his words as being the ``truth``. (Clever way to ensure fame and reverence, don`t you think? Not very different to what Hitler did, as Shiraz would say. :)) And of course, expecting Islam to expand, Ghazali expected his words to be spread as well thanks to all his faithfuls. To his credit goes the fact that his understanding of the mentality of Arab men still holds true to this day, (and is not confined to the Arabs alone anymore, I might add).

[If he is still a standard reference on what status an islamic society should accord women, then we have some problems.]

--Yes, we do have a problem. It`s unfortunate that many Muslim men still look upon the words of Ghazali and likes as a justification for their personal prejudices towards women.

Re: Lubna #24

Hey! I realize that my name is a hissing and a byword among all right-thinking muslims but, if you quote me, please have the common courtesy to acknowledge me! PM`s already illustrous reputation needs no further embellishment by attributing to him my words:

``If he is still a standard reference on what status an islamic society should accord women, then we have some problems.`` (Fuzair, Post #3)

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?

Re: Krashid #23

It must be a sign of the coming Apocalypse that I find myself agreeing with more and more (but far from all) of what friend Krashid writes. Given the rather liberal views of HH Prince Karim Aga Khan, I would be inclined to support him for Commander of the Faithful. How do we convince all the crazies of this though?

Re: All those foaming at the mouth over Shiraz`s article:

I am still awaiting your refutation of the author`s contention that Imam Ghazali is held up as THE leading Muslim theologian and that his work is still used as a standard reference work. Where is your evidence that Ghazali`s views were superceded/discarded centuries ago, and that no modern Sunni Muslim ulema considers him to be anything other than a quaint historical curiosity.

How did, for example, Imam Khomeini view Ghazali? (If I can drag the Shias into this as well.) Where do the Taliban stand on Ghazali? What did Maulana Maududi say?

Any response?

Regards to all.

Faridinkum (#12) - Thanks

Shiraz: Thanks - for your role in eliciting the above referenced response.

cheers

dL

I cannot get faridinkum`s response out of my head and am therefore finding it hard to concentrate on work. Serves me right for hopping on to chowk first thing in the morning.

It reminded me of Abbas Hussain (an assuming chappee - then at least - maybe he has discovered by now that it doesnt pay to be unassuming) - who used to teach `Islam`. His `transcendental` approach to Islam - the Quran, Hadiths, the Prophet, his Life - revealed Islam almost as a Sufi allegory.

Layers upon layers of meaning - each layer peeled away, only to reveal another. Who says there is no depth in Islam? Ah but the doors of Ijtehad were slammed in our collective faces a thousand years ago. He who dares to peer through risks blasphemy. I wonder what Prof. Bilgrami would think of all this? I don`t know but it might be interesting to speak and listen to the scholars of our time who may well have refused to blinker their thinking in the tradition of Ghazali. (For those who may not know - Prof Bilgrami is the author of an Urdu translation of the Quran.)

dL

IN SEARCH OF!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know you are out there somewhere.(Cause i heard that from a higher authority).

You are about six years old,precocious and vivasious perhaps (you know where i got that from).

And me I am in my fifties a truly awesome dude.Been around the block a few times, beard on my face and fire in my belly.I know your kind really appreciate that.

Education: sorry i got none.not the schoolyard kind anyhow,have spent first fourty years generally chilling out in caves,downloading hip revelations(just wait till you hear the latest ones,they are bound to blow you right outta water.they have become quite the rage lately.people are singin em all over the land(reciting actually)just promise you won`t play them backwards? just kidding.

Now seriously folks I do want a five or six years old (cause thats fresh).Any teenagers or twenty/thirty something need not apply I already got 12 of those waiting on me hand and foot; now don`t take me wrong I am good to them all,have a truly just schedule figured out so no one need feel left out.Yeah and can take em all one by one(and here you say you can`t hardly satisfy even one.Shame on you.)

All good parents and guardians out there take a listen i`ll treat your babe just like my own.Take a good hard look at your 5-6 year old and see what is she worth to you? probably nothing running around all day long all fun and games and do nothing. Give her to me and I promise you rewards in this life and hereafter (praise be to one).and thats not all i promise not to spread her legs till she is nine years old.Man I can wait!!!they dont call me ``the blessing to this world and the next for nothing``.

And now a fair warning to all.

If any one calls me 1)A child molester 2)Lechrous old man 3)A sexual fiend or deviant.

I WILL HAVE YOU BEHEADED.my loyal followers will find you where ever you may be and and do you justice for I am(well you know who i am).

I also command my loyal followers to find every excuse and strategem in the book to defend me at all levels.for in this there are rewards for you in this here life and hereafter.so be it.

Ground Realities away from the times of Ghazali:-

A few months back, I happen to talk to a Pakistani friend of mine and say that when my daughters grow up, I will send them to Pakistan for their college education. Pakistan being conservative country, the girls will be safe.

My friend`s response in punjabi was,``Tuhanu apnia kurhia izzat di zindagi jindiya changia nahi lagadiya jehri zillat di zindagi jeen vaaste Pakistan bhejna je, Pakistan vich jado kisse munde kaul kissi kurhi di gal da jawab nahi hunda te kehnda, teri auqat ki hai, Teri te gawahi vi aadhi hai.`` (English translation:- Don`t you like your daughters living with respect that you want to send them to Pakistan to live a disgraceful life. In Pakistan, if a man does not have any answer of a question raised by a woman, he questions her worth because even her witness as per law is half.)

So much for all those who are telling that Ghazali and his philosophy is immaterial. Lest anybody doubts my friend`s credentials, the fact is this person is a journalist and has worked for supposed to be a erstwhile progressive paper, `Muslim`.

What is the puropse of posting such a potentially inflammatory article on Chowk? Especially after a lot of feelings have been hurt on the ``Headache & Heartburn`` thread.

Whatever this guy Ghazali said was in the distant past,relevant only in the medevial times. The world has changed dramatically. Perhaps the only relevance is a warning of what could come to pass, if the taliban took over a country.

I think we should separate social customs from religious philosophy. In the Bible, some of the prophets had concubines. Does that mean it is relevant today? Hindu texts are full of references of a woman`s subservience as compared to man`s. Heck widows had to jump in the husband`s funeral pyre!

All societies have changed & evolved from those days. I`ve known several muslims in India-- none of them follow Ghazali`s rules. Yes, you see burkas in India. But as many have said, its a personal preference, not a mandate. Several of my female muslim classmates in college wore jeans & make up, even though their mothers wore a burka.

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.

Salaam alaikum

This article as wisely interpreted by

mikhan is ``it is an abhorent propaganda against Islam and Muslims propelled by hatred and animosity prevailing in rest of the world. ``

Pls mind my english, i m lalookhaidi at heart.

The fact of the matter is that ever since the advent of Islam those who purported to support the deen of Muhammad, right after his death instead of burying his sacred body or even reading the namaz-e-janaza , hurried to the saqifa to ensure that their grip on the empire that our Prophet so pain stakingly created for the hikmat of mankind, remained in their hands for them to loot and plunder upon the economic and political achievements of the last Prophet of Allah. Any individual regardless of race, creed or religion will have to accept looking back at history the reality of the situation. The people in power abused their power to the extent of changing the religion for their own gain. Had they merely used the political power for government, today no right minded muslim would call them names, however the very fact that they changed the religion without any religious authority is indeed a matter of great concern. Their motives shouldn`t be in doubt because these were the very people whom the Prophet (PBUH) had in his lifetime reversed their centuries worth of mischief. It is very clear in the books of history that are in possession of and are accepted by all muslims regardless of sect, that the treatment given to the family of Prophet and certain of his companions who dared to question the legitimacy of their usurption of authority, esp. the torture and exileation of Abu-Dharr Ghaffari one of the closest Sahaba, the refusal of the First Khalifah in returning the land named Fidak that was given to the lady Fatima daughter of the Prophet of Islam as inheritance on the basis of a clearly fabricated hadith and insinuation regarding the holy book, the subsequent brutal murder of the lady Fatima by the mob of Medina when they lit her house on fire with her in it and kicked a burning door upon her which injured her lethally and caused the premature infant Mohsin who was yet unborn to become shaheed. This occurred just over 3 months after the death of the Prophet under supervision of the first khalif and guidance of the second such was the brutality that Ali had to bury her in the middle of the night because she had asked him to save her from the wrath of those wishing to destroy her grave, till this day there is no clear indication as to here grave, the murder of most of the ahl of the prophet by the ummah and its leaders for whom(the ahlal bait) the Quran testifies that Allah desires that they remain clear from all evil and sin ``innama ureedallah liuzhib ankum-a-rijzah ahlalbait wa yu tahirrukum tathirra`` and that Allah in another verse commands the prophet to say to the ummah that Say I only ask thee to serve Allah and love of my family (i.e the same way Prophet Ibrahim made dua). the very people whom the Prophet took to the famous intellectual challenge between the Christians and the Prophet regarding his religious claim to prophethood upon which Allah said Tell them to bring their children and me and women and you bring your children men and women (i m paraphrasing from the quran , all details upon request) , naturally those who have most affinity or whom are concerned are called to action.

This brutality is most importantly displayed by the killing of Hussain - ibn - Ali the grandson of the prophet for whom the prophet said ``Hussain-0-Minni wa ana minal Hussai`` Hussain is from me and i am from hussain, in karbala Iraq Hussain was martyred along with 71 of his companions and his kin simply because he refused to accept the distorted religion that the ruling sahaba had helped to create, and after killing him as a poet says

``Sar kat kar Shabbir ka Khaimoo ko jala kar, Bey Hurm musalman nein kia ahlay haram ko`` The muslims including the citizens of the ummat striped the hijab from the granddaughters of the Prophet and made them captives and paraded them through the cities of kufa and the captial damascus, yet it is the miracle of iman and taqwa that made Hussain not only victorious throughout Islamic history but also for all other peoples and races who face despotism and tyranny ranging from cruel physical oppression or intellectual oppression as perpertrated by today`s western powers. It is so ironic that Bibi Zainab the sister of Hussain and granddaughter of the Prophet has left a legacy of showing the importance of woman and her hijab even though she was deprived of hers. As another poet says ``Pardah dunya ko sikhanaay waleee, Aeeee bazarron mein Zainab`` , most scholars including Imam Hussain himself have said that Bibi Zainab`s role in portraying the true Islam to the world in the court of Yazid is the reason for the success of the Hussaini Inqilab. Throughout history the misguided so called scholars of Islam in exchange for wordly gains from the present rulers have attempted in vain to distort the reality of Islam by introducing fabricated hadith the likes of Bukharee and Tirmizi, however due to Allah`s promise in the Quran that ``.. wa inna ilaihi la hafizoon`` And indeed we are its maintainor, no one will or has been able to corrupt the Quran and as Ali once said if you ever find hadith contradictory to the quran then through it against the wall

May Allah help the Muslim Ummah of Today

and may he help us to portray the true image of Islam to the people of this generation

wasalaam

Re. Rajanjua #16:

“He has also failed to mention that most modern historians consider Muhammad as one of the first emancipators of women and Islam to be the first religions to give rights to women, previously unheard of. In the context of previous conditions, Islam was no less than a revolution for women.”

Yes, IN THE ARAB WORLD. It’s a little tiresome to keep hearing the ‘light to the world’ proclamations. Perhaps most are unaware of the equal status of women in Plato’s republic, or of the many matriarchal societies of yore, such as Tibetian. 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.

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.

Re. Krashid #23:

“I can have my own vision and version of Islam as long as I am living in a Kafir state (USA). But if Islamic society is imposed according to the will of custodians of Islam, who would like to live.”

So are you saying, a la Tahemd, that there is really no such thing Islamic Social Law? (since Law, by definition, implies the need for custodians and enforcers)

Zaynab (#15)

“You should check your facts before you make general statements about Islamic legal study in specific periods and contexts when you obviously have no knowledge concerning the subject.”

If you have been following the interactions closely enough, you’d know my tongue-in-cheek use of “Qumm and Damascus”. You’re right, my knowledge of what is taught in these places is very limited. If the association of Ghazali’s name with Qumm has offended anyone, I am truly sorry.

And yes, I know the Shi’a pay as little attention to Ghazali as the Jews do Jesus, and that is perhaps why there is yet hope of renassaince in Iran. But for those deluding themselves with the idea that Shariati et al will ever have an impact on the other 80 of Muslims, well, it’s time to get out of ‘wishful thinking’ mode.

regards,

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.

re humsab #29:

To the best of my knowledge there is no actual legal instance in Pakistan whereby a court has considered a woman`s testimony to be half that of a man`s. As far your Pakistani friend`s statement(even if reproduced verbatim) it should not be projected as a view held by all or most expatriates. If he thinks his daughters are better off in the west he is welcome to it. Please don`t ascribe this as a true reflection of attitudes toward women in most social classes in Pakistan.

later

-sac

P.S: Solitude needs serious psychiatric help(lots of it). I hold the Chowk editors somewhat culpable. In my personal view they are perhaps unwittingly heightening the paranoid and schizophrenic tendencies of the author. Its amusing to see the head banging going on debating the piece though. Rock on.......

klutz #14 Here is how you eat Aam without having to then jump into the river to clean yourself:

a. Slice off right and left ``cheek`` of aam.

b. Hold right cheek down with fork, and ``score`` (cut through the mango flesh) with three or four top-down cuts and three or four sideways cuts;

c. Push on skin side of mango so flesh side comes out (becomes convex) in neat little cubes.

d. Slice off cubes, and put resulting dices in fruit bowl.

e. Serve to guests.

Epilog: After guests have left, take the non-cheek parts of the aam (the one with the Ghuttlie) impossible to eat that with knife and fork. either throw it away if you have no respect for this fine fruit, or else lap it up as usual with your fingers, teeth, tongue. Then go swim in the river to clean up the mess.

This refers to ylh# 50 point (b)

Since there is Viagra and prosthetic devices both available and they are covered by your local HMO there is no excuse. You can run but you cant hide anymore.

re PM #39

I have posted the response on ``Headache and Heartburn`` board.

Thanks.

Since we are on the topic of women, here is something interesting. With the induction of the new Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Shahida Jameel, the current Pakistan cabinet has the highest number of women ministers ever: three. Considering the size of this cabinet is much smaller than the usual Pakistani cabinets, the percentage comparison is even much higher the numeric comparison.

Although the cynics have already denounced the current local bodies elections, I am eagerly awaiting the results. I believe 33% of the seats have been reserved for women in these elections. I think women are open to contest for all the other open seats, as well. In fact people are saying there will be more seats than female candidates. In any case, if carried out successfully, this could be the most revolutionary step ever taken to empower women in Pakistan. Let`s see what happens.

Is Pakistan becoming a non-Muslim country since it is not following Ghazali`s advice regarding women, for these elections? Food for thought.

Umairr #40,

Well said.

rajanjua (#44)

``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.``

Jangua sahib, you misunderstand the point of my illustrations. Most Muslims seem to labour under the misconception that pre-Islam, no women anywhere in the world had any rights at all. And you`re right, debating the merits of one religion over another is a futile exercise I would be loathe to undertake, if only because little good cold come out of it.

My recent references to the Christian faith were made, as always, with the sincere intent to present an impartial picture as is possible and clear what I deem misconceptions.

``Your bitterness against the ``Islamic`` Republic of Pakistan is understandable and justified, though.``

Now Mr Janjua, I am insulted by the insinuation that my participation here is motivated by bitterness for the motherland or its inhabitants. If you have not been able to understand my motivations till now, you probably never will.

Oh and, when time permits, please do tell me why misogynistic traditions in ancient Greece (in which I am reasonably well-read, thank you) should discourage one from pointing out Plato`s theoretical gender-equality.

rgds,

Mr Janjua (#44),

Almost forgot... on the matter of the question put to Mr. Tahmed, so tell me, if there is indeed no Social Law in Islam, what are we to make of the very precise injunctions on, say, how adulterers and rape victims are to be punished? Or are the judge, jury and executioner simply metaphors for various aspects of one`s conscience? (See, I can do the `learned scholar` bit too :-) )

More seriously, you have yet to answer my original question: What would the purpose of Quarnic laws have been if they were not required to be observed/enforced?

Or do I need to spend 20-30 years in a madarassa to understand the `paradoxical` nature of these injunctions? :-)

rgds,

Lubna #

On various post.

If we are Muslims, what is the basic teaching of Islam. There is no god but Allah. Prophet PBUH invited christians to the common belief that we would not worship anyone but One God. Quran says in two places whether it is jewish, christian, Sabi or Muslim whoever does good and believe in One God has reward from God. There is a Hadith which says that Muslims will follow christian and jews in their bad ways. And even if they followed the lizards hole, Muslims will follow it. What are the crimes or wrong thinkings of other religions elaborated. One is jewish thought that they will go to heaven. And Quran says that have they taken an oath from God for this.

The current Muslim thinking in all these matter is this. Only Muslim after Prophet PBUH will go to heaven. If he passes sometime in hell, he will ultimately go to heaven. The Ayah regarding Jewish and Christians are related to past and can no longer be applied. So a group priding itself with only knowledge as knowledge of Islam which for practical purpose is static at 10th century AD. The group priding itself in countering and maligning science although what is wrong in discovering nature as told many times in Koran. So on and so forth.

The problem is not that I think differently. The problem is I am Munafiq, Zandeeq, liberal and communist because I think differently and therefore an agent of Anti-Islamic forces (more properly anti Mullah forces)

Shiraz might be wrong in shirking his belief in God. But he is right that Islamic scholars have sold their souls to the powerful in the name of Islam. And it does not matter what you or I think. It is the will of these Mullahs which is the will of Islam.

Just to show the pathetic face of these self righteous people I will tell you a real story from our recent past.

To be continued.

Assad_K, and all

Even before reading your post on the other board, I had these questions framed in my mind, seeing the word `Ijtehad` tossed around like a frisbee here. Input from anyone would be appreciated...

1) What are some of the main areas/specific laws that progressive Muslims would desire reform of?

2) How much of the above is sourced directly from the Quran and Sunnah, as opposed to Shariah of one or other of the six schools of jurispudence?

3) How long did the process of Ijtehad run before it was terminated/completed? 300 years?

4) Are there any instances in which this Ijtehad produced jurispudence that overrode the explicit injunctions of the Quran/Sunnah? Are there any devices/loopholes through which this would be possible?

5) Based on (4), what are the prospects for meaningful change through 21st-century Ijtehad?

Peace,

PM

Lubna #

A few years back a prominent politician from Punjab, I think someone from Hayat family. His daughter was raped by police officer in custody. Our champion of Islam and from whose every orfice Islam flows meaning ``Takbir``, the real face of current Islamic Thekedar was justifying the rape by police ofiicer because that lady was already of ``Loose character``

Can I stop the hand of a person writing this in Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Can I say something. No because I am already labelled as liberal, communist, or whatnot. (See their behaviour with Asma Jehangir etc. Whenever they something they are labelled as traitor loose character, anti-Islamic). You cannot do anything. Because Islam and its interpretation belongs to them.

Somebody said something about Urdu, I will twist it to Mullahs and Islam.

``Aji Hassat Islam To Un Ke Ghar Ki Londee Hai``.

``To Woh Sulook Bhi Us Se Londiyun Wala Hi Karte Hain.``

Hey Yasser,

How come Solitude gets to be the sole beneficiary of your gratitude and blessing? Is doing what he does in a kinder, gentler way less worthy of your admiration?

Us karantas need some TLC every bit as much as Muslim-born agnostics do, you know! :-)



Good to see you back on the chowk. Hope you`re finding your place in the sometimes confusing world American college.

rgds,