The Price
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=155000
Sunday, November 25, 2001
No Girls Please, We are Indians
PTI
New Delhi, November 25
-
Thanks to the penchant for a male child, India today has the dubious distinction of having the worst child sex ratio in the world and has emerged as one of the largest markets of `sex-determination techniques` which co@ck a snook at the law by claiming to intervene at the ``pre- -conception`` stage.
The latest addition to this burgeoning market is an imported kit claiming to ensure the conception of a `child of choice`, the advertisement of which has raised the hackles of activists and doctors who are relentlessly working to implement the seven-year-old law that prohibits the use and publicity of any such process used as a precursor for selective sex abortions.
While the Delhi Appropriate Authority, which is responsible for implementing the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1994 has already moved the court against the advertiser, a fresh debate has erupted over the use of techniques that determine sex in the pre-conception stage with some doctors saying it is legal, ethical and moral for parents to exercise their `freedom of choice.`
``Intent of the Act was to stop the declining female child sex ratio, which is as low as 793 in Punjab and less than 850 in the northern states of Haryana and Delhi; it didn`t matter at which stage sex-determination came,`` notes Dr Sabu M George, who has been campaigning against female foeticide in the country for the last 15 years.
The gains of technology have made segregation and selection (of sperms) at earlier stages, reducing guilt pangs or moral pressures that had come to be associated with infanticide or even female foeticide as a result of sonography, he says.
Even as the Supreme Court in May this year is reported to have expressed sadness over the use of modern technology to prevent the girl child from being born, a doctor in the capital spoke of the availability of sperm segregation techniques followed by artificial implantation of the fertilised eggs that are now attracting many prospective parents.
``While this is not illegal, it also is less stressful on couples opting for it,`` she said.
An editorial this week in the daily, which has come under fire for publishing the American company`s Gen-select Kit evidently aimed at India from where telephone ordering is `toll-free`, also said ``the Indian law does not prohibit a person from using any technique available to pre-determine the gender of her child before conception.``
``The PNDT Act,`` it said, ``focusses on the various medical techniques which enable a person to ascertain the sex of the child right from conception, whether or not the intent is to terminate the pregnancy or not.
``Technology has, however, always been a step ahead of the law and the need to legislate on pre-selection techniques is now being debated,`` said the editorial.
But neither the government nor medicos like Dr Sabu or activists from a host of women organisations buy that argument.
According to Dr Rekha Joshi of the Delhi Appropriate Authority, she received a complaint against the newspaper which published the ads on November 14 and 15, from five organisations - Indian Human Rights Law Network, Shama, Jagori, Nirantar and Jan Swasthya Abhiyan - on November 20.
The Delhi Appropriate Authority on November 23 filed a complaint against the daily in a lower court here, said Dr Joshi, noting that the Advertisement is in violation of the PNDT Act.
The 1994 Act, in fact, prohibits the publication or distribution of any advertisement ``in any manner regarding the facilities of pre-natal determination of sex at any genetic counselling centre, genetic laboratory, genetic clinic or any other place.``
Contravention of the clause invites a jail sentence up to three years and a fine up to Rs ten thousand. There is no mention of pre-conception or post conception stages, as some doctors have sought to argue.
According to Dr Sabu, in the most traditional sense life is considered to begin from fertilisation and earlier conception was defined as fertilisation, `pre-natal` being the time period from conception till delivery or birth of the child.
Today, technology itself has redefined conception, so as to begin from implantation of the fertilised egg in the uterus, he says, pointing towards in-vitro techniques that have helped fertilisation outside the human body.
``It is the users of these techniques who are seeking to redefine the concept of pre-natal and suggesting that the law be amended to make a specific reference to them,`` he says noting that the law in its present form is inclusive of all such methods - the misuse of which has to be prevented.
According to him, the laws are made and are interpreted in tune with times, they can`t be created every second year. The law in its present form by not making any specific reference to pre- or post-conception stages ensures that there is no misuse of the `pre-conception` techniques, the accuracy of which is doubtful.
In the Erikson`s or the sperm segregation technique which has been available in India since 1981, for instance, the chances still remain 50:50, says Dr Sabu, adding that there are just a handful of laboratories in the world which could boast of sophisticated equipment to ensure a cent per cent segregation.
``In most cases across the country, after sperm segregation, the fertilisation takes place in the human body, and the pregnancy allowed to follow the complete cycle after the sonographs confirm the `child of choice` (read son),`` he says.
However justified the argument of curtailing individual freedoms be, activists cite the skewed child sex ratio as a grim reminder that ground realities are far different and that all these techniques, however less the accuracy rates, have been tried to beget a son.
The moot point here, they argue, is not of individual freedom but that of a subtle way of gender discrimination that is slowly resulting in the elimination of the girl child thus violating the basic tenet of our very constitution
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 27, 2001 01:49 am
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=155000
Sunday, November 25, 2001
No Girls Please, We are Indians
PTI
New Delhi, November 25
-
Thanks to the penchant for a male child, India today has the dubious distinction of having the worst child sex ratio in the world and has emerged as one of the largest markets of `sex-determination techniques` which co@ck a snook at the law by claiming to intervene at the ``pre- -conception`` stage.
The latest addition to this burgeoning market is an imported kit claiming to ensure the conception of a `child of choice`, the advertisement of which has raised the hackles of activists and doctors who are relentlessly working to implement the seven-year-old law that prohibits the use and publicity of any such process used as a precursor for selective sex abortions.
While the Delhi Appropriate Authority, which is responsible for implementing the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1994 has already moved the court against the advertiser, a fresh debate has erupted over the use of techniques that determine sex in the pre-conception stage with some doctors saying it is legal, ethical and moral for parents to exercise their `freedom of choice.`
``Intent of the Act was to stop the declining female child sex ratio, which is as low as 793 in Punjab and less than 850 in the northern states of Haryana and Delhi; it didn`t matter at which stage sex-determination came,`` notes Dr Sabu M George, who has been campaigning against female foeticide in the country for the last 15 years.
The gains of technology have made segregation and selection (of sperms) at earlier stages, reducing guilt pangs or moral pressures that had come to be associated with infanticide or even female foeticide as a result of sonography, he says.
Even as the Supreme Court in May this year is reported to have expressed sadness over the use of modern technology to prevent the girl child from being born, a doctor in the capital spoke of the availability of sperm segregation techniques followed by artificial implantation of the fertilised eggs that are now attracting many prospective parents.
``While this is not illegal, it also is less stressful on couples opting for it,`` she said.
An editorial this week in the daily, which has come under fire for publishing the American company`s Gen-select Kit evidently aimed at India from where telephone ordering is `toll-free`, also said ``the Indian law does not prohibit a person from using any technique available to pre-determine the gender of her child before conception.``
``The PNDT Act,`` it said, ``focusses on the various medical techniques which enable a person to ascertain the sex of the child right from conception, whether or not the intent is to terminate the pregnancy or not.
``Technology has, however, always been a step ahead of the law and the need to legislate on pre-selection techniques is now being debated,`` said the editorial.
But neither the government nor medicos like Dr Sabu or activists from a host of women organisations buy that argument.
According to Dr Rekha Joshi of the Delhi Appropriate Authority, she received a complaint against the newspaper which published the ads on November 14 and 15, from five organisations - Indian Human Rights Law Network, Shama, Jagori, Nirantar and Jan Swasthya Abhiyan - on November 20.
The Delhi Appropriate Authority on November 23 filed a complaint against the daily in a lower court here, said Dr Joshi, noting that the Advertisement is in violation of the PNDT Act.
The 1994 Act, in fact, prohibits the publication or distribution of any advertisement ``in any manner regarding the facilities of pre-natal determination of sex at any genetic counselling centre, genetic laboratory, genetic clinic or any other place.``
Contravention of the clause invites a jail sentence up to three years and a fine up to Rs ten thousand. There is no mention of pre-conception or post conception stages, as some doctors have sought to argue.
According to Dr Sabu, in the most traditional sense life is considered to begin from fertilisation and earlier conception was defined as fertilisation, `pre-natal` being the time period from conception till delivery or birth of the child.
Today, technology itself has redefined conception, so as to begin from implantation of the fertilised egg in the uterus, he says, pointing towards in-vitro techniques that have helped fertilisation outside the human body.
``It is the users of these techniques who are seeking to redefine the concept of pre-natal and suggesting that the law be amended to make a specific reference to them,`` he says noting that the law in its present form is inclusive of all such methods - the misuse of which has to be prevented.
According to him, the laws are made and are interpreted in tune with times, they can`t be created every second year. The law in its present form by not making any specific reference to pre- or post-conception stages ensures that there is no misuse of the `pre-conception` techniques, the accuracy of which is doubtful.
In the Erikson`s or the sperm segregation technique which has been available in India since 1981, for instance, the chances still remain 50:50, says Dr Sabu, adding that there are just a handful of laboratories in the world which could boast of sophisticated equipment to ensure a cent per cent segregation.
``In most cases across the country, after sperm segregation, the fertilisation takes place in the human body, and the pregnancy allowed to follow the complete cycle after the sonographs confirm the `child of choice` (read son),`` he says.
However justified the argument of curtailing individual freedoms be, activists cite the skewed child sex ratio as a grim reminder that ground realities are far different and that all these techniques, however less the accuracy rates, have been tried to beget a son.
The moot point here, they argue, is not of individual freedom but that of a subtle way of gender discrimination that is slowly resulting in the elimination of the girl child thus violating the basic tenet of our very constitution
Here Are the Muslim Feminist Voices, Mr. Rushdie!
http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940
Religion/Islam/In the U.S.
Freer, But Not Friedan
BY DAVID VAN BIEMA
Monday, Dec. 03, 2001
The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.
Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.
Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``
If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.
Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.
Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York
SEARCH THE ARCHIVE
Magazine All of TIME.com
Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.
GO TO THE ARCHIVE
See our most-popular articles
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 26, 2001 04:50 pm
http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940
Religion/Islam/In the U.S.
Freer, But Not Friedan
BY DAVID VAN BIEMA
Monday, Dec. 03, 2001
The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.
Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.
Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``
If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.
Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.
Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York
SEARCH THE ARCHIVE
Magazine All of TIME.com
Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.
GO TO THE ARCHIVE
See our most-popular articles
Here Are the Muslim Feminist Voices, Mr. Rushdie!
http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940
Religion/Islam/In the U.S.
Freer, But Not Friedan
BY DAVID VAN BIEMA
Monday, Dec. 03, 2001
The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.
Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.
Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``
If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.
Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.
Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York
SEARCH THE ARCHIVE
Magazine All of TIME.com
Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.
GO TO THE ARCHIVE
See our most-popular articles
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 26, 2001 04:50 pm
http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940
Religion/Islam/In the U.S.
Freer, But Not Friedan
BY DAVID VAN BIEMA
Monday, Dec. 03, 2001
The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.
Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.
Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``
If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.
Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.
Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York
SEARCH THE ARCHIVE
Magazine All of TIME.com
Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.
GO TO THE ARCHIVE
See our most-popular articles
Here Are the Muslim Feminist Voices, Mr. Rushdie!
http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940
Religion/Islam/In the U.S.
Freer, But Not Friedan
BY DAVID VAN BIEMA
Monday, Dec. 03, 2001
The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.
Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.
Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``
If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.
Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.
Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York
SEARCH THE ARCHIVE
Magazine All of TIME.com
Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.
GO TO THE ARCHIVE
See our most-popular articles
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 26, 2001 04:50 pm
http://sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=154940
Religion/Islam/In the U.S.
Freer, But Not Friedan
BY DAVID VAN BIEMA
Monday, Dec. 03, 2001
The debate over Rana Irfan`s frequent trips back home to India took years to resolve. She enjoyed them, but her husband Kareem found them unnecessary. Eventually the issue was resolved in Kareem`s favor, as are many between them. Their marriage, says Rana, 37, a spirited and sophisticated native of Bombay, is based on ``consultation,`` but in the end, ``someone has to take charge. That is my husband.`` It says as much in the Koran.
Superficially, American Muslim women are living out the classic immigrant-socialization process, with time logged in the U.S. serving as the great liberalizer. Sociologists describe their increasing demand for equal rights and opportunities. But in the case of Muslim Americans, such impulses occur within a context of strong social conservatism. Without accepting many of the harsh strictures imposed on their sisters worldwide, Islamic women here still support the separation of sexes at mosques and believe in modest dress (although the definition of modest varies). Parity in family decision making is on the increase, but the husband often has the last word. Women sacrifice their careers for their families. The gender assumptions resemble nothing so much as those in America in the 1950s.
Of course, the back story is different. Rana`s marriage to Kareem was arranged during a visit to the U.S. when she was 21. Engagement followed their second meeting; ``he looked like a good chap,`` she says, laughing. She frames her American experience as a shedding of limiting Indian assumptions for a liberating Islamic understanding. Her upbringing taught women ``to take care of our husbands.`` But as she studied the Koran with several (female) teachers here, ``I learned more and more about my rights as a woman. I don`t do the housework now because I have to; I do it because I want to. There is a reward from God if I do well.``
If that falls short of Betty Friedan, there is more ground to cover. Asked about the controversial Koranic sura 4:34--with its sanction of spousal punishment, including beating, for ``insubordination``--Kareem, who is chairman of the Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, is bemused. ``It`s amazing how many men know this quote from the Koran--if they know nothing else in it,`` he says. Most already understand the ``beatings`` as light taps. Further study, he maintains, would reveal that husband may punish wife for religious infractions only and that holy writ calls for ``mutual consultation between husband and wife.`` He says so to men who come to him for Islamic counseling--advice they might have been less likely to get before moving here.
Those trying to imagine the future of Muslim feminism might keep an eye on Rana and Kareem`s daughter Zuha, 13. In some ways, she out-observes her mom. Rana did not wear the hijab regularly before Zuha, who attends an Islamic private school, put on the pressure. ``I would come to pick her up, and she would say, `Mother, you`re embarrassing me by not wearing the veil.``` But Zuha is also a budding hoops star, with shelves full of Nancy Drew and Harry Potter--not Britney Spears but hardly subservient role models. Zuha`s marriage will be arranged, but her parents promise she can reject their choice of husband if need be. Despite her education to date, she will attend a non-Muslim college. ``It will be different,`` she says, with both hesitancy and curiosity. It always is.
Reported by Marguerite Michaels/Naperville and Nadia Mustafa/New York
SEARCH THE ARCHIVE
Magazine All of TIME.com
Search all back-issues of TIME since 1985 for TIME`s unique perspective on history, people, and the most important events of the day.
GO TO THE ARCHIVE
See our most-popular articles
Here Are the Muslim Feminist Voices, Mr. Rushdie!
RIYADH,November 26 (PNS):The Italian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Torquato
Cardeilli, has converted to Islam, the Italian embassy here announced
Sunday.
http://www.paknews.org/main.php?id=4&date1=2001-11-26
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 26, 2001 10:50 am
Italian envoy in Riyadh converts to IslamRIYADH,November 26 (PNS):The Italian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Torquato
Cardeilli, has converted to Islam, the Italian embassy here announced
Sunday.
http://www.paknews.org/main.php?id=4&date1=2001-11-26
Here Are the Muslim Feminist Voices, Mr. Rushdie!
Muslim Leaders Salute Will Smith Muslim leaders across America are saluting `Will Smith` [The Fresh
Prince] for embracing their religion after completing the Muhammad
Ali biopic. Smith was introduced to the religion while learning about
the legendary boxer`s life - Islam is Ali`s religion of choice.
Friends close to Smith claim the megastar is now embracing the
religion in his own life and is eager to learn more about it.
About conversion: http://us.imdb.com/WN?20011109#9
About his tv/music/movie career: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Smith,+Will
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 26, 2001 10:50 am
Muslim Leaders Salute Will Smith Muslim leaders across America are saluting `Will Smith` [The Fresh
Prince] for embracing their religion after completing the Muhammad
Ali biopic. Smith was introduced to the religion while learning about
the legendary boxer`s life - Islam is Ali`s religion of choice.
Friends close to Smith claim the megastar is now embracing the
religion in his own life and is eager to learn more about it.
About conversion: http://us.imdb.com/WN?20011109#9
About his tv/music/movie career: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Smith,+Will
A New Role
Islam Misunderstood
Khalid Khan
If language is a mode to express things and communicate with fellow human beings, then perhaps linguistics and lexicons know better how difficult and inadequate they find themselves when they have to translate and understand the meaning of a word from the text to the context, from one language to another, or elicit the implicit meaning from within a word itself into an explicit, distinct, appropriate unambiguous form. The task remains challenging yet never achievable, not because we lack the means and method to do it, but because of the very nature of its usage. Its growth in a given culture and society in which it is used keeps the perennial challenge alive as to how to interpret it in the light of changing circumstances and with the growth and development of society. This very difficulty of interpretation of language, more particularly religious texts, has been the root of all misunderstanding. Not only have the subjective elements of individuals or groups colored their own interests while throwing light on the meaning of the text, but this was and is still being surreptitiously distorted, misinterpreted by the `other` in their race for dominance and superiority and for serving their own interests. It is due to the limitation of human language that, more often than not, the meaning of the religious text has got lost in the encyclopedia of its own school of interpretation. Realizing this paradoxical dilemma of not having a consensus on the meaning of its own text, radical elements within and outside the Semitic religions had zealously and relentlessly tarnished and damaged its counterparts for its own sustenance and existence. It has become the maxim of Semitic religions that “misunderstandings to be followed as a rule with others.” Very often we have seen through history that the basic, inherent tendency of Semitic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism is to exclude the `other` from itself and by implication it means to attract within its fold as many people as it is possible to maintain its superiority over the others. And to be superior in the material world is to be in control of at least the resources, economy, technology, trade and all other things attached to it that would give to its followers dignity, better living standards and a superior value system. Since there was no uniformity in the process of bringing within its fold new groups of believers, they had to face each other within the same ethnic cultural groups of people like the Arab Muslims and the Arab Christians. Because of the change in their belief systems and religion, they started having more in common and felt alike with those who shared their beliefs and their new religion than with those with whom they had shared ethnically the same world view earlier. This paved the way for more complicated reorganization of people in terms of their religious world views within the Semitic religions, and as such an urgency for adjustment of each other`s interest arose wherever confrontation had to be avoided. This situation arose within the same ethnic groups, where Semitic religion came to take its root together and also where different ethnic groups who were completely under the fold of one Semitic religion had to encounter the other Semitic or non-Semitic religion. So long as there was some internal understanding and balance of interest within the Semitic religion for protecting their own interest either through debate, dialogue or conciliation, we witnessed periods of peace in history. But the day disgruntled elements decided to subvert the balance and attempted to annihilate the `other` or retard the growth of the other, we have umpteen examples in our pages of world history that speak volumes about the destruction and tragedy that both sides had to suffer. So what is happening in the world today is nothing new; it should neither shock nor surprise us. It is the logical extension of the same attitude that has ramified into our political and social ideology. However, only the backdrop has changed. The attitude is colored now with the complicated network of science, technology, economic development, world security, human rights, terrorism, free state, etc., which in its intrinsic sense has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, but has its own inherent values and forces that it generates by itself. The western world in general, and America in particular, though finding itself still deep-rooted in its religion and its belief systems, was farsighted and more practical in its approach when it realized that it was impossible to resolve multiple religious aspirations in the light of its own emerging social realities, created by a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic set up, and complicated further by the advancement in science and technology. They relegated religion into the personal sphere of life realizing the practical existential difficulties they would have to resolve if this was not done. But applying religious meaning would be suicidal to these new realities. This is not because the values adhered to within religions cannot explain the modern phenomena, but because of the diverse opinions within itself about -- what is religion? What is the value attached to it? Whether religion should regulate our total life? Do all religions have something universal, etc. These are so vexatious and complicated that anybody and everybody could use God or Allah as a pretext for justification of his personal or collective deeds or misdeeds. We are all civilized and cultured during times of peace when we are in total control of our interest and when there is no immediate threat to the same, but in a crisis, our rationality takes a back seat. Instinctively human beings try to incite a sense of arousal in their surroundings to generate a mass support, identifying their personal problems with the sympathy of the overwhelming collective. Rationalizing, justifying cannot arouse this common excitement. Even if it does, we have seen that the impact is miniscule because of the difference of opinion that it always creates in the process of arriving at any understanding. And the limitation of people or groups that would react would always depend on the level of education and the political or social ideology they subscribe to. As such human emotion becomes the most potential victim of vested interest groups and radical elements in Semitic religions. And if the subject matter to which emotions would be directed is divinity, then history is a witness as to how “rationality” has been time and again imprisoned or brutally murdered for revealing the misdeeds of rulers, administrators, powerful nations who had taken religion for a terrible ride, when their economic crises had to be averted, political justifications were to be given and when lust for power and dominance were driving them to hell. Why equate Islam with terrorism then? It is a fact that Islam has been misused by elements within itself for furthering their own interests. But this is also true with the vested interests in all the religions. The danger in equating Islam with terrorism would amount to committing a serious mistake. This is because Islam is geographically and politically distributed throughout the globe and amounts to one third of the global population and the aggrieved elements happen to be within the Islamic countries. These aggrieved elements are reacting to the incapability and complacency of their own respective governments to protest against the Western military and economic dominance over their land and oil. It is this peculiar situation that all Islamic countries are unable to face. The growing dissenting voices within these countries actually fuel small connected groups of people who find it easy to identify with each other in religious terms to fight against the western dominance. The fact that even Islamic countries have joined the world forces against these isolated groups proves that even they want world peace. The real issue involved here is the vast disparity between the techno-haves and the have-nots, between monopolization and self-assertions, between nuclear powers and non nuclear powers, between extra-territorial domination and no territory and between the exploiter and the exploited. How do we manage our natural resources that are unequally distributed in diverse geographical locations? How do we reach the benefit of scientific knowledge to the remotest parts of our society? How do we bridge our ideological differences and economic inequalities? There is no denying the fact that our social scientists, environmentalists, economists, NGOs and other social bodies are working extremely hard in understanding and giving practical shape and direction to resolve this. If left unaddressed and unresolved, this will sooner or later destroy our social and economic structure and chaos would be imminent. No religion, ethics, morality or values can save us then. We will have to be doomed to live in a perennial state of insecurity, dread, poverty exploitation, terrorism and deprivation. Terrorism in any form is bad. The pulse of terrorism lies deep rooted in our society. It is created out of inequality and deprivation. The motivating force of terrorism is mutually generated by the perpetrator and the victim. This drives the aggrieved sections of the society to resort to all possible means to fight against the powerful aggressor by any means. But, the moment we start justifying any act of violence, we know it opens up a plethora of questions along with it. Why is there terrorism? Who should define terrorism? What type of terrorism we talking about? Is the society itself responsible for creating it? What is the remedy? There are diverse opinions among intellectuals and they are yet to arrive on any common understanding about it. But they do agree that the issue is about people, technology, agencies, radical elements and vested groups who have capabilities to generate terror cutting across all man-made boundaries. The medium to transmit this terror can be religion, culture, technology, and ideology. As such it is a human problem, an issue of our society which involves the security of our nation. And we all know that human beings are as diverse as the universe itself. The society in which we are living and the world that is emerging is made up of a cross section of people, culture and values. And our nation itself is a fragile man-made entity, where its general health depends upon how every section contributes to adjusting and balancing its respective interests, irrespective of its own religious, cultural and ethnic background. So it would be suicidal on the part of any aware individuals or groups who know that they are living in the multi cultural, religious and multi ethnic society, where progressive mindsets and radical elements play hide and seek every now and then, to generalize any act of violence in terms of religion, ethnicity and culture on any particular group of people. Scientific attitude towards life itself has brought out a class of people in every society. These people, irrespective of their religious or cultural background, participate and identify themselves with each other more zealously than with their own ethnic or religious counterparts. As such this progressive group of people will have to play a vital role in reforming their own society. Our society has made great sacrifices in reaching a state where it maintains a delicate balance between the progressive mindset and the radical elements. No irrational mind should be allowed to disturb this balance. This again is because we don`t have a choice. If we want to live peacefully and if we aspire for progress and development then balancing the needs and aspirations of our society is a necessity and not something which we can luxuriously afford to discuss and desire. It is this balancing of interests that is relevant in maintaining global peace in terms of resources, technology and information. The accountability question lies more on the western world and America in particular because they are at the vanguard of all the scientific, technological advancement in the world today. Have they been maintaining the balance of interest in the world today? Certainly not! Do they have the moral strength and character to admit to the duality of their foreign policy? And have we ever objected to that? No, we were complacent! Will they be civilized enough to admit that they had their share in the creation of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to neutralize the Russian factor during the Cold War. Certainly they must be regretting it now. Should the price for being opportunist, indifferent and complacent to rights, justice, deprivation and forced occupation be so colossal that thousands of lives of innocent civilians had to be taken in the most horrifying manner to wake up the conscience of humanity that under the garb of Globalization and Free World something wrong was being seriously committed? Certainly not!
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 26, 2001 01:08 am
Did some one say ,New Role as educater ?Thats what we havebeen saying ,but PPl. only LISTEN,when they are awakened by ``shocking events`` as 9-11 tragedy.However NOW is a good time than ever was so please pass it onIslam Misunderstood
Khalid Khan
If language is a mode to express things and communicate with fellow human beings, then perhaps linguistics and lexicons know better how difficult and inadequate they find themselves when they have to translate and understand the meaning of a word from the text to the context, from one language to another, or elicit the implicit meaning from within a word itself into an explicit, distinct, appropriate unambiguous form. The task remains challenging yet never achievable, not because we lack the means and method to do it, but because of the very nature of its usage. Its growth in a given culture and society in which it is used keeps the perennial challenge alive as to how to interpret it in the light of changing circumstances and with the growth and development of society. This very difficulty of interpretation of language, more particularly religious texts, has been the root of all misunderstanding. Not only have the subjective elements of individuals or groups colored their own interests while throwing light on the meaning of the text, but this was and is still being surreptitiously distorted, misinterpreted by the `other` in their race for dominance and superiority and for serving their own interests. It is due to the limitation of human language that, more often than not, the meaning of the religious text has got lost in the encyclopedia of its own school of interpretation. Realizing this paradoxical dilemma of not having a consensus on the meaning of its own text, radical elements within and outside the Semitic religions had zealously and relentlessly tarnished and damaged its counterparts for its own sustenance and existence. It has become the maxim of Semitic religions that “misunderstandings to be followed as a rule with others.” Very often we have seen through history that the basic, inherent tendency of Semitic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism is to exclude the `other` from itself and by implication it means to attract within its fold as many people as it is possible to maintain its superiority over the others. And to be superior in the material world is to be in control of at least the resources, economy, technology, trade and all other things attached to it that would give to its followers dignity, better living standards and a superior value system. Since there was no uniformity in the process of bringing within its fold new groups of believers, they had to face each other within the same ethnic cultural groups of people like the Arab Muslims and the Arab Christians. Because of the change in their belief systems and religion, they started having more in common and felt alike with those who shared their beliefs and their new religion than with those with whom they had shared ethnically the same world view earlier. This paved the way for more complicated reorganization of people in terms of their religious world views within the Semitic religions, and as such an urgency for adjustment of each other`s interest arose wherever confrontation had to be avoided. This situation arose within the same ethnic groups, where Semitic religion came to take its root together and also where different ethnic groups who were completely under the fold of one Semitic religion had to encounter the other Semitic or non-Semitic religion. So long as there was some internal understanding and balance of interest within the Semitic religion for protecting their own interest either through debate, dialogue or conciliation, we witnessed periods of peace in history. But the day disgruntled elements decided to subvert the balance and attempted to annihilate the `other` or retard the growth of the other, we have umpteen examples in our pages of world history that speak volumes about the destruction and tragedy that both sides had to suffer. So what is happening in the world today is nothing new; it should neither shock nor surprise us. It is the logical extension of the same attitude that has ramified into our political and social ideology. However, only the backdrop has changed. The attitude is colored now with the complicated network of science, technology, economic development, world security, human rights, terrorism, free state, etc., which in its intrinsic sense has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, but has its own inherent values and forces that it generates by itself. The western world in general, and America in particular, though finding itself still deep-rooted in its religion and its belief systems, was farsighted and more practical in its approach when it realized that it was impossible to resolve multiple religious aspirations in the light of its own emerging social realities, created by a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic set up, and complicated further by the advancement in science and technology. They relegated religion into the personal sphere of life realizing the practical existential difficulties they would have to resolve if this was not done. But applying religious meaning would be suicidal to these new realities. This is not because the values adhered to within religions cannot explain the modern phenomena, but because of the diverse opinions within itself about -- what is religion? What is the value attached to it? Whether religion should regulate our total life? Do all religions have something universal, etc. These are so vexatious and complicated that anybody and everybody could use God or Allah as a pretext for justification of his personal or collective deeds or misdeeds. We are all civilized and cultured during times of peace when we are in total control of our interest and when there is no immediate threat to the same, but in a crisis, our rationality takes a back seat. Instinctively human beings try to incite a sense of arousal in their surroundings to generate a mass support, identifying their personal problems with the sympathy of the overwhelming collective. Rationalizing, justifying cannot arouse this common excitement. Even if it does, we have seen that the impact is miniscule because of the difference of opinion that it always creates in the process of arriving at any understanding. And the limitation of people or groups that would react would always depend on the level of education and the political or social ideology they subscribe to. As such human emotion becomes the most potential victim of vested interest groups and radical elements in Semitic religions. And if the subject matter to which emotions would be directed is divinity, then history is a witness as to how “rationality” has been time and again imprisoned or brutally murdered for revealing the misdeeds of rulers, administrators, powerful nations who had taken religion for a terrible ride, when their economic crises had to be averted, political justifications were to be given and when lust for power and dominance were driving them to hell. Why equate Islam with terrorism then? It is a fact that Islam has been misused by elements within itself for furthering their own interests. But this is also true with the vested interests in all the religions. The danger in equating Islam with terrorism would amount to committing a serious mistake. This is because Islam is geographically and politically distributed throughout the globe and amounts to one third of the global population and the aggrieved elements happen to be within the Islamic countries. These aggrieved elements are reacting to the incapability and complacency of their own respective governments to protest against the Western military and economic dominance over their land and oil. It is this peculiar situation that all Islamic countries are unable to face. The growing dissenting voices within these countries actually fuel small connected groups of people who find it easy to identify with each other in religious terms to fight against the western dominance. The fact that even Islamic countries have joined the world forces against these isolated groups proves that even they want world peace. The real issue involved here is the vast disparity between the techno-haves and the have-nots, between monopolization and self-assertions, between nuclear powers and non nuclear powers, between extra-territorial domination and no territory and between the exploiter and the exploited. How do we manage our natural resources that are unequally distributed in diverse geographical locations? How do we reach the benefit of scientific knowledge to the remotest parts of our society? How do we bridge our ideological differences and economic inequalities? There is no denying the fact that our social scientists, environmentalists, economists, NGOs and other social bodies are working extremely hard in understanding and giving practical shape and direction to resolve this. If left unaddressed and unresolved, this will sooner or later destroy our social and economic structure and chaos would be imminent. No religion, ethics, morality or values can save us then. We will have to be doomed to live in a perennial state of insecurity, dread, poverty exploitation, terrorism and deprivation. Terrorism in any form is bad. The pulse of terrorism lies deep rooted in our society. It is created out of inequality and deprivation. The motivating force of terrorism is mutually generated by the perpetrator and the victim. This drives the aggrieved sections of the society to resort to all possible means to fight against the powerful aggressor by any means. But, the moment we start justifying any act of violence, we know it opens up a plethora of questions along with it. Why is there terrorism? Who should define terrorism? What type of terrorism we talking about? Is the society itself responsible for creating it? What is the remedy? There are diverse opinions among intellectuals and they are yet to arrive on any common understanding about it. But they do agree that the issue is about people, technology, agencies, radical elements and vested groups who have capabilities to generate terror cutting across all man-made boundaries. The medium to transmit this terror can be religion, culture, technology, and ideology. As such it is a human problem, an issue of our society which involves the security of our nation. And we all know that human beings are as diverse as the universe itself. The society in which we are living and the world that is emerging is made up of a cross section of people, culture and values. And our nation itself is a fragile man-made entity, where its general health depends upon how every section contributes to adjusting and balancing its respective interests, irrespective of its own religious, cultural and ethnic background. So it would be suicidal on the part of any aware individuals or groups who know that they are living in the multi cultural, religious and multi ethnic society, where progressive mindsets and radical elements play hide and seek every now and then, to generalize any act of violence in terms of religion, ethnicity and culture on any particular group of people. Scientific attitude towards life itself has brought out a class of people in every society. These people, irrespective of their religious or cultural background, participate and identify themselves with each other more zealously than with their own ethnic or religious counterparts. As such this progressive group of people will have to play a vital role in reforming their own society. Our society has made great sacrifices in reaching a state where it maintains a delicate balance between the progressive mindset and the radical elements. No irrational mind should be allowed to disturb this balance. This again is because we don`t have a choice. If we want to live peacefully and if we aspire for progress and development then balancing the needs and aspirations of our society is a necessity and not something which we can luxuriously afford to discuss and desire. It is this balancing of interests that is relevant in maintaining global peace in terms of resources, technology and information. The accountability question lies more on the western world and America in particular because they are at the vanguard of all the scientific, technological advancement in the world today. Have they been maintaining the balance of interest in the world today? Certainly not! Do they have the moral strength and character to admit to the duality of their foreign policy? And have we ever objected to that? No, we were complacent! Will they be civilized enough to admit that they had their share in the creation of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to neutralize the Russian factor during the Cold War. Certainly they must be regretting it now. Should the price for being opportunist, indifferent and complacent to rights, justice, deprivation and forced occupation be so colossal that thousands of lives of innocent civilians had to be taken in the most horrifying manner to wake up the conscience of humanity that under the garb of Globalization and Free World something wrong was being seriously committed? Certainly not!
When the Lights Hurt the Eyes
Islam Misunderstood
Khalid Khan
If language is a mode to express things and communicate with fellow human beings, then perhaps linguistics and lexicons know better how difficult and inadequate they find themselves when they have to translate and understand the meaning of a word from the text to the context, from one language to another, or elicit the implicit meaning from within a word itself into an explicit, distinct, appropriate unambiguous form. The task remains challenging yet never achievable, not because we lack the means and method to do it, but because of the very nature of its usage. Its growth in a given culture and society in which it is used keeps the perennial challenge alive as to how to interpret it in the light of changing circumstances and with the growth and development of society. This very difficulty of interpretation of language, more particularly religious texts, has been the root of all misunderstanding. Not only have the subjective elements of individuals or groups colored their own interests while throwing light on the meaning of the text, but this was and is still being surreptitiously distorted, misinterpreted by the `other` in their race for dominance and superiority and for serving their own interests. It is due to the limitation of human language that, more often than not, the meaning of the religious text has got lost in the encyclopedia of its own school of interpretation. Realizing this paradoxical dilemma of not having a consensus on the meaning of its own text, radical elements within and outside the Semitic religions had zealously and relentlessly tarnished and damaged its counterparts for its own sustenance and existence. It has become the maxim of Semitic religions that “misunderstandings to be followed as a rule with others.” Very often we have seen through history that the basic, inherent tendency of Semitic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism is to exclude the `other` from itself and by implication it means to attract within its fold as many people as it is possible to maintain its superiority over the others. And to be superior in the material world is to be in control of at least the resources, economy, technology, trade and all other things attached to it that would give to its followers dignity, better living standards and a superior value system. Since there was no uniformity in the process of bringing within its fold new groups of believers, they had to face each other within the same ethnic cultural groups of people like the Arab Muslims and the Arab Christians. Because of the change in their belief systems and religion, they started having more in common and felt alike with those who shared their beliefs and their new religion than with those with whom they had shared ethnically the same world view earlier. This paved the way for more complicated reorganization of people in terms of their religious world views within the Semitic religions, and as such an urgency for adjustment of each other`s interest arose wherever confrontation had to be avoided. This situation arose within the same ethnic groups, where Semitic religion came to take its root together and also where different ethnic groups who were completely under the fold of one Semitic religion had to encounter the other Semitic or non-Semitic religion. So long as there was some internal understanding and balance of interest within the Semitic religion for protecting their own interest either through debate, dialogue or conciliation, we witnessed periods of peace in history. But the day disgruntled elements decided to subvert the balance and attempted to annihilate the `other` or retard the growth of the other, we have umpteen examples in our pages of world history that speak volumes about the destruction and tragedy that both sides had to suffer. So what is happening in the world today is nothing new; it should neither shock nor surprise us. It is the logical extension of the same attitude that has ramified into our political and social ideology. However, only the backdrop has changed. The attitude is colored now with the complicated network of science, technology, economic development, world security, human rights, terrorism, free state, etc., which in its intrinsic sense has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, but has its own inherent values and forces that it generates by itself. The western world in general, and America in particular, though finding itself still deep-rooted in its religion and its belief systems, was farsighted and more practical in its approach when it realized that it was impossible to resolve multiple religious aspirations in the light of its own emerging social realities, created by a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic set up, and complicated further by the advancement in science and technology. They relegated religion into the personal sphere of life realizing the practical existential difficulties they would have to resolve if this was not done. But applying religious meaning would be suicidal to these new realities. This is not because the values adhered to within religions cannot explain the modern phenomena, but because of the diverse opinions within itself about -- what is religion? What is the value attached to it? Whether religion should regulate our total life? Do all religions have something universal, etc. These are so vexatious and complicated that anybody and everybody could use God or Allah as a pretext for justification of his personal or collective deeds or misdeeds. We are all civilized and cultured during times of peace when we are in total control of our interest and when there is no immediate threat to the same, but in a crisis, our rationality takes a back seat. Instinctively human beings try to incite a sense of arousal in their surroundings to generate a mass support, identifying their personal problems with the sympathy of the overwhelming collective. Rationalizing, justifying cannot arouse this common excitement. Even if it does, we have seen that the impact is miniscule because of the difference of opinion that it always creates in the process of arriving at any understanding. And the limitation of people or groups that would react would always depend on the level of education and the political or social ideology they subscribe to. As such human emotion becomes the most potential victim of vested interest groups and radical elements in Semitic religions. And if the subject matter to which emotions would be directed is divinity, then history is a witness as to how “rationality” has been time and again imprisoned or brutally murdered for revealing the misdeeds of rulers, administrators, powerful nations who had taken religion for a terrible ride, when their economic crises had to be averted, political justifications were to be given and when lust for power and dominance were driving them to hell. Why equate Islam with terrorism then? It is a fact that Islam has been misused by elements within itself for furthering their own interests. But this is also true with the vested interests in all the religions. The danger in equating Islam with terrorism would amount to committing a serious mistake. This is because Islam is geographically and politically distributed throughout the globe and amounts to one third of the global population and the aggrieved elements happen to be within the Islamic countries. These aggrieved elements are reacting to the incapability and complacency of their own respective governments to protest against the Western military and economic dominance over their land and oil. It is this peculiar situation that all Islamic countries are unable to face. The growing dissenting voices within these countries actually fuel small connected groups of people who find it easy to identify with each other in religious terms to fight against the western dominance. The fact that even Islamic countries have joined the world forces against these isolated groups proves that even they want world peace. The real issue involved here is the vast disparity between the techno-haves and the have-nots, between monopolization and self-assertions, between nuclear powers and non nuclear powers, between extra-territorial domination and no territory and between the exploiter and the exploited. How do we manage our natural resources that are unequally distributed in diverse geographical locations? How do we reach the benefit of scientific knowledge to the remotest parts of our society? How do we bridge our ideological differences and economic inequalities? There is no denying the fact that our social scientists, environmentalists, economists, NGOs and other social bodies are working extremely hard in understanding and giving practical shape and direction to resolve this. If left unaddressed and unresolved, this will sooner or later destroy our social and economic structure and chaos would be imminent. No religion, ethics, morality or values can save us then. We will have to be doomed to live in a perennial state of insecurity, dread, poverty exploitation, terrorism and deprivation. Terrorism in any form is bad. The pulse of terrorism lies deep rooted in our society. It is created out of inequality and deprivation. The motivating force of terrorism is mutually generated by the perpetrator and the victim. This drives the aggrieved sections of the society to resort to all possible means to fight against the powerful aggressor by any means. But, the moment we start justifying any act of violence, we know it opens up a plethora of questions along with it. Why is there terrorism? Who should define terrorism? What type of terrorism we talking about? Is the society itself responsible for creating it? What is the remedy? There are diverse opinions among intellectuals and they are yet to arrive on any common understanding about it. But they do agree that the issue is about people, technology, agencies, radical elements and vested groups who have capabilities to generate terror cutting across all man-made boundaries. The medium to transmit this terror can be religion, culture, technology, and ideology. As such it is a human problem, an issue of our society which involves the security of our nation. And we all know that human beings are as diverse as the universe itself. The society in which we are living and the world that is emerging is made up of a cross section of people, culture and values. And our nation itself is a fragile man-made entity, where its general health depends upon how every section contributes to adjusting and balancing its respective interests, irrespective of its own religious, cultural and ethnic background. So it would be suicidal on the part of any aware individuals or groups who know that they are living in the multi cultural, religious and multi ethnic society, where progressive mindsets and radical elements play hide and seek every now and then, to generalize any act of violence in terms of religion, ethnicity and culture on any particular group of people. Scientific attitude towards life itself has brought out a class of people in every society. These people, irrespective of their religious or cultural background, participate and identify themselves with each other more zealously than with their own ethnic or religious counterparts. As such this progressive group of people will have to play a vital role in reforming their own society. Our society has made great sacrifices in reaching a state where it maintains a delicate balance between the progressive mindset and the radical elements. No irrational mind should be allowed to disturb this balance. This again is because we don`t have a choice. If we want to live peacefully and if we aspire for progress and development then balancing the needs and aspirations of our society is a necessity and not something which we can luxuriously afford to discuss and desire. It is this balancing of interests that is relevant in maintaining global peace in terms of resources, technology and information. The accountability question lies more on the western world and America in particular because they are at the vanguard of all the scientific, technological advancement in the world today. Have they been maintaining the balance of interest in the world today? Certainly not! Do they have the moral strength and character to admit to the duality of their foreign policy? And have we ever objected to that? No, we were complacent! Will they be civilized enough to admit that they had their share in the creation of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to neutralize the Russian factor during the Cold War. Certainly they must be regretting it now. Should the price for being opportunist, indifferent and complacent to rights, justice, deprivation and forced occupation be so colossal that thousands of lives of innocent civilians had to be taken in the most horrifying manner to wake up the conscience of humanity that under the garb of Globalization and Free World something wrong was being seriously committed? Certainly not!
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 26, 2001 01:08 am
Islam Misunderstood
Khalid Khan
If language is a mode to express things and communicate with fellow human beings, then perhaps linguistics and lexicons know better how difficult and inadequate they find themselves when they have to translate and understand the meaning of a word from the text to the context, from one language to another, or elicit the implicit meaning from within a word itself into an explicit, distinct, appropriate unambiguous form. The task remains challenging yet never achievable, not because we lack the means and method to do it, but because of the very nature of its usage. Its growth in a given culture and society in which it is used keeps the perennial challenge alive as to how to interpret it in the light of changing circumstances and with the growth and development of society. This very difficulty of interpretation of language, more particularly religious texts, has been the root of all misunderstanding. Not only have the subjective elements of individuals or groups colored their own interests while throwing light on the meaning of the text, but this was and is still being surreptitiously distorted, misinterpreted by the `other` in their race for dominance and superiority and for serving their own interests. It is due to the limitation of human language that, more often than not, the meaning of the religious text has got lost in the encyclopedia of its own school of interpretation. Realizing this paradoxical dilemma of not having a consensus on the meaning of its own text, radical elements within and outside the Semitic religions had zealously and relentlessly tarnished and damaged its counterparts for its own sustenance and existence. It has become the maxim of Semitic religions that “misunderstandings to be followed as a rule with others.” Very often we have seen through history that the basic, inherent tendency of Semitic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism is to exclude the `other` from itself and by implication it means to attract within its fold as many people as it is possible to maintain its superiority over the others. And to be superior in the material world is to be in control of at least the resources, economy, technology, trade and all other things attached to it that would give to its followers dignity, better living standards and a superior value system. Since there was no uniformity in the process of bringing within its fold new groups of believers, they had to face each other within the same ethnic cultural groups of people like the Arab Muslims and the Arab Christians. Because of the change in their belief systems and religion, they started having more in common and felt alike with those who shared their beliefs and their new religion than with those with whom they had shared ethnically the same world view earlier. This paved the way for more complicated reorganization of people in terms of their religious world views within the Semitic religions, and as such an urgency for adjustment of each other`s interest arose wherever confrontation had to be avoided. This situation arose within the same ethnic groups, where Semitic religion came to take its root together and also where different ethnic groups who were completely under the fold of one Semitic religion had to encounter the other Semitic or non-Semitic religion. So long as there was some internal understanding and balance of interest within the Semitic religion for protecting their own interest either through debate, dialogue or conciliation, we witnessed periods of peace in history. But the day disgruntled elements decided to subvert the balance and attempted to annihilate the `other` or retard the growth of the other, we have umpteen examples in our pages of world history that speak volumes about the destruction and tragedy that both sides had to suffer. So what is happening in the world today is nothing new; it should neither shock nor surprise us. It is the logical extension of the same attitude that has ramified into our political and social ideology. However, only the backdrop has changed. The attitude is colored now with the complicated network of science, technology, economic development, world security, human rights, terrorism, free state, etc., which in its intrinsic sense has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, but has its own inherent values and forces that it generates by itself. The western world in general, and America in particular, though finding itself still deep-rooted in its religion and its belief systems, was farsighted and more practical in its approach when it realized that it was impossible to resolve multiple religious aspirations in the light of its own emerging social realities, created by a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic set up, and complicated further by the advancement in science and technology. They relegated religion into the personal sphere of life realizing the practical existential difficulties they would have to resolve if this was not done. But applying religious meaning would be suicidal to these new realities. This is not because the values adhered to within religions cannot explain the modern phenomena, but because of the diverse opinions within itself about -- what is religion? What is the value attached to it? Whether religion should regulate our total life? Do all religions have something universal, etc. These are so vexatious and complicated that anybody and everybody could use God or Allah as a pretext for justification of his personal or collective deeds or misdeeds. We are all civilized and cultured during times of peace when we are in total control of our interest and when there is no immediate threat to the same, but in a crisis, our rationality takes a back seat. Instinctively human beings try to incite a sense of arousal in their surroundings to generate a mass support, identifying their personal problems with the sympathy of the overwhelming collective. Rationalizing, justifying cannot arouse this common excitement. Even if it does, we have seen that the impact is miniscule because of the difference of opinion that it always creates in the process of arriving at any understanding. And the limitation of people or groups that would react would always depend on the level of education and the political or social ideology they subscribe to. As such human emotion becomes the most potential victim of vested interest groups and radical elements in Semitic religions. And if the subject matter to which emotions would be directed is divinity, then history is a witness as to how “rationality” has been time and again imprisoned or brutally murdered for revealing the misdeeds of rulers, administrators, powerful nations who had taken religion for a terrible ride, when their economic crises had to be averted, political justifications were to be given and when lust for power and dominance were driving them to hell. Why equate Islam with terrorism then? It is a fact that Islam has been misused by elements within itself for furthering their own interests. But this is also true with the vested interests in all the religions. The danger in equating Islam with terrorism would amount to committing a serious mistake. This is because Islam is geographically and politically distributed throughout the globe and amounts to one third of the global population and the aggrieved elements happen to be within the Islamic countries. These aggrieved elements are reacting to the incapability and complacency of their own respective governments to protest against the Western military and economic dominance over their land and oil. It is this peculiar situation that all Islamic countries are unable to face. The growing dissenting voices within these countries actually fuel small connected groups of people who find it easy to identify with each other in religious terms to fight against the western dominance. The fact that even Islamic countries have joined the world forces against these isolated groups proves that even they want world peace. The real issue involved here is the vast disparity between the techno-haves and the have-nots, between monopolization and self-assertions, between nuclear powers and non nuclear powers, between extra-territorial domination and no territory and between the exploiter and the exploited. How do we manage our natural resources that are unequally distributed in diverse geographical locations? How do we reach the benefit of scientific knowledge to the remotest parts of our society? How do we bridge our ideological differences and economic inequalities? There is no denying the fact that our social scientists, environmentalists, economists, NGOs and other social bodies are working extremely hard in understanding and giving practical shape and direction to resolve this. If left unaddressed and unresolved, this will sooner or later destroy our social and economic structure and chaos would be imminent. No religion, ethics, morality or values can save us then. We will have to be doomed to live in a perennial state of insecurity, dread, poverty exploitation, terrorism and deprivation. Terrorism in any form is bad. The pulse of terrorism lies deep rooted in our society. It is created out of inequality and deprivation. The motivating force of terrorism is mutually generated by the perpetrator and the victim. This drives the aggrieved sections of the society to resort to all possible means to fight against the powerful aggressor by any means. But, the moment we start justifying any act of violence, we know it opens up a plethora of questions along with it. Why is there terrorism? Who should define terrorism? What type of terrorism we talking about? Is the society itself responsible for creating it? What is the remedy? There are diverse opinions among intellectuals and they are yet to arrive on any common understanding about it. But they do agree that the issue is about people, technology, agencies, radical elements and vested groups who have capabilities to generate terror cutting across all man-made boundaries. The medium to transmit this terror can be religion, culture, technology, and ideology. As such it is a human problem, an issue of our society which involves the security of our nation. And we all know that human beings are as diverse as the universe itself. The society in which we are living and the world that is emerging is made up of a cross section of people, culture and values. And our nation itself is a fragile man-made entity, where its general health depends upon how every section contributes to adjusting and balancing its respective interests, irrespective of its own religious, cultural and ethnic background. So it would be suicidal on the part of any aware individuals or groups who know that they are living in the multi cultural, religious and multi ethnic society, where progressive mindsets and radical elements play hide and seek every now and then, to generalize any act of violence in terms of religion, ethnicity and culture on any particular group of people. Scientific attitude towards life itself has brought out a class of people in every society. These people, irrespective of their religious or cultural background, participate and identify themselves with each other more zealously than with their own ethnic or religious counterparts. As such this progressive group of people will have to play a vital role in reforming their own society. Our society has made great sacrifices in reaching a state where it maintains a delicate balance between the progressive mindset and the radical elements. No irrational mind should be allowed to disturb this balance. This again is because we don`t have a choice. If we want to live peacefully and if we aspire for progress and development then balancing the needs and aspirations of our society is a necessity and not something which we can luxuriously afford to discuss and desire. It is this balancing of interests that is relevant in maintaining global peace in terms of resources, technology and information. The accountability question lies more on the western world and America in particular because they are at the vanguard of all the scientific, technological advancement in the world today. Have they been maintaining the balance of interest in the world today? Certainly not! Do they have the moral strength and character to admit to the duality of their foreign policy? And have we ever objected to that? No, we were complacent! Will they be civilized enough to admit that they had their share in the creation of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to neutralize the Russian factor during the Cold War. Certainly they must be regretting it now. Should the price for being opportunist, indifferent and complacent to rights, justice, deprivation and forced occupation be so colossal that thousands of lives of innocent civilians had to be taken in the most horrifying manner to wake up the conscience of humanity that under the garb of Globalization and Free World something wrong was being seriously committed? Certainly not!
When the Lights Hurt the Eyes
Response To:
Wall Street Journal Editorial Oct. 19,2001
Review & Outlook
The review rightly warns American leaders of their past blunders in dealing
with Pakistan:
In 80s US turned blind eye, when pakistan was stealing nuclear secrets,
being her ally in fighting out Soviets. Today her nuclear arsenal has become
threat to the free world.
Today, Musharraf is playing double: He is co-operating with US out of
helplessness because of India`s offer of solid support to US against
Talibans. But trying to exploit the situation and strengthening terrorists`
outfit inside Pakistan and is daily hitting Indian Kashmir more ferociously.
US must be stern and hard on Pakistan and not appease her:if America is
really serious to eliminate terrorism.This time,US shouldn`t allow Musharraf
to befool her. Musharraf can be humbled if Powell knows how to handle him.
Prem N. Chopra
The Punjabiyats solidarity with Pakistan shows very translucently.
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 24, 2001 10:44 am
Response To:
Wall Street Journal Editorial Oct. 19,2001
Review & Outlook
The review rightly warns American leaders of their past blunders in dealing
with Pakistan:
In 80s US turned blind eye, when pakistan was stealing nuclear secrets,
being her ally in fighting out Soviets. Today her nuclear arsenal has become
threat to the free world.
Today, Musharraf is playing double: He is co-operating with US out of
helplessness because of India`s offer of solid support to US against
Talibans. But trying to exploit the situation and strengthening terrorists`
outfit inside Pakistan and is daily hitting Indian Kashmir more ferociously.
US must be stern and hard on Pakistan and not appease her:if America is
really serious to eliminate terrorism.This time,US shouldn`t allow Musharraf
to befool her. Musharraf can be humbled if Powell knows how to handle him.
Prem N. Chopra
The Punjabiyats solidarity with Pakistan shows very translucently.
Crazy Night
``NOT WITHSTANDING HER CONDITION, whether as a peasant in Algeria, a doctor in Cairo, or a secretary in Beirut, a student in Baghdad, a worker in Syria, or veiled in a Harem in Saudi Arabia, the Arab woman shares with her sisters a common fate: a life of renunciation, of captivity, during which she will have to atone for her sin of having been born a woman in a hyper-male society where the ever-present feminine remains synonymous with shame and threat. To begin with, her birth is already perceived as an occasion for mourning rather than for festivities. She is received in an atmosphere of barely suppressed disappointment. They hoped for a boy. Her coming will bring opprobrium on her mother, a shock to her father: `Men beget men,` we always say in our culture; `She has given birth to a girl, he has produced a boy,` they proclaim, totally ignorant of the laws of reproduction. What happens on the day when the baby girl leaves her mother`s womb is only a foretaste. It is the beginning of a life to be endured as a `blameful condition` which will be continuously punctuated by steady and heavy repression and intolerance towards the social and economic changes deriving from our `modern times`. A repression which may on the one hand end up in a death sentence, when the honor of the males is discredited by the non-virginity of their daughter, or, on the other hand, more often, a kind of life sentence in jail-behind a dark veil, behind the thick walls of the family house where the men act as jailers.`` These were the words that I once read in a book, `Women in the Middle East` whose excerpts can be found at: The Arab Woman-A captive being.
Washington Post adds in it`s issue of December 8-2000–– `` Five Saudi women sat in a coffee shop chatting animatedly about their lives over cafe lattes and sandwiches. Suddenly, they heard a commotion outside. Fearing that the `mutawwa`, religious police, had come to throw them in jail for being in public without a male relative, they hastily grabbed their long black scarves and covered their hair and faces as they cast wary looks around them. The `mutawwa` did not show up, but the women decided to leave. Their outing had been spoiled. Ten years after a group of women defied a ban on driving and drove around the capital for 15 minutes, women in Saudi Arabia are still prohibited by law to drive their own cars.`` - AP
``The problem with other people is that they have a certain way of life, and they think if you don`t live like them, there`s something wrong with you,`` said Bassma, head of the culture and heritage committee at Al-Nahda Women`s Charitable Society in Saudi Arabia. ``These self-styled liberators of women have this arrogant attitude and goes around imagining to their own fancy as to what will be the condition of women in Saudia and other Muslim countries if nobody is watching or putting pressure on them to be more civilized, and show some kindness?``
``Why should a Saudi Muslim woman, dress the way an American or European woman does?`` asked the 40-year-old Bassma, who, like all Saudi women, wears a long black abaya and head scarf in public. Basma said she is not inconvenienced by laws that prohibit her from driving. ``If I can have someone drive me around, why should I say no?`` she said. ``In Paris, you have to be a princess to afford a driver. Here, every woman is a princess because she has one, and for those who cannot afford one, can always ask their relatives to drive them around, after all, not every woman gets a license in western countries either. For us in Saudia, women problems are LESS compared to some hypocrite nations acting as torch bearers to the eastern world. They themselves are home to 40 million prostitutes with 10% carrying AIDS virus & almost 4 million of them suffering from full blown AIDS. For most of the women in Saudia, problem is whether to have blue carpet in the home or green & buy BMW or BENZ. Is this what the western countries prefer to call a suffering compared to children being sold for 50¢ to $5 on the streets or worse, 50 million getting killed while still in fetal stage for unwelcome sex in most of the South East Asian countries?``
Her arguments sounds convincing to me. It was recently shown in BBC program ASSIGNMENT titled: `Let her die`, the reporter Emily Buchanan revealed that almost 3000 abortions take place daily in India, when parents find out that the fetus is that of a female child. These alarming statistics goes to depict that we have more than a million female infanticide cases taking place in India alone. The Telegraph of London reported a conservative estimate of 250,000 child abusers in UK of which already 110,000 have been convicted. Scotland Yard admitted to these figures which goes on to depict that almost a quarter of a million Britons - more that one in every 200 adults, is a paedophile and most often the victims of these unnatural desires of perverts are female kids/children. With such statistics, every kid`s parent living in the U.K. would be frightened to death to leave their wards alone, almost anywhere. The upholders of Muslim women rights in the west or elsewhere, might advocate that whatever minimum tolerance exists in Islamic countries or Muslim minds, is due to the indirect fear and pressure from the countries of the west and other progressive people of the world. It`s surprising that they always seem to neglect to mention that over 50% of university graduate students in Saudia are women which is far higher than in our India or most western nations. A Saudi woman has also just been appointed head of a UN agency - but such facts are of no interest to these writers. If nations like India and the rest of the third world (in fact the elite`s in third world countries) want to follow the ways of the west and become morally and spiritually bankrupt let them - the Muslim countries should not follow them down the path to hell. Moreover, I wonder, why these people seem to care so much about Muslim women suffering in the hands of their illiterate/intolerant husbands or society. No one ever seems to care about Muslim men or try to uplift their social status in terms of financial or educational help?
The reason I decided to write this article because, living in an Arabian country and looking around my surroundings, the passages mentioned above came out to be as a work of fiction, and far from the truth. I haven`t had a chance to visit Saudi Arabia till now, but looking around the society in Arab Emirates, I see a totally different view of the women in this region. Of few, I will write below and they are only a few amongst the thousands of Arab women you will come across in your daily life while you visit any office or establishments in the UAE.
Lubna Al Qasimi speaks in her capacity as a woman who has
broken new grounds, as Managing Director of Tejari.com and as head of the UAE`s e-government team. ``Several people have at conferences accused the region of having kept its women behind the veil literally and metaphorically, but my position contradicts the prevailing norm`` and she is quick to defend her nation by stating that things are changing. On being queried if this generalization of women of the region hurts her? she quips, ``Why should I be angry with them for their ignorance? I need to correct their knowledge and correcting it by showing them that what I am is the way to do it. To go into an argument and say they are wrong, I don`t think I win. Let them admire you for what you represent and what you deliver and then it`s a different story.``
Upon receiving the VISA Arabian Business.com 2000, award for the best entrepreneur of the year, Lubna said, ``I am a role model for women. I am out there as a woman who achieved so much in life. People respect us (women) highly seeing us what we represent for our country For them, it is a phenomenal representation of our country. All they know is that ours is a very tight culture very conservative society. But when we go out there, we become ambassadors for ourselves in here.`` When asked to comment upon how she tackles male prejudices? Her reply was, ``Women in senior positions have always had to deal with the egos of male colleagues. Gender conflict has always been perceived as a universal global problem. I have to pay extra attention to demonstrate to them where I come from …that I am not there to fight their egos. I am there to create a future for them and let them carry on their path and forget about me. It`s not their fault. It`s the way they have been raised. I would have been extremely narrow-minded if I was out there to correct them. Then it`s my ego. You can`t blame them for it. I know where their distrust comes from. It is lack of knowledge. They don`t know. You have to give them the time to trust you. You have to deliver before you demand their acceptance. ``You have to have the patience. You have to have the discipline.``
Surayya Al Aridh, a Saudi woman columnist once wrote: ``There are still some of those in this world, who maintain that female employment is a luxury and that it creates unnecessary complications. The women themselves are, however, disproving these people everyday.``
That is definitely the case here in the Emirates, where local Arab women make up 11.4 per cent of the workforce. The percentage is higher only in Bahrain, where they have a relatively strong education. Naheeda Abdulla, a UAE national, is a shining example of what true success is. As a remedial management unit manager for a leading bank in Sharjah, Naheeda is an extremely confident and independent woman. She has seven years of banking experience, and though she works in an industry that is predominantly male, she has managed to hold her own and excel. Set to receive her MBA in Finance and Banking Law, she says, ``Social science affirms that a woman`s place in society marks the level of civilization.`` She says that she loves taking risks and likes challenges which boost her self-confidence. What advice would she give to young woman who are pursuing degrees and careers?
``I would tell them to decide for themselves what is important in their lives and in their careers. You must work hard. We have to try for our children. Come up with new ideas, be innovative and continue doing research while you are in university. And continue to study. Go for higher challenges and obtain an advanced degree if you can.``
Lubna Al Sayegh, 24, works as Accounts Manager in Union National Bank. She mentions of her family members who have always reposed a lot of confidence in her, which in turn boosted her self esteem and made her be confident at the workplace. Currently, she is doing her executive MBA with AUS. On being asked as to how she feels about being stereotyped as a `head covering, backward Arab woman`, she replies, ``To me, if you want to be a person of a global nature, you have to know it`s cultures first … you have to know it`s people, you have to know where they come from and then you understand technology and everything else. At the end of the day, it is people. I am a person who loves culture and I travel extensively … and to me, that is one of the assets as an individual I have.``
In the framework of Islam, Woman is primarily considered as a Home maker and not a housewife because she is not married to a house. She can also work and is entitled to get equal pay if she does the same job as that of a male. There is no text in the Qur’an or the Sunnah which makes it unlawful for women to work or to do any lawful job or profession. If she is married she should take the permission of her husband. She cannot take up jobs which are based on exhibiting her beauty and body, such as modeling, dancing, acting in films, taking part in beauty pageants etc. (Not to mention, we can find a lot of Muslim girls in these *so called * professions these days and pretty proud at that)
Many jobs which are forbidden for women are also forbidden for men, for example serving liquor, working in gambling dens, dealing in corruption and dishonest businesses, etc. A true Islamic Society should have some women as professionals such as women physicians (doctors), women nurses, women teachers, etc. Women have no financial obligations in Islam. It is the duty of the man in the family to look after the financial aspects of the family. Therefore under normal conditions a woman need not work and is not required to earn her livelihood or that of her family. However in certain genuine cases due to financial crisis in the family where both ends do not meet, she has the option to work with the permission of her father or husband or any other elder of the family. Even in such conditions no one can force her to work and if she takes up a job it is by exercising her own free will. The best example we can quote is that of Prophet Muhammad’s (Pbuh) wife, Bibi Khadija (R) who was a very successful businesswoman. She transacted through her husband Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh). Hence, it becomes incumbent upon every Muslim, boy or a girl, to acquire knowledge through education. The first guidance given to the mankind in the Qur’an was ``Iqra`` i.e. to read, recite or proclaim. Surah Iqra and Surah Alaq Chapter 96, Verse 1-5. ``Read! Recite! Proclaim! in the name of thy Lord and cherisher who created - created the human, out of a congealed clot of blood . Read and thy Lord is Most Bountiful. He who taught (the use of) the Pen- taught man that which he knew not (96 : 1-5). The first instruction in the Qur’an was, not to pray or fast or to give charity, but to read. This instruction was to both male and female. Islam gives a great deal of importance to education. Even according to Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) ``It is obligatory for every Muslim, male or female, to acquire knowledge (Al-Bayhaqi).
Read Also: Women in Afghanistan - Facts and Fictions
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 21, 2001 11:42 am
Oppressed in Arabia...Status of women unveiled! ``NOT WITHSTANDING HER CONDITION, whether as a peasant in Algeria, a doctor in Cairo, or a secretary in Beirut, a student in Baghdad, a worker in Syria, or veiled in a Harem in Saudi Arabia, the Arab woman shares with her sisters a common fate: a life of renunciation, of captivity, during which she will have to atone for her sin of having been born a woman in a hyper-male society where the ever-present feminine remains synonymous with shame and threat. To begin with, her birth is already perceived as an occasion for mourning rather than for festivities. She is received in an atmosphere of barely suppressed disappointment. They hoped for a boy. Her coming will bring opprobrium on her mother, a shock to her father: `Men beget men,` we always say in our culture; `She has given birth to a girl, he has produced a boy,` they proclaim, totally ignorant of the laws of reproduction. What happens on the day when the baby girl leaves her mother`s womb is only a foretaste. It is the beginning of a life to be endured as a `blameful condition` which will be continuously punctuated by steady and heavy repression and intolerance towards the social and economic changes deriving from our `modern times`. A repression which may on the one hand end up in a death sentence, when the honor of the males is discredited by the non-virginity of their daughter, or, on the other hand, more often, a kind of life sentence in jail-behind a dark veil, behind the thick walls of the family house where the men act as jailers.`` These were the words that I once read in a book, `Women in the Middle East` whose excerpts can be found at: The Arab Woman-A captive being.
Washington Post adds in it`s issue of December 8-2000–– `` Five Saudi women sat in a coffee shop chatting animatedly about their lives over cafe lattes and sandwiches. Suddenly, they heard a commotion outside. Fearing that the `mutawwa`, religious police, had come to throw them in jail for being in public without a male relative, they hastily grabbed their long black scarves and covered their hair and faces as they cast wary looks around them. The `mutawwa` did not show up, but the women decided to leave. Their outing had been spoiled. Ten years after a group of women defied a ban on driving and drove around the capital for 15 minutes, women in Saudi Arabia are still prohibited by law to drive their own cars.`` - AP
``The problem with other people is that they have a certain way of life, and they think if you don`t live like them, there`s something wrong with you,`` said Bassma, head of the culture and heritage committee at Al-Nahda Women`s Charitable Society in Saudi Arabia. ``These self-styled liberators of women have this arrogant attitude and goes around imagining to their own fancy as to what will be the condition of women in Saudia and other Muslim countries if nobody is watching or putting pressure on them to be more civilized, and show some kindness?``
``Why should a Saudi Muslim woman, dress the way an American or European woman does?`` asked the 40-year-old Bassma, who, like all Saudi women, wears a long black abaya and head scarf in public. Basma said she is not inconvenienced by laws that prohibit her from driving. ``If I can have someone drive me around, why should I say no?`` she said. ``In Paris, you have to be a princess to afford a driver. Here, every woman is a princess because she has one, and for those who cannot afford one, can always ask their relatives to drive them around, after all, not every woman gets a license in western countries either. For us in Saudia, women problems are LESS compared to some hypocrite nations acting as torch bearers to the eastern world. They themselves are home to 40 million prostitutes with 10% carrying AIDS virus & almost 4 million of them suffering from full blown AIDS. For most of the women in Saudia, problem is whether to have blue carpet in the home or green & buy BMW or BENZ. Is this what the western countries prefer to call a suffering compared to children being sold for 50¢ to $5 on the streets or worse, 50 million getting killed while still in fetal stage for unwelcome sex in most of the South East Asian countries?``
Her arguments sounds convincing to me. It was recently shown in BBC program ASSIGNMENT titled: `Let her die`, the reporter Emily Buchanan revealed that almost 3000 abortions take place daily in India, when parents find out that the fetus is that of a female child. These alarming statistics goes to depict that we have more than a million female infanticide cases taking place in India alone. The Telegraph of London reported a conservative estimate of 250,000 child abusers in UK of which already 110,000 have been convicted. Scotland Yard admitted to these figures which goes on to depict that almost a quarter of a million Britons - more that one in every 200 adults, is a paedophile and most often the victims of these unnatural desires of perverts are female kids/children. With such statistics, every kid`s parent living in the U.K. would be frightened to death to leave their wards alone, almost anywhere. The upholders of Muslim women rights in the west or elsewhere, might advocate that whatever minimum tolerance exists in Islamic countries or Muslim minds, is due to the indirect fear and pressure from the countries of the west and other progressive people of the world. It`s surprising that they always seem to neglect to mention that over 50% of university graduate students in Saudia are women which is far higher than in our India or most western nations. A Saudi woman has also just been appointed head of a UN agency - but such facts are of no interest to these writers. If nations like India and the rest of the third world (in fact the elite`s in third world countries) want to follow the ways of the west and become morally and spiritually bankrupt let them - the Muslim countries should not follow them down the path to hell. Moreover, I wonder, why these people seem to care so much about Muslim women suffering in the hands of their illiterate/intolerant husbands or society. No one ever seems to care about Muslim men or try to uplift their social status in terms of financial or educational help?
The reason I decided to write this article because, living in an Arabian country and looking around my surroundings, the passages mentioned above came out to be as a work of fiction, and far from the truth. I haven`t had a chance to visit Saudi Arabia till now, but looking around the society in Arab Emirates, I see a totally different view of the women in this region. Of few, I will write below and they are only a few amongst the thousands of Arab women you will come across in your daily life while you visit any office or establishments in the UAE.
Lubna Al Qasimi speaks in her capacity as a woman who has
broken new grounds, as Managing Director of Tejari.com and as head of the UAE`s e-government team. ``Several people have at conferences accused the region of having kept its women behind the veil literally and metaphorically, but my position contradicts the prevailing norm`` and she is quick to defend her nation by stating that things are changing. On being queried if this generalization of women of the region hurts her? she quips, ``Why should I be angry with them for their ignorance? I need to correct their knowledge and correcting it by showing them that what I am is the way to do it. To go into an argument and say they are wrong, I don`t think I win. Let them admire you for what you represent and what you deliver and then it`s a different story.``
Upon receiving the VISA Arabian Business.com 2000, award for the best entrepreneur of the year, Lubna said, ``I am a role model for women. I am out there as a woman who achieved so much in life. People respect us (women) highly seeing us what we represent for our country For them, it is a phenomenal representation of our country. All they know is that ours is a very tight culture very conservative society. But when we go out there, we become ambassadors for ourselves in here.`` When asked to comment upon how she tackles male prejudices? Her reply was, ``Women in senior positions have always had to deal with the egos of male colleagues. Gender conflict has always been perceived as a universal global problem. I have to pay extra attention to demonstrate to them where I come from …that I am not there to fight their egos. I am there to create a future for them and let them carry on their path and forget about me. It`s not their fault. It`s the way they have been raised. I would have been extremely narrow-minded if I was out there to correct them. Then it`s my ego. You can`t blame them for it. I know where their distrust comes from. It is lack of knowledge. They don`t know. You have to give them the time to trust you. You have to deliver before you demand their acceptance. ``You have to have the patience. You have to have the discipline.``
Surayya Al Aridh, a Saudi woman columnist once wrote: ``There are still some of those in this world, who maintain that female employment is a luxury and that it creates unnecessary complications. The women themselves are, however, disproving these people everyday.``
That is definitely the case here in the Emirates, where local Arab women make up 11.4 per cent of the workforce. The percentage is higher only in Bahrain, where they have a relatively strong education. Naheeda Abdulla, a UAE national, is a shining example of what true success is. As a remedial management unit manager for a leading bank in Sharjah, Naheeda is an extremely confident and independent woman. She has seven years of banking experience, and though she works in an industry that is predominantly male, she has managed to hold her own and excel. Set to receive her MBA in Finance and Banking Law, she says, ``Social science affirms that a woman`s place in society marks the level of civilization.`` She says that she loves taking risks and likes challenges which boost her self-confidence. What advice would she give to young woman who are pursuing degrees and careers?
``I would tell them to decide for themselves what is important in their lives and in their careers. You must work hard. We have to try for our children. Come up with new ideas, be innovative and continue doing research while you are in university. And continue to study. Go for higher challenges and obtain an advanced degree if you can.``
Lubna Al Sayegh, 24, works as Accounts Manager in Union National Bank. She mentions of her family members who have always reposed a lot of confidence in her, which in turn boosted her self esteem and made her be confident at the workplace. Currently, she is doing her executive MBA with AUS. On being asked as to how she feels about being stereotyped as a `head covering, backward Arab woman`, she replies, ``To me, if you want to be a person of a global nature, you have to know it`s cultures first … you have to know it`s people, you have to know where they come from and then you understand technology and everything else. At the end of the day, it is people. I am a person who loves culture and I travel extensively … and to me, that is one of the assets as an individual I have.``
In the framework of Islam, Woman is primarily considered as a Home maker and not a housewife because she is not married to a house. She can also work and is entitled to get equal pay if she does the same job as that of a male. There is no text in the Qur’an or the Sunnah which makes it unlawful for women to work or to do any lawful job or profession. If she is married she should take the permission of her husband. She cannot take up jobs which are based on exhibiting her beauty and body, such as modeling, dancing, acting in films, taking part in beauty pageants etc. (Not to mention, we can find a lot of Muslim girls in these *so called * professions these days and pretty proud at that)
Many jobs which are forbidden for women are also forbidden for men, for example serving liquor, working in gambling dens, dealing in corruption and dishonest businesses, etc. A true Islamic Society should have some women as professionals such as women physicians (doctors), women nurses, women teachers, etc. Women have no financial obligations in Islam. It is the duty of the man in the family to look after the financial aspects of the family. Therefore under normal conditions a woman need not work and is not required to earn her livelihood or that of her family. However in certain genuine cases due to financial crisis in the family where both ends do not meet, she has the option to work with the permission of her father or husband or any other elder of the family. Even in such conditions no one can force her to work and if she takes up a job it is by exercising her own free will. The best example we can quote is that of Prophet Muhammad’s (Pbuh) wife, Bibi Khadija (R) who was a very successful businesswoman. She transacted through her husband Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh). Hence, it becomes incumbent upon every Muslim, boy or a girl, to acquire knowledge through education. The first guidance given to the mankind in the Qur’an was ``Iqra`` i.e. to read, recite or proclaim. Surah Iqra and Surah Alaq Chapter 96, Verse 1-5. ``Read! Recite! Proclaim! in the name of thy Lord and cherisher who created - created the human, out of a congealed clot of blood . Read and thy Lord is Most Bountiful. He who taught (the use of) the Pen- taught man that which he knew not (96 : 1-5). The first instruction in the Qur’an was, not to pray or fast or to give charity, but to read. This instruction was to both male and female. Islam gives a great deal of importance to education. Even according to Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) ``It is obligatory for every Muslim, male or female, to acquire knowledge (Al-Bayhaqi).
Read Also: Women in Afghanistan - Facts and Fictions
The Laying to Waste of the World: a Memory of I.H Burney
sadna
tvarad #538
I liked this `retort` to Thomas Friedman`s article in the Deccan Herald :
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/nov21/isharma.htm
``...He informed them that more Muslims live in India than in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/nov21/sharma.htm
hindus of india ,
``...But the fact is, the Indian Constitution is secular and provides a real opportunity for the economic advancement of any community that can offer talent. That`s why a growing Muslim middle class here is moving up and, generally, doesn`t manifest the strands of deep anger you find in many non-democratic Muslim states.``
In the million times posted article by the Israeli Freidman (also American i know so are all isrealis)quoted MJ Akbar
You can say that again ,pseudo muslims hinduized bollywood version of haji ali singing non namazi muslims of erstwhile muslim forefathers.
Why is Simin locked in jail & Banned! IF THERE IS NO ANGER IN INDIAN MUSLIMS.THE SLAVES NEVER HAD ANGER ,DOES THAT MEAN ALL MUSLIMS SHOULD BE SLAVES
Hypocrites !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 21, 2001 11:42 am
EST Reply #: 560 sadna
tvarad #538
I liked this `retort` to Thomas Friedman`s article in the Deccan Herald :
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/nov21/isharma.htm
``...He informed them that more Muslims live in India than in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/nov21/sharma.htm
hindus of india ,
``...But the fact is, the Indian Constitution is secular and provides a real opportunity for the economic advancement of any community that can offer talent. That`s why a growing Muslim middle class here is moving up and, generally, doesn`t manifest the strands of deep anger you find in many non-democratic Muslim states.``
In the million times posted article by the Israeli Freidman (also American i know so are all isrealis)quoted MJ Akbar
You can say that again ,pseudo muslims hinduized bollywood version of haji ali singing non namazi muslims of erstwhile muslim forefathers.
Why is Simin locked in jail & Banned! IF THERE IS NO ANGER IN INDIAN MUSLIMS.THE SLAVES NEVER HAD ANGER ,DOES THAT MEAN ALL MUSLIMS SHOULD BE SLAVES
Hypocrites !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Crazy Night
Nov-17-01 22:57:9 EST Reply #: 46
Bhardwaj
November 18, 2001
IN THE MAGAZINE
What the Muslim World Is Watching
By FOUAD AJAMI
November 18, 2001
IN THE MAGAZINE
What the Muslim World Is Watching
By FOUAD AJAMI
In case anyone is not familiar with Foud Ajami ,he is notoriously anti-muslims.He may carry an Arabic name ,but as we have been yelling at Naipaul ,Bernard Lewis , Friedman & Emerson,some of the other poisonously anti muslim,by artfully inserting imagery of hatred towards muslims in there books & articles.Important part is these 4-5 authors are the main expert analyst ,adviser & source of information for Bush Administration & American media including the so called impartial PBS Charlie rose show & PRN(public radio network?) etc etc.
Posted by
Fatimah
Nov 20, 2001 08:14 pm
Nov-17-01 22:57:9 EST Reply #: 46
Bhardwaj
November 18, 2001
IN THE MAGAZINE
What the Muslim World Is Watching
By FOUAD AJAMI
November 18, 2001
IN THE MAGAZINE
What the Muslim World Is Watching
By FOUAD AJAMI
In case anyone is not familiar with Foud Ajami ,he is notoriously anti-muslims.He may carry an Arabic name ,but as we have been yelling at Naipaul ,Bernard Lewis , Friedman & Emerson,some of the other poisonously anti muslim,by artfully inserting imagery of hatred towards muslims in there books & articles.Important part is these 4-5 authors are the main expert analyst ,adviser & source of information for Bush Administration & American media including the so called impartial PBS Charlie rose show & PRN(public radio network?) etc etc.
- Fatimah
- Interacts: 140
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 305
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Aug 23 2001
- Last signin: Dec 1 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
