“Woman’s
Rights” Has No Legitimacy in Islam
Yamin
Zakaria
Like
secularism, capitalism and democracy, woman’s rights also flows from the West
to the rest. The various tentacles of the UN are dedicated to propagate
woman’s rights as universal values. But where is the universality when nations
are, cajoled and/or bullied into compliance! The issue (woman’s rights) is
predominantly raised to attack Islam and Muslims, even though it may be more
applicable to other religions and cultures - indicating the ulterior motive
behind the issue is one of making political gains against adversaries and not
the furthering of the welfare of womankind.
In
response to the attack, the Muslims in general have responded in a defensive
mode, argued that the women in Islam do have rights that are comparable to
secular societies, which is an admission of defeat as the secular values are
made the real arbiter. Consequentially, this has helped to foster an apologetic
mindset whereby the continuous apologising for Islam manifests in reinterpreting
its laws and values to satisfy the secular criticisms. So the Muslim response is
always from a defensive posture. In the name of Ijtehad
(Scholarly exertion to interpret Islamic texts and deduce laws) and various
other pretexts, even the established Sharia rules are being slowly rendered
subjective and moulded to meet the secular standards.
Listed
below are some of the points frequently raised by the western intelligentsia to
undermine the Islamic laws and values pertaining to women while promoting the
alternative secular panacea: woman’s rights. It also gives us a glimpse of the
real politics behind the issue.
a)
The Islamic Veil (Hijab) or
the
Post
9/11, the firepower of the West was going to be a liberating force for the women
in
What
is the underlying principle here? If stripping your clothes off to appeal to the
male gender is a symbol of liberation, then surely the lap dancers, strippers,
porn actresses and the likes must epitomise the concept of a liberated woman. Accordingly,
if the US forces managed to replace the Mosques in Kabul with strip
joints, lap dancers and brothels entertaining their soldiers that would have
symbolised ‘liberation’ of the Afghan women.
Such
arguments tend to indicate that woman’s rights are always tied to her ability
to appear in scanty revealing clothes as opposed to her education or other
achievements in life.
This is usually followed by the ludicrous argument of denial that the women
appear in revealing clothes because it feels good and nothing to do with the
agitation of the male instincts. So, high-heel shoes must be more comfortable
than flat shoes, scanty clothes in freezing temperature must be better than
baggy warm clothes, tight clothes more comfortable than loose clothes! It does
seem ironic that ‘emancipated’
women spend most of their energies trying to titillate to the opposite sex in
their clothes, makeup and diet; - thus emancipation it seems has only increased
their dependency on the male gender!
Now
that we know a
woman is described as ‘progressive’ and ‘liberated’ for replacing the
veil with the mini-skirt then why draw a line with absolute nudity. The female
emancipation barometer seems to be measured by how much she is willingly to
strip off but the going beyond the bra and bikini is considered indecent. So, how
did one conclude that is where the border of decency and indecency lies? After
all, we were all born naked and we will also leave this world naked. Thus,
the most pertinent question is; - why the minimum dress code enforced by the
secular societies any more correct than the limits imposed by the Islamic Sharia?
b)
Polygamy or Sexual Freedom (Promiscuity).
Polygamous
relationships pre-dates Islam, it existed in Judeo-Christian traditions and most
other religions and cultures. Therefore, why target Islam specifically on this
issue of polygamy. I do find it astonishingly hypocritical for the West to
incessantly argue against polygamy when one would hard pressed to find a
virtuous monogamous man amongst them! Do
they seriously think that the upright ‘monogamous’ West is on some sort of
moral crusade confronting the ‘depraved’ polygamous Islam? Only the arrogant
hypocrite would refuse to see the contradiction of criticising legalised
polygamy with its detailed rules setting out the rights and obligations while
permitting all sorts of sexual activities using the license of: ‘sexual
freedom’!
From
high school or earlier, the competition is fierce amongst boys to bed many
females as possible in the West. Night clubs, parties, holidays, TV shows are
the dedicated places of learning, where the boys and girls maximise their fun
and gain experience. A direct consequence of sexual-freedom has been constant
expansion of the boundaries of sexual taboos, permitting and encouraging sexual
activities that involve multiple partners in the form of open relationships to
sordid orgies and the likes.
So
the secular critics do endorse polygamous relationships and much more but as
long as it is not a marriage with legal obligations. When a celebrity manages to
engage several women in one night it becomes a selling point for tabloids, an
example for the new generations, earning the envy of most men. Even more, a man
can make an appearance on a national TV-show announcing that he has boyfriend to
his wife or that he is literally in love with his dog or any other forms of
perversion as long as it is not a second wife! Such sensitivity reminds me of
how the Romans found no issue with the exhibition of the male genitals as long
as it was not circumcised!
Power
of propaganda is so immense that many of the Muslim apologists have started to
deny the existence of a restricted practice of polygamy in Sharia laws. A
classic and an idiotic argument to deny Polygamy is that they say: Islam has
obliged you to give equal treatment to all your wives and since this is not
possible, a task beyond human capacity, hence, Polygamy is only a theoretical
possibility. I do not understand why God would permit Polygamy if it is beyond
the ability of the male gender! Why GOD would pronounce such meaningless
statements? I guess you have to have the ‘wisdom’ of the apologists to
understand such pronouncements or neo-Ijtehad!
c)
Freedom
of Choice and Enforcement
Muslim
women are imprisoned, denied choices under the Islamic laws while the
emancipated Western women are free, having endless choices. But what are those
choices and what is the implication for the society if the individuals are given
those choices. Choice is not intrinsically a virtue, it can bring chaos, and if
incorrect choices are made than it causes more harm than good. As an example,
from an Islamic perspective the huge flesh industry made up of porn and
prostitution is viewed as exploitation and degradation of women. The West would
reply by stating that those women decided of their own free will to pursue a
career in that industry.
There
is no doubt woman’s flesh sells, it makes money like any another commodity in
the free market economy. The business of porn and prostitution by its nature is
exploitative and degrading regardless of how it is produced, by choice or
compulsion. It is predominantly produced to satisfy the lust of the male gender,
making the woman a sexual servant while wrapping her with ‘freedom’. The
long term effect on society is that it inculcates a certain mentality and psyche
amongst the youth. Implications are huge, and it contributes towards the growth
in sexual crimes, single parent families, drug dependencies etc.
In
any case, no society endorses absolute freedom or choice. Every society enforces
a certain laws and values to maintain order and stability. The
restrictions applied to Muslim women are equally applicable to Muslim men, as
the laws regulate the behaviour of male and female. If you separate the female
from the male, the male too is separated from the female and imprisoned. But no
one is interested in the restrictions applied on the Muslim men because the real
focus is on the access to Muslim women, removing the traditional barriers. Why,
because we know flesh sells!
d)
Gender
Equality or Gender Harmony.
The
Gender Equality is a one-dimensional view focusing primarily on the relationship
between two adult peers engaged in a marital relationship. What role does it
play between father and daughter, mother and son, uncle and niece relationships?
Furthermore, why is the standard of equality measured by referring to the male
gender as the base line? Consequentially, women are increasingly pushed to
imitate men in every sphere to symbolise emancipation and equality. Surely
this is the biggest insult to womanhood as it assumes her to be unequal until
she does what men do!
Also,
are there any limits of gender equality? Should the gender differences become
totally immaterial in determining the laws and values? If so, eventually, the
concept of moms and dads, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives etc. would
become meaningless. Similarly, the distinction between homosexual and
heterosexual relationship would also vanish. In the name of gender equality
should we reach a point where the only distinction remaining would be the bodily
organs?
In
my previous article [1] I cited evidences from the three Abrahamic religions
(Islam, Christianity and Judaism) highlighting the absence of ‘gender
equality’ as espoused by the current secular trends. Also, I elaborated and
provided corroborative evidences from history and human nature confirming the
fallacy of gender equality. Throughout human history, the two genders have
generally functioned to complement each other particularly in a husband and wife
relationship as opposed to acting as adversaries competing in every sphere. Islam
in line with human nature espouses for harmony between two genders and not a
full scale war.
Who
are the chivalrous knights of woman’s rights?
Apart
from the idea of woman’s rights it is important to get glimpse of those, in
particular the male gender as to how the uphold such lofty values. Men in the
West are caught in between by a culture that constantly agitates their sexual
instincts and also demands ‘respect’ by
complying with certain legal/political standards that is supposed to manifest a
non-sexist world.
It
is the constant agitation of their sexual instinct that will always be the
dominating factor in their behaviour. Their
macho minds are filled with a culture of porn with images of women as sexual
object transmitted by the lewd pop-fashion-film industry: pieces of flesh to
consume. Consequentially, nominal
respect shown by the men is due to the fear of being subjected to the laws of
sexual harassment and very little emanates from the hearts and minds. They
showed their inner traits when they can get away with it. Rape in the Western
society is constantly on the increase, it also prevalent within the army. That
is why many of the soldiers raped in
At
night they hunt in the clubs and parties for women’s flesh. There is even
sex-tourism organised so that the
flag bearer of woman’s rights, routinely raid the cheap and poverty stricken
flesh market in the
If
there was genuine enthusiasm towards woman’s rights in general, then all women
would be treated with respect. An elderly woman in the West is rarely treated
with respect as a motherly figure but often a subject to mocking, the familiar
term of the old bag, witch etc. Because her youth has passed, she is no longer a
valuable commodity in the free market and quarantined into the old peoples home.
Genuine
respect is fostered by an environment where the two sexes relate to each other
by values that are not driven by their carnal desires and whims. In a
permissive culture one loses real respect for women and men, the loss of sense
of shame and modesty, the notion of honour of a woman becomes meaningless. Sexual
crimes have become trivial so that is why lenient punishment is dispensed for
it. In contrast Islam prescribes the most sever punishment. Why? Because Islam
places value on the honour of a woman and if that is violated there will be a
heavy price to pay!
The
old cliché, judge them by their fruits, shows that ‘liberated’ societies
with emancipated women and men have not attained greater levels of happiness and
stability in their relationships. In fact the trends show the opposite,
breakdown in family life, soaring divorce rates, increasing dependencies on
drugs. Rape, domestic violence to all sorts of social crimes is constantly in
the increase.
Media
Manipulation
Recently,
a TV documentary referred to the Turkish producers of porno films not as
“Turkish pornographers” but as “Muslim Pornographers”. It is truly
amazing that even the most non-practicing, westernised liberals who are engaged
in the most un-Islamic acts are coloured with the Muslim brush. Another vivid
example is the Kurdish father who killed his young daughter for engaging in an
adulterous relationship was immediately identified as an act of a Muslim.
However, the entire Kurdish population in
In
general every effort is made by the media to link to Islam as an underlying
factor to the unpleasant incident and knowing that it is contrary to the
teachings of Islam. Likewise the cultural baggage the Muslims carry that often
leads to un-Islamic practices like honour
killing, forced marriages, unfair denial of education are all linked with Islam
by the media rather than the absence of Islam. It is not Islam but the
chauvinism of some Muslims that deny women their rights in marriage, access to
education, work and contribution to spiritual life of the family and community.
Worse than this is the liberal application of Islamic laws to men in their
errors, and the extreme discipline applied to females, often excessively outside
the Islamic laws.
The
media deliberately shows the punishment given out to the adulterous woman (not
the man) to reinforce the image that Islam only prescribes punishment for
women. That is why the picture of the Taliban punishing the women who was
already convicted in a court was shown frequently in the western media whose
audiences have already been brainwashed. In reality the women prisoner of the
Taliban included the famous Western journalist Yvonne Ridley who later embraced
Islam testified otherwise. The real rapists are in abundance within the
What
Islam Says
The
Islamic perspective is clear: women are
not equal to men and men are not equal to women. Neither party are inferior or
superior to each other. Their positions are defined with a set of rights and
responsibilities. A husband may have rights over his wife but the husband is
subordinate to his mother. Similarly, a mother may have rights over her son, but
she is in turn subordinate to her father. The relationships between the two
genders are complex and multifaceted. It is the Islamic laws that shape the
relationship in terms of designating rights and obligations between the two
genders at various positions.
It
is only rational and consistent to protect the rights of everyone including
women by invoking the Islamic laws instead of resorting to secular arguments
that are rooted in feminism. If secular
values are the criteria then it makes little sense to interpret Islam to fit
into the secular garb but far greater sense to simply abandon it. Why go for
secular compatible Islam instead of pure secularism? It simply makes no sense.
Unfortunately there are even feminists in Hijab along with their male apologists
in leash, many of whom are also disguised as Islamic scholars with their beards
and robes, are using Islamic texts to promote non-Islamic ideas like woman’s
rights, gender equality as Islamic, wittingly or unwittingly. If a man or a
woman has been denied their rights, we invoke the Islamic laws as remedy instead
of viewing the problem as though it is rooted in gender differences.
Had
Islam and Muslim men been the real oppressors of women, the feminist movement
would have arisen from within the Islamic societies. Indeed, the origin of such
movements perhaps reflects where the real oppression of women existed and still
exists! No one can explain why Islam supposedly anti-Woman continues to attract
more women than men. Both, logic and Islamic texts dictates that woman’s
rights have no place in Islam, those who speak in its name has the worst track
record in violating the rights of womankind. It is a political tool like the UN
resolutions, employed selectively against opponents. Otherwise we would have
seen it deployed in a consistent manner.
In
response to the issue of women’s equality being pressed into the face of
Islam, we as Muslim’s have to set our own agenda and not be baited by mischief
makers who have a malignant intent towards Islam and Muslims. With this self
inspection we must face truths about the broad experience of Muslim’s across
the world and the variable application of the Islamic laws, which is causing
problems.
[1] Idiocy of Gender Equality: The Case of the Woman Imam - http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/13833/
http://www.tajdeed.net