Yesterday, see below, i had an entry called “Welles Nietes: de vrouw in de Koran” (It is, it isn’t, women in the Quran) about a Dutch discussion on the place of women in Islam. One female Muslim participant said Islam oppresses women, the other said Islam does not. This in itself is not very interesting and surprising. The same goes for Idiocy of Gender Equality: The Case of the Woman Imam by Yamin Zakaria. What is interesting in all these contributions is how people use ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ to legitimize their opinions. Zakaria states:

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.

Although he makes a distorted sketch of the West, she certainly has a point. Who decides what women’s rights are, what emancipation is? Musims or secular non-muslims? By asking himself these questions he also shows some inconsistencies in the arguments of Muslims who want to copy the ‘western-style’ feminism into Islam. She did this in another article for example, where she (among other things) criticized Amina Wudud:

Amina Abdul Wadud led a mix congregation of male and female Muslims in a Friday (Jumma) prayer for the first time in the 1500 years of Islamic history. Again the impetus for such acts emanates from the hostile secular environment. After the prayer, she are her clique stated that they were instilling gender equality and women�s rights. Ironically, Amina Abdul Wadud did that whilst wearing the Islamic headscarf (Hijab) which is considered by many to be at odds with gender equality and a symbol of the oppression of women!

Her claims of reinterpreting the text to establish �justice� for women displays her arrogance. Let us put aside the �evil� and impartial men. At the very beginnings of Islam there were the wives of the Prophet (SAW) with many other female personalities, followed by the successive generation of women scholars for centuries. Do we assume that they have all failed in their fundamental duty and hence overlooked their legitimate right to lead the Friday prayer of mix congregation? To the contrary segregation of prayers was established from the onset, as women were instructed to pray behind the men. If that is the case then how women can lead the men in prayer while the rest of the women are behind the men in the first place.

In any case, justice for Amina Abdul Wadud is not from within Islam but a reformed version that is in compliance to her preconceived secular values like gender equality; – the real arbiter. And not surprisingly she also favour homosexual marriages and detests the clear cut penal codes in the Quran. A clear act of apostasy!

Gender equality is only an example of the general drive by the moderate brigades to constantly prove the compatibility of Islam with secular values. If Islam is proven to be compatible to secular notions, what reasons remain than for adhering to Islam? Why not simply adopt the original yard stick of secularism instead of clinging on to the secular-compatible �Islam�. The exercise is very much an own goal scoring and completely folly. Given the choice between a genuine Rolls Royce and a close imitation it is well-known what most rational people would opt for.

The moderate brigade constantly shout about Women�s rights in Islam as a means to deflect criticisms emanating from the secular camp without once thinking about the credentials of those who are dispensing the criticisms. Do the critics have the right? To answer this question we need to examine their track record against what they preach. If they pass the test only then it makes sense to entertain their charges. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise to entertain the words of hypocrites.

What he says here is more or less, why should we remain Muslims if it is fully compatible, no even the same, as secularism? It is one of the most heard comments on ‘western-style’ feminism: we want emancipation, but we don’t want to be like you. What we see nowadays among young female Muslims is exactly that standpoint. We want equal rights, we want all the rights, including the right to live our religion the way we want to. And this is seems to be quite confusing for many people; Muslims and non-Muslims. Ow yes, the articles are written by a male Muslim.

You can find both articles of Zakaria below:

Idiocy of Gender Equality: The Case of the Woman Imam
by Yamin Zakaria
(Wednesday 23 March 2005)

“The moderate brigade constantly shout about Women�s rights in Islam as a means to deflect criticisms emanating from the secular camp without once thinking about the credentials of those who are dispensing the criticisms. Do the critics have the right? To answer this question we need to examine their track record against what they preach. If they pass the test only then it makes sense to entertain their charges. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise to entertain the words of hypocrites.”

With the exception of the very few Prophetesses mentioned in the Old Testament, all the messengers of God mentioned in the Abrahamic religious (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) texts are male. Islam does not even make any references to any Prophetess. Furthermore, the founders and the early pioneers of all the other major religions are also predominantly male. If there is such a thing as gender equality then why would a just God deprive womankind of their share of Prophethood?

Therefore, those who have their faith in gender equality that is rooted in feminism which forms part of the current secular values would naturally conclude that religions are man-made: synthetic. But this conclusion also in turn raises another question, why men have been so successful in dominating women, shaping history, society and civilisations? So, one may argue that known human history actually demonstrates the non-existence of gender equality. It is a recent invention by some idealists; in contrast, religions have always existed throughout human history as if it is an essential part of human nature.

Gender equality is the equality of sexes on every aspect to the point that the gender differences should become totally immaterial in determining the laws and values. It implies that the concept of moms and dads, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives etc. should cease to have any meaning with time. 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? And it is for the advocates of gender equality to clarify the limits to which this should be allowed and pursued.

For those who have conviction in religion there is little scope to deny the role of gender in determining values, rights and responsibilities that are often diametrically at odds with the idea of gender equality. Male dominated Prophethood was one example, another one is: polygyny. It is clearly permitted in Islam and also found in the Biblical texts (Prophet Solomon and David). This phenomenon can also be seen in the animal kingdom, where the male species are the ones usually spreading their seeds. In contrast, women have not been given similar right to acquire multiple husbands (polyandry) and also human history shows polyandry to be of rare occurrences.

Final example of crucifixion is a reminder to those Christians that have taken up the fashionable trend of Islam-bashing using secular notions of gender equality and feminism. If you believe in gender equality can you explain why God almighty sacrificed his only begotten son in order to redeem the sins of mankind? Should He not have sacrificed a male and a female? More fundamentally, why God almighty did not even have a begotten daughter in the first place to sacrifice?

Yet, paradoxically, religious movements within the Abrahamic religions have sought to reinterpret religious texts in order to accommodate the idea of gender equality. In fact, they take so much pride in this activity that they call themselves a modernising �progressive� force. But why should this be a one-way lane where religious values that are divine, reinterpreted to comply with man-made secular values? This means that the �progressive� �religious� movements are using secular values as the ultimate arbiter: clearly they are a fraudulent religious movement. Their activity is undermining the divine text from within that makes them more dangerous than the clearly visible belligerent apostates and infidels.

Christian and Jews have officially succumbed to the secular-feminist agenda of gender equality as they have started to allow female priests and Rabbis to conduct services and this is just the beginning. Note, it may well be argued their respective religious texts do allow for female, priests and Rabbis but the point is, the impetus for these changes has come from outside. The forces of secularism in the driving seat dictating compliance to gender equality.

In copycat style manner, following the footsteps of female priests and rabbis, Amina Abdul Wadud led a mix congregation of male and female Muslims in a Friday (Jumma) prayer for the first time in the 1500 years of Islamic history. Again the impetus for such acts emanates from the hostile secular environment. After the prayer, she are her clique stated that they were instilling gender equality and women�s rights. Ironically, Amina Abdul Wadud did that whilst wearing the Islamic headscarf (Hijab) which is considered by many to be at odds with gender equality and a symbol of the oppression of women!

Her claims of reinterpreting the text to establish �justice� for women displays her arrogance. Let us put aside the �evil� and impartial men. At the very beginnings of Islam there were the wives of the Prophet (SAW) with many other female personalities, followed by the successive generation of women scholars for centuries. Do we assume that they have all failed in their fundamental duty and hence overlooked their legitimate right to lead the Friday prayer of mix congregation? To the contrary segregation of prayers was established from the onset, as women were instructed to pray behind the men. If that is the case then how women can lead the men in prayer while the rest of the women are behind the men in the first place.

In any case, justice for Amina Abdul Wadud is not from within Islam but a reformed version that is in compliance to her preconceived secular values like gender equality; – the real arbiter. And not surprisingly she also favour homosexual marriages and detests the clear cut penal codes in the Quran. A clear act of apostasy!

Gender equality is only an example of the general drive by the moderate brigades to constantly prove the compatibility of Islam with secular values. If Islam is proven to be compatible to secular notions, what reasons remain than for adhering to Islam? Why not simply adopt the original yard stick of secularism instead of clinging on to the secular-compatible �Islam�. The exercise is very much an own goal scoring and completely folly. Given the choice between a genuine Rolls Royce and a close imitation it is well-known what most rational people would opt for.

The moderate brigade constantly shout about Women�s rights in Islam as a means to deflect criticisms emanating from the secular camp without once thinking about the credentials of those who are dispensing the criticisms. Do the critics have the right? To answer this question we need to examine their track record against what they preach. If they pass the test only then it makes sense to entertain their charges. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise to entertain the words of hypocrites.

As an example, the critics say polygyny as prescribed by Islam is wrong. Those who pose the questions do not officially practice polygyny but are virtually in a permanent state of polygamous relationships and even more given the level of infidelity, moral decay and a rejection of the traditional marriage that are often replaced with the so-called open relationships. In reality, the least monogamous societies are those who advocate and pretend to be one. Also, ironically, it is the Muslim societies driven by a strict moral code exhibits greater levels of successful monogamous relationship, despite being given the right to commit polygyny.

One cannot establish equality to any level without establishing genuine mutual respect from the heart. Waving the flag of women�s rights, wanting to be seen politically correct is simply pretentious. To illustrate the point, just ask the liberated women would they would feel safer in a lonely place with a group of devout Muslim men or a group of rowdy young men coming back from a party! If the men are drunk, they often lose their inhibitions and their inner traits surfaces. Their language and behaviour gets coloured by their sexual appetites. Iraq is another example, how many of the captured women were killed, raped and abused like it was done in Abu-Ghraib and other places by the flag bearers of women�s rights! In contrast, Jessica Lynch to the recent Italian journalists was released unharmed, treated well by their own words.

Finally, gender equality does not automatically result in tranquillity, harmony and a happier society. Self evident from the constant rise in divorce rates, single parents, drug dependencies, climbing suicide rates, sexual abuse etc. Relationship between the two sexes is not just a matter of treating them identically in every aspect. It must take everything into account and who better can answer that except the creator Himself. Alternatively we can choose to use our minds to determine the relationship. But that is simply guess work as nobody knows precisely what the rights and responsibilities should be, between the sexes so that a stable relationship is acquired with tranquillity.

Source:

by courtesy & � 2005 Yamin Zakaria

“Woman’s Rights” Has No Legitimacy in Islam
by Yamin Zakaria
(Saturday 16 April 2005)

“Had Islam and Muslim men been the real oppressors of women, the feminist movement would have arisen from within the Islamic societies.”

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 Bikini

Post 9/11, the firepower of the West was going to be a liberating force for the women in Afghanistan. However, the honourable women of Afghanistan did not strip their veils for the miniskirt. In frustration, the media attempted to kick-start the process of �liberation� by parading a semi-nude US-based Afghani woman in a human cattle market, i.e. a beauty contest. Further inducement would follow in the form of a Hollywood blockbuster where the all American hero would seduce an �oppressed� Muslim woman out of the veil into an adulterous relationship, symbolising her �liberation�!

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 Iraq as given the opportunity they will shed their mask as soldiers of woman�s rights.

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 Far East! When these men are drunk, see how they regard the opposite sex as they reveal their traits losing their inhibitions, their discussion barely rise above the waistlines. At this point the liberated woman would definitely feel least secure being amongst these chivalrous knights. These are the men who are going to teach the Islamic world about the merits of virtuous monogamous relationship! It is laughable and absurd as the criminals like Bush, Blair and Sharon talks about lofty values as peace, morality and now eliminating poverty.

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 clich�, 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 Iraq have been labelled only as Kurds rather then Muslims from 1991.

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 Northern Alliance. Also in Iraq, it is the ugly US soldiers that are deliberately raping and killing women in Fallujah, Baghdad and Abu-Ghraib. Where as all the women prisoners at the hands of the Muslims from Private Jessica Lynch to the Italian journalists were freed unharmed, they were treated very well according to their own words. Actions always speak louder than the words, especially when the words emanate from the slimy tongue of the mass media.

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.

Note:

[1]. Idiocy of Gender Equality: The Case of the Woman Imam – http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/13833/

Source:

by courtesy & � 2005 Yamin Zakaria