Debates over Islamic customs
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Maswood Alam Khan
In 2004 headscarf, along with other religious symbols, was legally banned from French state schools. The 'headscarf' was meant for Islamic headscarf a Muslim female student is used to wearing. In a November 2009 referendum in Switzerland, a constitutional amendment banning the construction of new minarets was approved. The word 'minaret' is meant for minarets attached to mosques. A French parliamentary leader recently submitted a draft law stating that "nobody, in places open to the public or on streets, may wear an outfit or an accessory whose effect is to hide the face". The 'outfit' is meant for burqa a Muslim woman often wears when she moves outside of her home. The present Bangladesh government is contemplating to ban any political party based on religion. The targeted 'political party' is obviously Jamaat-e-Islam.
One recent statement against an Islamic practice that sparked tumultuous public row, stirred the blood of fanatics, excited debates to see logic and made some extrovert Muslim women to mull over was made by a Saudi journalist Nadine Bedair in her article published recently in the Egyptian independent daily Al Masry Al Youm.
Nadine Bedair in the first paragraph of her article titled "Polygamy for women" wrote: "Allow me to choose four, five or even nine men, just as my wildest imagination shall choose. I'll pick them with different shapes and sizes, one of them will be dark and the other will be blond. They will be chosen from different backgrounds, religions, races and nations." The lady author's prime aim was to defame 'polygamy of men', a marital practice allowed in Islam.
Both the proponents and opponents of the aforementioned issues related to Islam such as headscarf for school children, minaret for mosques, burqa for ladies, Islam for politics and polyandry for women are in fact chopping their own legs. While some people are demonizing the practitioners of Islam, some Muslims are decrying their attempts as blasphemous. If either side would not have been proactive the other side would have been hugely gainer, politically or religiously.
Debates over whether a Muslim woman should wear a headscarf and a burqa, whether politics based on Islam should be practiced or whether a Muslim lady can marry more than one man have surfaced time and again over the last few decades. Adherents of either camp have pledged their allegiance to logic that is democratically valid from their respective points of view. On the one hand, champions of cultural diversity and freedom of expression are aghast and want that there must not be any ban on what Muslims want to do with their customs, apparels, architecture or politics. On the other hand, nationalist preservationists want to see a clear separation of state and religion, no matter the religion is Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity.
It is however more logical on the part of a neutral observer to side with those who want all the bans---proposed or enforced---lifted in favour of freedom of expression because the vast majority of those supporting the ban are blatantly motivated by racist convictions. It is appalling to witness the desperation with which people cling to their imagined identity and the fear they display towards anyone that does not fit in their narrow-minded conception of the world.
Interestingly, debates over what a Muslim should do and should not do have made Islam rather an attractive discipline for non-Muslims to study and in the process many have found their traditional faiths less scientific than the faith in Islam.
Perhaps that is the reason why people, especially in America, in progressively great numbers are embracing Islam as their faith forsaking their religions they inherited.
History suggests that victims of religious persecution had to flee from their homelands only to regain their strength after a pause.
Those who are finding Islam as a threat should bear in mind that Islam is the religion which salvaged humanity from many a curse like slavery and gender discrimination. Any persecution against Muslims will boomerang and all the venoms they are trying to throw on Muslims will rather hurt them at the end of the day when people in their libraries will dig deep into the history of Islam.
Of course, there are questions in the practice and rituals of Islam. Lamentably, meritorious wards of Muslim parents are encouraged to study a variety of disciplines in science and arts where they are not allowed much time to study theology.
Paradoxically, wards who are a little intellectually less gifted are usually sent to schools like madrasas where a student is encouraged to learn Islamic lessons more by tote than through realization. These are the graduates from madrasas who ultimately are engaged in mosques as Imams to teach Islamic lessons. These Imams dare not budge a millimeter from what they have learnt about customs and rituals that were practiced hundreds of years back.
There was a time not many decades back when an Imam while giving sermons in a mosque categorically discouraged students from learning English because the language was what the non-Muslims used.
Many Muslim scholars lashed out at Nadine Bedair, the Saudi journalist who espoused polygamy for women, saying that "no woman has the right to attack traditions of Islam". The critics instead of questioning Nadine's right of expression could have said: "Islam once allowed men to marry up to four women at the same time, but only if they could treat the wives equally. But the practice is on decline as not many men can afford to marry more than one".
In fact, the concept of polygamy (or polyandry) simply does not fit in with today's societal structures and that the world would be better off if the practice was discouraged or even banned. In our world today, polygamy should be unacceptable. There is no need for it and, besides, no man can truly love more than one woman and vice versa.
Maswood Alam Khan is Editorial Consultant of
The Financial Express.
His e-address:
maswood@hotmail.com
In 2004 headscarf, along with other religious symbols, was legally banned from French state schools. The 'headscarf' was meant for Islamic headscarf a Muslim female student is used to wearing. In a November 2009 referendum in Switzerland, a constitutional amendment banning the construction of new minarets was approved. The word 'minaret' is meant for minarets attached to mosques. A French parliamentary leader recently submitted a draft law stating that "nobody, in places open to the public or on streets, may wear an outfit or an accessory whose effect is to hide the face". The 'outfit' is meant for burqa a Muslim woman often wears when she moves outside of her home. The present Bangladesh government is contemplating to ban any political party based on religion. The targeted 'political party' is obviously Jamaat-e-Islam.
One recent statement against an Islamic practice that sparked tumultuous public row, stirred the blood of fanatics, excited debates to see logic and made some extrovert Muslim women to mull over was made by a Saudi journalist Nadine Bedair in her article published recently in the Egyptian independent daily Al Masry Al Youm.
Nadine Bedair in the first paragraph of her article titled "Polygamy for women" wrote: "Allow me to choose four, five or even nine men, just as my wildest imagination shall choose. I'll pick them with different shapes and sizes, one of them will be dark and the other will be blond. They will be chosen from different backgrounds, religions, races and nations." The lady author's prime aim was to defame 'polygamy of men', a marital practice allowed in Islam.
Both the proponents and opponents of the aforementioned issues related to Islam such as headscarf for school children, minaret for mosques, burqa for ladies, Islam for politics and polyandry for women are in fact chopping their own legs. While some people are demonizing the practitioners of Islam, some Muslims are decrying their attempts as blasphemous. If either side would not have been proactive the other side would have been hugely gainer, politically or religiously.
Debates over whether a Muslim woman should wear a headscarf and a burqa, whether politics based on Islam should be practiced or whether a Muslim lady can marry more than one man have surfaced time and again over the last few decades. Adherents of either camp have pledged their allegiance to logic that is democratically valid from their respective points of view. On the one hand, champions of cultural diversity and freedom of expression are aghast and want that there must not be any ban on what Muslims want to do with their customs, apparels, architecture or politics. On the other hand, nationalist preservationists want to see a clear separation of state and religion, no matter the religion is Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity.
It is however more logical on the part of a neutral observer to side with those who want all the bans---proposed or enforced---lifted in favour of freedom of expression because the vast majority of those supporting the ban are blatantly motivated by racist convictions. It is appalling to witness the desperation with which people cling to their imagined identity and the fear they display towards anyone that does not fit in their narrow-minded conception of the world.
Interestingly, debates over what a Muslim should do and should not do have made Islam rather an attractive discipline for non-Muslims to study and in the process many have found their traditional faiths less scientific than the faith in Islam.
Perhaps that is the reason why people, especially in America, in progressively great numbers are embracing Islam as their faith forsaking their religions they inherited.
History suggests that victims of religious persecution had to flee from their homelands only to regain their strength after a pause.
Those who are finding Islam as a threat should bear in mind that Islam is the religion which salvaged humanity from many a curse like slavery and gender discrimination. Any persecution against Muslims will boomerang and all the venoms they are trying to throw on Muslims will rather hurt them at the end of the day when people in their libraries will dig deep into the history of Islam.
Of course, there are questions in the practice and rituals of Islam. Lamentably, meritorious wards of Muslim parents are encouraged to study a variety of disciplines in science and arts where they are not allowed much time to study theology.
Paradoxically, wards who are a little intellectually less gifted are usually sent to schools like madrasas where a student is encouraged to learn Islamic lessons more by tote than through realization. These are the graduates from madrasas who ultimately are engaged in mosques as Imams to teach Islamic lessons. These Imams dare not budge a millimeter from what they have learnt about customs and rituals that were practiced hundreds of years back.
There was a time not many decades back when an Imam while giving sermons in a mosque categorically discouraged students from learning English because the language was what the non-Muslims used.
Many Muslim scholars lashed out at Nadine Bedair, the Saudi journalist who espoused polygamy for women, saying that "no woman has the right to attack traditions of Islam". The critics instead of questioning Nadine's right of expression could have said: "Islam once allowed men to marry up to four women at the same time, but only if they could treat the wives equally. But the practice is on decline as not many men can afford to marry more than one".
In fact, the concept of polygamy (or polyandry) simply does not fit in with today's societal structures and that the world would be better off if the practice was discouraged or even banned. In our world today, polygamy should be unacceptable. There is no need for it and, besides, no man can truly love more than one woman and vice versa.
Maswood Alam Khan is Editorial Consultant of
The Financial Express.
His e-address:
maswood@hotmail.com