Taslima says: January 26, 2013 at 8:37 am
My mother used purdah. She wore a burqa with a net cover in front of the face. It reminded me of the meatsafes in my grandmother’s house. One had a net door made of cloth, the other of metal. But the objective was the same: keeping the meat safe. My mother was put under a burqa by her conservative family. They told her that wearing a burqa would mean obeying Allah.
Women too have sexual urges. So why didn’t Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, He treated them on unequal terms.
And if you obey Allah, He would be happy with you and not let you burn in hellfire. My mother was afraid of Allah and also of her own father. He would threaten her with grave consequences if she didn’t wear the burqa. She was also afraid of the men in the neighbourhood, who could have shamed her. Even her husband was a source of fear, for he could do anything to her if she disobeyed him.
As a young girl, I used to nag her: Ma, don’t you suffocate in this veil? Don’t you feel all dark inside? Don’t you feel breathless? Don’t you feel angry? Don’t you ever feel like throwing it off? My mother kept mum. She couldn’t do anything about it. But I did. When I was sixteen, I was presented a burqa by one of my relatives. I threw it away.
The custom of purdah is not new. It dates back to 300 BC. The women of aristocratic Assyrian families used purdah. Ordinary women and prostitutes were not allowed purdah. In the middle ages, even Anglo-Saxon women used to cover their hair and chin and hide their faces behind a cloth or similar object. This purdah system was obviously not religious. The religious purdah is used by Catholic nuns and Mormons, though for the latter only during religious ceremonies and rituals. For Muslim women, however, such religious purdah is not limited to specific rituals but mandatory for their daily life outside the purview of religion.
A couple of months ago, at the height of the purdah controversy, Shabana Azmi asserted that the Quran doesn’t say anything about wearing the burqa. She’s mistaken. This is what the Quran says:
“Tell the faithful women that they must keep their gaze focused below/on the ground and cover their sexual organs. They must not put their beauty and their jewellery on display. They must hide their breasts behind a purdah. They must not exhibit their beauty to anybody except their husbands, brothers, nephews, womenfolk, servants, eunuch employees and children. They must not move their legs briskly while walking because then much of their bodies can get exposed.” (Sura Al Noor 24:31)
“Oh nabi, please tell your wives and daughters and faithful women to wear a covering dress on their bodies. That would be good. Then nobody can recognise them and harrass them. Allah is merciful and kind.” (Sura Al Hijaab 33: 59)
Even the Hadis –a collection of the words of Prophet Mohammed, his opinion on various subjects and also about his work, written by those close to him– talks extensively of the purdah for women. Women must cover their whole body before going out, they should not go before unknown men, they should not go to the mosque to read the namaaz, they should not go for any funeral.
There are many views on why and how the Islamic purdah started. One view has it that Prophet Mohammed became very poor after spending all the wealth of his first wife. At that time, in Arabia, the poor had to go to the open desert and plains for relieving themselves and even their sexual needs. The Prophet’s wives too had to do the same. He had told his wives that “I give you permission to go out and carry out your natural work”. (Bukhari Hadis first volume book 4 No. 149). And this is what his wives started doing accordingly. One day, Prophet Mohammed’s disciple Uman complained to him that these women were very uncomfortable because they were instantly recognisable while relieving themselves. Umar proposed a cover but Prophet Mohammed ignored it. Then the Prophet asked Allah for advice and he laid down the Ayat (33:59) (Bukhari Hadis Book 026 No. 5397).
This is the history of the purdah, according to the Hadis. But the question is: since Arab men too relieved themselves in the open, why didn’t Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, Allah doesn’t treat men and women as equals, else there would be purdah for both! Men are higher than women. So women have to be made walking prisons and men can remain free birds.
Another view is that the purdah was introduced to separate women from servants. This originates from stories in the Hadis. One story in the Bukhari Hadis goes thus: After winning the Khyber War, Prophet Mohammed took over all the properties of the enemy, including their women. One of these women was called Safia. One of the Prophet’s disciples sought to know her status. He replied: “If tomorrow you see that Safia is going around covered, under purdah, then she is going to be a wife. If you see her uncovered, that means I’ve decided to make her my servant.”
The third view comes from this story. Prophet Mohammed’s wife Ayesha was very beautiful. His friends were often found staring at her with fascination. This clearly upset the Prophet. So the Quran has an Ayat that says, “Oh friends of the prophet or holy men, never go to your friend’s house without an invitation. And if you do go, don’t go and ask anything of their wives”. It is to resist the greedy eyes of friends, disciples or male guests that the purdah system came into being. First it was applicable to only the wives of the holy men, and later it was extended to all Muslim women. Purdah means covering the entire body except for the eyes, wrist and feet. Nowadays, some women practise the purdah by only covering their hair. That is not what is written in the Hadis Quran. Frankly, covering just the hair is not Islamic purdah in the strict sense.
In the early Islamic period, Prophet Mohammed started the practice of covering the feet of women. Within 100 years of his death, purdah spread across the entire Middle East. Women were covered by an extra layer of clothing. They were forbidden to go out of the house, or in front of unknown men. Their lives were hemmed into a tight regime: stay at home, cook, clean the house, bear children and bring them up. In this way, one section of the people was separated by purdah, quarantined and covered.
Why are women covered? Because they are sex objects. Because when men see them, they are roused. Why should women have to be penalised for men’s sexual problems? Even women have sexual urges. But men are not covered for that. In no religion formulated by men are women considered to have a separate existence, or as human beings having desires and opinions separate from men’s. The purdah rules humiliate not only women but men too. If women walk about without purdah, it’s as if men will look at them with lustful eyes, or pounce on them, or rape them. Do they lose all their senses when they see any woman without burqa?
My question to Shabana and her supporters, who argue that the Quran says nothing about purdah is: If the Quran advises women to use purdah, should they do so? My answer is, No. Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women’s oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive. Women are told to wear them so that they cannot exist with their self-respect, honour, confidence, separate identity, own opinion and ideals intact. So that they cannot stand on their own two feet and live with their head held high and their spine strong and erect.
Some 1,500 years ago, it was decided for an individual’s personal reasons that women should have purdah and since then millions of Muslim women all over the world have had to suffer it. So many old customs have died a natural death, but not purdah. Instead, of late, there has been a mad craze to revive it. Covering a woman’s head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn’t work. If women’s brains worked properly, they’d have long ago thrown off these veils and burqas imposed on them by a religious and patriarchal regime.
What should women do? They should protest against this discrimination. They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years. They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights. They should throw away this apparel of discrimination. -Taslima
More information: Hindu-Muslim Marriage, Sharia, Muslim-Hindu marriages, Hindu-Muslim lovers’ experiences, Koran on Hindus? Hindu girl-Muslim boy, Marriage & Divorce laws.
Return to Home, Blogs, How to Share? Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Book, Media.
Islamic Law and Zimmis
Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.
The Jizya (tribute)
Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that “the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty.” Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.
Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizya can only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.
Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:
“…to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country.” Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, “Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God’s religion. The Qur’anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.’ (Qur’an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority.”
Zimmis and Religious Practices
Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.
According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:
1)
Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
2)
Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
3)
Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
4)
Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
5)
Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
6)
Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
7)
Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
Mawdudi, who is a Hanifite, expresses a more generous opinion toward Christians. He said:
“In their own towns and cities they are allowed to do so (practice their religion) with the fullest freedom. In purely Muslim areas, however, an Islamic government has full discretion to put such restrictions on their practices as it deems necessary.”
Apostasy in Islam
Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. “The act of apostasy, thus, put an end to one’s adherence to Islam.” when one rejects the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur’an indicates,
“How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur’an 3:86-89).
Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: “It is reported by `Abaas … that the messenger of Allah … said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him.”
In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, “The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.”
A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.
Civic Laws
Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief’s hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons.
Marriage and Children
A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.
If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.
Capital Punishment
The Hanifites believe that both Zimmis and Muslims must suffer the same Penalty for similar crimes. If a Muslim kills a Zimmi intentionally, he must be killed in return. The same applies to a Christian who kills a Muslim. But other schools of Law have different interpretations of Islamic law. The Shafi`ites declare that a Muslim who assassinates a Zimmi must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a polytheist (Mushrik). In such a case, blood price must be paid. The penalty depends on the school of law adopted by the particular Islamic country where the crime or offense is committed. This illustrates the implication of different interpretations of the Islamic law based on the Hadith.
Each school attempts to document its legal opinion by referring to the Hadith or to an incident experienced by the Prophet or the “rightly guided” Caliphs.
The Witness of Zimmis
Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta’min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, “The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah – may He be exalted – said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers’.” A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a Zimmi has falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed by Zimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same Zimmi whose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against the Zimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the Shari`a, “By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness…” All he has to do is to utter the Islamic confession of faith before witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.
Personal Law
On personal matters of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, Zimmis are allowed to appeal to their own religious courts. Each Christian denomination has the right and authority to determine the outcome of each case. Zimmis are free to practice their own social and religious rites at home and in church without interference from the state, even in such matters as drinking wine, rearing pigs, and eating pork, as long as they do not sell them to Muslims. Zimmis are generally denied the right to appeal to an Islamic court in family matters, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, in the event a Muslim judge agrees to take such a case, the court must apply Islamic law.
Political Rights and Duties
The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur’an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.
Mawdudi, aware of the requirements of modern society, seems to be more tolerant toward Zimmis. He says,
“In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur’an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur’an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim.”
Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,
“It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work.”
These views do not receive the approval of most other schools of the Shari`a which hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.
Business World
The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter “if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).
In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:
Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:
Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: ‘Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 4:141}. For God – Glory be to Him – has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: ‘Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 63:8}.
Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.
Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:
“entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim.”
In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers’ College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur’an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:
Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.
`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked: “Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?” Then `Usaymi adds:
Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them… for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.
Does this mean that a Christian who owns a business cannot employ a Muslim to work for him? Even worse, does this mean that a Zimmi, regardless of his unequal qualification, cannot be appointed to the right position where he would serve his country the best? This question demands an answer.
Freedom of Expression
Mawdudi, who is more lenient than most Muslim scholars, presents a revolutionary opinion when he emphasizes that in an Islamic state:
“all non-Muslims will have the freedom of conscience, opinion, expression, and association as the one enjoyed by Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitations as are imposed by law on Muslims.”
Mawdudi’s views are not accepted by most Islamic schools of law, especially in regard to freedom of expression like criticism of Islam and the government. Even in a country like Pakistan, the homeland of Mawdudi, it is illegal to criticize the government or the head of state. Many political prisoners are confined to jails in Pakistan and most other Islamic countries. Through the course of history. except in rare cases, not even Muslims have been given freedom to criticize Islam without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a Zimmi to get away with criticizing Islam.
In Mawdudi’s statement, the term “limitations” is vaguely defined. If it were explicitly defined, you would find, in the final analysis, that it curbs any type of criticism against the Islamic faith and government.
Moreover, how can the Zimmis express the positive aspects of their religion when they are not allowed to use the media or advertise them on radio or TV? Perhaps Mawdudi meant by his proposals to allow such freedom to Zimmis only among themselves. Otherwise, they would be subject to penalty. Yet, Muslims are allowed, according to the Shari`a (law) to propagate their faith among all religious sects without any limitations.
Muslims and Zimmis
Relationships between Muslims and Zimmis are classified in two categories: what is forbidden and what is allowable.
I. The Forbidden:
A Muslim is not allowed to:
emulate the Zimmis in their dress or behavior.
attend Zimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.
lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Zimmi’s faith.
work for Zimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.
make any endowment to churches or temples.
carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.
address Zimmis with any title such as: “my master” or “my lord.”
II. The Allowable
A Muslim is allowed to:
financially assist the Zimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.
give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Zimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.
eat food prepared by the People of the Book.
console the Zimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.
congratulate the Zimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Zimmis’ faith, such as: “May Allah exalt you,” “May Allah honor you,” or “May Allah give your religion victory.”
Conclusion
This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.
Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for readers to ponder
Dear Muslim sisters/mothers/daughters/friends,
Allah will help you for your crusade against Muhammad who has left the hell fire right here on the earth. Seeking the pleasures of paradise are like quenching thirst from the water of Mirage in a desert!
These Muslim apparels are just one of the many repugnant symptoms of the illness caused by Muhammad’s cult. Attack the cause and the effect will instantly disappear. Again, it’s the Muslim girls/women will have to take the leadership. Please organise in the effort to eradicate this walking prison from the persona of yourself. You can do the following along with your own remedies:
1. Make an agreement from the family and would be husband to whom you are going to get married that they will not ask you to wear Naqab/Burka.
2. In non-Muslim countries, be determined that what may come, you won’t dress up in Burka/Naqab and will raise your voice in support of others who are against it.
3. Will not impose this dress code on your daughter in laws and daughters.
4. Make associations where you live and raise your voices against it. Apprise your public representatives about your views and take their help in eradicating this system.
If forced, raise your voice against and seek the help on the net. Don’t sit idle or just write against it. Now it’s time to act and don’t be shy in forth coming. Always remember, you will have to work for yourself.
Moved to https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=4621
The crap you are writting againest islam is exposed on islamic site
http://www.answering-christianity.com
do you think that muslims(not fake muslims) believe all the lies you posted on this site. All the muslims know what is in the quran. Terrorism in the muslim countries is due to biggest terrorist organsation america and isreal. Taliban is the creationof america to keep unrest in muslim countries . One person here gives estimate total of christians killed by muslims and how many muslims were killed in gaza strip iraq war and in kashmir. America first created isreal to creat unrest in muslim countries and removed 9 lakh arabs in palastine. And then created taliban againest soviet union after that america created9/11 and then started fighting againest terrorism which she created herself. Muslims are given right to fight in self defense and give rules how to deal with thouse who fight and spread hatredness and do some injustice and creat oppression inmuslim countries. 9/11 was 100% musad opreation vist above site for more details. To know about islam vist http://www.irf.net
http://www.womeninislam.ws
Some 1400 years ago, it was decided for an individual’s
personal reasons that women should have purdah and since
then millions of Muslim women all over the world have had
to suffer it.
So many old customs have died a natural death, but not
purdah. Instead, of late, there has been a mad craze to
revive it.
Covering a woman’s head means covering her brain and
ensuring that it doesn’t work.
If women’s brains worked properly, they’d have long ago thrown
off these veils and burqas imposed on them by a religious and
patriarchal regime.
So… what should women of the Islamic world do?
They should protest against the discriminations.
They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-
treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years.
They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights.
They should throw away this apparel of discrimination
and burn their burqas, NOW !!
Hi Admn. and Satyenji,
No views and comments from you both on this issues?
Please give your rationale views.
What an individual wears or do is his or her personal business. Society or government should not impose on women what they could and should do, or how they should walk and talk. If they do, it should be on equality basis, laws should be same for men and women. If a woman wear a burqa or not fully covered cloths, it does not prove her character.
Some Muslim men claims that burqa will protect women from bad men around. Actually many Muslim women in burqa in Islamic countries are raped even in their fully covered body. At the same time, a woman in the West can freely wear what she wishes to, without fear of others touching her with bad intentions. If a women has self confidence and the society surrounding is supportive, there is no need for the burqa.
So, first the society has to change. We hope, internet will help change the Islamic mindset in next 50 years. We are glad women are speaking out here, keep it up.
Travelling recently on a London bus during one of the rare hot Spring days, I noticed a burqa-clad Muslim woman just next to me. She was caring for her small child sitting in a push chair.
The woman was fully covered in black head-to-toe with only her eyes showing. It was feeling hot; so she must have felt the heat more.
I wondered:
Is she okay?
How much of her freedom is compromised by this garb, this burqa?
If she has freely consented to wear such a garb then the answer is none, all is okay; I should just relax and hope for a cool breeze to come through this crowded bus. But how could I know that?
I felt very ambiguous.
What if she is forced by her culture, religion and/or husband to dress in a manner that is against her will, and obviously very uncomfortable if not dangerous?
Let me change the scenario somewhat. If a woman was periodically being hit on the head by her husband and made no effort to avoid being hit or to complain about it and got used to it (kinda culture), most people would still be uncomfortable about it; most would probably try to do something about it. Or if a woman, say as part of her culture, was dragging around a ball and chain, or had a yoke secured to her neck but in a calm and deliberate manner went about the shops purchasing supplies for her family, would we not raise an eyebrow at least? Would not most people recognise such ‘apparel’ as abuse and move to stop it?
Something close to this actually happened to me once. Several years ago, while waiting on the platform for the train to arrive at Edgware Road tube station, I noticed what appeared (by their dress) to be a Muslim couple nearby. The man began to pull the woman about in a not-so-friendly manner. The train came in and he forcefully began pulling her onto the same train that I was catching. She began to complain, raising her voice ever so slightly, saying ‘no, no’; she clearly did not want to go with this man. I thought, OMG, what do I do now – and why me?! Fortunately, a male member of staff got to the couple before I did and asked, ‘is there a problem?’ The man doing the pulling said, ‘there is no problem; she is my wife.’ The worker moved between the two of them and invited the woman to his office on the platform, which she gladly accepted, leaving the man behind to take the train without her.
For me and probably for most people in our society there is a presumption of innocence; we want to believe that other people are generally free as we are. But in situations which are contrary to common sense, like wearing multiple layers of clothing on hot days, we take notice and wonder, or should anyway. The person is either mentally ill, hiding something dangerous, or is forced into the situation. If we suspect mental illness or danger, we call the proper authorities or confront the situation ourselves.
But because of the religious aspect of burqa behaviour, we are trained to look the other way, to ‘pass by on the other side.’ We do this, because, to our mind, people choose their belief system freely and can freely leave it if they want.
But we should remember Islam is not like that. Individual freedom is not at all in the Islamic list of endearing qualities or characteristics. To just mention two texts in this regard, Qur’an 4:34 allows husbands to beat their wives, and Muhammad made it clear that apostasy must be punished by death (Bukhari 9.84.57).
But all the same, the woman on the bus could have freely consented to wearing this burqa on this very hot Spring day, but how was I to know? Like the man pulling about his ‘wife’ on the tube platform, intervention may be required.
But prior to intervention, one must know!
Western society would not accept the enslavement of any human being by another in their midst. We have matured in that respect. We would not accept it even if the enslaved person accepts her slavery! But if the woman in question freely chooses to be a ‘slave of Allah’, that is another matter; that would be acceptable. The difficulty is knowing whether the woman is a ‘slave of Allah’ or enslaved by the people around her: her family, her husband.
So information is crucial, which, in today’s society, is a missing component in situations like this. Even the ‘respect for other cultures’ argument is fatuous when compared to slavery.
Knowledge is the only way to resolve this moral dilemma.
I therefore propose a licensing system whereby a woman is able to show that she is really free. Such a system is already in place throughout society for all sorts of purposes. Owners of dogs often must have a license to show ownership and rabies shots etc. and the dog wears a tag of some sort. Car owners must have an annual check up on their car and show a certificate on their car window at all times for minimal safety functionality. Shops must have a license to sell alcohol, etc…
It is not beyond the capacity of the state to incorporate this function for Muslim women. A simple certificate on a burqa that is visible would suffice. This certificate would need to be dated and renewed once a year at a special office of the state. The certificate would be issued once the interviewer is satisfied that the woman is a free agent and willingly wears a burqa in weather that is normally too hot to wear such apparel.
So when next time I am in a bus on a hot day, and a woman wearing apparel suitable for the artic comes on, I will be able to see her certificate and relax, or at least only feel sorry for her choice of belief system, rather than her physical suffering. If the certificate is not visible, well then, that would be a different situation…
It is not enough to simply feel sorry for, or simply wonder about, women who boil inside burqas. We must be assured of their freedom or cool them down!
Hind Ahmas walks into a brasserie in the north Paris suburb of Aulnay-sous-Bois. Jaws drop, shoulders tighten and a look of disgust ripples across the faces of haggard men sipping coffee at the bar.
“Hang on, what’s all this? Isn’t that banned?” splutters the outraged waiter behind the bar, waving a wine bottle at her niqab. Ahmas stands firm, clutches her handbag with black-gloved hands and says: “Call the police then.” But she decides there’s no point fighting. We cross the road to a cafe where she’s a regular. No one bats an eyelid; the boss certainly doesn’t want to lose her custom. Ahmas is breaking the law by ordering an espresso and sitting in a booth in the window. But these days she is breaking the law by stepping outside her own front door.
In April, France introduced a law against covering your face in public. Muslim women in full-face veils, or niqab, are now banned from any public activity including walking down the street, taking a bus, going to the shops or collecting their children from school. French politicians in favour of the ban said they were acting to protect the “gender equality” and “dignity” of women. But five months after the law was introduced, the result is a mixture of confusion and apathy. Muslim groups report a worrying increase in discrimination and verbal and physical violence against women in veils. There have been instances of people in the street taking the law into their hands and trying to rip off full-face veils, of bus drivers refusing to carry women in niqab or of shop-owners trying to bar entry. A few women have taken to wearing bird-flu-style medical masks to keep their face covered; some describe a climate of divisiveness, mistrust and fear. One politician who backed the law said that women still going out in niqab were simply being “provocative”.
Ahmas, 32, French, a divorced single mother of a three-year-old daughter, puts her handbag on the table and takes out a pepper spray and attack alarm. She doesn’t live on the high-rise estates but on a quiet street of semi-detached houses. The last time she was attacked in the street a man and woman punched her in front of her daughter, called her a whore and told her to go back to Afghanistan. “My quality of life has seriously deteriorated since the ban. In my head, I have to prepare for war every time I step outside, prepare to come up against people who want to put a bullet in my head. The politicians claimed they were liberating us; what they’ve done is to exclude us from the social sphere. Before this law, I never asked myself whether I’d be able to make it to a cafe or collect documents from a town hall. One politician in favour of the ban said niqabs were ‘walking prisons’. Well, that’s exactly where we’ve been stuck by this law.”
But despite all the fanfare surrounding the niqab ban, no woman has yet been punished under the law for wearing one. The first real test will come on Thursday, when a local judge in Meaux, east of Paris, will decide whether to hand out to Ahmas and a friend the first ever fine. They were stopped outside Meaux town hall on 5 May wearing niqabs and carrying an almond cake to celebrate the birthday of the local mayor Jean-François Copé, who is also head of Nicolas Sarkozy’s rightwing UMP party and an architect of the ban. The cake was a joke, a play on the French word for fine, amende. They wanted to highlight the absurdity of a law that they say has increased a mood of anti-Muslim discrimination and driven a wedge through French society, yet seems not to have been taken seriously by the justice system. Sarkozy was accused of stigmatising women in niqab to win votes from the extreme right, yet the law didn’t actually boost his poll ratings. Now, human rights lawyers are suggesting it could soon be overturned.
Only the French police can confront a woman in niqab. They can’t remove her veil but must refer the case to a local judge, who can hand out a ¤150 (£130) fine, a citizenship course, or both. Some police have wrongly given on-the-spot fines, which were later annulled. Others appear to ignore women in niqab walking down the street, perhaps because they feel they have more important crimes to be stopping. The interior ministry says that since the law came into force in April there have been 91 incidents of women in niqab being stopped by police outside Paris and nine incidents in the Paris region. Each time, police file a report, but so far no judge has handed out a fine or citizenship course. The French justice ministry says “fewer than 10” cases are currently going through the courts and the lack of fines shows the state favours “dialogue” not punishment. But Gilles Devers, a lawyer acting for Ahmas and several other women in niqab, argued punishments were not being handed out because the niqab law contravenes European human rights legislation on personal liberties and freedom of religion. As soon as a fine is imposed, there will be an appeal right up to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, which could rule against the law and expose the French state as a laughing stock.
If the French law is challenged in this way, the result would be crucial for Muslims across the continent. Belgium introduced its own niqab ban this summer, punishable not just by a fine but seven days in prison. In Italy, the far-right Northern League has resuscitated a 1975 law against face coverings to fine women in certain areas of the north. Silvio Berlusconi’s party is now preparing an anti-niqab law. Denmark is preparing legislation to limit the wearing of niqabs; politicians in Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland are pushing for outright bans. Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, blogged this summer: “The way the dress of a small number of women has been portrayed as a key problem requiring urgent discussion and legislation is a sad capitulation to the prejudices of the xenophobes.”
Ahmas grew up in and around Paris, where her father, born in Morocco, worked as a town-hall gardener. Her parents were not strict Muslims. She put on the niqab six years ago as an educated single woman who once wore mini-skirts and liked partying, but then rediscovered her faith. She says her now ex-husband had nothing to do with her choice. (The new law punishes men who force women to wear the niqab with a ¤30,000 fine, but none has yet been imposed.) Like many women in niqab who refuse to stay indoors, she is desperate for work. For years, she worked in call centres as a specialist in telephone polling. Even before the ban, she knew it would be easier to get work without the niqab, so at the office she would always pull back her veil, leaving her face exposed for the day. “Life is hard and I have to work. If my daughter wants something – even a Barbie doll – and I can’t pay for it, it breaks my heart.”
In January, at the height of the public debate on the niqab, Ahmas lost her job after her contract wasn’t renewed. “I’ve contacted scores of employers looking for work. I always ask them if they accept the veil. They say, ‘It depends what type. If it’s tunic and trousers and a headscarf, that’s OK, but a long robe is not.'” This is clear discrimination: “Totally illegal,” she sighs.
Secular France has a complicated relationship with the veil. In 2004, all religious symbols including the headscarf were banned in schools. Even among Sarkozy’s opponents there are very few feminists or socialist politicians who would defend the right to wear niqab in a country where secularism is one of the few issues that still unites a fragmented left. Barely a handful of people came to Notre Dame cathedral to protest against the law in April.
On the Cote d’Azur, Stéphanie, 31, still likes to go swimming in the sea off Nice wearing her niqab. But the former law student and convert to Islam tries to go when the beaches are quiet. The last time she went for a dip with her mother and 10-year-old daughter on a Sunday afternoon, a sunbather called the police. A group of officers arrived and hurried across the sand saying: “But Madame, what are you doing?” “I said: ‘I’m drying myself.’ They wrote in their notebooks, ‘Swimming in niqab.'” Stephanie, who prefers not to give her surname, was summoned by the local state prosecutor. She arrived at court and agreed to lift her veil so security guards could check her identity, but they refused to allow her access until an exasperated prosecutor buzzed her in himself. The prosecutor, whom she described as “very human”, wanted to better understand why she wore the niqab. She converted at 17 and put on the niqab several years later, long before meeting her husband. Her North African parents-in-law didn’t like her wearing full-veil, and the marriage ended. Her own parents converted to Islam a few years later but don’t believe a niqab is necessary. She told the prosecutor it was her choice and refused to stop wearing niqab. The prosecutor reminded her of the law and let her go with no sanction or punishment. He told the local paper, Nice Matin, that a woman in a veil was less dangerous than someone who had “double or triple parked”.
Before the law, Stephanie would often be called names like “Batman, Zorro, or Ninja” in the street – often by pensioners. Now people favour swear words or sexual insults. She wants to work with children, but despite having a degree in theology, she can’t find a job.
The first time Stephanie was stopped by police was for standing on a central Nice shopping street in May. A police officer illegally gave her an on-the-spot fine, which was later overturned. This summer, a bus driver refused to let her onto a bus with her daughter. “If I have a meeting, I’ll always leave the house at 6.30am instead of 8.30am in case a bus won’t take me and I have to wait 45 minutes for another one.” Recently, after she had bought a cinema ticket for the latest Harry Potter film with her daughter, staff tried to stop her entering the screening. Eventually the cinema decided not to call the police because they didn’t want to feature in the local paper.
The headquarters of the French Collective against Islamophobia is in a small ground-floor office on a cobbled street near Paris’s Gare de L’Est. It doesn’t promote the wearing of niqab but gives legal advice. “It’s not the police I’m afraid of, it’s the personal attacks on women by people acting on their own initiative in the street,” says Samy Debah, the association’s head.
The group’s legal adviser says there has been “an explosion” in the number of physical attacks on women wearing the niqab. Many women say that their attackers were middle-aged or old people. In one recent case a young French convert was assaulted at a zoo outside Paris while carrying her 13-month-old baby. “Her child was traumatised by the zoo attack and is now being seen by a psychologist. These women blame themselves; they see a baby in that situation and think, ‘It’s my fault.'”
French businessman Rachid Nekkaz, who paid the fines of two women prosecuted for wearing the niqab in Brussels last year Photograph: Julien Warnand/AFP
At a cafe on the left bank, Rachid Nekkaz, a French property developer, explains why his association, Don’t Touch my Constitution, was the only group to stage high-profile protests when the law came into force – he backed Ahmas’s birthday-cake stunt and has set up a ¤1m fund to pay any fines over the niqab. His next, and most radical, protest action will be this Thursday, when his association announces its plans to field a woman in niqab for president in 2012. Nekkaz is personally opposed to the niqab and thinks it is fair to ban it in French state buildings. But he thinks outlawing it in all public places is “a gross attack on personal freedoms and the French constitution”. “The perverse effect of this law is that women in niqab are effectively under house arrest,” he says. He plays a voicemail message left on his mobile by the mother of French convert, thanking him for taking a stand and saying there are several converts in niqab in Grenoble now too afraid to leave the house.
There are no reliable statistics on who wears the niqab in France and whether they have kept wearing it since the law. It is estimated that only a few hundred women wear it, mostly French citizens. Muslim associations say a minority of women have taken off the niqab or moved abroad. Nekkaz says that more than 290 women still wearing niqab have contacted him: he says a large number were divorced with children, most were aged between 25 and 35, many were French of north African parentage, and many were living on income support. An Open Society Foundation report on women in niqabs in France in April found that of a sample of 32 women in niqab, none had been forced to wear the full veil. Many said they would refuse to take if off after the law came in, adding that they would avoid leaving home, or move abroad.
‘I’m insulted three to four times a day’ … Kenza Dride Photograph: Anne-Christine Poujoulat/AFP
Kenza Drider, a 32-year-old mother of three, was famously bold enough to appear on French television to oppose the law before it came into force. She refuses to take off her niqab – “My husband doesn’t dictate what I do, much less the government” – but she says she now lives in fear of attack. “I still go out in my car, on foot, to the shops, to collect my kids. I’m insulted about three to four times a day,” she says. Most say, “Go home”; some say, “We’ll kill you.” One said: “We’ll do to you what we did to the Jews.” In the worst attack, before the law came in, a man tried to run her down in his car.
“I feel that I now know what Jewish women went through before the Nazi roundups in France. When they went out in the street they were identified, singled out, they were vilified. Now that’s happening to us.”
Lawyer acting for Hind Ahmas says full-face veil pair will appeal to France’s supreme court after fines by Meaux court