“We will test you with a certain amount of fear, hunger and loss of wealth, life and fruits.
But give good news to the steadfast.” (2:155)
“The steadfast will be paid their wages in full without any reckoning.” (39:10)
• Suhayb ibn Sinan radhiyallahu anhu said: Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam said, ‘What an extraordinary thing the affair of the believer is! All of it is good for him. And that only applies to the believer. If good fortune is his lot, he is grateful and it is good for him. If something harmful happens to him, he is steadfast and that is good for him too.’ (Muslim)
• Usama ibn Zayd radhiyallahu anhu said: A daughter of Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam sent a message to him saying, ‘One of my sons is dying, so come.’ He sent his greetings to her and said, ‘What Allah takes is His and what He gives is His. Everything has a fixed term with Him, so she should show fortitude and expect a reward.’ She sent to him imploring him to come to her. He got up with Sa’d ibn ‘Ubada, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Zayd ibn Thabit and some other men. The child was brought to Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam and he was shuddering. The eyes of Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam were flowing with tears and Sa’d radhiyallahu anhu said, ‘Messenger of Allah, what is this?’ He said, ‘This is an aspect of mercy which Allah has put in the hearts of His slaves.’ One variant has, ‘In the hearts of whomever He will of His slaves. Allah is merciful to those of His slaves who are merciful.’ (Bukhari and Muslim)
• Suhayb radhiyallahu anhu reported that Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam said, ‘Among those before you there was a king who had a sorcerer. When he was old, he said to the king, ‘I am old, so send me a lad to whom I can teach sorcery.’ He sent him a lad for him to teach. When the boy was on the way, he came upon a monk. He sat down to listen to his words and liked what he heard. Whenever he went to the sorcerer, he would pass by the monk and sit with him. When he came to the sorcerer, the sorcerer would beat him. He complained about that to the monk who said, ‘When you are afraid of the sorcerer, say, ‘My family kept me.’ And when you are afraid of your family, say, ‘The sorcerer kept me.’ While all this was going on, he came upon a great beast which was barring the people’s way on the pathway and said, ‘Today I will find out who is better, the sorcerer or the monk.’ He took a stone and said, ‘O Allah, if what the monk does is preferable to You to what the sorcerer does, then turn this beast aside so that the people can pass.’ He threw it and killed the animal and the people went on. He went to the monk and told him and the monk said to him, ‘O my boy, today you are better than I am. I see the point that your affair has reached. You will be tested and when you are tested, do not point me out.’ The boy used to heal the blind and the lepers, and treat people for all their ailments. A companion of the king who was blind heard this and brought him many gifts. He said, ‘All that I have gathered for you here is yours if you heal me.’ He said, ‘I do not heal anyone. It is Allah Almighty who heals. If you believe in Allah Almighty, I will pray to Allah to heal you.’ So he believed in Allah Almighty and Allah Almighty healed him. He went to the king and sat with him as he used to do. The king said to him, ‘Who has returned your sight to you?’ He said, ‘It was my Lord.’ He said, ‘You have a Lord other than me?!’ He said, ‘My Lord and your Lord, Allah.’ So he seized him and did not stop torturing him until he pointed out the boy. The boy was brought and the king said to him, ‘O boy, your sorcery has reached the point where you heal the blind and the lepers, and you do such-and-such and such-and-such.’ He said, ‘I do not heal anyone. It is Allah Almighty who heals.’ He seized him and did not stop torturing him until he pointed out the monk. The monk was brought and told, ‘Renounce your religion.’ He refused. He called for a saw and placed the saw on the centre of his head and split it until the two halves fell apart. Then the companion of the king was brought and told, ‘Renounce your religion!’ He refused, and the saw was placed on the centre of his head and split it until the two halves fell apart. Then the boy was brought and told, ‘Renounce your religion,’ and he refused. He handed him over to a group of his companions and said, ‘Take him to such-and-such a mountain, and take him up the mountain. When you reach its summit, if he has not renounced his religion, throw him off.’ They took him and brought him up the mountain and he said, ‘O Allah, save me from them in whatever way You will.’ The mountain shook and they fell. He walked to the king and the king said to him, ‘What has happened to your companions?’ He said, ‘Allah Almighty saved me from them.’ He handed him over to a group of his companions and said, ‘Take him and put him in a ship and take him to the middle of the sea. If he does not renounce, then throw him into it.’ They took him and he said, ‘O Allah, save me from them in whatever way You will.’ The ship capsized and they were drowned. He walked back to the king and the king said to him, ‘What has happened to your companions?’ He said, ‘Allah Almighty saved me from them.’ He said to the king, ‘You will not kill me until you do what I command you.’ He said, ‘What is that?’ He said, ‘You should gather the people together on one plain and crucify me on a palm trunk. Then take an arrow from your quiver and put the arrow in the centre of your bow and say, ‘In the name of Allah, the Lord of the boy,’ and then shoot it. If you do that, you will kill me.’ So he gathered the people together on one plain and crucified him on a trunk and then took his arrow from his quiver and placed the arrow in the middle of the bow and then said, ‘In the name of Allah, the Lord of the boy,’ and then shot it and the arrow struck his temple. He put his hand on his temple and then died. The people said, ‘We believe in the Lord of the boy.’ The king was brought and told, ‘Do you not see that, by Allah, your fear has brought about the very thing you were afraid of! The people have believed.’ So he commanded that a trench be dug with openings onto it and had fires lit in it. He said, ‘Throw into it, anyone who does not renounce his religion or tell him to jump.’ They did that until a woman came with one of her children. She hesitated to jump into it and the child said to her, ‘Mother, be steadfast! You have the truth.’ (Muslim)
• Anas radhiyallahu anhu said: I heard Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam say, ‘Allah the Mighty and Exalted says, ‘When I test My slave regarding the two things he loves and he shows fortitude, I repay him for them with Jannah.’ He meant his two eyes. (Bukhari)
• ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radhiyallahu anhu said, ‘It is as if I could still see Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam talking about one of the Prophets alayhis salaam whose people beat him, making his blood flow. While he was wiping the blood from his face, he said, ‘O Allah, forgive my people. They do not know.’ (Bukhari and Muslim)
• Abu Hurayrah radhiyallahu anhu reported that Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam said, ‘No fatigue, illness, anxiety, sorrow, harm or sadness afflicts any Muslim, even to the extent of a thorn pricking him, without Allah wiping out his mistakes by it.’ (Bukhari and Muslim)
• Anas radhiyallahu anhu said: Rasulullah sallallahu alyhi wasallam said, ‘None of you should wish for death because of some harm which has befallen him. If he has got to do something, he should say, ‘O Allah, make me live if life is best for me and make me die if death is best for me.’ (Bukhari and Muslim)
Source:http://www.jamiat.co.za/newsletter/online_newsletter_0507.htm
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Veil in Christianity
Introduction
A common misconception is that Muslim women are the only ones who cover their hair. It may be true that Islam is the only religion in which most women follow its directives to cover the hair, but it is not the only religion to have such directives.
It is particularly interesting to look at the case of Christianity, since Christianity is the predominant religion in the West, and it is Westerners, including observant Christians, who are often the first to criticize Islam because of the hijab (modest dress, including headcovering).
Is Covering the Hair a Religious Commandment for Christian Women?
There can be only one answer to this: yes, it is! Simply open the Bible to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11. Read verses 3-10.
But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels.
The meaning of this passage is plain enough. We can make the following syllogisms:
Syllogism 1
Praying with an uncovered head is a disgrace
Having a shaved head is the same as praying with an uncovered head
Therefore, having a shaved head is a disgrace
Syllogism 2
If it is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head, she should cover her head
It is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head - see syllogism 1
Therefore, a woman should cover her head
In other words, the passage means what it says. Have you ever wondered why Catholic nuns dress like they're wearing hijab (Muslim hijabi women, have you ever been mistaken for a nun? I have, more than once). Have you ever wondered why Mary the mother of Jesus (peace be upon them both) is always depicted in Christian art with her hair covered? Did you know that until the 1960s, it was obligatory for Catholic women to cover their heads in church (then they "modernized" the service)?
There are some interesting points that can be made about the Christian directive.
1) The explicit purpose of the Christian woman's headcovering, as stated by Paul, is that it is a sign of man's authority over woman. The explicit purpose of Islamic hijab is modesty. Strange how so many Westerners think that the purpose of hijab is a symbol of male authority. Maybe they know that that's what it is in their own religion (Christianity) so they assume that Islam must be the same...!
2) The Christian woman is to cover her head whenever she is praying, whether it be at the church service or just personal prayer at home. This may mean that if she is not praying at home, she is uncovered around male guests who are not related to her; or if she is praying at home, that she is covered around her own husband and family. If any more proof were needed than Paul's own words that the Christian headcovering is not about modesty, this must certainly be it!
This puts hijab in a whole new perspective, doesn't it! To my non-hijabi Muslim sister who feels that hijab is a sign of oppression for the Muslim female, please do read the above and then read the Quran. Believe me, if Allah SWT meant for hijab to be a sign of male authority, the Quran would be as unambiguous about it as Paul is in the Bible. Isn't this difference the kind of thing that attracted you to Islam in the first place?
Do Any Christian Women Today Cover Their Heads?
It is true that most Christian women do not, and many don't take other teachings of the Bible (against pre-marital sex, adultery, etc) literally either. However, there do seem to be a growing number of Christian women out there who are committed to following the Bible as it is written.
Source:http://jamiat.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=299:the-veil-in-christianity&catid=46:islam-and-other-faiths&Itemid=27
A common misconception is that Muslim women are the only ones who cover their hair. It may be true that Islam is the only religion in which most women follow its directives to cover the hair, but it is not the only religion to have such directives.
It is particularly interesting to look at the case of Christianity, since Christianity is the predominant religion in the West, and it is Westerners, including observant Christians, who are often the first to criticize Islam because of the hijab (modest dress, including headcovering).
Is Covering the Hair a Religious Commandment for Christian Women?
There can be only one answer to this: yes, it is! Simply open the Bible to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11. Read verses 3-10.
But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels.
The meaning of this passage is plain enough. We can make the following syllogisms:
Syllogism 1
Praying with an uncovered head is a disgrace
Having a shaved head is the same as praying with an uncovered head
Therefore, having a shaved head is a disgrace
Syllogism 2
If it is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head, she should cover her head
It is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head - see syllogism 1
Therefore, a woman should cover her head
In other words, the passage means what it says. Have you ever wondered why Catholic nuns dress like they're wearing hijab (Muslim hijabi women, have you ever been mistaken for a nun? I have, more than once). Have you ever wondered why Mary the mother of Jesus (peace be upon them both) is always depicted in Christian art with her hair covered? Did you know that until the 1960s, it was obligatory for Catholic women to cover their heads in church (then they "modernized" the service)?
There are some interesting points that can be made about the Christian directive.
1) The explicit purpose of the Christian woman's headcovering, as stated by Paul, is that it is a sign of man's authority over woman. The explicit purpose of Islamic hijab is modesty. Strange how so many Westerners think that the purpose of hijab is a symbol of male authority. Maybe they know that that's what it is in their own religion (Christianity) so they assume that Islam must be the same...!
2) The Christian woman is to cover her head whenever she is praying, whether it be at the church service or just personal prayer at home. This may mean that if she is not praying at home, she is uncovered around male guests who are not related to her; or if she is praying at home, that she is covered around her own husband and family. If any more proof were needed than Paul's own words that the Christian headcovering is not about modesty, this must certainly be it!
This puts hijab in a whole new perspective, doesn't it! To my non-hijabi Muslim sister who feels that hijab is a sign of oppression for the Muslim female, please do read the above and then read the Quran. Believe me, if Allah SWT meant for hijab to be a sign of male authority, the Quran would be as unambiguous about it as Paul is in the Bible. Isn't this difference the kind of thing that attracted you to Islam in the first place?
Do Any Christian Women Today Cover Their Heads?
It is true that most Christian women do not, and many don't take other teachings of the Bible (against pre-marital sex, adultery, etc) literally either. However, there do seem to be a growing number of Christian women out there who are committed to following the Bible as it is written.
Source:http://jamiat.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=299:the-veil-in-christianity&catid=46:islam-and-other-faiths&Itemid=27
“…You shall surely travel from stage to stage." (84:19)
All praise is due to Allah and may His choicest blessings continue to descend upon our Leader and Master Muhammad
“…You shall surely travel from stage to stage." (84:19)
Life is a journey where we move from one stage to another… an unending progression- conception – birth – growth – decline - death and finally resurrection. As you approach the beginning of another year, you are also journeying towards the next stage in the cycle of your existence. Man’s life (after birth) has four broad stages.
The first stage is the stage of continuous growth and development, which begins from 0 to 33 years (the end of youth and the age at which an individual attains full physical and intellectual maturity).
The second stage, from 33 to 40, is the stage of constancy in which increase in growth and development is hardly noticeable. The age of 40 is usually considered the stage at which both physical and intellectual ability reach maturity.
The third stage is the stage of mid- or proper adulthood (al-kuhulah). From 40 to 60 years man begins to decline physically and mentally though so subtly and steadily that it can hardly be noticed.
The last stage, from 60 to the end of life, is the stage of old age and decline (senescence). In this stage decline becomes more obvious and noticeable.
Have you ever thought of how many years you have left? With every sunrise and sunset, we have one day less left in this world. Death does not come to only the old and weak. Death also comes to the young and strong. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Imam Al-Ghazali says: “[Time] is nothing other than your life, and your life is the capital that you use to reach success in the proximity of Allah.”
Wise are the words of the one who said ... "I expect to pass through this world but once; any good therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again. The Prophet, Sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam said: “There is no day upon which the sun rises except that it says, ‘O son of Adam, I am a new creation and a witness to your deeds, so use me well, as I will not return until the Day of Judgment’.”
"The year is like a tree, months are its branches, days are the branch sticks, hours are its leaves, and the breaths are its fruits. Therefore, if one's breaths are in obedience [to Allah and His Messenger], the fruits of his tree are good. If they are in disobedience, his fruits are bitter. The harvest is on the Appointed Day, when one's fruits are found out to be either good or bitter.One's time is in fact his age. It is the material of his eternal life either in everlasting joy or painful torture. It passes more quickly than clouds do. It is only the time one dedicates to Allah that constitutes one's real life and age. The rest does not count.” (Ibnul-Qayyim)
In Islam there is no room for slogans like "killing time" In fact; wasting time is much more dangerous than squandering property, because unlike property, time cannot be compensated. You cannot kill time without harming your hereafter! In reality when you kill time, it is time that is really killing you! Free time is a blessing that is overlooked, and not wholly appreciated by many people.
The Prophet Sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam said: “There are two of Allah’s favors that are forgotten by many people: health and free time.” On the transience of human life, the Prophet Sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam said: “I am in this world like a rider who halts in the shade of a tree for a short time, and after taking some rest resumes his journey and leaves the tree behind.” (Tirmizi)
“Is there something you'd like to change-
Something you feel you should do?
Oh! Do not hesitate my friend
For the days are short and few.
Time is just so very precious-
Every moment of the day
More valuable than fine jewels
Do not squander it away
Nothing's ever done yesterday
And tomorrow has yet to come
It is only in the today
That anything ever is done.
There's never a guarantee
Of another single minute
Time's a gift to be used on earth
In preparation for eternity
And what we do within it's span
Determines our soul's destiny”
“When you pass the day and arrive at the evening, do not expect that you will pass night and hope to reach morning, and when you arrive in the morning do not look forward to the evening. While in health, be ready for illness, and while alive, prepare for death.’ (Bukhari)
Ibnul Qayyim says: “A sign that Allah despises you is when you find yourself wasting your time with trivial matters; in this way, you miss your chance of going to heaven. A sign that Allah likes you is when you find yourself fulfilling more duties than you have time for.” A famous quote reads: “Don’t count every hour in the day, make every hour in the day count.”
Shocking Realities
• People lose their health to make money and then lose their money to restore their health.
• A rich person is not one who has the most, but is one who needs the least.
• People get bored with their childhood; they rush to grow up, and then long to be children again.
• People live as if they will never die, they forget the present, and die as though they had never lived
May Allah grant us a life that is productive and fruitful. May HE protect us from wasting away our days in frivolous pursuits. Ameen.
Source:http://www.islamsa.org.za/special/you_shall_not_pass_this_way_again.htm
“…You shall surely travel from stage to stage." (84:19)
Life is a journey where we move from one stage to another… an unending progression- conception – birth – growth – decline - death and finally resurrection. As you approach the beginning of another year, you are also journeying towards the next stage in the cycle of your existence. Man’s life (after birth) has four broad stages.
The first stage is the stage of continuous growth and development, which begins from 0 to 33 years (the end of youth and the age at which an individual attains full physical and intellectual maturity).
The second stage, from 33 to 40, is the stage of constancy in which increase in growth and development is hardly noticeable. The age of 40 is usually considered the stage at which both physical and intellectual ability reach maturity.
The third stage is the stage of mid- or proper adulthood (al-kuhulah). From 40 to 60 years man begins to decline physically and mentally though so subtly and steadily that it can hardly be noticed.
The last stage, from 60 to the end of life, is the stage of old age and decline (senescence). In this stage decline becomes more obvious and noticeable.
Have you ever thought of how many years you have left? With every sunrise and sunset, we have one day less left in this world. Death does not come to only the old and weak. Death also comes to the young and strong. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Imam Al-Ghazali says: “[Time] is nothing other than your life, and your life is the capital that you use to reach success in the proximity of Allah.”
Wise are the words of the one who said ... "I expect to pass through this world but once; any good therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again. The Prophet, Sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam said: “There is no day upon which the sun rises except that it says, ‘O son of Adam, I am a new creation and a witness to your deeds, so use me well, as I will not return until the Day of Judgment’.”
"The year is like a tree, months are its branches, days are the branch sticks, hours are its leaves, and the breaths are its fruits. Therefore, if one's breaths are in obedience [to Allah and His Messenger], the fruits of his tree are good. If they are in disobedience, his fruits are bitter. The harvest is on the Appointed Day, when one's fruits are found out to be either good or bitter.One's time is in fact his age. It is the material of his eternal life either in everlasting joy or painful torture. It passes more quickly than clouds do. It is only the time one dedicates to Allah that constitutes one's real life and age. The rest does not count.” (Ibnul-Qayyim)
In Islam there is no room for slogans like "killing time" In fact; wasting time is much more dangerous than squandering property, because unlike property, time cannot be compensated. You cannot kill time without harming your hereafter! In reality when you kill time, it is time that is really killing you! Free time is a blessing that is overlooked, and not wholly appreciated by many people.
The Prophet Sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam said: “There are two of Allah’s favors that are forgotten by many people: health and free time.” On the transience of human life, the Prophet Sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam said: “I am in this world like a rider who halts in the shade of a tree for a short time, and after taking some rest resumes his journey and leaves the tree behind.” (Tirmizi)
“Is there something you'd like to change-
Something you feel you should do?
Oh! Do not hesitate my friend
For the days are short and few.
Time is just so very precious-
Every moment of the day
More valuable than fine jewels
Do not squander it away
Nothing's ever done yesterday
And tomorrow has yet to come
It is only in the today
That anything ever is done.
There's never a guarantee
Of another single minute
Time's a gift to be used on earth
In preparation for eternity
And what we do within it's span
Determines our soul's destiny”
“When you pass the day and arrive at the evening, do not expect that you will pass night and hope to reach morning, and when you arrive in the morning do not look forward to the evening. While in health, be ready for illness, and while alive, prepare for death.’ (Bukhari)
Ibnul Qayyim says: “A sign that Allah despises you is when you find yourself wasting your time with trivial matters; in this way, you miss your chance of going to heaven. A sign that Allah likes you is when you find yourself fulfilling more duties than you have time for.” A famous quote reads: “Don’t count every hour in the day, make every hour in the day count.”
Shocking Realities
• People lose their health to make money and then lose their money to restore their health.
• A rich person is not one who has the most, but is one who needs the least.
• People get bored with their childhood; they rush to grow up, and then long to be children again.
• People live as if they will never die, they forget the present, and die as though they had never lived
May Allah grant us a life that is productive and fruitful. May HE protect us from wasting away our days in frivolous pursuits. Ameen.
Source:http://www.islamsa.org.za/special/you_shall_not_pass_this_way_again.htm
Human Dignity
By: Khalid Baig
Posted: 20 Safar 1431, 5 February 2010
We are witnessing today a clash between two opposing views of human worth. The first holds that human beings have an inherent dignity conferred on them by the Creator. The other insists that human beings have no more claim to dignity than other animals, from which they differ only in the number and sequencing of DNA molecules. From tiny bacteria to human beings all are creations of accidental processes; therefore none of them can claim special status over others.
We cannot ignore it as a debate that is taking place in some obscure religion or philosophy class which should not interest the rest of us. Its vast implications affect every one of us wherever we happen to be: in our homes, businesses, schools, on the streets or at the airports. This is so because a society’s treatment of other humans depends upon its perception of the status and value of humanity itself. If there is no inherent human dignity than there can be no inherent human rights. Then human rights are reduced to the level of a policy to be decided by the calculations of governments. If, on the other hand, we accept the first view then human rights become both serious and inalienable; they cannot be taken away in the name of this or that expediency.
The first view is expounded by the Qur’an which declares in no uncertain terms: “Now, indeed, We have conferred dignity on the children of Adam” (17:70). This is brought out through the Story of Creation. For God created man “with My two Hands” (38:75). Further, He breathed into Adam from His Spirit (15:29). This was so because Man was created as God’s vicegerent on earth (2:30).
Islam is not alone in asserting this dignity. All previous prophets had the same message. Thus both Judaism and Christianity affirmed it because man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This view was challenged by modern science. Resting on the twin pillars of Darwinism and Freudianism, its great “achievement” was in announcing that dignity and nobility of the human soul was a myth. Darwin claimed that man was not specially created. Freud added that he had no free will that would distinguish him from animals. Rather man was subject to instinctive drives, unconscious impulses, and emotions over which he had no control.
It was not that science had discovered that the first view was baseless, since it had no capacity to affirm or reject claims about matters it could not observe. Rather it was that some of its proponents had developed a fanatical religious hatred against all religion because of their bad experience with some of it. As it evolved under their patronage, modern science became a new faith that claimed to have made the faith in God and the moral values based on it obsolete. Of course, it could measure the speed of light, split the atom, and analyze the structure of DNA to “prove” its claims.
Those who have been mesmerized by the achievements of science have been torn between these opposing claims about human dignity. They claim that human beings have inalienable rights then proceed to forfeit those rights on one or the other pretext. They champion religious freedom then proceed to curb it. They affirm commitment to human dignity then proceed to defile it.
The new measures about universal nude body scans of all air travelers are just the latest manifestation of this conflict. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference." Similarly the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Yet we are told that we must bare ourselves for examination by officials if we want the privilege to travel. That the privacy protection does not even protect one’s private parts. The distance between the proclamations and the policies is the distance between the two views. The noble declarations are rooted in the first view but the policies are in the second. That they may examine us just like they examine animals on a farm is to be expected if we are no better than animals.
Back to the Story of Creation that gives us special insights about this particular aspect. It tells us that the prestigious status given to mankind had its jealous enemy right from the start. It was the devil himself who came up with a plan to show that Man did not deserve the honor bestowed on him. And so Satan’s very first attack was on the most important reflection of this dignity. It was launched with subterfuge and its purpose was to produce nudity. When under Satanic persuasion Adam and Eve tasted of the forbidden tree, "their shameful parts were manifested to them, and they began to piece together onto themselves some of the leaves of the Garden" (Qur’an 7:22). This narrative reminds us that the uncorrupted human nature abhors nudity. That is why Adam and Eve frantically started to search for something to cover themselves at its first occurrence. This tendency distinguishes human beings from animals, for which nudity is natural. Hence the reminder from God: "Children of Adam! Let not Satan tempt you as he brought your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their garments to show them their shameful parts" (7:27). The immediately preceding ayah also tells us that clothing is a gift from God and concealing the parts of the body that must be concealed is its primary purpose, while protection from elements and adornment are secondary objectives.
In fact that function is integral to a central value in Islam: Haya. Although normally translated as modesty for lack of a better word, haya encompasses much more than that. It is modesty, decency, moral propriety, and inhibition against all evil, with special emphasis on concealing parts of the body. Haya is the antithesis to nudity. As for its importance, Prophet Muhammad ( Sall-Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: "Every religion has a distinct call. For Islam it is haya." [Ibn Majah]. Another famous hadith says: " Haya is a branch of Iman (faith) " [Bukhari, Muslim]. It is the basic building block of Islamic morality. When it is lost everything is lost.
The concept does exist in other religions as well. In Judaism the closest term is Tzniut, which represents both a moral value and specific laws that govern the dress code, and interaction between the sexes. Rabbi Aron Moss of Australia explains: "The body is the holy creation of God. It is the sacred house of the soul. The way we maintain our respect for the body is by keeping it covered." Tzniut requires covering of the body, segregation of men and women during prayers ( mechitzah), prohibition of shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex, and prohibition of being alone in a secluded place with them. For the most part these are subsets of the commands given by Islam. In Christianity the term used is modesty. One finds repeated references to Christian modesty in encyclicals and directives. One such directive instructs: "In general, clothes should hide the shape of the body rather than accentuate it. Only this kind of clothing can truly be called ‘decent’." Pope Pius XII said in the 1950s: "Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity."
Of course the pop culture, augmented by the tremendous firepower of Hollywood and other mass media---and intellectually supported by the new science in its (im)moral underpinnings---has been a constant challenger to haya and modesty. It is a familiar story. As the floodgates of immodesty were opened, the Jewish and Christian teachings were washed away from the lives of their followers to the lament of their religious leaders. More than three decades ago Rabbi Zalman Posner noted: "The prevalent culture has little patience with one of these values, and the Hebrew word [ tzniut] is virtually unknown to the American Jew."
And the French Catholic leader Dom Bernard Marechaux lamented in alarming tones: "The cancer of Liberalism attacks everyone and we must be careful not to be infected ourselves. … Women who go to church dress just the way women who do not go to church dress; … It is a confusion of license and worldliness. As a result … the Church is beginning to disappear in the world. Christianity is being lost." Pope Benedict XV said, "One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station …[who] do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God." They condemned the summer attire, the swimming suits, and every form of nudity in a loosing battle. Church leaders instructed the women to have their skirts at least eight inches below the knee when fashion designers persuaded them to go eight inches above. And everyone knows which direction they went.
The scene began to change with the arrival of Muslims. Muslims could recognize the nudity in the Western societies as the same abomination that had prevailed in the pre-Islamic Jahiliyya society of Arabia. They remembered that haya is part of faith and the mother of all virtues. Against all odds and pressures they upheld the banner of haya. They became the shining example of modesty in a society that had forgotten it.
In this background comes the most vicious attack ever on human dignity in the form of the new nude body scanners being installed at airports. They can take pictures of the nude body from head to toe and from all around. They are being forced on every one---men, women, and children. If they go unopposed it will be a major triumph of the idea that human beings are mere animals as Darwin and Freud would have us believe.
But haya is the call of the uncorrupted human nature, a universal value that should bring together all the people of conscience who value morality and decency. While some governments have rushed to introduce these machines, others have raised strong objections. Representing them, the new European Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, said, "we will not let anyone dictate to us rules that go against fundamental rights on anti-terrorism grounds . . . our need for security cannot justify any violation of privacy. We should never be driven by fear, but by values" (11 Jan. 2010, testimony before the European Union Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Legal affairs and Women's committees).
Which values? That will be determined by the ongoing clash between the two views of human dignity. And the picture here is less than clear. The Rabbinical Center of Europe warned that scanners would violate the rights of religious Jewish women whose modesty would be compromised. Children rights groups warned that they violated child pornography law in Britain. But Muslims seem to have opted for their own disenfranchisement by choosing to remain silent. If they continue to do that then they will have no one but themselves to blame for the terrible consequences. For them and for the whole world.
Source:http://albalagh.net/food_for_thought/0095.shtml
Posted: 20 Safar 1431, 5 February 2010
We are witnessing today a clash between two opposing views of human worth. The first holds that human beings have an inherent dignity conferred on them by the Creator. The other insists that human beings have no more claim to dignity than other animals, from which they differ only in the number and sequencing of DNA molecules. From tiny bacteria to human beings all are creations of accidental processes; therefore none of them can claim special status over others.
We cannot ignore it as a debate that is taking place in some obscure religion or philosophy class which should not interest the rest of us. Its vast implications affect every one of us wherever we happen to be: in our homes, businesses, schools, on the streets or at the airports. This is so because a society’s treatment of other humans depends upon its perception of the status and value of humanity itself. If there is no inherent human dignity than there can be no inherent human rights. Then human rights are reduced to the level of a policy to be decided by the calculations of governments. If, on the other hand, we accept the first view then human rights become both serious and inalienable; they cannot be taken away in the name of this or that expediency.
The first view is expounded by the Qur’an which declares in no uncertain terms: “Now, indeed, We have conferred dignity on the children of Adam” (17:70). This is brought out through the Story of Creation. For God created man “with My two Hands” (38:75). Further, He breathed into Adam from His Spirit (15:29). This was so because Man was created as God’s vicegerent on earth (2:30).
Islam is not alone in asserting this dignity. All previous prophets had the same message. Thus both Judaism and Christianity affirmed it because man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This view was challenged by modern science. Resting on the twin pillars of Darwinism and Freudianism, its great “achievement” was in announcing that dignity and nobility of the human soul was a myth. Darwin claimed that man was not specially created. Freud added that he had no free will that would distinguish him from animals. Rather man was subject to instinctive drives, unconscious impulses, and emotions over which he had no control.
It was not that science had discovered that the first view was baseless, since it had no capacity to affirm or reject claims about matters it could not observe. Rather it was that some of its proponents had developed a fanatical religious hatred against all religion because of their bad experience with some of it. As it evolved under their patronage, modern science became a new faith that claimed to have made the faith in God and the moral values based on it obsolete. Of course, it could measure the speed of light, split the atom, and analyze the structure of DNA to “prove” its claims.
Those who have been mesmerized by the achievements of science have been torn between these opposing claims about human dignity. They claim that human beings have inalienable rights then proceed to forfeit those rights on one or the other pretext. They champion religious freedom then proceed to curb it. They affirm commitment to human dignity then proceed to defile it.
The new measures about universal nude body scans of all air travelers are just the latest manifestation of this conflict. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference." Similarly the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Yet we are told that we must bare ourselves for examination by officials if we want the privilege to travel. That the privacy protection does not even protect one’s private parts. The distance between the proclamations and the policies is the distance between the two views. The noble declarations are rooted in the first view but the policies are in the second. That they may examine us just like they examine animals on a farm is to be expected if we are no better than animals.
Back to the Story of Creation that gives us special insights about this particular aspect. It tells us that the prestigious status given to mankind had its jealous enemy right from the start. It was the devil himself who came up with a plan to show that Man did not deserve the honor bestowed on him. And so Satan’s very first attack was on the most important reflection of this dignity. It was launched with subterfuge and its purpose was to produce nudity. When under Satanic persuasion Adam and Eve tasted of the forbidden tree, "their shameful parts were manifested to them, and they began to piece together onto themselves some of the leaves of the Garden" (Qur’an 7:22). This narrative reminds us that the uncorrupted human nature abhors nudity. That is why Adam and Eve frantically started to search for something to cover themselves at its first occurrence. This tendency distinguishes human beings from animals, for which nudity is natural. Hence the reminder from God: "Children of Adam! Let not Satan tempt you as he brought your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their garments to show them their shameful parts" (7:27). The immediately preceding ayah also tells us that clothing is a gift from God and concealing the parts of the body that must be concealed is its primary purpose, while protection from elements and adornment are secondary objectives.
In fact that function is integral to a central value in Islam: Haya. Although normally translated as modesty for lack of a better word, haya encompasses much more than that. It is modesty, decency, moral propriety, and inhibition against all evil, with special emphasis on concealing parts of the body. Haya is the antithesis to nudity. As for its importance, Prophet Muhammad ( Sall-Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: "Every religion has a distinct call. For Islam it is haya." [Ibn Majah]. Another famous hadith says: " Haya is a branch of Iman (faith) " [Bukhari, Muslim]. It is the basic building block of Islamic morality. When it is lost everything is lost.
The concept does exist in other religions as well. In Judaism the closest term is Tzniut, which represents both a moral value and specific laws that govern the dress code, and interaction between the sexes. Rabbi Aron Moss of Australia explains: "The body is the holy creation of God. It is the sacred house of the soul. The way we maintain our respect for the body is by keeping it covered." Tzniut requires covering of the body, segregation of men and women during prayers ( mechitzah), prohibition of shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex, and prohibition of being alone in a secluded place with them. For the most part these are subsets of the commands given by Islam. In Christianity the term used is modesty. One finds repeated references to Christian modesty in encyclicals and directives. One such directive instructs: "In general, clothes should hide the shape of the body rather than accentuate it. Only this kind of clothing can truly be called ‘decent’." Pope Pius XII said in the 1950s: "Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity."
Of course the pop culture, augmented by the tremendous firepower of Hollywood and other mass media---and intellectually supported by the new science in its (im)moral underpinnings---has been a constant challenger to haya and modesty. It is a familiar story. As the floodgates of immodesty were opened, the Jewish and Christian teachings were washed away from the lives of their followers to the lament of their religious leaders. More than three decades ago Rabbi Zalman Posner noted: "The prevalent culture has little patience with one of these values, and the Hebrew word [ tzniut] is virtually unknown to the American Jew."
And the French Catholic leader Dom Bernard Marechaux lamented in alarming tones: "The cancer of Liberalism attacks everyone and we must be careful not to be infected ourselves. … Women who go to church dress just the way women who do not go to church dress; … It is a confusion of license and worldliness. As a result … the Church is beginning to disappear in the world. Christianity is being lost." Pope Benedict XV said, "One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station …[who] do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God." They condemned the summer attire, the swimming suits, and every form of nudity in a loosing battle. Church leaders instructed the women to have their skirts at least eight inches below the knee when fashion designers persuaded them to go eight inches above. And everyone knows which direction they went.
The scene began to change with the arrival of Muslims. Muslims could recognize the nudity in the Western societies as the same abomination that had prevailed in the pre-Islamic Jahiliyya society of Arabia. They remembered that haya is part of faith and the mother of all virtues. Against all odds and pressures they upheld the banner of haya. They became the shining example of modesty in a society that had forgotten it.
In this background comes the most vicious attack ever on human dignity in the form of the new nude body scanners being installed at airports. They can take pictures of the nude body from head to toe and from all around. They are being forced on every one---men, women, and children. If they go unopposed it will be a major triumph of the idea that human beings are mere animals as Darwin and Freud would have us believe.
But haya is the call of the uncorrupted human nature, a universal value that should bring together all the people of conscience who value morality and decency. While some governments have rushed to introduce these machines, others have raised strong objections. Representing them, the new European Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, said, "we will not let anyone dictate to us rules that go against fundamental rights on anti-terrorism grounds . . . our need for security cannot justify any violation of privacy. We should never be driven by fear, but by values" (11 Jan. 2010, testimony before the European Union Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Legal affairs and Women's committees).
Which values? That will be determined by the ongoing clash between the two views of human dignity. And the picture here is less than clear. The Rabbinical Center of Europe warned that scanners would violate the rights of religious Jewish women whose modesty would be compromised. Children rights groups warned that they violated child pornography law in Britain. But Muslims seem to have opted for their own disenfranchisement by choosing to remain silent. If they continue to do that then they will have no one but themselves to blame for the terrible consequences. For them and for the whole world.
Source:http://albalagh.net/food_for_thought/0095.shtml
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Just a Touch
A touch on a trigger of a loaded machine gun can cause death. Likewise touching what Allah Ta’ala has forbidden can cause destruction in this world and Hereafter. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) is reported to have said: “It is better that a steel nail be driven into your head than for you to touch a woman who is not permissible for you (Baihaqi).” Subhanallah! A steel nail in one’s head!!! This hadith most eloquently highlights the extreme danger of touching a non-mahram (one with whom nikah is permissible). Just as a steel nail in one’s head can cause death, an illegitimate touch can cause destruction in both worlds. Another narration states that the person who touches a woman who is not legitimate for him will have a burning coal placed in his hand on the Day of judgement.
The sheer abhorrence and revulsion that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) wished to instill in the heart of every Believer for the act of touching a non-mahram is expressed in another Hadith, wherein he is reported to have said: “It is better for one of you to collide with a pig covered completely in mud than to rub your shoulder against the shoulder of a woman who is not permissible for you (in a crowd or elsewhere) ( Tabrani).”
While a chaste and Allah-fearing person will not deliberately touch a non-mahram, often due to negligence this crime is committed. Among the more common occasions that this occurs are:
* When giving or receiving money at till points, road tolls, etc.
* In the work place when giving or taking something from a non-mahram
* At social functions, bazaars and other gatherings where intermingling of males and females take place
Hence one should not venture near any mixed gathering if it is not absolutely necessary to go there (such as going to one’s job). If going to such a place is completely unavoidable, one must be extremely careful. Also, respectfully ask for money, items or documents which are being passed over to be kept on the counter, desk, etc, from where one can pick it up without risking an illegitimate touch. May Allah Ta’ala protect us from every haraam, even it be the slightest touch. Aameen.
Source:http://alhaadi.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=955&Itemid=26
The sheer abhorrence and revulsion that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) wished to instill in the heart of every Believer for the act of touching a non-mahram is expressed in another Hadith, wherein he is reported to have said: “It is better for one of you to collide with a pig covered completely in mud than to rub your shoulder against the shoulder of a woman who is not permissible for you (in a crowd or elsewhere) ( Tabrani).”
While a chaste and Allah-fearing person will not deliberately touch a non-mahram, often due to negligence this crime is committed. Among the more common occasions that this occurs are:
* When giving or receiving money at till points, road tolls, etc.
* In the work place when giving or taking something from a non-mahram
* At social functions, bazaars and other gatherings where intermingling of males and females take place
Hence one should not venture near any mixed gathering if it is not absolutely necessary to go there (such as going to one’s job). If going to such a place is completely unavoidable, one must be extremely careful. Also, respectfully ask for money, items or documents which are being passed over to be kept on the counter, desk, etc, from where one can pick it up without risking an illegitimate touch. May Allah Ta’ala protect us from every haraam, even it be the slightest touch. Aameen.
Source:http://alhaadi.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=955&Itemid=26
Thursday, January 28, 2010
France: attack on the veil is a huge blunder
Raphael Liogier
After more than six months straining to convince itself of the immense, nationwide danger of a phenomenon that involves fewer than 0.1 per cent of France’s Muslim population, a parliamentary committee yesterday recommended the banning of the full veil in many of France’s public places. There is nothing eccentric about asking why they are getting so bothered.
As usual, when France confronts such debates, a panoply of intellectuals, politicians and artists gasp their indignation over an alleged assault on ‘our values,” wheeling out their rhetorical big guns to denounce the “philosophical scandal” of refusing to show one’s face publicly.
Five justifications
We have been systematically treated to five justifications, all hammered home with the aim of getting the full veil banned for good: the feminist, the theological, the humanistic, the securitarian and, finally, the prophylactic. None of these justifications has been convincing. For a start, the vast majority of women concerned have clearly actively chosen to wear the veil, sometimes in the face of opposition from their family. Moreover, many see their veils as a means of expressing independence, even sometimes as a vehicle of feminine empowerment.
In the 70s, Muslim women who had recently arrived from north Africa were often kept behind suburban doors by the heavyhanded control of their husbands. Sometimes they were forced to wear the veil, but we hardly gave a damn. But, paradoxically, once the veil had emerged as a voluntary item during the 80s, visibly flaunted in the street by a new generation of determined young Frenchwomen, concern began to rise. Pseudo-feminist rhetoric cannot conceal the fact that it is indeed the voluntary veil which is being fought, and not the imposed article. As to the second, theological justification, it is almost laughable to see members of the government and the president himself arguing that such a veil is not truly Muslim, as if more knowledgeable than the Muslims themselves about the orthodox prescriptions of their own lifestyle. A peculiar facet of so-called French secularism sees government ministers assuming the fashionable role of imams.
Others will opine that one cannot be a true citizen if one hides one’s face, because one is thus refusing human interaction. Yet some people wear dark glasses out of shyness or pure obnoxiousness, and nobody would think of denying them their right to humanity. The security-based objection, requiring one to bare one’s face in order to have the right to pick up one’s children from school, for instance, or if so required by a police patrol, is legitimate in the abstract, but only if one conveniently forgets the fact that in practice, the new generation of women — among the many we have surveyed — do not in fact refuse to comply.
It is no coincidence that the debate on French national identity is occurring simultaneously, for they are tactically complementary — picking on Muslim women, or Muslims in general, or all immigrants, as scapegoats, so we can avoid facing our current symbolic crisis. The French are confronted every day with the declining influence of their language, art and cinema — moreover the “grey panther” generation is realising that their own children could not care less, deeply enmeshed as they are in the globalisation of culture.
To compensate for such losses, people over 40 are to be heard chanting mantras about the importance of French universal values and pointing fingers at those guilty of threatening them from inside France. In fact, they are thus digging into a deep narcissistic wound, their helplessness facing globalisation and the waning of the “French exception,” driving them blindly to trash our most sacred fundamental values while pretending to defend them.
Irrational panic
Whatever form the committee’s recommendation takes in law or decree, it will probably not be enforced, but a symbolic gesture, and a symbol of capitulation. The French Republic has become so weak, so morally corrupted, that it is ready to kick over its most cherished principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, on the part of the political elite, out of cynicism and petty tactics; on the part of the general public, out of irrational panic, even hatred for Muslims. The worst about all this fuss is that we are completely off target. Women donning the full veil are not against modernity but represent rather its sophisticated product, just like westernised Buddhists. The veil, surprising as this may seem, is good news for modern values. This deep western social movement is no threat to modern values, but rather vindicates the latter under unexpected aesthetic guise.
It is a massive blunder to fight this new, ultra-modern Islam. And it is not only France that is heading towards a colossal error of understanding, politically capable of spinning into historic proportions, but also Europe, the U.S., and all the other post-industrial countries, blinkered by Islamophobia, who turn out to be incapable of catching up on their own deep cultural changes and recognising their own best interests. It is a kind of collective, generational jet lag.
(Note: Raphael Liogier teaches at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques d’Aix-en-Provence and edits the Observatoire du Religieux www.world-religion-watch.org )
— © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2010
Source:http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/28/stories/2010012854270900.htm
After more than six months straining to convince itself of the immense, nationwide danger of a phenomenon that involves fewer than 0.1 per cent of France’s Muslim population, a parliamentary committee yesterday recommended the banning of the full veil in many of France’s public places. There is nothing eccentric about asking why they are getting so bothered.
As usual, when France confronts such debates, a panoply of intellectuals, politicians and artists gasp their indignation over an alleged assault on ‘our values,” wheeling out their rhetorical big guns to denounce the “philosophical scandal” of refusing to show one’s face publicly.
Five justifications
We have been systematically treated to five justifications, all hammered home with the aim of getting the full veil banned for good: the feminist, the theological, the humanistic, the securitarian and, finally, the prophylactic. None of these justifications has been convincing. For a start, the vast majority of women concerned have clearly actively chosen to wear the veil, sometimes in the face of opposition from their family. Moreover, many see their veils as a means of expressing independence, even sometimes as a vehicle of feminine empowerment.
In the 70s, Muslim women who had recently arrived from north Africa were often kept behind suburban doors by the heavyhanded control of their husbands. Sometimes they were forced to wear the veil, but we hardly gave a damn. But, paradoxically, once the veil had emerged as a voluntary item during the 80s, visibly flaunted in the street by a new generation of determined young Frenchwomen, concern began to rise. Pseudo-feminist rhetoric cannot conceal the fact that it is indeed the voluntary veil which is being fought, and not the imposed article. As to the second, theological justification, it is almost laughable to see members of the government and the president himself arguing that such a veil is not truly Muslim, as if more knowledgeable than the Muslims themselves about the orthodox prescriptions of their own lifestyle. A peculiar facet of so-called French secularism sees government ministers assuming the fashionable role of imams.
Others will opine that one cannot be a true citizen if one hides one’s face, because one is thus refusing human interaction. Yet some people wear dark glasses out of shyness or pure obnoxiousness, and nobody would think of denying them their right to humanity. The security-based objection, requiring one to bare one’s face in order to have the right to pick up one’s children from school, for instance, or if so required by a police patrol, is legitimate in the abstract, but only if one conveniently forgets the fact that in practice, the new generation of women — among the many we have surveyed — do not in fact refuse to comply.
It is no coincidence that the debate on French national identity is occurring simultaneously, for they are tactically complementary — picking on Muslim women, or Muslims in general, or all immigrants, as scapegoats, so we can avoid facing our current symbolic crisis. The French are confronted every day with the declining influence of their language, art and cinema — moreover the “grey panther” generation is realising that their own children could not care less, deeply enmeshed as they are in the globalisation of culture.
To compensate for such losses, people over 40 are to be heard chanting mantras about the importance of French universal values and pointing fingers at those guilty of threatening them from inside France. In fact, they are thus digging into a deep narcissistic wound, their helplessness facing globalisation and the waning of the “French exception,” driving them blindly to trash our most sacred fundamental values while pretending to defend them.
Irrational panic
Whatever form the committee’s recommendation takes in law or decree, it will probably not be enforced, but a symbolic gesture, and a symbol of capitulation. The French Republic has become so weak, so morally corrupted, that it is ready to kick over its most cherished principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, on the part of the political elite, out of cynicism and petty tactics; on the part of the general public, out of irrational panic, even hatred for Muslims. The worst about all this fuss is that we are completely off target. Women donning the full veil are not against modernity but represent rather its sophisticated product, just like westernised Buddhists. The veil, surprising as this may seem, is good news for modern values. This deep western social movement is no threat to modern values, but rather vindicates the latter under unexpected aesthetic guise.
It is a massive blunder to fight this new, ultra-modern Islam. And it is not only France that is heading towards a colossal error of understanding, politically capable of spinning into historic proportions, but also Europe, the U.S., and all the other post-industrial countries, blinkered by Islamophobia, who turn out to be incapable of catching up on their own deep cultural changes and recognising their own best interests. It is a kind of collective, generational jet lag.
(Note: Raphael Liogier teaches at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques d’Aix-en-Provence and edits the Observatoire du Religieux www.world-religion-watch.org )
— © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2010
Source:http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/28/stories/2010012854270900.htm
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
French panel recommends partial burka ban
Lizzy Davies
Committee urges that anyone covering their face be barred from entering public sector property, including hospitals and schools, and using public transport.
France on Tuesday took the first step towards barring Muslim women from wearing the full veil when using public services, but stopped short of calling for an outright ban after critics argued that such a move would be socially divisive and hard to enforce.
A cross-party committee of MPs was set up last year to explore the controversial issue in France of burkas and niqabs. The committee recommended to Parliament that Muslim women should be allowed to carry on covering their faces in the street.
Its final report, however, recommended that anyone covering their face be barred from entering public sector property, including hospitals and schools, or using public transport.
Under the proposals, a woman who fails to remove her veil in such cases would not face a fine for breaking the law but would be refused access to the service. She would not, for instance, be allowed to collect her child benefit payments or take the bus.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who has repeatedly said that the full veil “is not welcome” on French soil, is believed to be in favour of this partial legislation rather than other, more radical suggestions from recalcitrant members of his own Right-wing UMP party.
The French President has been warned that an outright ban on the full veil could be found to be unconstitutional and almost impossible to put into practice. Mr. Sarkozy, who has stressed the need to find a solution in which “no one feels stigmatised”, is also keen to play down speculation that his policies are doing more to aggravate social divisions than bridge them.
Steps to ban the burka, which have been opposed by the Muslim Council of France and other religious groups, have coincided with the French government’s “big debate” on national identity. Critics of the government, from the Left and Right, have accused Mr. Sarkozy of encouraging dangerous rhetoric which has seen the country’s five million Muslims become the object of increasing critiques.
Tuesday’s cross-party report — whose contents were leaked to the French press last week — looks likely to recommend the passing of a non-binding parliamentary resolution setting out the country’s “symbolic” opposition to the full veil.
After that, steps should be taken to vote into law a series of “separate but multiple bans” which would make clear the garment’s practical incompatibility with French values of sexual equality and freedom, the report will say.
“We have to make life impossible for them in order to curb the phenomenon,” one MP told the French daily Le Figaro. However, opponents have said that banning the full veil either outright or partially would serve merely to reinforce the isolation of women already partially alienated from mainstream society.
The 32-member panel, which has been meeting and questioning experts on the issue for the past six months, was set up by Mr. Sarkozy last summer after he declared that the full veil was “a sign of subservience [and] debasement”.
The president of the committee, Communist MP Andre Gerin, has not made any secret of his desire to see a ban on what he has denounced as a “walking prison”. His feelings have tapped into growing concern in France over an item of clothing worn by a small minority of Muslim women. According to police figures, no more than 2,000 women — most of them young and a quarter of them converts — wear a face-covering veil.
In a country which places a high value on laicite — secularism — and which in 2004 banned headscarves in schools, it is unsurprising that such an overt display of religion has raised eyebrows. The major political parties, leading feminists and even one prominent imam have made clear their dislike for the full veil, which they view as an affront to women’s rights and a sign of an emerging strand of fundamentalist Islam.
Despite wide-ranging opposition to the garment and polls showing that a majority of the French public is in favour of a ban, opinions have differed in how to go about discouraging women from covering their faces.
The Socialist party, while condemning the full veil, has refused to support a ban. The UMP’s Jean-Francois Cope, a politician with half an eye on the 2012 presidential elections, grabbed the headlines with a proposal to outlaw the full veil anywhere on French streets and fine wearers €750 each — a suggestion rejected by the committee.
“The problem of public space, by that I mean the street, is very delicate,” said Mr. Gerin last week, explaining why his panel had rejected the option of an outright ban while not ruling it out for the future.
Mr. Cope, he added, was “behaving like a bull in a china shop”.
— © Guardian Newspapers Limited,
Source:http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/27/stories/2010012751110900.htm
Committee urges that anyone covering their face be barred from entering public sector property, including hospitals and schools, and using public transport.
France on Tuesday took the first step towards barring Muslim women from wearing the full veil when using public services, but stopped short of calling for an outright ban after critics argued that such a move would be socially divisive and hard to enforce.
A cross-party committee of MPs was set up last year to explore the controversial issue in France of burkas and niqabs. The committee recommended to Parliament that Muslim women should be allowed to carry on covering their faces in the street.
Its final report, however, recommended that anyone covering their face be barred from entering public sector property, including hospitals and schools, or using public transport.
Under the proposals, a woman who fails to remove her veil in such cases would not face a fine for breaking the law but would be refused access to the service. She would not, for instance, be allowed to collect her child benefit payments or take the bus.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who has repeatedly said that the full veil “is not welcome” on French soil, is believed to be in favour of this partial legislation rather than other, more radical suggestions from recalcitrant members of his own Right-wing UMP party.
The French President has been warned that an outright ban on the full veil could be found to be unconstitutional and almost impossible to put into practice. Mr. Sarkozy, who has stressed the need to find a solution in which “no one feels stigmatised”, is also keen to play down speculation that his policies are doing more to aggravate social divisions than bridge them.
Steps to ban the burka, which have been opposed by the Muslim Council of France and other religious groups, have coincided with the French government’s “big debate” on national identity. Critics of the government, from the Left and Right, have accused Mr. Sarkozy of encouraging dangerous rhetoric which has seen the country’s five million Muslims become the object of increasing critiques.
Tuesday’s cross-party report — whose contents were leaked to the French press last week — looks likely to recommend the passing of a non-binding parliamentary resolution setting out the country’s “symbolic” opposition to the full veil.
After that, steps should be taken to vote into law a series of “separate but multiple bans” which would make clear the garment’s practical incompatibility with French values of sexual equality and freedom, the report will say.
“We have to make life impossible for them in order to curb the phenomenon,” one MP told the French daily Le Figaro. However, opponents have said that banning the full veil either outright or partially would serve merely to reinforce the isolation of women already partially alienated from mainstream society.
The 32-member panel, which has been meeting and questioning experts on the issue for the past six months, was set up by Mr. Sarkozy last summer after he declared that the full veil was “a sign of subservience [and] debasement”.
The president of the committee, Communist MP Andre Gerin, has not made any secret of his desire to see a ban on what he has denounced as a “walking prison”. His feelings have tapped into growing concern in France over an item of clothing worn by a small minority of Muslim women. According to police figures, no more than 2,000 women — most of them young and a quarter of them converts — wear a face-covering veil.
In a country which places a high value on laicite — secularism — and which in 2004 banned headscarves in schools, it is unsurprising that such an overt display of religion has raised eyebrows. The major political parties, leading feminists and even one prominent imam have made clear their dislike for the full veil, which they view as an affront to women’s rights and a sign of an emerging strand of fundamentalist Islam.
Despite wide-ranging opposition to the garment and polls showing that a majority of the French public is in favour of a ban, opinions have differed in how to go about discouraging women from covering their faces.
The Socialist party, while condemning the full veil, has refused to support a ban. The UMP’s Jean-Francois Cope, a politician with half an eye on the 2012 presidential elections, grabbed the headlines with a proposal to outlaw the full veil anywhere on French streets and fine wearers €750 each — a suggestion rejected by the committee.
“The problem of public space, by that I mean the street, is very delicate,” said Mr. Gerin last week, explaining why his panel had rejected the option of an outright ban while not ruling it out for the future.
Mr. Cope, he added, was “behaving like a bull in a china shop”.
— © Guardian Newspapers Limited,
Source:http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/27/stories/2010012751110900.htm
Monday, January 25, 2010
Education options: scope for media role
The Central government revealed, in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on January 18, that 44 educational institutions in the country had failed to meet the standards and norms set by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to qualify for winning the status of “Deemed-to-be Universities” (DUs). This gave enough indication that these institutions would lose their DU status soon. The government’s statement was based on the findings of a Committee he aded by Professor P.N. Tandon.
Tamil Nadu accounts for about 15 of the affected institutions, including the one founded by a Union Minister. Understandably, the revelation led to agitations by students likely to be affected, in Chennai, Salem, and Thanjavur. There were also some incidents of violence. Not surprisingly, the first State government to come out with a clear stand on what needs to be done is the DMK government of Tamil Nadu. Higher Education Minister K. Ponmudy has gone well beyond welcoming the Central government’s move to propose abolition of the DU system itself. Revealing that Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi wrote to Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal in June 2009 asking that the powers of the State government and the existing universities be protected, Mr. Ponmudy has highlighted several aspects of the abuse of the DU system. Most important, he has reiterated the State government’s assurance that the students of the affected institutions would not suffer “in any manner.”
Need for more in-depth study and coverage
These significant developments have been adequately covered in the print and broadcast media, with some newspapers providing useful editorial analyses and comments as well. But it is clear that this challenging subject, and the key issues of educational standards and quality, and social opportunity, that have come to the fore, need more in-depth study and coverage than they have so far got in the public sphere.
Although the concept of the UGC honouring well-run colleges by extending to them the status of DUs in appreciation of their exemplary achievements in academic and research activities is nearly as old as the Indian Republic, the mushrooming of DUs in some States, particularly Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, is of relatively recent origin. While under the original policy the UGC conferred the status on an educational institution after rigorous assessment, in the latter case the DU status was won by some, if not several, institutions exercising enormous political pressure and resorting to corruption.
About 30 deemed universities function in Tamil Nadu and applications from more are pending with the UGC. Ever since the Central and State governments began, in the 1980s, abandoning their responsibilities in the vital sphere of higher education, Tamil Nadu has become a hunting ground of hyper-profit-seeking private players in higher, and especially professional, education. This has resulted in a serious imbalance, with private institutions far outweighing State-run and State-aided institutions. Of the professional colleges, the imbalance, purely in terms of the number of colleges, is more in the engineering than in the medical field, where there is an acute shortage of seats at the undergraduate and especially post-graduate levels.
There are some excellent-to-good private colleges and deemed universities that specialise in various professional fields and offer new kinds of opportunity to young men and women. Scholarly studies show that aside from the welcome expansion of educational opportunity in the relevant fields, this transformation, which took place over two decades, has contributed to, and indeed enabled, the spectacular development of the software and IT-enabled-services (ITES) sectors in southern India. But these worthy private colleges and universities are swamped by institutions that approach education purely as a business and care little for quality and even minimum standards, especially in terms of the quality of teaching, faculty, and educational infrastructure.
Limitless scope for exploitation
Today Tamil Nadu has 354 engineering colleges, of which 333 are self-financing institutions. Although the highest court of the land has banned the practice of collecting capitation fees, the overwhelming majority of self-financing colleges collect substantial sums from students at the time of their joining the institution (claiming privately that this is an inescapable part of the economics of running professional colleges in the private sector). Thus, in the main, the scope for exploiting young people and their families has become limitless, with the phenomenal rise in the demand for engineers and other professionally qualified people in the IT and ITES sectors.
In a highly competitive market, those with more resources and resourcefulness have succeeded in a big way. In the case of some, a small minority, a sustained commitment to educational values and excellence and a focus on improving performance and benchmarking has made all the difference, winning them an enviable reputation nationally and even abroad. But it is clear that the majority of players have used their clout with the right people to elevate the status of their institutions improperly.
Then came a frenetic rush for winning the status of DU. Apart from being a brand-building exercise, this status would enable these institutions to wriggle out of government controls and supervision by monitoring agencies. Many who managed to win the unmerited status of DU for their institutions became defiant towards overseeing institutions, the UGC and the All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). The new status was rarely used to improve the quality of education by enhancing faculty strength and quality, and provide better facilities, academic and otherwise, to the students.
In its affidavit to the apex court, the Central government stated that the 44 institutions, identified for being awarded the DU status, had violated the guidelines prescribed for achieving excellence in teaching and research or innovations, and introduced unrelated degree programmes, thus going beyond the grant of the status. Barring the notable exception of some public-funded institutions, none of the 44 could produce any evidence of quality research, according to the Tandon Committee. It found that many institutions increased their intake disproportionately, and in some cases exponentially in relation to the qualified faculty strength and academic infrastructure. There were also instances where the fees were considerably higher than the ones recommended by the official committees.
The Tandon Committee said that 38 institutions justified their continuance as DUs; 44 were found deficient and had several shortcomings that needed to be corrected over a period of three years; and 44 others simply did not have the attributes to continue as DUs. Another notable finding of the committee was that families rather than professional academics controlled many of these institutions. A newspaper report quoted a member of the committee as saying that some of these institutions had been “atrociously scandalous” in admitting more than 1,500 candidates for Ph.D. studies, with a faculty strength of less than 200! One institution was reported to have opened ‘study centres’ in about 500 places.
The Hindu’s consistent role
While appreciating the editorial of The Hindu (“A step in the right direction” January 21, 2010) and welcoming the government’s move to withdraw the status given to 44 institutions, many readers have referred to the consistent role played by the newspaper against exploitation in the field of education.
“The editorial was timely and served a much-needed cause,” writes Seshadri Ramkumar from Lubbock, Texas. “A good number of institutes that have mushroomed in the recent past have made minimum to nil contribution to research and outreach.” S. Vivekanandan, writing from Madurai, takes exception to the recommendation of the Tandon Committee that 44 deemed universities, found to be deficient, should be given three years to rectify the shortcomings. He feels the move “will seriously jeopardise the ‘Right to Quality Education’ of the stakeholders of higher education.” He wants the government to withdraw the deemed university status conferred on all private institutions. “It is a good sign that the government has not spared even the institutions founded by a Union Minister,” writes K. Raju from Chennai.
As a reader points out, this newspaper has been consistently informing the public through its news coverage of higher education and educating it through competent articles and interviews with experts in the field of education, such as former UGC chairman Yashpal. In fact, several newspapers and magazines, besides some TV channels, have been reporting the hyper-commercialisation of engineering and medical education and the greedy exploitation of the aspirations and dreams of youth. But the message, it is clear, is yet to reach a large section of the people — going by the fact that tens of thousands of parents, in their eagerness to educate their children, are not prepared to resist opting for the third-rate, and even the worst, of the colleges.
Source:http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/25/stories/2010012555600900.htm
Tamil Nadu accounts for about 15 of the affected institutions, including the one founded by a Union Minister. Understandably, the revelation led to agitations by students likely to be affected, in Chennai, Salem, and Thanjavur. There were also some incidents of violence. Not surprisingly, the first State government to come out with a clear stand on what needs to be done is the DMK government of Tamil Nadu. Higher Education Minister K. Ponmudy has gone well beyond welcoming the Central government’s move to propose abolition of the DU system itself. Revealing that Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi wrote to Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal in June 2009 asking that the powers of the State government and the existing universities be protected, Mr. Ponmudy has highlighted several aspects of the abuse of the DU system. Most important, he has reiterated the State government’s assurance that the students of the affected institutions would not suffer “in any manner.”
Need for more in-depth study and coverage
These significant developments have been adequately covered in the print and broadcast media, with some newspapers providing useful editorial analyses and comments as well. But it is clear that this challenging subject, and the key issues of educational standards and quality, and social opportunity, that have come to the fore, need more in-depth study and coverage than they have so far got in the public sphere.
Although the concept of the UGC honouring well-run colleges by extending to them the status of DUs in appreciation of their exemplary achievements in academic and research activities is nearly as old as the Indian Republic, the mushrooming of DUs in some States, particularly Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, is of relatively recent origin. While under the original policy the UGC conferred the status on an educational institution after rigorous assessment, in the latter case the DU status was won by some, if not several, institutions exercising enormous political pressure and resorting to corruption.
About 30 deemed universities function in Tamil Nadu and applications from more are pending with the UGC. Ever since the Central and State governments began, in the 1980s, abandoning their responsibilities in the vital sphere of higher education, Tamil Nadu has become a hunting ground of hyper-profit-seeking private players in higher, and especially professional, education. This has resulted in a serious imbalance, with private institutions far outweighing State-run and State-aided institutions. Of the professional colleges, the imbalance, purely in terms of the number of colleges, is more in the engineering than in the medical field, where there is an acute shortage of seats at the undergraduate and especially post-graduate levels.
There are some excellent-to-good private colleges and deemed universities that specialise in various professional fields and offer new kinds of opportunity to young men and women. Scholarly studies show that aside from the welcome expansion of educational opportunity in the relevant fields, this transformation, which took place over two decades, has contributed to, and indeed enabled, the spectacular development of the software and IT-enabled-services (ITES) sectors in southern India. But these worthy private colleges and universities are swamped by institutions that approach education purely as a business and care little for quality and even minimum standards, especially in terms of the quality of teaching, faculty, and educational infrastructure.
Limitless scope for exploitation
Today Tamil Nadu has 354 engineering colleges, of which 333 are self-financing institutions. Although the highest court of the land has banned the practice of collecting capitation fees, the overwhelming majority of self-financing colleges collect substantial sums from students at the time of their joining the institution (claiming privately that this is an inescapable part of the economics of running professional colleges in the private sector). Thus, in the main, the scope for exploiting young people and their families has become limitless, with the phenomenal rise in the demand for engineers and other professionally qualified people in the IT and ITES sectors.
In a highly competitive market, those with more resources and resourcefulness have succeeded in a big way. In the case of some, a small minority, a sustained commitment to educational values and excellence and a focus on improving performance and benchmarking has made all the difference, winning them an enviable reputation nationally and even abroad. But it is clear that the majority of players have used their clout with the right people to elevate the status of their institutions improperly.
Then came a frenetic rush for winning the status of DU. Apart from being a brand-building exercise, this status would enable these institutions to wriggle out of government controls and supervision by monitoring agencies. Many who managed to win the unmerited status of DU for their institutions became defiant towards overseeing institutions, the UGC and the All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). The new status was rarely used to improve the quality of education by enhancing faculty strength and quality, and provide better facilities, academic and otherwise, to the students.
In its affidavit to the apex court, the Central government stated that the 44 institutions, identified for being awarded the DU status, had violated the guidelines prescribed for achieving excellence in teaching and research or innovations, and introduced unrelated degree programmes, thus going beyond the grant of the status. Barring the notable exception of some public-funded institutions, none of the 44 could produce any evidence of quality research, according to the Tandon Committee. It found that many institutions increased their intake disproportionately, and in some cases exponentially in relation to the qualified faculty strength and academic infrastructure. There were also instances where the fees were considerably higher than the ones recommended by the official committees.
The Tandon Committee said that 38 institutions justified their continuance as DUs; 44 were found deficient and had several shortcomings that needed to be corrected over a period of three years; and 44 others simply did not have the attributes to continue as DUs. Another notable finding of the committee was that families rather than professional academics controlled many of these institutions. A newspaper report quoted a member of the committee as saying that some of these institutions had been “atrociously scandalous” in admitting more than 1,500 candidates for Ph.D. studies, with a faculty strength of less than 200! One institution was reported to have opened ‘study centres’ in about 500 places.
The Hindu’s consistent role
While appreciating the editorial of The Hindu (“A step in the right direction” January 21, 2010) and welcoming the government’s move to withdraw the status given to 44 institutions, many readers have referred to the consistent role played by the newspaper against exploitation in the field of education.
“The editorial was timely and served a much-needed cause,” writes Seshadri Ramkumar from Lubbock, Texas. “A good number of institutes that have mushroomed in the recent past have made minimum to nil contribution to research and outreach.” S. Vivekanandan, writing from Madurai, takes exception to the recommendation of the Tandon Committee that 44 deemed universities, found to be deficient, should be given three years to rectify the shortcomings. He feels the move “will seriously jeopardise the ‘Right to Quality Education’ of the stakeholders of higher education.” He wants the government to withdraw the deemed university status conferred on all private institutions. “It is a good sign that the government has not spared even the institutions founded by a Union Minister,” writes K. Raju from Chennai.
As a reader points out, this newspaper has been consistently informing the public through its news coverage of higher education and educating it through competent articles and interviews with experts in the field of education, such as former UGC chairman Yashpal. In fact, several newspapers and magazines, besides some TV channels, have been reporting the hyper-commercialisation of engineering and medical education and the greedy exploitation of the aspirations and dreams of youth. But the message, it is clear, is yet to reach a large section of the people — going by the fact that tens of thousands of parents, in their eagerness to educate their children, are not prepared to resist opting for the third-rate, and even the worst, of the colleges.
Source:http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/25/stories/2010012555600900.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)