Although, this opinion piece starts out great but after the first paragraph, it's all downhill from there due to it being full with erroneous information & confusing the simpleton living on the main street.
Let's break down some of the problems with this piece:
1. Confusing the reader was evident from the piece & as such commented on it by a reader (Matt Hughes) that if we come across a veiled woman on the street, then what do we think or who do we blame; is it the woman's own choice of that niqab or her male relatives who forced her to wear it?
Most people don't like grey areas & as such, Mr. Joe & Jane Sixpacks on the main street will either ignore that veiled woman outright or start harassing her or her male relatives. If the Muslim woman says that she is wearing it on her own accord then the response will be that "you are brainwashed by your misogynistic male relatives (brother / husband / father). They won't understand that thin line between what's wrong with niqab in a liberal democracy & being forced to wear it.
2. Niqab is "anti-liberal" & "anti-democratic". Let me ask this then, why are there laws against indecent exposure in a liberal democracy? Per the author's logic that in a liberal democracy, the government cannot force an individual to dress a certain way. As he eloquently rephrased Pierre Trudeau's line that the state has no business in the dressing rooms of the nation, why are there laws against nudists roaming the streets in downtown areas of Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, & Montreal?
A liberal democracy certainly has no rights in the dressing rooms of the nation, but it also certainly doesn't have any rights to single out a tiny minority & make a pariah out of it without ever understanding the reasons behind a certain practice.
3. Author never made any distinction between a niqab & a hijab. Several people, & as such evident from the comments to the piece, that both hijab & niqab, are considered one & the same. (Comment by "NewsReader" that "the niqab is clearly misogynist. So is the hijab.").
There's a huge difference between a hijab & niqab, but the Mr. Joe & Jane Sixpacks on the street don't have a clue of that, since they have not understood Islam to its full extent & they have also not often interacted with Muslims, with different Islamic cultural practices.
4. To begin with the obvious, niqab & hijab have everything to do with Islam. Perhaps, the author likes to open the Quran & go to Chapter 33, Verse 33 where it says, "and stay in your houses & do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore ...." Although, this is directed towards Muslim women of "7th-century Arabia" & specifically, the wives of Prophet Muhammad & mothers of all Muslims worldwide, this is applicable to all Muslim women today.
Just because a majority is not following a certain practice, it doesn't mean that the practice is outdated now. Using the same logic, Christians should stop the "outdated" practice of fasting & prayers during Lent, since the majority don't observe Lent nowadays. Or Jews should stop the "outdated" practice of observing Shabbat since the majority of Jews don't observe Shabbat nowadays. We can keep going discussing "outdated" practices in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, since majority of the people around the world are not following their religions as dictated in their religious books & scriptures but I think the reader got the point.
Now, as I stated above that although, this was a practice of "7th century Arabia," Muslim women of today must dress how the Arab Muslim wives of Prophet did in his time. Question arises then that it was a cultural practice & Quran never actually dictates how a Muslim woman should dress.
True, but then Quran never provide specifics for a lot of things in Islam. Hadiths (sayings, practices, lifestyle of Prophet Muhammad) provide the specifics, but then, obviously, the Prophet did whatever he did in "7th-century Arabia" was according to that Arabian culture & times. Let's take a few examples:
a. Prayers: Quran only orders Muslims to pray. It never provide any specifics into it. So, why don't Muslims pray like singing in a choir (Christianity) or as an interpretive dance (Hinduism)? Why do they recite Quranic verses in Arabic when most Muslims of the world don't even have Arabic as their mother tongue? Why do Muslims do all those poses of standing, sitting, or prostration?
b. Fasting: Quran only orders Muslims to fast. So why don't Muslims fast from dawn till noon only? Why don't they fast like some people do in other religions e.g. drink water & don't take solids? Why Muslims abstain from sexual relations while fasting?
c. Alms: Quran only orders Muslims to give alms. So why don't Muslims give 10% of their gross income, similar to Christians? Why don't Muslims calculate alms like we all fill out our complicated taxes?
d. Pilgrimage: I think the readers got the idea that Quran only says perform pilgrimage. How, when, what, of pilgrimage are all provided to us in Hadiths.
So, it seems like that all pillars of Islam are based on the teachings of Prophet Muhammad & were passed down to today's Muslims through these Hadiths. Since, he was living in "7th-century Arabia", we can easily say that all these pillars of Islam are relics of "7th-century Arabia" & should not be followed now. Can we get even one fatwa from any Islamic scholar in the world to denounce all these Islamic pillars?
5. Author cites Al-Azhar University & Turkey as the proof that niqabs have nothing to do with Islam & hence, they are banned. That creates 2 problems. One that readers then ask the question, & rightly so, that why can't Canada then bans the niqabs when they have nothing to do with Islam & Islamic countries & Islamic organizations have spoken out against niqabs (reader: jjfoxy in the comments). That plays right into the hands of Harper & its supporters & anyone else who is against niqabs.
Secondly, citing some examples who support author's view amounts to misrepresenting the facts or confirming his own biases. The author certainly didn't check out the Quran's interpretation & explanations from prominent scholars, like South Asian scholar, Mawdudi, or even Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb. If the author prefers to consult a living scholar of this modern age, then there is Canadian scholar, Dr. Farhat Hashmi, who by the way, does have a PhD in "Hadith Sciences" from University of Glasgow, Scotland, & wears a niqab. Anyway, so what the author did, is called "fatwa shopping," which is when we don't like a certain fatwa or decision from one scholar, we shop around until we find the one we wanted in the first place.
Citing Al-Azhar University & Turkey as an example against niqab is also taking those examples out of context. Al-Azhar University is not the great center of Sunni learning anymore. It was at one time in the past, but, we cannot forget that their rulings / fatwas are heavily influenced by Egyptian dictators. Why aren't any scholars from Al-Azhar University issuing any fatwas against Sunni & Shiite Muslims fighting each other & killing each other all over Middle East? (That I think is far more important matter than niqabs, since that involves human lives).
We all know that Hosni Mubarak was a dictator who was ruling Egypt with an iron fist back in 2009, & hence, he forced Al-Azhar University to issue a statement, which he wanted in the first place. We also know that Turkish army, which tightly controls the government, don't allow Erdogan to bring in any legislation which breaks their almost 100-year-old strict traditions to not bring in Islamic practices like hijabs.
Taking things out of context, by same measure, the author can say tomorrow that Islam supports dictatorships, because of Imams of Islam's 2 holiest sites, Mecca & Medinah. Both of these Imams give Friday sermons to thousands of Muslims, which have to be pre-approved by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of religious affairs. Those Imams can't say 1 thing against Saudi Arabian regime, which tramples human rights at its will.
Taking anything out of context is a very dangerous practice. It is practiced by right-wing & ignorant people in North America, who don't understand Quran & Hadiths & take verses like "kill infidels wherever you find them" out of Quran, completely out of context, as their support for the argument that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Hardliners & extremists in Islam do the exact same thing to encourage Muslims, & especially new converts & misguided Muslims who have never studied Quran & Hadiths themselves, to kill non-Muslims.
6. The argument that women are forced to wear niqab or hijab (the author never distinguishes it in the piece) is flawed, since a majority of Muslim women, young & old, are wearing hijab & niqabs, in the West, on their own accord.
We can agree that Islamic countries, like Iran & Saudi Arabia, may have forced their women citizens to cover themselves, but what about Muslim women who are converting (e.g. widow of Boston bomber) & Muslim women who were born & raised in a Muslim family. Why are these women taking on niqabs & hijabs? These Muslim women are born & raised in countries where they know their rights & they know that the government will support them fully in whatever decision they take. We can watch multiple videos & documentaries by prominent news agencies, like BBC, on Youtube where new women converts are more strict on taking on niqabs & hijabs than born Muslim women, because those women converts actually learn Arabic & try to understand Quran & Hadiths in their pure forms, whereas, the language of most born Muslims isn't even Arabic, & being complacent in their own religion, they think why do I even need to understand my own religion, when I already know what I need to know about my religion.
7. Author goes on to state that "what separates liberal societies from dictatorships is that the former are open, allow for face-to-face consultation, encourage dissent, & recognize individuals as equals."
a. I have a problem when people say liberal societies are open. Define "open"? Aren't there laws & regulations to inhibit or stop us citizens & residents from doing certain things in these societies? A robber wants to rob people in an open society or, as I gave example above, a nudist wants to walk down Yonge street nude, or a teen driver without a driver's license wants to race down the highway way above the posted limits? Similar to a market is not exactly "free", no society is exactly "open".
b. Liberal societies allow for "face-to-face consultations" but PM Harper of Canada or any of its cabinet members have not had any consultations with any of the Muslim women in Canada on this sensitive topic of niqab. Heck, not even Zunera Ishaq, on whom this whole topic is based, has had any "face-to-face consultation" with the Prime Minister. Does that make Canada a dictatorship then?
c. Liberal societies "encourage dissent" but PM Harper does not allow dissent by allowing no journalist on the Parliament Hill to ask questions to the Prime Minister. Canadian scientists keep complaining that they are muzzled on climate change issues by this government. Peaceful protests & marches, be the G20 protests years ago or the most recent protests by unions, students, & Natives, were forcibly ended through amendments to legislation. Does all this make Canada a dictatorship then?
d. Since, Canada is a "liberal democracy" & per author, individuals are recognized as equals in a liberal democracy, then the question arises that why it took almost 30 years for Canadian government officials to recognize that 1,200 Natives women being sexually assaulted & murdered is a problem? If 1 woman of European descent gets assaulted & murdered in a Canadian city, then the whole police force is out in force to look for the perpetrator, but it took almost 30 years & 1,200 indigenous women to be assaulted & die, for the Canadian government to realize that we may have a problem on our hands. Are these Natives women being considered "equal" as their counterparts of other races & socio-economic demographic? Does this mean that Canada is a dictatorship, then?
All these trump the author's logic, on which his whole argument is based, that Canada is a liberal democracy & an open society.
8. Liberal societies must allow one citizen to see another citizen’s face when in conversation or contact. Question should be asked why does Islam asks women to wear hijab or niqab? It seems clear that Islam & "liberal societies" are in conflict in its values.
Let's look at this from a different perspective & forget about religion for a minute here.
When we want to see the beauty of a woman, do we look at her feet, or her legs, or her arms or her tummy? When males, young & old, are attracted towards a woman, what part of her body do they look at to judge her beauty?
The answer is obviously, her face. It's similar to women judging men; by their faces. When we go on any one of the multiple dating & relationship websites on the internet, men & women, both judge a person's attractiveness through their faces. After all, all those beauty products & all those billion-$$$ beauty companies are selling products for women to make their faces pretty & attractive. Women spend a fortune on those beauty products. Many even go as far as to have painful & expensive botox & facial treatments because they need to look good on the dating scene.
Now, the argument will come that Muslim men are very lustful & can't keep it in their pants. If that's the case, then why is there a Project97 in Canada, started by Rogers Media, right now? The name of Project 97 came from the fact that 97% of the sexual assaults & harassment in Canada is never reported to law enforcement agencies. Why are there so many sexual assault allegations against the legendary comedian, Bill Cosby? What about rape allegations in university campuses & frat houses all over North America? How about CBC's Jian Ghomeshi & his sexual assault cases against him? Are all the men implicated in these cases Muslims? Of course not.
It's basic human biology. Usually, women are not attracted to men on looks. They need a little more than that, which we all call, "foreplay." Ask any sex expert about foreplay, & the answer will be that it doesn't start 2 minutes before sexual intercourse. It starts way before it; perhaps, those flowers, chocolates, & that expensive dinner. But men are ready to go on a moment's notice; as soon as they see an attractive woman in a "cute" dress. Of course, we all know that I am not talking about the nun's dress here.
So, Islam protected women from men reducing a woman to "just a piece of meat" & forcing them to talk to her on an intellectual level by telling Muslim women to wear hijab or a niqab. When a Muslim woman is wearing a hijab or a niqab, her colleague, be it a Muslim or a non-Muslim, anywhere in this world, is forced to interact with her mind, not with her body.
There is a reason when we Muslims firmly believe that Islam gave rights & protected Muslim women back in "7th-century Arabia." Now, if somebody or a government forces its female citizens to do something against their will, we can't blame Islam.
Islam also never forces anyone to follow its orders. If a person doesn't like what Islam says, he/she is most welcome to get out of Islam; similar to, when an employee doesn't like his/her employer's rules, be it the dress code or internet usage rights, he/she is most welcome to leave the company, or if a citizen doesn't like a law made by a government, he/she is most welcome to leave that country & renounce his/her citizenship.
Most, if not all, of Islamic rituals / practices practiced by Muslims around the world are written in Hadiths, & not in Quran, which, as explained / proven above, is all based on Prophet Muhammad's actions & sayings in "7th-century Arabia".
Since, the world keeps changing, Islamic scholars who are highly knowledgable, in religious & secular affairs, are required to issue fatwas like no niqabs for Muslim women, after taking on several factors into consideration, similar to the Justices of the Supreme Court do before issuing a ruling on a sensitive topic. These religious & social matters should not be ruled upon or issued opinions by Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, who doesn't have complete knowledge of Islam. Heck, friends, family, & followers of the Prophet Muhammad, in "7th-century Arabia" never questioned the Prophet or Quran & accepted those rules without any opposition. That, at least, is mentioned in Quran in several places, is the indication of a true believer, that "he hears it & acts upon it."
Let's break down some of the problems with this piece:
1. Confusing the reader was evident from the piece & as such commented on it by a reader (Matt Hughes) that if we come across a veiled woman on the street, then what do we think or who do we blame; is it the woman's own choice of that niqab or her male relatives who forced her to wear it?
Most people don't like grey areas & as such, Mr. Joe & Jane Sixpacks on the main street will either ignore that veiled woman outright or start harassing her or her male relatives. If the Muslim woman says that she is wearing it on her own accord then the response will be that "you are brainwashed by your misogynistic male relatives (brother / husband / father). They won't understand that thin line between what's wrong with niqab in a liberal democracy & being forced to wear it.
2. Niqab is "anti-liberal" & "anti-democratic". Let me ask this then, why are there laws against indecent exposure in a liberal democracy? Per the author's logic that in a liberal democracy, the government cannot force an individual to dress a certain way. As he eloquently rephrased Pierre Trudeau's line that the state has no business in the dressing rooms of the nation, why are there laws against nudists roaming the streets in downtown areas of Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, & Montreal?
A liberal democracy certainly has no rights in the dressing rooms of the nation, but it also certainly doesn't have any rights to single out a tiny minority & make a pariah out of it without ever understanding the reasons behind a certain practice.
3. Author never made any distinction between a niqab & a hijab. Several people, & as such evident from the comments to the piece, that both hijab & niqab, are considered one & the same. (Comment by "NewsReader" that "the niqab is clearly misogynist. So is the hijab.").
There's a huge difference between a hijab & niqab, but the Mr. Joe & Jane Sixpacks on the street don't have a clue of that, since they have not understood Islam to its full extent & they have also not often interacted with Muslims, with different Islamic cultural practices.
4. To begin with the obvious, niqab & hijab have everything to do with Islam. Perhaps, the author likes to open the Quran & go to Chapter 33, Verse 33 where it says, "and stay in your houses & do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore ...." Although, this is directed towards Muslim women of "7th-century Arabia" & specifically, the wives of Prophet Muhammad & mothers of all Muslims worldwide, this is applicable to all Muslim women today.
Just because a majority is not following a certain practice, it doesn't mean that the practice is outdated now. Using the same logic, Christians should stop the "outdated" practice of fasting & prayers during Lent, since the majority don't observe Lent nowadays. Or Jews should stop the "outdated" practice of observing Shabbat since the majority of Jews don't observe Shabbat nowadays. We can keep going discussing "outdated" practices in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, since majority of the people around the world are not following their religions as dictated in their religious books & scriptures but I think the reader got the point.
Now, as I stated above that although, this was a practice of "7th century Arabia," Muslim women of today must dress how the Arab Muslim wives of Prophet did in his time. Question arises then that it was a cultural practice & Quran never actually dictates how a Muslim woman should dress.
True, but then Quran never provide specifics for a lot of things in Islam. Hadiths (sayings, practices, lifestyle of Prophet Muhammad) provide the specifics, but then, obviously, the Prophet did whatever he did in "7th-century Arabia" was according to that Arabian culture & times. Let's take a few examples:
a. Prayers: Quran only orders Muslims to pray. It never provide any specifics into it. So, why don't Muslims pray like singing in a choir (Christianity) or as an interpretive dance (Hinduism)? Why do they recite Quranic verses in Arabic when most Muslims of the world don't even have Arabic as their mother tongue? Why do Muslims do all those poses of standing, sitting, or prostration?
b. Fasting: Quran only orders Muslims to fast. So why don't Muslims fast from dawn till noon only? Why don't they fast like some people do in other religions e.g. drink water & don't take solids? Why Muslims abstain from sexual relations while fasting?
c. Alms: Quran only orders Muslims to give alms. So why don't Muslims give 10% of their gross income, similar to Christians? Why don't Muslims calculate alms like we all fill out our complicated taxes?
d. Pilgrimage: I think the readers got the idea that Quran only says perform pilgrimage. How, when, what, of pilgrimage are all provided to us in Hadiths.
So, it seems like that all pillars of Islam are based on the teachings of Prophet Muhammad & were passed down to today's Muslims through these Hadiths. Since, he was living in "7th-century Arabia", we can easily say that all these pillars of Islam are relics of "7th-century Arabia" & should not be followed now. Can we get even one fatwa from any Islamic scholar in the world to denounce all these Islamic pillars?
5. Author cites Al-Azhar University & Turkey as the proof that niqabs have nothing to do with Islam & hence, they are banned. That creates 2 problems. One that readers then ask the question, & rightly so, that why can't Canada then bans the niqabs when they have nothing to do with Islam & Islamic countries & Islamic organizations have spoken out against niqabs (reader: jjfoxy in the comments). That plays right into the hands of Harper & its supporters & anyone else who is against niqabs.
Secondly, citing some examples who support author's view amounts to misrepresenting the facts or confirming his own biases. The author certainly didn't check out the Quran's interpretation & explanations from prominent scholars, like South Asian scholar, Mawdudi, or even Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb. If the author prefers to consult a living scholar of this modern age, then there is Canadian scholar, Dr. Farhat Hashmi, who by the way, does have a PhD in "Hadith Sciences" from University of Glasgow, Scotland, & wears a niqab. Anyway, so what the author did, is called "fatwa shopping," which is when we don't like a certain fatwa or decision from one scholar, we shop around until we find the one we wanted in the first place.
Citing Al-Azhar University & Turkey as an example against niqab is also taking those examples out of context. Al-Azhar University is not the great center of Sunni learning anymore. It was at one time in the past, but, we cannot forget that their rulings / fatwas are heavily influenced by Egyptian dictators. Why aren't any scholars from Al-Azhar University issuing any fatwas against Sunni & Shiite Muslims fighting each other & killing each other all over Middle East? (That I think is far more important matter than niqabs, since that involves human lives).
We all know that Hosni Mubarak was a dictator who was ruling Egypt with an iron fist back in 2009, & hence, he forced Al-Azhar University to issue a statement, which he wanted in the first place. We also know that Turkish army, which tightly controls the government, don't allow Erdogan to bring in any legislation which breaks their almost 100-year-old strict traditions to not bring in Islamic practices like hijabs.
Taking things out of context, by same measure, the author can say tomorrow that Islam supports dictatorships, because of Imams of Islam's 2 holiest sites, Mecca & Medinah. Both of these Imams give Friday sermons to thousands of Muslims, which have to be pre-approved by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of religious affairs. Those Imams can't say 1 thing against Saudi Arabian regime, which tramples human rights at its will.
Taking anything out of context is a very dangerous practice. It is practiced by right-wing & ignorant people in North America, who don't understand Quran & Hadiths & take verses like "kill infidels wherever you find them" out of Quran, completely out of context, as their support for the argument that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Hardliners & extremists in Islam do the exact same thing to encourage Muslims, & especially new converts & misguided Muslims who have never studied Quran & Hadiths themselves, to kill non-Muslims.
6. The argument that women are forced to wear niqab or hijab (the author never distinguishes it in the piece) is flawed, since a majority of Muslim women, young & old, are wearing hijab & niqabs, in the West, on their own accord.
We can agree that Islamic countries, like Iran & Saudi Arabia, may have forced their women citizens to cover themselves, but what about Muslim women who are converting (e.g. widow of Boston bomber) & Muslim women who were born & raised in a Muslim family. Why are these women taking on niqabs & hijabs? These Muslim women are born & raised in countries where they know their rights & they know that the government will support them fully in whatever decision they take. We can watch multiple videos & documentaries by prominent news agencies, like BBC, on Youtube where new women converts are more strict on taking on niqabs & hijabs than born Muslim women, because those women converts actually learn Arabic & try to understand Quran & Hadiths in their pure forms, whereas, the language of most born Muslims isn't even Arabic, & being complacent in their own religion, they think why do I even need to understand my own religion, when I already know what I need to know about my religion.
7. Author goes on to state that "what separates liberal societies from dictatorships is that the former are open, allow for face-to-face consultation, encourage dissent, & recognize individuals as equals."
a. I have a problem when people say liberal societies are open. Define "open"? Aren't there laws & regulations to inhibit or stop us citizens & residents from doing certain things in these societies? A robber wants to rob people in an open society or, as I gave example above, a nudist wants to walk down Yonge street nude, or a teen driver without a driver's license wants to race down the highway way above the posted limits? Similar to a market is not exactly "free", no society is exactly "open".
b. Liberal societies allow for "face-to-face consultations" but PM Harper of Canada or any of its cabinet members have not had any consultations with any of the Muslim women in Canada on this sensitive topic of niqab. Heck, not even Zunera Ishaq, on whom this whole topic is based, has had any "face-to-face consultation" with the Prime Minister. Does that make Canada a dictatorship then?
c. Liberal societies "encourage dissent" but PM Harper does not allow dissent by allowing no journalist on the Parliament Hill to ask questions to the Prime Minister. Canadian scientists keep complaining that they are muzzled on climate change issues by this government. Peaceful protests & marches, be the G20 protests years ago or the most recent protests by unions, students, & Natives, were forcibly ended through amendments to legislation. Does all this make Canada a dictatorship then?
d. Since, Canada is a "liberal democracy" & per author, individuals are recognized as equals in a liberal democracy, then the question arises that why it took almost 30 years for Canadian government officials to recognize that 1,200 Natives women being sexually assaulted & murdered is a problem? If 1 woman of European descent gets assaulted & murdered in a Canadian city, then the whole police force is out in force to look for the perpetrator, but it took almost 30 years & 1,200 indigenous women to be assaulted & die, for the Canadian government to realize that we may have a problem on our hands. Are these Natives women being considered "equal" as their counterparts of other races & socio-economic demographic? Does this mean that Canada is a dictatorship, then?
All these trump the author's logic, on which his whole argument is based, that Canada is a liberal democracy & an open society.
8. Liberal societies must allow one citizen to see another citizen’s face when in conversation or contact. Question should be asked why does Islam asks women to wear hijab or niqab? It seems clear that Islam & "liberal societies" are in conflict in its values.
Let's look at this from a different perspective & forget about religion for a minute here.
When we want to see the beauty of a woman, do we look at her feet, or her legs, or her arms or her tummy? When males, young & old, are attracted towards a woman, what part of her body do they look at to judge her beauty?
The answer is obviously, her face. It's similar to women judging men; by their faces. When we go on any one of the multiple dating & relationship websites on the internet, men & women, both judge a person's attractiveness through their faces. After all, all those beauty products & all those billion-$$$ beauty companies are selling products for women to make their faces pretty & attractive. Women spend a fortune on those beauty products. Many even go as far as to have painful & expensive botox & facial treatments because they need to look good on the dating scene.
Now, the argument will come that Muslim men are very lustful & can't keep it in their pants. If that's the case, then why is there a Project97 in Canada, started by Rogers Media, right now? The name of Project 97 came from the fact that 97% of the sexual assaults & harassment in Canada is never reported to law enforcement agencies. Why are there so many sexual assault allegations against the legendary comedian, Bill Cosby? What about rape allegations in university campuses & frat houses all over North America? How about CBC's Jian Ghomeshi & his sexual assault cases against him? Are all the men implicated in these cases Muslims? Of course not.
It's basic human biology. Usually, women are not attracted to men on looks. They need a little more than that, which we all call, "foreplay." Ask any sex expert about foreplay, & the answer will be that it doesn't start 2 minutes before sexual intercourse. It starts way before it; perhaps, those flowers, chocolates, & that expensive dinner. But men are ready to go on a moment's notice; as soon as they see an attractive woman in a "cute" dress. Of course, we all know that I am not talking about the nun's dress here.
So, Islam protected women from men reducing a woman to "just a piece of meat" & forcing them to talk to her on an intellectual level by telling Muslim women to wear hijab or a niqab. When a Muslim woman is wearing a hijab or a niqab, her colleague, be it a Muslim or a non-Muslim, anywhere in this world, is forced to interact with her mind, not with her body.
There is a reason when we Muslims firmly believe that Islam gave rights & protected Muslim women back in "7th-century Arabia." Now, if somebody or a government forces its female citizens to do something against their will, we can't blame Islam.
Islam also never forces anyone to follow its orders. If a person doesn't like what Islam says, he/she is most welcome to get out of Islam; similar to, when an employee doesn't like his/her employer's rules, be it the dress code or internet usage rights, he/she is most welcome to leave the company, or if a citizen doesn't like a law made by a government, he/she is most welcome to leave that country & renounce his/her citizenship.
Most, if not all, of Islamic rituals / practices practiced by Muslims around the world are written in Hadiths, & not in Quran, which, as explained / proven above, is all based on Prophet Muhammad's actions & sayings in "7th-century Arabia".
Since, the world keeps changing, Islamic scholars who are highly knowledgable, in religious & secular affairs, are required to issue fatwas like no niqabs for Muslim women, after taking on several factors into consideration, similar to the Justices of the Supreme Court do before issuing a ruling on a sensitive topic. These religious & social matters should not be ruled upon or issued opinions by Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, who doesn't have complete knowledge of Islam. Heck, friends, family, & followers of the Prophet Muhammad, in "7th-century Arabia" never questioned the Prophet or Quran & accepted those rules without any opposition. That, at least, is mentioned in Quran in several places, is the indication of a true believer, that "he hears it & acts upon it."
No comments:
Post a Comment