Dr. Khuswant Singh, whom I have admired growing up, and have religiously read his Illustrated weekly, has now written a column “Why Muslims Lag behind". I am challenging his take on four issues he contends with. i) Polygamy - ii) Burqa, iii) Drinking and iv) Pork
Polygamy:
Dr. Singh got that right; marry up to four
wives if you can be just. Obviously, one cannot be
just to all in the real sense, one woman or the
other would feel saddened, taken advantage of, or
feel used due to her dependency.
The provision is not a free ticket to marry four women; it was made with a social purpose to keep the society in a balance. Rather than be at the mercy of lustful men who want to keep a woman as their concubine, the woman may feel a sense of dignity even if she is playing the 2nd, 3rd or 4th fiddle by marrying to the man. However, the first wife has to see it as a social need, rather than a man-woman relationship, she may not feel the un-justness in it and may actually wilfully authorize to save a woman from being on the street. It takes a lot of genorisity on the part of the first wife to do that.
What will you do with 300,000 + women left alone in the savage war in Iraq by the death of their husband, son, brother or father? What are the choices to rehabilitate them? Let them become carriers of Aids? Find sustenance through the only thing they can trade, given the job market, their flesh? It is a tough question and answers are not easy, the provision was made for dire situations like that. However, some people will always abuse the system, no matter what system they follow.
Personally I am against polygamy, but the provision must be guarded from being abused. Dr. Naik"s example that more Hindu"s are polygamist is not a good reason or logic to support one"s case. Even if men keep several women as their secret girl friends, it won"t justify one to marry more than one woman.
Burqa
Dr. Naik could have simply said, that the form of Burqa that is currently in practice was not the prescription of Qur"aan, rather it was the modesty clause interpreted to mean Burqa. The current form of Burqa has become a cultural symbol in the guise of religious identity, and the culture sits deeply in one"s psyche than religion, and it is not easy to drop it at one"s command.
Dr. Singh’s scope is narrow for him to call Burqa as a sign of backwardness, wearing a Shalwar Kameez or Saree seems backward to the westerners. I don"t believe most Indian women (except the college going girls and a few westernized ones) would give up the Saree or Shalwar Kameez for a Skirt on husband or brothers call, she just won"t do it, and why should she, what is the need?
Being civilized is being able to understand free choices and let people have the freedom to wear what is comfortable to them? Who sets the standards that a woman should wear bikini, mini-skirt, Saree, Abaya, or Shalwar Kameez? Why should it bother me what a woman wears, how is it coming in my way? How would it affect her ability to do the work in an office? Let it be a free choice what the woman wants to wear, what she is comfortable with. Each society has its own threshold and it lives with its own equilibrium. Each system works where it is in vogue.
Dr. Singh is a Sikh. Is keeping the hair on his face and head uncivilized, jahilya or backwardness? Absolutely not, it is a religious requirement and there is nothing wrong adhering to one’s belief and practices, it is not hurting any one nor is it hurting the keeper.
Dr. Naik is again trying to justify what the western societies do, he imagines them to be failures, they are not, indeed, they are as much a failure as any society is. Wearing Burqa was not in response to what they do, neither is it the 100% prescription of Qur’aan, he could have done well saying that the format is rather cultural than religious. Muslim women have been wearing it for centuries, has any one lost anything with that?
Oppression of women is bad, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any religion, it is the insecure men, who seek their security by oppressing women and unjustly using their religion, culture or some other excuse.
In terms of percentage, as a standard to equalize the different sizes of populations, I believe a similar percent of American women are victims of domestic violence as Indian, Muslim or Hindu women. Abuse is a man thing and not the religion. Indeed religion continues to civilize the beast and succeeds with many but fails with some.
Pork / Alcohol
It is adhering to one’s belief. I don’t see
how anyone becomes backward by not drinking or
forward by drinking. I don’t see how eating or not
eating pork determines the economic progress or lag
of a community.
Dr. Naik should just stay with the rules of the religion, all people follow the rules of their religion whether it makes sense or not. The Hindus don’t eat beef, Muslims don’t eat the pork and oops, also prohibit alcohol, Sikhs do not cut their hair, Buddhist don’t eat meat on certain days, and same goes to catholic. It is all traditions and nothing is lost following it. It gives them a sense of belonging, which in turn gives them a sense of being complete.
One should constantly search for the wisdom of why we do things? We will always find ourselves justifying it.
Dr. Naik will lose out his argument on Pork, if he bases it on health issues alone, as that is not the issue with the western societies, Pigs are farm raised, corn raised and are usually as clean as any other animal. Kids pet them too.
There is nothing wrong subscribing to certain rituals; social or religious, following which does not make one backward or forward.
It is always the freedom of
choice, live and let live that is the hall mark of
civil societies. Muslims do not lag behind because
of Burqa, Pork, Alcohol or polygamy. They lag behind
because of the education and denied opportunities.
Reference: http://hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=06f7254f-ebfd-4aed-93dc-1bc5e61713a4
If you feel like writing a comment, please click here and write
RESPONSE: A majority of Muslims hold the same view as I do, but like any majority they keep it to themselves and go on about their lives. those who want to speak up, don’t get the chance, the media, seldom pulls the moderates to the news or interview. They have to pull extremists like Bukhari or some one who make sensational statements and create viewers for their news. There has got to be a paradigm shift in news reporting.
1) If you put one view, make sure you pull the matching caliber person to speak on the other side of the issue, and not a dumb idiot who will create negativity any way. That is not fair to the public.
2) Give a balance, at least show some pieces where good things are also happening on the same subject. News media usually kills the hopes of people and builds tension.
Thanks for the encouragement. By the way there are hundreds of condemnation on terrorism and extremism committed by Muslims. I am working on pulling them all together.
COMMENT: I disagree with your views regarding polygamy.
Why Man has an indispensable right to get more spouses-why can't women adopt polygamy.
Women have as much right as their male partners!
Tibet and certain Indian tribes like Goda believe in Polyandry.
Many Muslim women want a quick end to polygamy but religious clerics and politics , never let that happen.
One agrees , wearing Burqa is a personal choice.However, when we add religious angle to it, that thing can never be accepted.
Burqa in many parts of our world is a tool to oppress women.It comes along with so many restrictions.
Then, how can we define true faith on its basis.
Such practice may acceptable in Arab world because of climatic and political factors, but never in western society or other parts of the world!
Ironically, your choose a very wrong man -Sardar Khuswant Singh- to represent liberal values.
Though he claims to be agnostic but he is very much a religious man.
He compiled modern version of Sikh history!
He puts on turban as its a sign of hertitage.Here heritage means Sikhism.
He returns Padmabhushan after Operation Blue star .
He also wrote, how much disgusted he felt when his son Rahul shaved for the first time!
Had it been some one like Tavleen Singh, we could have find answers to the querries!
RESPONSE:
Women should be able to marry any number of men they want, it was the practice during Bhagvad Gita times.
Our objective should be creating peaceful societies, if any of the acts propel us in that direction, we as a society ought to consider. The time for the idea has not come yet.
Polygamy in Islam is a provision for a social purpose, it is not a blanket authorization as I have laid it out in my comments. Indeed, the wife has to approve 2nd marriage for it to be legal. The fourth caliph of Islam, Hazrat Ali was prevented from marrying a 2nd wife, as he could not justify it.
Now a few Muslims violate that rule, push around their way. At least in India, you will not find even 1% of Muslims having a second wife. It is rare. In the Middle east they do, India is our focus and not the country that is not mine. Hindus violate, Christians do... again it is not religion, it is the individual.
Burqa is a free choice - please read my column: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/07/burqa-to-no-burqa.html. In Islam, as we are talking about it, there is no compulsion in any form internally or externally, but people do. Men, regardless of their faiths oppress women in one fashion or the other, shame on those insecure men. They cannot dialogue with their women, so they threaten to send back to mother, or divorce of beat up, you will find this is a trait of men, regardless of their religion.
You have summed up about Khushwant Singh very well, he finds Burqa to be backward, not eating pork, drinking alcohol.. yet he would not shave his hair, beard.. isn't that hypocrisy?
Comments:
One
woman marrying more than one man is going to
become commonplace in India soon with the
dwindling female to male ratio in the country
thanks to female infanticide.
But what were the origins of the Burqua ? Isint
it undermining the ability of men to resist a
woman? And allowing the woman to lose her self
confidence? Just curious
Regarding education
With all the oil money why arent the oil rich
countries sponsoring more educational
institutions? Why is so much money only going to
the Madrassas?Muslims are so united in
everything else but not in developing each other
educationally. Saudi will sponsor madrassas
(where terrorists get their recruits), Iran and
Syria sponsors dissidents in Iraq and Palestine
etc. All muslim countries (thanx to current oil
prices) should get together and sponsor an
educational fund to educate muslims around the
world and set up the best universities and
schools instead of focussing so much on
religious education alone. And they should be
taught Gandhian philosophies like 'an eye for
an eye will make the whole world blind'. The
whole world would be a little more peaceful if
we had a more educated and peaceful muslim
community (that is definitely not to say that
all other communities are peaceful)
Sorry if I offended anyone because that was not my intention. I strongly condemn the Gujarat riots
RESPONSE: One woman marrying more than one man is news to me, and I welcome it if there is a vacuum in the society for such a need.
Origins of Burqa? It was to prevent the lustful men from oogling at women leading to un-lawful contact and possible conflicts and disturbance. If you live in Rural India, or any place in the world, a beautiful woman has a higher chances of being abused by the evil people, be it rich or poor, especially if she is comfortable with clothes that reveal her body. Of course, it is the ugly men who need to restrain, but her chances of being stared at are minimized when she has modest clothing. It was to protect the woman from being chased that modesty in clothing was requested, particularly covering the bosoms. Fortunately the laws of the land usually protect the women, however, there continues the abuse. A girl with few clothing gets ignored in an American city, than India, that we know, as the thresholds are different.
From the request to modesty, it has taken its current form. It is cultural now more than religious. My Mom and perhaps your mom would not even dream of wearing a skirt in public, or wearing revealing clothes like Aishwariya Rai or one such stars, their threshold is different. Not all, but most of the Muslim girls who are used to Burqa will die with embarrassment should they take it out in public... it is different levels of thresholds. My wife never wore Hijab (scarf) let alone Burqa, she was going to a conference where most of the women were wearing scarf - I was not comfortable with it, then I realized, why should it matter to me? Who decides Mini Skirt is the standard, or Saree is? Let it be her choice.
Muslims are not united, it is a fallacy. You will not find them united in your own city or town, they celebrate Eid on two or three different days. The majority, like Hindu, Christian or any majority, simply follows what turns out - they do not want conflict, they simply want to get along.
It is not just the Muslims who are contributing to the world Issue, look at George Bush, massacred and butchered a Million Iraqi's - for what? the reason given were a blatant likes. Muslims are doing, Hindus are doing, Christians are doing, Jews are doing... Ayman Zohari, Osama's assistant is a medical doctor, Parveen togadia is a medical doctor, Bush is an MBA... Pat Roberstons is a Phd Doctor and see the statements he makes about Hindus... Education does not make one a better human, it is what the majority accepts. You and I need to speak up against all wrongs, then the world will change.
You did not offend any one, we are all discussing and learning.
