I was very surprised when few years back Hazar Imam mentioned the Taliban in one of his jokes in Dar es salaam.
I was wondering why He said "in case Talibans are listening". My first reaction was to think there is a category of Ismaili Talibans, people who pretend to be Ismailis but have an agenda to bring Shariah/formalism to the Ismaili faith.
The First shock was that that part of the Farman was not released. Would our Talibans have that kind of influence? is it possible that they have infiltrated our own institutions.
The Second shock was during the last few Jubilee Didars including the Toronto Didar which I attended and where well known high profile personalities went to the stage before the Imam came and told the Jamat not to clap or laugh when the Imam would make his jokes. Indeed they were overuling the Imam who just the previous day said he wanted the Jamat to enjoy His jokes with Him.
Now comes the Third shock: This week, in Nairobi-Kenya there was an announcement IN Parklands JAMATKHANA that during the lunch party to celebrate Miladun Nabi inthe Pavillion, in the JamatKhana premisses, the ISMAILI ladies were told, rather ordered to put a headscarf!
This is the end of he period of building bridges, we have started crossing them. Soon we will become like them..... who cares that it took 100 years to our Imams to tell us to get rid of the headscarf and come to European dresses in Africa, now our leaders have overuled both Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah and Shah Karim on this issue and the worse is this: The Jamat will follow the announcement and forget about what our Imam has told us repeatatively.
This Navroz is not the starting of an new year, it is a starting of a new era where our Talibans will take us back to wahabism.. God protect us!
Nagib
Veil, Head Scarf, ismaili Taliban et all...
-
star_munir
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 12:55 am
- Contact:
Mon grand-père a été le premier à inciter les femmes à quitter le voile. Le Coran établit une nette différence entre les femmes-esclaves - celles qui n'existent que dans le regard des hommes, par leurs parures - et les femmes libres. Les femmes doivent être libres, de nos jours, responsables de leur conduite. Il n'est pas question de se cacher, pas plus que de se parer
Shah Karim, Aga Khan IV
[My Gransfather was first in telling women to abandon the veil...]
Shah Karim, Aga Khan IV
[My Gransfather was first in telling women to abandon the veil...]
What does "se parer" mean in this case? My French, she eez not so belle pis Acadienne...Admin wrote:Mon grand-père a été le premier à inciter les femmes à quitter le voile. Le Coran établit une nette différence entre les femmes-esclaves - celles qui n'existent que dans le regard des hommes, par leurs parures - et les femmes libres. Les femmes doivent être libres, de nos jours, responsables de leur conduite. Il n'est pas question de se cacher, pas plus que de se parer.
[quote="Admin"]Mon grand-père a été le premier à inciter les femmes à quitter le voile. Le Coran établit une nette différence entre les femmes-esclaves - celles qui n'existent que dans le regard des hommes, par leurs parures - et les femmes libres. Les femmes doivent être libres, de nos jours, responsables de leur conduite. Il n'est pas question de se cacher, pas plus que de se parer
Shah Karim, Aga Khan IV
OK here is a home translation
My Grandfather was the first to incite women to take off the veil. The Quran establishes a net difference between slave-women - those that exists only in men's eye, by their clothing [ornament] - and the free women. Today women should be free, responsible of their conduct [behavior]. There is no question of hiding nor of [over]beautifying.
Shah Karim, Aga Khan IV
OK here is a home translation
My Grandfather was the first to incite women to take off the veil. The Quran establishes a net difference between slave-women - those that exists only in men's eye, by their clothing [ornament] - and the free women. Today women should be free, responsible of their conduct [behavior]. There is no question of hiding nor of [over]beautifying.
I would say after investigating that it's more like "There is no question of hiding away or of showing off" - i.e. it's not about the body, but the conduct, now that we no longer make that distinction between the slave and the free based on dress.Admin wrote:The Quran establishes a net difference between slave-women - those that exists only in men's eye, by their clothing [ornament] - and the free women. Today women should be free, responsible of their conduct [behavior]. There is no question of hiding nor of [over]beautifying.
Very perceptive, of course. Even today in some Arab countries there is a sense that migrant worker women are not ALLOWED to veil, and should appear saucy. I know in the UAE my friend, who is used to Morocco, said the Moroccan women she met were viewed as sluts unworthy of purdah, and wore only the "Spanish hijab" (ie. just the hair and not the neck) on pain of serious trouble.
-
samirnoorali
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:18 pm
The Hijab or Veil
The Hijab or Veil
By: Samir Noorali
The hijab or veil is a clothing over a woman’s body that is meant to ensure that her body is not visible. When talking about such a covering many cultures have imposed it upon the female population. In Christianity you can see nuns wearing a veil very similar to the one worn in certain Islamic countries. There is something we can learn from this. Nuns are, for the most part, isolated in Churches and rarely impose such measures of clothing upon females in society. In other words, the Church does not impose that females in the general populous should behave and dress as nuns. Islam can learn from that.
It is a shame that women are wearing the veil. What would be proper is that women in Islam should never wear any sort of veil, neither in its extremity, such as in Afghanistan, nor in its mildest forms as in Canada or the United States.
One has to remember that beauty is a proof of Allah’s creation. When man looks at a woman he is fulfilling his biological instruction to seek out a mate. Likewise, when a female looks at a male she is fulfilling her biological instruction to seek out a mate. This analogy should not be confused with family members and such; I’m simply outlining biological impulses as dictated in nature.
Let me be very blunt in saying that quoting passages of the Quran and claiming that Allah somehow wants women to wear the veil as part of his commandment is a purely insane accusation. I would go further in saying that those who propose that Allah is commanding mankind to hinder women through the veil, through degrading them, through imposing rules which limit their capabilities to be equal contributors to society, are making Allah look like an unjust God. Christians around the world would love Islam if these silly lunacies were removed and Islam would be more compatible with the laws of nature and the fulfilment of modernity.
If this is not achieved then the Christian world will never see Islam as a just and true path. The reason being that these sharia laws are in direct contradiction with the laws of nature. In sum, the sharia laws should be removed in place of humanistic Islamic values. These values should seek to bind Jews, Christians, and Mulims as one brotherhood, not divide them.
The entire world looks upon Muslim women and finds them embarrassingly ugly. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but sometime one has to be in order to make a point. Persians, Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghanis, have some of the most beautiful looking women, yet they are covered up and look extremely ugly.
If you look at the very crust of the matter you can see that many men defend the veil by quoting passages of the Quran. That is not logical at all. Quoting this verse and that verse and joining verses together in order to put words into Allah’s mouth is childish and absurd. What you ought to do is find Allah and ask him personally instead of quoting lines behind his back.
What should be the case is that Muslim women should abandon the hijab or veil completely and accept that Allah created them so that they may be beautiful and attractive. That is in itself a principal of faith. What is written in the Quran is based on circumstance. If the Prophet was engaged in a specific circumstance then it was for that particular instance. It is illogical to quote a passage of the Quran and apply it as a universal solution to every possible circumstance that can arise. That is placing the Quran higher than God, rather than God higher than a book.
Some may argue that the Quran is Allah’s words. Be reminded that it was from the lips of the Prophet that any words were uttered. Some made it to the Quran, some changed, some were invented by Caliph Osman. Who is to tell if the Quran is actually the exact words of Mohammad? That is like saying that Jesus himself sat down and wrote the Bible. No Muslim would agree with that, then reverse that question and ask: what makes a person logically think that everything in the Quran is Mohammad’s words? Only Mohammad himself can authenticate that.
If the Prophet were here today what would he say? Can he not speak moderate and change his words according to the times? Surely, that is logical and fully compatible the concept of modernity. Instead what is being presented by orthodox Muslims is that the Quran is the final authority on all matters. But it’s just a book. It is not a God. Instead this concept is poorly understood and that is why Muslims are falling behind from other religions.
It is interesting to note that women are the ones wearing the veil, not men. Why don’t the men wear the veil so that they can cover their private parts? And the funny part about all this is that the veil was a man’s invention. It is the men who are looking and have derogatory thoughts about women. What should happen in that case is that there should be more laws to prevent men from harassing women instead of imposing the veil.
I’ll illustrate a personal example of a Christian woman who converted to Islam. Her husband was from Saudi Arabia. Upon marriage she told me this story. She got married and moved with her husband to Saudi Arabia. One day she was out with her brother in law and husband as they went to pick up some fruit to bring home. Her husband and brother in law were in one section of the store and she was in another. Suddenly a man came behind her and stuck one of his figures up her behind. She turned around in shock and screamed out. Other people standing around ignored her and the man smiled and walked away.
She had a very traumatic experience, but nobody did anything to stop it. Firstly, she did not want to wear the veil, but she did so out of respect of her new faith. Her impression changed not by the incident, as that can happen in any setting. What changed her impression was that men have such a low opinion of women and that women are considered inferior to men.
Why give the Christian world such a bad impression about Islam? Islam was meant to be progressive, modern, and subscribing to the laws of nature. But what we have forgotten in Islam is that Allah is in harmony with the laws of nature. People have to evolve, be happier the next day than the previous.
What you’re left with are women who wear the veil, look ugly, uneducated, illiterate, and oppressed. One cannot do that and call themselves Muslims. That is not a just Islam but a direct contradiction to the laws of nature.
This is why Ismailis do not wear the veil. It is a statement to the world that Islam is progressive, modern, and logical in every sense of the word. That is an Islam that any Christian can relate to. That is why the Christian world has partnered with the Jewish world, because Jews, even though they do not accept Jesus Christ, are willing to be compatible with modern life. The women don’t wear veils; they are highly educated, united, and progressive. Christians can relate to that.
Where the conflict arises is that Muslims are seen to be stuck in the past. They are seen to be in a mindset which is frozen in time, some 1400 years in the past. In fact Christianity has much in common with Islam because they both acknowledge Jesus Christ. Similarly Jews and Muslims should be able to get along because their faith in one God is very similar.
But if the idiocy of the veil and the unwillingness of Islamic practices to accept modernity prevails then moderate Islam will never be accepted in the western world, or any other religion.
Christianity is by far a religion which contradicts the laws of nature. It takes into account such concepts as miracles and Saints, especially the Catholic stream, which have confused the centrality of Allah in everyday life. Whereas Islam was built on a new premise: to uproot illogical concepts and to seek knowledge as a means to understand Allah’s creation.
The Fatimids were exemplary in this tradition. They presented a moderate and progressive Islam that was compatible with everyday life. Women were free from the veil, they contributed to society, and their role was considered equal to men.
Today we have lost that zest for freedom and compatibility. Instead we have hard-line Muslims that believe that Allah commands people to follow these irrational laws. Moderate Islam does not have a voice and is overshadowed by fundamentalists who proclaim that their version of Islam is the right one.
Unfortunately, the women are the ones who suffer. And, don’t get me wrong, some women like to be oppressed and will defend the veil in the name of faith. We wish them well. If they want to wear the veil then who am I to stop them from following their faith? But they should try to understand that Islam is great because women should have the right to choose if they want to wear a veil or not. It is their choice, not a man’s choice. When it becomes a man’s imposition, then you know that behind it all it is really not Allah who is commanding such rules, but rather men who are deathly afraid to lose their women. Insecurity if you will.
By: Samir Noorali
The hijab or veil is a clothing over a woman’s body that is meant to ensure that her body is not visible. When talking about such a covering many cultures have imposed it upon the female population. In Christianity you can see nuns wearing a veil very similar to the one worn in certain Islamic countries. There is something we can learn from this. Nuns are, for the most part, isolated in Churches and rarely impose such measures of clothing upon females in society. In other words, the Church does not impose that females in the general populous should behave and dress as nuns. Islam can learn from that.
It is a shame that women are wearing the veil. What would be proper is that women in Islam should never wear any sort of veil, neither in its extremity, such as in Afghanistan, nor in its mildest forms as in Canada or the United States.
One has to remember that beauty is a proof of Allah’s creation. When man looks at a woman he is fulfilling his biological instruction to seek out a mate. Likewise, when a female looks at a male she is fulfilling her biological instruction to seek out a mate. This analogy should not be confused with family members and such; I’m simply outlining biological impulses as dictated in nature.
Let me be very blunt in saying that quoting passages of the Quran and claiming that Allah somehow wants women to wear the veil as part of his commandment is a purely insane accusation. I would go further in saying that those who propose that Allah is commanding mankind to hinder women through the veil, through degrading them, through imposing rules which limit their capabilities to be equal contributors to society, are making Allah look like an unjust God. Christians around the world would love Islam if these silly lunacies were removed and Islam would be more compatible with the laws of nature and the fulfilment of modernity.
If this is not achieved then the Christian world will never see Islam as a just and true path. The reason being that these sharia laws are in direct contradiction with the laws of nature. In sum, the sharia laws should be removed in place of humanistic Islamic values. These values should seek to bind Jews, Christians, and Mulims as one brotherhood, not divide them.
The entire world looks upon Muslim women and finds them embarrassingly ugly. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but sometime one has to be in order to make a point. Persians, Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghanis, have some of the most beautiful looking women, yet they are covered up and look extremely ugly.
If you look at the very crust of the matter you can see that many men defend the veil by quoting passages of the Quran. That is not logical at all. Quoting this verse and that verse and joining verses together in order to put words into Allah’s mouth is childish and absurd. What you ought to do is find Allah and ask him personally instead of quoting lines behind his back.
What should be the case is that Muslim women should abandon the hijab or veil completely and accept that Allah created them so that they may be beautiful and attractive. That is in itself a principal of faith. What is written in the Quran is based on circumstance. If the Prophet was engaged in a specific circumstance then it was for that particular instance. It is illogical to quote a passage of the Quran and apply it as a universal solution to every possible circumstance that can arise. That is placing the Quran higher than God, rather than God higher than a book.
Some may argue that the Quran is Allah’s words. Be reminded that it was from the lips of the Prophet that any words were uttered. Some made it to the Quran, some changed, some were invented by Caliph Osman. Who is to tell if the Quran is actually the exact words of Mohammad? That is like saying that Jesus himself sat down and wrote the Bible. No Muslim would agree with that, then reverse that question and ask: what makes a person logically think that everything in the Quran is Mohammad’s words? Only Mohammad himself can authenticate that.
If the Prophet were here today what would he say? Can he not speak moderate and change his words according to the times? Surely, that is logical and fully compatible the concept of modernity. Instead what is being presented by orthodox Muslims is that the Quran is the final authority on all matters. But it’s just a book. It is not a God. Instead this concept is poorly understood and that is why Muslims are falling behind from other religions.
It is interesting to note that women are the ones wearing the veil, not men. Why don’t the men wear the veil so that they can cover their private parts? And the funny part about all this is that the veil was a man’s invention. It is the men who are looking and have derogatory thoughts about women. What should happen in that case is that there should be more laws to prevent men from harassing women instead of imposing the veil.
I’ll illustrate a personal example of a Christian woman who converted to Islam. Her husband was from Saudi Arabia. Upon marriage she told me this story. She got married and moved with her husband to Saudi Arabia. One day she was out with her brother in law and husband as they went to pick up some fruit to bring home. Her husband and brother in law were in one section of the store and she was in another. Suddenly a man came behind her and stuck one of his figures up her behind. She turned around in shock and screamed out. Other people standing around ignored her and the man smiled and walked away.
She had a very traumatic experience, but nobody did anything to stop it. Firstly, she did not want to wear the veil, but she did so out of respect of her new faith. Her impression changed not by the incident, as that can happen in any setting. What changed her impression was that men have such a low opinion of women and that women are considered inferior to men.
Why give the Christian world such a bad impression about Islam? Islam was meant to be progressive, modern, and subscribing to the laws of nature. But what we have forgotten in Islam is that Allah is in harmony with the laws of nature. People have to evolve, be happier the next day than the previous.
What you’re left with are women who wear the veil, look ugly, uneducated, illiterate, and oppressed. One cannot do that and call themselves Muslims. That is not a just Islam but a direct contradiction to the laws of nature.
This is why Ismailis do not wear the veil. It is a statement to the world that Islam is progressive, modern, and logical in every sense of the word. That is an Islam that any Christian can relate to. That is why the Christian world has partnered with the Jewish world, because Jews, even though they do not accept Jesus Christ, are willing to be compatible with modern life. The women don’t wear veils; they are highly educated, united, and progressive. Christians can relate to that.
Where the conflict arises is that Muslims are seen to be stuck in the past. They are seen to be in a mindset which is frozen in time, some 1400 years in the past. In fact Christianity has much in common with Islam because they both acknowledge Jesus Christ. Similarly Jews and Muslims should be able to get along because their faith in one God is very similar.
But if the idiocy of the veil and the unwillingness of Islamic practices to accept modernity prevails then moderate Islam will never be accepted in the western world, or any other religion.
Christianity is by far a religion which contradicts the laws of nature. It takes into account such concepts as miracles and Saints, especially the Catholic stream, which have confused the centrality of Allah in everyday life. Whereas Islam was built on a new premise: to uproot illogical concepts and to seek knowledge as a means to understand Allah’s creation.
The Fatimids were exemplary in this tradition. They presented a moderate and progressive Islam that was compatible with everyday life. Women were free from the veil, they contributed to society, and their role was considered equal to men.
Today we have lost that zest for freedom and compatibility. Instead we have hard-line Muslims that believe that Allah commands people to follow these irrational laws. Moderate Islam does not have a voice and is overshadowed by fundamentalists who proclaim that their version of Islam is the right one.
Unfortunately, the women are the ones who suffer. And, don’t get me wrong, some women like to be oppressed and will defend the veil in the name of faith. We wish them well. If they want to wear the veil then who am I to stop them from following their faith? But they should try to understand that Islam is great because women should have the right to choose if they want to wear a veil or not. It is their choice, not a man’s choice. When it becomes a man’s imposition, then you know that behind it all it is really not Allah who is commanding such rules, but rather men who are deathly afraid to lose their women. Insecurity if you will.
Ya `Ali madaad,
Before I begin what may start a debate, I ask for the Imam's support that all I say will be in accordance with the truth, that I will speak harshly against false beliefs but not harshly against those who hold them. I ask the Imam's help that of whatever I say is wrong, I will be corrected and that through my fellows in faith the Imam will teach me. I ask that of whatever I say is correct, that my fellows in faith will learn from it. I pray that neither of us will become angry to the other, and though our words will be harsh in argument, it will not be harsh at heart. I ask that every action we take in life lead us closer to Allah, and farther away from evil. I ask that He make our hearts still so we may hear His silent truth.
This is my opinion:
I advise the mureeds of Sahib al-Zamaan to be careful with every word they say or write. Islam falls together or stands together; there are those who do not follow the Imam and wear hijab, and those who do follow the Imam and do not. There are murids who due to cultural and safety reasons still do wear hijab, and likewise there are non-Ismaili Muslims who have thrown aside hijab. If you believe that Islam can stand divided, you are sadly mistaken.
Very rarely in the history of Ismailism has Ismailism sought to actively disprove the beliefs or practices of other Muslims. Ismailism mainly built upon these beliefs. Ismailis have at times taken the fiqh of Imam Jafar, sometimes even the fiqh of Sunni Imams. Rarely has an Ismaili Imam or da'i sat down and refuted the doctrines and beliefs of other Muslims, and insulted them. We have only proven our own beliefs, without necessarily disproving theirs. Much of such theological debate was combating heresy within Ismaili ranks, mainly due to succession. Ismailiyya actively disproved beliefs in Musa al-Kadhim's Imamate, and the belief in the Twelve Imams which was even held by a minority of Ismailiyya at one point (this group believed that both the Ismaili Imams and the Twelver Imams were real Imams).
Did the da'i go to India and disprove Hinduism? No, they taught the mureeds in India, the Khoja, the true path (Satpanth) that existed within their former beliefs. Likewise, Ismailiyya da'i who targeted Muslim populations would teach Ismailism in the perspective of already understood and accepted Islamic beliefs.
Hijab is unacceptable for an Ismaili woman who is not in a dangerous situation where she must culturally oblige to it; to make the same broad accusation that all Muslims not following Ismaili beliefs are therefore morally incorrect is against the teachings of Ismailism, whether Satpanthi, Alamut, Fatimi, or Nasiriyya. Sunni Muslims say we sin by not following what is written in their religious texts of law; what kind of fallacy is that? By not following something that you disbelieve is true in Islam, you are not Muslim? Likewise, are Sunni Muslims wrong by following hijab which is without a doubt entrenched in their legal system which has been built upon fourteen hundred years of scholarship? Is a single Ismaili writer going to disprove their fourteen hundred years of scholarship and say they simply need to re-examine things?
And if you refuse to believe these traditions, then the very tradition of Ghadir Khumm where Imam Ali was given the designation by the Prophet Muhammad is too subject to falsehood. The very tradition of the Ahl al-Kisa where the family of the Prophet was purified is subject to falsehood. Do not pick and choose your historical beliefs: there are scientific methods for Ismailis to deduce which hadith are historically correct and which aren't. I suggest you learn about the scholars of the Fatimid period who did such. Most Ismailiyya simply need to follow what Hadhir Imam states, but if you are to understand the very truths of early Islamic history you must then become a scholar and not simply throw out what doesn't suit your preset beliefs.
You then state that shariah laws should be removed and replaced with humanistic Islamic values. The Imam has never declared that shariah is permanently abolished. Do you know what lead to the current age? What led to the current age according to the Nasiryya tradition of Ismailism is that Allah made Adam the first Imam over mankind. He had to implement shariah. However, Lucifer did not want him to implement shariah, and instead taught him the batin secrets: the forbidden fruit. This is part of the fall of mankind. Shariah will be completely abolished when the Imam states it is abolished, and it will begin to completely begin when the Imam states it will begin. Shariah is not intrinsically wrong, or else Allah would never have implemented it. Abandonment of shariah was what caused the downfall of mankind.
Example of circular logic: “I believe Jesus never existed. All stories about him are fabricated.” “What proof do you have for this?” “I don't believe in Jesus, hence all stories about him must be fabricated.”
This is a disagreement we have with other Muslims altogether. They have their methods for deducing Islamic theology, we have our methods. Their methods are not simply stating verses of the Qur'an: there is an active tradition of proving historical traditions, disproving historical traditions, finding why and when Qur'anic verses were revealed. This has been around since the earliest time of Islam. Ismaili da'i even had their own way of deducing correct shariah and fiqh, for example, read the Ismaili book of fiqh, Da'im al-Islam. This is the equivalent of the Sunni Muslim Sahih Bukhari. All this has been led and taught by the Imam.
As far as the authenticity of the Qur'an, this is often discussed in Ismailiyya circles. There is no historical proof any other Qur'an existed other than the one we have today: archeological searches have been done. Hadhir Imam states that the Qur'an we have today is the Qur'an of the Prophet. The only statements we have are from Imam Muhammad Sultan Shah, where he states that the meaning of the Qur'an has been lost: this has been a Shi'a belief for over one thousand years. The meaning of the Qur'an has been lost, and it has been preserved in the ginans, qasidas, and so forth. Often Sunni scholars will take these beliefs and say this means Ismaili Muslims disbelieve in the sanctity of the Qur'an.
Let me ask you something, if the Qur'an we have today isn't the correct Qur'an, why are the Satpanthi Ismailiyya the the main Ismailiyya who believe this? If this Qur'an is so fake, why do so many secular Western scholars, from Montgomery Watt to Bernard Lewis, regard it as authentic? As you know, many many scholars have issues with Biblical authenticity. The Qur'an revealed that the previous scriptures were corrupted prior to the advent of modern day scriptural studies.
The Qu'ran and Islam has revealed the most liberal system on Earth. It owes this to no entity other than God, who guides us through divine revelation and reason. Simply because the Imam has stopped Ismaili women from wearing the veil does not mean the veil was never worn in Islam, nor does it mean that we must attack sisters in Islam who are wearing the veil. And you wonder why so many of them have such a low opinion of Ismailiyya?
I am an Ismaili Pashtun, my tribe originally comes from Afghanistan where we ruled the nation until the year 1919. I have a Sunni part of my family. My cousin hates Shi'a with a passion and is part of an organization that kills Shi'a. My great great great grandfather was Abdur Rahman Khan, king of Afghanistan. He murdered and executed countless Shi'a Muslims. You are Satpanthi, and you have lived in British India and the West for many many years. You do not know the pain, and you cannot know, the pain that simple rumors of Ismaili start. Articles such as these find their way to Sunni forums who then promulgate more myths about Ismailiyya hating Islam. My uncle this year was killed by a Twelver, because the Twelver thought he hated Shi'a Muslims. All rumours, all articles, all literature that is started and disseminated.
When the Christian world was murdering Jews throughout Europe, where did the Jews go? They partnered with Muslims, who at the time were veiled. Do you honestly believe that simply because the West is in a superior economic state now that it will remain forever? The Imam has criticized Western civilization on many fronts; the fact that you believe that Arab culture has to appease to it is ridiculous.
You have the ability to become one of the Imam's greatest mureeds, but you are instead burning the bridges he has worked his entire life to build. I do not want Ismailiyya to cross the bridge, but to destroy them in the name of Ismailism is contrary to our faith, which we have fought for fourteen hundred years to preserve.
Allahu `alim.
I am a woman. If anything, if your beliefs were correct, I would be the support to support you and emancipation of women. However, you are not emancipating women: a cloth over their heads is not oppressing them. Western culture, with its commodity of women and sexuality has just as many flaws as Arab culture with its inherent patriarchal system. Both must be judged not through the lens of the West or of Arab culture, but through the lens of Islam: the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt and the Qur'an. The teachings of Western philosophers are wonderful, however why do so many Satpanthi continue to read them and ignore the writings of Ismailism's own philosophers, Nasir-i Khusraw? What about the many other philosophers of Islam, Ibn Sina (father was an Ismaili), al-Ghazzali, Averroes, Mulla Sadra? How many of these have you read and understood? The Imam teaches us to learn and understand our Islamic civilization and instead we turn to Western civilization which we use to insult 90% of the world's Muslims. Is this what Sahib al-Zamaan has taught us?
Perhaps the Qur'an and the Imamate of intellect is not enough to deduce the truth for the jamaat? Astaghfullilah.
Qur'an 2:115 - "The East and West are God's: wherever you may turn, there will be God's countenance, for God is Boundless, Aware."
Before I begin what may start a debate, I ask for the Imam's support that all I say will be in accordance with the truth, that I will speak harshly against false beliefs but not harshly against those who hold them. I ask the Imam's help that of whatever I say is wrong, I will be corrected and that through my fellows in faith the Imam will teach me. I ask that of whatever I say is correct, that my fellows in faith will learn from it. I pray that neither of us will become angry to the other, and though our words will be harsh in argument, it will not be harsh at heart. I ask that every action we take in life lead us closer to Allah, and farther away from evil. I ask that He make our hearts still so we may hear His silent truth.
This is my opinion:
I advise the mureeds of Sahib al-Zamaan to be careful with every word they say or write. Islam falls together or stands together; there are those who do not follow the Imam and wear hijab, and those who do follow the Imam and do not. There are murids who due to cultural and safety reasons still do wear hijab, and likewise there are non-Ismaili Muslims who have thrown aside hijab. If you believe that Islam can stand divided, you are sadly mistaken.
Very rarely in the history of Ismailism has Ismailism sought to actively disprove the beliefs or practices of other Muslims. Ismailism mainly built upon these beliefs. Ismailis have at times taken the fiqh of Imam Jafar, sometimes even the fiqh of Sunni Imams. Rarely has an Ismaili Imam or da'i sat down and refuted the doctrines and beliefs of other Muslims, and insulted them. We have only proven our own beliefs, without necessarily disproving theirs. Much of such theological debate was combating heresy within Ismaili ranks, mainly due to succession. Ismailiyya actively disproved beliefs in Musa al-Kadhim's Imamate, and the belief in the Twelve Imams which was even held by a minority of Ismailiyya at one point (this group believed that both the Ismaili Imams and the Twelver Imams were real Imams).
Did the da'i go to India and disprove Hinduism? No, they taught the mureeds in India, the Khoja, the true path (Satpanth) that existed within their former beliefs. Likewise, Ismailiyya da'i who targeted Muslim populations would teach Ismailism in the perspective of already understood and accepted Islamic beliefs.
Hijab is unacceptable for an Ismaili woman who is not in a dangerous situation where she must culturally oblige to it; to make the same broad accusation that all Muslims not following Ismaili beliefs are therefore morally incorrect is against the teachings of Ismailism, whether Satpanthi, Alamut, Fatimi, or Nasiriyya. Sunni Muslims say we sin by not following what is written in their religious texts of law; what kind of fallacy is that? By not following something that you disbelieve is true in Islam, you are not Muslim? Likewise, are Sunni Muslims wrong by following hijab which is without a doubt entrenched in their legal system which has been built upon fourteen hundred years of scholarship? Is a single Ismaili writer going to disprove their fourteen hundred years of scholarship and say they simply need to re-examine things?
Can you tell me how the covering of nuns evolved? Was it divinely sanctioned (such as religion), or did God reveal it through an application of human reason (such as philosophy)? If either of these were the case, you would have a point, but neither of them are. Was their an explicit order within the Old Testament or the New Testament? No, there isn't. Nuns exist primarily within the Catholic and various Orthodox branches of Christianity due to a belief that scripture is secondary to to the Church and her traditions. This is extremely similar to how Sunni Islam evolved. Nonetheless, do not misinterpret my analogy to say Ismailiyya are Protestants, because that would be incorrect.The hijab or veil is a clothing over a woman’s body that is meant to ensure that her body is not visible. When talking about such a covering many cultures have imposed it upon the female population. In Christianity you can see nuns wearing a veil very similar to the one worn in certain Islamic countries. There is something we can learn from this. Nuns are, for the most part, isolated in Churches and rarely impose such measures of clothing upon females in society. In other words, the Church does not impose that females in the general populous should behave and dress as nuns. Islam can learn from that.
This is called an opinion. The hijab was formed due to cultural immersion within Arab society. No matter how much the hijab does not matter today, the following is a historical fact that no group within Islam denies: the early women of the Ummah covered themselves almost completely, with the Prophet's wives covering themselves more than any other women of the Ummah. The Prophet's wives were prohibited from leaving their houses, this is confirmed by every single historical report including the Qur'an itself. By saying it is a shame that women are wearing the veil, you are insulting the Umm al-Mumineen, the mothers of our faith.It is a shame that women are wearing the veil. What would be proper is that women in Islam should never wear any sort of veil, neither in its extremity, such as in Afghanistan, nor in its mildest forms as in Canada or the United States.
And if you refuse to believe these traditions, then the very tradition of Ghadir Khumm where Imam Ali was given the designation by the Prophet Muhammad is too subject to falsehood. The very tradition of the Ahl al-Kisa where the family of the Prophet was purified is subject to falsehood. Do not pick and choose your historical beliefs: there are scientific methods for Ismailis to deduce which hadith are historically correct and which aren't. I suggest you learn about the scholars of the Fatimid period who did such. Most Ismailiyya simply need to follow what Hadhir Imam states, but if you are to understand the very truths of early Islamic history you must then become a scholar and not simply throw out what doesn't suit your preset beliefs.
I agree to an extent, but all things have their limits. The Ginans of the Satpanth tradition teach the Satpanthi that they will not reach enlightenment until they see all women as their sisters, not simply sexual mates. Additionally, biological instruction does not tell us to have one mate, it in fact tells us to have multiple mates. Many of the Prophets had multiple mates. Do we today? No, because Sahib al-Zamaan has stopped it. If you are going to simply state the beauty is proof of Allah's creation, there should be no intrinsic problem with pornography. But pornography, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, is demeaning to human sexuality in whole. This is not an Islamic position; this is a position held by groups wide-ranging from feminists to sociologists. This is an observable truth.One has to remember that beauty is a proof of Allah’s creation. When man looks at a woman he is fulfilling his biological instruction to seek out a mate. Likewise, when a female looks at a male she is fulfilling her biological instruction to seek out a mate. This analogy should not be confused with family members and such; I’m simply outlining biological impulses as dictated in nature.
You do realize that most converts to Islam become Sunni Muslim? And most converts to Islam in the West are women? Thousands of articles have been written by these women why they do not consider hijab silly. You state that this hinders Islam, when in fact thousands of women are embracing Islam, some women even embrace Islam because of the perceived beauty in hijab.Let me be very blunt in saying that quoting passages of the Quran and claiming that Allah somehow wants women to wear the veil as part of his commandment is a purely insane accusation. I would go further in saying that those who propose that Allah is commanding mankind to hinder women through the veil, through degrading them, through imposing rules which limit their capabilities to be equal contributors to society, are making Allah look like an unjust God. Christians around the world would love Islam if these silly lunacies were removed and Islam would be more compatible with the laws of nature and the fulfilment of modernity.
If this is not achieved then the Christian world will never see Islam as a just and true path. The reason being that these sharia laws are in direct contradiction with the laws of nature. In sum, the sharia laws should be removed in place of humanistic Islamic values. These values should seek to bind Jews, Christians, and Mulims as one brotherhood, not divide them.
You then state that shariah laws should be removed and replaced with humanistic Islamic values. The Imam has never declared that shariah is permanently abolished. Do you know what lead to the current age? What led to the current age according to the Nasiryya tradition of Ismailism is that Allah made Adam the first Imam over mankind. He had to implement shariah. However, Lucifer did not want him to implement shariah, and instead taught him the batin secrets: the forbidden fruit. This is part of the fall of mankind. Shariah will be completely abolished when the Imam states it is abolished, and it will begin to completely begin when the Imam states it will begin. Shariah is not intrinsically wrong, or else Allah would never have implemented it. Abandonment of shariah was what caused the downfall of mankind.
Untrue. I have heard many both men and women state that Muslim women in hijab are beautiful and effeminate. I have heard of men who specifically find women in hijab attractive due to the feminity of hijab. You have insulted our sisters in Islam through this false accusation.The entire world looks upon Muslim women and finds them embarrassingly ugly. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but sometime one has to be in order to make a point. Persians, Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghanis, have some of the most beautiful looking women, yet they are covered up and look extremely ugly.
I agree with this, however, the way you go about proving this is utterly incorrect. As we as Ismailiyya believe, the Ahl al-Bayt and the Qur'an cannot be separated.If you look at the very crust of the matter you can see that many men defend the veil by quoting passages of the Quran. That is not logical at all. Quoting this verse and that verse and joining verses together in order to put words into Allah’s mouth is childish and absurd. What you ought to do is find Allah and ask him personally instead of quoting lines behind his back.
The Prophet authenticated the Qur'an several times before he passed away. Imam Ali then authenticated Uthman's edition of the Qur'an. This is agreed upon by almost all historical sources, Sunni or Shi'a. One cannot make up history simply because it is what they already believe: if there is historical evidence to the contrary, bring it.What should be the case is that Muslim women should abandon the hijab or veil completely and accept that Allah created them so that they may be beautiful and attractive. That is in itself a principal of faith. What is written in the Quran is based on circumstance. If the Prophet was engaged in a specific circumstance then it was for that particular instance. It is illogical to quote a passage of the Quran and apply it as a universal solution to every possible circumstance that can arise. That is placing the Quran higher than God, rather than God higher than a book.
Some may argue that the Quran is Allah’s words. Be reminded that it was from the lips of the Prophet that any words were uttered. Some made it to the Quran, some changed, some were invented by Caliph Osman. Who is to tell if the Quran is actually the exact words of Mohammad? That is like saying that Jesus himself sat down and wrote the Bible. No Muslim would agree with that, then reverse that question and ask: what makes a person logically think that everything in the Quran is Mohammad’s words? Only Mohammad himself can authenticate that.
If the Prophet were here today what would he say? Can he not speak moderate and change his words according to the times? Surely, that is logical and fully compatible the concept of modernity. Instead what is being presented by orthodox Muslims is that the Quran is the final authority on all matters. But it’s just a book. It is not a God. Instead this concept is poorly understood and that is why Muslims are falling behind from other religions.
Example of circular logic: “I believe Jesus never existed. All stories about him are fabricated.” “What proof do you have for this?” “I don't believe in Jesus, hence all stories about him must be fabricated.”
This is a disagreement we have with other Muslims altogether. They have their methods for deducing Islamic theology, we have our methods. Their methods are not simply stating verses of the Qur'an: there is an active tradition of proving historical traditions, disproving historical traditions, finding why and when Qur'anic verses were revealed. This has been around since the earliest time of Islam. Ismaili da'i even had their own way of deducing correct shariah and fiqh, for example, read the Ismaili book of fiqh, Da'im al-Islam. This is the equivalent of the Sunni Muslim Sahih Bukhari. All this has been led and taught by the Imam.
As far as the authenticity of the Qur'an, this is often discussed in Ismailiyya circles. There is no historical proof any other Qur'an existed other than the one we have today: archeological searches have been done. Hadhir Imam states that the Qur'an we have today is the Qur'an of the Prophet. The only statements we have are from Imam Muhammad Sultan Shah, where he states that the meaning of the Qur'an has been lost: this has been a Shi'a belief for over one thousand years. The meaning of the Qur'an has been lost, and it has been preserved in the ginans, qasidas, and so forth. Often Sunni scholars will take these beliefs and say this means Ismaili Muslims disbelieve in the sanctity of the Qur'an.
Let me ask you something, if the Qur'an we have today isn't the correct Qur'an, why are the Satpanthi Ismailiyya the the main Ismailiyya who believe this? If this Qur'an is so fake, why do so many secular Western scholars, from Montgomery Watt to Bernard Lewis, regard it as authentic? As you know, many many scholars have issues with Biblical authenticity. The Qur'an revealed that the previous scriptures were corrupted prior to the advent of modern day scriptural studies.
Incorrect, men have to cover in shariah their knees to their navel. I have heard in one other case (Ayatollah Khamenei's rulings) even stricter covering for men. Additionally, men are expected to keep beards, encouraged to wear turbans, and ordered to lower their gaze from women. Men harassing women is and always has been punishable under shariah. Do not try to attack Islam and Middle-Eastern society through a Western lens. Western culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other culture.It is interesting to note that women are the ones wearing the veil, not men. Why don’t the men wear the veil so that they can cover their private parts? And the funny part about all this is that the veil was a man’s invention. It is the men who are looking and have derogatory thoughts about women. What should happen in that case is that there should be more laws to prevent men from harassing women instead of imposing the veil.
Do you think this is bad? Every two minutes in the United Sates, one woman is raped. What is worse, in Saudi Arabia being poked by a strange man, or every two minutes a woman being raped? Both are bad, but one is clearly worse than the other. Saudi Arabia is an illegitimate, corrupt political state, however you are an orientalist. You are insulting Islam and Islamic civilization through newly found Western values. So many Satpanthi do this today, but why weren't they doing this prior to British India? Why did they have to wait for the writings of Western philosophers to reach them? Apparently they were unable to figure out beliefs in democracy, liberalism, until Western philosophers invented them.I’ll illustrate a personal example of a Christian woman who converted to Islam. Her husband was from Saudi Arabia. Upon marriage she told me this story. She got married and moved with her husband to Saudi Arabia. One day she was out with her brother in law and husband as they went to pick up some fruit to bring home. Her husband and brother in law were in one section of the store and she was in another. Suddenly a man came behind her and stuck one of his figures up her behind. She turned around in shock and screamed out. Other people standing around ignored her and the man smiled and walked away.
She had a very traumatic experience, but nobody did anything to stop it. Firstly, she did not want to wear the veil, but she did so out of respect of her new faith. Her impression changed not by the incident, as that can happen in any setting. What changed her impression was that men have such a low opinion of women and that women are considered inferior to men.
Why give the Christian world such a bad impression about Islam? Islam was meant to be progressive, modern, and subscribing to the laws of nature. But what we have forgotten in Islam is that Allah is in harmony with the laws of nature. People have to evolve, be happier the next day than the previous.
The Qu'ran and Islam has revealed the most liberal system on Earth. It owes this to no entity other than God, who guides us through divine revelation and reason. Simply because the Imam has stopped Ismaili women from wearing the veil does not mean the veil was never worn in Islam, nor does it mean that we must attack sisters in Islam who are wearing the veil. And you wonder why so many of them have such a low opinion of Ismailiyya?
I am an Ismaili Pashtun, my tribe originally comes from Afghanistan where we ruled the nation until the year 1919. I have a Sunni part of my family. My cousin hates Shi'a with a passion and is part of an organization that kills Shi'a. My great great great grandfather was Abdur Rahman Khan, king of Afghanistan. He murdered and executed countless Shi'a Muslims. You are Satpanthi, and you have lived in British India and the West for many many years. You do not know the pain, and you cannot know, the pain that simple rumors of Ismaili start. Articles such as these find their way to Sunni forums who then promulgate more myths about Ismailiyya hating Islam. My uncle this year was killed by a Twelver, because the Twelver thought he hated Shi'a Muslims. All rumours, all articles, all literature that is started and disseminated.
Bibi Fatimah, your spiritual mother and my spiritual mother, wore a veil. She was not ugly, she was radiant (Zahra). She was not uneducated, in fact she taught men. There are more veiled women in the Iranian Guardian Council than there are non-veiled women in the entire United States Senate. Who is uneducated and illiterate and oppressed?What you’re left with are women who wear the veil, look ugly, uneducated, illiterate, and oppressed. One cannot do that and call themselves Muslims. That is not a just Islam but a direct contradiction to the laws of nature.
The Imam has strictly prohibited any interpretation of what he has said. He has prohibited the veil. You have made many points that he has never stated. Do not say this is “why” Ismailis do not wear the veil unless you can prove every single point through a farman of the Imam.This is why Ismailis do not wear the veil.
Once again, you are entrenched in an orientalist western perspective, and refuse to view Arab and Islamic cultures on their own terms. Putting a cloth over a woman does not suddenly make her ugly, unintelligent, and persecuted. In Pashtun culture, from which I am from, women are veiled yet they are storytellers: the most important position in entire Pashtun society.It is a statement to the world that Islam is progressive, modern, and logical in every sense of the word. That is an Islam that any Christian can relate to. That is why the Christian world has partnered with the Jewish world, because Jews, even though they do not accept Jesus Christ, are willing to be compatible with modern life. The women don’t wear veils; they are highly educated, united, and progressive. Christians can relate to that.
When the Christian world was murdering Jews throughout Europe, where did the Jews go? They partnered with Muslims, who at the time were veiled. Do you honestly believe that simply because the West is in a superior economic state now that it will remain forever? The Imam has criticized Western civilization on many fronts; the fact that you believe that Arab culture has to appease to it is ridiculous.
The Jewish and Christian conception of God is far behind Islamic tawhid. I will not go into this, but I warn you that even though we have the same God, Islam has been blessed with an understanding that the Christians and Jews do not have. The most uneducated Sunni Muslim understands the nature of God closer than an educated Christian or Jew due to tawhid. Tawhid is not simply monotheism, it entails much more than that.Where the conflict arises is that Muslims are seen to be stuck in the past. They are seen to be in a mindset which is frozen in time, some 1400 years in the past. In fact Christianity has much in common with Islam because they both acknowledge Jesus Christ. Similarly Jews and Muslims should be able to get along because their faith in one God is very similar.
But if the idiocy of the veil and the unwillingness of Islamic practices to accept modernity prevails then moderate Islam will never be accepted in the western world, or any other religion.
Christianity is by far a religion which contradicts the laws of nature. It takes into account such concepts as miracles and Saints, especially the Catholic stream, which have confused the centrality of Allah in everyday life. Whereas Islam was built on a new premise: to uproot illogical concepts and to seek knowledge as a means to understand Allah’s creation.
Incorrect. Imam al-Hakim made the veil stricter during the Fatimid period. Islam has always considered men equal to women, there is no school of law that does not consider men equal to women.The Fatimids were exemplary in this tradition. They presented a moderate and progressive Islam that was compatible with everyday life. Women were free from the veil, they contributed to society, and their role was considered equal to men.
You have belittled women who believe and choose to wear the veil in Islam. You have indeed called their religion the incorrect interpretation. Who are you to call anyone a fundamentalist? You certainly believe and proclaim your version of Islam is the right one.Today we have lost that zest for freedom and compatibility. Instead we have hard-line Muslims that believe that Allah commands people to follow these irrational laws. Moderate Islam does not have a voice and is overshadowed by fundamentalists who proclaim that their version of Islam is the right one.
You have a choice as a mureed. You will either work in such a way that when you pass away the Ummah and the rest of mankind will remember that you brought peace and harmony, that you brought tolerance and reconciliation. Or you will remain in the lowest stage of ignorance, and not understand the power and potency of Islamic revelation and tolerance.Unfortunately, the women are the ones who suffer. And, don’t get me wrong, some women like to be oppressed and will defend the veil in the name of faith. We wish them well. If they want to wear the veil then who am I to stop them from following their faith? But they should try to understand that Islam is great because women should have the right to choose if they want to wear a veil or not. It is their choice, not a man’s choice. When it becomes a man’s imposition, then you know that behind it all it is really not Allah who is commanding such rules, but rather men who are deathly afraid to lose their women. Insecurity if you will.
You have the ability to become one of the Imam's greatest mureeds, but you are instead burning the bridges he has worked his entire life to build. I do not want Ismailiyya to cross the bridge, but to destroy them in the name of Ismailism is contrary to our faith, which we have fought for fourteen hundred years to preserve.
Allahu `alim.
I am a woman. If anything, if your beliefs were correct, I would be the support to support you and emancipation of women. However, you are not emancipating women: a cloth over their heads is not oppressing them. Western culture, with its commodity of women and sexuality has just as many flaws as Arab culture with its inherent patriarchal system. Both must be judged not through the lens of the West or of Arab culture, but through the lens of Islam: the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt and the Qur'an. The teachings of Western philosophers are wonderful, however why do so many Satpanthi continue to read them and ignore the writings of Ismailism's own philosophers, Nasir-i Khusraw? What about the many other philosophers of Islam, Ibn Sina (father was an Ismaili), al-Ghazzali, Averroes, Mulla Sadra? How many of these have you read and understood? The Imam teaches us to learn and understand our Islamic civilization and instead we turn to Western civilization which we use to insult 90% of the world's Muslims. Is this what Sahib al-Zamaan has taught us?
Perhaps the Qur'an and the Imamate of intellect is not enough to deduce the truth for the jamaat? Astaghfullilah.
Qur'an 2:115 - "The East and West are God's: wherever you may turn, there will be God's countenance, for God is Boundless, Aware."
-
samirnoorali
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:18 pm
The Prophet Mohammad was Liberal and Just
The Prophet Mohammad was Liberal, Just, and a Strong Supporter of Women’s Rights.
By: Samir Noorali
History is a very debateable subject. One may say this or that happened, but ultimately nobody knows for sure. What we draw from are possibilities – which hopefully provide us with some clues to the past. I say this because the Prophet Mohammad is such an important figure for the world, a role model, a gentlemen, a man whose very life brought tears of happiness to so many. In that light I don’t see how a just and liberal man, who came on earth to spread nothing but glad tidings, who brought a systematic removal of idiocies, who sparked a rebirth of science, and emancipated women, could have ever done injustice to any person, let alone his own family.
Drawing from this I would have to defend the Prophet and his ideas from people who wish to brand him as an unjust and illogical person. Having said that, the Prophet would have never subscribed his beloved daughter, Fatima, to ever wear the hijab or veil. Never try to make the Prophet an injust person by saying that.
What is even hurtful to me personally is for comments that the Prophet had many wives, and that he made them wear the veil as well. I beg to differ, because I don’t agree that Mohammad could have ever been unjust to women. On the contrary his daughter and wives did not wear the veil, as understood by Sharia practices. If at all they wore clothing that was socially acceptable, but it would be wrong to say the Prophet ordered them to wear the veil.
So let me make it very clear. The veil was not a concept that the Prophet had anything to do with. This specific prohibition was introduced by cultural impulses within the Arab world. Now, quite a number of individuals will quote passages of the Quran saying that Allah commanded women to cover themselves up, thus the justification of the veil.
What is poorly understood is that these are merely words, and words have a specific circumstances and context. It is not clear if the Prophet said these words or if they are fabrications conjured up during the time of Caliph Osman – who compiled the Quran in its present form. So even if it was said, then under what circumstances did he say so? One would be uneducated in saying that words spoken 1400 years ago at a specific time, a specific context, can be applied universally to any situation in the modern world. That is simply unrealistic.
Therefore, don’t make the Prophet look bad in the eyes of the world, because by placing such accusations you’re making him look unjust when it was quite the opposite. It is correct that the Prophet had many wives, but what is poorly conveyed to the world by commentators is that he took on a polygamist life because he felt he had the right to. To the world that would seem unjust. What really happened was that he introduced very liberal and modern concepts to a culture that was steeped in absurdities.
He married that many women not because marrying more than one wife is a man’s right, but he married them to make a point. At that time widowed or abandoned women were untouchables. If your hymen was already broken you were considered used and no person would marry you. The Prophet set an example that divorce is okay, that remarrying was not a sin against God, but a mutual contract between human beings. He led by example by marrying widowed women, battered women, to show the world and reinforce his point that divorce and remarriage was okay. He empowered these women, gave them a place in society, and changed a very sinister cultural practice of degrading women and killing baby girls. It was an act far ahead of its time which gave Muslims an understanding that divorce was okay if the circumstances were unfavourable. It was okay to marry a woman who was married before. It is not that she is worthless after having sex previously with another man. That marriage is not a holy sacrament but a simple contract of mutual responsibilities.
What certain people have done is made the Prophet look like a fundamentalist. That he somehow made his daughter and wives wear the veil, that he married many women for the sake of pleasure. These understandings must be removed immediately because they don’t match a person, like the Prophet, who was quite the opposite. Everything he did was for a just cause.
In all this the Prophet stood for the freedom and empowerment of women within society. Women were not to wear the veil, but to be free to choose how they dress and interact within society. It was the men in society who wanted to marry more than one wife and legitimized it by proclaiming that the Prophet had commanded it. It was the men who wanted the women to wear the veil because they wanted to control them, to ensure submissiveness to feed their egos.
In order to fulfill these sexual fantasies they introduced these Sharia laws to bring women to the understanding that if they did not obey then it was a sin against God. How convenient. In the process to feed their claims they made Allah and the Prophet look bad and unjust. When the Christian world looks at Islam the first thing they are told is that the Prophet and Allah commanded such things, what they are hiding is that it was really their own sexual urges which prompted such laws and commandments.
Mankind runs amuck when God is absent. What is left is a book or words which has risen to the status of a God. What is the use of Allah if the Quran is sufficient? This is equivalent to saying that my words are superior to myself. By accepting that, Islam is stuck in time and cannot find compatibility with modern life.
On the other hand, one should consider the Quran as a historical text rather than a solution to any inquiry in the modern world. Allah’s signs can be found in science and the laws of nature. Science is a gift from the Creator so that we may understand or know his creation. Such liberal thoughts are necessary to free women from oppression, educate them, and consider them equals to men.
Examples of good role models in the Islamic world come from leaders such as Queen Rania and Queen Noor of Jordan, former first lady Jehan Sadat of Egypt, and H.I.M. Farah Palavi of Iran, to name a few. We should encourage moderate Islam and build bridges with the Jews and Christians so that we can live in harmony.
By: Samir Noorali
History is a very debateable subject. One may say this or that happened, but ultimately nobody knows for sure. What we draw from are possibilities – which hopefully provide us with some clues to the past. I say this because the Prophet Mohammad is such an important figure for the world, a role model, a gentlemen, a man whose very life brought tears of happiness to so many. In that light I don’t see how a just and liberal man, who came on earth to spread nothing but glad tidings, who brought a systematic removal of idiocies, who sparked a rebirth of science, and emancipated women, could have ever done injustice to any person, let alone his own family.
Drawing from this I would have to defend the Prophet and his ideas from people who wish to brand him as an unjust and illogical person. Having said that, the Prophet would have never subscribed his beloved daughter, Fatima, to ever wear the hijab or veil. Never try to make the Prophet an injust person by saying that.
What is even hurtful to me personally is for comments that the Prophet had many wives, and that he made them wear the veil as well. I beg to differ, because I don’t agree that Mohammad could have ever been unjust to women. On the contrary his daughter and wives did not wear the veil, as understood by Sharia practices. If at all they wore clothing that was socially acceptable, but it would be wrong to say the Prophet ordered them to wear the veil.
So let me make it very clear. The veil was not a concept that the Prophet had anything to do with. This specific prohibition was introduced by cultural impulses within the Arab world. Now, quite a number of individuals will quote passages of the Quran saying that Allah commanded women to cover themselves up, thus the justification of the veil.
What is poorly understood is that these are merely words, and words have a specific circumstances and context. It is not clear if the Prophet said these words or if they are fabrications conjured up during the time of Caliph Osman – who compiled the Quran in its present form. So even if it was said, then under what circumstances did he say so? One would be uneducated in saying that words spoken 1400 years ago at a specific time, a specific context, can be applied universally to any situation in the modern world. That is simply unrealistic.
Therefore, don’t make the Prophet look bad in the eyes of the world, because by placing such accusations you’re making him look unjust when it was quite the opposite. It is correct that the Prophet had many wives, but what is poorly conveyed to the world by commentators is that he took on a polygamist life because he felt he had the right to. To the world that would seem unjust. What really happened was that he introduced very liberal and modern concepts to a culture that was steeped in absurdities.
He married that many women not because marrying more than one wife is a man’s right, but he married them to make a point. At that time widowed or abandoned women were untouchables. If your hymen was already broken you were considered used and no person would marry you. The Prophet set an example that divorce is okay, that remarrying was not a sin against God, but a mutual contract between human beings. He led by example by marrying widowed women, battered women, to show the world and reinforce his point that divorce and remarriage was okay. He empowered these women, gave them a place in society, and changed a very sinister cultural practice of degrading women and killing baby girls. It was an act far ahead of its time which gave Muslims an understanding that divorce was okay if the circumstances were unfavourable. It was okay to marry a woman who was married before. It is not that she is worthless after having sex previously with another man. That marriage is not a holy sacrament but a simple contract of mutual responsibilities.
What certain people have done is made the Prophet look like a fundamentalist. That he somehow made his daughter and wives wear the veil, that he married many women for the sake of pleasure. These understandings must be removed immediately because they don’t match a person, like the Prophet, who was quite the opposite. Everything he did was for a just cause.
In all this the Prophet stood for the freedom and empowerment of women within society. Women were not to wear the veil, but to be free to choose how they dress and interact within society. It was the men in society who wanted to marry more than one wife and legitimized it by proclaiming that the Prophet had commanded it. It was the men who wanted the women to wear the veil because they wanted to control them, to ensure submissiveness to feed their egos.
In order to fulfill these sexual fantasies they introduced these Sharia laws to bring women to the understanding that if they did not obey then it was a sin against God. How convenient. In the process to feed their claims they made Allah and the Prophet look bad and unjust. When the Christian world looks at Islam the first thing they are told is that the Prophet and Allah commanded such things, what they are hiding is that it was really their own sexual urges which prompted such laws and commandments.
Mankind runs amuck when God is absent. What is left is a book or words which has risen to the status of a God. What is the use of Allah if the Quran is sufficient? This is equivalent to saying that my words are superior to myself. By accepting that, Islam is stuck in time and cannot find compatibility with modern life.
On the other hand, one should consider the Quran as a historical text rather than a solution to any inquiry in the modern world. Allah’s signs can be found in science and the laws of nature. Science is a gift from the Creator so that we may understand or know his creation. Such liberal thoughts are necessary to free women from oppression, educate them, and consider them equals to men.
Examples of good role models in the Islamic world come from leaders such as Queen Rania and Queen Noor of Jordan, former first lady Jehan Sadat of Egypt, and H.I.M. Farah Palavi of Iran, to name a few. We should encourage moderate Islam and build bridges with the Jews and Christians so that we can live in harmony.
Ya `Ali madaad,
I will begin by stating that you have ignored points I agreed with you. Those points were enough to mean that you did not need to post. Perhaps you misunderstood those points, and hopefully I can clarify them. In some cases, you completely ignored what I stated. In other cases, you made severe logical fallacies. I will try to make things clear and hopefully you will not have an issue with what I am saying. I will summarize.
The Qur'an did order veiling for the Prophet's family; verses are included, and their translation since I doubt many Khojas know Arabic. Islam did not order veiling for all times and for all women; Islam may have not even have ordered specific veiling 1400 years ago. Veils are no more intrinsically wrong than t-shits, and by insulting veils you are insulting an entire culture and being a Western bigot. Islam has never forced anything, including clothing, however, no kind of clothing is morally incorrect, and a woman can wear anything she wants including a veil and be successful and beautiful.
If you agree with this, stop reading and go post somewhere else. If you continue to have problems with what I have presented, read on.
Every single historical tradition reports that the Prophet's wives and his daughter wear hijab. I am familiar with Twelver traditions and Sunni traditions, and I dare you to find one tradition that states that veil was prohibited or that his wives and daughters were not veiled. A single tradition out of the hundreds and thousands that exist.
You state that simply pulling out a verse of the Qur'an is incorrect. I agree, and I have never done this. However, you contradict yourself, because the Qur'an states specifically for the Mothers of the Believers, the wives of Muhammad, that his wives are to speak with people behind curtains and to not leave their houses. Tell me, 1400 years later, has this changed? No, because the wives of the Prophet are dead.
The Qur'an specifically states that the wives of Muhammad were not to leave their homes, and that they had to speak to men behind a door. Ayesha broke this rule and fought Imam Ali at the Battle of the Camel. Tradition reports that every time she would read this verse, she would cry. She knew she broke the rule of the Qur'an and fought the Imam of the Age:
(33:53) yaa ay-yuhal-ladhiyna aamanuu laa tadkhuluu buyuutan nabiy-yi il-laa ay yu'dhana lakum ilaa Ta'AAmin gayra naaZiriyna inaahu walaakin idhaa du'Iytum fadkhuluu fa idhaa Ta'Imtum fantashiruu wa laa musta'nisiyna li Hadiyth* in-na dhaalikum kaana yu'dhin nabiy-ya fa yastaHyiy minkum wal-laahu laa yastaHyiy minal Haqq* wa idhaa sa-altumuuhun-na mataa'An fas-aluuhun-na miw waraai Hijaab* dhaalikum aT'haru li quluubikum wa quluubihinn* wa maa kaana lakum an tu'dhuu rasuulal-laahi wa laa an tankiHuu azwaajahuu mim ba'Ådihii abadaa* in-na dhaalikum kaana 'Indal-laahi 'Aziymaa
In case you do not know Arabic, and therefore depend on Sunni translation of the Qur'an, here is the translation by Yusuf Ali:
(33:53) O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given you,- for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity.
These verse state that the wives of the Prophet must stay in their homes. Can this verse be fake? No, because this is the exact same verse that proves the Ahl al-Bayt have been purified by God.
(33:33) wa qarna fiy buyuutikun-na wa laa tabar-rajna tabar-rujal jaahiliy-yatil uulaa wa aqimnaS Salaata wa aatiynaz zakaata wa aTi'Ånal-laaha wa rasuulah* in-namaa yuriydul-laahu li yudh'hiba 'Ankumur rijsa ahlal bayti wa yuTah-hirakum taThiyraa
(33:32) And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
- Veils are no more intrinsically incorrect than wearing a t-shirt.
- The women of the Prophet's family wore veils.
- In some cases, they had to be more modest than others and speak behind a screen and not leave their homes.
By insulting a cultural piece of clothing, you are being an orientalist, and attacking another culture. Sahib al-Zamaan has fought against the West doing this, and this is exactly what you are doing. Respect other cultures, respect women of other cultures. You can respect a woman with a piece of cloth over her head. I have met women with those pieces of cloth over their head that are many more times intelligent than you or I, and most likely much richer. Are they failures? Are they oppressed?
If the veil was intrinsically wrong, the Prophet would have stopped it. He didn't. And you ignored my statement that Imam al-Hakim forced women to wear veils. Some historical sources even state that Imam Al-Hakim in fact prohibited women from going outside, and therefore forbade shoemakers to make shoes for women since they wouldn't need to go outside.
The Qur'an is a historical text, I have never argued otherwise. This is the cornerstone of Ismailism. And as we see in this reliable historical text, the Prophet's family did not leave their homes and spoke with others behind curtains. To state any of this is immoral is to state that the Prophet is immoral, that the Imamate is immoral, that God is immoral.
You are the one oppressing women, and putting your Western worldview and other cultures. You should be ashamed. You are telling millions of women out there, that just because they are wearing veils on their heads, they cannot be role models? Do you know how many thousands of great women wear veils in today's society and are respected by thousands? Benazir Bhutto? Maryam Rajavi? Do I need to name more?
Stop enforcing your cultural views on the world. Are cultures that dress all naked inferior because they do not dress like the West? Are cultures that make people dress more moderately inferior because they do not dress like the West? I dare you to disprove any of this is immoral. None of this is immoral, rather, you are forcing Western culture, values, and morals on the world. People are free to dress the way they want, a woman wearing nothing and a woman wearing a veil and a woman dressing in a t-shirt and jeans are all capable of being intelligent, beautiful, and influential. Do not be an orientalist.
If Christians and Jews cannot live in harmony with other cultures due to them dressing differently, this is not something Muslims can fix. This is something they themselves must fix, and considering the West's history or colonization and subjugation of other civilizations, then I certainly see the need to fix it. And this isn't simply a Muslim accusation, every class on sociology and anthropology in the West I have ever taken speaks about these issues and the fight for sociologists and anthropologists to protect people of all cultures and belief systems. Instead of siding with these enlightened people, you have chosen to be a bigot and attack other cultures.
Qur'an 2:115 - "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”
I will begin by stating that you have ignored points I agreed with you. Those points were enough to mean that you did not need to post. Perhaps you misunderstood those points, and hopefully I can clarify them. In some cases, you completely ignored what I stated. In other cases, you made severe logical fallacies. I will try to make things clear and hopefully you will not have an issue with what I am saying. I will summarize.
The Qur'an did order veiling for the Prophet's family; verses are included, and their translation since I doubt many Khojas know Arabic. Islam did not order veiling for all times and for all women; Islam may have not even have ordered specific veiling 1400 years ago. Veils are no more intrinsically wrong than t-shits, and by insulting veils you are insulting an entire culture and being a Western bigot. Islam has never forced anything, including clothing, however, no kind of clothing is morally incorrect, and a woman can wear anything she wants including a veil and be successful and beautiful.
If you agree with this, stop reading and go post somewhere else. If you continue to have problems with what I have presented, read on.
I agree history is a debatable subject. However history is not impossible to find out. History is not subjective. History is an objective science. Either you will find a method for deducing history or you won't. You cannot simply decide what parts of history you will believe in, and which you will say is fake. If you are going to disbelieve in hadith, then you must also in the biggest proof that exists that Ali was designated by Muhammad. You must also disbelieve that Allah chose the Ahl al-Bayt to lead the community.History is a very debateable subject. One may say this or that happened, but ultimately nobody knows for sure. What we draw from are possibilities – which hopefully provide us with some clues to the past. I say this because the Prophet Mohammad is such an important figure for the world, a role model, a gentlemen, a man whose very life brought tears of happiness to so many. In that light I don’t see how a just and liberal man, who came on earth to spread nothing but glad tidings, who brought a systematic removal of idiocies, who sparked a rebirth of science, and emancipated women, could have ever done injustice to any person, let alone his own family.
You are insulting the hijab, Islam, and the Prophet. The Prophet and his ideas are not illogical, I never said they were illogical. You are claiming they are illogical by attacking hijab which every single historical tradition states existed. The hijab is not illogical, and you cannot possibly prove it to be illogical.Drawing from this I would have to defend the Prophet and his ideas from people who wish to brand him as an unjust and illogical person. Having said that, the Prophet would have never subscribed his beloved daughter, Fatima, to ever wear the hijab or veil. Never try to make the Prophet an injust person by saying that.
Every single historical tradition reports that the Prophet's wives and his daughter wear hijab. I am familiar with Twelver traditions and Sunni traditions, and I dare you to find one tradition that states that veil was prohibited or that his wives and daughters were not veiled. A single tradition out of the hundreds and thousands that exist.
I stated very clearly that the veil was due to cultural reasons, and you are being a Western bigot by attacking other cultures. You state that forcing a women to wear hijab is unjust to women, when you have brought no proof stating so. I have actively disproved any belief that hijab is unjust towards women. I agree that veil was primarily due to cultural reasons, and have stated so clearly. Despite this, instead of accepting an agreement, you continue to argue in seeming hope of actually proving a point which can't be proven.What is even hurtful to me personally is for comments that the Prophet had many wives, and that he made them wear the veil as well. I beg to differ, because I don’t agree that Mohammad could have ever been unjust to women. On the contrary his daughter and wives did not wear the veil, as understood by Sharia practices. If at all they wore clothing that was socially acceptable, but it would be wrong to say the Prophet ordered them to wear the veil.
So let me make it very clear. The veil was not a concept that the Prophet had anything to do with. This specific prohibition was introduced by cultural impulses within the Arab world. Now, quite a number of individuals will quote passages of the Quran saying that Allah commanded women to cover themselves up, thus the justification of the veil.
What is poorly understood is that these are merely words, and words have a specific circumstances and context. It is not clear if the Prophet said these words or if they are fabrications conjured up during the time of Caliph Osman – who compiled the Quran in its present form. So even if it was said, then under what circumstances did he say so? One would be uneducated in saying that words spoken 1400 years ago at a specific time, a specific context, can be applied universally to any situation in the modern world. That is simply unrealistic.
You state that simply pulling out a verse of the Qur'an is incorrect. I agree, and I have never done this. However, you contradict yourself, because the Qur'an states specifically for the Mothers of the Believers, the wives of Muhammad, that his wives are to speak with people behind curtains and to not leave their houses. Tell me, 1400 years later, has this changed? No, because the wives of the Prophet are dead.
The Qur'an specifically states that the wives of Muhammad were not to leave their homes, and that they had to speak to men behind a door. Ayesha broke this rule and fought Imam Ali at the Battle of the Camel. Tradition reports that every time she would read this verse, she would cry. She knew she broke the rule of the Qur'an and fought the Imam of the Age:
(33:53) yaa ay-yuhal-ladhiyna aamanuu laa tadkhuluu buyuutan nabiy-yi il-laa ay yu'dhana lakum ilaa Ta'AAmin gayra naaZiriyna inaahu walaakin idhaa du'Iytum fadkhuluu fa idhaa Ta'Imtum fantashiruu wa laa musta'nisiyna li Hadiyth* in-na dhaalikum kaana yu'dhin nabiy-ya fa yastaHyiy minkum wal-laahu laa yastaHyiy minal Haqq* wa idhaa sa-altumuuhun-na mataa'An fas-aluuhun-na miw waraai Hijaab* dhaalikum aT'haru li quluubikum wa quluubihinn* wa maa kaana lakum an tu'dhuu rasuulal-laahi wa laa an tankiHuu azwaajahuu mim ba'Ådihii abadaa* in-na dhaalikum kaana 'Indal-laahi 'Aziymaa
In case you do not know Arabic, and therefore depend on Sunni translation of the Qur'an, here is the translation by Yusuf Ali:
(33:53) O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given you,- for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity.
These verse state that the wives of the Prophet must stay in their homes. Can this verse be fake? No, because this is the exact same verse that proves the Ahl al-Bayt have been purified by God.
(33:33) wa qarna fiy buyuutikun-na wa laa tabar-rajna tabar-rujal jaahiliy-yatil uulaa wa aqimnaS Salaata wa aatiynaz zakaata wa aTi'Ånal-laaha wa rasuulah* in-namaa yuriydul-laahu li yudh'hiba 'Ankumur rijsa ahlal bayti wa yuTah-hirakum taThiyraa
(33:32) And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
Prove to us that wearing the veil is unjust. Guess what? It is impossible to prove that wearing a veil is unjust. I am going to state that wearing t-shirts is unjust, and that everyone in society must throw off their t-shits and be free. This is incorrect. Islam never has forced anyone to wear anything, let alone head scarves. However, head scarves themselves are not unjust.Therefore, don’t make the Prophet look bad in the eyes of the world, because by placing such accusations you’re making him look unjust when it was quite the opposite. It is correct that the Prophet had many wives, but what is poorly conveyed to the world by commentators is that he took on a polygamist life because he felt he had the right to. To the world that would seem unjust. What really happened was that he introduced very liberal and modern concepts to a culture that was steeped in absurdities.
You are going off on a tangent. I have stated three facts, and I dare you to disprove any of them:He married that many women not because marrying more than one wife is a man’s right, but he married them to make a point. At that time widowed or abandoned women were untouchables. If your hymen was already broken you were considered used and no person would marry you. The Prophet set an example that divorce is okay, that remarrying was not a sin against God, but a mutual contract between human beings. He led by example by marrying widowed women, battered women, to show the world and reinforce his point that divorce and remarriage was okay. He empowered these women, gave them a place in society, and changed a very sinister cultural practice of degrading women and killing baby girls. It was an act far ahead of its time which gave Muslims an understanding that divorce was okay if the circumstances were unfavourable. It was okay to marry a woman who was married before. It is not that she is worthless after having sex previously with another man. That marriage is not a holy sacrament but a simple contract of mutual responsibilities.
What certain people have done is made the Prophet look like a fundamentalist. That he somehow made his daughter and wives wear the veil, that he married many women for the sake of pleasure. These understandings must be removed immediately because they don’t match a person, like the Prophet, who was quite the opposite. Everything he did was for a just cause.
- Veils are no more intrinsically incorrect than wearing a t-shirt.
- The women of the Prophet's family wore veils.
- In some cases, they had to be more modest than others and speak behind a screen and not leave their homes.
By insulting a cultural piece of clothing, you are being an orientalist, and attacking another culture. Sahib al-Zamaan has fought against the West doing this, and this is exactly what you are doing. Respect other cultures, respect women of other cultures. You can respect a woman with a piece of cloth over her head. I have met women with those pieces of cloth over their head that are many more times intelligent than you or I, and most likely much richer. Are they failures? Are they oppressed?
No Muslim in the history of Islam has ever stated the Prophet commanded marrying more than one wife. Marrying more than one wife was always discouraged by the Qur'an itself because the Qur'an specifically stated all wives had to be treated equally. Once again, you state something without knowledge. I dare you to find any scholarly source that states the Prophet commanded to marry more than one wife.In all this the Prophet stood for the freedom and empowerment of women within society. Women were not to wear the veil, but to be free to choose how they dress and interact within society. It was the men in society who wanted to marry more than one wife and legitimized it by proclaiming that the Prophet had commanded it. It was the men who wanted the women to wear the veil because they wanted to control them, to ensure submissiveness to feed their egos.
If the veil was intrinsically wrong, the Prophet would have stopped it. He didn't. And you ignored my statement that Imam al-Hakim forced women to wear veils. Some historical sources even state that Imam Al-Hakim in fact prohibited women from going outside, and therefore forbade shoemakers to make shoes for women since they wouldn't need to go outside.
You are arguing aimlessly. I have made my statements clear. It is ridiculous to state that even if the Prophet ordered women to veil that it is immoral considering he ordered men to cover themselves too. If the West wants to believe women covering is immoral but not men covering, then they are ignoring the very same logic they used to deduce it in the first place.In order to fulfill these sexual fantasies they introduced these Sharia laws to bring women to the understanding that if they did not obey then it was a sin against God. How convenient. In the process to feed their claims they made Allah and the Prophet look bad and unjust. When the Christian world looks at Islam the first thing they are told is that the Prophet and Allah commanded such things, what they are hiding is that it was really their own sexual urges which prompted such laws and commandments.
Mankind runs amuck when God is absent. What is left is a book or words which has risen to the status of a God. What is the use of Allah if the Quran is sufficient? This is equivalent to saying that my words are superior to myself. By accepting that, Islam is stuck in time and cannot find compatibility with modern life.
On the other hand, one should consider the Quran as a historical text rather than a solution to any inquiry in the modern world. Allah’s signs can be found in science and the laws of nature. Science is a gift from the Creator so that we may understand or know his creation. Such liberal thoughts are necessary to free women from oppression, educate them, and consider them equals to men.
The Qur'an is a historical text, I have never argued otherwise. This is the cornerstone of Ismailism. And as we see in this reliable historical text, the Prophet's family did not leave their homes and spoke with others behind curtains. To state any of this is immoral is to state that the Prophet is immoral, that the Imamate is immoral, that God is immoral.
Examples of good role models in the Islamic world come from leaders such as Queen Rania and Queen Noor of Jordan, former first lady Jehan Sadat of Egypt, and H.I.M. Farah Palavi of Iran, to name a few. We should encourage moderate Islam and build bridges with the Jews and Christians so that we can live in harmony.
You are the one oppressing women, and putting your Western worldview and other cultures. You should be ashamed. You are telling millions of women out there, that just because they are wearing veils on their heads, they cannot be role models? Do you know how many thousands of great women wear veils in today's society and are respected by thousands? Benazir Bhutto? Maryam Rajavi? Do I need to name more?
Stop enforcing your cultural views on the world. Are cultures that dress all naked inferior because they do not dress like the West? Are cultures that make people dress more moderately inferior because they do not dress like the West? I dare you to disprove any of this is immoral. None of this is immoral, rather, you are forcing Western culture, values, and morals on the world. People are free to dress the way they want, a woman wearing nothing and a woman wearing a veil and a woman dressing in a t-shirt and jeans are all capable of being intelligent, beautiful, and influential. Do not be an orientalist.
If Christians and Jews cannot live in harmony with other cultures due to them dressing differently, this is not something Muslims can fix. This is something they themselves must fix, and considering the West's history or colonization and subjugation of other civilizations, then I certainly see the need to fix it. And this isn't simply a Muslim accusation, every class on sociology and anthropology in the West I have ever taken speaks about these issues and the fight for sociologists and anthropologists to protect people of all cultures and belief systems. Instead of siding with these enlightened people, you have chosen to be a bigot and attack other cultures.
Qur'an 2:115 - "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”
I NEED HELP
Ya Ali Madat..<BR><BR>thank you all for your knowledge that you are sharing here..this is a very informative post that i have been reading and would like to learn more..i just became a religion teacher at our jamatkhana centre..i pray to Allah that he gives me the strength and wisdom to share the right knowledge to my fellow muslims and ismailis..i get alot of questions like these from our youth and i dont know what to answer to them..i really liked what you have posted here enzuru..myself i do have little knowlegde o­n islam as a whole and ismailism and like our imam says i would love to get more and more knowledge because as i keep reading and learning about religion i am feeling like its a never ending process..my dad himself shares quite alot of religious knowledge with me but ofcourse some people may have more answers..please if anyone could qoute for me where any of our imams have prohibited women from wearing veil and why..i want some referrences that i can use aswell in my class as i teach...what exactly have our imam stated about the veil and the specific referrences would be much appreciated..have they completely forbidden us to do that..and if so why..personally after alot of reading i say hijab is very important in the society we are leaving now..just as enzuru has mentioned about the rape that has been going o­n and alot more..<BR><BR>so please if anyone can shed me some light o­n this with referrences from farmans or ginans will be highly appreciated as i believe what Allah has stated in the Quran should be followed as he has reasons to reveal that in the Quran..and as we can see now why hijab is so important in todays world of lust, indiscipline, no respect, crimes and rapes every few minutes i strongly believe it should be still emphasized to our ismaili muslims..but then if the imam has forbidden us to do something like that i would like to know when and which imam and the exact farman so that i can read them and understand the context of it as im sure our imam has the divine knowledge to tell us what not to do or what to do..<BR><BR>i shall appreciate any information..<BR><BR>MAY ALLAH BLESS YOU ALL<BR><BR>YA ALI MADAT.
I NEED HELP
Ya Ali Madat..<BR><BR>thank you all for your knowledge that you are sharing here..this is a very informative post that i have been reading and would like to learn more..i just became a religion teacher at our jamatkhana centre..i pray to Allah that he gives me the strength and wisdom to share the right knowledge to my fellow muslims and ismailis..i get alot of questions like these from our youth and i dont know what to answer to them..i really liked what you have posted here enzuru..myself i do have little knowlegde o­n islam as a whole and ismailism and like our imam says i would love to get more and more knowledge because as i keep reading and learning about religion i am feeling like its a never ending process..my dad himself shares quite alot of religious knowledge with me but ofcourse some people may have more answers..please if anyone could qoute for me where any of our imams have prohibited women from wearing veil and why..i want some referrences that i can use aswell in my class as i teach...what exactly have our imam stated about the veil and the specific referrences would be much appreciated..have they completely forbidden us to do that..and if so why..personally after alot of reading i say hijab is very important in the society we are leaving now..just as enzuru has mentioned about the rape that has been going o­n and alot more..<BR><BR>so please if anyone can shed me some light o­n this with referrences from farmans or ginans will be highly appreciated as i believe what Allah has stated in the Quran should be followed as he has reasons to reveal that in the Quran..and as we can see now why hijab is so important in todays world of lust, indiscipline, no respect, crimes and rapes every few minutes i strongly believe it should be still emphasized to our ismaili muslims..but then if the imam has forbidden us to do something like that i would like to know when and which imam and the exact farman so that i can read them and understand the context of it as im sure our imam has the divine knowledge to tell us what not to do or what to do..<BR><BR>i shall appreciate any information..<BR><BR>MAY ALLAH BLESS YOU ALL<BR><BR>YA ALI MADAT.
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm
well as of now, looking at the current situation in taliban its better for our sisters living in taliban to do hijab rather than showing their assests in public to those who are lust hounds
and its not just rape, its a shariah in taliban that a woman should wear hijab....if she goes out she should wear a hijab , if not...she is often punished and even shot dead.
this can only be changed when pakistan and iran stop feeding these basterds .
and its not just rape, its a shariah in taliban that a woman should wear hijab....if she goes out she should wear a hijab , if not...she is often punished and even shot dead.
this can only be changed when pakistan and iran stop feeding these basterds .
Ismaili community since long has abandoned wearing hijab, niqab or burqa on advise of our late Imam, Sir Sultan Muhammed Shah, Aga Khan lll some hundred years ago.
The dictate "Obey the Olil Amr is sufficient" ! If the Olil Amr says "soak your mat in alchohol and say your prayers on them" then that is what one must do as "Surely ye will be tested both in yourselves and in your possessions'....Obedience to the Olil Amr is obedience to the Prophet himself and obedience to them collectively is obedience to Allah SWT !
It was the Imam's bold Islamic move to educate specially girls in a family more than the boys, who would be mothers and educate their daughters or children.
Here's what Anne Edwards, author of several books writes about Ismaili community:
"They are the best educated,most health-conscious and self-sufficient community in the world."
Actually, in the earliest centuries of Islam, women's position was not bad at all.
Only over the course of centuries was she increasingly confined to the house and forced to veil herself.
Formerly, covering one's head with a veil (also generally accepted in Judaism and early Christianity) was a sign of honorable behavior and decency.
That women were studiously kept away from life outside the house often resulted in their being deprived of their rights, and ideas that were basically incompatible with Quranic injunctions and statements were applied to them,e.g., as in the case of inheritance.
In order to protect his wives Prophet SAW had received a revelation and introduced a thin muslin curtain from prying eyes of any men, not their kin.
The revelation clearly applied only to the Prophet's wives, but this in itself gave the veil high status.
Over the next few decades many interpreted this to apply to all and so it was adopted by Islamic fundamentalists convinced that it should apply to all women.
Some Muslim women cover their faces, others don't---and they both quote from the same Qur'an "Lower your gaze”.
The problem is that the Qur’an says to BOTH men (24:30) and women (24:31) to “lower gaze”.
And If the face is covered with burqah or niqab, what’s there to ‘gaze at’ anyway?
We do not forsake legitimate comforts and pleasures of life unduly.
In the same token, the habit of dressing in an indecent way, not only, tends to form bad habits and evil thinking but, also, creates evil
vibrations among those who see or meet the wearer.
Such a person is,of course, committing a sin.
Our Holy Prophet has condemned such a person, particularly a woman, who provokes men by her indecent clothes and behaviour.
Allah commands: "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...." ( HQ.24:31
The play is on the word "apparent" and so one finds differing viewpoints on the extent of where a line needs to be drawn, rather than on the premise itself, of being decently dressed and which I think may not be a matter of contention.
"Keep your clothes clean and avoid uncleanness." (HQ.74:3,4) attire to be worn ought to be compatible with the practice of our Ismaili faith in an atmosphere of calm and serenity.
The Imam has said that "proper attires are universal and binding principles of Islam and must be followed by all Muslims, for indeed these principles were established by Prophet himself."
Why are we not listening to the Imam over this and then we say "Walaya" is so important?
I believe that colourful clothing, in a simple and decent manner,are
allowed in Islam.
There's going to be American Muslim Women's Leadership Training Program in Dubai (see below), which shows all our Muslim women are wearing hijabs and program is just for Muslim women only..
Now, why there are women only, and not men when even men have been asked to be decent and lower their gaze?...must be male chauvisnism huh?
Both men and women ought to be decently dressed and cover their bosoms - so give men too some education, in all fairness.....if the hair of women turns them on then either they are too weak or did not follow the dictate to "lower their gaze" !
American Muslim Women's Leadership Training Program- Dubai, UAE Program Schedule Feb 17th - Sisters Arrive in Washington, DC Feb 19th - Sisters Depart DC Feb 20th- Sisters Arrive in Dubai Feb 21- Orientation and Classes Commence March 21- Program Concludes
The dictate "Obey the Olil Amr is sufficient" ! If the Olil Amr says "soak your mat in alchohol and say your prayers on them" then that is what one must do as "Surely ye will be tested both in yourselves and in your possessions'....Obedience to the Olil Amr is obedience to the Prophet himself and obedience to them collectively is obedience to Allah SWT !
It was the Imam's bold Islamic move to educate specially girls in a family more than the boys, who would be mothers and educate their daughters or children.
Here's what Anne Edwards, author of several books writes about Ismaili community:
"They are the best educated,most health-conscious and self-sufficient community in the world."
Actually, in the earliest centuries of Islam, women's position was not bad at all.
Only over the course of centuries was she increasingly confined to the house and forced to veil herself.
Formerly, covering one's head with a veil (also generally accepted in Judaism and early Christianity) was a sign of honorable behavior and decency.
That women were studiously kept away from life outside the house often resulted in their being deprived of their rights, and ideas that were basically incompatible with Quranic injunctions and statements were applied to them,e.g., as in the case of inheritance.
In order to protect his wives Prophet SAW had received a revelation and introduced a thin muslin curtain from prying eyes of any men, not their kin.
The revelation clearly applied only to the Prophet's wives, but this in itself gave the veil high status.
Over the next few decades many interpreted this to apply to all and so it was adopted by Islamic fundamentalists convinced that it should apply to all women.
Some Muslim women cover their faces, others don't---and they both quote from the same Qur'an "Lower your gaze”.
The problem is that the Qur’an says to BOTH men (24:30) and women (24:31) to “lower gaze”.
And If the face is covered with burqah or niqab, what’s there to ‘gaze at’ anyway?
We do not forsake legitimate comforts and pleasures of life unduly.
In the same token, the habit of dressing in an indecent way, not only, tends to form bad habits and evil thinking but, also, creates evil
vibrations among those who see or meet the wearer.
Such a person is,of course, committing a sin.
Our Holy Prophet has condemned such a person, particularly a woman, who provokes men by her indecent clothes and behaviour.
Allah commands: "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...." ( HQ.24:31
The play is on the word "apparent" and so one finds differing viewpoints on the extent of where a line needs to be drawn, rather than on the premise itself, of being decently dressed and which I think may not be a matter of contention.
"Keep your clothes clean and avoid uncleanness." (HQ.74:3,4) attire to be worn ought to be compatible with the practice of our Ismaili faith in an atmosphere of calm and serenity.
The Imam has said that "proper attires are universal and binding principles of Islam and must be followed by all Muslims, for indeed these principles were established by Prophet himself."
Why are we not listening to the Imam over this and then we say "Walaya" is so important?
I believe that colourful clothing, in a simple and decent manner,are
allowed in Islam.
There's going to be American Muslim Women's Leadership Training Program in Dubai (see below), which shows all our Muslim women are wearing hijabs and program is just for Muslim women only..
Now, why there are women only, and not men when even men have been asked to be decent and lower their gaze?...must be male chauvisnism huh?
Both men and women ought to be decently dressed and cover their bosoms - so give men too some education, in all fairness.....if the hair of women turns them on then either they are too weak or did not follow the dictate to "lower their gaze" !
American Muslim Women's Leadership Training Program- Dubai, UAE Program Schedule Feb 17th - Sisters Arrive in Washington, DC Feb 19th - Sisters Depart DC Feb 20th- Sisters Arrive in Dubai Feb 21- Orientation and Classes Commence March 21- Program Concludes
L'AGA KHAN.- C'était une mesure audacieuse, mais plus sociale que religieuse. A l'origine, le port du voile n'avait rien d'islamique et le voile était porté en Arabie pré-islamique. Le voile c'était, au départ, ce qui distinguait une femme libre d'une esclave. La femme esclave ne portait pas de voile; elle pouvait s'acheter ou s'échanger. La femme qui portait le voile n'était pas à la disposition de la société. Le voile est devenu, non plus un symbole, mais un folklore.
http://www.ismaili.net/intervue/i690820.html
Elle - Mystere de l'Aga Khan - Heritage - Interview
Elle Magazine (France) 20 Aout 1969
http://www.ismaili.net/intervue/i690820.html
Elle - Mystere de l'Aga Khan - Heritage - Interview
Elle Magazine (France) 20 Aout 1969