It is ludicrous that the Government is commited in clawing shrinking back a welfare system from the poor of Britain who they package to be a load of lazy louts - The finger instead from the onset should have been pointed at a decrepit system which has allowed the rich to uncontrollably increase their wealth with no care for those underneath them - This includes many politicians whose income and lives are intertwined with many of these rich elite.
This is because capitalism in its essence sets a precedence that wealth creation is the foremost measure of success and that the freedom provided for the individual through capitalism is the predominant value over any form of collective value or value of something higher than slavery to ones base desires. I think therefore it is high time we begin to have an intellectual debate about the way forward for mankind, a way forward which would ensure real fairness and society which is not broken, but wholly cohesive and productive.
Being a Muslim I sincerely believe that the model of the Islamic ruling system - the Caliphate - which existed for over 1400 years, spanning across the Muslim world, managed to purport values within society which ensured that slavery to ones desires and slavery to wealth creation were not the be all and end all. In fact the Islamic ruling system, based upon the Islamic Shariah, contrary to popular perception, ensured that the human being felt accountable to first and foremost God, for all of their actions in public and in private. The impact this had was a consciousness within society of caring for others, over purely oneself.
The Islamic values more specifically placed a strong emphasis on wealth distribution over wealth hoarding, philanthropy and a need to take care of one another, over simply increasing ones own material assets and looking out only for oneself - And these values are enshrined within the Islamic texts even to this day.
Some practical examples from the Economic system however are the Islamic zakat tax, the only form of wealth tax in Islam, taxed those on all the wealth they owned, over just someone's income. This meant the rich, with all their stored assets paid out more, than those struggling to survive. The prohibition of interest meant that the rich discontinued from getting richer from wealth they already had, and the poor poorer from debt they were struggling to pay back.
These are a few strands of the comprehensive Islamic system which no longer exists in the world today, but is being much debated across all elements of society currently in the Muslim world as a possible and real alternative to the crippling system of Capitalism.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Friday, 20 August 2010
Mr Zardari, Oh Mr Zardari.
The worst natural disaster of recent times, with devestation worse than the tsumani, Kashmir and Haiti earthquakes put together, the people of Pakistan are somehow scrambling through what seems for all to be, a living hell.
The current floods which have swept across Pakistan, may have killed less than 2000, but around 4 million have been left with no homes. Images of families stranded on rooftops, clutching a cooking utensil or two, a few bunches of clothes, have shocked the world, mobilising the average joe bloggs to fund raise and attempt to do what they can to help these devestated people. Everyone that is, except Mr Asif Ali Zardari. Mr Asif Ali Zardari it seems has a heart made of steel, and a political motivation made of, how do I say it... Money.. to put it simply.
Harsh? Well, the floods happen, people die, the rest anguished, terrified, screaming for aid, medicine, food, water. Yet Mr Zardari, still gets on a plane, still goes off halfway across the world to meet a man who stamps his people down, blaming the world's problems on them. But why should Mr Zardari care? Who are those people to him anyway? Just his citizens.
He carries on a visit, swanning through Europe, leisurely stopping by in different places, garnering support for his party, for his son, his successor. Focussing and working hard to ensure support for a potential event which may happen in several years time, whilst an event which has already entered the past begs his minimum support if even for a moment.
Mr Zardari also must have seen the image of the three children squatting on a small bed submerged in what it seemed, miles of murky water; whilst he slept in his temporary kingdom, for what it has been reported, £10, 000 a night. As he set aside the leftovers of his multi-coursed meal onto the edge of his plate, and threw back the creaseless covers of his poster bed, I wonder if he peered at that photo, at the fact that those three children were clutching the side of the bed, not any morsel of food, and that there was not a sheet to be seen to be able to cover them.
Oh Mr Zardari, it is said that aid agencies now hold back their funds. They hold back the golden tickets for all these destitute people to obtain the basic things they need to survive, because last time they passed it over, the Reconstruction Agency of the Pakistani Earthquake did not see a fraction of it. £300 million never saw the light in the areas devestated by the earthquake, but wouldn't it be safe to say, managed to nestle its way into your wealth?
Mr Zardari, Mr Zardari. I detest to be the bearer of bad news. But it would not remain well seated within my conscience not to break this to you - Did you know, that the responsibility of the people is with the Government? Apologies for dropping this bombshell, but maybe somebody just needs to tell you, as you clearly cannot have known. How could you have? Otherwise you would never have gone to London, you would never have outstretched your hand to Cameron, you would never have ordered mass murder in Waziristan, you would never have even had the chance to touch the money before sending it off to feed the hungry and cure the sick.
Mr Zardari. Your Lord, sent down a Messenger who gave some very helpful guidance, maybe you should hear it:
'The imam is a shield for the Ummah, from behind which they fight and are protected'
Mr Zardari. You have claimed to be this imam but instead of protecting them, have let them anguish, a people unled, a people not looked after.
Mr Zardari, oh Mr Zardari. This Ummah can no longer bear the assumed leadership of a man whose shield over them is made of thorns, severing them to pieces. This Ummah is truly an Ummah who has Allah on their side, the mightiest of supporters, and thus will surely regain protection soon, through a strong supporter of Allah. They will regain an Imam whose shield over them is stronger than the most sturdy of metals. As this is Allah's promise. Till then Mr Zardari, oh Mr Zardari I recommend you flee, as far and wide as you can, before you are forced to. But then, you can never really flee can you? How could you ever flee from the Being in Whose Hand lies your very Soul?
The current floods which have swept across Pakistan, may have killed less than 2000, but around 4 million have been left with no homes. Images of families stranded on rooftops, clutching a cooking utensil or two, a few bunches of clothes, have shocked the world, mobilising the average joe bloggs to fund raise and attempt to do what they can to help these devestated people. Everyone that is, except Mr Asif Ali Zardari. Mr Asif Ali Zardari it seems has a heart made of steel, and a political motivation made of, how do I say it... Money.. to put it simply.
Harsh? Well, the floods happen, people die, the rest anguished, terrified, screaming for aid, medicine, food, water. Yet Mr Zardari, still gets on a plane, still goes off halfway across the world to meet a man who stamps his people down, blaming the world's problems on them. But why should Mr Zardari care? Who are those people to him anyway? Just his citizens.
He carries on a visit, swanning through Europe, leisurely stopping by in different places, garnering support for his party, for his son, his successor. Focussing and working hard to ensure support for a potential event which may happen in several years time, whilst an event which has already entered the past begs his minimum support if even for a moment.
Mr Zardari also must have seen the image of the three children squatting on a small bed submerged in what it seemed, miles of murky water; whilst he slept in his temporary kingdom, for what it has been reported, £10, 000 a night. As he set aside the leftovers of his multi-coursed meal onto the edge of his plate, and threw back the creaseless covers of his poster bed, I wonder if he peered at that photo, at the fact that those three children were clutching the side of the bed, not any morsel of food, and that there was not a sheet to be seen to be able to cover them.
Oh Mr Zardari, it is said that aid agencies now hold back their funds. They hold back the golden tickets for all these destitute people to obtain the basic things they need to survive, because last time they passed it over, the Reconstruction Agency of the Pakistani Earthquake did not see a fraction of it. £300 million never saw the light in the areas devestated by the earthquake, but wouldn't it be safe to say, managed to nestle its way into your wealth?
Mr Zardari, Mr Zardari. I detest to be the bearer of bad news. But it would not remain well seated within my conscience not to break this to you - Did you know, that the responsibility of the people is with the Government? Apologies for dropping this bombshell, but maybe somebody just needs to tell you, as you clearly cannot have known. How could you have? Otherwise you would never have gone to London, you would never have outstretched your hand to Cameron, you would never have ordered mass murder in Waziristan, you would never have even had the chance to touch the money before sending it off to feed the hungry and cure the sick.
Mr Zardari. Your Lord, sent down a Messenger who gave some very helpful guidance, maybe you should hear it:
'The imam is a shield for the Ummah, from behind which they fight and are protected'
Mr Zardari. You have claimed to be this imam but instead of protecting them, have let them anguish, a people unled, a people not looked after.
Mr Zardari, oh Mr Zardari. This Ummah can no longer bear the assumed leadership of a man whose shield over them is made of thorns, severing them to pieces. This Ummah is truly an Ummah who has Allah on their side, the mightiest of supporters, and thus will surely regain protection soon, through a strong supporter of Allah. They will regain an Imam whose shield over them is stronger than the most sturdy of metals. As this is Allah's promise. Till then Mr Zardari, oh Mr Zardari I recommend you flee, as far and wide as you can, before you are forced to. But then, you can never really flee can you? How could you ever flee from the Being in Whose Hand lies your very Soul?
Monday, 11 January 2010
Is it worse for someone to cheat on their lifetime spouse, parent of their children; or to park their car over two painted yellow lines?
Perhaps a strange question, but a question I hope which evokes some thinking about what we determine as right and wrong. Britain and the West are free, secular societies so they say that they do not concern themselves with the private lives of individuals. However the rule of law in any nation frames the parameters of the society they live in, and therefore set forth the rights of wrongs that that society lives by.
In Britain it is a criminal offence to park your car on a double yellow line. To be honest I haven't really researched the rationale behind this law, however I assume it must have something to do with safety for motorists, convenience for those who live, work on those roads, etc (Who knows?) However to cheat on your life partner, someone you have married for life, and had children with, might be viewed badly in some sections of society, but is not a legal offence.
Although Western societies claim to not involve themselves in people's private lives and do not claim to dictate any type of moral code to the public, the reality is that often they do. They do not lay down a comprehensive moral code exactly, but they definitely do set down parameters for what people can and can't do within society. I can't run stark naked through Oxford Street, I can't hurl racial abuse at my work colleagues and I can't go and end the life of some random person on the street. There is the argument that freedom exists only until your assertion of freedom will harm someone else, and so such laws are justified - But however you put it, that's not real freedom, then is it? It's a set of norms, set within the Houses of Parliament with very little public influence (look what happened with Iraq), which the public must accept as their code to live by. It's a set of dictated rights and wrongs, labelled as 'freedom'.
However you could argue, that a dictated set of norms is a bit of an exaggerated adjective to use as the public largely accept the rights and wrongs which their laws have put down. And this is fine, however the question then arises is who actually decides what is right and wrong in the first place? Who really knows what is right for an entire population of over 60 million people in Britain? Is it right to ban every single citizen from smoking in public? Allowing every adult citizen to drink as much alcohol as they want? Not allow all groups of people within the society to debate and discuss their values, as they really are?
If parking my car in certain places is illegal, and adultery isn't, who designates these things as wrong and right? The truth is law making in democratic nations, is not simply about creating a set of laws for the betterment and benefit of the public - even though it can sincerely attempt to be at times - But the reality is that in a Capitalist nation, corporate companies, economic pressures, political rivalry, can all be things which can influence and help formulate law and policy. A recent documentary laid out how the Israeli lobby has clearly seeped into the main political parties within Britain, influencing their view towards the MidEast conflict, just because many of them have big bucks or their hands in some important pockets.
This discussion about right and wrong is a key one, in a time where the Government is eager to define what should be right and wrong for Muslims. What type of political voice we should have, what type of Islam we should have. In this climate, we need to be able to discuss with everyone, Muslims nad non-Muslim and get them to think about this idea of what is really right, and what is really wrong. Even the norms in society, which are deemed right, outside of the law, should be questioned. So why is it we deem it right to walk out the door showing our body and hair as women, luring others to our femininity and sexuality? Who deems this right? Where did this come from? Yes maybe the desire of women to be free, but more largely the desire for capitalist companies to create a booming fashion and beauty industry - Have we ever thought about where our rights and wrongs come from in this way?
So how can we ensure that we follow the right and abstain from the wrongs which are best for us, as human beings, best for our selves, our families, communities? And not simply for the benefit of the rich and therefore most powerful? The problem with man-made law is that human beings are inextricably influenced by their own desires, needs, prejudices when viewing things and are of course limited in our understanding - We don't even know what is going to happen to ourselves in the next second. So if we don't even know what's best for ourselves, what is best for our families according to their needs, how would someone therefore know how to meet the needs of millions of people?
The Shariah is a set of rules and laws, devised by the Allah SWT, who created every single thing on this Earth, and therefore knows each and every one of us best. In the Shariah Allah SWT has given an entire code for living for an entire society, where no particular individual has any particular precedence, but all are subject to the law of Allah SWT. No one's desires, personal benefits are allowed to take centrestage in policy making, as it is Allah who knows best:
'It may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.' Surah Baqarah
The Shariah enshrines the rights and wrongs of Islam, where pleasing Allah is what is always right, and displeasing him, wrong. The family is the microcosm of the Islamic society and is given due importance, and individuals are obliged to live with one another with respect, care and concern, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
Therefore for the Muslim, what is right in life and what is wrong is set out, crystal clear. It's not about what we as individuals think is best and right, but what Allah thinks is right. It means what is right for society, not what is right just for the individual.
In Britain it is a criminal offence to park your car on a double yellow line. To be honest I haven't really researched the rationale behind this law, however I assume it must have something to do with safety for motorists, convenience for those who live, work on those roads, etc (Who knows?) However to cheat on your life partner, someone you have married for life, and had children with, might be viewed badly in some sections of society, but is not a legal offence.
Although Western societies claim to not involve themselves in people's private lives and do not claim to dictate any type of moral code to the public, the reality is that often they do. They do not lay down a comprehensive moral code exactly, but they definitely do set down parameters for what people can and can't do within society. I can't run stark naked through Oxford Street, I can't hurl racial abuse at my work colleagues and I can't go and end the life of some random person on the street. There is the argument that freedom exists only until your assertion of freedom will harm someone else, and so such laws are justified - But however you put it, that's not real freedom, then is it? It's a set of norms, set within the Houses of Parliament with very little public influence (look what happened with Iraq), which the public must accept as their code to live by. It's a set of dictated rights and wrongs, labelled as 'freedom'.
However you could argue, that a dictated set of norms is a bit of an exaggerated adjective to use as the public largely accept the rights and wrongs which their laws have put down. And this is fine, however the question then arises is who actually decides what is right and wrong in the first place? Who really knows what is right for an entire population of over 60 million people in Britain? Is it right to ban every single citizen from smoking in public? Allowing every adult citizen to drink as much alcohol as they want? Not allow all groups of people within the society to debate and discuss their values, as they really are?
If parking my car in certain places is illegal, and adultery isn't, who designates these things as wrong and right? The truth is law making in democratic nations, is not simply about creating a set of laws for the betterment and benefit of the public - even though it can sincerely attempt to be at times - But the reality is that in a Capitalist nation, corporate companies, economic pressures, political rivalry, can all be things which can influence and help formulate law and policy. A recent documentary laid out how the Israeli lobby has clearly seeped into the main political parties within Britain, influencing their view towards the MidEast conflict, just because many of them have big bucks or their hands in some important pockets.
This discussion about right and wrong is a key one, in a time where the Government is eager to define what should be right and wrong for Muslims. What type of political voice we should have, what type of Islam we should have. In this climate, we need to be able to discuss with everyone, Muslims nad non-Muslim and get them to think about this idea of what is really right, and what is really wrong. Even the norms in society, which are deemed right, outside of the law, should be questioned. So why is it we deem it right to walk out the door showing our body and hair as women, luring others to our femininity and sexuality? Who deems this right? Where did this come from? Yes maybe the desire of women to be free, but more largely the desire for capitalist companies to create a booming fashion and beauty industry - Have we ever thought about where our rights and wrongs come from in this way?
So how can we ensure that we follow the right and abstain from the wrongs which are best for us, as human beings, best for our selves, our families, communities? And not simply for the benefit of the rich and therefore most powerful? The problem with man-made law is that human beings are inextricably influenced by their own desires, needs, prejudices when viewing things and are of course limited in our understanding - We don't even know what is going to happen to ourselves in the next second. So if we don't even know what's best for ourselves, what is best for our families according to their needs, how would someone therefore know how to meet the needs of millions of people?
The Shariah is a set of rules and laws, devised by the Allah SWT, who created every single thing on this Earth, and therefore knows each and every one of us best. In the Shariah Allah SWT has given an entire code for living for an entire society, where no particular individual has any particular precedence, but all are subject to the law of Allah SWT. No one's desires, personal benefits are allowed to take centrestage in policy making, as it is Allah who knows best:
'It may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.' Surah Baqarah
The Shariah enshrines the rights and wrongs of Islam, where pleasing Allah is what is always right, and displeasing him, wrong. The family is the microcosm of the Islamic society and is given due importance, and individuals are obliged to live with one another with respect, care and concern, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
Therefore for the Muslim, what is right in life and what is wrong is set out, crystal clear. It's not about what we as individuals think is best and right, but what Allah thinks is right. It means what is right for society, not what is right just for the individual.
I'm not trying to say we need to go around calling everyone in the UK to live by Shariah, before my words as I imagine will be oh so misconstrued, but that we start a debate with people from all elements of society to begin to question the very foundations in society and understand that the rights and wrongs which the West live by are not the only universal rights and wrongs. That we should not just take the status quo of what is deemed right and wrong around us, for our own, just because the majority around us follow them. Rather Muslim or non-Muslim - we should question the basis for the views which we have, the beliefs we have and start the debate about what is really right and best for any society in this world.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Freedom to speak (dec 09)
The freedom to speak is an enshrined value of the Western world. Something they pride themselves on and wish to promote in the Muslim world. So when the Danish cartoons happened, it was the freedom of speech debate which took centre stage. When the film Fitnah was created it was all protected by this freedom of speech value. One should be able to criticise and debate ideas, with openness as this is what creates a society which thinks about what it believes in, and questions it. So questioning the Islamic traditions in fitnah was the freedom to question and probe. Depicting the Prophet SAW as a terrorist was all about questioning the place of Islam and the Prophet SAW.
Therefore one would hope that the ability to question and debate the values embedded in the society all around us would be encouraged, urged. However the recent war on terror in Britain has set quite a different standard for Muslims, when it comes to their ability to speak and debate freely. If Muslims voice their different views about politics, society and question the norms which people swallow as universal around them, freedom of speech suddenly has no place for them. If Muslims believe that the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan is fully legitimate, as these lands have been bombed and destroyed, masses killed without any type of consent of the people, then are we supporters of terrorism? Because we believe in the self-determination of a people who are in the hands of foreign occupation? Did not Britain fight back during the Blitz? Did they welcome the bombing of their cities and embrace the Germans with open hands? Would we call those who assisted in the war effort to counter the blitz, insurgents and terrorists, simply because they wanted sovereignty in their own land?
What about those who believe the values of the people of the Muslim world should shape the way they live. The Muslim world should be allowed to let their way of life manifest itself in society and wiithin the state. Is this barbaric, backward if they want to live by the just Economic system of Islam, which distributes the wealth of the state to the poor, instead of letting the rich and elite accumulate it? A system which provides stability putting the interests of the people first, above the speculative markets? What about if they want their social values to manifest in society so that men and women maintain a respect towards each other instead of being encouraged to sexualise one another? So that family units are sanctified over individual's freedom to run after desires and temptations. Is this extremism? As if you call for a Caliphate, the Khilafah system, for the Muslim world, believing that democracy only perpetuates tyranny of man, allowing corruption of power and wealth; you have rejected the values of the West and have gone to far for this society.
But is this not the West who prides itself on the debate of ideas and values? Is this not the West who encourages people who criticise and discuss what leads to better societies? More harmonious societies?
Questions. Questions. No one seems to really answer. The problem is, the Government today, the prospective Conservative Government today is banding around alot of what will never be allowed. Extremism will never be allowed in British society, terrorism will never be allowed in British society and as Cameron has promised, he will ban Islamic groups who call for such terrorism once he comes to power. But Cameron has been quick to shove the debate about productive values in a very broken society which he wishes to mend, under the carpet. As these Islamic groups are those who are not and have never been engaged in any type of violent extremism, but have always been at the forefront of speaking out against colonisliam, occupation and the ability for Islam to solve the broken problems of society in the Muslim world. They want to discuss what values could potentially mend a society broken socially, economically and politically. So clearly Cameron's promise to ban such groups essentially means the promise to ban discussion and debate about values in society and silence those who actually think and don't just adopt the status quo blindly - That democracy is supreme. Rather maybe Cameron could stop to think - The reasons why some Muslims believe and call so wholeheartedly for Islamic law in the Muslim world, is because they wish more than anything for justice to return to our world today, the ceasing of the rich usurping the poor, and the powerful oppressing the weak. Something he could actually learn from maybe?
Therefore one would hope that the ability to question and debate the values embedded in the society all around us would be encouraged, urged. However the recent war on terror in Britain has set quite a different standard for Muslims, when it comes to their ability to speak and debate freely. If Muslims voice their different views about politics, society and question the norms which people swallow as universal around them, freedom of speech suddenly has no place for them. If Muslims believe that the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan is fully legitimate, as these lands have been bombed and destroyed, masses killed without any type of consent of the people, then are we supporters of terrorism? Because we believe in the self-determination of a people who are in the hands of foreign occupation? Did not Britain fight back during the Blitz? Did they welcome the bombing of their cities and embrace the Germans with open hands? Would we call those who assisted in the war effort to counter the blitz, insurgents and terrorists, simply because they wanted sovereignty in their own land?
What about those who believe the values of the people of the Muslim world should shape the way they live. The Muslim world should be allowed to let their way of life manifest itself in society and wiithin the state. Is this barbaric, backward if they want to live by the just Economic system of Islam, which distributes the wealth of the state to the poor, instead of letting the rich and elite accumulate it? A system which provides stability putting the interests of the people first, above the speculative markets? What about if they want their social values to manifest in society so that men and women maintain a respect towards each other instead of being encouraged to sexualise one another? So that family units are sanctified over individual's freedom to run after desires and temptations. Is this extremism? As if you call for a Caliphate, the Khilafah system, for the Muslim world, believing that democracy only perpetuates tyranny of man, allowing corruption of power and wealth; you have rejected the values of the West and have gone to far for this society.
But is this not the West who prides itself on the debate of ideas and values? Is this not the West who encourages people who criticise and discuss what leads to better societies? More harmonious societies?
Questions. Questions. No one seems to really answer. The problem is, the Government today, the prospective Conservative Government today is banding around alot of what will never be allowed. Extremism will never be allowed in British society, terrorism will never be allowed in British society and as Cameron has promised, he will ban Islamic groups who call for such terrorism once he comes to power. But Cameron has been quick to shove the debate about productive values in a very broken society which he wishes to mend, under the carpet. As these Islamic groups are those who are not and have never been engaged in any type of violent extremism, but have always been at the forefront of speaking out against colonisliam, occupation and the ability for Islam to solve the broken problems of society in the Muslim world. They want to discuss what values could potentially mend a society broken socially, economically and politically. So clearly Cameron's promise to ban such groups essentially means the promise to ban discussion and debate about values in society and silence those who actually think and don't just adopt the status quo blindly - That democracy is supreme. Rather maybe Cameron could stop to think - The reasons why some Muslims believe and call so wholeheartedly for Islamic law in the Muslim world, is because they wish more than anything for justice to return to our world today, the ceasing of the rich usurping the poor, and the powerful oppressing the weak. Something he could actually learn from maybe?
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
When light hits the prism
Light, before it hits a prism, is one and whole. Blindingly illuminating. Then, as it travels through the unforgivingly jagged form of the prism, it splits into a variety of distinct colours which seem to have no resemblance to what came before. They all came from that same initial illuminating, all encompassing light, but the journey of the prism has shattered that oneness, creating many paths which seem now impossible to again unify.
Our purpose in life, I think, is a little like this. We all start off knowing that our purpose is one, wholly one on this earth. But as we travel through the jagged realities of this dunya, this purpose which can be explained in just three words, to worship Allah, becomes a multitiude of complex aims, desires and aspirations. And the further we fall into the lures of the dunya, the more divergent our aims and aspirations become, often becoming unrecognisable from our initial purpose, in reality, although we may not think so.
To exist in this world of course requires more than simply settling upon a prayer mat. And to fulfil your purpose in life, of worshipping Allah, definitely requires more than that. In fact as Muslims, we need to maintain a whole host of responsibilities in order to fulfil the instincts and needs we hold as human beings, in the way that Allah desires. But the question is, how do we maintain our purpose in life as well as live the life in this world?
The answer I think is quite simple. It means being able to distinguish the place where the light splits in the prism, where the purpose no longer is really the purpose. It's when we begin to do actions and then fit them into our purpose, however tenuous the link, instead of the other way round. And so normal this way of living has become for the Muslim, that to do things the other way round, raises eyebrows - they get labelled as making life as a Muslim very 'black and white'. That they have simplified it, that they have not really understood what living by Islam really means.
So when a Muslim woman has children, and she decides to fulfil her responsibility of bringing up her children, as this is the role, over all other roles, which Allah SWT will hold her to account for, she's being a bit black and white. It's all more complex than that. You can work in a job where you can do good, which gives you respect and social standing, you can put your kids in a nursery which teaches them well or you put them in the trusted care of a relative, and on top of all that the extra money that you earn will give those kids a better standard of life. It all fits in somehow to the grand scheme of our purpose in life, right? But I would ask that when we make these links, that we really stand back and ask ourselves. Is this action for Allah? Will these decisions get me closer to Jannah, or are they to enable me to progress more in this life, to fit in more in this life, to make myself more happy in this life? Because it's not really about being a stay at home mum or not. It's about the way we shape the decisions we make in life.
The point here is we live in a society today, where Capitalism has framed the right and wrong around us. From the bottom line - That money is it, has sprung values which promote accumulation of wealth, consumerism, materialism and when it comes to women, for example, in particular promotes the development of careers as the mark of value of a person. The values that the secular way of life has produced in society mean that people view personal benefit as paramount - Your career over your family, your contentment over the communities'. Although such an bare-faced exposition of society may stand as a little bit extreme, I believe that's exactly what it is. When you strip the society and values we live in of the normality which has grown on them, like the comfort of soft green moss on jagged rocks, I really believe, this is how it is.
So it's not really that complex. It is simple really. It's about the way you spend your time, that what gives you the feeling of worth and value is linked, inextricably, to your reason for being here. It actually is quite black and white. What makes things complex is the distractions of this dunya, the pressures of society and even family very often, and the luring values of personal benefit which have become so close to the way we think, they seem to even lurk under our skin.
So next time you start looking at your life in a very 'black and white' way, do so with pride, because it is Allah SWT who tells us repeatedly in the timeless Quran that those who forego the life of this world for His sake, His reward is with you.
And the life of this world is nothing but play and amusement. But far better is the house in the Hereafter for those who are AlMuttaqûn (the pious). Will you not then understand? (Al-An’am 6:32)
Our purpose in life, I think, is a little like this. We all start off knowing that our purpose is one, wholly one on this earth. But as we travel through the jagged realities of this dunya, this purpose which can be explained in just three words, to worship Allah, becomes a multitiude of complex aims, desires and aspirations. And the further we fall into the lures of the dunya, the more divergent our aims and aspirations become, often becoming unrecognisable from our initial purpose, in reality, although we may not think so.
To exist in this world of course requires more than simply settling upon a prayer mat. And to fulfil your purpose in life, of worshipping Allah, definitely requires more than that. In fact as Muslims, we need to maintain a whole host of responsibilities in order to fulfil the instincts and needs we hold as human beings, in the way that Allah desires. But the question is, how do we maintain our purpose in life as well as live the life in this world?
The answer I think is quite simple. It means being able to distinguish the place where the light splits in the prism, where the purpose no longer is really the purpose. It's when we begin to do actions and then fit them into our purpose, however tenuous the link, instead of the other way round. And so normal this way of living has become for the Muslim, that to do things the other way round, raises eyebrows - they get labelled as making life as a Muslim very 'black and white'. That they have simplified it, that they have not really understood what living by Islam really means.
So when a Muslim woman has children, and she decides to fulfil her responsibility of bringing up her children, as this is the role, over all other roles, which Allah SWT will hold her to account for, she's being a bit black and white. It's all more complex than that. You can work in a job where you can do good, which gives you respect and social standing, you can put your kids in a nursery which teaches them well or you put them in the trusted care of a relative, and on top of all that the extra money that you earn will give those kids a better standard of life. It all fits in somehow to the grand scheme of our purpose in life, right? But I would ask that when we make these links, that we really stand back and ask ourselves. Is this action for Allah? Will these decisions get me closer to Jannah, or are they to enable me to progress more in this life, to fit in more in this life, to make myself more happy in this life? Because it's not really about being a stay at home mum or not. It's about the way we shape the decisions we make in life.
The point here is we live in a society today, where Capitalism has framed the right and wrong around us. From the bottom line - That money is it, has sprung values which promote accumulation of wealth, consumerism, materialism and when it comes to women, for example, in particular promotes the development of careers as the mark of value of a person. The values that the secular way of life has produced in society mean that people view personal benefit as paramount - Your career over your family, your contentment over the communities'. Although such an bare-faced exposition of society may stand as a little bit extreme, I believe that's exactly what it is. When you strip the society and values we live in of the normality which has grown on them, like the comfort of soft green moss on jagged rocks, I really believe, this is how it is.
So it's not really that complex. It is simple really. It's about the way you spend your time, that what gives you the feeling of worth and value is linked, inextricably, to your reason for being here. It actually is quite black and white. What makes things complex is the distractions of this dunya, the pressures of society and even family very often, and the luring values of personal benefit which have become so close to the way we think, they seem to even lurk under our skin.
So next time you start looking at your life in a very 'black and white' way, do so with pride, because it is Allah SWT who tells us repeatedly in the timeless Quran that those who forego the life of this world for His sake, His reward is with you.
And the life of this world is nothing but play and amusement. But far better is the house in the Hereafter for those who are AlMuttaqûn (the pious). Will you not then understand? (Al-An’am 6:32)
POST FROM ISLAMIC SYSTEM BLOGSPOT: The Muslim Woman’s Dress in Public
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2009/11/muslim-womans-dress-in-public.html
Lately, the Islamic rulings related to the affairs of Muslim women have seen a lot of interest from the enemies of Islam who are bent on separating Muslims from their Deen. One such ruling under attack is the dress of the Muslim woman in public life. It is incumbent on all Muslims, both men and women, to defend Islam from such attacks. The best way to do so is through the Adila (evidences) that relate to the women’s dress in public life.
Sha’r (Islamic law) has imposed a dress code on the Muslim woman that is specific to public life – she is obligated to wear distinct attire known as the “Jilbaab”. In public life it is not enough for a Muslim woman to cover her Awrah, which is defined by Shar’ as all of her body except the face and the hands.
The Jilbaab covers the Awrah and fulfills other re-quirements defined by Shar’ for public life.Jilbaab: an obligation prescribed by Allah (swt)Wearing the Jilbaab is not an obligation required by the tra-dition of our forefathers, or a social custom or a right granted to the husband or the father.
It is also not a matter of personal choice for the woman, or an expression of modesty. Rather, it is an order from Allah (swt), similar to the order of prayer and the order of fasting. Allah (swt) has revealed:يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا“O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their Jalabib (plural of Jilbaab) close around them; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiv-ing, Gentle.”[TMQ 33:59]
Thus, the Muslimah wears the Jilbaab in submission to Allah (swt), seeking His pleasure and fearing His punishment:وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُبِينًا“It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah or His messenger, to have any option about their decision; if anyone disobeys Allah and His messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path.”[TMQ 33:36]
Wearing the Jilbaab is therefore a Hukm Shari (legal injunc-tion) associated with reward and punishment that is sup-ported by evidences from the Quran and the Sunnah. If the Muslim woman appears in public life without a Jilbaab over her normal clothes, she will be sinful for abandoning an obli-gation from Allah (swt).What the Islamic attire in public life is notA variety of common clothing arrangements are often con-fused with the correct Islamic attire for public life because of the misconception that simply covering the Awrah is sufficient in a public place. In truth, these arrangements are not substi-tutes for the Jilbaab and therefore do not absolve the Muslim woman of her obligation to dress correctly in public life.
For instance, some women may wear the Khimaar with a long dress or pants, while others may wear the Shalwar Kameez (traditional attire worn as an everyday dress in South Asia). However, both the Khimaar and the Shalwar Kameez are not substitutes for the Jilbaab since they fall short of satisfying the requirements for the Islamic public attire as defined by the Sha’r.
The Jilbaab in the Quran and the Sunnah
The Jilbaab is a loose outer garment which covers the whole body. The authority on the requirement for women to wear the Jilbaab is the Quran itself. In Surat al-Ahzaab the follow-ing verse instructs the Messenger (saw):يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا“O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daugh-ters and the women of the faithful to draw their Jalabib (plural of Jilbaab) close around them; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle.”[TMQ 33:59]In his Tafseer, Al-Qurtubi explained:“Jalabeeb is the plural of Jilbaab, and it is a garment larger than a Khimaar (headscarf).
It has been narrated by Ibn ‘Ab-bas and Ibn Masud that it is a ridaa (large sheet of cloth). It is said that it is a qina’/veil but the correct view is that it is a garment which covers the whole body.
It has been reported in Sahih Muslim on the authority of Umm ‘Atiyyah who asked; ‘O Messenger of Allah! What about one who does not have a Jilbaab?’ He said, ‘Let her borrow the Jilbaab of her compan-ion.’”Also, In Surat An-Nur, Allah (swt) has commanded the Mus-lim woman to wear the Khimaar:وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ“Let them draw their Khumur (plural of Khimaar) over their necks and bosoms (Juyub). And let them not display (more of) their charms to any but their husbands...”[TMQ 24:31]
The Ayat is instructing women to drape their head-coverings (i.e. Khumur) over their necks and bosoms.The obligation of Jilbaab is also derived from the Sunnah of Rassulallah (saw):Umm Atiyya (ra) narrated:“We were ordered to bring out our menstruating women and screened women to the reli-gious gatherings and invocation of the Muslims on the two Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from the musalla. A woman asked, ‘O Messen-ger of Allah! What about one who does not have a Jil-baab?’ He said, ‘Let her borrow the Jilbaab of her com-panion.’"[Bukhari]A report narrated by Umm Salama (ra):“When the verse, ‘That they should draw their Jal-abib close around them’ was revealed, the women of Ansar (inhabitants of Madinah) came out as if they had crows over their heads by wearing Jal-abib.”[Abu Dawud]A report narrated by Aisha (ra):“The wife of Rifa'a al-Qurazi came to Allah's Messenger while I was sitting...and she was showing the fringe of her Jilbaab.”[Bukhari]As has been made amply clear by the cited evidences, the Muslim woman is obligated to wear a Jilbaab which conceals her normal clothes and drapes down until it covers her feet. This is in reference to the lower portion of the woman's clothes. As for the upper portion, she must wear a Khimaar, or something similar, that covers the entire head, the neck and the opening of the garment on the chest. In other words, it is Fard to wear these two pieces of clothes prior to leaving the house. This is because the command to wear these two pieces is general and it will remain so, since there is no evidence to make an exception to it.
It is also stipulated that the Jilbaab is draped down to the floor until it conceals the feet (i.e. they should drape their Jalabib down to the floor) because Allah (swt) says in the Ayah:يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ“…to draw their Jalabib close around them…”[TMQ 33:59]It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar (ra):“Rassu-lallah (saw) said: ‘On the Day of Judgement, Allah will not look with mercy towards the one that trails his garment behind him/herself in haughty pride.’ Umm Salama asked, ‘What are the women to do with the hems of their dresses?’ He answered, ‘Let them increase their hems the length of a hand span.’ She enquired, ‘Then their feet will be uncovered!’ He then replied, ‘Let them increase a fore arm’s length and no more.’”[Tirmidhi]This clearly shows that the garment which is worn over the woman’s normal clothes should be draped down towards the floor until it covers the feet. If the feet are covered by wearing shoes or socks, the garment must come down to the floor but it will not be necessary for it to cover the feet. However, if the feet are not covered by shoes or socks – then the garment must be draped and it must cover the feet.The Jilbaab must also not be semi-transparent to allow the normal clothes or any part of the Awrah to be seen from un-derneath. Furthermore, it must not become a form of Tabar-ruj (i.e. an attraction to men) and it must not resemble men’s clothing.In summary, it is not enough for the woman to cover her Awrah in public life. She is obligated to have a wide and loose fitting, i.e. an opaque baggy garment that she wears over her normal clothes in order to appear in public life.Muslim women steadfast in their DeenNowadays we sadly witness assaults on Islamic concepts from all corners, especially on the public symbols of Islamic observance such as the Islamic attire.
Enormous pressure is being applied on Muslim women to abandon or compromise on the correct Islamic attire in public life. The Muslim women of today should take guidance from the Muslim women of the past who were praised by the Messenger (saw) and earned the pleasure of Allah (swt). When the verses for covering were revealed they responded immediately without delay by covering their Awrah with whatever material they could find. Safiyyah, daughter of Shaybah, said that Aisha (ra) had mentioned the women of Ansar, praised them and said good words about them. She then said,“When Surat an-Nur came down, they took the curtains, tore them and made head covers (veils) of them.”[Abu Dawud]The Jilbaab: a matter of concern to Muslim husbandsAllah (swt) has clearly laid a responsibility on the husband to advise and teach the members of his household about the matters of their Deen. Allah (swt) has revealed:يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا قُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَأَهْلِيكُمْ نَارًا وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ عَلَيْهَا مَلَائِكَةٌ غِلَاظٌ شِدَادٌ لَا يَعْصُونَ اللَّهَ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ“O you who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is men and stones, over which are appointed angels stern and severe, who flinch not from executing the commands they receive from Allah, but do precisely what they are commanded.”[TMQ 66:6]Therefore, the matter of the Islamic attire in public life and the obligation of wearing the Jilbaab must be conveyed by Muslim husbands to their wives and their daughters, and they must show them how to be righteous, so they may all receive the blessing of Allah (swt) and be rewarded, to-gether, with Jannah.
Lately, the Islamic rulings related to the affairs of Muslim women have seen a lot of interest from the enemies of Islam who are bent on separating Muslims from their Deen. One such ruling under attack is the dress of the Muslim woman in public life. It is incumbent on all Muslims, both men and women, to defend Islam from such attacks. The best way to do so is through the Adila (evidences) that relate to the women’s dress in public life.
Sha’r (Islamic law) has imposed a dress code on the Muslim woman that is specific to public life – she is obligated to wear distinct attire known as the “Jilbaab”. In public life it is not enough for a Muslim woman to cover her Awrah, which is defined by Shar’ as all of her body except the face and the hands.
The Jilbaab covers the Awrah and fulfills other re-quirements defined by Shar’ for public life.Jilbaab: an obligation prescribed by Allah (swt)Wearing the Jilbaab is not an obligation required by the tra-dition of our forefathers, or a social custom or a right granted to the husband or the father.
It is also not a matter of personal choice for the woman, or an expression of modesty. Rather, it is an order from Allah (swt), similar to the order of prayer and the order of fasting. Allah (swt) has revealed:يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا“O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their Jalabib (plural of Jilbaab) close around them; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiv-ing, Gentle.”[TMQ 33:59]
Thus, the Muslimah wears the Jilbaab in submission to Allah (swt), seeking His pleasure and fearing His punishment:وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُبِينًا“It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah or His messenger, to have any option about their decision; if anyone disobeys Allah and His messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path.”[TMQ 33:36]
Wearing the Jilbaab is therefore a Hukm Shari (legal injunc-tion) associated with reward and punishment that is sup-ported by evidences from the Quran and the Sunnah. If the Muslim woman appears in public life without a Jilbaab over her normal clothes, she will be sinful for abandoning an obli-gation from Allah (swt).What the Islamic attire in public life is notA variety of common clothing arrangements are often con-fused with the correct Islamic attire for public life because of the misconception that simply covering the Awrah is sufficient in a public place. In truth, these arrangements are not substi-tutes for the Jilbaab and therefore do not absolve the Muslim woman of her obligation to dress correctly in public life.
For instance, some women may wear the Khimaar with a long dress or pants, while others may wear the Shalwar Kameez (traditional attire worn as an everyday dress in South Asia). However, both the Khimaar and the Shalwar Kameez are not substitutes for the Jilbaab since they fall short of satisfying the requirements for the Islamic public attire as defined by the Sha’r.
The Jilbaab in the Quran and the Sunnah
The Jilbaab is a loose outer garment which covers the whole body. The authority on the requirement for women to wear the Jilbaab is the Quran itself. In Surat al-Ahzaab the follow-ing verse instructs the Messenger (saw):يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا“O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daugh-ters and the women of the faithful to draw their Jalabib (plural of Jilbaab) close around them; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle.”[TMQ 33:59]In his Tafseer, Al-Qurtubi explained:“Jalabeeb is the plural of Jilbaab, and it is a garment larger than a Khimaar (headscarf).
It has been narrated by Ibn ‘Ab-bas and Ibn Masud that it is a ridaa (large sheet of cloth). It is said that it is a qina’/veil but the correct view is that it is a garment which covers the whole body.
It has been reported in Sahih Muslim on the authority of Umm ‘Atiyyah who asked; ‘O Messenger of Allah! What about one who does not have a Jilbaab?’ He said, ‘Let her borrow the Jilbaab of her compan-ion.’”Also, In Surat An-Nur, Allah (swt) has commanded the Mus-lim woman to wear the Khimaar:وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ“Let them draw their Khumur (plural of Khimaar) over their necks and bosoms (Juyub). And let them not display (more of) their charms to any but their husbands...”[TMQ 24:31]
The Ayat is instructing women to drape their head-coverings (i.e. Khumur) over their necks and bosoms.The obligation of Jilbaab is also derived from the Sunnah of Rassulallah (saw):Umm Atiyya (ra) narrated:“We were ordered to bring out our menstruating women and screened women to the reli-gious gatherings and invocation of the Muslims on the two Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from the musalla. A woman asked, ‘O Messen-ger of Allah! What about one who does not have a Jil-baab?’ He said, ‘Let her borrow the Jilbaab of her com-panion.’"[Bukhari]A report narrated by Umm Salama (ra):“When the verse, ‘That they should draw their Jal-abib close around them’ was revealed, the women of Ansar (inhabitants of Madinah) came out as if they had crows over their heads by wearing Jal-abib.”[Abu Dawud]A report narrated by Aisha (ra):“The wife of Rifa'a al-Qurazi came to Allah's Messenger while I was sitting...and she was showing the fringe of her Jilbaab.”[Bukhari]As has been made amply clear by the cited evidences, the Muslim woman is obligated to wear a Jilbaab which conceals her normal clothes and drapes down until it covers her feet. This is in reference to the lower portion of the woman's clothes. As for the upper portion, she must wear a Khimaar, or something similar, that covers the entire head, the neck and the opening of the garment on the chest. In other words, it is Fard to wear these two pieces of clothes prior to leaving the house. This is because the command to wear these two pieces is general and it will remain so, since there is no evidence to make an exception to it.
It is also stipulated that the Jilbaab is draped down to the floor until it conceals the feet (i.e. they should drape their Jalabib down to the floor) because Allah (swt) says in the Ayah:يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ“…to draw their Jalabib close around them…”[TMQ 33:59]It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar (ra):“Rassu-lallah (saw) said: ‘On the Day of Judgement, Allah will not look with mercy towards the one that trails his garment behind him/herself in haughty pride.’ Umm Salama asked, ‘What are the women to do with the hems of their dresses?’ He answered, ‘Let them increase their hems the length of a hand span.’ She enquired, ‘Then their feet will be uncovered!’ He then replied, ‘Let them increase a fore arm’s length and no more.’”[Tirmidhi]This clearly shows that the garment which is worn over the woman’s normal clothes should be draped down towards the floor until it covers the feet. If the feet are covered by wearing shoes or socks, the garment must come down to the floor but it will not be necessary for it to cover the feet. However, if the feet are not covered by shoes or socks – then the garment must be draped and it must cover the feet.The Jilbaab must also not be semi-transparent to allow the normal clothes or any part of the Awrah to be seen from un-derneath. Furthermore, it must not become a form of Tabar-ruj (i.e. an attraction to men) and it must not resemble men’s clothing.In summary, it is not enough for the woman to cover her Awrah in public life. She is obligated to have a wide and loose fitting, i.e. an opaque baggy garment that she wears over her normal clothes in order to appear in public life.Muslim women steadfast in their DeenNowadays we sadly witness assaults on Islamic concepts from all corners, especially on the public symbols of Islamic observance such as the Islamic attire.
Enormous pressure is being applied on Muslim women to abandon or compromise on the correct Islamic attire in public life. The Muslim women of today should take guidance from the Muslim women of the past who were praised by the Messenger (saw) and earned the pleasure of Allah (swt). When the verses for covering were revealed they responded immediately without delay by covering their Awrah with whatever material they could find. Safiyyah, daughter of Shaybah, said that Aisha (ra) had mentioned the women of Ansar, praised them and said good words about them. She then said,“When Surat an-Nur came down, they took the curtains, tore them and made head covers (veils) of them.”[Abu Dawud]The Jilbaab: a matter of concern to Muslim husbandsAllah (swt) has clearly laid a responsibility on the husband to advise and teach the members of his household about the matters of their Deen. Allah (swt) has revealed:يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا قُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَأَهْلِيكُمْ نَارًا وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ عَلَيْهَا مَلَائِكَةٌ غِلَاظٌ شِدَادٌ لَا يَعْصُونَ اللَّهَ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ“O you who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is men and stones, over which are appointed angels stern and severe, who flinch not from executing the commands they receive from Allah, but do precisely what they are commanded.”[TMQ 66:6]Therefore, the matter of the Islamic attire in public life and the obligation of wearing the Jilbaab must be conveyed by Muslim husbands to their wives and their daughters, and they must show them how to be righteous, so they may all receive the blessing of Allah (swt) and be rewarded, to-gether, with Jannah.
Monday, 12 October 2009
The sick trio
The news that three separate individuals living in different places across the UK have been charged with a series of acts of child abuse, has sent ripples of disgust as well as disbelief through the public.
The three individuals are said to have met on Facebook, and have since shared endless amounts of emails, texts and photos of the most depraved acts of child abuse. Vanessa George, a 39 year old nursery worker in Plymouth, had sent over 150 photos to Colin Blanchard from Rochdale and Angela Allen from Nottingham where she had taken the most graphic and disturbing images of sexual abuse of the children in the nursery she worked in. Between the three of them, graphic descriptions of child abuse, explicit photos were intensively exchanged to such a degree that police believe some sort of contest was occurring, due to the rapid acceleration in the depravity of the images and texts. The content of these photos and messages are so disturbing that the details are not being revealed to the public, but as they were described inside the courtroom, it was said that the parents of the children who Vanessa George possibly abused, wailed and cried in absolute despair.
The reality is paedophilia is rampant in society. The pages of newspapers are seldom free of some sort of case of sexual abuse of children. In 2002 the BBC conducted a documentary series which went on a hunt for Britain’s paedophiles and then the police’s lowest estimate for the UK, was around 230,000. And such cases are not restricted to only Britain, there was Jaycee Lee in America, the shocking Josef Fritzel case in Austria; just to name two - And these were simply two high profile cases. And finally a sad testimony of how rampant sexual abuse against children is, is just to read the barrage of comments listed after the BBC’s reports of this current case – The majority of the entries are individuals describing sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of someone as a child.
The question therefore always arises – How can we rid society of this despicable crime? The Sex Offenders Register, the CRB checking system are initiatives which seek to try to prevent acts of such sexual abuse occurring. After this current case of child abuse, a debate has now arisen on the need to ban camera phones in the workplace. Parents from the nursery within which Vanessa George worked, have already started a campaign calling for this amongst other things, as a way to prevent such sexual abuse against children in the future.
These policies and initiatives, although may make it a little difficult for sex offenders to carry out their crimes, they in no way make it impossible. A nursery worker can still smuggle a phone in into an enclosed nappy changing area in a nursery; a teacher can still obtain a successful CRB check, but still have committed atrocious crimes in secret – As was the case with Vanessa George. And although such initiatives make sexual crimes a little more difficult, they in no way eradicate the sick mentality that these people hold – the desire to sexually gratify themselves by abusing children, not caring about the consequence. This is because these people live in a society which is constantly screaming out that personal gratification is the most prized thing above all – We are told to make ourselves happy, whatever the cost. For some people that maybe enjoying a stable marital relationship, for some having one night stands with strangers one after the other, and for others sexually abusing a child. The problem is once you urge people to please themselves, different people will interprete this in different ways as this is the nature of human beings – Our desires and urges have no innate limits.
Personal gratification is pushed within Western secular societies because of the value which these societies hold as their cornerstone – Personal freedom which iterates that every individual is free to believe and behave in whatever way pleases them. This concept of freedom within society is founded by the viewpoint in life which all secular societies hold – That whether God exists or not is irrelevant, this is one life which is just about enjoying oneself and putting oneself first. Therefore this viewpoint in life inevitably affects the way people behave in the society. They have no regard for consequences of actions, as they live for themselves and are answerable to no one. This urges them to gratify themselves to a maximum degree, without even passing a thought about whether what they are doing is right or wrong, will have a good or bad impact on society. It’s simply about making oneself happy. The law is an after thought for many people, as many attempt to simply escape it.
Cases of paedophilia and child abuse, we know are not at all rare within the society we live in. However this particular case has caught much more media attention as two of the three perpetrators were women. When cases of paedophilia are committed by men, there has almost a level of desensitisation, as people are upset and angry, but not surprised. However the fact that in this instance, such depraved and disgusting acts of sexual abuse against children were committed by women – One of which who was herself a mother of two – has sent shockwaves throughout society.
The question has arisen across the board that how could a mother, who has children herself, carry out such disgusting abuse of other children? And women are seen to be the more nurturing and caring race – How could women therefore go against these instincts and behave in this way?
However in a way this debate is redundant, as regardless of whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman, both exist in the very same society which pushes increasing sexualisation in society. Therefore just because women may have more of a maternal instinct, does not mean they are immune from the dark consequences of letting their desires run free to any extent they desire. The American Psychological Association carried out a study in 2007 and found that magazines, television, video games and music videos all portray an alarming level of sexualisation in society which has a detrimental effect on particularly young girls.
Therefore paedophilia, can in no way be eradicated by simply banning camera phones from the workplace. What needs to happen is an entire overhaul of the very values of society which induce such behaviour within people. In Western secular societies this is the poisonous concept of freedom.
Islam on the complete other hand has a totally different viewpoint in life to secularism. Islam believes there is a God – A Creator who created everything in this world, including all of mankind. Islam iterates that mankind has come from this Creator, Allah SWT, and will undoubtedly return to Him SWT. This viewpoint in life creates a fundamental value within the Muslim, of accountability to Allah SWT in every action that one does.
This means that before seeking to fulfil one’s desires in whatever way one wants, despite the consequences on other people and society, the Muslim will think about what pleases Allah first.
Islam’s stance on sexual relations of any type outside of marriage between two consenting partners, is clear as the Prophet said in narrated by Abdullah bin ‘Abbas:
“A person who commits this act (sexual intercourse outside of marriage) is not a true believer of their faith” Imam Bukhari and Muslim
The system of Islam works to help sustain this mentality of chastity outside of marriage which Muslims hold, within the society. The fact that Islam directs the sexual instinct specifically to the realm of marriage and takes it completely out of society; means there are minimal agitations for the instinct in public life. This means that any billboards, TV advertisements, magazine pictures which depict anything even slightly sexual would be forbidden. The rule of segregation of the sexes, a man and woman not being allowed to be alone together and the strict punishments for fornification, rape and even accusing a chaste woman all supplement this mentality of chastity, and help the Muslim uphold their taqwa.
Therefore forget abusing children, the Islamic society aims to prevent the abuse of any man, woman or child. And it therefore is only the Islamic society which can return the depraved state we see across the world today, to a content and harmonious one. One where the simple thing of protecting our children and vulnerable, is maintained.
The three individuals are said to have met on Facebook, and have since shared endless amounts of emails, texts and photos of the most depraved acts of child abuse. Vanessa George, a 39 year old nursery worker in Plymouth, had sent over 150 photos to Colin Blanchard from Rochdale and Angela Allen from Nottingham where she had taken the most graphic and disturbing images of sexual abuse of the children in the nursery she worked in. Between the three of them, graphic descriptions of child abuse, explicit photos were intensively exchanged to such a degree that police believe some sort of contest was occurring, due to the rapid acceleration in the depravity of the images and texts. The content of these photos and messages are so disturbing that the details are not being revealed to the public, but as they were described inside the courtroom, it was said that the parents of the children who Vanessa George possibly abused, wailed and cried in absolute despair.
The reality is paedophilia is rampant in society. The pages of newspapers are seldom free of some sort of case of sexual abuse of children. In 2002 the BBC conducted a documentary series which went on a hunt for Britain’s paedophiles and then the police’s lowest estimate for the UK, was around 230,000. And such cases are not restricted to only Britain, there was Jaycee Lee in America, the shocking Josef Fritzel case in Austria; just to name two - And these were simply two high profile cases. And finally a sad testimony of how rampant sexual abuse against children is, is just to read the barrage of comments listed after the BBC’s reports of this current case – The majority of the entries are individuals describing sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of someone as a child.
The question therefore always arises – How can we rid society of this despicable crime? The Sex Offenders Register, the CRB checking system are initiatives which seek to try to prevent acts of such sexual abuse occurring. After this current case of child abuse, a debate has now arisen on the need to ban camera phones in the workplace. Parents from the nursery within which Vanessa George worked, have already started a campaign calling for this amongst other things, as a way to prevent such sexual abuse against children in the future.
These policies and initiatives, although may make it a little difficult for sex offenders to carry out their crimes, they in no way make it impossible. A nursery worker can still smuggle a phone in into an enclosed nappy changing area in a nursery; a teacher can still obtain a successful CRB check, but still have committed atrocious crimes in secret – As was the case with Vanessa George. And although such initiatives make sexual crimes a little more difficult, they in no way eradicate the sick mentality that these people hold – the desire to sexually gratify themselves by abusing children, not caring about the consequence. This is because these people live in a society which is constantly screaming out that personal gratification is the most prized thing above all – We are told to make ourselves happy, whatever the cost. For some people that maybe enjoying a stable marital relationship, for some having one night stands with strangers one after the other, and for others sexually abusing a child. The problem is once you urge people to please themselves, different people will interprete this in different ways as this is the nature of human beings – Our desires and urges have no innate limits.
Personal gratification is pushed within Western secular societies because of the value which these societies hold as their cornerstone – Personal freedom which iterates that every individual is free to believe and behave in whatever way pleases them. This concept of freedom within society is founded by the viewpoint in life which all secular societies hold – That whether God exists or not is irrelevant, this is one life which is just about enjoying oneself and putting oneself first. Therefore this viewpoint in life inevitably affects the way people behave in the society. They have no regard for consequences of actions, as they live for themselves and are answerable to no one. This urges them to gratify themselves to a maximum degree, without even passing a thought about whether what they are doing is right or wrong, will have a good or bad impact on society. It’s simply about making oneself happy. The law is an after thought for many people, as many attempt to simply escape it.
Cases of paedophilia and child abuse, we know are not at all rare within the society we live in. However this particular case has caught much more media attention as two of the three perpetrators were women. When cases of paedophilia are committed by men, there has almost a level of desensitisation, as people are upset and angry, but not surprised. However the fact that in this instance, such depraved and disgusting acts of sexual abuse against children were committed by women – One of which who was herself a mother of two – has sent shockwaves throughout society.
The question has arisen across the board that how could a mother, who has children herself, carry out such disgusting abuse of other children? And women are seen to be the more nurturing and caring race – How could women therefore go against these instincts and behave in this way?
However in a way this debate is redundant, as regardless of whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman, both exist in the very same society which pushes increasing sexualisation in society. Therefore just because women may have more of a maternal instinct, does not mean they are immune from the dark consequences of letting their desires run free to any extent they desire. The American Psychological Association carried out a study in 2007 and found that magazines, television, video games and music videos all portray an alarming level of sexualisation in society which has a detrimental effect on particularly young girls.
Therefore paedophilia, can in no way be eradicated by simply banning camera phones from the workplace. What needs to happen is an entire overhaul of the very values of society which induce such behaviour within people. In Western secular societies this is the poisonous concept of freedom.
Islam on the complete other hand has a totally different viewpoint in life to secularism. Islam believes there is a God – A Creator who created everything in this world, including all of mankind. Islam iterates that mankind has come from this Creator, Allah SWT, and will undoubtedly return to Him SWT. This viewpoint in life creates a fundamental value within the Muslim, of accountability to Allah SWT in every action that one does.
This means that before seeking to fulfil one’s desires in whatever way one wants, despite the consequences on other people and society, the Muslim will think about what pleases Allah first.
Islam’s stance on sexual relations of any type outside of marriage between two consenting partners, is clear as the Prophet said in narrated by Abdullah bin ‘Abbas:
“A person who commits this act (sexual intercourse outside of marriage) is not a true believer of their faith” Imam Bukhari and Muslim
The system of Islam works to help sustain this mentality of chastity outside of marriage which Muslims hold, within the society. The fact that Islam directs the sexual instinct specifically to the realm of marriage and takes it completely out of society; means there are minimal agitations for the instinct in public life. This means that any billboards, TV advertisements, magazine pictures which depict anything even slightly sexual would be forbidden. The rule of segregation of the sexes, a man and woman not being allowed to be alone together and the strict punishments for fornification, rape and even accusing a chaste woman all supplement this mentality of chastity, and help the Muslim uphold their taqwa.
Therefore forget abusing children, the Islamic society aims to prevent the abuse of any man, woman or child. And it therefore is only the Islamic society which can return the depraved state we see across the world today, to a content and harmonious one. One where the simple thing of protecting our children and vulnerable, is maintained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
