Mr. Javed I. Chaudry has concluded his first paragraph with: “The fact that they are part of a Muslim society, does not mean that Islam supports such behaviour.”
For the same event I concluded with: “This event took place in a Muslim country and in a Muslim family. Nobody has blamed Islam for this criminal act. It has nothing to do with Islam as a religion or as a part of the code of Islamic way of life.”
By repeating the same opinion Mr. Chaudry has increased the audience and I am thankful to him.
Concerning my remark “This notion of Hijab is indeed present in the Holy Book”; Mr. Chaudry does not deny the statement but adds that: “The word hijab is indeed present in Quran, but certainly not to be taken as some have perceived for centuries.”
Mr. Chaudry gives the translations of nine verses (A^yAt) of The Quran and then he concludes with: “These are the guidelines and in some cases, historical description of the situation (ref 19.17, about Maryam) that we find in Quran. Unfortunately, our semi-literate Mullahs have turned it into what we experience as purdah, veil, niqab, burqa or hijab. None of this is part of Quranic teachings, let alone imposing them on any one by force or through violence.”
The outcome of the whole two page text is that one learns what is NOT Hijab but alas NOT what it is. According to his above statement even Hijab is not a part of Quranic teachings. Then what is the purpose of citing all these Ayets? I do not think that we have advanced much as compared to the teachings of the so-called semi-literate Mullahs.
Mr. Mubashir Inayet, in his post 109 wrote:
“Mr. Ahsan says that Islam is not to be blamed for Aqsa's murder. Then he goes on to say it is to be blamed because it was trying to be implemented as a complete code of life. Perhaps it is me, but I find the above confusing. Even if it was being enforced by Aqsa's father, where did he come up with the punishment of murder!!??? Islam is not to be meant as a book of bedtime stories. It has to be followed to the best of one's ability and that is where it's proper education comes into play”.
The part: “it was trying to be implemented” starts with ‘it” which certainly does not stand for the father of Aqsa. This statement, Mr. Inayet, is entirely yours. If it stands for Islam or Islamic teachings then this statement is wrong. Any idea does not implement itself but it is done by an Agent.
I said: “In the case of Aqsa the criminal act of murdering her has nothing to do with Islam” So, there is no need of asking the question: “where did he come up with the punishment of murder!!???” But I do blame Islam for his imposition of Hijab to his daughter. This act he considered as his religious obligation. You are right when you say: “Islam is not to be meant as a book of bedtime stories. It has to be followed to the best of one's ability and that is where it's proper education comes into play”.
Now, “what is Hijab?” is still not clear in spite of three definitions by scholars of Islam. I will not discuss all but only the third one. THREE: Draw a shawl around your person when outdoors in public (33:59). Not all the people go around with their shawls. Consider a Bengali woman who dresses herself with sari. In case she wants to hide her face she simply draws one end of her sari as many Hindu women do in India. So, this Ayet with its shawl is useless for this Muslim woman and many others like she.
I am not an Islamic Scholar nor do I claim to understand every thing written in the Holy Book. Certainly Allaah is aware of it:
According to Ayet (3:7), Allah has revealed unto Muhammad (peace be upon him) the (1) “Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book” and (2) “others (which are) allegorical”. About these allegorical verses, it is further stated that “None knoweth its explanation save Allah”. Thus the allegorical verses may have multiple interpretations. No human being, no matter how intelligent, educated and pious (imams and muftis included) he may be, can claim that his interpretation is the only one ‘true and correct’. Because, by doing this, he will declare himself to have the same “Intelligence and Knowledge” as God Almighty.
So, any message which is not direct but needs some interpretation will fall in the second category. These messages may have many interpretations. A layman’s interpretation can be as good as that of a learned scholar. If any scholar thinks that a particular Muslim has not understood the correct meaning of the message, then he should not blame the person but the Message. Thus, for the error of Mohammad Pervez in case of Hijab, Islam is to be blamed.
There are many other examples where Islam is directly responsible, for example, The lack of democracy in most Muslim countries, A second class citizen treatment of women in Muslim societies and punishing the rape victims by Sharia courts. List can be long!
Regards.
Ahsan
.