Faith Freedom International

[Sarfraz]

This is a continuation of my previous psot on Hindu and Muslim Womens Rights.

Sarfraz.

Recently a Muslim woman attacked the worship of shiva-lingam on the grounds that since women have to kneel in front of the idol, it proves Hindu women have a low status! Yet, the lingam is not lingam alone but yoni also: both male and female principles are included. Moreover both its lower symbolism --- fertility --- and higher meaning --- the energy of creation --- is evident to any who apply their brains.

I also note with interest that several Hindu customs that discriminate against women have been left alone, because the Muslims also practice them according to the Koran and therefore they see no wrong in them.

(i) Some Hindu lawgivers have said that a disobedient wife, if she cannot be controlled in any other way, might be struck three times on the back only and only with a bamboo cane. This was an excellent stick with which to beat Hindus for abuse of women. Why don't the Muslims do this? Because, the Koran advocates beating of disobedient wives! Since in Hinduism the sacred lawbooks (Dharmashastras) can be criticised, wifebeating is now punishable without any Hindu feeling his religious rights had been violated. But to the Muslims, the Koran cannot be subjected to criticism, and so they accept beating of the wife by husband as entirely proper.

(ii) Similarly Hindu scriptures sanction polygamy. Polygamy is unfair to women, if they are not prepared to share their husbands. But nothing is said of this, because of course, Muhammad himself had 9 wives and the Koran permits four wives. Also, in Hinduism casual polygamy was not permitted. "If the wife is barren then in the 8th year, if she produces only dead sons then in the 10th year, if she produces only daughters then in the 11th year the man will take another wife [to get a son] but if she is quarrelsome then timelimit need not apply", but in all cases the first wife has to be given maintainance and liquid funds. To violate any of the above rules invited monetary and even corporeal punishment. Today we know that such beliefs that a woman is responsible for the sex of the child or of stillbirth are unscientific, so Hindus have discarded this practice. Similarly if a husband wishes to marry another wife merely out of desire, he is ordered to "satisfy the first wife with as much money as she desires" [she retains her right to live on in the husband's house as his wife however] --- we call that divorce with alimony today! All the Koran says on the other hand is that a man must be equitable to all his wives --- but that is left to the husband alone to decide. So a Muslim can and does marry again and again. The permission of the first wife is supposed to be sought, but who is there to help her if her husband remarries over her objections, particularly when he can divorce her without her consent? Yet polygamy is actually defended and actively practiced by Muslims, so Hindu polygamy is not criticized.

(iii) Very orthodox high-caste Hindu families often practice keeping their women in seclusion and make them hide their faces in presence of stranger males. This limits their human freedom, but no Muslim would criticise that, since the veil to them is actually an instrument of liberation! According to them, the veil hides a woman's feminine charms and so enables her to be respected as a intelligent human being. Good. Astonishingly, it never occurs to Muslim men to percieve the image it paints of ordinary human male, including themselves --- they are (including the most devout Muslims) ravening beasts, who are unable to control their impulses even if they only see a woman's face! That is the claim such defence of the veil makes --- at all times, the human male is no better than an animal in rut. How terrible for a woman to walk down the road and know that only a bit of cloth stands between her and gang-rape! No doubt Muslims would be angry and say that I am twisting the meaning of the veil, and undoubtedly many Muslim women are comfortable with the veil, without thinking of the implications. She is safe amidst her own male kindred, but even her father, brother and husband cannot be trusted with strange women. But this is the only conclusion such a defence --- a veil is needed automatically to protect a woman's modesty from all strange men --- can lead to. I have heard it said that the full veil is not truly Islamic; indeed in the Koran I agree, nothing specifically is said about the full veil [that law comes from the Hadiths] and only a covering for the head is ordered. In that case, rather than trying to rescue Hindu women from bondage, will these websites try to rectify the situation in Islamic theorcracies where women have to wear the full veil or have acid thrown into their faces?