5/20/2013

The Islamic practice of taqiyya (lies, deception, obfuscation, dissimulation, etc. to advance and/or protect Islam) comes into play with this barrister’s (see image) every use of the English language. As a barrister, she should know about the importance of using language precisely.

It can be argued that Muhammad did indeed believe in rights for (Muslim) women; but not that he believed in “women’s rights”. That sounds odd because aren’t they two ways of saying the same thing? No, they are not.

The phrase “women’s rights” has a specific meaning only applicable to its usage in the 20th century and in the West. It referred to the rights of all women as women. It didn’t apply to the “rights” they were granted as wives, daughters or  Muslimahs (Muslim women); as was the case with Muhammad.

Then again, this professional Muslimah knows this full well. Hence the taqiyya. Consider:

“…Women have the same [rights in relation to their husbands] as are expected in all decency from them; while men stand a step above them. God is Powerful, Wise. K. 2:228 (Irving)

“Men are overseers over women because Allah has given the one [men] more strength than the other… Honourable women are, therefore, devoutly obedient…As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, refuse to share your bed with them, and beat them.” K.4:34 (Malik)

“…the male will have twice the share of the female. (Thus) does Allah make clear to you (His Law) lest you go astray. And Allah is the All-Knower of everything.” K.4:176 (Hilali-Khan)

“O Prophet, tell your wives: “If you are wanting worldly life and its attraction, then come on! I’ll let you enjoy them and dismiss you [divorce you] in a handsome fashion. However if you have been wanting Allah and His messenger … well God has prepared splendid payment for the kindly women among you.” K. 33:28-29 (Irving). Note: this verse is telling Mohammed’s wives – and thus all Muslimahs – that they should be pious and obedient to Allah and their husbands.

“O wives of the Prophet, you are not like any other women! … Remain in your homes and do not dress up fancily the way they used to dress during (the time of) primitive Ignorance.” K.33:32-33 (Irving)

“O you who believe! Verily, among your wives and your children there are enemies for you, therefore beware of them! … Your wealth and your children are only a trial…” K.64:14-15 (Hilali-Khan)

Bukhari Vol.1 No.486: Narrated `Aisha: “Do you [Mohammed] make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? …”

Ibid 1.490: Narrated `Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman.” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.”… Note: See also 1:493, 498 in Bukhari. Similar hadith are found in other collections.

Apostasy in Islam is extremely rare (There will be many Muslims who internally reject Islam but who can never say so to any fellow Muslim; let alone to their families.)  for the simple reason that to apostatise from Islam carries the death penalty. Whilst this is relatively unlikely to be enforced on a Muslim apostate living in the West, the deep-rooted ‘cultural’ fear that such a legal prescription (and it is the punishment prescribed under Sharia Law) produces must act as a massively effective bar to any Muslim to openly apostatise. Even in the West such open apostates face ostracism from their own communities, rejection by their families and a lot of community pressure to “repent” and revert to Islam.

Given that, we can start to understand why this female Western educated British-Muslim Barrister came up with this absurd and ridiculous statement.

Apart from anything else, the notion of “rights” in their present universal form pertaining to individuals (not specific groups of any description) didn’t really exist until the late 17th century and then only in Europe.

As for “women’s rights” in particular, she is foisting Western concepts and standards onto Muhammad for reasons of taqiyya towards Western non-Muslims. Anyone who knows what the Koran and the Sunnah say about women in general and non-Muslim women in particular will recognise this as the very poor attempt at dis-information that it is.

What is always worrying about such dis-information (taqiyya) campaigns is that those ignorant about Islam may indeed be hood-winked and bamboozled into thinking that such statements are a true reflection of genuinely Islamic positions.

To be fair, I am talking about the “universal rights” of all men, women, etc. Rights existed before this period but they were given by kings, rulers, etc. to specific people (or groups) and for specific reasons.

Muslim women might have been given rights by Muhammad (in his own day); but only as Muslim wives, as Muslim daughters and, less clearly, as Muslim women. They were never given rights as women regardless of the places they occupied in an Islamic society or state. And it is here we can see that the rights of women in Muhammad’s time might not have amounted to much, we need to consider what such “rights” might actually have been.

For example: Muslim wives might have been given the “right” to clean the house. They might have been given the “right” to prepare the food and so on. In terms of a positive (rather than a negative) right, Muhammad might have given them the “right” to go out of the house once a month to go to the market.

Again, conditional “rights” in and of themselves are not necessarily/automatically good things; especially when given by others such as husbands, rulers etc. That’s why “universal rights” made all the difference in the West. They were universal in that they applied to everyone regardless of their position in society or sex. (Whether the West practised these rights or abided by them is of course another matter.) Indeed universal human rights are supposed to apply to every single person on the planet – with no exceptions.

For example, what some Western Muslimahs refer to is their “right to spend all their own income“. That is, not to be obliged or made to spend it either on their children or on their husband. Surely only middle-class professional Muslim women (as in the image) would sing a tune about that particular right.

Similarly, this is tied in with the “right” of Muslim wives to be “taken care of by their husband”. This is a negative right – a right not to look after herself as such. So at the same time it’s a right that makes her dependent on her husband in that he must “take care of her”. On the other hand, and seemingly in contradiction, the Muslim wife also has the “right” to spend all her money on herself. Again, this could/would only appeal, surely, to a Western Muslim professional woman who has become materialistic about her income or salary at the very same time as accepting the husband’s rule over the home and his duty to look after her financially (despite her wealth – which she can spend exclusively on herself).

The other thing I hinted at is that this is only Islam as it would only be seen by a Western professional Muslim woman – as it is by the Muslim barrister in the image. This begs the question as to what the millions upon millions of other Muslim women (who are not in her privileged position) think about this stance on “Muslim women’s rights” – or whether they have even heard of the concept. I am absolutely convinced that this is an almost exclusively Western professional Muslim women’s position on women’s rights within Islam or within the Muslim family. (However, in the capitals and metropolises of various Muslim countries I suspect there will be other middle-class professional Muslim women who also take this position on Muslim women’s rights.)

To restate. This is actually a position only on Western/Westernised professional Muslim women’s rights. It isn’t applied outside that situation and probably couldn’t be applied outside it. As I said, this middle-class Muslim woman is simply trying to make the best of a bad job – that bad job being the Islamic position on Muslim women generally and specifically on their place/role in the family.