Skip to main content

DISTORTED IMAGE OF MUSLIM WOMEN

by a former non-muslim, Sister Naasira bint Ellison, Taken from Hudaa magazine, Jamaica, New York

Since the height of the feminist movement in the late 70's there has been a magnifying glass placed over the status of muslim women. Unfortunately, the magnifying glass that has been used is an unusual one. Unusual in the sense that it is very selective about which items it will magnify; other items itwill distort to such a degree that they will no longer look familiar. I remember once reading in an "in depth" article about the lives of muslim women. This article "explained" that at any time a man can divorce his wife by simply stating "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you". This article can lead anyone ignorant of the Islamic ruling regarding divorce to believe that in less than five seconds the woman is left with no husband and is left to care for herself (and possibly children) by any means necessary. The question that immediately popped up in my mind was, "Did the author innocently write that out of sincere ignorance or was it another of the many attempts to degrade the religion of Islam and its followers (muslims)?" It may be my own paranoia, but I tend to believe it was the latter of the two.

The truth of the matter is that Islam has the most humane and most just system of divorce that exists. Firstly, many options are taken and tried before coming to the decision of the divorce. If the man and woman decide that they can no longer live together successfully as a husband and wife, the husband (in most cases, not always) pronounces the divorce by saying "I divorce you". At this point the waiting period begins. The waiting period lasts for three menstrual cycles to assure the woman is not pregnant. This period allows the couple time to think about what they are doing and if this is what they really want to do. There are no lawyers involved to antagonise an already delicate situation. In the case that it is realised, that the woman is pregnant, the waiting period lasts the entire time she is pregnant. During the waiting period (whether the woman is pregnant or not) the man is obligated to provide food, clothing and shelter to the woman as he did before the divorce pronouncement. If the couple carries the divorce through to the birth of the child and the woman suckles the baby, the man is obligated to feed and clothe both his ex-wife for the time the woman suckles (the maximum being two years). After this weaning, the child will be provided for by the father until he/she is no longer in need of support.

It is quite ironic that in such an "advanced society" as America, there are divorce cases in which women are being forced to pay alimony to their ex-husbands. Can this and many other things we know about the American system of divorce compare to the Islamic system of divorce?

I have also read stories wherein it is stated that women are forced to marry men without their consent. This in no way resembles the marriage system in Islam. In Islaam the woman marries the man of her choice. She may even marry someone that her mother and/or father objects to. The point is that it is the woman who makes the final decision as to whom she will marry. Once the man and the woman decide that they are interested in one another for marriage, a dowry is decided upon. A dowry is not a brides price but, it is a gift from the groom to the bride. They agree upon a gift that is affordable by the groom. In the time of the Prophet (sas), often things such as livestock and money were given. This is a wise decision in the event that a woman becomes divorced or widowed, she has some financial security to fall back on even if it is for a limited amount of time. Once the man and woman are married, the man is required to clothe, feed, shelter and educate her (or allow her to be aducated) in the same manner as he does himself.

The last distorted image that I will cover is that of the muslim women's dress. The western influenced media portrays our dress to be outdated and oppressive. Needless to say however, I differ with these adjectives. Our dress code does not hinder us from doing anything productive in our lives. Muslim women maintain a variety of jobs [under necessity], non of which are devalued nor hampered due to their dress code. And as for the timing of muslims women's dress during these contemporary times, it seems most appropriate due to decreasing morals in the world today.

For those who say that Islamic dress is outdated, they speak from great ignorance. The decreasing molarity and trials of this time makes Hijaab even more in need. More than ever before sex crimes are rampant. Although this society tells women they can wear what they want to wear, anytime a rape occurs the woman is the one put on trial an one of the first questions is, "What were you wearing?"This concept seems as though it is a set up directed against the so called contemporary woman. Also there is a direct correlation between the respect a man has for a woman and the amount of her body her body she displays flauntigly.

In conclusion, I hope this article helped to clear up some distorted/misunderstood aspects of Islam and women. Women in Islam are respected and held in high regard. We will never find success and/or solutions to our problems until we realise that Allaah knows best and that this disbelieving society will ruin itself.

Source: http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_distorted_image.htm

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Delivering the Dead: How the World Watches Gaza Bleed.

  Delivering the Dead: How the World Watches Gaza Bleed “ I delivered a beheaded woman who was nine months pregnant. ” That’s not a horror-film script. That’s not medieval history. That is the testimony of an Australian medic standing in a Gaza hospital in 2025, describing what it means to “ practice medicine ” under Israeli bombardment. A nine-months-pregnant woman , decapitated , her body torn open so that the child she carried could be pulled out lifeless — and somehow this is still not enough to shake the comfortable democracies of the West into anything resembling a conscience. We should probably give the Nobel Prize for Creative Euphemism to the politicians who still call this “self-defense.” After all, there’s nothing quite as defensive as severing the head of an expectant mother and forcing foreign doctors to deliver her dead child in the rubble of what used to be a hospital . Bravo, civilization . The tragedy is not just the atrocity itself. It’s the smug perfo...

Docu Drama. The voice of Hind Rajab.

The Red Phone Rings, but the World Hits Mute The world just gave a 23-minute standing ovation —yes, twenty-three full minutes of clapping —for The Voice of Hind Rajab at the Venice Film Festival . Applause so long it could’ve filled Hind’s final desperate phone call to the Red Crescent. Bravo, humanity. We couldn’t save her when it mattered, but at least we can applaud her ghost. This is the new morality play: a five-year-old Palestinian child, trapped in a bullet-riddled car , whispering “please come, I’m scared ,” while surrounded by the corpses of her family. The Red Crescent tried . Paramedics drove toward her and were killed too . Israel buried them in silence . And the “ civilized world ”? It buried her in its news cycle . But now—don’t worry— we have a movie . Starring Hind’s voice. Directed by Kaouther Ben Hania. Produced by an ensemble of Hollywood conscience-bearers : Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, Alfonso Cuarón, Jonathan Glazer, Jemima Khan , and others. ...

The End of Zionism? Welcome to the Funeral Nobody Wants to Admit Is Overdue

  Of course. Haaretz recently published an opinion piece by Ithamar Handelman -Smith titled “ Some Say It’s the End of Zionism, and I Say That’s All Right .” And what impeccable timing: as Israel carries out a near-two-year campaign of siege, famine, and bombardment in Gaza — slaughtering families, burying aid workers with their ambulances, and literally starving children to death — someone in Israel finally whispers the unspeakable: maybe Zionism, that 20th-century project of “ Jewish salvation ,” has outlived its moral shelf life. Bravo. The house is burning, bodies are scattered in the street, and the philosopher shows up with a garden hose . Zionism: Success Story or Crime Scene? Handelman-Smith argues that Zionism achieved its success : a Jewish state, a safe haven, a fortress against the ghosts of Europe’s crimes . But like every “ success story ” drenched in other people’s blood , it didn’t age well. What began as refuge turned into domination; what was called “ ...

Dockers of Conscience: Italy’s Brave Guardians of Gaza

  At a time when most governments avert their eyes , when institutions choose silence over principle, it is often the hands hardened by real work — the hands of dockworkers— that lift the banner of humanity. In Genoa , those hands belong to the members of the Unione Sindacale di Base (USB) and the dockworkers’ collective CALP ( Collettivo Autonomo Lavoratori Portuali ) . These are not new voices. For years they have stood where conscience demands —on the cold concrete of the docks , blocking ships laden with weapons destined for wars , refusing to let Italy’s ports be complicit in bloodshed. USB , born in 2010 out of grassroots struggles , has carried a proud history of international solidarity. Its members have consistently placed labor at the service of justice, from strikes against austerity to protests against militarism . CALP , forged in Genoa’s port , has a more direct history with Palestine: blocking Israeli-bound weapons , organizing boycotts, and declaring, time ...

Britain’s Recognition of Palestine: A Century of Complicity in Disguise.

So we’ve reached this moment: Keir Starmer’s UK “ recognises the State of Palestine. ” Applause lines up. Speeches made. Headlines dazzled. But behind the pomp, the guns, the exports, the intelligence, the training — history rings out in mocking laughter. Because Britain has been complicit since day one. This recognition is not redemption . It’s theatre. 1. The Original Sin: Balfour Declaration Let’s go back. Because if you don’t know your history, you’ll be fooled by the future. On 2 November 1917 , Arthur James Balfour (Britain’s Foreign Secretary) wrote to Lord Rothschild, and officially declared: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object , it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine , or the rights and political sta...