Pages

Showing posts with label Articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Articles. Show all posts

Who is to hold authority at home?

written by Amr Khaled

Love, clashes, rights, and duties; all are nouns to describe the first year of marriage. What is the role of the husband? What is the role of the wife? What are the rulings of marriage in the Islamic Law?

Those rulings that proved to fit all places, ages, and all the social systems. This is the core of the interview that Essam Ghazi made with Mr. Amr Khaled for Kol el-nas, Wednesday 24/9/2003 issue.

Here you are the details of the interview:

In the first year of marriage, clashes arise between couples due to the differences in cultures and environments. Clashes, normally, revolve around holding authority at home, while each of them is trying to gain more independence. Mr. Amr Khaled highlights the justice of Islam in dividing the rights between the husband and the wife. Only if each one knew his rights as well as the rights of his mate, clashes would come to an end and the first year of marriage would turn to an everlasting honeymoon. If you want to know what Mr. Amr Khaled said about this issue, continue reading.


The essence of the problem

I asked him, “Mr. Amr, tell us please about the husband's rights and the wife's rights that are required for a comfortable marital life.”

When talking about rights we have to talk about roles. Each one should know well his role. Problems often arise because each one does not know his role.

So, is the husband's role merely reduced to bread winning? And is the wife's role merely reduced to enjoying her time in clubs and going on trips, ignoring completely the demands of her family and her house?

Actually, the major problem faced by all families all over the world is defining the roles of both the husband and the wife. Normally, all the world social systems had different opinions about this.

For example, in Russia and Eastern Europe, communism saw that the most important of all is the society. Men and women are only the children-producers in it. They have no other role. The country is the one that raises those children instead of the parents. In this case, the country that raises, educates, and spends money has replaced the parents’ role. Consequently, those children will grow up having a great sense of belonging towards their country.

Don't forget that Israel, though a non-communist society, follows the same route in the Mushaf and the Kepots. The result of canceling the roles of the parents was the great and sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, or, you can say, the communist society as a whole.

Yet, the whole society was reformed when the parents' roles were back; that society which was once destroyed in 70 years because of canceling the parents' roles.

Another example is the western society; a materialistic one. There, the dollar or the Euro is the only thing that counts. Those who have no money are trampled underfoot. The first priority for parents is going to work, whereas bringing up their children in a warm family atmosphere comes secondly. Number one is work… work… work. Actually, I'm not against women's work, I'm just talking about priorities. The woman, there, started to work day and night. She started to replace man in everything. Thus, her femininity diminished.

The right priorities:

Women before Islam and at the beginning of the Islamic Age used to work, yet, they never lost their femininity and their families never dissolved. Why?

It's well known that women used to work and to join in jihad before Islam, after Islam, and at the beginning of the prophecy epoch. However, they never lost their femininity because their priorities were well arranged. The success of any woman depends, greatly, on how she arranges her priorities.

Unacceptable examples:

Consider the Western example. It recognizes the family in a greatly materialistic way. It considers it the second or the third priority (I live in the West and I witnessed this myself). As a result, a girl until the age of 16 is forbidden to have a boyfriend. She can only have a school colleague.

When she is 16, she can have a boyfriend, under the supervision of her family. At 18, she leaves her home and goes to enjoy her life with her boyfriend, but without having babies. This is the normal result of what her society has lodged deep inside her mind and soul; collect money and that's it. At the age of 35, her womanhood drives her to ask for being a respectable wife. She is harshly encountered with the answer, "No, we will live together as partners in the same house." She starts to share responsibilities with the man, and is allowed to bring children, yet, she is never allowed to ask for marriage.

What is the difference, then, between the above-mentioned relation and the legal marriage?

In the above-mentioned relation, the man, not willing to bear the responsibility, might kick her and her children out at any time. Consequently, the concept of the single-mother made its way into the Western societies. The single-mother is the woman, who used to share a house with a man, then she gave birth to children, and they all started to share the house with that stranger who is never related to them by any means. As a result, at the age of 45, she starts to suffer from depression and destruction. She can no longer play the role of a girlfriend, nor is she a mother, a grandmother, or even a wife. She has been moving in a blind alley and now she reached its end.

After considering the Communist and the Western examples, let's consider the Islamic one.

I need love, tenderness, and compassion:

In the Islamic example, the role of man is:
1.      bringing up children
2.      Bread-winning
3.      Showing compassion and tenderness towards the whole family members.

Whereas the woman's priorities are arranged as follows:

   1. Showing compassion and affection towards her husband and her children.
   2. Working, if she would like to.



So, the first duty on the woman's shoulders is showing tenderness and compassion towards her family members. What proves my words is the way Allah created Eve. In Arabic, Eve is called "Hawwa' ". The word "Hawwa' " is derived from the word "ehtewaa' ", an Arabic word that means "encompassment". She encompasses everything not only her husband and her children. That's really her main role. Moreover, Eve was created from Adam's rib. She was not created from dust like him. As if Allah (SWT) is telling Adam that Eve is part of him and so he must care for her. Notice, also, that Eve was created from the ribs of Adam, and as known, the role of the ribs is to protect the heart. Thus, woman is the heart-protector. Imam Ahmad narrates that while in paradise, Adam felt lonely. So, while he was sleeping, Allah created Eve from his ribs. Then, he woke up and saw her. He asked her, "Who are you?"  "A woman", said she. "What's your name?" he returned. "Eve", replied she. "Why were you created?" he asked again. "To be your home", she answered. Thus, she is the home of the world and the relief of the heart. Without her, the whole world turns to wars, destruction, agony, and grief. Try to compare the other examples to Islam and how it treats woman.

A misconception:

One of the most horrible scenes in our life is one where the woman is pictured as a piece of home-furniture. This is wholly untrue. I think we all know quite well Ahmad Shawqi's lines that go:

A mother is a grand school.
Upon whose foundations, you establish entire nations

As if Islam wants to tell the woman, "You are half of the society. You are the one who provides the other half with affection and compassion."  Concerning the anti-woman labor calls, they are never related to Islam. They are, perhaps, a reaction against those imitators of the West who have been recently calling for changing the woman's priorities and putting work at the beginning of her agenda. Keeping women away from work was never a feature of the community established by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) 14 centuries ago. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself agreed that ِAl-Sayeda Rufayda establishes a hospital where she can treat men and women. Moreover, Hassaan Ibn Thabet (RA), the Prophet's poet, praised the working woman in his poetry. Also, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) assigned some roles for women to play in wars, and when a woman told him that she works as a hairdresser for women, he welcomed her and told her that, by so doing, she is helping them to be more cherished by their husbands. Hence, we have the physician and the warrior. Al-Sayeda Aisha herself established a school for teaching men and women, many of whom became scholars later on. We also have many creative women poets. Thus, the main role of the Muslim woman is caring for her husband and children and working if she likes to, provided that she does not lose her femininity.

On the other hand, what is the role of the husband? Is it education then bread winning or bread winning then education?

The role of the husband is firstly, bringing up his children well and secondly, spending money on them. What would be the benefit of money if the son was brought up as a drug addict? The father is number one person in his home, so, where is your education and your compassion? Where are your gatherings with your children? Where is the care that you are supposed to wrap them up with?

The responsibility of the husband only:

A famous scene: the pregnant woman comes exhausted from work to find all kinds of problems waiting for her; house, children, cooking, cleaning, laundry…etc. On the other side of the scene is the husband lying in front of the TV after taking his shower. Some moments later, he goes to bed. Is this justice? This is, absolute injustice. I think that this stems from a major problem; namely, the unwillingness of many husbands to bear responsibilities in the way all men are supposed to do. They mistakenly think that the woman's main role is to clean, cook, and do the laundry. Actually, this is never the woman's status in Islam. Despite the responsibilities of being a Prophet and a leader of an entire nation, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used to milk the goat, to sew up his clothes, and to go to the market to do the shopping himself. This is the role of the man as depicted by the Prophet (PBUH). Al-Sayeda Aisha says, "The Prophet (PBUH) used to sit with us to talk and chat, yet, when he hears the Azan he appears as if he does not know us." What do you think they used to chat about? Only religion? Actually, no; they used to talk about the society, about poetry...etc. They even used to go out and hold competitions.

Is it the right of the husband to take his wife's salary every month?

Islam has completely separated the wife's wealth from that of her husband's. Thus, in Islam, women are free to do whatever they like with their money. Also, in Islam, women are called after their fathers, contrary to the West where they are called after their husbands.
Source : http://daraltarjama.com/
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Why “they” love to hate a young, educated Muslim?

By Shehzad Poonawalla,
It’s been 63 years since we became independent but how many more years it will take for us to become liberated is anyone’s guess. As vocal democrats and committed secular liberals, my family has been at the forefront of shunning those who speak the language of fundamentalism and violence, whatever be the hue of this hate-filled ideology- green or saffron. For us, those who instigate in the name of political Islam and those who uncork the poisonous vials of political Hindutva, represent the two sides of the same coin.
My brother Tehseen has been a prolific writer and an open supporter of better ties between India and Pakistan. In article after article, he has justified why we need to choose peace over war and how India’s true position in the comity of nations would be attained by eliminating visible poverty, which should be our most important constitutional commitment. Yet it seems that, a vocal section, those who have made nationalism and patriotism their sole privilege, would continue echoing an outdated line of how my brother is sympathetic to Pakistan (because he happens to be Muslim) and should be asked to leave India.


Translation:
"Mr. Shehzad Poonawalla. Jay Maharashtra
We have learnt through Facebook that you are going to celebrate Valentine's Day. V-Day is western culture. It is alien to Hindu Culture. Therefore, the Shiv Sena opposes it time and again.
Therefore, we ask you not to celebrate V-Day. Or else we will protest against this in the 'Shiv Sena' style.
This be noted.
Janu Akhade
Former Councillor (Pune Municipal Corporation)
Vadgaon Sheri Vidhansabha Matdar Sangh
Jayesh Pawar
Shiv Sena functionary/incharge, Yerwada, Pune"

And this is not the first time (and perhaps it won’t be the last time) that those who harbor this mindset will target us. Will they succeed in making us change our secular ways? Never! Today, this politics of targeting and branding is something every young, educated Muslim must be ready to contend with. Is it unfair? Surely it is. But can we get disappointed with our democracy and our country India for what a right winged good-for-nothing fringe element does? Certainly not.
Yes we will have instances of Shiv Sena writing threatening letters to us “warning us of Shiv Sena style action” if we screened the movie My Name is Khan or chose to do fund raisers for de-worming of slum children or even filing complaints against us as they did against my brother for proudly donning the Indian flagpin on his chest! Ironically, Bal Thakeray always kept accusing Indian Muslims of wearing the Pakistani flag on their sleeves so one wonders why his henchmen had a problem when a young Muslim chose the Indian Flag! But then I guess, the Shiv Sena is a reflection of this fringe element that cannot see India as a secular nation brimming with the Gandhian-Nehruvian Ganga-Jamuna Tehzeeb. What was even more disturbing was the fact that the Pune Police actually asked my brother to visit the Police station and “warned” him against wearing the flag as if he were a criminal! But we are in no hurry to let go off a right the Indian people have laid down their lives for. For over a century our forefathers, Tilak and Maulana Azad, fought against the British to raise the national flag and not a single piece of legislation, be it the Flag Code or any other set of rules and regulations, prohibits an Indian from wearing the flag pin with pride and respect. So why must my brother back down? Because the Shiv Sena threatens us to do so?
The targeting will continue be it as ridiculous as the “hatetehseen” group created on a popular social networking site Facebook to denounce my brother as an enemy of India or it may be more serious, as we have seen in Gujarat in 2002, where a systematic genocide of over 2000 people was sponsored by the State, with its chief minister “acting as a Modern Day Nero” as observed by the Supreme Court. The young educated Muslim will have to contend with a large number of biases and resultantly it shouldn’t be a surprise that a large proportion of undertrials/convicts languishing in jail happen to be Muslims which is perhaps much higher than the ratio of Muslims to the total population. However, the representation of Muslims is very low when it comes to government jobs, schemes and services, enrollment into universities, availability of health and sanitation facilities, access to political power or to loans from public sector banks (even though Muslims being a largely entrepreneurial community would need greater access to capital!)- which has been well documented by the Sachar Committee and Ranganath Misra Report. But none of this should end up scarring or making us feel victimized simply because this is not how the larger, secular majority in India behaves. One still believes that Indian Muslims are in a far better position than Muslims elsewhere and therefore it is incumbent upon each one of us and this silent, secular majority to defeat this narrow, parochial mindset based on cultural misrepresentations and hatred.





And there is reason why I believe that we can defeat these communal forces. It’s because we as a nation have chosen our constitution to have a secular mandate and agenda right from the very Preamble. It is because for every villain of Gujarat there are hundreds of heroes like Vir Rathod, Harsh Mandar and Teesta Setalvad who have helped in providing refuge, securing justice and are lobbying for laws like the Communal Violence Bill recently drafted by the National Advisory Council which will prevent the repetition of Gujarat 2002. And for every 30 odd people who chose to hate my brother Tehseen for his secular ways, there are over 5000 who chose to stand by him and support him.
Jai Hind!
(The author is law graduate from Pune’s Indian Law Society and political activist)
 Source : http://twocircles.net
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

When do we stop creating terrorists?

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of beardedmen. These bearded men I was writing about in those days in The New Yorker, actually did. They were very ferocious-looking bearded men with turbans looking like they came from another century. President Reagan received them in the White House. After receiving them he spoke to the press. He pointed towards them, I'm sure some of you will recall that moment, and said, "These are the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers". These were the Afghan Mujahiddin. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire. They were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers!

In August 1998, another American President ordered missile strikes from the American navy based in the Indian Ocean to kill Osama Bin Laden and his men in the camps in Afghanistan. I do not wish to embarrass you with the reminder that Mr. Bin Laden, whom fifteen American missiles were fired to hit in Afghanistan, was only a few years ago the moral equivalent of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson! He got angry over the fact that he has been demoted from 'Moral Equivalent' of your 'Founding Fathers'. So he is taking out his anger in different ways. I'll come back to that subject more seriously in a moment.

Click
HERE to read full article. 
by mail from IslamiCity Bulletin
reade more... Résuméabuiyad