Weed in our backyard - Abbas Segujja - E-Book

Weed in our backyard E-Book

Abbas Segujja

0,0

Beschreibung

"Be ware of European Islam!" This warning I have heard so many times during my stay in the East. But the authors of this warning ignore wittingly or unwittingly the fact that one of Islam’s secrets for survival through history has been its ability to adapt to the conditions of the different peoples and territories it reached. Uniform Islam does not exist; Muslims of Arabia understand it in a way that corresponds to their conditions and mentality, so do Muslims in Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, Sub-Saharan Africa, and so on. Accordingly, Muslims living in the Western hemisphere must have the same right to understand it according to their conditions. To me, that is the universality of Islam.

Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:

Android
iOS
von Legimi
zertifizierten E-Readern

Seitenzahl: 277

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:

Android
iOS
Bewertungen
0,0
0
0
0
0
0
Mehr Informationen
Mehr Informationen
Legimi prüft nicht, ob Rezensionen von Nutzern stammen, die den betreffenden Titel tatsächlich gekauft oder gelesen/gehört haben. Wir entfernen aber gefälschte Rezensionen.



Contents

INTRODUCTION

1:‘THE WOMAN CARD’

2: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM

3: THE BATTLE FOR THE MIND

4: SPIRITUAL ARROGANCE

5: FORCED CONFORMITY

6: REFORM EFFORTS

7: THE CONTEST FOR POWER

8: CO-EXISTENCE

CONCLUSION:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Acknowledgements

Thanks to my lovely wife and children for your understanding and support.

INTRODUCTION

“Not in the name of Islam”, “Not on my behalf”…etc. We are getting accustomed to hearing such statements from Muslim organisations as well as individuals, especially those living in the West. Recent and current acts of violence committed by some Muslims, locally or internationally, are forcing certain questions upon the followers of Islam as a whole. Their very faith and what it stands for is being questioned. The absolute hot topic that is presently discussed is the stand of Islam regarding peaceful co-existence with the ‘other’. Many are asserting that Islam is incompatible with that concept.

There is an understandable feeling among the majority of Muslims of being unjustly treated in this regard; firstly by not separating a faith as such from the conduct of its followers and secondly by judging the whole Muslim People by what a tiny minority among them is doing.

The above statements, in quotations, are attempts on the part of those who feel the necessity of both distancing themselves from those acts and of affirming the real position of their faith on matters that are contested. As the following pages will show, I also prescribe to those statements; hence the title of this work.

I believe that Islam, like all other faiths, must not be held responsible for the misconduct of those who claim to be its followers. And I share the concern with the majority of Muslims whose moderate belief and conduct is being hijacked by the grand public shows of the extremists among them. It is through these spectacular actions that they try to silence the moderate understanding of Islam or religion as such and to gradually establish a firm control over the masses. This desire for controlling others manifests itself in many ways, some direct others not so, as the following discussions will reveal.

But most importantly, I believe that Muslims and only Muslims have the responsibility and duty to clean up, so to say, their own house. Because of deliberate and indeliberate distortions, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, their ideals and practices have for ages been growing apart to the extent of nonrecognition.

The conduct or rather misconduct that is based on these distortions is unfortunately becoming a cancer in the ‘body’ of the Muslim people as the discussions below will show. The loss of balance in understanding as well as practicing the teachings of Islam is not confined to one issue, religion and politics; it rather includes all matters of Muslim concern. Hence, the topics of discussion in this book are only a ‘starter’. They are essays I have written at different occasions and can be read separately from each other.

The status of woman in Muslim societies is increasingly pressing for clarifications. Her situation and its implications are given priority in this work, and discussed in chapter one. The second chapter deals with the issue of confusing religion with politics, a dangerous cocktail, which has begotten its natural outcome namely, extremism. Suppression of reason, another manifestation of extremism is discussed along with its historical background in chapter three. By claiming exclusive right to truth, many so-called believers of all faiths have monopolised God; only their respective faith is true. Muslims’ share in this distortion of the concept of God is discussed in chapter four. Is it true that once you choose to be a Muslim, you have ‘cast your last card’ as far as your freedom of faith is concerned? This thorny matter is dealt with in chapter five. Chapter six and seven are intended to give the reader a broad contemporary religious, political and popular background of the current radicalisation waves in the Middle East and elsewhere. And lastly the possibility of Muslims and non-Muslims living side by side in peace is taken up in chapter eight. This chapter appeared earlier in my previous work ‘Making sense of Islamic law’. I have made a few changes to it. And added two new topics namely, Muslims in Diaspora and the misconceived concept of ‘Jihad’.

The point of departure for the discussions ahead is the assumption that different Muslim cultures through history have done much damage to the teachings and ideals of Islam. The problem is, however, that the very practices that I, and the majority of Muslims, may call wrong and not Islamic can be fully justified and recommended by others, due to their interpretation of the same faith, we share. But Islam and Muslims are not alone in this; followers of other faiths or ideologies are also known to hold divergent, or even contradictory, opinions. The Purpose of this work is not to unite these opinions. That will be a futile pursuit. For, difference of opinions is natural. It is even desirable, as long as it does not discard reason. This work aims rather at exposing those cultural deviations so that the ideals of Islam can be manifest.

Hopefully, this will help in re-establishment of the badly-needed principle of moderation and balance, in Muslim conduct, which according to Qur’aan 2:143 should be their defining characteristic.

1:‘THE WOMAN CARD’

“I am not against Islam. It is part of my identity, but it is also time that educated women read the Koran for themselves and make their own interpretations of it, not live with the misinterpretations of Islam that go against their rights, which is happening so much now”.

Risha, Jordanian woman, in Price of Honour.

Nothing could summarise better the narrations you are about to read in the following pages.

In society:

Muslims have two ways of looking at their religious teachings; you can directly go to the scriptures and form your own understanding of them, which is also what the Qur’aan recommends, or you can make use of the scholars’ understanding and interpreting of the particular teaching, you are interested in. Both ways are valid but the latter, more oft, tends to reflect the spirit of the respective scholars’ time and place. This observation is important to keep in mind especially when exploring our subject matter, women in Islam.

Now, the status of women that we get directly from the Qur’aan is quite different from that, which our scholars present to us. While the former tales us that man and woman originated from the same biological entity, the latter takes the Judeo-Christian line, which says that woman came from man. The end result of the whole ‘creation story’ from that angle is that we are what we are today because woman did something unforgivable in our distant past, she disobeyed God’s orders. Hence Woman cannot be trusted. (Abbas Segujja p. 130-145). And it is here, where I believe the maltreatment of women and all restrictions imposed on her especially in societies with roots in the Abrahamic tradition, that is to say Judaism, Christianity and Islam, can be traced to. For, if woman cannot be trusted then she must be controlled, so goes the ‘logic’.

Today, some Muslim states, communities, organisations as well as individuals are increasingly playing this ‘woman card’; our women are not Muslims enough, and that is why we are where we are, it is often argued.

Following are some of the practical manifestations of this notion:

“Saudi female student dies after male ambulance crew denied access”. This is a headline of an article that appeared on the news site, gulfnews.com, on February 08 2014. What happened? Let us read further.

“Amna Bawazeer, a Master’s student at the college of Social Studies at King Saud University in the capital Riyadh, suffered the heart attack at 11 am at the women’s college where she was finalising her course timetable for the second semester. However, when the ambulance arrived, the medics were not allowed to enter the college for two hours. The University officials argued that the ambulance staff were males and could not enter the premises as the students were not covered…” In conclusion, the article provides us with yet some shocking news: “In 2002, 15 schoolgirls died in a fire in Makkah after… religious police stopped them from leaving a burning building because they were not properly dressed.”

Obviously the existence or non-existence of a piece of cloth on a woman’s body is more important than her own existence. Is this, dogmatic adherence to the ‘rules and regulations’ of one’s belief, what is required of a Muslim? Or is it that something bigger than just a dress is at play her? I, for one, would believe that this is about men’s wish to make it undoubtedly clear to women that it is men that have total control over women; a demonstration of power; ‘this is a man’s world’, so to say. Otherwise, why were alternative measures that could have saved lives not in place? Because alternative measures would mean putting women in charge of their lives, and that is not acceptable.

Shocking inhumane stories and atrocities like these are unfortunately not rare especially in Muslim communities or countries that brand themselves as Islamic or, even further, as upholders of the ‘true Islam’. Let me mention but a few, just to refresh the readers mind:

ASF is an organisation you probably have not heard of before but surely you have heard of the acid victims in Pakistan and elsewhere around the world. This is a crime committed by men against women for all sorts of reasons, regardless of their age. Acid is thrown in someone’s face, leaving the victim burned, maimed and disfigured, if she survives, that is. In 2012, at least 150 such cases were reported in that country but many more are never reported, and thus do not appear in statistics because victims are pressured by their communities to keep quiet. (www.asidsurvivorspakistan.org). ASF (Acid Survivors Foundation) is the organisation that is trying to address this ever-growing phenomenon in Pakistan and render help to the victims.

We have also all heard about the shooting of a young girl, now Nobel Price winner, Malal Yousafzai by the Taliban in Pakistan for no other reason but because she is a girl, who went to school.

The above incidents could rightly be dismissed as individual and isolated; they do not represent the official position regarding women. I say okay, so let us look at the practices carried out by those who are supposed to protect and defend human rights, and sanctioned by ‘law’.

Zina is a qur’aanic term denoting mutually consented sex outside of wedlock, which is not permissible in Islam. Among the different opinions regarding the penalty for zina, Pakistan lawmakers chose the one that stipulates stoning to death if the person is married, and up to thirty lashes and ten years’ imprisonment for non-married persons. Oddly, rape is also dealt with under this law and it is termed zina biljabr (Rahat Imran p. 87). That term will roughly translate as zina by force. But how can an act be mutually consented and forced at the same time. For, this is exactly what this ‘law’ says. One cannot help but speculate about the reason behind this. Was this purposely stipulated to trap/control women? I say so because according to the Qur’aan, one cannot be accused of committing zina without proof of four witnesses who can confirm the actual sex act. Now, Pakistani lawmakers require the same condition fulfilled in the case of rape. Otherwise, the case will be treated as zina. What this means is that a raped woman must produce four witnesses to prove her case if she is to avoid being accused of zina, thus criminalizing the victim. No wonder very few women will dare report a rape, and not surprisingly, rape is on increase; those sick men have learned that they can never be brought to justice. The ‘law’ is on their side. As one writer puts it, “The Zina Hudood Ordinance in particular is an issue for feminist enquiry in Pakistan as it concerns women’s legal status and rights as citizens of that country. The Islamic legal framework within which this law has been protectively placed, is blatantly gender-discriminatory in nature, and has the potential to condone and legitimise male violence against women when combined with the Law of Evidence, which becomes mandatory for the purpose of bearing witness and testifying in court.” (ibid).

This so-called law was introduced in 1979, and it is still standing as of today. Apparently, both religious and political establishments see no wrong with it, despite calls from human rights organisations within and without the country to abandon it.

In neighbouring Afghanistan, one of the worst places in the world for women, the situation is even worse. Women there have resorted to suicide and self-emulation as the only way out of the misery imposed on them by their men folk. According to a report made by ‘Womankind Worldwide’, an international NGO, regarding the factors that contribute to the increase of suicides among Afghan women, four factors were observed: One, 60-80 percent of marriages in Afghanistan is forced. Two, more than half of Afghan women are married before they turn 16 to men who are much older. Three, the exchange of women and girls to resolve a crime, debt or household dispute is common in Afghanistan. And four, in most of such marriages violence is common practice. (www.rawa.org).

Among the things the term “Moral Crime” donates in Afghanistan’s so-called Family Law, is running away from an abusive husband. Women, who have no legal protection whatsoever against violent family members, are criminalized when they resort to the only remedy they have to save their lives. It is estimated that up to 70% of all women prisoners in that country have been imprisoned for running away from their families, and nearly all had been subjected to forced marriages or domestic violence. (Family Law in Afghanistan, www.cw4wafghan.ca) The risks these women take are enormous; the ‘legal’ system deprives them custody of their children, if they have any. And they risk their lives, if caught or return home, for disgracing their families. Here honour killing comes into play; it is death or more violence that awaits a run-away woman who decides to return home. Little wonder most of them prefer to stay in prison.

In a declaration issued by the Afgahan Ulema, Islamic Scholars, Council, made up of only men, it is stated among other things that: women are secondary to men, women should not mingle with men in public places, women should observe full Islamic dress, women should respect polygamy and Sharia divorce laws… The president of that country endorsed the declaration. (ibid.)

This is a recurring pattern in many Muslim communities. These provisions, many of which have no Qur’aanic basis, could go unchallenged only because of the grip the ‘religious’ establishment have on people. They have monopolised religious knowledge, and thus can say almost what they want without fear of being opposed or challenged.

On the western borders of both Pakistan and Afghanistan lays another pseudo Islamic country, Iran, a country reputed for its public flogging, hanging, stoning and executions of both men and women for a variety of ‘crimes’. For the purpose of this essay, only women’s plight will be highlighted here.

Iran’s 1967 Family Protection Law, which was in place before the so-called Islamic Revolution, introduced some reforms as far as women were concerned. It, for example, restricted polygamous practices, required court intervention, in divorce cases and raised the minimum age of marriage. All these were reversed immediately after the Revolution.

Today, Iran, like its neighbours, is notorious for tolerating, if not encouraging, child marriages despite its Civil Code, which states otherwise. Article 1041 of that Code leaves it to the guardian’s permission for marriages under 13 and 15 years for girls and boys respectively. (justice4iran.org). Here like anywhere else, lawmakers make concessions to the customary or local practices, knowing very well their bias nature against women. In 2012, 1,537 marriages were registered for girls below the age of 10 and 29,827 for girls between the age of 10 and 14. (ibid). It should be noted that these are the official figures; unregistered marriages can well be far beyond those figures.

An organisation that investigates and documents capital punishment around the globe has a report on women execution in Iran. One inescapable observation from that report is that most of women whom Iranian courts have sentenced to death in recent years are either convicted of murdering their husbands or of committing the so-called moral crimes. www.capitalpunismentuk.org/iranfem.html).

To me, the explanation for the above observation is quite obvious. The trauma of being married off as a child, coupled with denial of basic rights, and then subjection to constant abuse and violence, will surely have negative effect on the person concerned. Not so long ago, headlines went around the world about “Iran’s child bride” Maryam Razieh Ebrahimi who was forced to marry at 14, became mother at 15, and killed her husband at 17, now sitting in jail, awaiting execution.

In lawless Somalia the system of women subjugation works like this: “In most instances, if it is a case of rape, the rapist’s sentence is to marry his victim or compensate male family members of the victim. That the country is today effectively divided between two different groups does not really mean anything, as far as the women situation is concerned. It does not matter under whose control one is; that of the federal government or of the rebels, Alshabaab. As a woman, you have absolutely no rights or protection; the lawlessness which is totally created by men has reduced women to nothing. Women are mere pawns in the power game, orchestrated by men. Violence against women, in form of rape, abduction of young girls that are forced into marriage with, or to work for the, fighters, has become a means by which the two warring sides affirm their standpoints towards each other.

One cannot be neutral enough in Somalia. A certain woman had to loose her life on the hand of the rebel group, Alshabab, because she refused to give up her job as tea seller at a place where her main customers were from central government fighters. (ibid)

In the Sudanese, people have lived with ‘Islamic inspired’ government for quite a long time now. Do women fare better? I do not think so. The recent ‘Islamic court rule’ that sentenced a pregnant woman to death (overturned only after international pressure) because she got married to a Christian man is reminiscent of the so-called Islamic regimes’ understanding or lack of understanding of, let alone respecting, human rights. And if one can go that far, other human rights abuses, which do not draw immediate international attention, will be easy to commit.

And what about the recent abduction of over 200 schoolgirls and God only knows what they are subjected to, by that misguided and disoriented group, Boko Haram in Nigeria. Their atrocities, especially against women, are continuing unabated despite local as well as international cries.

I am very well aware that the examples enumerated above are not a prerogative of the respective countries or of Muslims as such. Human rights are abused in one form or another all over the entire world. But what is special about the above examples is that they come from places that are the most creative when it comes to covering a woman’s body, which is done for her own protection, they say. Yet these inhumane treatments of women occur, and occur with impunity. The cruel atrocities we have seen are committed in the name of ‘religion’, and religion, as presented by men in those communities, is not questionable. According to that projection, religion gives man an upper hand over woman; he is her guardian in all spheres. And as such, it is unthinkable in those communities for a woman, no matter her age, to be responsible for her own affairs. She is always obliged to seek and produce her male relative’s (farther, brother, husband or son…etc) consent and permission whenever she ventures with the outside world, a perpetual minor, one will say. She cannot travel, or get an education, or work, or even get treated for any ailment without the permission of her guardian. All this is done in the name of religion. It is this minor status which man has allotted woman that brings about the following story.

Let us drive, so to say, back to Saudi Arabia and see what men’s interpretation of religion does to women. In that country, a woman is not allowed to drive. The very possibility that she will be free from her guardian and have, perhaps the chance, to mingle with the opposite sex is deemed by men as ‘religiously’ improper. But they would not mind letting her sit in a car for hours with a man-driver that is completely foreign to her!

This custom, which has no religious basis whatsoever, had been practiced in that country for ages, and women endured it in silence, until they decided to challenge it. In 1999, forty-seven women, mainly academics, in the capital Riyadh, gathered at a parking lot, dismissed their drivers and then drove a convoy of fifteen cars through the city. Of course, they did not reach very far before they were all arrested. (Jan Goodwin, p. 211-212). The Saudi men-dominated society was caught off-guard. The tight control ring, they had maintained over their women for so long was being pulled off under their own eyes. The whole country went into sort of state of emergency. The women were called all sorts of names, ranging from whores to communists. At the directions of the king, a commission was formed to look into the matter. But the women had broken no law. For, there existed no law before prohibiting women from driving. It was just a custom. And that was exactly what the commission inevitably concluded. The highest-ranking clergy in the country at that time, Ibn Baz, was outraged. In an effort to turn the clock, he immediately issued a ‘religious’ decree, fatwa, condemning the concerned women and prohibiting women, in general, to drive. He termed the women “portents of evil”, in order to religiously justify his fatwa. The king was caught between two opposing interests; should he appease the ‘religious’ establishment and their twisted understanding of Islam or should he follow the commission’s findings and clear the women of their accusations? The king treaded carefully. On one side, he was kin to clean the tainted image of his country, but on other, the ‘religious’ establishment was too strong to upset. The result was a stalemate. He did not condemn the women, he in fact announced some reforms to be initiated later, but he neither overruled the fatwa, thus maintaining the status quo; most of the demonstrating women lost their jobs as a result, and the fatwa is still standing to this day. Obviously, one commits no crime for an act that the law does not consider as such at the time, which is in total agreement with Qur’aanic principles expressed in 17:15, 28:59 and many others.

The dress code:

In May 2005, Kuwaiti women were granted full political rights, that is to say, the right to elect and to be elected. Four years later, they exercised that right with full enthusiasm, and four women were elected to parliament. The electoral law, though, inserted a condition, after pressure from ‘religious’ circles, stating that: “A condition for women to vote and be elected is to abide by the rules and terms of Sharia Law”.

But why all of a sudden one felt the need to emphasise this, seemingly, obvious condition. Was it just a co-incidence? No, it was not. But why was it not imposed on men before and after women were allowed to vote? Are men not supposed to abide by the Sharia? This so-called law was designed to be a control mechanism; women must be controlled, as mentioned above. As it happened, it did not take long, and those ‘religious’ men were in full swing again. Now they had a tool they could use. Two of the newly elected women parliamentarians should be prevented from taking their seats, it was stated. Why, because they did not wear ‘Islamic’ dress. Fortunately, the court dismissed their complaint. Obviously, the grant of electoral rights, on the part of these ‘religious’ men was not genuine. It was only meant to be yet another barrier that would exclude women from political activities.

I do not know on what grounds the court dismissed their complaint but I would like here to draw the reader’s attention to a fundamental principle in Islam without which any discussion about this subject and many similar others will be meaningless. One would expect that those who have made it their mission duty to make others/the whole world comply with the Sharia are at least aware of this principle. But alas! “People do not read about Sharia”. As one Islamic bookstore owner in Copenhagen once said to me, when I asked him if he would sale my newly published book on the subject.

What does it mean when the Qur’aan says that; “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith…”? 2: 256. “And say: “This is the truth from your Lord: let, then, him who wills believe in it, and let him who wills reject it.” 18: 29. (The discussion on freedom of belief comes later on in this book).

If the so-called Islamic dress is a matter of faith as its exponents claim, then the method we have seen above cannot be termed Islamic. It is coercion, pure and simple. People must have the freedom to take or reject any given teaching of the Qur’aan without fear of reprisal from anybody.

But let us put this overshadowing issue of woman’s dress into perspective. By trial and error human beings have through history found ways to cover their bodies with devices dictated only by man’s imagination, creativity and the geographical factors on the ground. But different societies have turned this natural development into strict practices with hierarchical dimensions intended to restrict and control movements and self-expression of certain segments of their societies. It is here that religion came into play. From his self-declared position as judge and jury in regard to understanding and interpreting God’s Word, man has always decided for woman what was and what was not good or right for her. This role of his has increased or decreased in significance according to time and place.

Among the control mechanisms, which Muslim men have invented, in this regard, is a woman’s dress. Unlike other consents and permissions, written or verbal, which a guardian may have to issue from time to time, the subject of what a woman should put on presents its self on a daily basis, and thus requiring a more or less permanent solution.

In her book, mentioned above, Jan Goodwin tells a story of two women from two completely different backgrounds but who seem to agree on the necessity of the most austere dress code, they have adopted.

Hind a native Kuwaiti, describes her family as religious, she has been completely covered from the time she was very young. Educated at both Kuwaiti and American universities, she once worked as an English schoolteacher but gave the job up due to her religious convictions. She dedicated her life instead to taking care of her family and teaching Islam to new Muslims. Hind justifies her dress code, which includes total covering of the body except the eyes, in addition to black gloves and stockings, as follows:

“ Islamic dress is designed to make women look unattractive. That is why it is black. It is why I cover my hands; they are part of my body. Allah likes beauty in its correct place. You do not take flowers into a bathroom. Therefore, a woman’s beauty should be seen only at home by her husband.” She continues: “A Western woman has to go out her self, do everything by herself. This is not freedom. Freedom is to be safe. I do not want eyes following me as I walk.” She goes on to talk about how a Muslim woman is supposed to behave in public and then concludes: “My voice should not be heard by a man who is not my relative.” (Jan Goodwin, p.187).

The last statement makes one wonder how this woman came through the education system both at home and abroad. Does one sense here, like I do, an attempt to impose a certain culture on the whole Muslim people? Not surprisingly, all her students wore the same dress like her. Her analysis of the Western woman does not concern me much here but I can recognise the rhetoric from Sayyid Qutb’s writings, on which almost all Muslims’ critique of Western society, from 1970s up has depended, and still does.

My trouble is, however, with her description of her ‘Islamic dress’ and its function. That a Muslim woman’s dress should be black and that it should make her look ugly, I find untenable. Firstly, these descriptions are neither warranted by the Qur’aan nor the teachings of the Prophet, Sunnah. By this logic, men who in her society go in white would look attractive but attractive to whom, one would ask. This is a good example that many things that are presented as Islamic are in fact not; they are just local cultures that have proven hard for genuine Islamic ideals to penetrate. If an educated woman like this can make such confusion, what about lay people? Secondly, there is no colour that is by nature not attractive; it all depends on the setting, and the beholder. One can look beautiful in black as well as in other colours.

Thirdly, and here I can only talk for myself, I find absolutely nothing un-Islamic in that a woman of my life is presentable both to me and to the outside world. And finally, I think it is inconsiderate of one to look at Muslim women issues only in relation to the Western woman, whose societies one criticises, anyway. Why not turn the attention to the East, instead? What about the safety of all Muslim women in the examples we have seen above? Those women, who, despite abiding by the so-called ‘Islamic dress code’, are still insecure within their homes as well as outside?

Dresses do not give safety. It is the people, the communities, concerned that can do so, if they have the right attitude towards each other, that is. Until that happens, the safety that is based on the way one dresses will be a false one indeed.

Among Hind’s new Muslim students there was Debbie, an American, married to a native Kuwaiti. According to Jan, she was also totally covered in black, with only the eyes left. She said giving examples about how her new religion had changed her life:”For example, she said: “if I want to know how late a woman can stay out, the Koran tells. It says whose permission I need when I want to go out. And it tells me at what age I should discipline my child, or when youngsters should learn how to pray. The Koran even tells me how many miles a woman can travel from home without a mahram, a male relative chaperon. It is fortyfive miles. Whatever I need about everyday life, it is there, as straightforward as a cookbook.” (ibid).

Needless to say that none of the above examples is to be found in the Qur’aan. It will, though, be unfair to blame this innocent new Muslim for not knowing what stands in the Qur’aan when her own teacher does not know what is Qur’aanic teaching and what is not. She was just faithfully repeating what was presented to her.

The notion that the Qur’aan has all the answers, a notion so central to political Islam today, is a misplaced one. It, in effect, deprives man, a Muslim for this matter, the God-given capacity to think. (Abbas Segujja p.75-109). What kind of person that have the need to consult revelation, so to say, to know the appropriate time to end his/her social engagement, and so on? Even cookbooks leave room for creativity and improvisation.

As the statements above show, some of those who talk about the ‘Islamic dress’, do not know what the primary sources say about it? I think, therefore, that refreshment would be at its place.

There are three verses in the whole Qur’aan that deal with a Muslim woman’s dress; one in chapter 33 and two in chapter 24, which chronologically, was revealed later.