worldmuslimpedia.com

0

The Love of the Companions for Prophet Muhammad: Who were the Companions? Muslim-Dalit Unity: Dalits need to think beyond Ambedkar Corporate-Media-Government Nexus using Intolerance to hide Corporatisation Radical West much more dangerous than Radical Islam Let’s rename Ashoka Road after V P Singh, the great champion of equality, honesty and secularism! Why Hardik Patel Has Turned On Modi Stop Female Foeticide to arrest Hindu Population Decline Isra and Miraj: The Miraculous Night Journey Terrorism, Appeasement and Loyalty: Rejoinder to Former IB Official It's High Time Muslims and Dalits united against injustice State must not organize religious festivals “Are You Hindu First or Indian First?” Corporates overrule Hindutva Government in Pornographic Row A RATIONALE APPROACH TO AFFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF GOD The end of capitalism has begun Egalitarianism and Idealism in the New Economic Order Yes to Religion, No to Communalism All forms of violence need Zero Tolerance, not just a specific kind of Terror APJ Abdul Kalam: Unparalleled Genius and Spiritual Technocrat Evidence of Muhammad's Prophethood Hang Rajiv Gandhi Killers before hanging Yakub Memon! Interest (Riba): A Blessing or Nuisance to Humanity? Phaansi ke Waaste phir kya maiN hi rah gaya huN? Spiritual and Moral System Salaah (Prayer) and its translations Guidlines Concerning Criminal Matters LAWS RELATED TO CIVIL MATTERS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Fundamental Prohibitions With gay marriages legal in all states, “Sexual Revolution” is complete in America
News / Article

Corporate-Media-Government Nexus using Intolerance to hide Corporatisation

Reference : Dr Javed Jamil

 
 
The debate on Religious Intolerance in India is not just what it appears on the surface. It is not without reason that everyday almost unfailingly by the time the afternoon arrives in India, media discovers a statement of one leader or the other, related to Hindu-Muslim question, and then till late at night, one channel after the other keeps debating it. And if a statement from any prominent Muslim happens to come, it takes the media by rage. Interestingly, Amirs and Shahrukhs are criticised for their talk of intolerance, and the rabid reactions that follow prove by themselves how intolerant the country has become. Otherwise, what would explain such reactions, which are not as sharp when even harsher statements about intolerance are made by Hindu personalities?
 
What however is being ignored in the midst of the whole debate is the fact that corporate, government and the media are working in tandem to keep the nation’s attention focussed on communal intolerance while the corporatisation agenda is in full swing. The Government announced big FDI measures last month, and there was silence all around. Congress may very well be on the side of the Government on the issues. The same may be the case of other political parties. But what about Leftists? They have already made a historical blunder in the late 1980s and 1990s when the privatisation was introduced in India under the cover of Ayodhya-Babri movement. Instead of countering the rapid privatisation they got busy in countering the communal agenda.
Every single step that the BJP government is taking on the economic front is aimed at helping the corporate. While some of the “reforms” may also be good for the masses, which should be supported, most of the so-called reforms are nothing but licenses to the corporate to monopolise wealth.
The key areas which are being described as “reforms” by the industry -- remembering that “reforms” almost always means the ways by which big industrial giants can monopolise the wealth of the country - are: FDI in Insurance; Land Purchase RulesLabour ReformsGoods And Service TaxAsset SalesSubsidy ReformsCoal (plans to allow commercial coal mining for the first time, and to invite in foreign miners); sale of Mobile, Radio Spectrum and many more.

The tile of a report, “Govt goes on reforms overdrive; okays FDI in 15 sectors” itself suggests how keen the Government is to embark upon its “reform” agenda, most of which will of course be against the interests of the masses. It says:
 
 
“The Central government on the eve of Diwali went on a reforms overdrive and announced foreign direct investment (FDI) and liberalisation in 15 sectors. .. i. Limited liability partnerships, downstream investment and approval conditions. ii. Investment by companies owned and controlled by non-resident Indians (NRIs) iii. Establishment and transfer of ownership and control of Indian companies iv. Agriculture and animal husbandry v. plantation vi. mining and mineral separation of titanium bearing minerals and ores, its value addition and integrated activities vii. Defence viii. Broadcasting sector ix. Civil aviation x. Increase of sectoral cap xi. Construction development sector xii. Cash and carry wholesale trading / wholesale trading (including sourcing from MSEs) xiii. Single brand retail trading and duty-free shops xiv. Banking-private sector; and xv. Manufacturing sector The development comes ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the United Kingdom (UK). The government has also proposed to increase FIPB limit to Rs 5,000 crore from current Rs 3,000 crore. Sources in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) further said minimum area and investment conditions in construction have been removed and each FDI-funded real estate project will be separate. The government has also decided to permit FDI in completed projects. …Sources also said foreign direct investors (FDI) can now invest up to 49 percent in defence and 100 percent in non-news channels through the auto route. 49 percent FDI has also been allowed in broadcast through the FIPB route. Sources also added that full fungibility of FDI has also been allowed for private banks. Additionally, foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) can invest up to 74 percent in private banking and 49 percent in defence. The DIPP has also been advised to consolidate all FDI-related instructions contained in various notifications and press notes and prepare a booklet so that the investors don't have to refer to several documents of different timeframes, the release said. As far as single-brand retail is concerned, DIPP sources said 30 percent of the sourcing will be considered only from the date of first store. However, the sourcing clause has been dropped with FIPB nod for state of art and cutting edge tech, sources said. DIPP sources also said the same entity can now carry out business in wholesale and single-brand retail. Also, in a major fillip to the e-commerce sector, the government has given the go-ahead to these companies to do e-commerce retail, sources added.”
 
The problem is that while the wealthy is being allowed to multiply their wealth, the masses continue to suffer. Instead of increasing tax on wealth and reducing tax on consumption, which will decrease the economic inequality, exactly opposite is being done. Whatever wealth tax was there earlier, it has been got way with by the BJP, and there are now preparations on to reduce the corporate tax also. GST bill, especially with the kind of the interest rates that are being pushed, will further increase the prices of all commodities.  The net result is that people have not only to buy products giving huge profits to the companies; they have also to pay to the government for the same. The result is that a product which should have been available to the people for not more than Rs 10 is available for at least Rs 50. The disparity in the country will not decrease unless the process is reversed. We have to evolve a tax policy where people are made to pay more tax on the wealth amassed than for procuring consumer items.
Rahul Gandhi is doing good to keep the focus on socioeconomic issues. Responding too much to the communal card of Hindutva will only help their cause. If instead, there is more focus on economic issues, the communal agenda will fail to divide the people. The game plan of the corporate-media-Government nexus has to be exposed if the intolerance is to be defeated. The way to it is not through a quid-pro-quid approach on communalism but a counterattack on economic intolerance of the nexus.
 
 
 
Dialogue between DC Nath and Dr Javed Jamil
Click  http://www.worldmuslimpedia.com/news/details/144  for the second part.
 
 
         Dr Javed Jamil is India based thinker and writer with over a dozen books including his latest, “Qur’anic Paradigms of Sciences & Society” (First Vol: Health), “Muslims Most Civilised, Yet Not Enough” and “Muslim Vision of Secular India: Destination & Road-map”. Other works include “The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism”, “The Essence of the Divine Verses”, “The Killer Sex”, “Islam means Peace” and “Rediscovering the Universe”. Read more about him at http://www.worldmuslimpedia.com/dr-javed-jamil. Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/javedjamil2015. He can be contacted atdoctorforu123@yahoo.com or 91-8130340339.
 
 
 

 

more by Dr Javed Jamil

 

Biographies

 

 
 
 
In the Name of God, Kind-Merciful, the Only One worthy of Worship, every other entity, animate or inanimate, great or holy, being His humble servant
 
This is in continuation of answer to your question:
Why are you against the introduction of the Common Civil Code? Does this go against any norm of Islamic theology?
 
Why Islamic Laws best on family matters
New World Order’s crimes against womanhood
                New World Order’s crimes against womanhood are numerous and massive:
1. In order to make use of them for the benefit of the market, they were ravished from homes and their safe environs;
2. To help the market, like all human beings, women too were treated as commercial beings rather than human beings;
3. In order to earn business through them, only their work in the market was recognized; their work at home was demeaned, in fact totally devalued;
4. In order to keep their fragrance fresh for the sake of the people, their natural biological functions were brutally assaulted;
5. They were made party to their own misuse in the market through popularization of the most life-threatening and destructive concept of “freedom”;
6. Conditions were created in the market that resulted in violence against women, rape being the most devastating;
7. They were made party to the destruction of their own blood through abortion;
8. They were exhorted to dress or undress for the benefit of as many males as possible;
9. Their physical services were sold in the open market;
10. They were forced to pass majority of their time without the company of their children;
11. From spouses with rights, they were turned partners without rights;
12. In order to make them vulnerable to market pressures, they were made addicts of alcohol, smoking and gambling;
13. They were made receptionists, models, airhostesses, service girls, actresses, cabaret dancers, call girls, sex workers and massage girls in as many (maybe greater) numbers than scientists, politicians, teachers and other respectable professionals.
 
It is clear that the modern approach towards family is based on the two economic theories of the current world: Westernism (Capitalism) and Communism. Both these ideologies have nothing to do with religious morality and are enemies of family system. The difference between the Islamic and Modern approach can be described as under
 
1.    In modernism, family issues are dealt in a way so as to benefit the modern economic model with market as the pivot; in Islam family issues are dealt in accordance with the biological, health and social consideration of all the members of family and society.
2.    In modern society, family is considered an enemy because a healthy family system is an impediment in the growth of several markets: sex market, fashion market, hoteling, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc. In Islam family is the pivot of social peace; and family is considered a citadel which protects men and women against unhealthy sexual practices and exploitation, protects women against the burden associated with her biological functions, and protects children against, neglect and abuse, providing them the most harmonious atmosphere for growth. It also provides huge protection against a variety of diseases;
3.    In the modern world a woman can become a prostitute, an unmarried sex partner, an unwed mother, a single parent; in Islam there is protection against all of these;
4.    In Islam rights of men and women are based on their biological roles and social responsibilities towards each other and towards children; in modernism, they are given rights in accordance with the demands of the market;
5.    Modern systems allow premarital relationships but ban legal marriage before a specified age, which is several years greater than the biological age of adulthood; in Islam, there is no scope for premarital sex; but men and women are allowed marriage after they attain biological adulthood, though mental and financial maturity are preferable. Children born out of such relations are aborted in majority of cases, and when they are born, they have to grow in the company of only a single parent. They suffer huge psychological pressures and their legal rights over fathers are hardly realised.
6.    Modern systems allow promiscuity with no legal ban whatsoever on men and women having multiple partners; but there is total ban on polygamy. In Islam, there is absolutely no room for promiscuity or any relationship outside a legal marriage, but allows restricted polygamy with women enjoying full medical, legal and social rights. Children are of course safe and secure with each one enjoying all social and legal rights over their parents.
7.    In modernism, in the name of financial liberty and freedom, women are being overburdened with work where they have to work making serious comprises with their family life, children being the greatest sufferers. In Islam, while women have the freedom to earn if they so wish, the responsibility of maintaining them and their children is of their husbands. As the role of husbands in reproduction is limited to a few minutes of sexual contact and the women have to bear the responsibility of keeping children in their wombs, then delivering, breastfeeding and nurturing, they have been exempted from the responsibility of earning. But there is absolutely no ban on them if they want to earn within the parameters of Islam. The rights of men and women in inheritance are also proportional to their financial responsibilities.
 
Rights of women in Islam
           
There are certain basic criteria in Islam for granting rights to and enforcing duties on men and women. First, Islam recognizes the natural capabilities and weaknesses of men and women; and designs its laws in accordance with them.  Second, Islam would not tolerate any form of exploitation. Third, it aims to form a society without sexual crimes, sexual abuses and illicit relationships. Fourth, to ensure the above, it promotes legal marriages; it would purposefully create such conditions as would minimise the number of unmarried persons in society; for, it understands fully well the dangers that the herds of unmarried men and women can create for society. Fifth, it would ensure social and economic equality (not uniformity) between men and women.
 
Islam knows that men have certain specified natural characteristics. So do women. How can then their rights be uniform? None is inferior to the other. Men are stronger physically, more alert mentally and have a more dominating nature. Women are physically and mentally delicate, this delicateness being a positive quality for their natural duties that include companionship of the husband and birth and care of children. In fact, God has bestowed upon females one of His own major attributes of creating and cherishing and sustaining the human children. Of course, human beings are only secondary creators, God being the primary creator. And there can be no greater duty than to become an essential and indispensable part of the birth and care of mankind. In fact, biologically speaking, men have been charged by nature to help women in this work. Being mainly responsible for providing women and the children with the material resources for their sustenance, men have to be physically capable of carrying out their duties. The uniformity of all rights would mean total negligence of the natural manliness of men and natural womanliness of the women.
 
The truth is that uniformity is one thing that can never exist in society. The rights (and also the duties) of parents and the minor children cannot be uniform, those of the ruler and the ruled cannot be uniform, and the same applies to those of the superiors and subordinates. For example, minors do not possess certain rights that majors possess. They have to grow under the guardianship of others; their futures too are largely directed by others; and they would not be allowed to roam alone by their parents or guardians. If they start raising voice for granting them a status ‘equal’ to that of majors, what would happen? They may say that they do not accept the guardianship of any person, they want to do whatever they like; they would not tolerate anybody stopping them from going anywhere they like; should be given voting rights; and as soon as they attain puberty, they would not tolerate any interference, if they bring to their houses any kinds of friends for any kind of sex. So the concept of uniformity implies that they should be granted all those rights without any hitch. But would the social requirements permit that? And if they are bestowed upon such permissions, would it not lead to dangerous implications for them and society?
 
            Islam grants equal status to men and women, granting to them privileges in different areas. A man is duty-bound to earn and maintain his wife, children and dependent parents; woman has the right to earn if she so wishes but is also free to receive her maintenance from her husband in return of her duties as wife. Man has the primary responsibility to fulfil the financial requirements; so he receives a larger share in inheritance. Yet, it goes to the credit of Islam that it was the first religion of the world to grant women rights of inheritance; while distributing the shares, Islam is not affected by emotional considerations; but judges on the basis of the respective needs of men and women. Unlike several other religions, a Muslim woman enjoys the same status in religious affairs as man. If she obeys God in the prescribed way, she is as much entitled to Paradise as her father, husband, brother or son. As mother, she commands respect several times greater than man does as father. She has rights to choose her spouse, has reproductive rights, has rights to marry as a widow or as a divorcee, has right to seek divorce, and in case of any defamation, she can demand punishment to the offender. She is as much exhorted to earn knowledge as man. If there are places where man seems to be a little more privileged, there are equal number of places where woman seems to be more privileged.
 
            The modern world can boast of giving rights to women; but it has hardly cared for their safety and security. The result is that the “freedom” of women has opened ways for their exploitation; and a strange kind of chaos prevails in society. Sex has not only become one of the biggest global markets; it has also become perhaps the greatest tormentor of humanity. It is killing people (AIDS, suicides, murders), destroying families and disturbing social harmony; women and children become its biggest victims. In contrast, Islam while giving them rights ensures their safety and security. A woman in a true Islamic system cannot become a victim of the sex market (for commercialisation of sex cannot have any place in a civilised    society); she runs minimum risk of assault on her   modesty (for Islam severely, and in an exemplary manner, punishes such crimes); and has an added satisfaction that her husband cannot drink, gamble or have sex outside marriage. All these are big security concerns for women, and Islam attends all of them with perfection.
 
Polygamy versus Promiscuity
 
There has been criticism of Islam’s policy on polygyny (more commonly known as polygamy), and this has been presented as one of the “proofs” of discrimination against women. It is argued that it is an unnecessary privilege to men; and is also responsible for the rapid growth of population. What an irony that polygyny is being attacked by those very people who have been promoting promiscuity all over the globe! In the modern world, one can have relations with as many women as possible without attracting any legal action, or can have as many mistresses as one desires, but cannot have a second legal wife. Unlike promiscuity, polygyny protects the social and legal status of women. Polygyny is also not associated with the sex transmitted diseases the way promiscuity is; for unlike in promiscuity where both men and women have several relationships, mostly casual, in polygyny, man has long-term relations with women none of whom has relations with any other man. It follows that whereas polygyny is self-limiting and medically minimally hazardous; promiscuity is all-enveloping and medically enormously dangerous.  This is practically impossible for a significant minority to become polygamous, as the demography does not allow it, but it is a distinct possibility that the majority of the population becomes promiscuous. There are several other reasons why strict monogamy is not preferable. Almost always, there has been a tendency in the human population to have more women than men. The number of marriage-seeking women is surely greater than that of the marriage-seeking men. This tendency accentuates in times of wars and other calamities. If strict monogamy is enforced there cannot remain any hope of a family life for the remainder of women. Polygyny often helps the cause of widows, aged virgins and divorcees.  Obviously, the incidence of polygyny depends on the ratio of marriage-seeking females and marriage-seeking males in society. The more it increases the more the incidence. Moreover, it often happens that a man has genuine reasons for a second wife. His first wife may be incapacitated due to an illness, or may not be in a position to bear a child. In the case of strict monogamy, the husband has no option but either to continue with her suppressing his genuine human desires, or divorce her. If he divorces her she will have been left with hardly any future. Even when the reasons for the second marriage are not so genuine, it saves the man from indulging in unhealthy sexual practices and the woman from becoming his victim.  Those who argue that polygyny helps in the growth of population are also misinformed. The rate of the growth of population depends only on the number of fertile women in that population. Polygyny does not change this number and has therefore nothing to do with the growth of population.
 
            There is yet another question that people often put: Why only polygyny, why not polyandry? The answer is simple. Polygyny does not adversely affect the social fabric; it also does not increase the dangers from sex-related diseases. Polyandry will destroy the family system and social fabric. The children will be the greatest sufferers.
 
            Islam allows polygyny but prefers monogamy. This ensures the survival and health of family system. The world of economic fundamentalism has opposed it because it is bent upon observing the last rites of family as soon as possible. It wants to discuss rights only in the context of its own interests, and has hardly any genuine concern for women.  
 
Rights of women (contd)
 
The full text of Mr. Nath’s original letter can be read at
Click  http://www.worldmuslimpedia.com/news/details/144  for the second part.
 
 
Dr
Javed
Jamil is
India
based
thinker
and writer
with over
a dozen
books
including
his
latest,
“Qur’anic
Paradigms
of
Sciences
&
Society”
(First
Vol:
Health),
“Muslims
Most
Civilised,
Yet Not
Enough”
and
“Muslim
Vision of
Secular
India:
Destination
&
Road-map”.
Other
works
include
“The
Devil of
Economic
Fundamentalism”,
“The
Essence of
the Divine
Verses”,
“The
Killer
Sex”,
“Islam
means
Peace”
and
“Rediscovering
the
Universe”.
Read more
about him
at
http://www.worldmuslimpedia.com/dr-javed-jamil.
Facebook
page:
https://www.facebook.com/javedjamil2015.
He can be
contacted
atdoctorforu123@yahoo.com
or
91-8130340339.
 
 
 

 

 

more by Dr Javed Jamil

 

Biographies

 

 
 
 
In the Name of God, Kind-Merciful, the Only One worthy of Worship, every other entity, animate or inanimate, great or holy, being His humble servant
 
This is in continuation of answer to your question:
Why are you against the introduction of the Common Civil Code? Does this go against any norm of Islamic theology?
 
Why Islamic Laws best on family matters
New World Order’s crimes against womanhood
                New World Order’s crimes against womanhood are numerous and massive:
1. In order to make use of them for the benefit of the market, they were ravished from homes and their safe environs;
2. To help the market, like all human beings, women too were treated as commercial beings rather than human beings;
3. In order to earn business through them, only their work in the market was recognized; their work at home was demeaned, in fact totally devalued;
4. In order to keep their fragrance fresh for the sake of the people, their natural biological functions were brutally assaulted;
5. They were made party to their own misuse in the market through popularization of the most life-threatening and destructive concept of “freedom”;
6. Conditions were created in the market that resulted in violence against women, rape being the most devastating;
7. They were made party to the destruction of their own blood through abortion;
8. They were exhorted to dress or undress for the benefit of as many males as possible;
9. Their physical services were sold in the open market;
10. They were forced to pass majority of their time without the company of their children;
11. From spouses with rights, they were turned partners without rights;
12. In order to make them vulnerable to market pressures, they were made addicts of alcohol, smoking and gambling;
13. They were made receptionists, models, airhostesses, service girls, actresses, cabaret dancers, call girls, sex workers and massage girls in as many (maybe greater) numbers than scientists, politicians, teachers and other respectable professionals.
 
It is clear that the modern approach towards family is based on the two economic theories of the current world: Westernism (Capitalism) and Communism. Both these ideologies have nothing to do with religious morality and are enemies of family system. The difference between the Islamic and Modern approach can be described as under
 
1.    In modernism, family issues are dealt in a way so as to benefit the modern economic model with market as the pivot; in Islam family issues are dealt in accordance with the biological, health and social consideration of all the members of family and society.
2.    In modern society, family is considered an enemy because a healthy family system is an impediment in the growth of several markets: sex market, fashion market, hoteling, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc. In Islam family is the pivot of social peace; and family is considered a citadel which protects men and women against unhealthy sexual practices and exploitation, protects women against the burden associated with her biological functions, and protects children against, neglect and abuse, providing them the most harmonious atmosphere for growth. It also provides huge protection against a variety of diseases;
3.    In the modern world a woman can become a prostitute, an unmarried sex partner, an unwed mother, a single parent; in Islam there is protection against all of these;
4.    In Islam rights of men and women are based on their biological roles and social responsibilities towards each other and towards children; in modernism, they are given rights in accordance with the demands of the market;
5.    Modern systems allow premarital relationships but ban legal marriage before a specified age, which is several years greater than the biological age of adulthood; in Islam, there is no scope for premarital sex; but men and women are allowed marriage after they attain biological adulthood, though mental and financial maturity are preferable. Children born out of such relations are aborted in majority of cases, and when they are born, they have to grow in the company of only a single parent. They suffer huge psychological pressures and their legal rights over fathers are hardly realised.
6.    Modern systems allow promiscuity with no legal ban whatsoever on men and women having multiple partners; but there is total ban on polygamy. In Islam, there is absolutely no room for promiscuity or any relationship outside a legal marriage, but allows restricted polygamy with women enjoying full medical, legal and social rights. Children are of course safe and secure with each one enjoying all social and legal rights over their parents.
7.    In modernism, in the name of financial liberty and freedom, women are being overburdened with work where they have to work making serious comprises with their family life, children being the greatest sufferers. In Islam, while women have the freedom to earn if they so wish, the responsibility of maintaining them and their children is of their husbands. As the role of husbands in reproduction is limited to a few minutes of sexual contact and the women have to bear the responsibility of keeping children in their wombs, then delivering, breastfeeding and nurturing, they have been exempted from the responsibility of earning. But there is absolutely no ban on them if they want to earn within the parameters of Islam. The rights of men and women in inheritance are also proportional to their financial responsibilities.
 
Rights of women in Islam
           
There are certain basic criteria in Islam for granting rights to and enforcing duties on men and women. First, Islam recognizes the natural capabilities and weaknesses of men and women; and designs its laws in accordance with them.  Second, Islam would not tolerate any form of exploitation. Third, it aims to form a society without sexual crimes, sexual abuses and illicit relationships. Fourth, to ensure the above, it promotes legal marriages; it would purposefully create such conditions as would minimise the number of unmarried persons in society; for, it understands fully well the dangers that the herds of unmarried men and women can create for society. Fifth, it would ensure social and economic equality (not uniformity) between men and women.
 
Islam knows that men have certain specified natural characteristics. So do women. How can then their rights be uniform? None is inferior to the other. Men are stronger physically, more alert mentally and have a more dominating nature. Women are physically and mentally delicate, this delicateness being a positive quality for their natural duties that include companionship of the husband and birth and care of children. In fact, God has bestowed upon females one of His own major attributes of creating and cherishing and sustaining the human children. Of course, human beings are only secondary creators, God being the primary creator. And there can be no greater duty than to become an essential and indispensable part of the birth and care of mankind. In fact, biologically speaking, men have been charged by nature to help women in this work. Being mainly responsible for providing women and the children with the material resources for their sustenance, men have to be physically capable of carrying out their duties. The uniformity of all rights would mean total negligence of the natural manliness of men and natural womanliness of the women.
 
The truth is that uniformity is one thing that can never exist in society. The rights (and also the duties) of parents and the minor children cannot be uniform, those of the ruler and the ruled cannot be uniform, and the same applies to those of the superiors and subordinates. For example, minors do not possess certain rights that majors possess. They have to grow under the guardianship of others; their futures too are largely directed by others; and they would not be allowed to roam alone by their parents or guardians. If they start raising voice for granting them a status ‘equal’ to that of majors, what would happen? They may say that they do not accept the guardianship of any person, they want to do whatever they like; they would not tolerate anybody stopping them from going anywhere they like; should be given voting rights; and as soon as they attain puberty, they would not tolerate any interference, if they bring to their houses any kinds of friends for any kind of sex. So the concept of uniformity implies that they should be granted all those rights without any hitch. But would the social requirements permit that? And if they are bestowed upon such permissions, would it not lead to dangerous implications for them and society?
 
            Islam grants equal status to men and women, granting to them privileges in different areas. A man is duty-bound to earn and maintain his wife, children and dependent parents; woman has the right to earn if she so wishes but is also free to receive her maintenance from her husband in return of her duties as wife. Man has the primary responsibility to fulfil the financial requirements; so he receives a larger share in inheritance. Yet, it goes to the credit of Islam that it was the first religion of the world to grant women rights of inheritance; while distributing the shares, Islam is not affected by emotional considerations; but judges on the basis of the respective needs of men and women. Unlike several other religions, a Muslim woman enjoys the same status in religious affairs as man. If she obeys God in the prescribed way, she is as much entitled to Paradise as her father, husband, brother or son. As mother, she commands respect several times greater than man does as father. She has rights to choose her spouse, has reproductive rights, has rights to marry as a widow or as a divorcee, has right to seek divorce, and in case of any defamation, she can demand punishment to the offender. She is as much exhorted to earn knowledge as man. If there are places where man seems to be a little more privileged, there are equal number of places where woman seems to be more privileged.
 
            The modern world can boast of giving rights to women; but it has hardly cared for their safety and security. The result is that the “freedom” of women has opened ways for their exploitation; and a strange kind of chaos prevails in society. Sex has not only become one of the biggest global markets; it has also become perhaps the greatest tormentor of humanity. It is killing people (AIDS, suicides, murders), destroying families and disturbing social harmony; women and children become its biggest victims. In contrast, Islam while giving them rights ensures their safety and security. A woman in a true Islamic system cannot become a victim of the sex market (for commercialisation of sex cannot have any place in a civilised    society); she runs minimum risk of assault on her   modesty (for Islam severely, and in an exemplary manner, punishes such crimes); and has an added satisfaction that her husband cannot drink, gamble or have sex outside marriage. All these are big security concerns for women, and Islam attends all of them with perfection.
 
Polygamy versus Promiscuity
 
There has been criticism of Islam’s policy on polygyny (more commonly known as polygamy), and this has been presented as one of the “proofs” of discrimination against women. It is argued that it is an unnecessary privilege to men; and is also responsible for the rapid growth of population. What an irony that polygyny is being attacked by those very people who have been promoting promiscuity all over the globe! In the modern world, one can have relations with as many women as possible without attracting any legal action, or can have as many mistresses as one desires, but cannot have a second legal wife. Unlike promiscuity, polygyny protects the social and legal status of women. Polygyny is also not associated with the sex transmitted diseases the way promiscuity is; for unlike in promiscuity where both men and women have several relationships, mostly casual, in polygyny, man has long-term relations with women none of whom has relations with any other man. It follows that whereas polygyny is self-limiting and medically minimally hazardous; promiscuity is all-enveloping and medically enormously dangerous.  This is practically impossible for a significant minority to become polygamous, as the demography does not allow it, but it is a distinct possibility that the majority of the population becomes promiscuous. There are several other reasons why strict monogamy is not preferable. Almost always, there has been a tendency in the human population to have more women than men. The number of marriage-seeking women is surely greater than that of the marriage-seeking men. This tendency accentuates in times of wars and other calamities. If strict monogamy is enforced there cannot remain any hope of a family life for the remainder of women. Polygyny often helps the cause of widows, aged virgins and divorcees.  Obviously, the incidence of polygyny depends on the ratio of marriage-seeking females and marriage-seeking males in society. The more it increases the more the incidence. Moreover, it often happens that a man has genuine reasons for a second wife. His first wife may be incapacitated due to an illness, or may not be in a position to bear a child. In the case of strict monogamy, the husband has no option but either to continue with her suppressing his genuine human desires, or divorce her. If he divorces her she will have been left with hardly any future. Even when the reasons for the second marriage are not so genuine, it saves the man from indulging in unhealthy sexual practices and the woman from becoming his victim.  Those who argue that polygyny helps in the growth of population are also misinformed. The rate of the growth of population depends only on the number of fertile women in that population. Polygyny does not change this number and has therefore nothing to do with the growth of population.
 
            There is yet another question that people often put: Why only polygyny, why not polyandry? The answer is simple. Polygyny does not adversely affect the social fabric; it also does not increase the dangers from sex-related diseases. Polyandry will destroy the family system and social fabric. The children will be the greatest sufferers.
 
            Islam allows polygyny but prefers monogamy. This ensures the survival and health of family system. The world of economic fundamentalism has opposed it because it is bent upon observing the last rites of family as soon as possible. It wants to discuss rights only in the context of its own interests, and has hardly any genuine concern for women.  
 
Rights of women (contd)
 
The full text of Mr. Nath’s original letter can be read at
Click  http://www.worldmuslimpedia.com/news/details/144  for the second part.
 
 
Dr
Javed
Jamil is
India
based
thinker
and writer
with over
a dozen
books
including
his
latest,
“Qur’anic
Paradigms
of
Sciences
&
Society”
(First
Vol:
Health),
“Muslims
Most
Civilised,
Yet Not
Enough”
and
“Muslim
Vision of
Secular
India:
Destination
&
Road-map”.
Other
works
include
“The
Devil of
Economic
Fundamentalism”,
“The
Essence of
the Divine
Verses”,
“The
Killer
Sex”,
“Islam
means
Peace”
and
“Rediscovering
the
Universe”.
Read more
about him
at
http://www.worldmuslimpedia.com/dr-javed-jamil.
Facebook
page:
https://www.facebook.com/javedjamil2015.
He can be
contacted
atdoctorforu123@yahoo.com
or
91-8130340339.
 
 
 

 

 

more by Dr Javed Jamil

 

Biographies