Islamic Theology and the Feminine form

Dear Sir,

Reference – ‘ yet again – and proving to be a DRAG ‘ – Faizur Rahman’s  – ” The song should not arouse hatred ” – (TNIE- 17 NOV).

The obfuscations perpetrated by Faizur Rahman notwithstanding (3 Articles todate), the heart of the matter in the Fatwas against the Vande Mataram lie in Islamic theology.

The erudite and multi-lingual scholar (late) Ram Swarup in his excellent treatise ” A Hindu View of Islam and Christianity ” wrote:
” Their new God [Allah] was ‘one’; it was MALE; it was EXCLUSIVE and INTOLERANT; it took pride in refusing PARTNERSHIP with ‘OTHER GODS’. It was also different from their [Pagan Arabs before the birth of Islam] accustomed GODS in another important sense: their traditional Gods spoke to them directly, but the new one dealt with them through an intermediary [Prophet]”. (pp-39)

In a commentary on the ‘One God’ theology, Ram Swarup wrote:
” Intolerance must be the fruit of such bitter seeds. Other Gods must be dethroned, and so must die those who speak in the name of other Gods “. (pp-41)

Vande Mataram venerates ‘ Mother ‘ – a ‘Feminine’ form.  As the ‘India born’ and now ‘exiled’ in the U.S.A. Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq succinctly puts it in his ” Why I Am Not A Muslim:

” Islam is the fundamental cause of the repression of Muslim women and remains the major obstacle to the evolution of their position. Islam has always considered women as creatures inferior in every way: physically, intellectually, and morally. This negative vision is divinely sanctioned in the Koran, corroborated by the Hadiths and perpetuated by by the commentaries of the [Islamic] theologians, the custodians of Muslim dogma and ignorance”. (pp- 293).

A few examples from Ibn Warraq’s book to prove the ‘ divine sanction ‘.  ” In attacking FEMALE DEITIES of the polytheists, the Koran takes the opportunity to malign the female sex further (pp-296-297):

– 4.117: They invoke in His stead only females; they pray to none else than Satan, a rebel.

– 53.27: Lo! it is those who DISBELIEVE in the Hereafter who name the angels with names of females.

Ibn Warraq then wrote:
” Equally, in numerous Hadiths on which are based the Islamic laws we learn of the woman’s role – to stay at home, to be at the beck and call of man, to obey him [which is a RELIGIOUS DUTY], and assure man a tranquil existence. Here are some examples of these traditions (pp-298):

– If it had been given me to order someone to prostrate themselves in front of someone other than God, I would have surely ordered women to prostrate themselves in front of their husbands – – -. A woman cannot fulfill her duties toward God without first having accomplished those that she owes her husband.

– A wife should never refuse herself to her husband even if it is on the saddle of a camel.

Continuing, Ibn Warraq wrote (pp-299):
” Islamic culture and civilization is profoundly antifeminist as the following sayings from various Caliphs, ministers, philosophers and theologians through the ages reveal “:

– Omar the Second Caliph (581-644) said: Prevent the women from learning to write! say no to their capricious ways.

– Ali (600-661), the Prophet’s cousin and the Fourth Caliph: The entire woman is an evil and what is worse is that it is a necessary evil! You should never ask a woman her advice because her advice is worthless. Hide them so that they cannot see other men! Do not spend too much time in their company for they will lead you to your downfall!

And then, in the same vein of denigrating women, the Koran tells that the male child should inherit twice the portion of the female child.(Q:4.11-12) – (pp -311)

And onto the most degrading for women. A ‘ Fatwa ‘ by the very same Dar -ul -Uloom, Deoband. Here it is from Arun Shourie’s ” The World of Fatwas: Or the Shariah in Action ” (pp-362)

– Case 414: If in keeping with an agreement, the SECOND HUSBAND of a woman divorces her without having cohabited with her, is it proper HALALAH or not? Or is COHABITATION compulsory for HALALAH ?

FATWA: If the second husband divorces her without cohabiting with her, she does not become HALAL for the first husband.(Fatwa Dar-ul-Uloom, Vol 1X, pp-361-362).

– Case 419: A man divorces his wife who marries another man and he divorces also without cohabiting with her. Will remarriage to the first husband be legitimate?

FATWA: HALALAH means cohabiting with the second husband. (Fatwa Dar-ul-Uloom, Vol 1X pp-366)

(late) Ram Swarup, in his ” Understanding Islam through the Hadis: Religious Faith or Fanaticism? ” , summed up Islamic theology succinctly:
” Muslim theologians make no distinction between the Quran and Hadis. To them both are works of revelation or inspiration. To then, the Hadis is the Quaran in action, revelation made concrete in the life of the Prophet. In the Quran, Allah speaks through Muhammad; in the Hadis (Sunnah),He acts through him”.

That being the case, and the examples giving concrete proof of divine sanctions of antifeminism, where is the question of ‘revering the Mother India’ – a feminine form in Vande Mataram – by a ‘Momin’?

The Sunday (15 Nov 2009) edition of the daily ‘ Independent ‘, carried an Opinion penned by Carol Hunt and entitled: ” We need to talk about Islam, now : Our concern for the rights of others may be eroding the foundations on which our democracy is based”.  She concluded her Article : ” But such namby-pamby PC [Politically Correct] fear dressed up as rational- minded ‘tolerance’ might be the reason that, that’s what we’ve ended up with. We can sit smugly in front of our TV sets and congratulate ourselves on ‘the opening up of the East in 1989’, when what we really need to do is open up our minds to the real threat of misguided multi-culturalism.We should have started the discussion about assimilation of minorities years ago, before the winds of radical Islam began to blow. We didn’t. Let’s hope it’s not too late now.”

I would state – DITTO ‘DHIMMI INDIA’. If it had happened, this Vande Mataram controversy would have been settled – in 1937!! However that’s wishful thinking as Shourie wrote:

” The LIBERAL who happens to be a Hindu is so apologetic, he has internalised sham secularism so much, he is any case innocent of the texts- of Islam, of Hinduism, of our Laws and our Constitution- and he has internalised double-standards to such an extent that he has made silence on all matters Islamic, indeed toeing the fundamentalists’ line PROOF OF SECULARISM. The ‘SECULARISTS’ of the English press are a ready example”. (pp-66).

Listening TNIE? JAI HO!!

VANDE MATARAM