new

Among the sweeping allegations of baatil made by a Dr. Hargey is his claim:

“Men and women have identical fundamental rights, with the Qur’an emphasising equality in the spiritual,intellectual, economic and legal areas.”

For this personal view of his, Dr. Hagey is unable to adduce any substantiation from the Qur’aan or Hadith. This view is at variance with the Shariah. Even a cursory glance at the teachings and proofs of the Shariah will establish the fallacy of this claim and make manifest that Dr. Hagey’s opinion is devoid of any Islamic credibility.

In the aforementioned statement, Dr. Hagey has made a sweeping claim without tendering the basis and proof for the claim which is couched in ambiguity. He speaks of “identical fundamental rights” without defining these. He should elaborate and expound his conception of “fundamental rights” so that the fallacy of his arguments in relation to the Shariah will become more vivid to Muslims. Ambiguity is always a cover behind which refuge is sought for unsubstantiated opinions and views.

It is quite a simple matter to launch an attack on the established institutions of Islam by means of high-sounding and ambiguous phrases. But, it is entirely a different matter to define, elaborate and substantiate such claims of baatil as are being traded under the name of islam. To enable us to comment further and in greater detail on this particular opinion of Dr. Hargey, it is necessary that he defines his understanding of “identical fundamental rights”.

In the second part of his claim (cited above), Dr. Hargey attempts to show that according to the Qur’aan men and women enjoy total equality in spiritual, intellectual, economic and legal areas. But, on the contrary the Qur’aan and the Sunnah refute this contention of equality of the sexes, an obsession with the modernists of our time. The following differences or Islamic differences between the sexes will conclusively assert the fallacy of Dr.Hargey’s view.

* According to the Shariah a woman can never be the Imaam in a congregation in which males are present. On the other hand, a man is always the Imaam in any type of congregation.

* If women happen to be performing Salaat in a jamaat in which men are, their position is right at the back–right behind the rows of children.

* When the Imaam in jamaat Salaat makes an error, his attention is drawn to the error my the muqtadis calling out “Subhaanallaah! But, it is not permissible for a woman who happens to be in the congregation to call out Subhaanallaah! to draw the attention of the Imaam. Her voice has to remain concealed.

* Nafl Salaat and Nafl Saum (Fasting) are acts of Ibaadat of very high merit. But, a woman is not permitted to resort to these acts of Ibaadat without the consent of her husband. On the contrary, her husband does not require her permission.

* A woman was never ever appointed a Nabi by Allah Ta’alla. This was the office exclusively of males.

* Juma’ Salaat is compulsory on men, but not on women.

* Eid Salaat is obligatory on men, but not on women.

* Taraaweeh Salaat is Sunnatul Muakkadah in Jamaat for men, but not for women. They are exhorted to perform individually at home.

* According to the Qur’aan Shareef the share of inheritance of a female is half that of the male.

* According to the Qur’aan the testimony (shahaadat) of two women is equivalent to that of one man.

* According to the Qur’aan men possess the right to discipline and punish women, even beating them when necessary while women have no reciprocal rights even if their husbands are in error.

* Men possess the right to administer divorce, not women. Women have no such right. Even khulah (the procedure whereby a woman buys her separation from her husband) is dependent on the acceptance of the husband.

* The husband is entitled to recall his wife after having given one or two talaaq even if the wife does not desire to be reconciled. It is his right to act unilaterily and retake her within the iddat period.

* The testimony of women is not admissable in crimes of the hudood category, e.g. theft, adultery. Even if a thousand pious, honourable and knowledgeable females bear testimony in such crimes, their evidence is not admissable.

These Islamic differences between man and woman are sufficient to highlight the fact that the Shariah distinguishes between the sexes, does not provide for identical rights for men and women and decrees the superiority of man over woman. These differences enumerated here will serve to indicate that the Shariah rejects the views and opinions of Dr.Hargey as blatantly baatil.

Dr. Hargey and other modernists of the same opinions should understand that to force equality between inequals is in fact reprehensible inequality, morally wrong and unjust. The Islamic inequality between man and woman is no insult to womankind. The glowing statements of the Shariah speaking highly of women negate any such charge which the enemies of Islam level.

In simple terms the lesser role lesser resporisibility and lesser rank to woman — a rank in subservience to men – all stem from the natural and inherent spiritual, physical and intellectual quality and condition of women. In these areas Allah Ta’ala has created in man dominance and in women subservience.

This state of affairs has been decreed by the Wisdom of Allah Ta’ala and the opinions of Dr. Hargey will not be able to alter the immutable realities created by Allah Ta’ala. Nor does the Ummah require or desire the personal opinions and views of doctors of philosophies, for the path and direction of the Ummah of Islam have already been fixed fourteen centuries ago. And that Path is the Path propagated by the Ulama-e-Haqq – the Path in which great emphasis is and will always be placed on “ritual and externals”, on dress codes” and codes of Islam which Hargey has branded as “empty observances”. May Allah Ta’ ala protect the Imaan of all Believers.

The very rapid transformation of schools from environments dominated by men and boys to majority-female institutions has left many scratching their heads. Why are boys, despite higher test scores and better performance at the highest levels of the sciences and arts, more likely to fail, drop out or avoid school altogether? In feminist quarters there is a sense of triumph about the situation, but many mothers and concerned women cannot figure out what might be the problem. Men, unfortunately, seem largely to have given up trying or stopped caring about this serious problem — serious because male rejection of the institutions that provide a path to upward mobility will undoubtedly have destabilizing effects in the future.

Of course, I am among those who agree that higher education is oversold, and not really necessary for many of the people who attend. Perhaps up to half of the young men and women in college would do just as well – if not better – by choosing a trade. There is no reason a two-year degree following high school cannot provide the training necessary to enter the job market, and if high school itself did a better job of teaching the classics we would have graduates with a perfectly acceptable liberal arts education, with no need to take university classes to round them out.

However, what is really killing boys in school is not that it is forced on them so much as it is the culture surrounding school — higher education in particular. As we all know, school is largely about socializing children and youths so that they get along tolerably well. In a mixed gender environment, socializing is naturally very different from what it is in a gender segregated environment, and controlling one’s conduct becomes more of a priority. When boys and girls are in close proximity, boys must adjust their behavior in a number of ways. First, they must learn to be physically gentle, which is more difficult for young children than it may seem to us. Next, they must learn to be gentle in words and speech, and finally they must learn to repress their sexuality. To maintain harmony in mixed gender environments, all three are necessary, and they take a higher priority than actual hard learning.

So it appears that instead of the “three Rs,” we now have docility, flattery and restraint, none of which plays to male strengths. A number of boys, whether they are intelligent or not, will have a very difficult time following the new code of educational institutions, because it is not in their nature to repress their bodies or minds. Girls, on the other hand, are much better at acting nice and behaving “properly.” Unfortunately, this carries over into higher education, and has begun to pervade society as a whole.

In higher education, the stifling gag of political correctness evolved directly out of this enforced socialization that begins in grade school. The male student is exected to sit there and listen obediently while men in general are trashed and women portrayed as victims of nasty boys at every turn in life. If the male student speaks out or objects – even if on logically reasonable grounds – he is targeted as an example of what is wrong with men, and will be punished for doing so through lower grades. There is no defense for the male student against such actions. A boy whose inquisitive, honest male nature cannot be repressed may find school to be a very hostile place. He had best just learn to keep his mouth shut and soldier on without grumbling about the situation (yes, even grumbling will draw the jaundiced eye of a feminist professor).

Now, what we find in higher education is an environment dominated by a feminine sense of propriety to which men must learn to suborn their nature or, failing that, leave. Those young men who do well are in the minority, and only represent one side of a spectrum of male behavior, just as women who do well in math and science only represent one side of a spectrum of female accomplishment. The majority of young men find the environment of higher education to be unbearable, and so they avoid it.

What this all really comes down to is that men are by their nature radically honest — we don’t understand why we can’t tell a woman that she ought to lose a few pounds or ask her her age, we just know through social conditioning that we “can’t do that.” Unfortunately, searching for the truth in higher education has taken the back seat to the concerns of sensitivity and ego-boosting. Men are forced to flatter and stroke all around them or, if they can’t, to shut up. For many young men, this is nearly impossible, and for most it is too much to ask. Those who will do best are men with a natural ability to prevaricate and flatter, while those who may “get by” are those who are naturally quiet, although this problem must take quite a toll on the quiet boys, who must endure the entire charade in mute frustration.

The solution is a return to gender-segregated places in schools where boys can be their true selves. Remove the enforced repression and replace it with discipline, and boys will thrive. It cannot be emphasized enough that discipline is fundamentally different from repression. Discipline is what gets one through the tough job, and is readily understood when explained to boys of a certain level of intellectual maturity. Repression only gives boys and men a confused sense of hopelessness and alienates them. Learning can and should allow the full spectrum of male expression, but we may simply have to accept that this cannot be achieved in mixed-sex environments.

The above problem extends far beyond the realm of education, but to keep this post from getting too long I’ll save that discussion for another time.