Mr Samateh wrote:
> Dear Tony,
>
> Thanks for the fact that you got my point.But the other fact is that non of us
> is driving an anti Islamic propaganda for some of those involved are
> themselves Muslims , some of your points are well out of contents,and this is
> not interesting.In such a way the discussion will be without any direction
> ,sorry to say but this is not honest.When you did agree that there is the need
> to take heed to what we are saying ,and that is, given an interpretation of
> Islam with the eyes of today, should have concluded the whole discussion.
> Secondly you are taking Kabirs points out of contents.What Kabir is trying to
> say,as I notice it,is that the condition on the ground are concrete,they are
> political and social,religion will not be able to solve these problems because
> they are collective issue and religion is private.
The word religion has to be taken in the context of "DEEN" which
means for Muslims a complete way of life: religious, politcal,
social,economic. One cannot in any degree of faieness divorce
religion with our daily life. Our life is based on faith in ALLAH,
enjoining what is good and counselling one anothe in truht and
patience. If you think this is private then you haven't got aclue of
our religion!
When Malcom X said that it
> was time for them to keep their religion at home,because they were not
> oppressed because of the religion they belong to but because they were blacks
> and in that case and since they (Black People) belong to different religions
> it is better for them not to be divided on religious lines.This is very clear
> Tony. our conditions are different with that of those
> people who were fighting Jihad,this is another time,those events are history
> and do not have anything to do with the problems we are faced with,the only
> thing we can do with history is to learn from it,the life of those who fought
> Jihad cannot define our destiny.No one is denying the fact that
> religion,whether this is Islam or Christianity,had one time or another had
> influence on the life and development of one society or the other.This is an
> ABC of history.
> You might read again that posting and understand the contents.The reading
> seems very liberal but this is not the case.Tony the posting gives the man
> the right to decide what is "reasonable",it is not made a collective
> responsibility.What is the "Custom" of relationship between a man and woman in
> a semi feudal society like the Gambia?
I think that original posting of Modou Jabang had been misconstrued
and should be read again with some degree of objectiveness.
> You pointed out the case of Salman Rushdie were the media happened to get some
> people to short their mouths even though they were against Fatwa.This again
> has no relevance to the discussion,again the discussion is not for or against
> Islam,anybody who reads your last postings will see it at such and this is
> unfair to those Muslims who are supporting the point we are raising.This is
> how the polarisation you are talking about comes about.But to clear one
> pricinple question here.If those people who are against Fatwa short their
> mouths,then it becomes a victory for the mass media in its day to day struggle
> to control the human mind.I am of a free mind,my stand point in that case
> was(as it was for many muslims,if you did follow the discussion very well)
> that Salman Rushdie should know better that he was out to provoke millions of
> believers but that Barbaric leaders like Ayatola,who have driven millions of
> his his own muslim country men into exile and dead have no moral or religious
> claim to the life of Salman Rushdie,if you Tony kept silent or find your selve
> supporting Ayatolas Fatwa
I find this distateful and offensive and evidently untrue. Quite
honestly I don't think there is any need for all these.
Assalamu Allaikum
Dr M Mansour Ceesay
London School of Hygiene & Topical Medicne
Email:[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> Jaajef Saiks,
>
> The point you make about "new religious leaders who should give religion a
> better interpretation with the eyes of today" is the point of my original
> posting on this matter.
>
> How to interpret Modou's original posting on this matter? Lets ignore the
> title of the posting for a moment, which I agree could be seen as provocative,
> but what is the essence of what was really being said? I might be missing
> something but the way I read it seems to be different from some of the
> negative responses to Modou Mbye. Indeed, by my reading, the original posting
> does not actually imply that the woman should be "in the matchbox of the
> household" or indeed should "take people back to the stone age". My posting
> was an attempt to explore the idea that despite the title, the essence of
> Modou Mbye's posting was more enlightened than might at first have been
> assumed (or indeed has been assumed in this debate). Indeed Modou Mbye, in his
> response to me did not disagree with this.
>
> I think we have to be very careful when discussing religion. Religion is a
> matter of faith which people hold to differing degrees. Yes I agree that no
> one would wish to see an Afganistan scenario developing in the Gambia, and
> that there are possibly forces, both in Senegal and Gambia that might wish to
> see this. However there are also many Muslims who do not neccessarily agree
> with the Taliban interpretation of Islam. To attack the religion per se
> because one disagrees whith aspects of it, or the way that it is interpreted
> is, in my opinion, both as biased as what you may be attacking, but also
> counter-productive, in that it drives people with different interpretations to
> defend what they might otherwise of been more critical of. In short it brings
> about the polarisation of the society, with all the negative potential that
> might bring.
>
> An example:
> The Salman Rushdie affair in the UK. Muslim opinion in the UK was divided in
> reaction to his book "Satanic Verses". Whilst many condemed the book, or how
> it was published, a few took up Khomeni's view that the death penalty should
> be imposed on him. The media seized on this few and presented the whole Muslim
> community as a bunch of raving lunatics just wandering around looking for an
> opportunity to Kill Rushdie. The racist National Front used the book to taunt
> Asian communities. This in turn meant that even Muslims who diagreed with
> Khomeni's fatwa were forced into a position of silence, not wishing to be seen
> as allying themselves to the media or the racists.
>
> Is it not more important then too actually recognise progressive and positive
> aspects of religion, to see beyond stereotypes and assumptions, and to forge
> unity around areas of agreement, without of course silencing dissent?
>
> Other examples can be shown of where women's organisations used Islam to show
> the un-Islamic nature of FGM, or in the Pakistanti community in the UK where
> there are similar moves to combat forced marriage.
>
> Amadou Kabir says: "If you and Jabang can teach me ways and means of finding
> solutions to Africa's struggle for basic, decent, respectable human living
> condition, I shall be a keen student of yours". Well there are examples in
> history where, whether you are a Muslim or not, it has to be recognised the
> progressive role the religion has played in that historical context:
>
> The role Islam had in developing the great West African empires (Mali, Bornu
> etc), The struggle against corrupt feudalism in West Africa in the time of the
> jihads, the struggle against colonialsim, Samory Toure, Amadou Bamba, etc.
> etc. are all examples.
>
> Today examples and lessons can be draw from the functioning of, as one
> example, the Mouride Brotherhood in the development process of Senegal
> (without reliance on foreign aid). There was even a very interesting recent
> posting from Jabou on "Riba" which has important lessons and examples which
> are of relevant for today's struggle for development in the face of the
> stranglehold of aid/debt.
>
> In conclusion I would say, let none of us be dogmatic or intellectually
> blinkered. We should be able to learn from the positives in all faiths and
> philosophies, we should look into the positives of each other's ideas and
> encourage that rather than highlighting the negative. All progress and
> development demands the maximum and widest unity, and in my opinion that is
> what we should be striving for.
>
> Yeenduleen ak jaama
>
> Tony
>
>
> >>> saiks samateh <[log in to unmask]> 5/July/1999 05:31pm >>>
> Dear Kabir,
>
> Your last posting was just too great.The religious hypocrisy that is been
> advocated by some of our friends will never help,this would not only divide us
> but will take us back to the stone ages when ever they have the power to
> decide.We know what is happening in Afghanistan,in Sudan etc.In Iran it is a
> crime to even have a Parabola antenna for this is against Islam.The place of
> the woman is in the match box of household.
> Young people like Mye Jabang should have been the new religious leaders who
> should give religion a better interpretation with the eyes of today.But it
> seems that their religious knowledge is basically reading the scripts without
> understanding the meaning and under which circumstances it was said and
> pouring it out of their brains and mouths like robots.It took Malcom X great
> pain and suffering before understanding that he need to understand religion
> with the eyes of his generation.Islamic fundamentalism will never triumphant
> in our dear country.
>
> For Freedom
>
> Saiks
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jaajef Saiks,
>
> This is an interesting point, and a relevant one, although I am not sure that
> I agree with your interpretation of Modou Mbye's posting. When Modou quotes
> Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu Ishaaq al-Jawzjaani
> and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah as, saying " that it is the woman's duty to
> serve her husband
> within the bounds of what is reasonable and as other women who are like her
> serve husbands who are like him", the question must then be put as to what is
> the measure of "reasonableness" and who are her peers (i.e. women like her),
> by which her behaviour is measured?
>
> I make no claim to being a scholar of Islam, and can therefore only
> interpret/understand this from my own point of view and experience. I would
> read this as in fact saying that what is "reasonable" and "customary among
> people like her and her husband" is inextricable bound up with what the actual
> realities of their situation are. Reasonableness, as far as it can ever be
> defined is really only what is appropriate in any given situation, and
> therefore it's definition can change, as can customs " according to
> circumstances, time and place". Following this, using your example of a woman
> going out to work whilst the husband is unemployed, what would be reasonable?
> and what would be "customary" amongst partners (and their peers) in similar
> circumstances? I beleive that under these conditions it could well be
> "reasonable" that, for example the husband occupies himself with cooking and
> washing, and that it would be seen as quite unreasonable for the woman to go
> to work AND do all the domestic work. Indeed "custom" about what a woman's and
> man's role is within the home has demonstratably globally changed, and is
> still changing according to "circumstances, time and place".
>
> This posting can indeed be read as a warning, and education, to those husband
> who choose to misinterpret (or through unawareness) of religion as an excuse
> to mistreat and oppress their wives. In the past others used the name of the
> religion to justify not allowing their daughters to go to school, or in some
> societies to justify forced arranged marrigaes, against the will of one or
> both of the concerned.
>
> I beleive that it is important to recognise the implications of what has been
> written here. Indeed in the conclusion of the posting, it is shown that the
> interpretation of the relevant hadeeth, is that either:
>
> serving the husband and taking care of the house by the woman is VOLUNTARY
>
> or
>
> that even if it is interpreted as a duty, the husband should treat it as
> voluntary
>
> This I beleive constitutes a challenge to all men to examine their behaviour.
> I wonder how many men, Muslims, non-Muslims, Aethists, Christians or even
> so-called pro-femminist "new men" really accept this IN PRACTICE, (even though
> they might "in theory"). After all even Karl Marx left his wife to struggle to
> look after and feed the children whilst he spent his days at the British
> Library reading room, and Che GUEVARA left the mother of his children to
> support and bring them up one her own whilst he was involved in the Liberation
> struggle.
>
> I think that we should not allow our own beliefs, prejudices, and indeed
> use/interpretation of language, to obscure our vision of the real essence of
> meaning.
>
> No hard feeling to anyone, these are just my own views.
>
>
>
> Yeenduleen ak jaama
>
> Tony
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> saiks samateh <[log in to unmask]> 1/July/1999 01:44pm >>>
> Momodou Jabang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Modou Mbye,
>
> I think you are just trying to provoke once again,and I would have love to
> know why you think this article is relevant.Is it that you are trying to tell
> that it is not wrong for my wife to be my servant,doing the washing,cooking
> etc.If this is your hidden intention then sorry you did not make it.
> I can see that you are trying to make a point that the comstom that was should
> be the departing point for such a relationship.I dont know who is your
> wife,but let me put it this way;The day you return back to the Gambia and find
> out that there is no longer a job for you and that your wife is at work,she
> has a secured jobb.Would you wait until your wife come back home to do the
> cooking and washing,whiles you chose to go the mosque or any where else just
> to return back home and be serve a meal ?Is this the type of human
> relationship that our generation should be preaching about ?
> You must wake up to understand that we are leaving in another generation that
> demands another form of human relationship and not the enslavement of the
> women.Hope this message gets through.
>
> For Freedom
>
> Saiks
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Asalaamu alaikum G-l,
>
> Alhamdulillah wasalaatou wasalaamu ala Nabiyyina Muhammad. Someone asked
> Skeickh Munajjid
>
> Question:
>
> Is it the wife's duty to do all the housework, must the
> husband help her or not? Or is it possible, that her work is
> just a favour to the husband and the family and she will be
> rewarded for it, as if she gave sadaqa?
>
> Answer:
>
> Praise be to Allaah.
>
> The more correct view in this matter is that stated by a number of
> scholars, such as Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu Ishaaq al-Jawzjaani
> and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on
> them), who said that it is the womanŬs duty to serve her husband
> within the bounds of what is reasonable and as other women who are
> like her serve husbands who are like him. She also has to take care of
> the house, doing things like cooking and so on, in accordance with
> what is customary among people like her and her husband. This
> differs according to circumstances, time and place, hence Ibn
> Taymiyah said: (This varies according to circumstances. What the
> Bedouin wife has to do is not the same as what the urban wife has to
> do.ö
>
> The evidence for this more correct opinion is:
>
> 1.the Hadeeth of al-Bukhaari:
>
> Imaam al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh that Faatimah (may
> Allaah be pleased with her), the daughter of the Prophet
> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) asked him for a
> servant. He said, (Shall I not tell you of something that is better
> for you than that? When you go to sleep, say ĉSubhaan-Allaah
> (Glory be to Allaah)Ŭ thirty three times, ĉAl-Hamdu Lillaah
> (praise be to Allaah)Ŭ thirty three times, and ĉAllaahu akbar
> (Allaah is Most Great)Ŭ thirty four times.ö (Saheeh al-Bukhaari bi
> Sharh al-ĉAsqallaani, part 9/506).
>
> Al-Tabari said, in his commentary on this hadeeth: we may
> understand from this hadeeth that every woman who is able to
> take care of her house by making bread, grinding flour and so
> on, should do so. It is not the duty of the husband if it is the
> custom for women like her to do this themselves.
>
> What we learn from the hadeeth is that when Faatimah (may
> Allaah be pleased with her) asked her father (peace and
> blessings of Allaah be upon him) for a servant, he did not
> command her husband to find her a servant or hire someone to
> do these tasks, or to do these tasks himself. If it were ĉAliŬs duty
> to do these things, the Prophet (peace and blessings of
> Allaah be upon him) would have commanded him to do them.
>
> 2.The hadeeth of AsmaŬ bint Abi Bakr
>
> Imaam al-Bukhaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) reported in
> his Saheeh that AsmaŬ bint Abi Bakr (may Allaah be pleased
> with her) said: (I got married to al-Zubayr, and he had no wealth
> on earth and no slaves, nothing except a camel for bringing water
> and his horse. I used to feed his horse and bring water, and I
> used to sew patches on the bucket. I made dough but I was not
> good at baking bread, so my (female) neighbours among the
> Ansaar used to bake bread for me, and they were sincere
> women. I used to bring date pits from al-ZubayrŬs land that the
> Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
> him) had given to him, carrying them on my head. This land was
> two-thirds of a farsakh away. One day I came, carrying the date
> pits on my head, and I met the Messenger of Allaah (peace
> and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who had a group of the
> Ansaar with him. He called me and made his camel kneel down,
> for me to ride behind him, but I felt too shy to go with the men,
> and I remembered al-Zubayr and his jealousy, for he was the
> most jealous of people. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and
> blessings of Allaah be upon him) realized that I felt shy, so he
> moved on. I came to al-Zubayr and told him, ĉI met the
> Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
> him) when I was carrying date pits on my head, and he had a
> group of his companions with him. He made his camel kneel
> down for me to ride with him, but I remembered your jealousy.Ŭ
> He said, ĉBy Allaah, it bothers me more that you have to carry
> the date pits than that you should ride with him.Ŭö AsmaŬ said:
> (After that, Abu Bakr sent me a servant to take care of the
> horse, and it was as if I had been liberated from slavery.ö
> (Reported by al-Bukhaari, Fath, 9/319).
>
> In the commentary on the hadeeth of AsmaŬ, it says: from this
> incident we may understand that it is the womanŬs duty to take
> care of everything that her husband needs her to take care of.
> This was the opinion of Abu Thawr. Other fuqahaŬ suggested
> that AsmaŬ did this voluntarily and that she was not obliged to do
> it.
>
> Ibn Hajar al-ĉAsqallaani said: (It seems that this incident v
> AsmaŬ carrying the date pitss to help her husband v and other
> similar incidents were the matter of necessity, namely that her
> husband al-Zubayr and other Muslim men were preoccupied
> with jihaad and other things that the Messenger of Allaah
> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had commanded
> them to do, and they did not have time to take care of domestic
> matters themselves, and could not afford to hire servants to do
> that for them, and there was no one else who could do that apart
> from their womenfolk. So the women used to take care of the
> home and whoever lived in it, so that the men could devote their
> time to supporting Islam.ö
>
> Then he said (may Allaah have mercy on him): (What is more
> likely is that the matter had to do with the customs in that land,
> for customs may vary in this regard.ö
>
> It seems that what Ibn Hajar said is close to the view of those
> who say that the wife has to take care of her husband and the
> home in accordance with the dictates of local custom.
>
> Ibn al-Qayyim said, concerning the story of AsmaŬ: (When the
> Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw
> AsmaŬ with the date pits on her head, and her husband
> al-Zubayr was with her, he did not tell him that she did not have
> to serve him, or that this was unfair to her. He approved of her
> serving him and of all the women among the Sahaabah helping
> their husbands. This is a matter concerning which there is no
> doubt.ö
>
> 3.The hadeeth of Jaabir
>
> The Shaykh of the Muhadditheen, Imaam al-Bukhaari (may
> Allaah have mercy on him) reported in his Saheeh that Jaabir ibn
> ĉAbd-Allaah said: (My father died and left seven daughters, or
> nine daughters. I married a woman who had been previously
> married, and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings
> of Allaah be upon him) said to me, ĉDid you get married, O
> Jaabir?Ŭ I said, ĉYes.Ŭ He asked, ĉA virgin or a
> previously-married woman?Ŭ I said, ĉA previously-married
> woman.Ŭ He said, ĉWhy not a young woman so you could play
> and joke with one another?Ŭ I said, ĉ ĉAbd-Allaah [the father of
> Jaabir] has died and left behind daughters, and I would not like
> to bring them someone who is like them, so I got married to a
> woman who can take care of them.Ŭ He said, ĉMay Allaah bless
> youŬ or ĉFair enough.Ŭö (Saheeh al-Bukhaari bi Sharh al-ĉAsqallaani,
> vol.9/513).
>
> The evidence derived from the hadeeth of Jaabir is that
> al-Bukhaari introduced this hadeeth under the heading, (Baab
> ĉawn al-marŬah zawjahaa fi waladih (Chapter: a woman helping
> her husband with his children)ö.
>
> Imaam Ibn Hajar al-ĉAsqallaani said, commenting on this
> introduction by al-Bukhaari: (It seems that al-Bukhaari derived
> the idea that a woman should take care of her husbandŬs
> children from the fact that the wife of Jaabir took care of his
> sisters; if she should take care of his sisters then it is even more
> befitting that she should take of his children.ö (Saheeh al-Bukhaari
> bi Sharh al-ĉAsqallaani, vol.9/513).
>
> We can say that the wife should take care of her husband, as
> this is more befitting than her taking care of his sisters or his
> daughters from another wife.
>
> We may also understand from this hadeeth that what was
> customary at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and
> blessings of Allaah be upon him) was that women did not only
> take care of their husbands, they also took care of those who
> were dependent on their husbands and lived in their houses.
>
> The evidence that this understanding is correct is the fact that
> the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be
> upon him) did not tell Jaabir off for his reason for marrying a
> previously-married woman, which was that she could take care
> of his sisters. This indicates that the custom among the Muslims
> at that time dictated that the wife should take care of those who
> were under her husbandŬs care, which means that the wife
> should serve her husband in those matters that are dictated by
> local custom, because the husbandŬs right to be served by his
> wife comes before that of his sisters.
>
> 4.ĉUrf (custom)
>
> General contracts v including marriage contracts v should be governed
> by the customs that are known among the people, and the custom is
> that the wife should serve her husband and also take care of matters in
> the home. In some societies, the custom is that the wife should take
> care of more than the regular domestic matters.
>
> Imaam al-Qurtubi said, concerning the matter of the wife serving her
> husband and taking care of the home: (This has to do with ĉUrf,
> which is one of the bases of shareeŬah. The women of the Bedouin
> and the desert-dwellers serve their husbands, even looking for fresh
> water and taking care of the animalsaö
>
> What happens nowadays is that the wife v usually v serves her
> husband and takes care of different matters within the home. There
> may be a servant to help her with that if her husband can afford it. If
> the husband knows that the majority of scholars say that it is not
> obligatory for the wife to serve her husband and take care of the
> house, I say that one of the benefits of this may be that he will not go
> to extremes and demand too much of his wife in this regard, and that
> he will not give her a hard time if she falls short, because what she is
> doing is not a duty according to the majority of fuqahaŬ. However,
> even it is a duty according to some of them v and this is what we
> think is more correct v the fact that there is such a difference of
> opinion means that the husband has to look at what she is doing as
> something voluntary rather than obligatory, or something in which the
> scholars differ as to whether it is obligatory, so he should be gentle
> with her if he sees that she is falling short in this regard, and he should
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
