STUDY OF ISLAM
Being a woman in Islam according to Linda Bogaert - Part 1
WORDT VERVOLGD !
Linda Bogaert writes :
“According to Islamic tenets, men are superior to women". These days, this observation appears ‘de rigueur’. Or, in reverse: "women are inferior according to Islamic tenets".
It cannot be denied that – as it happens in other places as well – in some Muslim communities there exists discrimination against women.
But is this typical of Islam? Or does it actually have anything at all to do with the Islamic model per se, and is the common practice rather the consequence of traditions, cultural customs, and deep-rooted patterns of behaviour?
It cannot be denied that – as it happens in other places as well – in some Muslim communities there exists discrimination against women.
But is this typical of Islam? Or does it actually have anything at all to do with the Islamic model per se, and is the common practice rather the consequence of traditions, cultural customs, and deep-
Our comment :
The fact that there is a need to prove that, according to Islam, men are not superior to women makes us suspect that this fact is not self-evident.
This is a grab out of the classic Islamic magic box of trickery. How Muslims treat their wives is not at all related to Islam but rather to cultural and traditional customs and tenets that are to be interpreted as contrary to those of Islam; at least this is what Linda would like us to believe. But with her choice of the word “some”, she makes it appear that in most Muslim communities women are not discriminated against at all.
Saudi-Arabia is a nation steeped in Islam beliefs. Already for 1300 years its population has been 100% Muslim. Saudi-Arabia is a country without any culture at all; it just has Islam. Or rather, is it completely ruled by Islamic precepts.
And as everybody knows, this country has never received any kudos for its being woman-friendly, and “oppressed” Western women are not exactly thronging to it in hopeful droves! And the fact is that Saudi-Arabia is 100% oriented towards, and subservient to, Islam. Could it be then that there does, after all, exist some link between the treatment of women within that nation and Islam?
This is a grab out of the classic Islamic magic box of trickery. How Muslims treat their wives is not at all related to Islam but rather to cultural and traditional customs and tenets that are to be interpreted as contrary to those of Islam; at least this is what Linda would like us to believe. But with her choice of the word “some”, she makes it appear that in most Muslim communities women are not discriminated against at all.
Saudi-
And as everybody knows, this country has never received any kudos for its being woman-
Linda Bogaert writes :
Only an analysis of the Koran and the Sunnah can proffer a clear picture of the place of women in accordance to Islamic tenets and beliefs.
From this it will appear that for what concerns men and women, the entire Koranic message is construed around a strong central principle of equality.
Our comment :
We would be very interested to find out if Linda Bogaert can find one passage in the Koran that proves that men are not superior to women.
The “Koranic Message” rather states the opposite in Surah 4, titled “the woman” notably:
The “Koranic Message” rather states the opposite in Surah 4, titled “the woman” notably:
4.34. “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means.
Hence, an Islamic community that adheres to the Koran tenets shall also adhere to this verse that proclaims that :
- Men are the custodians of women. Women are invariable seen as minors. When men talk about “guardian”, one thinks about orphans who cannot themselves take any decisions. Islam equates the status of women to that of orphans and places no limit on their ages. Not even should they be 80.
- Allah himself has proclaimed that men are superior to women and, therefore, the man must take financial responsibility over the woman (wife) (“ support them from their means”).
We are now asking Linda: where is your Koran verse that illustrates this „strong central principle of equality“ and holds that in other areas women outshine men so to achieve at least a position of equal balance and equality?
There does not necessarily have to be a contradiction between women’s rights and Islam.
We may now ask: if the Koran is based on a strong central principle of equality“, why does Linda state here that there does “not necessarily” have to be a contradiction between women’s rights and Islam? Why, indeed, since men and women then would have the same rights, pure and simple! End of discussion, you would think! But no, it is apparently not that simple.
Linda presumable means here that even if Islam DOES NOT treat women equally, this does not mean that women are entirely bereft of all rights.
Linda presumable means here that even if Islam DOES NOT treat women equally, this does not mean that women are entirely bereft of all rights.
It would seem she is clearly confused between the principle of ‘inequality’ and the issue of ‘possessing rights’. According to 4:34, the woman does indeed possess rights, namely the right to eat, drink, buy clothing, have a roof over her head, all acquired by the grace of a man who is “much superior” to her.
Linda Bogaert writes :
In Islamic discourse, the (original Arabic) Koran is interpreted as literally, truly, the "Word of God", such as it was communicated to the Prophet Muhammad by the Archangel Gabriel. Every Koran verse is a miracle in se. While the idea is to learn as much as possible about God and to find out how best to serve Him, knowing the full nature of God is not possible.
For, verily, God is unique:
"Say: "He is God, the Only One, the Permanent Presence. He begetteth not and is not begotten and not one is equal to Him."" (Koran 112:1-
This unique character of God immediately gives warning and issues a caution : in the Islamic discourse, no human being can ever claim to fully understand the Word of God. Whoever would claim this would place himself at God’s level, which in Islam is equal to committing the gravest of sins, a trespass against the most essential tenet of the faith – that there is no god but God.
At the most, it may be said that one seeks to understand the Word of God. In this, different people will reach different interpretations and conclusions. In other words, the unique character of God at the same time encompasses a pluriformity of interpretations.
What follows is therefore not ”the” interpretation of the Koran, which does not exist. In comparison with the Word of God, every reading of the Book, also the one following, can only be an attempt at understanding.
Our comment :
As we understand this logic, on the one hand, the Koran is literally the word of Allah and this, in effect, is a miracle; on the other hand, this word of Allah cannot be understood with any degree of certainty. That is a true miracle and very cynical to boot. Allah sends mankind a book to guide them but nobody can actually figure out exactly what its content means!?!?
In explanation of this, Linda tells us that it is like that since Allah is unique.
All of this is naturally totally irrelevant and incoherent. Is it because Allah is unique and superior to everything, and because nobody can comprehend his nature with any degree of certainty, that we therefore should consider it normal that the final and ultimate message he delivers to the people be meant to be fudged and equivocal and confusing? Very strange!
Take the following comparison. French President Sarkozy writes a book to explain his plans for France to the population. As it is, the highest office in France is that of the President; he is above everybody else. And he is, obviously, the only one who holds the status of President. If we understand Linda Bogaert correctly, it would be no problem for her should nobody have a clue as to what the book is all about and subject to a host of different interpretations, even though Sarkozy proclaims that his book is a clear statement and serves as guideline and directive to society and the political world in France. In such a case, every rational person would consider Sarkozy’s book to be pure gobbledegook, proof of his failure, and that the vote for him as president may have been the wrong one. Conversely, it does not signify either that someone who claims to understand Sarkozy’s message asserts therewith his or her equal status with the President!
In explanation of this, Linda tells us that it is like that since Allah is unique.
All of this is naturally totally irrelevant and incoherent. Is it because Allah is unique and superior to everything, and because nobody can comprehend his nature with any degree of certainty, that we therefore should consider it normal that the final and ultimate message he delivers to the people be meant to be fudged and equivocal and confusing? Very strange!
Take the following comparison. French President Sarkozy writes a book to explain his plans for France to the population. As it is, the highest office in France is that of the President; he is above everybody else. And he is, obviously, the only one who holds the status of President. If we understand Linda Bogaert correctly, it would be no problem for her should nobody have a clue as to what the book is all about and subject to a host of different interpretations, even though Sarkozy proclaims that his book is a clear statement and serves as guideline and directive to society and the political world in France. In such a case, every rational person would consider Sarkozy’s book to be pure gobbledegook, proof of his failure, and that the vote for him as president may have been the wrong one. Conversely, it does not signify either that someone who claims to understand Sarkozy’s message asserts therewith his or her equal status with the President!
Trying to find logic in these bizarre contortions is like looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack: Allah is unique, hence you must be prepared to interpret his word in a number of different ways. Well, good luck figuring this one out!!!
Naturally, Linda may be expected to know the following Koran verses:
Naturally, Linda may be expected to know the following Koran verses:
5.15. O People of the Book! There hath come to you our Apostle, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary):
There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, --
5.16. “Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His Will, unto the light, --guideth them to a Path that is Straight.”
There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, -
5.16. “Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His Will, unto the light, -
Here, Allah says that the Koran brings a clear message and is meant to guide people out of the darkness into the light. However, these verses do not fit into her argument, hence Linda Bogaert prefers to ignore them.
End of Part 1
BEWEGING VAN BELGISCHE EX-
MOVEMENT OF BELGIAN FORMER MUSLIMS
