EMANCIPATION...? MODERNISM...? "PARDAH"

THE NEED TO RETHINK SOME OF OUR CONCEPTIONS

The chaotic state in which we live, all the devastation that surrounds us and the great human misery that is springing up everywhere are largely the result of immorality and adultery. If we analyze closely, we quickly realize that of the thousands of murders and crimes that are perpetrated every day around the world, almost all of them are directly or indirectly related to women and to the sexual passion she stimulates. It must be for this reason that all people have always considered adultery and indecency to be devastating.

What is happening today? Everyone, especially in the underdeveloped and developing countries, has their eyes on the Western world - a model of economic progress for the governments of poor countries and, alas, a model of progress for the poor and ignorant citizens of the third world that we are.

It is known that the student never doubts the venerated teacher; the slave never questions his master; which is entirely in accordance with the balance of forces between the learned and the ignorant, the dominant and the dominated. However, this does not necessarily imply that the revered teacher is a gifted teacher who knows everything and has nothing more to learn, or that the master is a perfect model, irreproachable and above all suspicion. Indeed, if the West did not appear to us as a perfect model, all of us would strive to find flaws, contradictions and inconsistencies in it.

As far as inconsistencies are concerned, it is greatly seen in the West's attitude towards immorality and adultery. If the civil code of the various countries of the West envisages that the adulterous husband or wife can be brought to court with a view to obtaining a divorce for marital infidelity, this is because the West still considers adultery, marital infidelity as a sufficiently serious fault to deserve no more and no less than a sanction as severe and irreversible as the dissolution of marriage. In the same way, there is a whole legislative arsenal to punish indecent assault, rape, pimping, etc.

However, what happens in daily life? For a long time now, we have ceased to be content with being tolerant of deviations. We are no longer even satisfied with encouraging, in fact we do not stop attacking the senses of perception all day and night.

How many films in the cinema or on TV, radio broadcasts, songs, posters, giant advertisements, fashions, cultural manifestations - art, music, dance - are not an incitement to our sexual urges, or an invitation to the frantic race to satisfy sexual pleasure, or an incitement to depravity?

This, in short, is one of the great contradictions of the Western world. On one hand, they do everything they can to ignite desire and fan the latent fire of bestiality in everyone, and on the other hand, they retain the stupid hope of minimizing the harmful consequences of what could well be called their "sex campaign" by means of repressive legislation against rape, pimping, trafficking in minors, etc. Some will consider that the Western approach is strangely like someone who spreads gasoline everywhere, strikes a match, and then when the fire blazes on all sides, it strives to put it out.

However, what does Islam recommend?

Many of us will be shocked to learn what Islam advocates, so much so that our conceptions, attitudes and positions in many fields are modelled on the West, so much so that our unconscious allows itself to be structured by the subtle manipulators of the West. We will certainly be taken aback, because it is one thing to have the chance to be born in a Muslim family, to have a Muslim name and to proudly proclaim oneself as a Muslim, but it is another thing to be prepared to receive Islamic teachings, to accept it, to put it into practice by seeking the pleasure of Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta'ala and thus finally deserve our appellation of Muslim.

If we are currently having trouble avoiding the lures of the West, at least we will have the comfort of learning that we inherit a rich education, an education that can, when properly assimilated, allow the student of the Third World, of the underdeveloped country or of any where else, to question the venerated teacher of the West. We inherit a teaching that allows the slave of the Third World to free himself from the grip of the false master of the materialistic and wanton West.

Let us learn that, contrary to the inconsistencies of the West, Islam advocates a much more logical attitude from beginning to end. For when Islam considers a particular act to be a crime, it does not only prohibit the act itself, but all the intermediate acts that lead to this act and even others that could lead to the shameful crime in the long run.

Islam, therefore, attacks not only evil but also the root of evil, as well as to the substance from which the root of evil draws its nourishment.

In the case of adultery, for example, the main offence is the commission of illicit sexual relations. Well, Islam obstructs all the routes of access to the main crime by appropriate measures. Thus:

Men and women are commanded to lower their gaze.
Intermingling of men and women are prohibited.
Women are commanded to remain within the four walls of their homes.
When there is any necessity, ladies are allowed to go out but under the cover of "pardah", i.e. they must dress in such a way that the body is concealed and covered in its entirety.

Once in the street there is also a code of behaviour:

They are commanded to walk on the side of the street and
They are forbidden to use strong perfumes or to jingle their jewellery.

Finally, despite all these preventive measures which can only be considered as inseparable elements forming a whole, Islam has prescribed such a severe punishment for the one who would nevertheless commit the sin of adultery that the punishment is sure to serve as an example to all.

The so-called developed, advanced and civilized people have not ceased, especially in the second half of the 20th century, to become the champions of women's freedom, of the emancipation of women. They are full of praise for the feminine beauty they want to show off at all costs because, according to them, women have been bullied too much so far. Exhibiting women even becomes a matter of art, of great aestheticism. For example, pornography is criticised but eroticism is praised and elevated to the rank of Art.

To tell the truth, do these people do anything other than specialize in the denigration of women? Let's ask ourselves the question: doesn't the woman who is skilfully embellished by a team of make-up artists and expertly stripped naked by the professionals of Art and Advertising cease to be an "individual" who sells herself at such and such a price - which is already serious and degrading - to become only an object, better, a "product" that is sold among many others in the consumer society, or worse still, a "product" that does not sell in itself but is used to sell other products that would otherwise never catch the gaze of the consumer?

Is it necessary to emancipate woman and to free her from the yoke of man, to destitute her, to take away the individuality from her, her own integrity, as conferred on her by the Creator, in order to denigrate her to the low rank of a vulgar product? If someone wants to play devil's advocate, they will say that these "produced" women who in actual fact is not a source of honour to women (to the status of women) constitute only a small handful, and that the vast majority of women have nothing to do with this shameful trade.

And this is where we have to be very careful and be very vigilant, and go to the bottom of the analysis. The 20th century, especially in its second half, was revolutionized by the image. Nine times, if not ten times out of ten, we initially become aware of any product through image. In fact, the image comes to meet us, comes to assail us so that we go and get the product to discover more.

The question is no longer so much: "who" is the woman who denigrates herself in the process of marketing a product (in the field of advertising), in the "hymn" to beauty and feminine grace (in the field of cinema, music, dance... everything that is art on an erotic backdrop). Nor yet "how many" there are.

The question to ask ourselves is rather what 'image' do we project of women? Don't the professionals who produce this image exhibit the most beautiful of all women? In the same way, are not the chief make-up artists and the great couturiers called upon to contribute all their imagination, all their art to better adorn these most beautiful women, to make them the most sensual in order to better exhibit them and thus reach the greatest number of consumers?

The question then is to know what we "feel" in front of this image. Are we indifferent? Faced with this flood of images (all different from each other and yet in a certain way invariably one and the same image) that assail us from everywhere in the media and on the screen, are we, do we remain passive spectators characterized by inertia? Or is there dynamism in the reactions? Isn't there a whole proliferation of interactions between the image thus projected and the structuring of our desires according to a plan calculated in advance and skilfully dosed by the promoters of the image? If so, then we are all concerned.

Aren't men subjugated by this image of women? Don't they want (openly or secretly) to possess these women or to possess a woman who is in their image?

And don't women want (openly or secretly) to have a certain resemblance to these women?

Seen from this angle, the image of the woman that the Western model offers us seems to be a fully-fledged bilateral contract. We may not be the ones who "propose" the image, but Allah knows (with a few rare exceptions) we all respond to the call for tenders. We are all involved in the "reception." It is no longer the business of a small handful of women who denigrate and vilify themselves. We are all concerned. May it please Allah, the Most Merciful, to protect us all from the hypocrisy inherent in the human soul as long as it has not been purified by Allah. (Aameen)

All this does not constitute the end of the analysis. It is still necessary to make effort to identify the "why" of the current trend we are facing. Because the West itself has not always been like this. It's been some time (and it is not very far away, for it is enough to go back to the last century) where the woman of the West was not yet what she has become. Apart from women of bad reputation, no woman could move in society without being chaperoned, i.e. escorted physically and morally.

The woman of the West has only been stripped of her pedestal in the name of the principle of the "equality" of the sexes. But does Islam teach the "equality" or the "complementarity" of the two sexes? In any case, has the woman of the West become the equal of the man? If so, why should it have been necessary, in the not-so-distant past, to decree in addition to the Year, a whole decade of women? If so, why, among other things, should the laws governing alimony under which the divorced husband is required to pay a sum of money to his ex-wife be retained? Is the opposite also recommended? If the equality invoked and shouted from the rooftops were absolute, there would certainly be no such inconsistencies.

Woman, in fact, is not, has never been, and can never be equal to man, simply because she is of a different nature - a difference willed and instituted during the process of creation by none other than the Creator Himself. Woman, therefore, motivated internally as well as externally, can end up rebelling against man, against men, against the fabric of a social order that does not correspond to his aspirations. But can it really rebel against the social order pre-established by its Creator according to its specific nature? And who else but Allah Ta'ala - Al Aleem ul Hakim, (The All-Knower, the Wise, the One Who is the Most Well Versed in all things concerning creation and for Whom Creation holds no secrets) - can really know the nature of our species? What happens to the soul of the one who wants to rebel against his Creator?

Moreover, who really benefits from this so-called gender equality? The primordial "advantage" that all feminist discourse highlights is undoubtedly the independence of the woman, who no longer falls under the law of guardianship of the husband and the father. Here is the woman, free to go out and act as she wants, to live her life as she wants. Gone is the authority of the husband and the father. Long live freedom! Long live autonomy! They no longer need men and by extension men no longer need them! But since when and according to what logic worthy of the name, can women exist independently of men? Similarly, how can man exist independently of woman? Because independence implies separate existence. Where then has the concept of "the woman - man's companion" as taught to us in the Qur'an gone? Does the one who wants to travel alone deserve the name of fellow traveller? And what does the term "companion" in itself imply? Have we ever seen two companions who look alike like two drops of water? Indeed, if the two have certain qualities in common, the one has other qualities that are lacking in the other, but also has defects that the other does not.

This is how they become useful and beneficial to each other. This is how they become complementary. With the advent of feminism that ignores the complementarity taught by Allah Ta'ala, the West is losing and dying.

But in this exercise of the so-called emancipation and liberation of women, it is in fact the woman who loses because she is no longer entitled to the privileges of yesteryear. According to the new model, women are equal to men, and the latter no longer feels any obligations to her. In the matter of liberation, then, there is a race of new men, freed from their duties. Therefore, men in general emerge as the big winners of such a system. The liberation of women is then only a pretext to remove the constraints that weigh on man. Campaigning for the emancipation or equality of women also becomes a means of removing the taboos surrounding sex and dismissing otherwise illicit sexual pleasure.

When neither women nor men have reciprocal duties and obligations, we inevitably end up with the cult of selfish pleasure, immorality and depravity.

In this process, women lose everything; their dignity, security and supply owed to them by men according to the law of the Creator. At most, they earn the right to toil as slaves for their daily bread, which they no longer have the right to expect from men at the end of their "liberation".

As for men, finally freed from their duties towards women, are they real winners? Certainly not, because in the end, they turn out to be poor fools to whom women have no duty either. At the beginning of the adventure, he had a companion to keep him company. Along the way, at the end of this so-called liberation, he finds himself alone, without any ties.

If both man and woman come out impoverished, who are the real winners then? It is impossible for us in this text to approach an analysis of the functioning of the contemporary world economy. But such an analysis should prove very instructive. For our part, let us ask a few questions briefly. Who governs this world?

Is it really the politicians or the big capital? What is the role played by the large multinational corporations that have become so powerful that they are above national governments?

The emancipated and liberated woman belonging by definition and by internal necessity to the labour force in the same way as the men who until now held the quasi-monopoly of it, a good part of the answer to our first question lies in this analysis. We ask those who have the means to do so to continue the analysis themselves. Let us say for our part in a more summarised way, that the big winners are in fact all those who in one way or another, benefiting materially from this pseudo-liberation of women.

But the biggest winner is none other than Satan, the same one who swore our destruction in the presence of Allah:

"He (Iblees) said: 'My Rabb! Because You have sent me astray, I will certainly beautify things for them on earth and lead them all astray except those bondsmen of Yours who are chosen." (15: 39 and 40)

The society advocated by the Western world with "emancipated", "liberated" women is therefore a radical change in the social order that had prevailed until then. If it is true that this change has some advantages that everyone will appreciate in his own measure, it is no less true that the harm done to society and to humanity as a whole is infinitely greater.

The fundamental principles such as Tauheed (the oneness of Allah Ta'ala), Risaalat (prophecy) and the notion of Aakhirah (the life of the Hereafter) have been the same in all the Shari'ahs (religions) established by the Creator since the beginning of humanity. However, in the Shari'ahs that preceded the advent of Islam, any immoral act considered a sin was forbidden without there being any restriction on the means that lead to the commission of the crime. One of the great innovations in Muhammad's Shari'ah lies precisely in the introduction of new restrictions which, in addition to the prohibition of a grave sin, also affect all the means which lead to, and are therefore the causes of sin. Why this difference? Simply because the other Shariahs were all intended for specific peoples and times, unlike our Shari'ah, which was designed for all peoples until the end of time. Thus, when the alcoholic beverage is decreed haraam, the prohibition is not only about the fact of consuming it but also of making, selling, buying, transporting and offering it as a gift.

Similarly, when Riba (interest) was forbidden as a preventive measure, the person who drafts the Riba contract and the witnesses were also condemned. In fact, they have gone even further because they have condemned all transactions that may have any resemblance to a Riba transaction by describing the profits derived from illegal transactions (buyu' Faasida) as impure (Khabeeth) as Riba.

According to the same logic, when Islam forbids Zina - illicit sexual relations because it is outside the framework of Nikah - it also prohibits all means, which become the causes of Zina by leading to it. For example, looking at someone of the opposite sex with passion is considered Zina of the eyes, talking to him is considered Zina of the tongue; listening to his conversation is Zina of the ears; touching him is Zina of the hand; going to meet him is Zina of the feet.

In order to preserve humanity from the great sin of Zina, Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta'ala instituted the law of pardah.

Since the Shari'ah was in no way designed to poison the lives of people or to make it difficult for them, the causes of sin have been categorized into three degrees which is as follows in descending order:

Causes having a very close relation to the effect of sin, so that sin becomes inevitable from the very existence of the cause. Such causes are considered haraam as much as their effects, i.e. the serious sins they engender. For example, it is as haraam for a person to sell alcoholic beverages as it is to consume them.
Causes having a remote relation to sin in the sense that sin is not necessarily related to these causes, but it is clear that they make their contribution in one way or another. These causes are called Makruh (detestable, reprehensible). For example, it is Makruh to sell grapes to a person who makes wine with them.
Causes whose relationship to sin is even more remote than in the second category, i.e., their impact on the commission of sin, is very rare. These causes are considered Mubaah (permissible). For example, it is permissible to sell grapes to a person who is not recognized as a wine manufacturer.

To illustrate this theoretical classification, Selling alcoholic beverages is both the means and the cause of alcoholic consumption. Therefore, selling alcoholic beverages is as haraam as its consumption. Similarly, touching a person of the opposite sex with enjoyment (shahwah) - even if the act in itself does not amount to the commission of Zina' - is considered by the Shari'ah to be haraam because it is a very close and direct means of Zina.

It should be emphasized that in order for the causes and means of the first category to become haraam, it is not necessary to wait until they have given rise to sin.

Therefore, abstaining from these causes and means constitutes an order in itself, regardless of what they might or might not engender.

The command to observe the law of pardah is also a preventative measure, because abandonment of pardah is a cause that leads to sin. Just as logically as elsewhere, this abandonment of pardah will also be classified into 3 categories of causes and means depending on the direct or distant relationship with sin.

For example, if a young girl exposes her body in front of a young man, this is a cause and a very similar means to plunge into sin. Then this action is considered as haraam as the real Zina.

Note that it is a haraam action regardless of the effect it produces. Therefore, it remains haraam even for a person who would possess an unfailing "self-control" allowing him to stay away from Zina. This is a law that does not change over time. It is a haraam action today as it was during Qurun-e-Ula'a (in the early periods / time / epochs).

Going out of the house with Hijaab (covering from head to toe i.e. the body totally covered) may not in itself be a cause of fitnah, but it is a possible cause of fitnah. ("Fitnah" here is the danger, the temptation represented by the carnel passion that hides in the hearts of all humans). The rule on this is that when there is no fear of fitnah, one may go out. However, when there is a fear of fitnah, one should not go out, even under the cover of a jilbaab (outer garment). It is therefore a law that varies over time, i.e. it changes according to the times and societies. For example, during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu A'laihi Wasallam), leaving the house well covered was not a cause of fitnah. This is why the ladies were allowed to leave their houses to go to the Masjids (obviously under the cover of Jilbaab and other conditions). But it is interesting to note that they went beyond granting them a simple authorization. In fact, it was forbidden to prevent them from going to the Masjids, although at that time they also had more rewards by observing the Salah in their homes. So, because there was no fitnah there was no prohibition on them. However, after the death of Nabi-e-Karim (Sallallaahu A'laihi Wasallam) when the Sahabah (Radiyallahu anhum) judged that the frequentation of the Masjids by women had become a cause of fitnah, they unanimously decided to withdraw their permission to go to the Masjids. Hadhrat Aisha (Radiyallahu anha) even formally stated that if Rasulullah (Sallallaahu A'laihi Wasallam) had witnessed the state of affairs, then he would certainly have forbidden the ladies access to the Masjids in the same way that the women of Bani Isra'il had been removed from the Masjids. It is in this sense that the great scholars maintain that the measure adopted by the Sahabah (Radiyallahu anhum) is in no way contrary to the practice of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu A'laihi Wasallam) because the conditions that made permission possible had become non-existent at the time of the Sahabah (Radiyallahu anhum).

In fact, the practice of pardah had always existed in all religions and throughout the ages. It is true that the rule of pardah introduced and set up by the Qur'an is of an excellent nature, but it is also true that before the advent of Islam the practice of intermingling between the two sexes did not exist in the noble families. Take the case of Hadhrat Musa (Alaihis Salaam) and Hadhrat Shu'aib (Alaihis Salaam). It is an illustration in two sequences that can be established as follows.

Due to Hadhrat Shu'aib (Alaihis Salaam) having fallen ill, it became a necessity for his two daughters to go out to take care of the herd. When they arrived at the edge of the well and saw a crowd of men working there, they stayed away, thus avoiding the intermingling situation, waiting for the strangers to evacuate before coming to draw water in their turn. Hadhrat Musa (Alaihis Salaam) came to help them, after which he withdrew.
Back home to their father, the two daughters explained the situation to Hadhrat Shu'aib (Alaihis Salaam) who, through the story and the divine inspiration, recognized the stranger who had helped his daughters to be another messenger of Allah Ta'ala. Thus, he sent for Hadhrat Musa (Alaihis Salaam) through one of his daughters. When the latter went to Hadhrat Musa (Alaihis Salaam) to show him the way to go, but being a stranger to the girl, he realized that it was not proper for him to walk behind the girl. Thus, he proposed to walk infront of her, while following his instructions.

In this two-part episode, there is no doubt that the behaviour of all the parties involved revolved around the observance of the rule of pardah.

In Arab countries in general, with the exception of slaves and evil women, there was never intermingling between the two sexes.

In India, too, among the Hindus and Buddhists as well as the other polytheistic sects, this shameful practice did not exist. It is only due to Western liberalism, which wanted to put men and women side by side at all costs in all areas without taking into consideration the biological, physiological and psychological differences distinguishing the two sexes, that we could observe the emergence of this new phenomenon of degradation.

It should be emphasized here that Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta'ala did not create man and woman differently only in form. There are many other differences. But as far as we are concerned here, he has instilled more "Haya", an intrinsic quality of modesty, a feeling of shame in the creation of woman compared to that of man. This is indeed the only thing that until now prevented women from exposing themselves to men. Unfortunately, thanks to the efforts of the merchants of women and female beauty, thanks also to the efforts of Western feminism, this quality of Haya in women has been so obscured that, oh sublime irony, unlike her creation, the modern woman feels the Haya when it comes to covering herself decently, and not in exhibiting herself!

[English version of "Émancipation...? Modernisme...? "Pardah" De la nécessité à ‎repenser certaines de nos conceptions" – Al Haadi – Vol. 1 No. 4]