Times of Our Lives

I, buying a Quran from a shopkeeper.

I: Show me Quran with translation.
Him: I only have one Quran with translation and the rest without it.
I: Why?
Him: Nobody buys Quran with translation these days.


How Awesome.

25:30 - And the messenger said: "My Lord, my people have deserted this Qur'an."

Qisas and Diya - In Quran

Qisas is a very important aspect in Islam and specifically its implementation in the society. The real life example of it is being played out currently in Shah Rukh Jatoi and Shahzeb murder case in Pakistan. You can read the details here. To summarize: Shah Rukh Jatoi's servant teased Shahzeb's sister in a wedding, their altercation led to escalation and finally Shahzeb being shot dead by Shahrukh Jatoi. There was great hue and cry in Pakistan in 2012 since its very common in Pakistan for influentials to get away with murders by 'paying' the victims family, as an out of court settlement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan took suo muo notice. It was in media everywhere. The criminal remained behind bars but the case could not see culmination. The Anti Terrorism Court (ATC) did convict him (terrorism clauses were added in case) but it went into the appeal process. 

Up until now that is.

The lawyers successfully argued for the criminal that since he was a juvenile (he was not) when he committed the crime so terrorism clauses cannot be applied to him. A court ruled in their favour and thus only murder charges were left against Shahrukh. Then, the usual happened. The victim's family 'pardoned' the killer 'in the name of God', the court was accordingly informed about the agreement between the two parties and Shahrukh was released today on bail. 

This has become a repeat scenario. Influential people with money and links, kill someone and then force the victim's family for 'pardon' by settling out of court. The victim's family cannot naturally bear the brunt of this situation alongside threats of these influential people and in the end reach out of court settlement and get released. Its the abuse of the law and religion but its so rampant that one feels totally helpless.

Qisas and Diya in Quran

First thing first. How does Quran treat a murder?

For intentional murder...  

2:178: O you who acknowledge, equivalent execution (qisas) has been decreed for you in the cases of killings: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. Whoever is forgiven anything by his brother, then it is to be followed with good deeds and kindness towards him; that is alleviation from your Lord, and a mercy. Whoever transgresses after that, he will have a painful retribution.

and for unintentional murder...

4:92: And it is not for a believer to kill another believer except by accident. And whoever kills a believer by accident, then he shall free a believing slave, and give compensation (diya) to the family; except if they remit it. If he was from a people who are enemies to you, and he was a believer, then you shall free a believing slave. And if he was from a people with whom you have a covenant, then a compensation to his family, and free a believing slave. Whoever does not find, then the fasting of two months sequentially as a repentance from God; for God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

The State and Murder

It is argued that that homicide and unintentional homicide are considered to be an inter-party dispute in Islam and the state does not get involved in it if the parties decide to settle between themselves. I don't know where this comes from  but it does not make any sense at all. Perhaps the wording involved in it is perpetrator-victim's family specific which somehow indicates that the state will not get involved but its not the case at all. 

Quran no where states the 'Roles and Responsibility of a state'. Consider for example the issue where it asks for establishment of justice but does not ask for establishment of courts. Quran nowhere states establishment of a government, parliament, court or police - it states the basic principles and leaves the implementation of it unexplained. Why? for obvious reasons that every culture and society will find ways to implement these measures one way or the other and the establishment of a state has proved to be that mechanism where a collective will of people is established. So if a crime has been committed, then the 'state' machinery 'police' is used to arrest the parties involved, investigate the case, argue the case in 'court' by hiring 'state prosecutors' who plead in front of 'judges'. The 'court' then decides the matter and the convict is sent to 'jail' based on a 'law' devised by 'parliament'. Notice anything about where I am putting quotation marks? these are all roles devised by the collective will of the people manifested in the form of State. 

The argument that settlement of murder case is between parties involved is clearly missing the broader objective - missing the forest for the trees literally. So what is it that Quran is telling us whereas we get to face such ridiculous situations where influentials go scot-free?

Capital Punishment in Quran
In such hostile environment of today's wherein Islam and Quran are blamed for all the mess in the world, the following statement will be considered a shocker. 'Quran is Pro Life!' Yup. Unbelievable right?

Lets re-cap qisas (equivalent execution/ a just retribution) by going through another verse of Quran.

5:45: And We have decreed for them in it that a life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and wounds to be similar; and whoever remits anything of it, then it will cancel sins for him. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the wicked.

Quran focuses on forgiveness and considers it to be laudable act. But It still has a broader objective set for society:

2:179: Through equivalent execution, you will be protecting life, O you who possess intelligence, that you may be righteous.

See? Quran is against capital punishment and is pro-life. As of today, more than 150 countries have abolished the death penalty. Pakistan still supports death penalty. If we really believe in Quran, should we not be following it?

State and Murder - Revisited

So what can the State do in light of the discussion above? First and foremost, do not absolve itself of the duty of protecting the victim's family. Yes the victims have the right to pardon the murderer but only for 'life for life' - meaning thereby that the murderer will not face death penalty. Secondly, the State can devise law to incarcerate the murderer for whole life behind bars. Thirdly, the State needs to abolish capital punishment - because no matter how much we do not like this fact, the murderer's life needs protection as well. And finally, put Shahrukh behind bars because of obvious horror of horrors that an influential bought himself out of the murder.

God have mercy on all of us.

Does Prayer Stop Misdeeds?

 Recently, the Governor of an Indonesian province ordered government servants to offer prayers together so as to discourage them from cheating on spouses. This caused a ruckus amongst commenters online. Does prayer (salat) really save one from doing misdeeds?

Quran says so: 29:45 - ... and hold the contact prayer; for the contact prayer prohibits evil and vice ...

Would prayers really help in the case when people are ordered to pray? Let's examine.

We used to have a neighbour who was very religious. He was part of a religious outfit called Tableeghi Jamaat. He used to gather people to take them along to mosque for prayers and religious sermons. He had 2 sign-of-prayers (mehraab) on his forehead. And he was a drug smuggler. But I agree. Individual acts cannot be termed as applicable to the whole population.

Religious seminaries in Pakistan, called Medressah, are nortorious for phsyical and to some extreme, sexual abuse of children. Now these are men of the scripture, they eat and drink religious sermons. They pray together too. So why did prayers not stop them for committing such atrocities against children?

You might argue that there might be black sheep amongst the people and they portray a bad reputation of Medressahs, which is not actually the case. I agree. Honestly I do.

A group of religious scholars comes up with an Islamic financial instrument based scheme and swindle out people to the tune of 5-6 billion PKR. Now this is not the case of ordinary people becoming teachers in Medressah and doing their misdeeds. They are religious scholars who actually guide people to do good deeds. And they pray too.

You might argue again that criminals in the garb of religious scholars do not constitute as such. They are criminals and need to be treated as such. Even a non-religious person could have done that as well. I agree to this too. I swear by God I do.

We have Taliban in our country who claim to be the purest, and really really purest of us all. They pray and they kill. They slaughter in the name of God. There are some really badass Taliban in our midst even though they perform ablution. They pray too. They even prey on prayer goers in mosques.

Do you see the point of stating these examples? That anyone can do any of the misdeeds whether you pray or not pray. Apparently, that does not have an effect. Is Prayer the answer or is there something about the prayer itself?

107:4 - Ah, woe to the praying ones!
107:5 - Those who know not what their prayer is meant to be
107:6 - They only want to be seen and praised.

So what is a person doing when he is actually praying but only to show off? He has not God on his mind... but his wordly desires.

45:23 - Have you ever noted him who makes his desires his god? Consequently, God lets him go astray despite his knowledge, seals up his hearing and his heart, and places a veil on his sight ...

Take a look around, you see loads and loads of people thronging mosques for prayers. You see more and more people in religiouis attire. Beards are common. There are dedicated religious channels. Ramazan feels like the whole universe is fasting. But deep down, something is amiss. There is moral degradation. Women, children and minorities are not safe - my apologies, let me rephrase - 'No one is safe'. Purity of the heart is missing and till that time, no matter how many times you pray or the Governor of a particular province of Indonesia wishes, nothing is going to change. Yes the prayer will help, just as stated in Quran at the start of this blog, but only for those who wish to be saved from misdeeds.

Verse 2:223 - Women and 'Tilth'

In my previous post, 'Faith, Rationality and Consequences', I had discussed about a controversial verse of Quran in which, allegedly, the women are to be treated as 'tilth'. Antagonists argue that this demeaning verse sets the tone for blanket exploitation of women commonly visible in Islamic societies all over the world.


The Quranic verse is this.


2:223 -  Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe. 


Now per se, there is nothing sinister in this verse nor admirable. Things come to open when one comes to the nitty gritty of it. Three possible interpretation of this verse are as follows:

 Interpretation 1 - The verse means just as it says, your wives are a tilth for men. Good for producing only babies and nothing else. A man is to do what a bull would do in a field. 

 Interpretation 2 - Reference to 'tilth' is being given since for a farmer, the tilth is the most precious thing to cherish. It provides him with bounty and protection. Unless and until the farmer invests his sweat and blood in it, he is not getting respect from the his tilth.

 Interpretation 3 - This relates more to  the context in which the verse was supposedly revealed. Some say that people used to ask how should they 'do' their wives and in came the clarification that the intercourse has to vaginal and not anal. 'tilth', 'produce'... dig?

Now what on earth does this verse mean. If you are an antagonist, you will definitely go for the first interpretation and you would cite the issues of 'a man can have 4 wives and a woman cannot' (No you can't) and 'man is allowed to have sex slaves' (no he can not) as your arguments. Basic idea being that since Islam treats women as secondary so the conclusion of this verse is fairly easy to see.


Then there is another side of the story as well. Quran says:


30:21 - And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect. 


and...


2:182 - ... They are your garments and ye are their garments...


If spousal relationship means tranquility, love and mercy and both of them are like garments to each other, 'tilth' would make all the more sense. You can not do without each other. People argue that why the reference of tilth is given? This means that women have to be in the 'ownership' of a man, nothing by themselves and require a man to be of any good value. Further, when a tilth becomes infertile, it will be abandoned.


Quite frankly I don't know why the reference of tilth was given. If I were a God or had god-like powers, I would have been screwing around a lot instead of sending books for reforms. But then that is just me. Some might say that by just screwing around I would already be following the job description of god. The main thing, I think, is to note that its not the object in that reference that matters rather the relationship of those objects referred. Take the example for 'garments'. Both men and women are referred to being garments of each other. A garment, too, is nothing by itself and requires ownership to be of any value but when it comes to what it signifies... then it means protection, covering, privacy, intimacy etc. So tilth has to be viewed in that respect and not just object per se.


So to conclude, this verse is really open ended. I would not be surprised if the antagonists point out the meanness of this verse. Perhaps all the cruelty done to women in islamic societies is due to this verse. I on the other hand, an adherent to this scripture, see the positive side of this verse. The million dollar question being - what interpretation would you chose if you were an adherent of this scripture? Go for the compassionate verve or be a bull in tilth? The choice is totally yours. Perhaps this verse is a mirror.. shows whats inside you.


Peace.


P.S: I ain't a saint.

Faith, Rationality and Consequences

Faith, for me, is a private matter. What I have in my heart regarding myself and the God, is to remain within confines of my heart and others have no right to judge or base their acts on it. But this assumption gets tested most of the times.

Islam is different in the sense that it involves various issues that relate to society in general, for example, guidelines related to divorce, matters related to orphans, inheritance, marriage so on and so forth. This renders the border between personal faith and public display of religion in form of rites, rituals and behaviors all the more blurred. What constitutes as a matter of my personal faith and how implementation of a certain religious injunction could intrude into that personal space are topics of interest.


Why do we hate the Taliban? Because they make religion (their sect specifically) enforceable by power. Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan are testament to the brutality that Taliban inflict in the name of religion. If I offer my prayers or not, Taliban should not have a problem with that, but unfortunately, it is their problem so I will be dragged to the mosque if I did not say my prayers, will be forced to grow beard and my pants will be above my ankles because according to them its un-islamic. They will not care how good a person you may have been otherwise but if you did not fall to the crtiera they have established, you are not good.


Then there is this little interesting thing. There is an author at Express Tribune who posted in the Blog section of the newspaper titled 'Who says I can’t be a Muslim feminist?' What she was trying to say was that while being a muslim, she held feminine principles too and did not find them contradictory in their implementation. The regular comments followed. I too participated in it. The basic thrust of the arguments was against her telling her that she could not be a muslim and a feminist at the same time because both were contradictory in nature.

The discussion then focused upon a verse of Quran and what implications it might have on the people following it. This will also serve as an example to what I am trying to say in this post. Here is the Quranic verse.


2:232 - Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.  


This is a much debated verse of Quran and antagonistic say that this verse is extremely demeaning to women, that women are to be treated like 'tilth' - they say and provides males all the powers to abuse women. I differed. I said I found the verse telling me to be kind to the women folk. (I will be writing a separate post on that verse later on why I said so, its in the comments of the news website if anyone is interested. My Post 'Verse 2:223 - Women and 'Tilth')


The nice souls on that blog were trying to make me understand what the verses really meant – and they were very mean according to them. They all worried, rightly, that if I were to follow such scripture, I would end up on the wrong front – in this case, will abuse womenfolk. I, on the other hand, the adherent to this scripture, was saying that the scripture was telling me to be nice to womenfolk. These guys were insisting, that since the verses were wrong so I had to be wrong. They said I was just 'sugar coating' the verse by offering explanations. Instead of being worried what I was deriving from the verse they were more interested in what verse really meant. If they thought it would result in my being abusive to women then I was stating the opposite. Is it not this what they wanted?


Take the case of this blog author. She says she is a muslim and considers herself a feminist. She wants to maintain her faith and be a productive member of the society. BUT she is wrong. Why? because Islam and feminism are ‘oxymorons’ to each other. So she could not be a valuable member of the society because she was an adherent of Islam. Not very different from religious bigots who say that only religion provides the moral guidelines. They think that an atheist would not be a good human being, that secular societies would be glaring examples of social evil conveniently forgetting that best law abiding societies are secular. 

In essence, one would not care whether I am a productive member of the society but more interested to know what my faith was and then trashing it. But for what? Does one argue just for the sake of argument or there has to be an outcome preferably positive from it? Whether I am a believer of a certain faith, follower of a particular religion, believer in thousand gods or just single one, whether I am an atheist and rationality is my only god - should one not be concerned with what good I do for the society and/or personally instead of what I believe in?

The only consequence should be - whether you are believer of a particular faith or your religion is only rationality and logic - be human and humane. Peace.

Islamic Banking - A Facade?

Something interesting happened yesterday. 


The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has announced that Islamic banking institutions can collect utility bills after due date with ‘displeasure’ (karahiyyat), which is the opinion of Shariah scholars. (Link)


Islamic Banks were not accepting utility bills for payments 'after due date' because it entailed recovering of 'after due date charges' from the consumer - which the Islamic bankers term as 'riba' or excess. I will not go in the discussion what riba means, the literal interpretation, the Quranic verses or the Islamic legal jurisprudence in this regards. I think everyone agrees that riba means exploitation which is totally unacceptable in Islam.


Islamic banking sometimes seems to border ridiculous and sometimes downright racist. In this particular case, it has got nothing to do with riba. After due date charges are an administrative cost on the entity providing the service. By not providing fee for the services availed, you as a user are violating the basic right of the service provider. Its similar to the case when you hire a labourer for a work and then dont pay him on time. If he demands compensation for it you say its riba! Where was your sense of duty when you were supposed to pay the labourer?


I believe that Islam provides no 'Islamic' banking, economics or finance instead it favours general principles of equality, circulation of money (not hoarding), charity, helping out the needy and abhors exploitation. That being said, I do not have any issues with Islamic banking per se. I totally believe in their right to exploit an untapped, and quite frankly, a huge market of people who believe that their belief system does not allow 'interest' based economy. I am all for solutions that provide alternatives to consumers in which the usual exploitation of bankers can be reduced/ minimized.


The problem with Islamic banking, as I see it, is their exclusivist approach towards banking. They somehow seem to have got the banking licence direct from Prophet. They should be thinking in terms of providing solutions to the consumers of current banking practices. They instead talk of completely different solution - which is not feasible really. Murabaha, Musharaka are modified versions of Sale Agreement and Partnership respectively, they were not 'created' by Islam. Similarly, in the above case, equating 'after due date charges' to riba is merely creating problems for yourself and consumers. Then you have to do it, since YOU HAVE TO DO IT, so they did it but with 'displeasure'. Come on now. Who do you think you are kidding.


Everything and anything associated with contemporary banking is not riba and thus does not require disapproval and contempt.

Can You Touch The Quran When Unclean?

There is this very common notion that one should not touch the Quran when one is unclean. Unclean in general terms would mean not being in the state of ablution or more specifically in case of women, if they are menstruating.

Is it really the case? Lets first start from the verse that actually informs us so.

Quran 56:79 - (the book) Which  none shall touch but those who are clean:

As always, one should check the context of the verses. 

56:75 - I call to witness the setting of the Stars
56:76 - And that is indeed a mighty oath if ye but knew
56:77 - That this is indeed a qur'an Most Honourable, 
56:78 - In Book well-guarded, 
56:79 - Which none shall touch but those who are clean: 
56:80 - A Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. 

A cursory reading would show that a macro perspective is being discussed in which the God (as is the case with this Chapter), is narrating His favours and trying to impress upon the readers to understand the greatness of Quran. It does not show that muslims are not allowed to touch Quran when impure. Compare this to specific instructions of God in case of offering prayers.

4:43 - O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again. 

So one can see that when God says that only clean can touch Quran, it means that those who have pure heart and thoughts can understand it. Its the impurity of hearts and minds that is the subject and not otherwise. Suppose that I am wrong and indeed the verse is talking of being in a state of cleanliness when touching Quran, the following should follow:

If you can not touch the Quran then you can not utter the wording of Quran. Quran is not about being paper and ink right? the words in it matter. Since you cannot utter words of Quran, this means you can not recite Quran when unclean. This follows that since you can not recite Quran, so the name of the entity who sent it, should also be not taken because you are unclean. 

Does this makes any sense? Of course not. 

You take the name of God in any state. You can not help it. When you can take the name of entity who sent this Quran and Who mentions Himself all over in it, why cant you recite it? If you can recite it then why cant you hold or touch it? Remember what I said? Its not about paper and ink that matters most.

So do not be the one restricting yourself (and others) in touching or reciting the Quran when no where God intends to or said so. 


Peace


Related Post
- Menstruation and Religious Duties

Is Adoption Allowed In Islam?

Frankly, I was startled by this statement that Islam does not allow adoption. This is so strange, why would Islam do that? Such a novel act of taking in a human being in your folds, caring and protecting him/ her and then raising them to be the productive members of the society - at least in intention if not in reality. Does Islam totally prohibit that? does it place restrictions on it? What is really going on, I asked myself and then set about making myself understand it.

The verse that deals with 'prohibition' of adoption is as follows.

33:4 - Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his (one) body: nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way.

33:5 - Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if ye know not their father's (names, call them) your Brothers in faith, or your maulas. But there is no blame on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your hearts: and Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

Mere reading of these verses does not suggest that adoption is not allowed. Quran is alluding to a certain issue. For example, when it says  'nor has He made your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers', it is alluding to a custom wherein the husband who wanted his wife divorced equated her to 'being like his mother' - meaning she is no more treated his wife.

Something similar is being mentioned with regards to adopted children but it is not clear. Lets explore some more. The next verse mentions that the adopted children should be called by their father's name. Still, no explicit prohibition on adoption but one can see that the name of father is being given importance. But what for? Whats in a name?

When Quran talks about adopted children, it talks in terms of Orphans^*1 because that is most likely scenario to occur. Couple of things to discuss here. First is the notion that since adoption is not allowed so it follows that the adopted child will not be able to inherit. This is not the case if we are to read Quran.

4:7 -  From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large,-a determinate share.

4:8 -  But if at the time of division other relatives, or orphans or poor, are present, feed them out of the (property), and speak to them words of kindness and justice.

So orphans can have a share in inheritance as well and if you mention it in the form of a will - even better, because Quran stresses importance of having a will to decide inheritance matters. ^*2

You can argue that the verse is simply stating orphans and not adopted children. I will not refute your assertion but at least it shows you can give your inheritance to anyone - no restriction on 'adopted children'. Of course Quran focuses a lot on justice and being compassionate.

That was on side of the coin. How about if the adopted child had some property? Could it be that Quran is talking of this? Lets read further.

2:220 -  ... They ask thee concerning orphans. Say: "The best thing to do is what is for their good; if ye mix their affairs with yours, they are your brethren; but Allah knows the man who means mischief from the man who means good. And if Allah had wished, He could have put you into difficulties: He is indeed Exalted in Power, Wise."

17:34 - Come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength; and fulfil (every) engagement, for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).

4:2 - To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.

4:5 - To those weak of understanding Make not over your property, which Allah hath made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice.

When Quran discusses orphans as adopted children, it focuses more on protection of their rights. One has to be extremely careful in dealing with orphans properties because according to Allah that is one grave mistake.

4:10 - Those who unjustly eat up the property of orphans, eat up a Fire into their own bodies: They will soon be enduring a Blazing Fire!

So one can see that when Quran talks about adopted children 'not really being your children', it states in terms of not eating up their property and preserving their rights. The issues of adopted children not being part of inheritance, as you have seen, is not the context of Quranic verse - and you can give them share of inheritance. So adoption is totally allowed in Islam but it impresses upon you to maintain their lineage so as to not encroach upon their rights - hence the name of their fathers as reference. I am open to discussion.

Peace.


*1 - Quran also talks of adopted child in another scenario wherein it allows marriage to divorced wife of adopted son. (Quran 33:37)

*2 - 2:180 - It is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if he leave any goods that he make a bequest to parents and next of kin, according to reasonable usage; this is due from the Allah-fearing.

Will Mother Teresa Go To Heaven?

Put this question to a muslim then see the reaction. The answer most probably will range from the straight-in-your-face 'No she will not, she was a christian', to 'well she did good deeds but only monotheists will go to heaven.' or to the considerate 'she will go to heaven for her good deeds but after expiating herself.'

Now put the same question to the muslim with he himself being the subject: 'Will you go to heaven?' Whatever the answer - how does he know what will happen to him? How can anyone know what will happen to the other person regarding matters of faith?

Problem with muslims is (and not just muslims) that when they analyze people in term of faith, they tend to downgrade the other. How? Consider the case of Ahmadis. They are the 'scumbags' of this earth for most of the muslims - and why? because they believe in a different person as Prophet. Two things come to my mind. 1) How does another persons faith affect my own faith? and 2) How on earth a certain faith can describe the character of another person? Apparently, every mullah should be an angel. Really? I do not think so.

I know God is very clear in Quran - and Books before it that only thing unpardonable is polytheism. But this is my belief since I am the follower of that Book. This in no way should translate in to downgrading of others peoples belief or being judgmental about their character. As to the question whether muslims will enter heaven - God has answered in Quran that this is not the prerogative of muslims only.

Quran 2:62 -Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Anyone can go to heaven provided they believe in God, do good deeds and know that they will be held accountable for their acts. Yes I know it still is restrictive in nature but that is what I am supposed to believe in. I will explain myself later on this point.

If you would think that only muslims will go to heaven and that would be the end of story - forget it. Muslims today consist of various sects - the umbrella at the top being divided between Shias and Sunnis. Then there are various sub-sects within them and each considers itself the only inheritors of paradise.

So Angeline Jolie, by todays standards, cannot go to heaven for all her brilliant humanitarian deeds because she is not a muslim. Even if she were a muslim, she had to be a syed, shia or sunni (depending on what your belief is) to be entitled for heaven. Tough luck Jolie!

My argument - why fret with who is going to heaven or not when there is no clear distinction between humans regarding matters of faith and certainly when HE says He will judge ultimately? My God, after all, is a creation of my own beliefs. What if there is no Judgment Day and we all get screwed?

So what message do we muslims get from the Quran on this issue? Interestingly Quran informs muslims (and which is the 'moral' of my post) to 'maintain' their opinion of faith and let the matter be decided by God Himself on the day of judgment.

42:15 - Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in the Book which Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) Final Goal.

109:06 - For you is your religion, and for me is mine.

Civil Uncivility

This is interesting.

America has a well-developed system for getting companies to pay for the damage they do; and BP long ago accepted that it would pay in full. But that was never going to satisfy the country’s corporate bloodlust. An outfit called Seize BP has organised demonstrations in favour of the expropriation of BP’s assets in 50 cities. Over 600,000 people have supported a boycott of the firm on Facebook. Several of BP’s gas (petrol) stations have been vandalised. (Link)

What would you call this act of people? Natural reaction? Compare the same reaction with muslim protests around the globe on Prophet Muhammad issue. Any similarities? or nothing at all?

When muslims protest, call for ban on FaceBook (or to ban facebook), arrange protests or vandalize... they are bigoted and uncivil. Why?

You might argue, and logically too, that the issue involved is different. That what BP did is material and tangible in form of damaging the coastal and sea life of Gulf of Mexico. On the other hand, muslim's protest of Prophet Muhammad issue was just an exaggeration of sentiment. How can one quantify a sentiment. Muslims take their religion way too seriously and since muslim societies do not believe in freedom of opinion, they cant take a opposite opinion. Hence the two issues just do not compare.

I agree.

But wait. What matters most do you think? The issue or the reaction to that issue? Suppose an act X results in reaction Y. Does your analysis rest on ferocity of Y or sensitivity of X?

Taking the case of BP. Since the act is sensitive thats why we accept a harsh and ferociuos reaction against them. Agree.

Taking the case of Prophet Muhammad issue, regardless of the sensitivity of the issue (since its subjective) the opposition camp would have agreed to 'just a protest by muslims' instead of 'muslims vandalizing property'. This should show that the reaction is more of a problem than the sensitivity of issue.

Since when muslims protest and they are called bigoted, ignorant and uncivil, should not everyone who protests be called bigoted, ignorant and uncivil? Or is it concerned with religion only?

Why am I writing this post?

Why Islamic Headscarf Should be Banned in Football

Ahem. The Iranian version of Islamic head scarf to be precise.

I had written a post sometime back when I heard the news that FIFA had banned the Iranian youth women soccer team from playing in a tournament because FIFA does not allow Islamic head scarf. I was pissed off seriously. How could FIFA do that? Racist was the only thing that came to my mind.

Out of no where a gentlemen called Ecclesiastes arrived on my blog and commented. He being an ex-football referee, shared with me some points as to why the head scarf was a danger to the players and had in fact nothing do with being associated to a particular religion. When I inquired him how head scarf was dangerous, he stated "A head scarf is not allowed because an opposing player's hand or foot could become entangled with it and snap the girl's (girl wearing head scarf) neck."

Makes sense doesn't it? Here is a picture of Iran's women soccer team in action.

(Link)

As a muslim woman, many would like to be involved in all sorts of activities that ladies without 'veil/ head scarf/ parda' get involved in - like playing soccer for example. Covering the body does not sound that complicated as they can easily do that. In fact, Nasim Hameed of Pakistan is the fastest woman in South Asia! and she did it wearing a long tights and a bit loose t-shirt. A ta girl!


The issue with head scarves is a bit tricky. Mind you, women dress differently across Islamic world and there could be stark difference in appearance of neighboring country's women as in case of Iran and Pakistan. Iran wont even allow the dress of Nasim Hameed. The Iranians focus on hair too as they believe it should be covered. A Pakistani woman football player can be allowed by FIFA but will ban her Iranian counterpart because of the head scarf.

So how to cover the hair and still be able to play a FIFA soccer match?! I honestly have no idea because I am not much in to women accessories. I can think of a covering for hair only, with probably elastic strings to keep it 'fixed' - lets say, and most importantly a covering that does not join the garment on body (below neck - even neck!) so as to be injurious in situation like getting entangled somewhere and doing the damage. Any suggestions? cuz hey.. I want to see the Iranian women soccer team play in a FIFA match.

And.. will the Iranians budge? I do not think so.

Punjabi Taliban & Qadiyani Mosques

Its All In The Name

1 - 'Punjabi Taliban'

Chief Minister Punjab Mr. Shahbaz Sharif was.. umm pissed? ... that the Interior Minister used the term 'Punjabi Taliban' for the militants that operate out from southern punjab in to the mainland of northern punjab. He said that Interior Minister was fanning ethnicity by terming the 'killers, rapist, dacoits and robbers' as Punjabi taliban.

If you ask anyone, pick anyone, who are the Taliban? They will say 'pathans'. Why? Because, quiet honestly, most of them are. The Taliban was a student insurgency, students of medressahs which before them had provided men for the 'holy war' or jihad that Pakistani government undertook (and all of the world helped) in Afghanistan. Our Grand Imam, USA, actively participated in this jihad and defeated the 'evil' USSR. After that, well of course, one wipes his bottoms and leaves. Who stays in shit?

To cut the story short, we as Pakistani citizens are living with our brethren Taliban since then. The current army offensive against Taliban sees them pitted against tribal militants, Mehsuds in particular especially in South Waziristan area. Pakistan army earlier cleared the area of Swat from another deranged fellow called Maulana Fazlullah. The Taliban of Swat used to chop the heads of their oppomnents and hang them in the famous 'khooni chowk' (bloody square) of Mingora city. They all are pathans by ethincity just as their brethren Talibn in Afghanistan.

Joining them in the league are banned secarian outfits like Sipahe Sahaba, Lashkar e Jhangvi etc that are extreme sunni militant outfits that know only one thing in this world - how to target shias. They are, still, operative in southern punjab where they run medresshas and hate propaganda outlets. Alongside them are banned kashmiri outfits like Jaish e Muhammad who saw crackdown against them during days of Musharraf. They too are mostly punjabis.

Now. Why does Shabaz Sharif gets pissed when they are called punjabi and not us when they are taken pathan for granted? (remember I am from Peshawar?) Because we know we have a problem at our hands that needs sorting out. Taliban are killing fellow pakistanis and majority of the affected areas are in Khyper Pukhtoonkhwa and FATA, mainly pathan areas. The ANP is political party that has taken the severest hit having seen its leaders killed - all pathan. Maulana Fazlullah is a pathan and he terrorized the local population - all pathans. Moral of the story?

The moral is that taliban is an idea-based organization, even the word organization portrays a wrong picture because it a collection of nut-acts who share the same goal of 'enemies of Islam destroyed'. It does not matter whether they are pathans or punjabis - they are killers for all intent and purposes. So Mr. Sharif, do not close your eyes and request them 'not to target the Punjab as the provincial government would not take dictation from outsiders (USA).' as this is plain bullshit. Your Minister of Law stood as a partner in recent election with a banned sectarian outfit - who on earth are you kidding? So grow up! and tackle this menace instead of burying your head in sand. There is no issue of ethnicity when they are referred to as punjabi - instead it should make you ponder that the problem is also within you rather than with someone else outside.

2 - Qadiyani Mosques

On 28th May 2010, around 80 qadiyani worshipers were killed when their 'mosques' (yes I am using the word mosque) were attacked by Taliban (punjabi taliban). On the one hand, this was a grotesque act to kill innocent worshipers, it was also hideous to treat qadiyani deaths as some how lesser in value. The 'so what' approach of ordinary pakistanis, since it involved death of qadiyanis, is mind boggling. Not everyone reacted like this mind you, candle light vigils were taken place in Lahore to mourn the deaths of qadiyani worshipers.

The general attitude goes like this as the statement on a discussion board shows:

"There is no reason for a muslim to do hue and cry or protest on qadyani's issue. If it was with Hindus, sikhs, christian or else we all could have sympathy & spoke on humanitarian grounds. But when a group plays with my religious belief & values having malicious intentions, degrace our Prophet (PBUH) and his family, there is no reason for a true muslim to have sympathy or soft corner or protest."

An SMS that I received talked about condemning the Interior Minister for using the term 'mosque' for the qadiyani place of worship because they were not muslims! How great. We, as pure muslims, value other peoples lives by their faith?! How pathetic is that?! What kind of Islam is this?! A place of worship is a place of worship! Not playing politics! Let me show my more superior-in-faith muslim brethren what Quran says...

22:40 - ... if it were not for GOD's supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.

In a qadiyani worship place, they worship God - not who they claim as their last prophet. Just as we muslims pray to God and not worship Prophet Muhammad whom we claim was the last of Prophets. We hate Qadiyanis, even more than jews, just because they don't practice their faith as we do... and we thus treat them with contempt and utter disrespect. Horrible.

Concern yourself with what you do regarding our religious deeds, not what others do. You are going in your own grave. Let God decide who is wrong and who is right.


Check Other Posts
- I hate You
- Muslim or Kafir?

FIFA dress code bars Iran girls from Youth Games

Oh what a hogwash!




ZURICH: Iran's girls' soccer team was thrown out of the Youth Olympics because FIFA rules prevent players from wearing an Islamic headscarf.


Thailand replaces Iran in the August tournament, the governing body of Asian soccer said on its Web site Monday.


The hijab scarf — worn by girls and women to observe Islamic dress code — was not allowed under FIFA rules relating to on-field equipment, the Asian Football Confederation said. Iran's national Olympic committee had urged soccer's international ruling body and the International Olympic Committee to review the ban.


FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke rejected the Iranian Olympic panel's request in a letter to the national soccer federation. He said the FIFA executive committee had "no choice but to take the decision."


FIFA maintains that soccer's international rulebook contains a section on player equipment, stating that "basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal statements."


(Link)


Understand this. There is a difference between practicing your beliefs and 'making' a statement. If I am in a foreign country and I say my prayers in a public area, I am not 'making' a statement but merely practicing my faith. Whether you are sporting a beard or not, FIFA should not worry because its none of their business. Players are allowed to wear logos of various brands - no one says that they are making statement. You allow them just because money has no religion?


From ugly to racist, take your pick. FIFA rules suck.


Related Post
- Why Islamic Head Scarf Should be Banned

72 Virgins - II

A discussion that veered off the topic and ended up on '72 Virgins'. There is this general notion regarding Islam, in muslims and non-muslims alike, that one gets 72 virgins in heaven. This is especially referred when suicide bombers and 'reward' for them in religion of Islam is discussed. I'll post a small section of this dialogue to show what is the 'general' attitude and then will state my opinion on it.
--------------
He: Why don't you choose heaven? there must be 70 virgins waiting for you in heaven who look better then Vidya Balan.Its a strange choice.

I: 70?! I thought types like you got 72?!

He: 72 extra virgin sir why would i get extra two?

I: because you deserve them? :)

He: Thank s Postman. wow my 72 virgins in heaven. You deserve more then 72 u deserve a hundred virgins in heaven.

I: Na I think I'll pass :p
I don't have that strength to 'deal' with so many :p

He: OO come on postman when will enter heaven u will eat fresh food of heaven and breath in fresh air of heaven and then u will get strenght to deal with more then 100.

I: really?! damn :p
------------
Quran never says 'females', 'hoors as in females', 'virgins' in Quran. It only says 'pure companions' Azwajjum mutaharat. e.g.

2:25 - But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

Pure companions for Males and Females - both. So I do not think you should look purely from 'sex' point of view. For example.

37:45 - A bowl shall be made to go round them from water running out of springs,
37:46 - White, delicious to those who drink.
37:47 - There shall be no trouble in it, nor shall they be exhausted therewith.
37:48 - And with them shall be those (companions) who restrain the eyes, having beautiful eyes

and there is no mention of 70 or 72 virgins in Quran. If its males that will 'enjoy' virgins then the same will be applied to females :p

The Quran talks in terms of bounties and gifts - pure in nature. Nothing vile, evil or ill associated with them.

47:15 - A parable of the garden which those guarding (against evil) are promised: Therein are rivers of water that does not alter, and rivers of milk the taste whereof does not change, and rivers of drink delicious to those who drink, and rivers of honey clarified and for them therein are all fruits and protection from their Lord.

52:23 - They shall pass therein from one to another a cup (of drink) wherein there shall be nothing vain nor any sin.

So 'companions' are a pure gift - nothing like virgin sexual slaves in heaven for the 'righteous'. And the words that Quran uses are parables e.g. Verse 37:48 uses the terms 'qasirat tut-tarfe aye-nun' which literally means 'those who restrain the eyes, having beautiful eyes;' - nothing specific to females. Yes I know translators usually translate it in respect of females but this is not so. Sura Rehman uses the same wording 'qasirat tut-tarfe':

55:56 - In them shall be those who restrained their eyes; before them neither human nor jinni shall have touched them.


Must Read : Wikipedia on Etymology of Huur and Wikipedia on references in Quran

Peace

Related Posts
- 72 Virgins

Belated Merry Christmas! Or Is It?!

First. Have a taste of this.

"if you are a muslim then you should not say merry christmas because by doing so you are saying that jesus was a son of god and he was crucified on cross for the sins of humanity which we muslims do not believe.

SO MUSLIMS PLEASE STOP WISHING MERRY CHRISTMAS TO CHRISTAN FRIENDS OR ANY ONE IN IGNORANCE."

The SMS I received even referenced it to Dr. Zakir Naik. If he really has said that.. then please take a certificate from me for him of being a moron par excellence.

(with due apologies to Zakir Naik) Now listen to me dear muslim brothers and sisters. It is mentioned in the glorious Quran, Chapter 49 Verse number 6

49:06 - O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.

So first thing first. What does 'Merry Christmas' mean? It is "Happy Christ's Mass" and the term is used to celebrate Jesus's birthday. It does not in any way mean that 'Jesus is the son of God'. So my muslim brothers and sisters, two wrong acts were committed. First, you did not ascertain what the statement meant and believed in it at once. Secondly, you just insulted Christians! Give me a break!

As muslims we believe that Jesus was one of the great messengers of God. To quote Quran.

Quran 3:45 - Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;

So why as a muslim would you not celebrate the birth of Jesus? If not celebrate, at least wish Christians well on this day? After all we do celebrate the birth of Prophet Muhammad do not we? 12th rabi-ul-awwal?

Now say alongside me ok? Merry Christmas!!

:)

41:34 - Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!

Islam? Peace?

Islam, the word, means 'submission' and 'peace'. How ironic that efforts are 'made' to have peace for this religion in its holy days.

News : 9 Ulema’s entry banned in Pindi

Ulema and zakireen are usually banned because they might fan hatred and will be responsible for creating law and order situation.

Mini 'Skirt' Islam

"ROME (Reuters) – Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, in Rome for a U.N. food summit, spent several hours in the company of 200 Italian women recruited by an agency and tried to convert them to Islam, Italian media reported on Monday.

"Seeking 500 attractive girls between 18 and 35 years old, at least 1.70 meters (5 foot, 7 inches) tall, well-dressed but not in mini-skirts or low cut dresses," read the ad by the Hostessweb agency and quoted in Italy's Corriere dell Sera newspaper in its story.

Some 200 women showed up at a Rome villa, having been told they would receive 60 euros ($90) and "some Libyan gifts. ... After around two hours the lesson, including questions and answers through an interpreter, concluded with an exhortation by Gaddafi to "convert to Islam" and with each woman given a copy of the Koran and a book of sayings by Gaddafi. "

(Link)


No wonder Islam is the most ridiculed of religion in world.

I say Gaddafi missed it.. he should not have put the restriction of "well-dressed but not in mini-skirts or low cut dresses", I mean, he could have had a 'heart-to-heart' with them... no restrictions.

And whats the title of book of Gaddafi's sayings? 'Perv 101'.

Keep skirting around Islam and you'll strike right at their heart. asshole.

'any morons?! raise your hand!'
'c'est moi!'

The Most Dumb Chain Mail

Call me whatever but this is the most dumb email chain I have ever read. Perhaps its my bias that is rating this email as numero uno dumb but I think it is. It has to be. We muslims are really in dumps and have no solution to our problems. Our responses to events show that only God can save us, only if HE ever wished to. Muslim society as a whole, in any country, is at an intellectual abyss. We totally lack the knowledge to understand and comprehend whats at stake and how to go about solving it. Not that muslims lack at scientific knowledge, we are '0' in religious knowledge too - not of any o9ther religion but ours! Islam!

Read the mail text.


______________________________________________________
The Power of Allah

Why a nun can be covered from head to toe and she's respected for devoting herself to God, but then a Muslimah does that, she's considered "oppressed"?

Why a Jew can grow a beard and he's just practicing his faith, and when a Muslim does that, he's an extremist?

a western woman stays at home to look after the house & kids she's sacrificing herself & doing good for the household, but when a Muslim woman does so, she "needs to be liberated"

Why is it that when a child dedicates himself to a subject, he has potential, and when a child dedicates himself to Islam, he is hopeless?

When a Christian kills someone, religion is not mentioned, (i. e. Irelandand the IRA) but when a Muslim is charged with a crime, it's Islam that goes to trial?

But then again, why is it after all that, Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world?

Take 60 seconds and give this a shot!

Let's just see if Satan stops this one. All you do is:

1... Say:

a- Subhaan-Allah (God is Exalted)

b- Alhamdu-Lillah (All praise is for God)

c- Allaahu-Akbar (God is great)

d- Laa Ilaaha Illa-Allaahu - Muhammad-ur- Rasoolullah (there is no god but God. Prophet Muhammad is the messenger)

e- Allaahumma Salli Alaa Sayyidina Muhammad wa Alaa Aalihi wa Sahabihi Wasallim

2. Then: Send it on to five other people or more. Within hours, five people have prayed and you caused a multitude of people to pray to Allah, and

3. Then: Sit back and watch the power of Allah work in your life for doing the thing that you know HE loves
______________________________________________________________



See the procedure to deal with the questions? just praise God and everything will be OK. Amazing is it not?

We have to ameliorate ourselves. We have to get out of this closed mentality of ours. No one is conspiring against Islam - not jews, not USA, not hindus but us! We are our own worst enemy.

Education is the key for unlocking the doors to the Problem Redress Section. 'Infidel' knowledge of science can help muslim countries unlock the raw potential they have and start utilizing it for themselves. No muslim country can match the GDP of any other 'infidel' country. They cant match even when all of them combine!

Muslim societies have to open up - to more opinion, ideas, discussion regarding social issues and Islam. Discussion about Islam is like going in a dark tunnel, no one dares to go there. We HAVE to go there. We have to face issues that confront us regarding our religion - issues of democracy and Islam, of women rights, of relationship with minorities, of laws implemented as sharia or in the name of sharia. No more 'Islam is peacful and the best religion'. Deal with the issues to show that its best. Do something!

But wait.. I think I know the solution..
*repeating steps 1-3 in mail*

Prophet Muhammad vs Ghazi Ilam Din

Who do you like the most? Prophet Muhammad or Ghazi Ilam din shaheed? (Ghazi was the person who killed the publisher of the book considered blasphemous by muslims in 1929). If your answer is Prophet Muhammad... think again.

Ok. Tell me. is Islam peaceful? If the treatment to non-muslims in Pakistan is to be believed.. then Hell No!

But first, I want to congratulate my muslim brethren on murdering the 7 infidel christians in Gojra in the past couple of days. I also felicitate them on killing 2 more yesterday in Muridke on charges of blasphemy. Excellent work indeed.

Now coming back to the my initial question. presenting my first case.

As a student, we used to study and hear this story about Prophet Muhammad. At the start of his preaching of Islam in Mecca, he went to an area called Ta'aif. We are told that he was cursed and thrown stones at. So much he had to endure that his slippers were soaked in his blood. Still he did not say a word to them and actually prayed for their blessing.

Compare this to my second case. Ghazi Ilam Din was a very ordinary muslim. In 1929, he heard a religious scholar talking about a person who had written a book against Prophet Muhammad. This enraged the young man and upon inquiries it was revealed that the publisher was based in Lahore. Ghazi killed the publisher of this book and for which he was hanged.

If you think that you would adopt the way of the Prophet then you are obviously wrong. You wont. You will go the path of Ghazi Ilam Din and beat the crap out of everyone. Just as we did in case of those infamous cartoons that were published in Denmark.

7:199 - Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant.

Well No Sir! Who cares what Quran says! We know the best way to deal with those scum bags! Frankly, Quran talks trash when it says..

16:125 - Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

See. God does not understand what He is talking about. We muslims know way better how to defend Islam! We even have a specific blasphemy law in Pakistan. Under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code anyone can be sentenced to death of found guilty of it. Psst. we rather prefer burning and killing religious minorities in Pakistan on this one without court proceedings cuz hey.. we also have to do other work too! Who can take time out for judicial course to take its time?

Trust me.. Not even God can stop this madness that we Pakistanis are afflicted with. We are more on path of Ghazi Ilam Din than Prophet Muhammad.

Menstruation and Religious Duties

:)


Funny topic eh? Appears so... but it is not.


Ask any muslim woman whether she performs religious duty (say prayers) while she is menstruating and she will reply 'No'. The common knowledge is that the state of menstruation is 'unclean' so one has to stay away from religious duties. To approach them one requires 'cleanliness and purity' so when she is menstruating, its good-bye prayers, fasting, pilgrimage etc. This prevents women from performing their religious duties even if they want to. How is it possible that you and God are incommunicado for 5-6 days? If HE is the creator, HE should have seen this coming!


The only trouble for me is.. that it is no where mentioned in the Quran that a woman is not allowed to say her prayers when she is menstruating. Yes menstruation is mentioned in Quran but its only in the context of sexual intercourse and that it should not be done.


2:222 - they ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah.

Now one would assume that since menstruation is 'unclean' so naturally prayers are out of question. Interestingly, the verse that mentions the preparatory phase of prayers also includes the 'state' wherein a prayer is not allowed - and that does not mention menstruation.


05:06 - O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favour to you, that ye may be grateful.


Checked the highlighted words? It means that if anyone, regardless of gender, has had sexual intercourse then he/she requires bathing. That is the only condition. It no where mentions menstruation.


Check another verse.


4:43 - O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.


Still no indication that God has disallowed women not to perform religious duties while menstruating.


Mind you, I am not talking about whether women should pray while in that situation. Not everyone of them can because its too hard for them to do anything but those women who want to perform their religious duties, there should be no 'religious injunction' prohibiting them to do so.


Related Posts


- Can You Touch The Quran When Unclean?
- A Woman's Witness Value Worth half of Men?
- Can A Woman Be An Imam?