WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese



    Middle East
     Sep 29, 2007
Page 1 of 2
COMMENT
Unveiling men in the Arab world

By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - Many years ago, there was a highly conservative teacher of Islam at one of the private schools in Syria. He taught a mandatory course in the curriculum called "religion". This teacher ordered the girls in class to show up wearing a headscarf. All of the women in class were unveiled (this was the 1950s). Only one was wearing a headscarf.

The next day, the unveiled ones covered their heads, obeying the



teacher's orders. The veiled one came to class with no headscarf. This story demonstrates how sacred freedom of choice and belief were for this young Syrian girl. When it was a matter of choice, she wore the veil at will. She refused to put on a headscarf, however, when this was imposed on her by a superior authority.

That was 50 years ago. Times have changed, and so has wisdom, along with the freedom of expression and belief.

In May, a lecturer at al-Azhar University in Egypt, one of the most prestigious institutions of Islamic education, issued a fatwa (religious decree) saying that adult men could breast-feed from a female colleague at work. He added that this, when done five times, establishes a degree of maternal relations between the man and woman, enabling her to remove her headscarf if veiled, before him, and legitimizes their presence together - alone - without raising suspicion of sexual relations.

Ezzat Attiya, the controversial "scholar" who headed the department of Hadith at al-Azhar, was fired for his deed, and the entire event caused a storm of controversy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

In Muslim tradition, if a wet nurse breast-feeds a baby (under the age of two), that baby cannot (when he becomes older) marry her children because they would become his sisters "by breast-feeding". Attiya based his fatwa on a so-called hadith (oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed) that says the Prophet once told a woman to nurse a teenage boy who was not hers but whom she had raised, to establish a family bond with him. Many claim that this fatwa is not authentic and should not be used. I contacted an Islamic scholar before writing this article, and he verified that indeed there is no such hadith in the life of the Prophet.

I am not an Islamic scholar, nor do I claim to have the knowledge to speak on Islamic law. I am sure, however, that the Prophet did not issue such a fatwa, because Mohammed, probably one of the most inspiring and brilliant men of all time, would never legitimize illegal sexual activity. This is a fact. The entire ordeal, coming after the crisis of the Danish cartoons in 2005, and the controversy of the pope's remarks last year on the Prophet, brings up several points that are worth raising at this stage, to revisit our Muslim community at large, and the direction in which it is heading. We are becoming increasingly occupied with the small details (dare we say "silly" details), and forgetting the truth behind the Muslim faith.

Polygamy and women actresses
Another fatwa surfaced recently in Egypt - thanks to another cleric associated with al-Azhar - weeks before the beginning of Ramadan. It was in reference to the numerous television drama productions that are annually made, mainly by Egypt and Syria, and aired on Arab satellite television to millions of viewers around the world.

It basically says that any two people acting out a marriage scene onscreen in effect get married in real life, even if this is not their intention. The minute they speak religious phrases that confirm marriage (even if it is onscreen), then the marriage bond between them becomes religiously legal. This is a particular problem for actresses, the fatwa added, because if they are married in real life, then they are committing polygamy - which is illegal for women in Islam.

If the actresses is an unmarried virgin, the fatwa adds, then she cannot marry in real life unless her "actor husband" divorces her. This argument was based on another hadith by the Prophet, who once said that Muslims cannot joke (or in this case "act") when it comes to marriage. The hadith says: "There are three [matters] whose seriousness is serious and whose humor is serious: marriage, emancipation [of slaves], and divorce."

Sheikh Farhat al-Saadi al-Manji, a member of the fatwa committee at al-Azhar, seconded the fatwa, saying that screenwriters should avoid marriage scenes altogether (which is impossible in Arab drama) so as not to inflict sin on actors and actresses. He refused to deal with the issue simply as "just acting" and added, "An [actor] cannot tell a young man [another actor] seated next to him: 'I [give you] consent to marry my daughter.' The one next to him will reply: 'I agree.' Then they tell us that this was just humor."
When asked about the timing of such a fatwa, given that Egyptian cinema (which is more than 100 years old) is riddled with scenes of marriage and divorce, he replied: "You cannot ask 'why' in religious matters!" It is the right of Islamic scholars, he said, warning actors and actresses - especially those who play the role of a religious authority who blesses the marriage - to avoid such conduct. The fatwa caused a thunderstorm in the Arabic press and, more recently, vibrated throughout intellectual circles in the Arab world when a story about it appeared this week in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar.

Revisiting history, and Salman Rushdie
One cannot but wonder, why have the religious authorities of today abandoned every problem in the Muslim world to concentrate on cartoons published in Danish newspapers, debate the crazy ideas of a silly scholars like Ezzat Attiya, or the recent fatwa on actors and actresses?

Yes, the cartoons were very wrong and very insulting, and yes, the fatwa on breast-feeding was wrong and should have been avoided. But as well, Muslims should have shown solidarity on other issues, such as Israel's digging beneath al-Aqsa Mosque, invading Beirut in 1982, bombing Ramallah, killing innocents in the West Bank, and destroying Lebanon in 2006, and the sectarian violence in Iraq. The death of Palestinians, Lebanese and Iraqis is certainly more important to Muslims (or at least should be) than what obscure Danish cartoons, or the views of an until-then unknown Indian-British writer named Salman Rushdie, or those of Ezzat Attiya.

We are not saying that one should ignore the cartoons or outrageous statements, but rather, one should only give them the attention they deserve, with no exaggerations, and concentrate on more concrete issues relating to the Arab and Muslim worlds. The Prophet is too great to be affected by these ugly cartoons or the words of Ezzat Attiya. The reality is that these Arabs cannot - for a variety of reasons - speak out on the real issues that torment their lives. And even when they can, they are completely incapable of changing reality. That is why they go on to the next level - the small things in life - that they can control. It makes them feel important.

Last year, Pope Benedict caused international Muslim outrage by criticizing the Prophet Mohammed. Instead of sending a senior Muslim delegation to meet him, sound their objections, and educate him if he was misinformed about the Prophet, Arabs resorted to street violence. They stormed churches in Palestine and murdered an Italian nun in Somalia.

Many years ago, the same thing happened with Salman Rushdie. In 1988, the Muslim world was enraged by his book The Satanic Verses, claiming that "verses" (translated into Arabic as ayat) is used only in reference to the Holy Koran. Rushdie pleaded innocence, but anybody who has read the book (which is about two Indian girls, their immigration to Britain, and return to India) finds clear offensive allusions to the Muslim faith. A prophet in the book is called Mahound, a derogatory name used for Mohammed by the Crusaders.

Banning the book in various countries was 100% legitimate. Bombing bookstores in the US and London, however, was not. Issuing a fatwa against Rushdie - calling for his death - was 

Continued 1 2 

 


1. The man behind the madness

2. US frets over Iran's 'strategic dominance'

3. Russia is far from oil's peak

4. How the 'gang of four' lost Iraq

5.  Monks in the vanguard for regime change

6. The Iraq oil grab that went awry

7. Buddha vs the barrel of a gun

8.French warmongering aids Iran's cause

9. When central banks play with fire

10. Japan's premier faces India dilemma

11. Economics at the root of protests

(24 hours to 11:59 pm ET, Sep 27, 2007)

 
 



All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2007 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110