Time Immortal

The most shameful part of the Aqsa tragedy lies in the online and offline rumours that those who consider themselves �rightly guided� have been circulating. Some suggested that she had a black boyfriend (note the racism), others that she was sexually promiscuous, and some even called her a drug pusher. In other words, her father had every moral right to kill her, is the message.

The Canadian imams, many of them in their self-styled attires and operatic headgear came out with other justifications. Sheikh Alaa El-Sayyed, imam of a Toronto mosque, said, �Women who wear hijabs occupy higher positions in Islam, according to religious teachings.� Where did the imam get that because nowhere does Islam lay that out? He also said, �We cannot let culture supersede religion. If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it.� Translated into straight language, it means that since Aqsa stayed away from the teachings of Islam, she had to �pay for it�.

Imam Iqbal Nadvi of Oakville�s Al-Falah Islamic Centre mosque said, �Parents fail and bring shame upon themselves if a child chooses to abandon holy writings and not wear the hijab. It is their duty to convince their kids that this is part of their culture.� In other words, Aqsa�s father was justified in killing her because she would not wear the hijab. He also said that Aqsa was �going in the wrong direction, going with some other boy or some other thing.� That being so, she got what was coming to her and good riddance that was.

Now let me quickly examine what precisely the Quran says on the subject, because that alone should be a believing Muslim�s supreme and only guide. Dr Fazlur Rahman�s wrote that all Quranic passages, revealed as they were at a specific time in history and within certain general and particular circumstances, should be given expression relative to those circumstances. Another Muslim scholar, Dr Ibrahim Syed, says that those who claim that the Quranic verses are explicit about hijab base that position on Sura Al-Ahzab (33:59). The operative words in Arabic on which this interpretation is based mean (that women should) �lower their garments� or �draw their garments closer to their bodies”. Nowhere does the verse say that the face should be covered. In fact, the verse is devoid of the word ‘face’.

The advocates of hijab also quote in support of their position Sura Al-Nur (24:31). Dr Syed writes: �In the pre-Islamic period, women used to wear a cloth called khimar on their necks that was normally thrown towards the back leaving the head and the chest exposed. The reference in Al-Nur apparently instructs that this piece of cloth, normally worn on the head and neck, should be made to cover the bosom.” The khimar was akin to a scarf or the Pakistani dupatta He writes: �So it is erroneous to conclude that the Quran demands (of) Muslim women to cover their heads.”

There’s been a lot of back and forth on the blog recently about the nature of the Aqsa Parvez murder, much of which seems to have centred on the role and place of hijab in Islam. And that’s a very good thing — this is the sort of issue which needs to be discussed, since only by discussing it will we get to the truth of the matter. And when the discussion reaches a point like this:

For Muslims hair is indeed something, akin to breasts, to be covered, and the functional and rational reasons for the Wests justification of public nudity laws are remarkably similar to the case for Hijab (in terms of Islamic Sharia).

The Sharia laws surrounding nakedness are quite specific, with categories of nakedness depending on the observer (spouse, relatives, non-relative men, non-relative women).

In fact, if one were to look at the legal understanding of Islamic Nakedness (Awra) in front of non-relatives breasts and hair receive the same designation. Meaning, that in the cases where you can display your hair, displaying your breasts is also allowed. Similarly, when you cannot display your hair, you cannot also display your breasts.

…then, in addition to the patent absurdity of the statement, we begin to see even here the first inklings of an attempt to justify the Parvez murder by framing the issue so as to portray young Aqsa Parvez as a blatant exhibitionist. And who could win against reasoning that makes exposed hair on a woman’s head the equivalent of exposed breasts? That Aqsa was clearly a filthy, exhibitionistic whore, wasn’t she? Small wonder she came to a bad end!

Except that, as Khalid Hasan points out in his article above, none of it is even legitimate thinking according to the Koran.

According to Dr Abou el Fadl, “From the gross liberties taken in translating the (Quranic) text, apparently the translators believe that God wishes women to be like house-broken dogs — loyal, sweet and obedient. One can only ponder what type of rotted and foul soul imagines that God wishes to imprison women in a sewer of squalid male egos, and suffer because men cannot control their libidos. What an ugly picture they have created of God’s compassion and mercy!”

But I will let Saadat Hasan Manto have the last word. He wrote that outward symbols, be they beards or metal wristbands or sacred threads across the bare chest, are external manifestations of a sprit that is no longer alive. The hijab, which has been gaining ground among Muslim women since the Iranian �revolution�, falls in the same category. Those who wear it believe that they are fulfilling the Quranic injunction and thus earning merit in the eyes of God. Their reading of the holy book is faulty and it only bears witness to their ignorance and narrow-mindedness. Aqsa Parvez lost her young life at the altar of ignorance. She will surely end up in heaven.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: Kathy Shaidle)