It’s a rare occasion when a news headlinee in the New York Times catches my eye. With so much coverage on the war on Iran (not a typo) or Obama’s road show which the Germans are not that happy with, ones eyes tend to glaze over. Then there are copious reports on McCain’s latest statements which are not that bright and make one wonder whether he could after all be presidential material. Oh, and let’s not forget the doom and gloom in the economy.
The report in question provides a fairly neutral discussion on a recent ruling by the highest administrative court in France, denying a woman the right to French citizenship. The reason the woman did not receive her citizenship, although her husband is French and she has been living in France for several years, is because she is perceived to be a radical in her practice of Islam by wearing a full veil.
Could the wearing of the niqab, the facial veil that only exposes the eyes of the face of the person to the outside world in conjunction with a full body covering, be so offensive that it became the reason a citizenship was denied? This topic amongst other issues brought on by cultural and religious differences of immigrants to Europe are hotly and emotionally debated by all sides.
The French court ruled that the woman was not sufficiently assimilated into the culture of France in that the niqab represents a symbol of the suppression of a woman’s rights and submission to her male relatives.
On the other hand, the ruling could be in line with the law introduced four years ago that banned religious clothing in public schools. Possibly the issue is more against fundamentalist religion rather than protecting a woman’s rights. After all, earlier this year a court in Lille annulled a marriage on request of a Muslim husband whose wife had lied about being a virgin. That ruling hardly puts the rights of a woman first.
No matter what the issue could be, the question still remains a difficult one to find an answer to. As a woman I experience a real pang of pity every time I see a woman draped from head to toe with only the eyes visible. I imagine what her life must be like.
Of course not every Muslim male is a dictator and it is probable that most women are treated well within the family and the marriage. But what about those who are not? They do not have a chance to escape. The number of honour killings reported on and prosecuted in the UK are quite substantial and these are the ones that are noticed. In many cases young women disappear and nobody bothers to report it.
Besides physical and emotional abuse a woman may suffer at the hands of her husband and family, the fact that she is a slave is what really gets to me. No doubt there are women that find this enslavement acceptable, having been brainwashed from birth that this is a tradition and religion she needs to follow.
But what about the young, intelligent girls growing up in European countries who are denied education and a chance to make their mark? They are condemned to marriage and child care with no option of another kind of life. This is not to say that marriage and child care is all bad. It is the lack of choice that gets to me.
On the other hand, the right to practice ones religion in whatever form is also something I feel quite strongly about. This in spite of the fact that I don’t believe that formal religion has necessarily been in the best interest of the ordinary folk. Alone, the Catholic Church for instance has its immense wealth to thank for the fact that sins are paid off with money which the church collects. I haven’t seen a bank account in the name of JC as yet, but could be wrong.
It is the choice of everybody to be allowed to believe in whatever they wish and hope that it makes them happy. This includes polygamous sects and Scientology. As long as the person following the religion has a choice to leave, without fears to their personal safety, they should be able to believe in anything.
That said, it seems to me that often the religions that inflict the most restrictive norms on their followers tend to enforce the submission of the woman to the males in her family, whether husband or other.
Just the way the followers worship is a clear indication as to how many rights the women have. In the most restrictive religions, women are either not allowed into the mosque or only into the upstairs gallery of the synagogue. Even in supposedly enlightened Europe, the Church of England voted to consecrate women as bishops only as recently as July 2008.
Women have fought hard and long for the rights they have. And these rights are not enough as yet. Women, for instance, still do not earn equal salaries for equal work, never mind being able to break through the ever present glass ceiling.
The final dilemma that I face in trying to make sense of the religion and civilisation conundrum is whether one should drag the obedient and submissive women screaming and scratching into a life of opportunity and choices? After all, social science studies have shown that too many choices don’t necessarily lead to greater happiness. They could be better off in their restrictive religions after all.
I agree with much of what you have written but your comments about sins being paid off in the Catholic Church is at best out of date and at worst a blatant display of ignorance undermining much of what you have written.
The modern Catholic church does not take money for forgiveness and if you really want to point fingers you should look at the evangelical churches that encourage the tithing of money to prove your devotion to God.
This is much closer to the point you are looking to make than picking on the Catholics (who have more serious issues to answer for).
It is in the best interest of a community to utilize its people. This means an equality of opportunity, without imposed restrictions on race, religion or gender. Briefly, if you want to succeed then you gots to allow everyone the opportunity to succeed. Because if you don’t, as sure as peas grow in pods, a wonderfully capable person in your restricted (class/race/gender) will be restricted and will not contribute.
@terryeo
You should perhaps define success.
Someone raping a young child because they believe that having sex with a virgin will cure them of aids may believe they are “successful”, even culturally informed. One cannot endorse every notion of success.
One can stipulate however, that if one wants to be a member of an “enlightened” society as defined by the south african constitution for example, then one must actually believe in equality, freedom of speech, the rights of women and children etc.
What one finds quite often apparently is immigrants moving to 1st world countries for the economic benefits but actively opposing what we take for granted in terms of the treatment of women, animals etc.
The likelihood of honour killings and other abominations of less enlightened bodies of thought proliferating instead.
So, in short, we actually have to demand certain standards from our society. Not everything and everyone is cool.
I do not wish to bash anyones religion, thought process, or acceptance/non-acceptance of God. This is merely me trying to set the record straight. Anje, I am sure you are a sensible person; please do a little more research on Islam and its treatment of women. I recently tried to find out more about the Amish people of America and was shocked to discover that they are not allowed to study further than gr.8. Taking a step back, I realised that this was a decision they had made themselves. Also, honour killings ARE NOT PART OF ISLAM. I dont know how more to emphasise this. People, Muslims as well, are often guilty of confusing religion with culture. I know you might disagree, but religion is from God and culture is man-made. Islam does not advocate ‘blind’ faith. We are instructed to travel the world, seek knowledge, and seek the truth. There are coutless Muslim women in our history who were famed poets, chemists, mathemiticians, successful business women. If a woman is fully covered and chooses not to study, it is not that the religion has dictated this. Muslim women with the face veil here in SA go hiking, they are web developers, newspaper editors. They raise their children, nag their husbands (without fear of being beaten, I might add) and gleefully land in spats with their mothers-in-law. It is highly regrettable that the Muslim woman is always portrayed as a singular personality. That of a woman forced into sheaths of cloth, forbidden from learning anything, beaten, killed if her honour has been ‘compromised’. A mute, a spineless life-form with no gusto. Islam does not advocate this.
I fail to understand why people leave oppressive regimes and move to Europe only to perpetuate the very systems of oppression and downright abuse that they have chosen to flee from.
Given the commitment to democracy in counries like France, is it really surprising that they do not take the influx of extremists lightly? If one is not prepared to assimilate and embrace the culture of the country one is emigrating to, why go at all?
I have a wife that wears the full face veil. She has been wearing it for the last 5 years or so. She used to be quite a western orientated person before that. At some point however she made a decision in her life. To follow a religious guideline according to her own understanding. She was never forced. She simply made her own decision. Just the other day I asked her if she could take it off and take a walk to the local mall with me. She refused. She asked me if I wanted to impose my understanding of religion upon her. All you have proved in your article is your complete misunderstanding of the niqab. If you did you may see that the rights Islam gives to women is closer to radical feminism. get off your high horse – ease up on reading the propaganda and get to know some of these ladies.
The Quran in chapters 24 and 33 describe the etiquette of socialization between men and women and women’s dresscode in public. Both genders have been commanded to lower their gaze not just women. Also the verse further says that women should wear loose-fitting garments when outdoors (33:59).
However, the Qur’an does not ordain veiling or head cover. Modern psychology, too, rules out the scalp hair as a means of arousal in the male or the female.
Therfore, no woman becomes a lesser Muslim by refusing to the veil. Likewise, no woman becomes a greater Muslim by observing purdah (veil and cloak)
The “Muslim ummah” is practicing Christian beliefs that derive largely from the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. Lemme demonstrate:
The wearing of the head covering for women is not part of the Prophet’s teachings and is not found in the Quran. It is a belief and a practise that was taken by the early Muslim scholars from the Christian Bible. Again this clearly shows the great tolerance and acceptance of the Muslim scholars and the Muslim ummah towards the teachings taken from the Christian Bible.
The wearing of the head covering for women is from the Bible, 1st Corinthians, chapter 11 :
Revised Standard Version
[1Cor 11:5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head- it is the same as if her head were shaven.
[1Cor 11:6] For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
[1Cor 11:10] That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.
[1Cor 11:13] Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
So the commandment for a woman to cover her head is in the Bible. This belief has seeped into the Muslim belief and has now become part and parcel of the practice of Islam today.
Unfortunately under the guise of modernity, a vast majority of Christians themselves today are not following the teachings of the Bible – the large majority of christian women do not cover the head. Hence it is the Muslim ummah who are very good Christians because they still uphold these Biblical teachings. As I have said the covering of the head for women is not found in the Quran.
It’s no surprise that the women’s question is acquiring ever greater importance throughout the world. The women suffer discrimination whichever community or country they belong to. Women in western countries also suffer discrimination in the male dominated society though there may be difference of degree. Women in Islamic countries are perceived to be suffering more compared to other countries. What is happening in Afghanistan at the hands of Taliban has reinforced this perception. The Taliban are treating women in a most primitive way. It is hardly Islamic. Yet they do it in the name of Islam.
The orthodox `ulama treat the question of women in Islam with hypersensitivity. They are opposed to any kind of change in general but on women’s question, in particular. They imitate quite mechanically all the provisions in this respect formulated by the `ulama more than thirteen hundred years ago. Any re-thinking on the issue is no less than a sin. Also, the question of women has become an important question of Islamic identity vis-à-vis the west as far as the Islamic countries are concerned and also of Muslim minorities vis-à-vis the majority communities in countries like India. Thus any change in Muslim personal law is opposed vigorously as threatening Muslim identity and an unwarranted interference in Islam. One of the agenda of Islamic revolution in Iran was to reassert Islamic identity vis-à-vis the west and it found expression in enforcing chador (a head-gear) for women.
The Islamic revival throughout Islamic world is encouraging women to take to veil. Check this out in Cape Town of young girls adopting the veil.
Similarly in countries like Egypt the women, particularly the university students have taken to the veil to assert their Islamic identity. In fact in this time of MTV when the western pop culture is being disseminated with all vengeance such a reaction appears to be quite normal.
Women in Islamic countries assert ‘modesty’ to fight the western ‘vulgarity’. These are two different cultures poles apart.
It is struggle all the way for women: struggle against orthodoxy, struggle against certain oppressive cultural norms which do not permit women to enter certain fields, struggle against dowry and bride burning and struggle against honour killing. As women assert their rights and struggle to find a place of honour in the society the society over which there is domination by men reacts more sharply and tries to put more restriction over them. This struggle will go on for a long time to come. What is shocking is that women are being denied even their well-defined Islamic rights.
It is important to note that Islam is the first religion in the world which recognised woman as legal entity and gave her all rights which man enjoyed.
*Thus Islam gave women right to enter into marital contract on her own condition. Her father or any male member of the family cannot give her away in marriage to any person of his choice. Her consent to marriage in presence of two witnesses is very necessary for finalisation of marriage. She could stipulate certain conditions which must be fulfilled for validity of the marriage. Any violation of the stipulated condition could lead to dissolution of marriage. What is most revolutionary is that she can insist on what is known as talaq-i-tafwid i.e. delegated right to divorce. According to this provision in the marriage contract she can insist on delegated right to divorce her husband on his behalf if he violates any condition of the marriage contract.
It would be seen that even most modern law has no such provision for benefit of women.
Divorce is a recognised institution in Islam though it is not encouraged. Both man as well as woman has right to divorce. The Qur’an has made very fair provision for divorce. It stipulates arbitration.
Thus the Qur’an says, “ And if you fear breach between the two (i.e. husband and wife), appoint an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them.” (4:35) The very concept of arbitration is quite modern and this was stipulated 1400 years ago by the holy Book of Islam.
However, it is highly regrettable that such fair provision of the Qur’an is ignored by Muslims and they resort to triple divorce in one sitting which was part of pre-Islamic customary law.
@Tasneem,
There are verses in the Koran(Western spelling) that advocate husbands beating their wives. Also how many “honour killings” are committed by non-Muslims.
If you are indoctrinated from birth in ancient religious shibboleths how much choice do you really have, especially in Muslim countries that often do not allow Western culture to be freely allowed as an alternative way of life.
Try being an apostate from Islam and see how far you would have a choice in leaving the religion in an Islamic country. Even in more liberal countries it is almost impossible; your family, friends and Muslim community almost always want nothing to do with you. This happens right here in South Africa. High profile apostates in Europe and USA often have to take assumed names in order to avoid death-threats. There is plenty in the Koran to support this attitude to apostasy.
Your real choices can be very restricted by Islam, the consequences of your choice can be dire.
@Tasneem
LAHORE, Pakistan. July 18th: The corpse of a Christian youngster Peter, 19, has been hauled out of a canal after he was brutally beaten to death in an ‘honour killing’ for courting a Muslim girl of 19, whose name is kept secret and Christian boy’s name is changed due to some security/ legal reasons. This gruesome episode took place here at Lahore, Pakistan.
@Tasneem
A few samples from the ahadith:
Beat your wives if they commit sinful acts; women are captives of their husbands… Sunaan ibn Majah, 3.1851
A woman is a property; a righteous woman is the best property… Sunaan ibn Majah, 3.1855 (Please note: a pregnant camel during Muhammad’s time was the best property)
Seek refuge from a woman, a servant and cattle—they are evils… Sunaan ibn Majah , 3.1918
Muhammad’s final sermon—beat women… Sunaan ibn Majah , 4.3074
Women are your prisoners, treat them well, if necessary beat them but not severely… Tirmidhi, 104
@Tasneem
A few samples from the ahadith. As I understand it these ahadith are as binding on Muslims as the Koran
Beat your wives if they commit sinful acts; women are captives of their husbands… Sunaan ibn Majah, 3.1851
A woman is a property; a righteous woman is the best property… Sunaan ibn Majah, 3.1855 (Please note: a pregnant camel during Muhammad’s time was the best property)
Seek refuge from a woman, a servant and cattle—they are evils… Sunaan ibn Majah , 3.1918
Muhammad’s final sermon—beat women… Sunaan ibn Majah , 4.3074
Women are your prisoners, treat them well, if necessary beat them but not severely… Tirmidhi, 104
I really enjoy the debate that articles in Thought Leader often produce.
Thanks to all who have participated here.
@Jeff:
You are quite correct. Honour killings happen by and large in the subcontinent. Yet there are 2 billion muslims spread accross the globe. Clearly the Indian/ Pakistani culture must have some elements within that explain this. Definitely not ISLAM.
The ahadith you qoute are accurate. But any fool can take snippets out of the Quran to feed propaganda. If Islam so boldly allows men to strike a woman, then perhaps you could explain that why spousal abuse is by and large not a major problem in muslim communities. Our men do spank us if you cared to know!
@ anja:
I as a practising Muslim am getting bored with people who have absolutely no clue portraying me as a victim. I love my GOD, and He is my protector. I much rather wear the niqab, that walk the streets looking tarty and attracting unwanted attention. In the privacy of my home, my husband is not denied in any way.
Dont believe all that propaganda, and come out for a cup of coffee with me. Unless you are afraid you may actually understand where we muslim women are coming from.
@Sadia
The problem with the Abrahamic religions is that any fool does take snippets out of their “holy books” to justify anything they want. These books are all contradictory in what they say. People take the bits the like and push those bits as if that is the truth. Problem is the Muslims are by far the main ones who take the violent bits to justify their actions.
Honour killings are not limited to India/Pakistan, they occur throughout the Islamic world. They are also now occuring far more frequently in Europe and America. Always by Muslims, who justify it as being “Islamic”.
You can wear what you like in a democratic society, as long as it covers your dangly bits. You may love your “god”, I would have thought that any god would have more to worry about than what people wear or how they cut or display their hair.
Personally I quite like the tarty look on a woman whose confident enough to display attractive parts of her body. To me and most “westerners” your niqab looks ridiculous. Personally I couldn’t care less whether you are a victim or not. I’m more concerned with the real victims of Islamic excess justified by appeals to the Koran or ahadith.
@ardee
You think it is unfortunate that people have used “modernity” to not follow the teachings of the Bible. What would you have these christians do: stone people to death for adultery, homosexuality, etc. Thank goodness christians have given up this nonsense. There is much more in the Bible that would best be left in the dustbin of history.
@sadia
Reports submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights show that honor killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda.
They have also occurred in USA, Canada and Australia that I know of.
@ Jeff:
I am sure you will find that in the overwhelming majority of those countries you qoute, honour killings were committed by Muslims of Indian/ Pakistani descent. I will not argue this point further other than to say that all Islamic authorites abhore the practice.
It is a pity that you have chosen to play the man, and not the ball. The world is a global village, and i could not care less how ridiculous you think i look. I am under no obligation to conform to standards you have assumed to be superior than others.
@Sadia
Whether they are of Indian/Pakistani descent is neither here nor there really, but the ones taking place in Iran, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, etc. are almost certainly perpetrated by nationals of those countries. Furthermore, the accused are tried in Islamic courts in those countries and almost invariably found to be “Not guilty”, which belies your claim that Islamic authorities “abhor the practice”.
Of course you are under no obligation to conform to standards of dress that I find ridiculous. We’re all entitled to look ridiculous according to our own standards of taste. The point is you can dress as you like because you live in a non-Islamic country. Just imagine a “western” woman trying to apply western standards of dress in a Muslim country. No freedom to look ridiculous by their own dress standards there. Minimum, she’d probably spend time in jail.
Islam is the same as the other Abrahamic religions in that people, including “the authorities” can pick and choose any bits of the religion they like to justify their actions.
@ Jeff
Yess those hadith you quote is the result of 8th century writings by Persian scholars in the name of Islam. I am a Muslim. What is the difference between a practicing one Sadia by the way? And what propoganda. Please disprove my assertion that the head cover is an innovation not found in the Quran at all.
Jeff, I have in no way intimated that these barbaric statements be carried out by the Christians. Thank goodness people have seen reason. Yes the muslims in the guise of their imams, sheikhs, maulanas will continue to propogate such acts. But I challenge you Jeff to produce a verse where it is said that a woman can be “spanked” by her husband. I challenge you to produce that verse. I know which verse you are referring to but I want you to post it here for all to see.
Jeff, furthermore, I challenge you to bring forth one verse of vulgarity, one verse of degredation of women, then we can talk. Baseless assertions prove no point.
Sadia, is your wearing the niqab, Islamic? Is it a Quranic injunction? What should a practicing muslim practice? The injunctions of the Quran or your own innovations?
Ardee.
The press never stated that the speaker was a teacher. It was an assembly, the speaker appears to be a Christian minister. I’m not agreeing that it was an appropriate thing to say in a school assembly. I object to the manner in which muslims take offence. They really ought to get a life outside Islam, loosen up a little, most of them are so damn anal with their holier-than-thou attitude towards their religion. After all Islam teaches that non-muslims are inferior and barely to be tolerated as they are inferior because they do not believe that there is no god but allah, and mohammed is his prophet. Fact is most of humanity don’t believe that and they are entitled not to believe it without being thought inferior.
I never mentioned that the headcover was insisted upon in the koran. As far as I know it only states that women, or all muslims as far as I know, should dress “modestly”. The niqab, I should imagine was pre-islamic, as it would be an appropriate way of covering oneself against the desert sun and sandstorms.
I’m going to bed, I’ll be back.
All Muslims believe in One God. But they are still divided. How can this be?
Because they believe worship and acknowledgment of God’s Oneness is the MAIN purpose of the Quran. Because of this false concept, they are fighting each other over how to fulfill this idea of acknowledgment.
To believe in One God will not unite the Muslims, as long as they approach the Quran from a religious point of view. The Quran is not meant to teach humanity how to acknowledge God, rather humanity should do that by OBSERVING the Reality around us in nature.The real purpose of the Quran is to UNITE the world. Make it again into ONE humanity as it was before. When we approach the Quran from this point of view, we would fight the idea of division into different faiths as we would then go directly against the Quranic Goal of unity.
Unfortunately the general Muslims are fizated in rituals and earning credits to really study the Quranic injunctions and thus swallow every word hook line and sinker that is uttered from the pulpit on Fridays.
@ardee.
I never used the word “spanked”.
Here is a verse and some more on the justification for treating women badly in Islam.
From Mohammed’s last speech:
). Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals (‘awan) with you and do not possess anything for themselves.
Verse 34 tells men to beat their disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in separate beds. This is, of course, an extremely controversial verse, so it is worth noting how several translators render the key word here, وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ, waidriboohunna.
Pickthall: “and scourge them”
Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”
Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”
Shakir: “and beat them”
Sher Ali: “and chastise them”
Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”
Arberry: “and beat them”
Rodwell: “and scourge them”
Sale: “and chastise them”
Asad: “then beat them”
Laleh Bakhtiar, in a new translation that has received wide publicity, translates it as “go away from them.” In light of this unanimity among the translators, both Muslim and non-Muslim, this seems difficult to sustain – all of these authorities got the passage wrong until Bakhtiar? But her impulse is understandable, as many Muslims today regard this verse with acute embarrassment. Asad adduces numerous traditions in which Muhammad “forbade the beating of any woman,” concluding that wife-beating is “barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided.”
Unfortunately, however, this is not a unanimous view. Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi in his commentary Ruhul Ma’ani gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.” Also, Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21) – and Aisha reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?”
Wife-beating exists in all cultures, but only in Islam does it enjoy divine sanction. Amnesty International reports that “according to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, over 90% of married women report being kicked, slapped, beaten or sexually abused when husbands were dissatisfied by their cooking or cleaning, or when the women had ‘failed’ to bear a child or had given birth to a girl instead of a boy.”
Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing woman”.
There are numerous examples for treating women badly in Islam. For example in his last speech it is recorded that Mohammed said that women were no better than animals.
If you need examples of women’s inferior status in islam, you just need to do a google search. You know this of course and will come up with example to show that women are granted a high status in islam. Unfortunately that does not contradict the negative examples, it merely accentuates what I said earlier, or on another blog on TL, that religious people can use anything in their holy books, dogmas or traditions to justify any damn behaviour they like.
No not all translators got it wrong. Here are some that had it right all the time:
*SIR SYED AHMED KHAN (1817 to 1898)
*DR SIR ALLAMA MUHAMMAD IQBAL (1877 to 1938)
*Abulkalam Azad & Ubaidullah Sindhi – Two noted scholars of the twentieth century
*MUFTI SHEIKH MUHAMMAD ‘ABDUH (1849 to 1906)
*JAMAL-UD-DIN AFGHANI (1830 to 1899)
*Muhammad Asad
*Dr Shabbir Ahmed
*Arnold Mol
*Free-minds
The following brilliant scholars suffered a terrible fate for daring to translate the Quran in it’s Quraish dialect:
*Imam Nafees Sheristani of Arabia (395-461 AH) – crucified.
*Imam Ash-Shaikh Muhammad Tahir Al-Makki (417-460 AH) – burned alive.
*Imam Ahmad Amin Tahir Al-Masri (1883-1953 CE) – tortured to death in prison.
*Imam Moinuddin Al-Ash’Ari of Iraq (313-363 AH) – crucified.
*Imam Shariq Alawi Mu’tazali of Palestine (407-457 AH) – hanged.
*Imam Raghib Al-Isphahani of Persia (1327-1409 CE) – beheaded.
*Imam Abdullah Zanjani of Arabia (459-610 AH) – crucified.
*Jamaluddin Afghani of Iran/Afhanistan (1830 to 1899 CE)
*Mufti Muhammad Abduh of Egypt (1849 to 1906 CE)
*Sir Syed Ahmed Khan of the Indo-Pak Subcontinent (1817 to 1898 CE) – declared Kafir
*Allama Iqbal of the Subcontinent (1877 to 1938 CE) – declared Kafir
More scholares who got it right:
*Allama Muhammad Asad of Austria/Gibraltar (1907-1997)
*Dr. Maurice Buccaille (Abus Salam) of France (1911-1989)
*Allama Inayatullah Khan Al-Mashriqi of the Subcontinent (18888-1964) – declared Kafir
*Imam Mufti Vehbi Ismael of Albania (1917-?)
*Mujtahid Imam Ali Mahdi Kurasani Al-Husseini of Iran (1919-2006) – declared Kafir and imprisoned till death
*Allama Ubaidullah Sindhi of the Subcontinent (1865-1935)
*Allama Tamanna Imadi of the Subcontinent (1895-1961) – declared Kafir
*Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Kandhalwi of the Subcontinent (1887-1957) – declared Kafir
*Allama Aslam Jairajpuri of the Subcontinent (1890-1959)
*Fazil Uloom Dinyah Masooduddin Usmani of Pakistan (19013-1985)
*Fazil Diniyaat Dr. Ghulam Jeelani Barq of Pakistan (1901-1983)
*Allama G.A. Parwaiz of the Subcontinent (1903-1985) – declared Kafir
*Allama Rasheed Ridha of Iran (1887-1941)
Laleh Bakhtiar only published recently. But she is only translating that verse correct. However, her translation still dutiful follows the ancient imam’s interpretation of women being inferior, so she has done nothing new. In fact she still damages the Quran with her incorrect understanding of she maintains the weak and erroneous concepts prevalent in the once Zoroastrian culture of Persia and then given to the Qur’anic terms which became ‘MA’RUF’ (well-known and accepted) even among the Arabs! In other words she continues with the fatalistic translation of SHAN-E-NUZUL’.
So you can see, the people trying to do the right thing are invariably declared out of the fold of Islam. Ask ME about that..:)
*Imam Nafees Sheristani of Arabia (395-461 AH)
*
“Tazkirah” by Allama Mashraqi was nominated for Nobel Prize (http://allama-mashriqi.8m.com. There are three volumes of this monumental work. It is worth reading. It is written in high flown Urdu. Mashriqi was a globally known scholar. He graduated from the University of Cambridge in 1912. He completed four Triposes in five years. His academic records at Cambridge have yet not been matched. For info:
http://www.allamamashraqi.com/mashraqipraised.html