Saturday, April 18, 2009

GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER - Know-how at whose cost?

By M H Ahssan

While the usual debate over responsibility for reducing carbon emissions continues globally, there is also a parallel argument over the need for transfering clean technologies to the developing world.

While much of the negotiations at the UN climate change meet in Bonn (28 March to 8 April) centred around targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions - mainly, but by no means exclusively by industrial countries, and funding developing countries to follow suit - the transfer of energy-efficient technologies was also hotly debated.

This follows in the wake of the negotiations in Bali in 2007, where developing countries, among some 190 present, agreed to take "nationally appropriate" mitigation actions in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a "measurable, reportable and verifiable" manner. The proviso was that such actions would take into account "differences in their national circumstances".

In Bonn, Greenpeace called for developing countries to reduce their projected emissions by 15-30 per cent by 2020, with support from industrialised countries. As it stated: "Countries in this group range from the very poor nations which have scarcely contributed to climate change, to those that are richer than some industrialised countries and clearly cannot all be treated the same. In order to be fair, the level of action should be based on a country's historical responsibility for emissions and its capability and potential."

After eight years in the wilderness, the US - which has not signed the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012 and will be renegotiated in Copenhagen this December - has returned to the table. President Obama's Special Envoy on Climate Change (India's equivalent is Shyam Saran), Todd Stern made no secret of his country's continuing antipathy to the Kyoto Protocol, which does not require developing countries to commit to reducing their energy emissions. Stern is a Washington lawyer who was a former Clinton While House official.

"We all have to do this together," he told the Bonn conference. "We don't have a magic wand. I don't think anybody should be thinking that the US can ride on a white horse and make it all work ... Let me speak frankly here: it is in no one's interest to repeat the experience of Kyoto by delivering an agreement that won't gain sufficient support at home [in the US] ... Too much time has been lost in sterile debates ... America itself cannot provide the solution, but there is no solution without America."

He also thought that the development challenge was making sure that developing countries have the opportunity to follow a cleaner path forward. "I like to tell the story that earlier this decade, India had only about 55 million people with phone service, but, rather than insist on following the industrialised countries' path of wired service, India leap-frogged to cell phones, with the result that a few years later 350 million Indians have phones. We need a similar leap-frogging of fossil fuels in the world of energy."

India itself, however, said that industrialised countries presented five problems. They ignored their historical responsibility; made unsubstantiated projections of likely future emissions from the developing world; created new categories such as 'more advanced developing countries' [including China, India and Brazil]; demanded that developing countries should deliver low carbon pathways without enabling financial, technological and capacity-building support; and drew unsubstantiated marginal abatement cost curves that showed large low cost abatement options even in the bottom 50 per cent of the world, which includes India, that has negligible historical responsibility and together accounts for only 11 per cent of the current carbon dioxide emissions.

The problem is that energy-efficient technologies are by no means cost-free, and developed countries - which have caused global warming in the first place - haven't put their money where their collective mouths are, despite repeated promises to this effect. In Bonn, developing countries called for relaxation of patents on climate-friendly technologies and products. India, in fact, stressed the need for removing barriers to technology transfer, including a "restructuring of the global Intellectual Property Rights regime".

Shyam Saran specifically referred to India's proposal that the UN climate control regime should set up "innovation centres" for research and development. During a plenary session, Dr Ajay Mathur, who heads the Bureau of Energy Efficiency in Delhi, cited an instance of such potential cooperation by holding up India's first commercially available LED (light emitting diodes) bulb, which had been launched by Crompton Greaves in Pune on 28 March. As Dr Mathur said, "It produces as much light as a 40 Watt incandescent bulb or an 8 Watt CFL (compact fluorescent). This has been introduced by an Indian company, which has entered into an agreement with the Dutch company which designed this LED bulb.

"The engineering and manufacturing of this bulb has been carried out in India, and it is estimated that if all Indians were to replace one incandescent bulb with this bulb, it would save 56 billion kWh of electricity, and 44 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, which would be equal to planting 140 million trees.

"The problem is that this LED bulb costs $24 [Rs.1200], compared to $0.30 for a 40 Watt incandescent bulb. We will, of course, encourage the aggressive adoption of this technology, but it will be limited unless supported by a global regime for the accelerated adoption of climate-friendly technologies. We believe that a network of climate innovation centres would be an effective way to achieve this goal."

Dr Mathur told India Together that while the capital cost of the Pharox bulb was high, it had a five-year warranty. It had a life of 50,000 hours, as against a life of only a fifth of this for a CFL. Even CFL bulbs cost Rs.1000 when they were first introduced. The glass bulb has been manufactured in Firozabad, which is a traditional glass industry centre. Such technology could earn carbon credits because of its low consumption of energy.

Although the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012, the EU has till 2015 to purchase carbon credits, which may not exist after then. In the current financial meltdown, the price of Certified Emission Reductions or CERs - the traded cost of reducing a tonne of carbon dioxide - has dropped in the international carbon market but should stabilise in the long term at around 8 Euros, which would work in such a deal without grants or subsidies. "We are working on upscaling this technology even without international support," Dr Mathur said. "The only way to reduce our emissions by half is by the massive transfer of technologies."

India's innovation centres were required for developing such products and also marketing them - virtually creating markets in some instances. The Electricity Act here didn't permit private operators to generate power but there was a huge opportunity for decentralised energy systems to provide electricity and cooking fuel to some 700 million Indians who had to make do without these two basic necessities. For cooking fuel, biomass, which is widely available in rural areas, would be energy-efficient and received a 60 per cent subsidy.

The Bush administration and Obama's too have preferred entering into bilateral environmental agreements with India and China instead of committing to international treaties. Thus Bush had launched the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. At the end of the Bonn conference, the US Deputy Special Envoy on Climate, Dr Jonathan Pershing, told Indian reporters that senior US and Indian officials and businessmen were meeting each other and that there was "enormous support" to facilitate such opportunities.

Flaring landfill gas
For example, according to America.gov, the official website, U.S. and Indian organizations are exploring ways to use methane gas from Indian landfills for fuel, heating and electricity with the Mumbai office of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, NEERI. Landfills, decomposing food and paper release gas, including methane gas, which is 23 times worse in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Methane is also the primary component of natural gas, used as a fuel and energy source.

"The trick is to capture the methane before it leaves the landfill and escapes into the atmosphere so that its energy can be harnessed for positive uses," Joe Zietsman, project manager of one Indian landfill investigation, told America.gov. Zietsman is director of the Center for Air Quality Studies at the Texas Transportation Institute, which is part of Texas A&M University.

Zietsman's group is leading a study in Mumbai to investigate the feasibility of converting landfill gas to vehicle fuel or energy sources. Other partners in the study include NEERI, the Texas State Energy Office and Mack Trucks Inc. The investigations are funded by EPA as part of the agency's Methane to Markets partnership - an international initiative advancing cost-effective methane recovery and use as a clean energy source. (See "International Partners Reduce Methane Greenhouse Gas Emissions").

"India is one of 27 partner governments, plus the European Commission, who have joined the partnership to voluntarily reduce methane emissions," Rachel Goldstein, EPA team leader for the landfill methane outreach program, told America.gov. According to Kumar, operating vehicles with LNG would reduce vehicular emissions considerably. This option "could be more relevant for cities like Mumbai, which has a large population and generates about 6,000 tonnes of waste per day."

EPA's Goldstein said the next step "is for each municipality running a landfill to assess their options," including estimating the revenue anticipated from generating electricity and selling the gas. For one Mumbai landfill, the choice has been made. "The Gorai dumpsite will soon be the first landfill in India, as far as we know, to begin flaring landfill gas, when this begins at the end of April," Goldstein said. Worldwide, millions of tonnes of municipal solid waste are discarded daily into sanitary landfills and dumpsites. Landfills are the third-largest human-induced source of methane gas, accounting for about 12 per cent of global emissions.

Developing countries wary
One reason why India and other developing countries may be wary of such deals is that after such technologies are demonstrated on the ground, they may be commercially exploited in the international market. In other words, such pilot projects may be testing grounds to see how this know-how works in tropical conditions. By entering into such deals, the US may seek to avoid parting with patented technologies under a global climate regime.

It has, for example, been pursuing the "carbon capture and sequestration" method of scrubbing carbon dioxide from the chimneys of coal-fired power plants, which would reduce the emissions by up to 80-90%. This carbon dioxide can then be buried deep in the earth or in storage tanks in ocean beds. However, this is extremely expensive and untested technology, which however could conceivably be cost-effective in the long run when the cost of reducing a tonne of carbon rises prohibitively. But right now, there are a range of existing technologies which would help developing countries, but industrial nations have shown extreme reluctance to part with them without a fee.

Vishu- The Festival of Memories

By Zubin Mehta

Vishu is a festival of nostalgic memories and they are invariably associated with my childhood . It reminds me of the sights, sounds and smells of my soil. It renews my roots and identity. Those memories are as golden as the ‘Kani Konna flower’ (flower of cassia fistula tree). 'Vishu' is one triumphant occasion when children’s aspirations to become rich are richly rewarded.

The ‘Vishukaineettom” (Handsel or token money given as a blessing by elders to all younger ones in the family) literally portrays prosperity that this festival rightly proclaims. Children feel honored everywhere and for once, in money matters, the elders are at the giving end on this day.

'Vishu' in Sanskrit means 'equal' or when day becomes equal to night, possibly denoting the equinox when this festival originated. The Malayalam New year as per solar calendar is celebrated around 14th or 15th of April every year. The first of day of Malayalam year (as per older tradition) or Medam 1st falls on one of these days when the sun transits to the zodiac sign Aries (Medam). Sun enters Mesha, which is the Lagna or the birth sign of Kaal Purusha, the personification of 'Time', which we experience due to the movement of sun (Now, it is the movement of earth!) and its resultant effect of "Dishas", four sides and division of space, Varna or colors painted on vegetations by sunlight, Rasas or the secretions or juices filled in plants (and animals feeding on them) due to climatic seasons ( Rithus). Sun is the source for the diversity of life and cyclic nature of earthly processes. There is a belief that Lord Brahma chose ‘Vishu” day as the right day for creation. Incidentally Vishu concides with many other festivals in India like 'Gudi Padva', 'Bihu', 'Ugadhi', 'Baisakhi' etc. Vishu also marks the beginning of sowing season in Kerala.

As children our preparations for Vishu used to start a month before the festival. I open my piggy bank on the eve of ‘Vishu’. If there is a shortfall in my Vishu budget, my strategy had been to beg, borrow or steal. The main objective was to find resources to muster enough fire power by acquiring the maximum 'padakkam' (Crackers). The more the crackers that you can gather, the more prosperous your Vishu is. The testing of samplers starts on the eve when the dusk sets in and it progresses till 10 PM reserving the fiery ones for launch at 5 AM on the Vishu dawn after the auspicious ritual of “Vishu Kani Kanal” (The ritual of seeing items that symbolize prosperity as the first thing in the morning).

My mother used to set ‘Kani’ early in the night. It is arranged in a large 'Uruli' (a bell metal cookware with wide base and wide mouth). This sparingly used “Uruli” will be scrupulously scrubbed to sparkle like gold on the eve of Vishu. The offerings placed inside it will include a layer of Raw rice , clean cloth, mellow mango, halved jack Fruit, golden cucumber, plum pumpkin, coconut, betel leaves and areca nut, shining currency and coins, gold, ‘Valkkannadi' (a special mirror with a tail made of bronze. The place Aranmula is world famous for this mirror), a book and last but not least a bunch of fresh and luxuriant ‘Kanikonna’ flowers. A small idol of lord Krishna is placed in front of it with a bell metal lamp set ready for lighting with a match box placed nearby.

Mother would be the first one to wake up at dawn to have the first vision of Vishu. She will grope in the darkness to locate the match box and finally lights the lamp with closed eyes and then sees the Kani and prays and prostrates in front of it. She then wakes up everyone in the family and brings them one by one to the place where the ‘Kani’ has been set with their eyes blindfolded with her hands and let them see the idol and the offerings. This momentous and resplendent ritual of seeing the offerings along with the Lord as the first thing in the morning is called 'Vishukani' and it still makes my eyes misty. This propitious ‘seeing ceremony’ is a harbinger of health, happiness, peace and prosperity and set the tone for the year ahead. The oldies then sit to read the 'Vishubhalam' (The astrological predictions for the year following Vishu) .

The moment the ‘Kani” business is over, we await for the elders to bless us with “Vishukkaineettom” ( Handsel). Our respect to elders rocketed in proportion to the money we were gifted as blessings.

After getting the 'Vishukkaineettom', we would rush to resume the fireworks and to display our prime pyrotechnics to the neighborhood children only to incite their jealousy. The other rituals of bath, donning new dress, visiting temple will then follow. The finale comes with savoring the elegant Vishu 'Sadhya' (feast) with elders and relatives.

Distance, time and era may have diminished the dazzle of festivities. But it has in no way diminished my spirit that soars high on every Vishu. Vishu is our ‘Thanks giving day’, revering the earth and her bounty and reminding ourselves of our blessings.

The sight of golden hues and silky softness of konnapoo (Konna flower) continues to permeate peace and happiness. Surely, the melody of Vishu is not a vanishing one.

The Past And Future Of Indian Elections

By M H Ahssan

In the first weeks of 1967, the town crier in Dehradun left his municipal job to campaign for the Jana Sangh in the general elections. A refugee from the North-West Frontier, this man was tall of countenance and loud of voice. Where he had previously cycled around town commanding citizens to pay their taxes or renew their ration cards, he now shouted slogans asking people to vote for a particular political party. A slogan I remember well ran: Jana Sangh ko vote do/ Bidi peena chhod do/ Bidi mein tambaku hai/ Kangress wala daku hai.

By now, the Congress had been in power a full 20 years. It could no longer cash in so easily on the legacy of the independence struggle. Khadi, once the livery of freedom, now denoted opportunism, and even corruption. Hence that slogan, which juxtaposed the devious ways of the ruling party with the austerity (some would say puritanism) of the Jana Sangh. This party had a particular appeal in north India, where its call to Hindu pride evoked resonance among Partition refugees and those brought up on myths of resistance to Muslim rule. Elsewhere in India, the challenge to the ruling party came from different quarters. No doubt, the slogans being shouted in Coimbatore and Madurai chastised the Congress for promoting Hindi and seeking to eliminate Tamil. Meanwhile, in Kerala and West Bengal, the Congress was being represented as the party of the propertied and the moneybags.

Even as that loose-limbed Frontiersman cycled around my hometown, inveighing against the Congress, a nation-wide survey was being conducted to assess the likely outcome of the 1967 general elections.

Overseeing the study was E.P.W. da Costa of the Indian Institute of Public Opinion, who was (so to say) the Yogendra Yadav of his day. The survey found that the Congress had "lost a great deal of its charisma"; it would still retain power at the Centre, albeit with a greatly reduced majority. However, it would lose power in many states. Thus the elections of 1967 would signal "the disintegration of the monolithic exercise of power by the Congress party".

The predictions were vindicated by events. In that general election, the fourth since Independence, the Congress won 54.5 per cent of the seats in the Lok Sabha—down from more than 70 per cent. Many established leaders lost their seats, such as Bombay strongman S.K. Patil, who was defeated by the then mostly obscure trade union leader George Fernandes. (This, if I may be permitted one last comparison, is somewhat like Murli Deora losing now in South Bombay to Medha Patkar.) The Congress's losses were far greater in the provinces. It won a mere 48.5 per cent of the seats in state assemblies, where its previous tally had always been in excess of 60 per cent. It lost power in Madras to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, in Kerala to the Communists, in West Bengal to an alliance of Communists and Congress defectors, in Orissa to an alliance of Swatantra and Congress defectors. It also failed to establish governments in many states in northern India, where loose coalitions of Jana Sanghis, socialists, and breakaway Congressmen came to form governments.

In retrospect, the polls of 1967 marked a decisive turning point in the history of electoral democracy in India. The Congress was now no longer hegemonic at the Centre; and deeply vulnerable in the states. At the same time, there was no clear national alternative to the party of the freedom struggle.

In Madras, the Congress had been overthrown by a regional formation with no presence in other states. In some other states, the Congress had been replaced by spur-of-the-moment coalitions, with individuals of varying tendencies uniting on the single issue of grabbing political power.

The next four general elections appeared to reverse this trend. All these elections returned a single party to power in New Delhi. Each time, however, there were special circumstances: the charisma of Indira Gandhi (as in 1971 or, posthumously, in 1984), or the devilry of Indira Gandhi (which swept the hastily cobbled Janata Party to power in 1977).

In any case, at the level of the states, the Congress continued to lose ground. The rise of the DMK in Tamil Nadu was emulated by the Akali Dal, the Telugu Desam, the Shiv Sena, and the Asom Gana Parishad, all of whom made broad gains by claiming to stand for the interests of their region against an overbearing and homogenising Centre. The parliamentary communists consolidated themselves in Kerala and West Bengal. And the erstwhile socialists formed parties that successfully promoted the interests of the backward castes. Hence the rise of the Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar, and of the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh. Most recently, the Dalits have formed a solid voting bloc in Uttar Pradesh, propelling the Bahujan Samaj Party to power three times in the state.

The decentralising trend inaugurated by the 1967 elections deepened through the 1970s and 1980s. By the end of the latter decade, it had decisively transformed the nature of national politics itself.

Thus, between 1989 and 2009, India had nine governments, headed by seven different prime ministers. None of them commanded a majority in Parliament. Sometime towards the end of May 2009, the President of India will swear in the country's tenth successive minority and/or coalition government.

This fragmentation of the Indian political system is both good and bad. The billion and more citizens of a country so far-flung and diverse can scarcely be represented by a single political party. That the Congress could be so dominant for so long was a consequence of the patient work done by generations of Congressmen in building a network of coalitions under the party's umbrella. To quote Mukul Kesavan, the Congress constructed a "Noah's Ark of nationalism", seeking to keep every species of Indian on board. The attempt was both heroic and flawed. When the British were the common enemy, there was an incentive for all Indians to join the leading force against imperialism. However, before Independence itself, there were grumblings from the Dalits and the minorities, whose principal leaders—B.R. Ambedkar and M.A. Jinnah—strongly argued that the Congress did not represent the interests of their constituents. After Independence, a section of the backward castes left to join the socialist parties. Workers and peasants flocked to the Red Flag. Then the Tamils vested their faith in the DMK, encouraging Telugu, Punjabi, Assamese and Oriya speakers to likewise respond positively to regional parties in their own states.

From the late 1960s, a diverse citizenry and a federal polity have worked together to undermine Congress dominance. On the whole, these developments are to be welcomed, as an incorporation of previously excluded or marginalised groups into the democratic process. At the same time, when aggregated up to the national level, this decentralised deepening has produced less-than-rational outcomes. For there are some issues that require a wise and far-seeing central government to handle them. The five crucial sectors here are health, education, environment, the economy, and foreign affairs. One needs an efficient and focused state to bring education and healthcare to all its citizens.

One needs long-term strategies for energy and environmental management so as to renew our natural resources and safeguard the material interests of future generations of Indians. One requires a pragmatic economic policy that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship while resisting populist handouts. And, in an increasingly fragile and disturbed neighbourhood—not to speak of an increasingly multi-polar world—the importance of a sensible foreign policy can scarcely be overstressed.

If one reads the newspapers of the past weeks and months, one finds that these policy questions are hardly discussed.

Print and cyberspace alike are obsessed with which party is negotiating what kind of alliance, and with whom. Or they are speculating on the question of Kaun Banega Pradhan Mantri. And yet, feasible and effective policies in the sectors I have identified are vital to the long-term interests of India and Indians.

However, in an era of multi-party coalition governments, one can be certain that we will not get them. Political negotiations will be resolutely focused on the short-term, with smaller parties asking for the most remunerative ministries in exchange for support to the ruling government. The prime minister's own working day will chiefly be taken up with massaging the egos of his fellow ministers, or of his own party members who have not yet found a place in the Union cabinet.

I have argued that the fragmentation of the Indian polity is a product of the staggering diversity of class, caste, religious and linguistic interests.

Even so, the process may not have proceeded so far and so fast had it not been for the organisational failures of the once-dominant Congress party. In the first decades of Independence, the Congress had robust and well-functioning district and state units. The setbacks in the 1967 elections should have prompted a strengthening of inner-party democracy. Instead, they led to a centralisation of power in the person of the prime minister, Indira Gandhi. Local units and state leaders were systematically undermined. This process was continued under Rajiv Gandhi and, more recently, under Sonia Gandhi.

As the promotion of Rahul Gandhi demonstrates, the Congress believes it can compensate for these structural deficiencies by calling upon the charisma of the latest member of the family to enter politics. If not in 2009, then perhaps at least in 2014, the Grand Old Party will once more stride assertively across the Indian political landscape—that is the hope, and it will be belied. It is highly unlikely that the aandhi of this particular Gandhi will ever sweep the Congress to anywhere near a majority in a general election.

Some observers see Election 2009 as a sort of semi-final. The leaders of the two major parties are both old and tired. Neither inspires much confidence in the electorate. Is this then merely a waiting game, a prelude to the next battle, when Rahul Gandhi will be pitted directly against the man best placed to succeed L.K. Advani as the next leader of the BJP, namely, Narendra Modi?

The endorsement of sundry CEOs notwithstanding, my own view is that, like his young Congress adversary, the Gujarat chief minister cannot ever lead his party to a majority in a general election. His main weakness, as of the formation to which he belongs, is ideological. From the time the BJP was formed, a section of the middle class has hoped that it would abandon hard-core Hindutva and reinvent itself on the model of the Christian Democrats of Germany, or of the Republican Party in the United States—that is to say, as a party which stands for such conservative principles as free enterprise and family values.

These hopes have been repeatedly belied, most recently by the BJP's thoroughgoing support to its bigoted candidate from Pilibhit. The German Christian Democrats and the American Republicans do not hate Jews and Muslims. But the BJP, it appears, cannot stop itself from hating Muslims and Christians.

In recent decades, then, Indian democracy has been increasingly influenced by identity politics, by parties and interests representing (or claiming to represent) various castes, ethnicities, regions, and religions. It is likely that a majority of Outlook readers, themselves urban and cosmopolitan, are not in sympathy with this trend.

Rather than 18-or-20-party coalitions, they would like to see a single party dominating the central government, such that it might frame the rational, sustainable policies this country desperately needs. The question is: will they get such a government in their lifetime?

Some trends are promising. More Indians now live in cities, where the pressures of caste and locality matter less than in the countryside. More Indians now contract marriages outside their communities. With economic development, more Indians are abandoning traditional caste-based occupations. In factories and offices, they work and break bread with Indians of different social backgrounds. These secularising tendencies are reinforced by TV and the Internet, which alert the young to mentalities and lifestyles very different from those of their parents or grandparents.

Can these trends collectively produce an electorate that shall come to vote not on the basis of identity, but with regard to the policies on offer? If ever that question was to be answered in the affirmative, two things have to happen.

First, the secular (that is to say trans-caste and trans-religious) middle class has to grow massively in numbers, so that it can come to decisively alter the outcome of elections. Second, the contending parties have themselves to become more serious about executing rational policies in the fields of health, education, environment, the economy, and foreign affairs.

Historians are worse than useless in predicting the future. What might happen is impossible to foresee. However, citizens may be permitted the luxury of wishful thinking, of articulating what they think should happen. As an Indian democrat, I wish thus to hope for one or more of four alternatives to the identity politics of the present:
The first thing to wish for is a Congress that is not wholly beholden to the dynasty. Rahul Gandhi has decided to make a career out of politics. This he is entitled to do. What is questionable is the assumption—shared by his family, his close associates, and apparently by the man himself—that the top job in party and government is his for the asking. For the sake of the Congress (as much as India), Rahul should turn down this path of nepotistic advancement. He should spend the next decade—and more—working with his colleagues to rebuild the party's organisation, by reviving the tradition of regular elections in district and state branches and inducting ambitious and intelligent people into the Congress. In other words, his role models should be the party-builders—Vallabhbhai Patel and K. Kamaraj—rather than the power-wielders—Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Meanwhile, if the Congress comes to power on its own or in a coalition, then cabinet posts and the prime ministership should be filled on the basis of competence, without the family standing in the way.

(Which it certainly did in 2004, when no young Congressman was inducted into the council of ministers for fear that he might outshine the heir apparent.) The second thing to wish for is a BJP that is not remote-controlled by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), which remains committed to a Hindu rashtra, a state in which citizens belonging to the Hindu faith will have a superior status to citizens who belong to other faiths or who are atheists. With the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the RSS has had a hand in some of the worst communal riots in independent India. They are also xenophobic, turning their backs on modern ideas while glorifying a mythical past in which Hindus were supposed to have dominated the world. Further, they have a marked prejudice against women who are independent or independent-minded.

Can the BJP ever come to practice small 'c' conservatism, by which one means a respect for tradition which does not shade into a hatred of the alien, the modern, or the non-Hindu? Under the leadership of the poet Atal Behari Vajpayee, at times it came close to shedding its deepest prejudices. Now, under the leadership of L.K. Advani, Rajnath Singh and Narendra Modi, it has once more returned to its roots, to its long-lasting suspicion of minorities, its paranoia about the West and about women. It may be that some other BJP leaders—say Yashwant Sinha or Shivraj Singh Chauhan—are more committed to an inclusive politics of governance rather than an emotive politics of hate. In that case, one may hope that they come to inherit Advani's mantle instead of the megalomaniac (and Muslim-hating) Modi.

The third thing to wish for is a united and reform-oriented Left. With the deep inequalities that persist in our country, left-wing ideologies still have considerable appeal. And Marxist politicians are in some respects more decent than the rest. Surveys have consistently shown that CPI and CPI(M) MPs are less corrupt and less prone to criminality than politicians of other parties. Then there are the Naxalites, who have considerable influence among the most disadvantaged sections of Indian society, the low castes and Adivasis in the economically depressed districts of central and eastern India.

One hopes that the Naxalites can, one day soon, follow their comrades in Nepal and give up the gun to enter the electoral process. They might then form a joint front with the CPI and CPI(M), to thus more effectively represent the interests of the marginalised and the excluded. But it is not enough that the Left be united: they must also recognise (to quote Comrade Prachanda) that "multi-party democracy is the political system of the 21st century". They must give up the fantasy of constructing a one-party state on the basis of armed struggle. A pragmatic Left must also appreciate the benefits of entrepreneurship and innovation, of seeking to increase the size of the economic cake so that there are bigger slices to go all around.

The fourth thing to wish for is a new party altogether. Based on the aspirations of the expanding middle class, this party could throw away the baggage of the past by constructing an agenda suited to the circumstances of the present. As a modern, or even post-modern, party, it should be open to all, regardless of caste or religion, and promote policies that are likewise not oriented to a particular sect or ethnic group. Anticipations of such a formation are already available, in the activities of such groups as Loksatta and the Professionals Party of India, both of whom shall put up candidates in the forthcoming elections.These candidates will lose, but a decade or two on, some of their successors may actually win.

Even the most sophisticated (or reckless) pollster dare not predict the outcome of the general elections of 2009. The pollster knows only what you and I do—that no single party will get more than 150 or 160 seats, and that the polls will therefore result in an unstable and unfocused government. Indeed, multi-party coalitions appear to be an inescapable feature of the present phase of democratic politics in India. But how long will this or must this continue?

The (admittedly wishful) scenarios outlined here do not seek to extinguish regional or sectarian parties. They seek merely to redress the balance, so that, once more, some parties and politicians may come to have horizons wider than that of caste or religion or language or family. For only then can our governments more effectively tackle the deep inequalities in Indian society, the growing degradation of the environment, and the threats to our national security.

Muslim Women - Change in the air

By Irum Khan

HNN examines the situation of Muslim women in modern India and discovers hopeful signs.

Pathan Shamim is a taxi driver and thinks nothing of driving for 17 hours at a stretch. She is 30-year-old divorcee, wears her hair in a plait, and supports her son by plying her vehicle between Ahmedabad and Mumbai. Shamim was one of the Muslim women who testified at the public hearing organised by the National Commission for Women (NCW) February. She explained why she does not wear a burqa: "Purdah is not about wearing a burqa; it is about modesty and dignity in one's own eyes.''

One Shamim does not make a revolution, true. But there is no doubting that there are stirrings of change among India's Muslim women as the personal testimonies in 'Voice of the Voiceless', a recent report on the status of Muslim women brought out the National Commission for Women, reveals. Many like Shamim have consciously, and with a rare fortitude, rebuilt lives broken by neglect and tragedy. Women like Sadia of Indore, who resisted torture at the hands of her husband. Not only did she leave him and return to her parents, she ensured that she recovered every article of her dowry from her husband's home.

Questions that were never asked before are now increasingly being articulated. In the NCW's public hearing at Indore, young women students wanted to know why women have to observe purdah and men don't. Why do we allow parents to marry their daughters when they are 14 or 15? Why are boys always placed in front and girls pushed behind? Can we join the army while in purdah? Why does society allow dowry atrocities on women? Why do girls allow themselves to go to pieces if they are deserted by their husbands? The questions were endless. But it was a question raised by a participant in Calcutta that captured this new spirit most significantly: Why is it that when other Quranic injunctions like cutting off the hands of a thief are brushed aside on grounds of human rights and modernity, the rights of women are not in tune with the times?

Zoya Hasan, a Delhi-based academic, who is presently working on a major empirical survey on Muslim women across 10,000 household, along with Ritu Menon, co-founder of Kali, the feminist publishing house, believes that the biggest problem facing the Muslim woman today is their lack of education and employment.

Already there is a perceptible rise in the demand for education. Abdul Waheed, a lecturer in the department of Sociology and Social Work, Aligarh Muslim University, puts it this way, "I did a field study on Muslim Banjaras in a town called Baheri, in Bareilly district. In each and every educational institution there, you will find Muslim girls. They may go to a degree, colleges or appear privately, but education for women is now highly valued something that was just not the case 20 years ago.''

Community leaders are also standing up to be counted in the drive for change. Badar Sayeed, a Chennai-based advocate and former chairperson of the Minorities Commission of Tamil Nadu minced no words when she argued that polygamy should be abolished forthwith. She pointed out that there were as many fatwas as there were ulemas, and laws needed codifcation. In Mumbai, agroup of women had even drafted a standard nikah namah (marriage certificate), in which a woman has the right to divorce her husband if he violates the conditions laid out in the document.

At a public hearing organised by the Institute of Islamic Studies and Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism held in Mumbai two years ago, the overwhelming sentiment was that it was time for the community to stop treating its personal law as something that is immutable.

The resolution passed at the end of this meeting told its own story: "It is resolved to open a dialogue with the Muslim Personal Law Board in connection with necessary reforms in personal law as it operated today in India.'' The resolution pointed out that these laws were enacted by the British and cannot be called Shariat law in the strict sense of the term. It also pointed to the fact that there have been instances when progressive changes had been introduced in the law. For instance, the ulema led by Maulana Ashraf Thanvi had drafted the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act of 1939,which had given much needed relief to women whose husbands were missing. There is need for such initiative on the part of the Muslim Personal Law Board even today,'' the resolution noted.

The irony really is that while in India Muslim women have actually been deprived of their rights by laws like the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, under which a divorcee cannot claim maintenance, many Islamic nations including Pakistan and Bangladesh have effected substantive reform in Muslim personal law. In Indonesia, for instance, polygamy has been prohibited, while in Turkey and Tunisia marriage and divorce come under regulatory legislation.

The NCW Report quotes Professor Tahir Mahmood's study, Family Law Reforms inthe Muslim World to point out that in both Pakistan and Bangladesh, polygamy comes under the strict control of courts and administrative bodies. In Pakistan, for instance, under the Family Law Ordinance 1961, polygamy is no longer an unhindered or unchallenged right of men. The written permission of the first wife must be obtained before the second marriage can be contracted. Further, all marriages are registered and therefore cannot be dissolved by triple talaq. Maintenance is recognised as the right of the divorced woman and is not limited to the iddat period, as in India.

Interestingly, in Pakistan the whole impetus for reform came from a rather piquant development. In 1955, news came that Prime Minister Mohammed Ali was planning to marry his Middle Eastern social secretary, while he was legally married to his first wife. Sylvia Chipp-Kraushaar, in a brief history of the All Pakistan Women's Association and the 1961 Muslim Family' Laws Ordinance, included in Gail Minault The Extended Family describes how the protest by women over that marriage snowballed into a movement for reform of marriage laws.

Pakistani women had argued at that time that Islam demanded "equal treatment for all wives'', a condition that could not be logically fulfilled. Chipp-Kraushaar quotes a group of women social workers who had felt that "polygamy was permitted in Islam, not to set up harems, but to save human beings from sin and immorality. We, however, feel that men now find it convenient to flout those mandatory Quranic provisions which make it nearly impossible for a man to take a second wife.''

But reforming personal law in India is bound to be a far more complex process, believes Imtiaz Ahmed, a professor of political sociology in Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. "All change is a process of reformist currents vying with conservative ones. Given the external communalisation of society, it becomes that much more difficult for the forces of reform to triumph,'' he says. But he hasn't lost hope given the manner in which women within the community are mobilising for change. ``They are even pressurising the Muslim Law Board to be allowed 33 per cent representation within it. And in the forthcoming meeting of the Board on April 30, the question of the marriage contract is bound to come up,'' says Ahmed.

He also believes that it is important for reformers to engage with the forces of orthodoxy. "Don't end the dialogue. Keep it going,'' he says.

Shattering Illusions - Western Conceptions of Muslim Women

By Nikhat Kazmi

"Islam in its original state gave women privileges and imposed no harsh restrictions or double standards upon them.," says Saimah Ashraf, a 1997-98 winner of the Stanford University Boothe Prize for Excellence in Writing.

"Rose Hamid is as American as they come. She drives a Ford station wagon, leads a local Girl Scout troop, shops at the Gap and just attended her 20-year high school reunion" writes Laurie Goodstein in a recent New York Times article (A1).

From this brief description of Rose, readers may have formed a particular picture of her in their minds. If they were told, however, that "Rose Hamid wears a head scarf in keeping with her Muslim faith,'" that picture might take a drastic turn (Goodstein A1).

She's Muslim? Images of suppressed, meek, black-enshrouded women submitting to the demands of their dominating husbands race through some readers' minds. But why is this the case? Would we see Rose any differently if she were Christian or Jewish? The answer is probably no, but since she is a Muslim woman, it is difficult not to have some preconceptions of her.

I don't understand why, in the West, Muslim women are clumped into one large group and viewed as homogenous clones of one another, while their Christian and Jewish counterparts are rarely ever stereotyped in this way. Many people don't realize, due largely to biased media interpretations, that there are a large variety of Muslim women around the world, from areas such as the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia, Yugoslavia, Northern Africa, and the Southern parts of the former USSR, just as there are Christian and Jewish women in various countries.

For instance, one probably wouldn't classify a Mexican woman with a French woman, though both may be Roman Catholics and hold the same beliefs. In the same way, American Muslim women are different from Pakistani Muslims, who are different from Saudi Muslims. In these three countries, women are accorded different rights and privileges because of the government and customs in the area. For example, many American Muslim women are discriminated against because they cover their heads; Pakistani women have political rights but are often exploited by men; Saudi women have no public role, yet they are "protected" by Saudi men.

The negative stereotypes of Muslim women probably arise from this varying treatment of women. The Western media, for some reason, latch on to a few examples of unjust behavior in the Islamic world, brand Islam as a backwards and "fundamentalist" religion, especially in its treatment of women, and ignore that it was the first religion to accord women equal rights. While Christian and Jewish women were still considered inferior, the originators of sin, and the property of their husbands, Muslim women were being given shares in inheritance, were allowed to choose or refuse prospective husbands, and were considered equal to men in the eyes of God. However, through time, slowly changing customs, and the rise of male-dominated, patriarchal nation-states, Muslim governments began placing restrictions on women which had no grounds in the Quran, the Islamic holy book; or the hadith, the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. On the other hand, Christian and Jewish women in the West have slowly been awarded rights not called for in the biblical tradition.

Traditionally, Judeo-Christian women were thought to be inferior to men and were given a low status in society. These negative attitudes toward women arose because Judaism and Christianity placed such a heavy emphasis on Eve's role in the expulsion from Paradise. Because Eve, rather than Adam, was the first to be seduced by Satan and eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she supposedly caused the fall of mankind. Therefore all women, as the descendants of Eve, were thought to be evil and morally weaker than men (Sherif 2). In the Bible, there are several references to women in this uncomplimentary light: "I found more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare" (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28). "No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman. . . .Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiastes 25:19,24). Early church fathers such as St. Tertullian reiterated these negative concepts of women by making statements such as, "Do you know that you are each an Eve?. . . . You are the Devil's gateway. . . .You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die." In Christianity, women carried the extra burden of causing the death of Christ, as Tertullian points out (Sherif 2). Because Adam and Eve passed on their sin to all future generations, Jesus had to purge humankind from this "original sin" by sacrificing his life (Sherif 2). Thus, by causing the fall of man, Eve also caused the death of Christ. In the Jewish tradition, women receive no less harsh treatment. Because of Eve, all women have to face punishment on Earth including pregnancy, pain in childbirth, menstruation, and subjugation to men (Sherif 3). Orthodox Jewish males still recite in their daily prayers: "Blessed be God King of the Universe that Thou has not made me a woman . . . . Praised be God that he has not created me woman" (Menahot 43b)

These early prejudiced attitudes gave rise to discriminatory treatment of women. Because the Judeo-Christian tradition spans such a vast amount of time, it is difficult to deal with the condition of women in any specific period. Therefore I will deal with women mostly as they are referred to in the Bible and by influential church fathers and rabbis. Often, the discrimination against females began immediately upon birth since baby girls were thought to be shameful, a view found several times in the Bible: "The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3). Jewish rabbis also expressed displeasure at the birth of a female, saying that boys brought peace into the world, whereas girls brought absolutely nothing (Sherif 4). This unhappiness at a female's birth arose partly because of the large dowry that had to be given to a Jewish or Christian girl's husband upon marriage, a tradition adhered to until recently (Sherif 8). Hence, a girl was often thought to be a "liability and no asset" (Sherif 8).

Additionally, as Kevin Harris, senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales, puts it, "women are portrayed in the bible quite consistently as appendages of men; as possessions of men; as goods which may be sold, disposed of, given away, traded, or just ordered about by men" (30). One section in the Bible which is a testament to this view is Exodus 21.7, which expressly condones a man selling his daughter into slavery or concubinage: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." A man also controlled the sexuality of his daughter, as can be seen in the case of Lot (among many others), who offered his virgin daughters to the homosexual men of Sodom in Genesis 19.8: "I have two daughters who have not known a man. . . . do to them as you please." When a woman was married, in which she usually had little or no say, she became the property of her husband rather than her father, and he then had the right of "purchasing and selling" her (Schmidt 127). He owned not only her person, but also all of her property. "The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table [were] his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband" (San. 71a, Git. 62a). A woman could regain her property only upon divorce or her husband's death, but she was never allowed to inherit any of his property (Sherif 8). In fact, Western women had no property rights at all until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Because of the inferior status of women in the Judeo-Christian tradition, there often existed a double standard between men and women, especially in areas of sexuality. For example, if a woman was not a virgin at marriage, she could be taken to her father's house by her husband and stoned to death (Schmidt 112). The man, on the other hand, was never subjected to this punishment or indeed to any codes of conduct governing his sexuality (Schmidt 112). In fact, even if he raped or deflowered a virgin, he was not put to death but was instead forced to marry her and give money to her father, which seems more of a punishment for his female victim than him! (Harris 57). After marriage, a Hebrew male could arbitrarily accuse his wife of adultery, even with the slightest suspicion, and make her take the humiliating "bitter-water" test to determine her innocence or guilt (Schmidt 121). If she was found guilty of having slept with another man, regardless of his marital status, she would be stoned to death (Sherif 6). A Hebrew man, whether married or not, on the other hand, was only said to have committed adultery if he slept with a married woman (Schmidt 118). As Vern Bullough, author of Subordinate Sex, explains, "Adultery was not a sin against morality, but a trespass against the husband's property" (Schmidt 118). Since the wife was the husband's property, she could not be violated without his permission. This view of adultery changed with the advent of Christianity, when Jesus introduced the idea that adultery could be committed against a woman also, but later many of the church's theologians "reverted to the patriarchal understanding of adultery" (Schmidt 122). In present-day Israel, however, the old law still pertains. A married man can have an affair with an unmarried women and have children that are considered legitimate (Sherif 6). If a married woman, on the other hand, has an extramarital affair, her children "are considered bastards and are forbidden to marry any other Jews except converts and other bastards" for ten consecutive generations (Sherif 6).

Judeo-Christian practices also often ignored women's rights in cases of divorce. In original Christianity, divorce was expressly forbidden, and Jesus supposedly said that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). This harsh view failed to take into account the possible incompatibility of a man and woman and condemned unhappy couples to stay together against their wills. This situation was especially difficult for women because society did not allow them extramarital relations but condoned the relations of married men with prostitutes and other single women (Schmidt 50). In Judaism, divorce was allowed and even encouraged at times. Early Jewish scholars disagreed over the reasons a man could divorce his wife, and their views can be found in the Talmud: "The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel say [sic] he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she" (Gittin 90a-b). The Hillelite law predominated among the Jews and now Jewish men can divorce their wives for any reason whatsoever. The Talmud even obligates divorcing a woman if she "ate in the street drank greedily in the street suckled in the street" or if she does not bear a child within ten years of the marriage (Sherif 9). A Jewish woman, however, could not and cannot divorce her husband. He must give her a bill of divorce voluntarily and even the courts have no power to make him do this (Sherif 9). A man may desert his wife, marry another woman or simply live with one, and have legitimate children, while his first wife is trapped because she cannot have extramarital relations (Sherif 9). This sort of woman is known as an agunah (chained woman); there are approximately 1000 to 1500 Jewish agunah women in the United States today and around 16,000 in Israel (Sherif 9).

Suffering such blatant discrimination, it seems amazing that most Judeo-Christian women have overcome the odds and achieved equal rights with males. However, this has been a fairly recent development, largely occurring in this century. Within the past hundred years, women began to be considered citizens of states, were given voting rights, property rights, and easier access to divorce. Now many Muslim women hold the former position of Judeo-Christian women, but generally all they receive from the latter is scorn, derision, misunderstanding, or pity. It is ironic that the religion which significantly improved the status of women as compared to both Judaism and Christianity, and indeed was the first religion to grant women equal rights in all areas of life, including religion, sexuality, inheritance, and law, is now regarded as one that oppresses women.

One of the basic principles of Islam is justice for all humans and equality in the eyes of God. Women are considered no less than men in aspects of religion and are not denigrated anywhere in the Quran. First of all, in the Quranic Creation story, Eve is not mentioned as being seduced by the Serpent and taking the first bite of forbidden fruit. Rather, it says: (my italics) "by deceit he [Satan] brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them (7:19:23). Both Eve and Adam were held equally responsible. Hence, women in Islam do not bear the stigma as the daughters of a sinful Eve nor are they to be blamed for corrupting innocence (Sherif 3). Nor were women created as inferior to men, or solely for pleasure and procreational purposes as the Judeo-Christian scriptures sometimes imply "the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (Corinthians 11:3-9). In contrast, the chapter in the Quran entitled "Women" begins with the passage saying, "O humanity, be reverent to your Lord who created you from one soul and created its mate from it, and from these two disseminated many men and women." Here, in very blatant terms, it is stated that women and men are made from the same soul, and therefore, how could one gender possibly be inferior? In fact, neither gender is inferior, as the Quran states: "And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members of one another" (3:195).

This concept of gender equality in Islam begins immediately upon birth. When baby girls were born in Pre-Islamic Arabia, they were often buried alive to prevent shaming the tribe or family. In response to this infanticide, the Quran forbade treating a female child as disgraceful and states that both baby boys and girls are equally a blessing from God: "To Allah belongs the domination of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (42:49). Prophet Muhammad even guaranteed Paradise to those fathers who bring up their daughters with "benevolent treatment" and also encouraged both males and females to pursue knowledge and education (Bukhari, Muslim).

Furthermore, in Islam girls are not considered the property of their fathers and have complete control over their sexuality, in contrast to the Judeo-Christian tradition (Sherif 8). A free woman can never be sold it would be abhorrent for a father to sell his daughter as a concubine nor can she be married against her wishes, or the marriage can be annulled. After the marriage, a woman does not become the possession of her husband and is supposed to retain her own name and identity. "An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim women saying: A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own'" (Sherif 8). Additionally, Islam does not imply that a woman is made entirely for the pleasure of her husband but refers to spouses as equal partners: "They are your garments and you are their garments," the function of garments being to protect, cover, and adorn (Quran 2:187). Today, Western media often convey the idea that Muslim women are completely submissive to their husbands, but in fact, even the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (the most important and noble man in Islam) used to fight with him if they didn't get their way; they were far from the submissive, meek stereotypes of Muslim women today.

Another area in which Muslim women had greater rights than those of Judeo-Christian women is property. In an Islamic marriage, rather than paying the husband a dowry, the wife receives a substantial gift from him which then remains under her control, not his or her family's, even if she is later divorced. "In some Muslim societies today," Dr. Mohammed Sherif, author of the published essay entitled "Women in Islam Versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth and The Reality" says, "A marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual" (8). Any other property a woman may happen to own at the time of the marriage is also exclusively hers and the husband has no right to use it. Even if she earns her own income, it is the husband's responsibility to maintain her and the children, and she has no obligation whatsoever to provide for the family. Furthermore, a woman in Islam can inherit money or property from any one of her relations, including her husband.

In the early years of Islam, a woman's rights were also protected concerning sexuality and divorce; a double standard did not exist between males and females. According to Islam, both genders are supposed to remain chaste until marriage, not just the women, and adultery consists of any married person engaging in sexual intercourse with someone other than a spouse. The punishment for both men and women who commit adultery, if the actual act is witnessed by four other people, is death by stoning. If a husband arbitrarily accuses his wife of being unfaithful, they both take an oath upon God, and if the wife swears that she is innocent and the husband swears that she is not, the marriage is irrevocably over and the woman is not considered an adulteress. However, throwing loose accusations around about any woman is highly discouraged in Islam. A woman's dignity should not be toyed with and one should not, under any circumstances, speculate about her sexual conduct without very secure evidence (Quraishi 299). The Quran sets forth a very harsh punishment for those people who do: "Those who defame chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards, for they are profligates (24:4). Asifa Quraishi, author of "Critique of the Rape Laws of Pakistan," writes that, "In the face of any hint of a woman's sexual impropriety, the Quranic response is: walk away. Leave her alone. Leave her dignity intact. The honor of a woman is not a tool, it is her fundamental right" (299).

A similarly just attitude prevails in cases of divorce. First of all, divorce is not at all encouraged in Islam but allowed under compelling circumstances, and both men and women are allowed to obtain one. The Prophet said that "among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God" (Abu Dawood). Couples are told in the Quran to live with one another in kindness: "Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good" (4:19). In the hadith, this view is reiterated: "The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives (Tirmidthi). However, in some cases, divorce is inescapable, and Islam attempts to make it as amicable as possible.

The last way I will mention that Islam uses to protect women is the hijab, or the veil. This is ironic because Western media often portray the Muslim veil as a suppressive force in a woman's life. Every Muslim woman is required to wear a scarf or some sort of head-covering and loose-fitting, modest attire. This is not a means of controlling a woman's sexuality or suppressing her but rather, is used to protect her. It is hoped that by dressing this way she will not be seen as a mere sex symbol but will be appreciated for her mind. Furthermore, it will not subject her to unwanted sexual advances or harassment. It is interesting to note that the head-covering for women is not an Islamic innovation but was practiced by Judeo-Christian women centuries earlier, and yet is scoffed at by the West today (Sherif 15). Dr. Sherif says: "It is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of holiness' when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic Nuns, is reviled as a sign of oppression' when worn for the purpose of protection by Muslim women" (16).

Hence, Islam in its original state gave women privileges and imposed no harsh restrictions or double standards upon them. However, with the progression of time, the rights of Muslim women began deteriorating, and today, very few Muslim countries adhere to the Islamic ideal in their treatment of women. This deviance from Islam can be seen when evaluating the rights that women possess in different countries. The three main countries I will deal with are the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia simply because I am familiar with them, having either lived or visited each extensively.

Though the United States is not a Muslim country, it is supposed to be the "land of freedom," and it is interesting to see how Muslim women are treated here. A Muslim woman is allowed to practice Islam without restrictions placed upon her by the government. As an American citizen, she has the rights of any woman to vote, to voice her opinions, and to move around as she pleases. Rose Hamid, the woman mentioned earlier, is one such American Muslim. This is not to say, however, that American Muslim women do not face prejudice, and Hamid is a good example of this. When she began wearing a headscarf recently, she was promptly fired by her company of ten years. Anjum Smith, another American Muslim, faced this same problem as did Shabana who was fired from her job at The Gap because, with her headscarf, she was an "undesirable" saleslady.

There have been reports that women with covered hair have been "spit on, denied service, and [had] their scarves pulled off" (Goodstein A1). Goodstein reports that "Recently, on a highway near Orlando, Fla., one driver in a head scarf was stopped and berated by a state trooper who later formally apologized" (A1). This discrimination, even if unintentional, is rampant in the US; people just don't treat you the same once you start covering your hair: "They try and cheat me out of change. They think I'm a foreigner, and I've been here a long time. I wear American clothes, but I wear a scarf. The scarf changes everything," says Tayyibah Taylor, editorial director of Sisters! A Magazine of Dialogue Among Muslim Women (Goodstein A14).

In contrast, Saudi women are compelled by law to cover their hair, and they are instructed to wear a black cloak known as the abaya to cover their bodies. Saudi Arabia is one of the most "fundamentalist" Islamic nations in the world, and it supposedly implements Islamic law to ensure peace and justice. Yet, many of their laws, especially those geared at women, are unjust and stem from patriarchal customs. For example, the covering of a woman's face is not a requirement in Islam, yet many times women are harassed by the mutawa, or "purity police," for not doing this.

Furthermore, women are not allowed to sit in the front seat of a car or walk alongside a man if he is not her husband or close relative; nor are women allowed to drive. Havva Kurter, author of the essay "An Outline History of the Oppression of Women," exclaims, "The Saudis think that women will go make sin if they drive a car! Now some non-Muslims may think of this as part of Islam" (116). But to give the Saudis some credit, women there are given certain privileges not awarded to Muslim women of other countries. First of all, Saudi women are almost never harassed (it is usually the foreigners who encounter this) and are extremely protected by their families and government. Additionally, in accordance to Islamic law, they are offered dowries, often very high ones, and are entitled to keep their own wealth.

This is hardly ever the case in Pakistan. Most women have virtually no control over their own property and are usually accorded minimal dowries unless they are of the upper classes. What is usually the case is that the bride's family has to provide all sorts of gifts to the husband and his family. These gifts, which range from money to cars to houses, are often what determines the choice of a bride. This obviously is not an Islamic practice but one that stems from the Hindu culture of nearby India. Moreover, women in Pakistan are often exploited by the law, sexually harassed, or raped, many times by police officers and other influential government officials (Quraishi 291).

It is ironic, then, that Pakistan has surpassed even the United States in gender equality in that it has had a female head of State: the former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. In fact, there are quite a few influential female politicians in Pakistan. Among other rights Pakistani women retain is their freedom of dress; most Pakistani women don't cover their hair and no type of dress code is enforced upon them, but this is not to say they won't be harassed if wearing revealing clothing in public. Additionally, women are allowed to drive, vote, attend co-educational universities, and hold paying jobs. However, this blend of restriction and privilege still does not make Pakistan's treatment of women very Islamic.

In fact, I can't think of any country that really treats Muslim women the way they are supposed to be treated as stipulated in the Quran and hadith. Most Muslim countries' approach to women falls between the two extremes of complete oppression and encouragement to behave like Western Judeo-Christian women, which is certainly not what Islam intended. I have dealt, to some extent, with the former case and believe that most people who read this paper will sympathize with the plight of these Muslim women. Their solutions might involve the "modernization" or "Westernization" of these women, but this is not at all what I am advocating.

It's true that Western Judeo-Christian women have achieved freedom and independence for themselves, but has this necessarily been beneficial for them or society? One look at the ever-rising statistics for rape, sexual harassment, divorce, broken homes, latch-key kids, teenage pregnancies, and AIDS cases in the West indicates that something is definitely not right in society. Is it just coincidental that many of these issues became actual problems only after the Sixties' Sexual Revolution and feminist movement arose? Are these social problems just part of a growing trend in modern society or do they have some direct correlation to "women's liberation?" These are some questions we need to ask ourselves before we prescribe the "Western remedy" to any other society.

The last thing Muslim women need to add to their problems at this point is more problems. Rather, the solution for achieving true freedom, independence, and happiness must come from within from the teachings of the Prophet, from the depths of the Quran, and from the wealth of rich Islamic tradition.

Can Islam liberate women?

By Sameera Altaf

Muslim women and scholars think it does - spiritually and sexually.

We're sitting in a stylish club, ArRum, in Clerkenwell, central London. Firelight is flickering on the leather sofas, there is contemporary art on the walls and delicious "fusion" food on the table, but what distinguishes this club from its many neighbours is that it is Muslim, there is no alcohol on the menu and downstairs there's a prayer room. The stylish place conveys a complex ethos - modern, yet true to its Muslim identity.

A suitable setting, then, chosen by the six Muslim women who agreed to meet me to discuss Islam and the position of women. All university graduates, all in their mid-twenties in careers ranging from journalism to teaching, all have chosen in the past few years to wear the hijab (a scarf wrapped tightly around their heads to conceal every wisp of hair). Most strikingly, however, all of these women fluently and cogently articulate how they believe Islam has liberated and empowered them. The Islam they describe is a million miles away from that of the Taliban, let alone the Islam practised in many Muslim countries from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, but they insist - and back up their points with Koranic references - that the Islam they first discovered when they were teenagers is true to the Prophet's teachings. They don't need western feminism, which, they argue, developed as a reaction against the particular expression of western patriarchy.

Within the Koranic tradition and the life of the Prophet lie the rights and inspiration a woman needs to achieve her full potential - the challenge ahead is to educate Muslim girls and women so that they have that knowledge. They justify wearing the hijab, either as a public statement of their own spiritual quest, or of their political identity in a world where Islam perceives itself as under threat, or both.

Shagufta, the 25-year-old editor of the Muslim magazine Q News, was brought up in London, in a traditional Pakistani home where the emphasis was on cultural conservatism rather than piety. A marriage to a cousin from Pakistan was arranged for her when she was about 10. Her parents had no wish for her to continue her education, and her adoption of the hijab was her rebellion against this traditional cultural background. "When I first put on hijab, my parents were shocked," she says. They would have been happier for her to wear the Pakistani shalwar kameez and a loose headscarf. "But I found liberation in Islam. It gave me the confidence to insist on a good education and reject the arranged marriage. Islam made sense to me, and I could understand it, as opposed to what I had grown up with. Plus, it was compatible with being British - being a British Muslim, rather than Pakistani."

Shagufta was influenced by her friend Soraya's decision to put on hijab. Soraya's French Catholic/Muslim liberal background could not have been more different but, like Shagufta, she found in the Koran an affirmation of herself as a woman: "The Koran says that men and women are equal in the eyes of God, and that we are like a garment for each other to protect one another."

Again and again, the women emphasise these two themes, evoked in richly poetic Koranic metaphor: first, the equality of the sexes in the eyes of God (the most meaningful equality of all, they argue), and second, the complementarity of the sexes. As the Koran puts it, "I created you from one soul, and from that soul I created its mate so that you may live in harmony and love."

It is true that there is plenty of material in the Koran that is more egalitarian than the western Christian tradition, which was heavily influenced by the misogyny of Greek thought. Perhaps the most fundamental is that the Islamic God does not have a gender. Arabic may refer to him by use of the male pronoun, but he is never described as "father" or "lord" as he is in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, the Islamic God has characteristics that are expressly feminine; one of his most important "names" is al-Rahman (the All-Compassionate) from the Arabic rahma , which comes from the word rahim , meaning womb. In Islamic mysticism, the divinely beloved is female, unlike in Christian mysticism - for example, Bernini's famous statue in Rome of St Teresa of Avila is in love with the male Christ. As one Muslim women, Sartaz Aziz, writes, "I am deeply grateful that my first ideas of God were formed by Islam, because I was able to think of the Highest Power as one without sex or race and thus completely unpatriarchal."

Jasmin also escaped from an arranged marriage by discovering Islam. Her transition to full religious observance came after university, when she was working for a television company. "I went to Agadir on holiday, returned with a fantastic tan, but went back to work in a hijab. One week in a skimpy swimsuit, the next in a hijab. One of my colleagues couldn't understand. She was crying as she said to me, "One moment you were a sex kitten, the next you're all wrapped up. She thought I was repressing myself; I felt I had achieved liberation.

"The attention I got from the other sex changed. Instead of a sexual approach, they had to take an interest in what was in my head and in my personality, rather than my body. Sometimes, when I flick through a fashion magazine, I think of taking off the hijab, but it passes quickly. Too many women exert power through their sexuality, and that's degrading to women. It's a form of enslavement."

The importance of each of these women's decisions to wear the hijab leads quickly to a heated discussion about where and how and why one expresses one's sexuality. All the women agree that this is one of the biggest sources of misunderstanding between western feminists and Muslim women. They do not wish to express their sexuality in public, and believe that its proper place is in the privacy of an intimate relationship. Sexuality is not to be used to assert power but to express love, they add. What they hotly deny is that veiling, and modesty in public, is a form of repression. It is not about shame of the female body, as western feminists sometimes insist, but about claiming privacy over their bodies. The Moroccan writer, Fatima Mernissi, ponders on how, in the west, women reclaiming their bodies has led to the public expression of their sexuality, whereas in Islam it is about modesty. The associations with shame and repression stem from the influence of the Christian tradition's hostility to sexuality and hence women, and the legacy of confusion and guilt that has bequeathed western society. Islam, on the other hand, has a healthy honesty and acceptance of human sexuality, which is evident in a wealth of detail in Islamic jurisprudence, they argue.

Dr Tim Winter, a Muslim convert and Cambridge lecturer, probably one of the most respected Islamic scholars in Britain, corroborates the assertion that Islam does not accept the mythology of Eve seducing Adam, and thus triggering the Fall and the endless cycle of death and procreation. According to Christian thought, sex was the result of human beings' fallen state and was traditionally regarded with distaste; celibacy was promoted as a sublimation of sexual energies in pursuit of God, epitomised by Christ's celibate life.

Nothing provides a sharper contrast with that model of holiness than the life of the Prophet Mohammed, who took 12 wives after the death of his first wife, Khadija. His love for his wives and sexual relationships with them are referred to in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet). One reference even extols the Prophet's virility, revealing how he could visit all of his wives in one night. This, says Dr Winter, makes him a full, complete man, closer to models of holiness such as Krishna or a Jewish patriarch such as King Solomon with his many wives.

Indeed, one of the injunctions on a husband is that he must sexually satisfy his wife; the Prophet recommends foreplay, and a great Islamic scholar, Imam Ghazali, warned men not to come too quickly. As Mernissi points out in Beyond The Veil, Islam always understood that women's sexuality was active, while western Christianity socialised women into accepting sexual passivity - the "lie back and think of England" approach. The latter, argues Mernissi, was a way of internalising in women the control on female sexuality that men wanted; Muslim cultures used external controls of segregation and male authority.

Back at ArRum, the women say that, for them, the affirmation of women's sexuality in Islam renders pointless many of the battles fought by western feminists. They have no need of Madonna-style exhibitionism to assert the power of female sexuality. Indeed, one woman said that the one achievement of feminism that she admired was to break down the restrictive passivity of Victorian perceptions of female sexuality.

Aisha and Khadija come out as the two top Koranic role models for these women, and both are quoted as examples of the prominence of women in the development of Islam. Khadija, the Prophet's first wife, was old (40) by the standards of the day when she proposed to the 25-year-old Mohammed. His first believer, she was his sole wife and a close adviser until her death. It was only then that the Prophet took other wives; he married several older widows, but Aisha was much younger than the Prophet, highly intelligent and assertive. There are several stories of how jealous she was of the Prophet's other wives and of how much he loved her. He died in her arms, and she became one of the first teachers of Islam after his death.

All the women I interviewed roll off a long list of hadiths and Koranic verses to support women's rights: the right to education; the right to work and their right to keep the money they earn, while men must use their earnings to look after their womenfolk; property rights; in one school of Islamic thought, women don't have to clean or cook for their husbands unless they are paid for it (wages for housework long before the 20th century thought it had invented it); the fact that the Prophet, according to Aisha, was something of a new man, and used to clean and sew when he wasn't praying; and then there is the praise lavished on the emotional qualities engendered by motherhood of nurturing and patience, with the Prophet's repeated injunctions to honour your mother.

But there are other parts of Koranic tradition that, to a western eye, seem deeply shocking. By some accounts, Aisha was only nine when her marriage to the Prophet (who was then in his fifties) was consummated. Or that, although the Koran insists that a man should treat all his wives equally, the Prophet admitted that he had a favourite, Aisha. Or the controversial incident when the Prophet glimpsed the wife of his adopted son and, after she had been divorced, he married her. Worst of all to a sceptical western eye, the Prophet often invoked God to explain such incidents.

This is very sensitive territory for devout Muslim women. For believers, the Prophet's life was perfect and according to God's plan. They haven't the freedom to develop the critical analytical tradition of western feminism, which has been so important in understanding how patriarchy has influenced religious, legal, moral and political systems. So, either they offer long explanations (such as that Aisha's age was due to the custom of the time and was probably not much different from the Virgin Mary's), or they acknowledge there are some things that they find very difficult. As one woman put it, "When I read about the Prophet's life, I feel it is unjust: he favoured one wife over another, and that makes me uneasy. I haven't found a scholar who can explain it, but I believe in a just God and the wisdom of the Prophet, so I take it on trust. That's faith. To have real knowledge of Islam is to study it for a long time; eventually, I might find an interpretation that satisfies me."

These are the sort of explanations that simply fail to convince a sceptical western mind. Perhaps one of the hardest things for a woman to accept in the Koranic tradition is polygamy and, indeed, many of the women I spoke to conceded some unease here. Although some were prepared to consider a polygamous marriage, they all confessed that it would be very difficult; one married woman had even included a prohibition on a second wife in her pre-nuptial contract (a Koranic invention that is mutually negotiated and can cover everything from housework to the frequency of sex). They had various explanations for why the Koran allows men to take four wives, such as the need to provide for war widows in a nomadic warrior culture. With the advent of the welfare state, such arguments are hard to sustain, as several of the women admitted.

Dr Rabia Malik, a psychotherapist, sometimes finds herself in the difficult position of having clients who want to take another wife: "Usually, the first wife doesn't satisfy them intellectually or sexually, and they start to think of taking a second wife, and I try to help them find solutions within their existing relationship."

Both Dr Malik and Humera Khan, founder of the women-run organisation An-Nisa, believe that the Koranic conditions on polygamy are so hard to meet that they virtually rule it out: only those men who can treat their wives equally are allowed more than one. But the fact remains that polygamy, though by no means the norm, is practised in all Muslim countries. Mernissi believes that this is an explicit humiliation of women, because it asserts that one woman can't satisfy a man; interestingly, Mernissi, a stout critic of certain aspects of Islam, is regarded with some suspicion by many of the women I spoke to.

Dr Winter takes a different tack, defending polygamy by arguing that it is widely practised in the west, from Bill Clinton to Prince Charles. It is, he says, simply more cruel in the west , because all the "wives" bar one are deprived of legal status and dignity. Controversially, he insists that "men are biologically designed to desire a plurality of women... and will always do so".

Such gender stereotypes (which are guaranteed to infuriate most western feminists) peppered all my interviews. The Muslim women I spoke to happily talked of women as being "more emotional" and men as "more rational". This was not the result of socialisation, but of nature, and western science was only finally catching up with Koranic insight into the profound differences and complementarity of the sexes. But they denied that this meant that women had to stay at home and men go out to work - they pointed out that many Muslim women work, both in the UK and abroad. The point was that equality did not mean the same in the two cultures, so that the preoccupation in western feminism to achieve and compete on equal terms in the public sphere was a response to the west's own history of seeing women as inferior. What the vast majority of women really want to do is to have and care for children, they said, and a genuinely equal society would be the one that honours that role and provides them with the financial resources to concentrate on it. After such responsibilities have been met (and, with the extended family, there are many to help with childcare), the woman is free to work. To Muslim women, equality means giving their femininity equal worth in the purpose of every human life - to know God. That's as possible in the domestic life of home and children as it is in the marketplace.

As Humera points out, Islam is a home-centred, family-oriented religion that, given the central role of women in both, explains the power of women in Muslim society. Part of the reason why westerners often don't grasp this, explains Dr Winter, is because this home life is private. Muslim cities don't have the grand civic spaces of European cities; they have little alleyways and the vibrant family life takes place behind high walls. The debate about the balance between the private and the public sphere has become much more acute, he says, with the development of industrialisation and the men leaving the home to work long hours. Dr Winter is sharply critical of the west's resolution of the balance between private family life and public life, arguing that the home has almost become a dormitory where the exhausted two-career couple meet briefly, rather than a setting in which children and the elderly can thrive, and where there is a range of familial relationships.

The way in which the traditional segregation is breaking down is one of the most problematic issues in current Islamic thinking. Dr Winter believes that some form of segregation would benefit women in the way that single-sex schooling helps girls develop more confidence, and would help prevent the problems of marriage breakdown experienced in the west: "Segregation has proved a spur in Iran to employing more women, for example," he says. "They now have quotas in the universities so women can be taught by women." But he goes on to acknowledge that "the practice of early Islam did not mean strict segregation, and the historic record is of a more relaxed and open society".

Many Muslims argue that the Prophet's injunction that no one address his wives except through a veil is the model for relations between the sexes. Strict segregation with women confined to the private sphere has been the rule in most Muslim cultures, though rarely as extreme as under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Dr Winter admits that total segregation in the workplace is not practicable, so that leaves devout Muslims with a dilemma of balancing the woman's right to work and be educated with the need to keep to Koranic tradition. The women I met at ArRum all live with their families or relatives, yet they work in mixed environments and travel to attend study courses (they claim they are allowed to travel more than 50 miles from home without a male companion if they are studying Islam). They say they naturally prefer a degree of segregation, enjoying deeper female friendships, rather than the confusing ambiguities of friendships with men. But the result is intense pressure on the women themselves.

All the women I spoke to, without a moment's hesitation, dismiss the restrictions in the many Islamic countries that oppress women as unIslamic "cultural practices", for example women not being allowed to drive or travel alone in Saudi Arabia. Blaming Islam for practices such as female circumcision, they claim, is the equivalent of blaming feminism for domestic violence - it is linking totally unrelated phenomena. Again, the absence of a critical analysis of the tradition is striking, and there is no answer to the question of why, if Islam offers women a bill of rights, it has not liberated more women. The point, they reply, is that male chauvinism and its bid to control women exists the world over; it simply takes different forms, and when women are educated and know what Islam really means, they can fight back.

They refuse to accept that some of the provisions of Sharia law seem to institutionalise inequality, such as the rule that a woman's evidence must be backed up by another woman. Shagufta admitted that she could see how an outsider might find the idea of stoning adulterers to death, the punishment prescribed in Sharia, as horrific, but, as her friends quickly pointed out, it requires four witnesses to the act of sexual penetration to convict an adulterer - a standard of proof so exacting, they claim, that it would be virtually impossible to achieve.

What women such as Shagufta, Maha, Soraya, Fareena and Jasmin want is to return to the freedoms that Islam brought women in the 7th century and beyond, when women became prominent Islamic scholars, poets and thinkers."We need a reformation in this global community," said Fareena. "We need to go back to the Islam of the golden age from the 7th to the 13th century." Soraya recognises that this desire to return to the 7th century is paradoxically close to the avowed aims of the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups, but the struggle is over interpretations of what is the true Islam, and British Muslim women are all too well aware of how fragile their position is, defending themselves against criticism from all sides - both from the westerners who accuse them of being oppressed and from the traditional Muslim cultures shocked by their independence and "westernisation".

The biggest danger is of a backlash in which the position of women is politicised as it was under the Taliban, where women were not allowed to work or be educated. In such a context, Dr Winter says, women are repressed to salve the sense of Islamic pride wounded by western hegemony and the savage poverty of many Muslim countries. Women are the traditional symbol of honour, and find themselves subjected to restrictions to safeguard their (and the next generation's) contamination from western culture.

So there is a striking bravery in these British Muslim women in their struggle to understand what they see as timeless truths and apply them to 21st-century life. They assiduously attend home-study circles, travel to California and the Middle East for special courses, take up correspondence courses with Islamic scholars and read to deepen their knowledge of Islam, and they believe they are pioneering a spiritual renewal and a rediscovery of their faith that empowers women.

Employment concerns for working Muslim women

By Reema Subia

Before a Muslim woman seeks employment, she must carefully weigh all of her options and prepare herself for inevitable challenges.

Every day, many Muslim women cope with the challenge of working in a non-Muslim environment: a male employee offers his hand during introductions, other employees begin to discuss private aspects of their lives at lunch, an invitation is sent to all employees for a get-together at the local bar; someone makes a joke about Hijaab or Salaah. These are just a few of the many possible situations that a woman may face as she struggles to maintain not only her job, but, more importantly, her Muslim identity.

All women who have been exposed to the workplace at some point in their lives can fully grasp the myriad of reasons why working outside the home is an enormous problem, in particular for Muslim women. There are countless contrasts in the workplace to our Islamic value system.

There are valid reasons why laws were enacted for sexual harassment in the workplace in the United States, and that is because it happens, and often. Moreover, women should be aware that the laws can only do very little to discourage it, after that you are on your own.

What is the Islamic perspective in women and work? What guidelines should be followed if a woman works? What are some strategies that may be effective in helping her to maintain Islamic values and behavior?

Setting priorities: The most important role for a woman is motherhood. This special role that Allaah, Almighty, has created for her, affords her honor and respect in Islam. Where does she fulfill this role? Naturally, in her home. Allaah, Almighty, Says (what means): “And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance…” [Quran 33: 33]

This does not mean that a woman is a prisoner in her home, but only that she should have a valid reason (meeting her basic needs) to go out, to avoid any tribulation, trial, or temptation that may result from mixing between men and women.

A woman should not work in a non-Muslim environment unless there is an extremelly compelling reason for her to do so. Allaah, Almighty, has not prohibited women from working, but He has provided numerous protections for women, that are primarily concerned with where, how, and with whom she associates. She should seriously consider the costs and benefits for herself, and the impact on her ability to fulfill her primary responsibilities, before taking on a job. There are many situations that may make it necessary for a woman to work, such as to meet the financial needs of the family or to fulfill the needs of the society (doctors, midwives, teachers).

There are several obvious guidelines that should be followed if a woman must work:

- First, she must obtain consent from her guardian or husband (if married), who may offer a broader perspective on how her work may influence the family and its functioning.

- Secondly, a woman must ensure that her home and children are properly cared for. Her husband may be of assistance in this area, or outside help may be employed.

- Thirdly, care must be taken to choose employment that is appropriate and fits with her skills. Obviously, any work that deals with forbidden activities, services, or products would not be allowed but there is a world of possibilities available.

- Forthly, any job that prevents her from fulfilling any of her Islamic obligations, like Hijaab or Prayer for example, is not an option to be considered.

- Fifthly, while at the job, a woman must maintain her inwardly and outwardly modesty and chastity.

There is an immense and growing need for Muslim women in various medical fields, in education, in helping professions such as social work, counseling, psychology, psychiatry, and childcare. With the growth of technology and communications capabilities, there are unlimited opportunities for women to do some type of work or business from home (such as secretarial and typing; writing, editing, publishing; computer work, etc.). This would be an ideal situation that would eliminate many of the concerns that may arise for working women.

Maintaining an Islamic foundation: This common concern for women who work outside the home must be taken very seriously. Women need to be careful that the job they choose does not lead them to transgress the limits of Islam.

Fedwa is a successful computer programmer at a major University who understands the risks of working in a non-Muslim environment. She knows that if she is not cautious, others may begin to negatively influence her. When she first began working, she would attend luncheons with other employees, but soon discovered that much of the time was spent on idle talk and conversation about forbidden activities (e.g. boyfriends, drinking). She decided that the best precaution for her would be to avoid these luncheons completely, so that a bond would not be established between herself and her co-workers. This type of influence could be so subtle, that a sister may not even be aware that she has fallen into the trap. Listening to inappropriate conversations on a regular basis may lead a sister to become desensitized and thereby forgetful about appropriate etiquette.

Another sister, Layla, echoed the same concerns. Layla is a Dental Claims Clerk at a major HMO who also decided to stop sitting with her co-workers during lunch. She and three other Muslim sisters at the same company have devised a creative way to preserve their identity while socializing at the same time. Each Friday, the sisters pray Thuhr (noon prayer) together in a conference room, followed by lunch. During lunchtime, they study about Islam in a private halaqah (Islamic study circle).

Layla also discussed her struggle with wearing Hijaab. When she first became Muslim, she considered not wearing Hijaab to job interviews for fear that potential employers would react negatively, preventing her from being considered. This rationale carries a strong message. After more consideration, she realized that Allaah would be the only One Who could assist her in finding a job, and if she did not wear it, she would not receive Allaah’s help. She wore the Hijaab and found a job. She felt that the Hijaab was a barrier in only one of her interviews. Since that time, Allaah, Almighty, has strengthened her faith. Her advice to other Muslim sisters is to be open and honest about religious beliefs and practices, and to incorporate this into conversations.

For single and married sisters who must work due to financial need, this presents a perplexing dilemma on one hand the true economic need is there, on another the tremendous temptation and tribulation. These hardships have led some sisters in dire straights to turn to their local mosques for financial aid or in humiliation to the welfare system; in most cases whatever assistance they do receive is never enough to cover even the most modest living expenses. These options can only offer short-term assistance and are not a solution to a long-term need. One option that may work for most of us is working from home.

Most of us are aware of the industriousness of the Prophet’s wife, Khadeejah . She was by all accounts, an astute businesswoman. Although Khadeejah was a wealthy woman, starting a home-based business today does not require a large investment. In fact, in most cases, a small home-based endeavor may only require minimal funds to start-up. In addition, most of us are also aware that Islam has blessed women and permitted them to conduct business for themselves. There is no question that it is permissible, but how we choose to carry out that blessing is the key issue.

As Muslim women, we have certain obligations, such as our home and family, which should always be our utmost priority. We must never lose sight of the importance of those obligations; being good mothers and wives is much more crucial to our life in the Hereafter than working at another job will ever be. Raising our children to be trustworthy, honest Muslims is a means for us to acquire our goal of Jannah (Paradise), and that is something that no monetary wealth can ever accomplish no matter how great. Knowing this, we have a choice to make, and protecting ourselves by working from the security of home can make a world of difference to our family and more importantly, to enable us to safeguard our religion.

The notion of working at home is not something new. The “work-at-home” idea has been echoed for years from scam artists and homemakers alike, all trying to make some extra cash. However, with the advent of the Internet, a new door has opened. Freelancing has become commonplace today’s job market and employees are now telecommuting more than ever before. Working from home can now be a reality instead of a dream for Muslim women.

Excellent benefits: The benefits and rewards of working from home are innumerable. You are your own boss, and are therefore free to manage your own time. For example, if your child needs attention or if you need to perform your Prayer, it is your prerogative when to take a break; you will be on your own time, not someone else’s. If your financial situation improves and there is not a need to work a great deal, the option to take a vacation is yours. You will have the ability to deal with your customers only via e-mail, eliminating face-to-face contact completely and using the telephone altogether. What’s more, you also get the added benefit of deciding when to reply to that e-mail, when you have the time. Checks come to you, rather than you going to them. In other words, the work can revolve around your life, rather than vice-versa.

One of the most beneficial aspects of working from home is that it can be done by one person, or as a family venture. The effect of working as a team can even bring the family closer together while simultaneously benefiting it financially. Everyone from the young to the old can participate in running a home-based business. It can also be one of the most effective hands-on learning opportunities for children. Running a home-based business incorporates various real-life skills that children can discover such as marketing, advertising, developing business concepts, math and teamwork.

Home business also provides a solid foundation to teach a child Islamic work ethics. For Muslim women, it is a win-win situation. You are able to be with your children, earn extra money from your home and set a schedule that works best for yourself and your family.

Working from home is also a great way for sisters to band together and develop an organized effort networking their talents. If you are someone that has computer or business skills, you can donate your time to teach other sisters that are in need of work so that they may benefit their own families, and in turn you will be rewarded, Allaah willing.

Our homes are a protection for us, but our homes can also be profitable, not only Islamically but also economically. It is up to us to be resourceful thinkers and find what each of us can do from our home to help our families and ourselves, while preserving and protecting our religion and chastity.

Final advice: This was an attempt to give an alternative to substitute having to indulge in an out-of-home working environment. However, if a sister is forced to get into such an environment, then she must realize that Hijaab, on its own, makes a statement telling she is a proud and committed Muslim. This, if done sincerely, could repel much harm from her.

The most important advice for sisters to remember is that no matter where we are, or what we are doing, we should be persistent in fulfilling Allaah’s commands, be ever mindful of Him, and rely solely upon His grace and assistance. If we are in a job where we feel that our values are being compromised, the best option is to leave. Allaah, Almighty, should always be our first priority, not money, personal satisfaction, or desire for prestige or power. If things seem too overwhelming or difficult, we should always turn to Allaah and ask for his help and guidance.

The Prophet said: “Allaah the Almighty says: ‘I will be for My slave as he thinks of Me. I am with him when he makes mention of Me. If he makes mention of Me to himself, I make mention of him to Myself; and if he makes mention of Me in an assembly, I make mention of him in an assembly better than it. And if he draws near to Me a hand’s span, I draw near to him an arm’s length; and if he draws near to Me an arm’s length, I draw near to him a fathom’s length…” [Al-Bukhaari]

If you absolutely must work, then make sure that before you apply for any job to perform the Istikhaarah Prayer and seek guidance from Allaah and place the matter with Him – indeed Allaah is the Best Disposer of affairs, and the Best to rely on. Let us rely upon Allaah in all of our matters, whether personal, social, or professional.