Religion and Women's Rights

Dear All,
This is a contentious issue. But one must ponder
over it. One may ignore it at one's own peril, as our
people, barring a few honorable exceptions, have been
doing it for centuries.
Such discussions require descipline, and courage of
conviction.
It is a fact that all religions delegate women to an
inferior status, socially, politically, and in
financial terms.
Apologists dwell on the theme that it is the
practice, and not the teachings of religion that are
to blame.
Even if that argument were to be true, and I will
not, even for a moment,concede the point, there are
too many documented dicta to the contrary, an average
person is not in the business of religious reform, and
is affected by popular belief.
When scholars come to a consensus on reforms of
religion, and I am saying this "tongue in cheek" , we
will all listen to them.
Let us take the three major "divinely inspired"
religions one by one.
In Judaism, males on getting up in the morning are
supposed to thank God for not being born as women. And
this will come as vindication of their belief system
to Muslim obscurantists, women are segregated in
religious gatherings. Women are supposed to obey men,
starting with fathers and brothers and ending with
husbands and sons. Men own all property including
womem and children.
Jews have been able to discard most of these dicta,
except for segregation in religiuos ceremoniies. This
may come as surprise to some, but Israel is not a
religious state.
Under Christian dispensation, all property till
early twentieth century, and that included property
the wife brought with her, her person and children,
belonged to the husband. She was, of course supposed
to obey her husband, she was not supposed to be
emotionally stable enough to vote. Astounding though
it may appear, but on paper, African American males
got the right to vote in the USA much before white
women did. The latter got the vote in the USA post
WWI. President Wilson presented it, actually as a part
of war effort. Women got the vote in the UK only in
1928.
Again separation of the church and the state has
come to their rescue.
"Ab meri bari Aiee" Islam. Subservient status of
women is well documented in the creed. Women inherit
half of what their male siblings do. In case there is
no male sibling, the part of the property goes to her
male paternal cousin.Their witness is, again of half
as much value, as that of a male. The creed goes way
beyond obedience in the relationship between husband
and wife. If "sajda" was permissible for a non-God, it
would have been to the husband.
The creed has paid lip service to women. Jannat, as
apologists are fond of repeating ad nauseum, is under
the feet of the mother and not that of the father's.
One should take care of the mother before any other.
People will be called by their mother's name on the
day of judgement, a nod to pragmatism, after all being
a product of the mother is a biological certainty.
In fact, all that amounts to is a poor recompense
for life long servility.
Polygamy, and this point merits special attention,
is sanctioned by law, tradition and historical
precedent in all "divine" religions.
A special word on Islam, which is after all the
focus of human rights effort in Muslim countries and
societies. Muslims comprise well over a billion of
souls, and growing at a pace faster than all others.
No sect, be it Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, Ahle Hadees,
Agha Khani/Bohra Ismailis, or any of the other
splinter groups, accepts woman as man's equal. No
Imam, Abu Haneefa, Malik, Hambal, Shafai or any other
accords equal rights to women.
All Muslim countries with the sole exception of
Turkey, which has, in any case, separated religion
from state, gives the same rights to women as they do
to men, not just in practice, but even under law.
Subsidiary status of women is a reflection of the
times religions were revealed. Men were predominant,
and in all likelihood, would not have accepted the
teachings if they had been put at par with women. The
problem , in practice, is fossilisation.
I would venture to add that the only way Muslims
could reconcile the concept of equal rights for women
would be to follow the path taken by Jews and
Christians-separate religion from state. Give unto
Caeser what is Caesars...etc. They are doing it, any
way in Western societies, or risk being hauled into a
court of law.
It is futile, nay, counter productive to wait upon
"Ijtihad" reinterpretation in the light of prevailing
circumstances, as that will never happen. Majority of
Muslims have discarded Ijtihad as a mortal sin, any
way.
If you go it alone, you are liable to be declared an
apostate, a fatwa not to be taken lightly. Salman
Rushdi has to look over his shoulders all the time,
even though the fatwa against him has been offically
withdrawn, and he has the patronage of the "West"
This brings us to the question of soliciting help of
religious people in campaigns for women's rights.
A close friend, for whose passion on the issue, I
have great regard, told me that we want their money,
and don't much care for their views.
My friend's candor is admirable, but I do not think
religious people will like it much.
Contrary to the belief firmly held by many, not all
religious people are dim. They would not willingly
part with their money unless they are confident that
they will be able to bring forth their point of view.

There are many precedents. Jinnah ordained that
Pakistan would be a non religious state under law. But
he had marched under religion slogans. Soon, too soon
for comfort, religious people struck back, and got
their "money's" worth. Progressive's have been crying
in the wilderness ever since.
RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WILL INEVITABLY DILUTE THE FOCUS,
CREATE CONFUSION IN RANKS, SERVE AS FIFTH COLUMNISTS
AND IN THE END MAKE THE CAUSE A SECONDARY ISSUE BY
LEADING US INTO THE MORASS OF NON ENDING DISPUTATIONS.
IT IS NO USE TELLING THEM THAT THEY CAN NOT HIJACK OUR
AGENDA. "ONE WHO PAYS THE PIPER....".