Share this story!            

POSTCARD USA: Who will mourn Aqsa Parvez? — Khalid Hasan

Manto wrote that outward symbols, be they beards or metal wristbands or sacred threads across the bare chest, are external manifestations of a sprit that is no longer alive. The hijab, which has been gaining ground among Muslim women since the Iranian “revolution”, falls in the same category

Aqsa Parvez was only sixteen when her father strangled her because she no longer wanted to wear the hijab. What he erroneously believed was an Islamic injunction was more important to him than his schoolgirl daughter’s life. This happened in the Toronto suburb of Mississauga on December 10, ironically at a time of year which is celebrated as the season of goodwill, good cheer, family togetherness and peace on earth. But for Aqsa Parvez, it proved to be her year of death. She was deprived of life, love and fulfilment by her own father who believed he was doing God’s will. Muhammed Parvez, her killer, is a 57 year old cabdriver who would take three to four breaks during his working day to say his prayers. One can only wonder if he was praying to the same God of compassion that the Quran gives tidings of.

Natasha Fatah, speaking on Canadian national radio, said some Muslims had turned the wearing of hijab into the sixth pillar of Islam. They had brought into Canadian homes the radical tribal notion that a man’s honour is encompassed in the sexual and physical body of the women in his family, which is why they must be covered up and kept inside. They had made a woman’s body the fighting ground for their religious wars, and before their congregations, deluded imams kept exhorting men to control their daughters, wives and sisters.

The most shameful part of the Aqsa tragedy lies in the online and offline rumours that those who consider themselves “rightly guided” have been circulating. Some suggested that she had a black boyfriend (note the racism), others that she was sexually promiscuous, and some even called her a drug pusher. In other words, her father had every moral right to kill her, is the message. The Canadian imams, many of them in their self-styled attires and operatic headgear came out with other justifications. Sheikh Alaa El-Sayyed, imam of a Toronto mosque, said, “Women who wear hijabs occupy higher positions in Islam, according to religious teachings.” Where did the imam get that because nowhere does Islam lay that out? He also said, “We cannot let culture supersede religion. If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it.” Translated into straight language, it means that since Aqsa stayed away from the teachings of Islam, she had to “pay for it”. Imam Iqbal Nadvi of Oakville’s Al-Falah Islamic Centre mosque said, “Parents fail and bring shame upon themselves if a child chooses to abandon holy writings and not wear the hijab. It is their duty to convince their kids that this is part of their culture.” In other words, Aqsa’s father was justified in killing her because she would not wear the hijab. He also said that Aqsa was “going in the wrong direction, going with some other boy or some other thing.” That being so, she got what was coming to her and good riddance that was.

Now let me quickly examine what precisely the Quran says on the subject, because that alone should be a believing Muslim’s supreme and only guide. Dr Fazlur Rahman’s wrote that all Quranic passages, revealed as they were at a specific time in history and within certain general and particular circumstances, should be given expression relative to those circumstances. Another Muslim scholar, Dr Ibrahim Syed, says that those who claim that the Quranic verses are explicit about hijab base that position on Sura Al-Ahzab (33:59). The operative words in Arabic on which this interpretation is based mean (that women should) “lower their garments” or “draw their garments closer to their bodies”. Nowhere does the verse say that the face should be covered. In fact, the verse is devoid of the word ‘face’. The advocates of hijab also quote in support of their position Sura Al-Nur (24:31). Dr Syed writes: “In the pre-Islamic period, women used to wear a cloth called khimar on their necks that was normally thrown towards the back leaving the head and the chest exposed. The reference in Al-Nur apparently instructs that this piece of cloth, normally worn on the head and neck, should be made to cover the bosom.” The khimar was akin to a scarf or the Pakistani dupatta He writes: “So it is erroneous to conclude that the Quran demands (of) Muslim women to cover their heads.”

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

A Western scholar of Islam, Daphne Grace, in a 2004 work wrote, “Contrary to popular belief, the veiling of women is nowhere explicitly prescribed in the Quran. It is claimed that the custom of veiling arises from the verse in the Quran telling believers to ‘cast down their eyes ... and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms.’” She quotes the scholar Fadwa El Guindi, who elaborated the translation of this passage to reveal that the original meaning was to “cover the cleavage of the breasts”. Grace writes: “The passage has been interpreted by men in some countries to indicate the requirement of the full veil . . . while in other countries (such as Egypt), a fashionable headscarf suffices. It is worth noting that the cover outlined in the Quran was intended to prevent the public flaunting of sexuality, and a parallel verse prescribed an equivalent modest dress code for men.”

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

Khalid Hasan is Daily Times’ US-based correspondent. His e-mail is khasan2@cox.net

Home | Editorial

Share this story!