If the divorced woman has no child she won’t have such troubles. If she had children, due to the affection on the children she will keep them with herself. But the divorcee will get all the expenses for the children from her divorced husband.
The divorced woman who has no child and those who don’t want bring up the children and leave them under the care of their divorced husband alone can’t get any expense money.
Those who think impartially will realize that the security provided by Islam to woman, instead of alimony, is more fruitful and can’t be blamed in any aspect.
Islam orders women to hide their body in cloak except their face and forehands. Islam calls it Hijab. In our country it is called Burka, cloak etc., Non-Muslims criticizes this also.
The Reformers and the elites accuse that Hijab(veil on seductive portions) is an extra burden on women. It snatches their rights and intervenes in their personal liberty.
In reality, Hijab was accustomed to honor and safeguard womenfolk and not to snatch away their liberty.
Falsification of Hijab accusers
Those, who propagate equality between men and women are true in their argument, concerning wearing dresses, what liberty they have allowed to men, they should allow to women also. But they can’t.
A male labor wearing his banyan and half nicker can work in front of anybody but a woman can’t. Even a Reformist can’t allow such dress to his wife, mother and sister.
All men and women have understood that women have more seductive portions than men and so those portions should be hidden. In hiding limit only they can differ.
Though both the sexes are created to attract each other, there is difference in the taste.
Men like the beauty, color, youth and bodily structure of women. Then when the women come out with less or tight dress men are attracted. They like to see them again. But the women taste is different. They are not interested in the body structure of the men.
Obscene cinemas and books utilize the nude poses of women only for the business and not the nude poses of men. In making dresses for women, we should not take likings of women only; we have to take into consideration of the mentality of men who looks at them. The dress control is absolutely necessary for both the sexes to live with chastity and dignity.
From beautiful women, what parts men like to look at, should be hidden. None other than their husbands have the right to gaze at it.
Just seeing does not make any lose is a wrong statement. Seductive scenes are the root cause for many bad consequences which we meet in our day to day life. Those who look at beautiful women, most of them control themselves at enjoying the sight only. Some people remain mentally living with those women secretly. Some people compare their wives with them and lessen their intimacy with their wives. But a few people plan to snatch away their modesty. This kind of infatuation may lead to seduction and even to murder.
The world is lagging behind in morality due to the economy women’s dressing and their seductive make ups.
Some people argue as men like women, women also like men. Though it is true to an extent, this reason is not strong enough to deny Hijab for women.
Being carried away by the beauty of a woman, if he likes to enjoy her, he can rape her without her approval. But if a woman is infatuated with a man and he does not like it, she can’t seduce him. It is the biological truth.
When a woman is raped, her right, chastity, and self-prestige are affected. The culprit, who fears that he will be punished, murders her to avoid any complaint against him.
Those who blame Hijab do not think about it.
The Women’s Right Organizations and the Reformers raise their voices against the daily rapes and the atrocities prevalent on women. They advocate for Arabian Criminal Laws for punishing the culprits severely. But they forget conveniently that women’s seductive dressing is an important reason for inducing the crime.
Sometimes Women’s Right Organizations and the Reformers tear the obscene posters, or smear them with tar. It declares the approval of their conscience that women should have control over their dressing.
An actress is ready to wear seductive dresses. With her approval only the sexy posters are pasted. Smearing and tearing those posters, are they not, intervenes the personal rights and freedom of the actress? “Women’s parts should be hidden” says Islam. Though Women’s Right Organizations and the Reformers speak against Hijab intervenes women’s right, their inner conscience accepts Islamic doctrine, which reflects in their action of tearing and smearing the obscene posters.
While the whole body of a woman is attractive, why did Islam allow the face and the forehand up to wrist to display?
Islam allowed these parts left uncovered for a justifiable reason to avoid the bad effects.
Among men and women only a few live righteous life in the fear of God. Others pretend to righteous, on the fear of the society. This is the reason for the people are not righteous in an unknown place those who were righteous in their native place.
If the women are allowed to hide their faces, they will not be identified then they are free to go astray. If men are allowed to wear mask, they will commit crimes. To those, who do not fear the God, there is the fear of society that keep them to be righteous.
If Islam allowed Muslim women to cover her face, she may go astray. Non-Muslim women also in the guise of Muslim women can have illegal contacts with men. Even Men in the guise of Muslim women will commit crimes. So, Islam did not order Muslim women to hide her face.
No contemporary women of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) had hidden their face. To be identified and to work, Islam allowed women not hide their face and forehand up to wrist. But the other parts of women are challenging the modesty of men also. So they should be hidden.
Modest dressing as covering everything except the face and forehands will not dissuade women’s progress at all.
All over the world prime ministers, presidents and chief ministers wear dresses covering their whole body except their face and forehands. This kind of dress is not a barrier in their profession and progress.
In this juncture, how can we accept women to display their parts as a sign of their liberty?
To allow men to gaze at the beauty of women is mental perversion and it is a misnomer to call it as a freedom and right of women.
Islam does not prescribe any shape or color for Hijab. Hijab should cover the whole body except face and forehands. To maintain morality and dignity of the society Islam introduced Hijab. Even after seeing the outcome of dress liberty in western countries, none can deny the safety of Hijab to womenfolk.
The Law of Inheritance in Islam
The Law of Inheritance in Islam prescribes the share of male and female child at 2:1. Regarding this, Non-Muslims accusation expands as follows:
Men are strong and they have many opportunities to earn. So, they should be given less. Even if both the sexes are given equally also it is an injustice. In this juncture, women are given half of a man’s share is a big injustice.
Before the introduction of Islam there was no law of inheritance to woman. Women have the share of properties of neither from their parents nor from their relatives.
For the first time Islam introduces this right to women. Even after Islam, for the past few centuries non-Muslims did not allow Law of Inheritance to women. In the law of Inheritance women were included in some parts of our country very recently. In Tamil Nadu during the regime of Karunanithi, women were included in the law of Inheritance on a par with men.
The share ratio of Islamic Law of Inheritance is based on wise and logical reasons.
More burden to Men
In Islamic social setup, men have more financial burden than women. A Muslim is bound to provide food, clothing, shelter and other expenses to his parents, wife and children. But a Muslim woman has no such responsibilities. The same situation prevails in Non-Muslim societies also.
Those who forget to take into the consideration of this difference blames the Islamic law of Inheritance is injustice to women.
Is it an injustice, if it is bestowed more to those who bear the burden than those who do not have such burden?
Though a Muslim male gets twice of his sister, it is insufficient to meet out expenses imposed on him. On the contrary, though a Muslim woman gets half of her brother, it is an excess for her, as she has no obligation to spend on others. Even her personal expenses are also provided by another man (Father, husband, son and brother). So, it is obvious that the Islamic Law of Inheritance is more just and wise.
Women’s share goes to others
Everyone wish that his property, after his death, should be distributed among his blood relations. It should be spent within his family circle. There is justice in that wish. Though his wish is not fulfilled exactly, at least to execute it to an extent, this kind of partiality is inevitable in the law inheritance. The share given to the female child will be spent on the family of her husband only. Though the daughter can keep her share for herself, due to her affection with her husband, she will be ready to spend on her husband’s family.
But the share received by the son spent on the blood relations and wishes of the deceased is fulfilled to an extent also. So, the male child getting double share is not an injustice.
Father’s family is the shelter for women.
Due to the weakness of woman, her share may be swallowed by her husband’s family and in some cases driven out also. In this situation the woman takes shelter in her father’s house. If she had a brother, he has to provide for her. If both had got equal share the brother may neglect her. When he gets double share, it will be his bounden duty to provide her, in her pitiable plight.
Male assists his father to develop his property.
Mostly male children assist more his father to develop his property than his female children. This is also one of the reasons to show partiality in the law of inheritance. Is it an injustice to pay more percentage of the share to those who assisted to develop the property?
Female children gains more from the father.
For food and shelter expenses of both the male and female children are equal. But, in other expenses the female children gains more from their father as jewelry, clothing and beautifying materials. The high worth remains with the female children as their property. Moreover father spends a lot on her marriage and gives her gift as materials also. While the father alive, the female children get more than male children. Only after the death of the father, in the law of inheritance, they are provided half of a male’s share.
These are the justifiable reasons in the background for the partiality in the Islamic Law of Inheritance.
On 2nd Aug 2001 an article was published in Dinamani titled“brhj;jpy; rkgA;F,flikapy;?”“ Equality in Law of Inheritance! But in Duty?” If anyone think about, what Suthandra Thayagan has exposed as an important aspect, will affirm that the Islamic law of Inheritance is wise. The article expands as follows:
“Bestowing equally by law of Inheritance is not astonishing. While providing equal share to women do they lend their hands equally in their duty also?”
The parents bring up their female children in a par with their male children. They provide food, clothing, shelter and education. They are wedded to good grooms spending lakhs of rupees. They spend for their delivery and invite them for feasts. Moreover provide equal share in property and cash also. Can the parents who provided all these, during their old age, stay with their female children?
The female children, taking all from the parents, leave them to their brothers. This tendency should be changed. The son-in law, who derive all the facilities from the parents of his wife, should come forward to take care of them during their disability. “Right for daughter but duty for son only” is the bad situation. The son and the daughter-in-law, who face such situation, will be upset mentally.
When the female is bestowed equally in the law of Inheritance, the male is prone to think “Why should not his sister foster her father?”
The time will come soon to stipulate female children, who get equal share, to foster their parents. Due to the equality maintained in the genders in the law of Inheritance may be also a reason to the increase of Aged orphanages. If Islamic Law of Inheritance is practiced this kind of bad consequences will be evaded. It is good both for parents and female children. So, the partiality in the Islamic law of Inheritance is just and wise.