'' Our Lord ! grant us good in this world and good in the hereafter and save us from the torment of the Fire '' [Ameen]
-
{in Arab} :->
Rabbanaa aatinaa fid-dunyaa hasanatan wafil aakhirati hasanatan waqinaa 'athaaban-naar/-
(Surah Al-Baqarah ,verse 201)
Share 
* - Translator:: http://translate.google.com/m/ - - - - >
- > A contemporary commentator once observed that just as
perversion has set in Western society, it has also taken root in
Muslim society. Then how do you regard Western civilization as being
wrong and Islamic civilization as being right? This objection, if we
examine it, will be found to be ill judged, becauseour comparison of
Western and Islamic civilization makes a judgment on the basis of
standards versus behavior.
The deterioration of Muslim society is the result of deviation from
Islam, while the deterioration of Western society is the result of
putting into practice the very principles in which it believes.
The evils of Muslim societies stemfrom the gap between principle and
practice, whereas the evils ofWestern society are the result of a
clash between principles and realities. The Western civilization of
modern times has formed principles independent of religious
principles, to govern social life, and has maintained that modern
principles were superior to older principles.
Through colonization and the industrial revolution, etc. the Western
nations achieved political and material dominationover large areas of
the world, which placed them in a position to reject the old
principles of life and construct a human society based on modern
principles.
This experiment in ethics has now been going on with the dominance of
Western nations for more than a century, but practical experiments
have failed to verify the new principles. All that has been
accomplished is to effectively demonstrate that the new principles
favored by the West are completely incompatible with what nature
intends for humankind. The clashbetween ideals and reality has,
infact, given rise to ever-increasing manifestations of depravity in
Western life.
While the solution to moral backsliding in Muslim societies lies in a
return to the Islamic principles adhered to in the past, this cannot
be said about the West. If Western society retreats to its past, this
return will be a return to exactly the same principles on which it
still adheres to the letter.
Those who gave credence to the concept of permissiveness, or those who
insisted on the entrance of women in every department of man, or those
who advocated that marriage is an unnecessary bond, if they were to
return to their past where will they return?
This going back will be to the same principles, which they still
observe and the disastrous consequences, which they are now facing.
The solution to the perversion of Muslims lies in theirgoing back to
the path of Islamic principles, which they have left behind; while the
rectification of Western society lies in renouncing its self-made
principles. Here we present some examples to illustrate this point.
Reverse course
Time magazine, which has a readership of over 23 million, spread over
95 countries, published a revealing report on the condition of women
in America. The following is the gistof the report:
Over the past 25 years, there has been an influx of women into
theAmerican job market. Some 65 percent of women of childbearing age
now form part of the American workforce and 90 percent of them have
had, or will have children during their careers. This has created a
tremendous problem for women -- the onerous task of holding down a job
and having children at the same time.
One such American woman is Lillian Garland, who worked as a
receptionist at the California Federal Savings and Loan Association in
west Los Angeles until she became pregnant and left work to have her
baby in 1982. Her baby girl was delivered by Caesarian section and her
doctor prescribed a three-month period of leave. When she returned to
Cal Fed, Garland found that her position had been filled. She had lost
an 850 dollar job just at a time when with the birth of her child, her
expenses had increased.
Garland filed a suit in the federal court against the company for
having discriminated against her in terminating her employment. The
lawyers of both parties entered into interminable arguments, and after
prolonged litigation -- five years to be exact -- Thurgood Marshall,
former Justice of the American Supreme Court, gave his ruling in
January, 1987, that the State requires an employer to provide special
job protection for workers temporarily disabled by pregnancy.
This ruling triggered a tremendous controversy. On one hand, women are
happy that they have secured the protection of the law for bearing and
rearing children. On the other hand, serious American thinkers
maintain that this ruling will harm the cause of women.
The debate over pregnancy leave has thus created a deep rift among
feminists. One side arguesthat although pregnancy leave benefits
individual women, it poses a general danger to femaleworkers because
it singles them out for special protection. Historically, they point
out, such privileged treatment has eventually led to discrimination
against women. Marsha Levick of the National Organization for Women's
Legal Defense and Education Fund says: "That almost always backfires."
Don Butler, President of the Los Angeles-based Merchants and
Manufacturers Association, said that the decision "spells disaster."
To this, he added:"Larger companies can makeshiftto fill a hole, but
small ones cannot do that very easily. If I employ ten females, and
two or more get pregnant at one time, I might as well file for
bankruptcy." Discrimination against women might increase. Many
companies "just won't hire women in their childbearing years," says
the Chamber's Attorney Lamp.
A well-known feminist, Betty Freidan, said in support of the ruling
regarding Garland's case:"Equality does not mean that women have to
fit the male model." There is something very incongruous about this
argument. When women are so different in their biological structure
that they cannot "fit the male model," where is the necessity to bring
women into every sphere of life to do the same work as men, and then
attempt, by passing laws, to enforce an artificial equality of the
sexes.
As economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett puts it: "This decision means
thatthere is recognition at the highest legal levels that, in order to
get equal status for women in the workplace, you have to createfamily
supporters." This is an indirect acknowledgement of therationality and
appropriateness of the old traditional system.
The concept evolved by modern civilization that woman does not need
man as her supporter implies that she should earn and be her own
supporter. When this principle was put into practice, it soon became
evident that a woman could not do without a supporter. The only
difference was in the name. Formerly it was "husband" now it is "the
company."
In traditional society, when religion was still a positive force, men
used to do whatever was required outside the home, whilewomen took
care of all indoor work. This was a division of labor, which was both
practical and natural. However, modern civilization has held that
this"division" is nothing but sexual discrimination. It is this view,
which launched the women's liberation movement, and encouraged women
to come out of their homes in order to take up employment in offices
and factories.
At an early stage it became apparent that under this new arrangement,
the path to progress for women was strewn with obstacles. To remove
the disadvantages implied for the woman, a law was passed granting
special paid leave to pregnant women and nursing mothers.
This was the kind of law which legislators, who were far removed from
the situation, could pass with no discomfort to themselves but whose
implementation could not be afforded by those who have to come to
grips with the everyday running of a factory or management of an
office. This is a situation, which has sparked offan unending
controversy.
So far, the government is supporting women in this conflict in order
to maintain the superiority of its cultural principle. However, taking
sides against reality is hardly practicable. If the government
required the managements of all offices and factories to give four
months' paid leave to women, how many establishments wouldbe able to
afford what would seem to them an unwarranted extravagance? Finding
the cost ofsuch a cultural luxury prohibitive,many employers would
simply not hire women during their childbearing years, and older women
would themselves opt to stay at home.
It seems very probable that such negative factors will reinforce
thediscriminatory attitudes, which the women's liberation movement
came into being to end.
