Dancing with Dogs: Thursday deep thoughts

Thursday deep thoughts

This is apparently what passes for deep, philosophical thoughts at Rediff these days. It is amazing how an author who is proud of some Americans disappointed in George Bush saying that he is taking the country backwards by 20 years, is completely unfazed by a thought process that doesn’t even belong in the last century, forget this one in the name of religion.

Want to choose America’s president?

The most disturbing question I asked a Muslim cleric in Washington was whether it was right for Indian Muslim girls to marry Hindu boys.
The answer, from Dr Abdullah Muhammad Khouj, was No.

I then asked if it was okay if the girl retained her religion while the boy retained his. The answer was “Al Haram, Al Haram (It’s a sin).” Dr Khouj added that Islam did not permit Muslim girls to marry non-Muslims. The marriage was possible only if the boys converted to Islam. He did say, however, that Muslim boys could marry ‘people of the book’ like Christians or Jews, and that the girls could retain their own religion. Marrying Hindu girls was impossible unless they first converted to Islam.

My question was based on the fact that, as Muslim girls get educated and become economically independent, it is difficult for Muslim families to tell them not to marry non-Muslims. There are many cases in India — including one in my family — but the cleric said they were un-Islamic. He added that one ought to explain to one’s sisters and daughters that there was life after death.
It is a question Indian Muslims will have to ask themselves and find solutions to. What will they do when such a situation crops up in their families? Will they be loyal to their religion or give in to demands of female family members?

[Emphasis mine]

Seriously, this author actually expects us to take him seriously when he is such a frigging wimp that he won’t even come out and say what he really means is that it will be hard to force your ancient will on educated and accomplished women in the name of religion! It is sheer cowardice or tacit approval of the “status quo” (take your pick) that he leaves that issue off with a stupid question couched in irritating terms like “demands of female family members”. Is this what passes for progressive thought these days?

Posted by shanti at September 29, 2005 2:09 PM