Trilateral consensus against us

On August 11, Agence France-Presse (AFP), the oldest news agency in the world, quoted NATO Commander US Army General David McKiernan declaring that "Pakistan's intelligence agency is helping the Taliban to pursue an insurgency in Afghanistan that has seen a 50 per cent hike in attacks in some areas this year" adding that he is "not sure what level of leadership the cooperation reaches, but that there is complicity between the ISI and militants that come from Pakistan's tribal regions." On August 10, Reuters reported that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has "urged the world to target the Taliban in Pakistan." On July 12, The Hindustan Times quoted India's National Security Advisor MK Narayanan howling "ISI needs to be destroyed." Welcome to realpolitik; no ethics or morals in this power game. American generals are failing in Afghanistan so they must find a distraction or a scapegoat, or both. The 'Mayor of Kabul' has flunked most of his tests so blaming his failures on to Afghanistan's neighbour is the easiest way out for him. Lastly, when India's moves to encircle her long time adversary are fought back Narayanan hurriedly embraces sadism.

It's not that our problems have no solutions. On August 6, The Irish Times proposed one: "The key step is an agreement to end the conflict over Kashmir. The second is an agreement between India, Pakistan, and Iran, with the support of the international community, to treat Afghanistan as a neutral state. Absent such, both India and Pakistan (and also Iran) will treat it as just another part of a 'great game' between them. The third, to enable Pakistan and Afghanistan to live in peace, the colonial border between them, the Durand line, must be finally agreed, with resolution of the question of the Pashtun militants on both sides of that border who form the core of the Taliban insurgency in both countries." Pakistan has always been fearful of her big neighbour; fearful often to the 'point of irrationality and delusion'. Kashmir was hatched as a strategic diversion. A blotted defence budget of a security state turned us into a rentier state renting out our geography to America. America, for her own great game, kept on financing one-quarter of our defence budget. Alas, that's history. In June, the US Department of Defence announced its National Defence Strategy. The 23-page document states two things about India. First, "our relationship with India has evolved from an uneasy co-existence during the Cold War to a growing partnership today (page 10)." Second, "we look to India to assume greater responsibility as a stakeholder in the international system, commensurate with its growing economic, military, and soft power (page 14)." Pakistan was not even mentioned once in the 9,000-word document. India's 'double pincer' at us could not have come at a worse time – economic meltdown, an active insurgency and a terrifying political vacuum. As always, military muscle must match economic power or doom and gloom is in the waiting. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had 27,000 nuclear weapons but the USSR is no more; collapsed into 15 constituents. Czechoslovakia was Czechoslovakia for 74 years -- no more. Allegations and accusations levelled by McKiernan, Karzai and Narayanan are just that -- accusations. But, the willingness of all three to so rashly arrive at the same anti-Pakistan conclusion is what the new realpolitik is all about. This time it is serious. How long would Pakistan play a logistical hub both for the Taliban and NATO? The emerging trilateral consensus against us is a reality. This is something that we have never faced before; a challenge unlike any previous challenge, a challenge that can actually consume us as a country. To be certain, American foreign policy has become completely militarised and both Obama and McCain plan to escalate this militarisation -- and that too towards us. It is for us to find a way out or be damaged irreparably. We need to ask just why is everyone turning against us. We also need to question proxy wars and examine regional economic integration. And then, radically recalibrate our power games under the new reality – or suffer debilitating consequences. Postscript: Pakistan's soul is under attack. Asif Ali Zardari in the presidency shall mean a potent front against extremism – and that will be good for the soul of our country.

Musharraf must face an open trial

THE nation is heaving a sigh of relief as one of the most painful phases in Pakistan’s history has ended with Musharraf’s resignation. Should the matter end here? Gen Musharraf dismissed judges and violated the constitution but all dictators are guilty of that.His greatest crime was that he compromised Pakistan’s national interests to consolidate his power when he was an international pariah and brought Pakistan to the brink of Balkanisation by his dual track policy of covertly supporting the Afghan Taliban while allowing the Americans to conduct air strikes on Pakistan.But it is impossible to forgive him for insulting the people of Pakistan by telling them in the full glare of TV cameras that they should eat chicken if pulses are expensive (‘daal mahngi hey to murgi khain’). Marie Antoinette of France said, “Let them eat cake” when confronted by the poverty of the people and shortage of bread. She was executed by guillotine at the height of the French Revolution in 1793 for the crime of treason.A section of our English-speaking elite believe Musharraf was trying to save them from the Taliban. This makes you wonder how ignorant one can be. He secured the evacuation of more than 3,000 Taliban and militants between Nov 15 and 23, 2001 from Kunduz in Afghanistan, where they had been trapped, to Pakistan’s tribal areas from where they were to later organise and conduct terrorist attacks.Musharraf used the intelligence agencies to rig the 2002 elections to enable the supporters of religious militants and Lal Masjid extremists, such as Chaudhry Shujaat and Ijazul Haq, to gain power in the centre and the religious elements to gain ground in the NWFP and Balochistan. The politics of fear and blackmail was practised, fully exploiting the apprehensions of Pakistanis and the West of religious extremists.

This double game was played to a degree where it forced a former general and corps commander Faiz Ali Chisti to make a shocking statement to an international news agency on Jan 27, 2008. Chishti said he would “not be surprised” if Musharraf had engineered terror attacks to manipulate his image in the West. “Musharraf is an intellectually dishonest person. He is a clever ruler, who makes the US and the West believe that they can only effectively deal with Al Qaeda as long as he is in power,” Chishti said.Some so-called pragmatists advocate a cautious approach to Musharraf’s accountability lest the khakis get upset. But Pakistan’s history tells us that letting dictators go unpunished for their crimes against the state and the people has not deterred the Bonapartists and adventurers from striking again in the darkness. Bhutto did not try the generals as was recommended by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission.Bhutto was to later regret his policy of appeasing the army. He wrote these prophetic words from his death cell in his book If I am Assassinated: “If a coup d’etat becomes a permanent part of the political infrastructure, it means the falling of the last petal of the last withered rose. It means the end.” He added, “If India had suffered from martial laws and military dictatorships on the pattern of Pakistan, India would have been in three or four separate pieces by this day. India is more heterogeneous than Pakistan but India has been kept in one piece by the noise and chaos of its democracy.”Bhutto faced two coup attempts within the first couple of years of his five-and-half-year rule and then the third fatal one on July 5, 1977. Why? The Bonapartist generals were sure nobody could touch them. Democracy and democratic institutions cannot exist and grow without accountability. It cannot be built on the basis of reconciliation with those who have showed a callous and contemptuous disregard for the people of this country.What right does anyone have to provide safe passage to someone who committed heinous crimes against the people and handing over hundreds of Pakistanis, including a young woman Aafia Siddiqui, to the US without the due process of law; who allowed the murder of Benazir Bhutto by withdrawing security and then presided over the cover-up; to one who should be held responsible for the deaths of several hundred Pakistanis including those who died on May 12, 2007 in Karachi as he stood in Islamabad showing his fists declaring, “I will have the last punch”?But it would be wrong to single him out for Pakistan’s descent to the brink of a failed state. Musharraf represents the mindset of those arrogant and megalomaniac generals who consider themselves a special breed that is above any law and accountable to no one.This breed was responsible for the ignominious surrender on Dec 16, 1971 and the break-up of Pakistan. Its ugliest face, Ziaul Haq, was responsible for the murder of Pakistan’s first elected prime minister and turning Pakistan into a CIA base and one of the biggest hubs of narcotics and arms trafficking in the world. It was another general — Aslam Beg — who sabotaged democracy by forming and supporting the IJI and encouraging the MQM to turn Karachi and Hyderabad into war zones.
His ISI chief Hameed Gul had little idea — and still does not — that by supporting the so-called jihadis, many of whom have been tools in the hands of suicidal raw power games conducted in the name of ‘national security’ and ‘strategic depth’, he and his ilk were creating Frankensteins, who instead of undermining the neighbouring ‘enemies’, threatened the very future of Pakistan itself. Musharraf was part of that reckless, irresponsible and dangerous bunch.Pakistan cannot repair these deep wounds by pretending that there is nothing wrong or that Musharraf received bad advice or made some mistakes. No individual or army can be a substitute for the collective wisdom that the politicians are forced to choose as the modus operandi because democracy, no matter how imperfect, cannot function otherwise. Collective wisdom and decision-making processes may not appear to be particularly efficient but serve as a safety value to prevent disasters like the 1971 defeat.The malaise of military rule is cancerous and deep, and may prove fatal. It needs a surgical operation and the operation must start at the top. It must start with an open trial by a judicial commission that should consist of only non-PCO judges. It will need to be followed by a healing process but healing does not and cannot start before an operation.

The futility of war

IN The Republic, Plato described how civilised states should be governed but noted, “Only the dead have seen the last of war.”Centuries earlier, Homer had shown how wars had transformed men into heroes. Shakespeare would show centuries later how wars brought out the worst in man.In our era, martial courage would be famously extolled in an Urdu couplet:Only the mounted warriors fall in battleHow will the toddlers fall that crawl on all fours?This glossed over Gen Sherman’s experience of the civil war which left him convinced that “All war is hell”, something that John Keegan brought out to good effect in The Face of Battle. But even those who glorified war were devastated by the horrific acts that took place on 9/11. The US retaliation that came in Afghanistan was swift and decisive, widely welcomed by the world.

The war to depose Saddam Hussein was not.Of course, it appealed to the troops who were sent there to fight it. Unlike their counterparts in the Vietnam war, they were volunteers. Many had joined to extract revenge on the terrorists. Evan Wright, an American reporter, was embedded in an elite reconnaissance platoon of US Marines. In 2004, he penned a book about the invasion, Generation Kill, which is now being screened by a US TV channel to much acclaim.Wright provides a view of the modern battlefield from the vantage point of these warriors. As they roll off into Iraq in their lightly armed Humvees they have only a vague idea of their enemy. They know he has no air cover and that his capability has been eroded by sanctions. But his army is equipped with several thousand tanks, artillery pieces and possibly nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Danger lurks in the vastness of the desert.The marines are young men drawn from Camp Pendleton, California, on a par with the Navy Seals or the army’s Special Operation Forces. But their exposure to the outside world has been limited to jaunts south of the border. They are overflowing with hormones, profanities, machismo and tattoos. One has a broken smile because two front teeth are missing. Another has an ungainly appearance for which he has been nicknamed ‘Manimal’. Yet another is believed to have fled the scene of battle at Khafji during the 1991 Gulf war and is called The Coward. Their leader, who does not command respect, is called Captain America.As it marches into Iraq, this platoon, like the rest of the corps, is simply out to “Get Some!” No one has bothered to educate its soldiers about the local culture. So when they see their first Iraqi around 10 in the morning, they cuss him for wearing pyjamas in daylight. All enemies are “Hajjis.”In the crossfire that ensues, innocent shepherds, villagers and city dwellers are killed. The marines watch helplessly as a shot-up boy dies in his mother’s arms and as a father carries his dead girl whose brain has spilled out to a roadside grave. A sheikh begs the marines not to rape his daughters while other Iraqis offer them boys as an alternative.

As the invasion progresses, large numbers of Iraqi soldiers surrender, many without a fight. The marines encounter long lines of Iraqi troops walking past them in civilian clothes. Many carry pink cards given by the American army units to whom they surrendered.But the marines cannot afford to feed them. The soldiers have to be ‘un-surrendered’ to bypass the Geneva Conventions. The Iraqi soldiers complain that the fedayeen have formed hunter killer teams to take them out. However, the marines are unable to offer them protection and send them in the other direction, knowing that it means certain death for the deserters.Evidence of Iraqi military incompetence abounds. Their armour waits until 10 in the morning to begin rolling out, at which time US combat aircraft take them out with consummate ease. In one night encounter, a T-72 tank is taken out by a single marine with a missile shot from less than 200 yards away. After a major battle with an Iraqi division, a US general says that his troops won not because he was brilliant but because his counterpart was stupid.One marine officer acknowledges that if a foreign force went to the US, the residents would do their best to catch an invader and string him up. Yet, when a marine is killed, the others resort to taking their revenge on the nearby village. The air force is called in and thousand-pound bombs are dropped. The marines, from a distance, see Iraqi men evaporate before their eyes. In another encounter, a marine sniper is sent in to dispatch potential Iraqi spotters from a distance. As he sees them drop through his scope, he reminds himself to not take pleasure in the act of killing, since that would be counter to his Christian faith.On the road to Baghdad, the marines relieve themselves under the open sky, day or night, and litter the roads with wrappers from their ready-to-eat rations. At night, they are haunted by visions of those that they have killed. Some marines fall victim to friendly fire, some are run over as they sleep by US vehicles and some, who can’t take it any more, step into a ditch and shoot themselves in the head. Even for the victors, war is one long ride through hell.And yet, somehow, amidst all the chaos and destruction, the Iraqi farmer tends to his sheep and drives his herds through the US formations. Five years after the war, many of the soldiers who fought in the Iraq war are despondent. More than four thousand of their buddies are dead. They won the war but lost the peace. Along the way some of them burned villages in order to save them. The crazier ones just fired guns to blow things up. Even the sensible ones were anxious to “get in the game”, as if war was a game too good to miss out on.Wright does not moralise about the war. Nor does he tell us how the Iraqis viewed it. But what he does say proves the futility of war.

What next for judges?

WHERE does the impeachment of President Musharraf leave the non-functional judges of the superior courts? According to the joint communiqué issued by the partners in the ruling coalition last week the judges are to be restored “strictly in accordance with the Murree Declaration immediately after the impeachment of the president”. This statement has been met with some dismay by leaders of the lawyers’ movement. Hamid Khan, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), told an international news agency that the lawyers are “shocked that coalition leaders just did not really discuss” restoration of the judges. The coalition is “obsessed with the departure” of the president, Mr Khan added. Meanwhile, Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the SCBA, has demanded the restoration of the judges by Aug 14, rejecting the impeachment of the president first.

For those wanting the non-functional judges to be restored, the joint communiqué has indeed given rise to fresh uncertainties. First, the joint communiqué did not clarify the mode of restoration — a key sticking point betweenthe PML-N and the PPP for months. Reference to the Murree Declaration is no good because the declaration itself did not clarify if the judges were to be restored directly by a parliamentary resolution or if a constitutional amendment is permissible. Second, what if the impeachment motion fails? The communiqué only says the judges will be restored “after the impeachment” of the president. Does this mean the process of impeachment, whether successful or not? Or does the communiqué only pledge restoration if the president is successfully impeached? If it’s the latter, the politicians have clearly spelled out that failure is not an option. In the world of Pakistani politics, this may be a stretch too far for the judges and their supporters.

The lawyers’ movement is also worried about the possibility of President Musharraf using Article 58-2(b) to dissolve parliament. Constitutionally, the president is required to refer dissolution to the Supreme Court. Mr Khan pointed out that, unless the judges are immediately restored, it will be in a court where “Musharraf’s hand-picked judges are working”, implying a fair judgment may not be forthcoming. The PML-N, however, rejects this charge. “The president should be impeached first, because if he stays he would conspire against the restoration of judges,” Ahsan Iqbal has stated. The problem for the non-functional judges, however, is that the lawyers’ movement is struggling for traction with the public. The day before the joint communiqué was issued, the APDM announced a country-wide strike on Sept 1 to protest the government’s failure to, inter alia, restore the judges. In the wake of the communiqué, the APDM component parties lauded the bid to impeach the president and suggested the strike would be called off if the coalition keeps its promise of impeachment first and then restoration. Nine months since their ‘dismissal’ by President Musharraf, the judges would be forgiven if they are sceptical of more promises.

International plot against ISI

Since the issuance of a notification on July 26 last month by some officials to bring our ISI under the control of the interior ministry and its reversal in no time in wake of the recent trip of Pakistan’s PM Gilani to the US shows that an international plot against the superior agency has reached climax.Meanwhile on July 31 and August 1, The New York Times disclosed in a series of allegations quoting the US officials that CIA Deputy Director Stephen Kappes visited Pakistan in last July and confronted Pakistani officials with evidence of ties between ISI and the militants in the tribal areas - aiding in bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7. The Times further revealed that Bush on July 28 also “confronted with Prime Minister Gilani about the divided loyalties of ISI.” Next day, Washington Times also repeated these allegations.Nevertheless, in the US, PM Gilani rejected these accusations as “unbelievable” in relation to any links between Pakistan’s ISI and the militants.The fact of the matter is that US-led India, Afghanistan and Israel have intensified their covert strategic designs by manipulating Pakistan’s multi-faceted crises which they have themselves created through their secret agencies CIA, RAW, Khad and Mossad. By taking new shifts in their propaganda campaign, they are acting upon anti-Pakistan agenda, tarnishing the image of ISI which is thwarting their schemes against our country. In the recent past, a report of the US so-called think-tanks had also disclosed without any evidence that Pakistan’s superior spy agency is supporting Taliban militancy in Afghanistan.In this regard, on April 8, 2008, Gulf Times quoted an article in the Washington Post, allegedly claiming that Baitullah Mehsud was reorganising the Taliban with help of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.Here the question arises: why Americans, equipped with eavesdropping technology and the best information system does not kill Mehsud like Al-Qaeda Commander Neak Muhammad who was killed in a guided missile attack on June 18, 2004. It proves that the US intends to keep Mehsud alive with the pretext to blame Pakistan to destabilise the latter so as to achieve some nefarious goals of America, India, Afghanistan and Israel.
The misdeeds of anti-ISI agencies are known to every one. In this context, Ramzi Yousaf who was well-aware of the activities of the American secret agencies had stated in the US court in 1997, “You are butchers, liars, and hypocrites. You keep on talking about terrorism to the media, but behind closed doors you support terrorism.”In the recent past, an officially declassified document of the CIA had revealed that during the Cold War era, the agency had tried to kill the Cuban President Fidel Castro.Recently, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Indian Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor blamed Pakistan’s ISI for the suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. In this context, Indian National Security Advisor M K Narayanan pointed out on July 12, 2008, “The ISI needs to be destroyed.” However, during Gilani-Karzai meeting on the sideline of SAARC summit in Colombo on August 3, the Afghan president failed to provide any proof of ISI involvement in the bombing of Indian embassy.In fact, having failed in crushing the resistance of the Afghan Taliban and Kashmiris against the occupying forces, US-led coalition troops and Indian forces, equipped with sophisticated weaponry have badly failed. Hence, they want to fulfil a number of collective designs by distorting the image of Pak army and ISI. False blame-game is essential for them to divert the attention of their publics from their frustrated adventure in Afghanistan and Kashmir.As regards India, it has become fashion to blame ISI for every mishap to conceal her own covert strategic game against Pakistan. In this connection, more than 12 crude bombs were exploded on July 26 across Ahmedabad one day after the blasts of Banglore. Although some Indian leaders accused ISI, yet reality behind the bombing was disclosed by Sushma Swaraj, deputy leader of BJP. While indicating the horse-trading by the Manmohan-led ruling party, she pointed out that the blasts in two BJP-ruled states could be the handiwork of a central agency like RAW in order to distract attention from “cash for vote scam”, used to get vote of confidence for the PM.
However, an international conspiracy is in the making against ISI which is being maligned because Pakistan is the only Islamic nuclear country, irking the eyes of ‘nuclearised’ America, India and Israel who are exaggerating that safety of these weapons is doubtful as these can go in the hands of Al-Qaeda operatives. The sole aim is to convince Washington to invade Pakistan’s tribal areas. In this connection, inside Afghanistan Indian intelligence agencies and army personnel have been training saboteurs who are provided with arms and ammunition and are being sent to Pakistan to conduct bomb blasts as noted in case of Islamabad etc.There are also other reasons behind external intrigue against ISI like Pak-China strategic relationship and the geo-strategic location of Gwadar with billions of dollars Chinese investment there. While US desires to make India a major power to counterbalance China in Asia as both of them see China as a “future strategic competitor.”In this respect, American real strategic allies like Delhi and Kabul who have already been creating instability in Pakistan by favouring some anti-state elements in the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan found Pak tribal areas to be a suitable ground where they could implement their conspiracy. Therefore, it became necessary for them to cope with ISI which is the first defence line of our country in castigating any plot against the country.We can conclude that US-led India, Afghanistan and Israel are one in conspiring against ISI to destabilise Pakistan by concealing their own covert activities against Islamabad.

Women's Rights In Islam

The Conditions of Women in Arabia Before Islam

In those days before Islam, women were treated like slaves or property. Their personal consent concerning anything related to their well-being was considered unimportant, to such a degree that they were never even treated as a party to a marriage contract.Women were used for one purpose, and then discarded. They had no independence, could own no property and were not allowed to inherit. In times of war, women were treated as part of the prize. Simply put, their condition was unspeakable.In addition, the birth of a daughter in a family was not an occasion for rejoicing, but was regarded with humiliation. The practice of killing female children was uncontrolled.With the advent of Islam came the verse from the Quran condemning those who practiced female infanticide:

"And when the news of (the birth of) a female (child) is brought to any of them, his face becomes dark, and he is filled with inward grief! He hides himself from the people because of the evil of that whereof he has been informed. Shall he keep her with dishonor or bury her in the earth? Certainly, evil is their decision."(An-Nahl 16:58-59)

And as part of a description of various events on the Day of Judgment, the Quran mentions:

And when the female (infant) buried alive (as the pagan Arabs used to do)shall be questioned. For what sin she was killed? (At-Takwir 81:8-9)

Outside Arabia conditions for women were no better. In India, Egypt, and all European countries in the Dark Ages, women were treated worse than slaves. They were not regarded as human beings but as sort of a sub-species between humans and animals.

Allah (SWT) Gave the Arab Women Their Rights

The rights of Muslim women were given to us by Allah (SWT), who is All-Compassionate, All-Merciful, All-Just, All-Unbiased, All-Knowing and Most Wise. These rights, which were granted to women more than 1400 years ago, and were taught by the perfect example of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), were given by the one Who created us and Who alone knows what rights are best for our female natures. Allah (SWT) says in the Quran:

"O You who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at time of marriage) you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honorably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah bringsthrough it a great deal of good." (An-Nisa 4:19)

The most basic right of a woman in Islam is the knowledge and recognition that she never has to ask or demand or fight for her rights which are guaranteed to her by Allah (SWT) Himself.

Islam Gives Men and Women Equal Rights

In reality, and in Islam, the rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of man, but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and sameness are two very different things. I think you’ll agree that, for one thing, women and men are physically very different from one another, although they are equal to each other in other important ways.In the West, women may be doing the same job that men do, but their wages are often less. The rights of Western women in modern times were not created voluntarily, or out of kindness to the female. The modern Western woman reached her present position by force, and not through natural processes or mutual consent of Divine teachings. She had to force her way, and various circumstances aided her. Shortage of manpower during wars, pressure of economic needs and requirement of industry forced women to leave their homes to work, struggling for their livelihood, to appear equal to men. Whether all women are sincerely pleased with these circumstances, and whether they are happy and satisfied with the results, is a different matter. But the fact remains that whatever rights modern Western women have, they fall short of those of her Muslim counterpart! Islam has given woman what duties her female nature. It gives her full security and protects her against becoming what Western modern women themselves complain against: a "mere sex object."

The Right to Seek Employment

If you take a look at many societies today, a woman is only valued and considered important if she performs the functions of a man, (while at the same time displaying her feminine attractions to the public). While these women may carry the immense responsibility of bearing and rearing children, you have to admit that they may still be at par with men in nearly every area of life. The result is the present-day confusion concerning sex role differentiation, resulting in very large numbers of divorces and emotionally distraught children.In Islam, however, the value and importance of women in society and the true measure of their success as human beings, is measured with completely different criteria: their fear of Allah (SWT) and obedience to Him, and fulfillment of the duties He has entrusted them with, particularly that of bearing, rearing and teaching children.Nevertheless, Islam is a practical religion, and responds to human needs and life situations. Many women need, or wish, to work for various reasons. For example, they may possess a needed skill, such as a teacher or a doctor.While Islam does not prohibit women working outside the home, it does stipulate that the following restrictions be followed to safeguard the dignity and honor of women and the purity and stability of the Islamic society, (the conduct of women, after all, is the "backbone" of any society):1. Outside employment should not come before, or seriously interfere with her responsibilities as wife and mother.2. Her work should not be a source of friction within the family, and the husband’s consent is required in order to eliminate later disagreements. If she is not married, she must have her guardian’s consent.3. Her appearance, manner and tone of speech and overall behavior should follow Islamic guidelines. These include: restraining her glances in relation to any men near the work place, wearing correct Islamic dress, avoiding men, not walking in a provocative manner, and not using make-up or perfume in public.4. Her job should not be one which causes moral corruption in society, or involve any prohibited trade or activity, affect her own religion, morals, dignity and good behavior, or subject her to temptations.5. Her job should not be one which is mixing and associating with men.6. A woman should try to seek employment in positions which require a woman’s special skills, or which relate to the needs of women and children, such as teaching, nursing other women, midwifery, medicine with specialization’s like pediatric or obstetrics-gynecology.

A Muslim Woman is Required to Dress a Certain Way When She Goes Out in Public

For a Muslim woman, her modest dress is an expression of a universal sisterhood. An Islamic dress also liberates the Muslim woman, and she is then automatically respected for her mind instead of her body. Simply put, she retains her dignity! It is like saying: I am a respectful woman. I am not for every man to look at, touch, or speak to. I am protected, exactly like a precious white pearl which, if touched by everyone, will become black and dirty.A woman’s modest dress protects society from adultery and other forms of illegal sexual relations that lead to the break up of families and corruption of society.