Letters — Saudi Olympians and Hijab

In his letter ‘Saudi female Olympians’ (July 7), Masood Khan wrote: “In Islam, wearing of Hijab or veil is not obligatory but a cultural dress prevailing in different societies, which took a religious color over a period of time.” There is absolutely no truth in this.
Referring to a verse from Surah Al-Nur (24:31), Khan wrote that “the Holy Qur’an has asked the believing women to draw their head covers or khimaars over their bosoms. Obligatory covering of head or hair is nowhere mentioned”. Now it is common sense that Allah is asking the women to draw their head covers over their bosoms. Allah is not asking them to uncover the head or hair to cover their bosoms. The head or hair of a woman is as attractive as her bosom. How can it be that Allah commanded her to uncover one attractive part of her body to cover another attractive part?
Khan’s statements negate all Hadith and Tafsir written by some of the greatest Islamic scholars of the past. He implies that women who have been wearing the Hijab for over 14 centuries are ignorant. If Khan has a personal dislike for Hijab, he should honestly say so instead of propagating the falsehood that Hijab is not obligatory in Islam. In fact, all these modern day ‘liberals,’ ‘intellectuals,’ ‘secularists,’ and ‘progressive thinkers’ among Muslims who issue ‘Islamic Fatwas’ at the drop of a hat are only expressing their personal likes or dislikes. They do not know anything about Islamic jurisprudence. They have not studied the great works of those who spent their whole lives in preserving and carrying forward the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). And what does Khan mean when he says: “It is imperative that we shall not mix traditional and cultural values with religion”? Tradition and culture mean different things to different people. But, in Islam, they have to be put under the test of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Traditions and cultures that go against Islamic teachings have to be renounced. After all, Islam means complete submission to the Will of Allah. (Anwar Hussain, Mumbai, India)

Book on Babri demolition
India’s eminent and secular columnist, and a champion of India-Pakistan friendship, Kuldip Nayar, has in his recent book shed light on the dubious role of former Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao in the demolition of the historic Babri Mosque in Ayodhya. Nayar deserves heartiest congratulations for unmasking Rao’s communal face. In a previous book entitled, “Beyond Headlines,” Nayar has conclusively proved that Rao was a sympathizer of the Hindu supremacist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS).
It is pertinent to mention here that the secular icon of the Congress party, the late Arjun Singh, in his autobiography, which was published posthumously, also confirmed the nexus and connivance of Rao in the demolition of the historic mosque.
Syed Shahabuddin, former editor of Muslim India, in his recent articles in Arab News has also described the sequence of events leading to the planned demolition of Babri Mosque. He has also exposed Rao’s nefarious designs.
Today, the Congress party has changed its course. It has done away with its anti-Muslim rhetoric and bias. However, Congress spokesperson and president should clarify the remarks made by Arjun Singh, especially his categorical statement that Rao was extremely happy at the demolition, and that his promise to rebuild the mosque was just a drama to ease pressure from the secular-minded Congress leaders. (Dr. Wajahat Farooqui, Jubail)

World meetings and Syria
This refers to the report “Geneva deal paves way for post-Assad Syria” (July 1). I have been closely following the events in Syria for the last few months. This particular title forced me to ask a simple question to the world leaders: Why do we always arrive at a decision to end a conflict or reach agreements only when consultations are held in expensive locations across the world in iconic cities like Paris, London, Tokyo, Geneva or Davos? Syria is a regional issue and an agreement could have been reached had the meeting been held in Riyadh/ Dubai/ Doha. Parties to the conflict and world leaders could have attended the meet.
There is no dearth of facilities in these cities. One look at the history and we would know that most major peace deals, end to war agreements, economic summits, etc. have been held in expensive locations, such as, the US, Europe and Far East. These venues are far from the regions, which undergo the hardships of conflict or economic boom. The World Economic Forum is held in Davos annually. In reality, Asia has become an economic superpower and so it’s high time these meeting were held in Asia. Afghanistan peace initiatives are held in Bonn/ New York/ Tokyo. Do these places have a magical touch that forces the leaders to accept a solution or is the West keeping alive the importance of these cities by holding key decision-making meetings in such cities? Are the world leaders adamant that they will not resolve issues unless the meet is held in expensive locations? It’s time they made way for new and better venues having regional importance. (Bhaskara Sujeet Kumar, By e-mail)