Eleven Women

"Marriage is a bond held together by mutual rights and responsibilities for each of the two spouses. It is a partnership between them, and they are both required to play an active role in that partnership. The man is appointed as the leader of the household, and the woman as the supportive helper whose expertise in many areas cannot be handled by the man.

Both the husband and wife have certain rights and duties. A happy and successful marriage is assured if both of them fulfill their duties and preserve each others’ rights. Violating those rights is a sure way to misery and failure," the Moon conveyed a topic after saying Basmalah and Salaam.

"In an Islamic perspective, " says she, "some responsibilities and obligations equally apply to the man and woman. For instance, the obligation of believing in Allah, Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, and following His commands is identical for both of them. Similarly, they are both responsible and accountable for their actions. They are both equally required to learn the correct religion, worship Allah, and call to His way. The moral standards are the same for both of them, as are many of the regulations for dealing with other human beings. The man and woman get similar rewards for obedience to Allah, and similar punishment for disobedience or sinning.

In comparing between women and men, we should realize that Islam does not equate those who are inherently different. There are matters in which men are given preference over women, and vice versa. These preferences stem from the difference in their ability of performing various tasks. Therefore, rather than equating those who can never be equal, our concern should be directed toward fairness in dealing with both. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says,

وَلَا تَتَمَنَّوْا مَا فَضَّلَ اللّٰهُ بِهٖ بَعْضَكُمْ عَلٰى بَعْضٍ ۗ لِلرِّجَالِ نَصِيْبٌ مِّمَّا اكْتَسَبُوْا ۗ وَلِلنِّسَاۤءِ نَصِيْبٌ مِّمَّا اكْتَسَبْنَ ۗوَسْـَٔلُوا اللّٰهَ مِنْ فَضْلِهٖ ۗ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ كَانَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيْمًا

'Do not wish for things in which Allah has preferred some of you over others. Men get a share (or reward) in what they have earned, and women get a share in what they have earned. And ask Allah of His favors. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowledgeable about all things.' [QS. Ani-Nisa' (4):32]

We conclude from the mentioned, that the Islamic regulations regarding human beings are equally applicable to men and women. But this does not mean that men and women are identical in everything. There are certain iegulations that strictly apply to women because of their feminine nature, and others that strictly apply to men because of their masculine nature.

So, there is a hadith is the outcome of a chatting that took place between the Prophet (ﷺ) and his wife—Mother of the Believers— ‘A’ishah, radhiyallahu 'anha. It is a good example of the private discussions that take place between a man and his wife. It tells about eleven women who got together, each of them briefly describing her husband’s character to the other women.

Most reports of this hadlth present the story of the eleven women as being narrated by ‘A’ishah and not by the Prophet (ﷺ). However, some reports explicitly indicate that it was the Prophet (ﷺ) who told it to her. Also, some scholars hold the position that the whole story is fictitious and was mentioned for the sake of the lessons that it carries. Others hold the more correct position that it is a true story that did take place during the time of Jahiliyyah. In Islamic Adaab and Ethics, indeed, a wise wife, is not recommended to tell other people about her household problems.

‘A’ishah, radhiyallahu 'anha, reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said to her, '0 ‘A’ishah! I am to you like Abu Zar‘ was to Umm Zar.‘ She inquired, 'And who is Umm Zar‘, O Allah’s Messenger?' He (ﷺ) replied, 'Eleven women got together during the times of Jahiliyyah. They promised to tell each other the truth, and not to hide anything about their husbands.'

It is clear that those women were living in the time of Jahiliyyah, and it is therefore not surprising that they would violate some of the well-known teachings of Islam, such as backbiting their husbands. Yet, their discussions bring to light many qualities that women like or dislike in their husbands.

The Prophet (ﷺ) continued the story,

'The first woman said, 'My husband is (like) a bony camel’s meat at the top of a rough mountain. Neither is it easy to reach, nor meaty to desire acquiring.'

The first woman described her husband as being worthless, stingy, and arrogant. Thus, he is as worthless and miserly as a bony camel with very little meat, hence of trivial value. Furthermore, he is haughty, unfriendly, and unapproachable, as though he is located at the top of a rough mountain. No one would be interested in going to him, nor bringing him for any kind of benefit.

Then the Prophet (ﷺ) continued the story,

The second woman said, 'As for my husband, I cannot expose his secrets [fearing divorce]. [If I start talking about him,] I fear that I will not be able to stop [because of his numerous shortcomings]. And if I were to talk about him, I would mention the swelling in his neck-veins [i.e., arrogance, unfriendliness, and other apparent defects] and the swelling in his stomach and navel [i.e., many hidden defects].'

The second woman indicated that her husband possessed numerous defects—both apparent and hidden problem. In addition to his numerous defects, this man did not like criticism, and was ready to divorce his wife would she utter anything about his problems.

The Prophet (ﷺ) then continued the story,

'The third woman said, 'My husband is the one who is unreasonably tall [i.e., unimpressive]. If I utter a word [about his defects, and he finds out], I will surely be divorced. And if I remain silent, I will be

suspended [i.e., he neither treats me like a wife nor like a divorcee].'

The third woman described her husband as being unimpressively out of proportion in his qualities [bodily, morally, or both], in short, it's all about excessiveness and unimpressiveness.

The Prophet (ﷺ) continued,

The fourth woman said, 'As for my husband, when he eats, he encompasses [i.e., devours everything]; when he drinks, he finishes even the last drops; and when he sleeps he coils up in the covers [i.e., not caring about me]. He does not extend his palm to investigate the grief [i.e., he does not have any concern about my situations of illness, sorrow, and so on].'

The fourth woman described her husband as being very greedy. He eats and drink, to the last bit, everything in front of him. He sleeps like a log, without caring about her, fulfilling his marital duty toward her, or investigating her situation and checking about her health. In short, it's all about selfishness, greed and negligence.

Then the Prophet (ﷺ) continued the story,

'The fifth woman said, 'My husband is axtremely helpless (i.e., incapable and impotent) and stupid. Every disease applies to him. He would either cut your head, break one of your limbs, or do both to you (i.e., he hits the women without mercy).'

The fifth woman’s husband lacks all of the important qualities that would make a woman admire her husband. He is helpless in conducting his and his family’s affairs, impotent and unable to please his wife, and stupid. All of the people’s defects are combined in him. And, as though that is not enough, he is very abusive towards his wife. He hits her without mercy, breaking her bones or wounding her head. In short, it's all about helplessness, stupidity, and abuse.

The first five women said about their husbands things indicating their dissatisfaction with them or about dislike qualities of their husbands. The next five women [the sixth to tenth women], had good things—commendable qualities—to say about their husbands.

The Prophet (ﷺ) continued the story,

'The sixth woman said, 'As for my husband, he is like the night of Tihamah [Makkah and its suburbs]—neither hot nor cold. [In his company] there is neither fear nor boredom.'

The sixth woman’s husband is like a cool night breeze. He is kind and moderate in his actions, and his company does not bring fear or boredom. Rather, it gives her a feeling of security and friendliness. So, it's about kindness, security and caring.

Then the Prophet (ﷺ) continued the story,

'The seventh woman said, 'As for my husband, when he enters, he acts like a (sleepy) leopard; and when he leaves, he acts like a lion. He does not ask about what he entrusted.'

The seventh woman’s husband is well mannered and loving at home, and courageous and powerful outside his home. Within the house, he is like a leopard: quiet, sleepy (i.e., forgiving), and loving. In dealing with the outside society, he is like a lion: courageous, powerful, and respected. When he entrusts his wife (or others) with something, he does not hold her strictly accountable for it; rather, he is generous and willing to overlook the mistakes. So, it's all about love, generosity, and courage.

The Prophet (ﷺ) then continued the story,

'The eighth woman said, 'As for my husband, his touch is like that of a rabbit, and his odor is like that of zarnab (aromatic plant). I overcome him, but he overcomes the other people.'

The eighth woman’s husband is very kind to her. At the same time, he is strong and assertive with other people. With his wife, he has the soft and kind touch of a rabbit, and he has a most pleasant odor. With other people, he has a good reputation (another meaning for the good odor), and his kindness and good attitude with his wife do not prevent him from being powerful and victorious with the other people. So, it's all about good reputation, respect and kindness.

The Prophet (ﷺ) continued,

'The ninth woman said, 'As for my husband, he has high house-pillars, longsword-suspenders, and large amounts of ashes. His house is near the clubhouse.'

The ninth woman’s husband is of a noble and wealthy family. He is a strong warrior and a generous host. The high house-pillars are an indication of his noble descent and wealth. The longsword-suspenders indicate that he is of large and impressive built and that he is a strong fighter. The ashes are an indication of his generosity and the many guests he feeds. Being in the vicinity of the clubhouse indicates that he is near the town-center where important people usually live and meet. In short, it's all about wealth, courage, generosity and stature.

Then the Prophet (ﷺ) continued the story,

'The tenth woman said, 'My husband is Malik [the owner]. And what would you know about Malik? Malik is better than that [which I describe). He owns camels that are numerous in their sitting places, and few in the grazing areas. When they hear the sound of the lute, they become certain of their death.'

The tenth woman’s husband has many excellent qualities that are beyond description. This means that she is never able to give her husband the praise that he truly deserves. His camels, numerous though they are, are not allowed to graze far away from his residence, because he wants them ever-ready for his guests. He often holds banquets in which he entertains his guests with the lute and feeds them camel-meat. So, it's all about wealth, generosity, and other distinguished qualities.

The last woman to speak was Umm Zar . She gave a fuller description of her two husbands: Abu Zar‘ and the man whom she married after Abu Zar' divorced her. Both of her husbands were good to her, but she was happier with the first, and gave a more detailed description of him and his family members.

The Prophet (ﷺ) continued,

'The eleventh said, 'My husband was Abu Zar‘ [i.e., the one with vegetation]— and what would you know about Abu Zar ! He made my ears heavy with jewelry, filled my upper arms with flesh [i.e., fed me well after my previous state of hunger], and honored me until my soul was gratified. He took me from among a people with very few sheep and tight living, and placed me among a people who had horses, camels, cows [that step on the grains to peel them], and sieves [for sifting the grains]. In his house, I spoke without being rebuffed, slept until latemorning, and drank my fill.'

Abu Zar took Umm Zar from a life of poverty and hard work to a life of wealth and leisure.

The Prophet (ﷺ) kept on relating what Umm Zar said,

'[She continued], 'Abu Zar ’s mother—and what would you know about Abu Zar ’s mother! Her safes [of food and clothing] were plentiful, and her house was spacious.'

Abu Zar ’s mother was a wealthy woman with ample provisions and many servants. This carries an additional praise for her son, because he made sure that his mother’s needs were well met, and her living was no less than his.'

The Prophet (ﷺ) kept on relating what Umm Zar said,

'[She continued], “Abu Zar ’s son—and what would you know about Abu Zar ’s son! His sleep was (sharp) like a pointed palm stick [i.e., everalert], and a female goat’s arm satisfied his hunger [i.e., neither was he fat nor greedy].'

Despite his father’s wealth, Abu Zar ’s son was not a spoiled young man. To the contrary, he was lean, content, ate moderately, and was ever alert, even while sleeping.

Then the Prophet (ﷺ) continued relating what Umm Zar said,

'[She continued], “Abu Zar ’s daughter—and what would you know about Abu Zar ’s daughter! She was obedient to her father and obedient to her mother. She filled her garments [i.e., her body was full]. She caused her upper garment to curve [her body was well-proportioned]. She was the grace of her family, and the cause of envy to her co-wife.'

Aba Zar ’s daughter was a perfect young woman, obedient to both her parents, beautiful, and attractive. This graced her family, and brought envy to her co-wife.

The Prophet (ﷺ) continued relating what Umm Zar said,

'[She continued], “Abu Zar ’s maid—and what would you know about Abu Zar ’s maid! She did not disclose our secrets, nor give away our food [i.e., she was trustworthy], nor let our house fill with dirt like a bird’s nest [i.e., she was clean].' 

Even the maid played a role in painting an impressive picture of dignity and praise for Abu Zar‘! She was trustworthy, protective, and clean. 

After spending many years with her, Abu Zar‘ decided one day to give up his wife Umm Zar‘ for a younger woman who had two young boys. The Prophet (ﷺ) continued relating what Umm Zar‘ said,

'[She continued], 'Abu Zar went on a trip at the time when the milk jars were shaken to extract the cream [i.e., in the spring when there was plenty of milk]. He met a woman with two little sons as [active as] two leopard cubs. They were [jumping] under her waist and playing with two pomegranates [i.e., she was young and had small breasts]. He divorced me and married her.'

The Prophet (ﷺ) continued relating what Umm Zar‘ said,

'[She continued], 'I married after him a noble man. He rode a fast horse and grasped a spear [he was a fighter]. He brought to me in the evenings [after his battles] expensive cattle, and granted me a pair from every kind of it. He said to me, ‘Eat, O Umm Zar , and give your relatives as well.’ Yet, were I to gather all the things that he gave me, they would not fill the smallest of Abu Zar ’s containers.'

Umm Zar ’s second husband was also wealthy and very good to her. But her heart remained with her first husband. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) concluded by again telling 'A'ishah that he (ﷺ) was to her like Abu Zar was to Umm Zar, '0 ‘A’ishah! I am to you like Abu Zar' was to Umm Zar'—except that Abu Zar' divorced (her), and I will not divorce (you).'

This means that he (ﷺ) was bountiful towards her like Abu Zar' was towards Umm Zar'. However, the Prophet’s (ﷺ) favors on ‘A’ishah (or any other Muslim) are beyond measure, and they extend to the good and eternal bliss of the Hereafter. This is why ‘A’ishah, radhiyallahu 'anha, responded, 'O Allah’s Messenger! You are better to me than Abu Zar' was to Umm Zar.' [Recorded by at-Tabarani; there is also in Sahih Al-Bukhari]

The moon ended her story by singing,

Dengan kasihmu ya Robbi

[By Thy mercy o my Rabb]

Berkahi hidup ini

[Bless this life]

Dengan cintamu ya Robbi

[By Thy love o my Rabb]

Damaikan mati ini

[Pacify this death]

Saat salahku melangkah

[When I have stepped wrongly]

Gelap hati penuh dosa

[The hearbecomes dark, full of sins]

Beriku jalan berarah

[Give me a direction]

Temuimu di surga

[To meet Thee in paradise]

Terima sembah sujudku

[Accept my prostration]

Terimalah doaku

[Accept my du'aa]

Terima sembah sujudku

[Accept my prostration]

Izinkan ku bertaubat

[Allow me to repent]

Maulana ya Maulana

[My Protector o my Protector]

Ya sami' duana *)

[O please hear my du'aa]

Before her light dimmed, the Moon said, "Part of the great responsibility of both men and women is to exhibit and act with Adaab and Akhlaaq. These are the distinctive characteristics of the religion of Islam. In a nutshell, they are the reason behind the Prophet’s (ﷺ) mission. And Allah knows best."

Citations & References:
- Muhammad Mustafa al-Jibaly, The Fragile Vessels, Al-Kitaab & as-Sunnah Publishing
*) "Ya Maulana" written by Achmad Fairus

Bahasa

The Rector's Lecture (2)

"The Rector went on, 'Corruption can negatively affect political systems (e.g. democracies or autocracies) and regimes (the team running the system) in numerous ways. For example, it can unfairly increase the power and influence of individual legislators willing to privilege whoever is prepared to pay them bribes or enhance their prospects in future elections. The latter is seen around the world in the form of pork-barrelling—the utilization of government funds for projects designed to please voters or legislators and win votes, whereby legislators inappropriately allocate or promise funds to particular constituencies so as to increase voter support.

However, this point about inappropriate favouritism leads us to a particularly grey area in corruption studies, the issue of lobbying. In countries such as the USA, lobbying is legal and formally organized. But some see lobbying as a form of corruption, and have argued that it is essentially a functional equivalent in wealthy states of the more clearly corrupt attempts to influence politicians in poorer countries. But in deciding whether or not lobbying constitutes a form of corruption, it is necessary to examine the precise nature of specific cases; generalization can be misleading.

Many organizations lobby for causes that most people would consider perfectly legitimate, such as the World Wildlife Fund or other charity organizations, and such lobbying should be distinguished from that relating to more obviously vested interests. Moreover, if the funding of lobbying is of officially registered agencies rather than for paying bribes, and if—and this is an important caveat—the financial details of such agencies are fully transparent, then it would be inappropriate to label this corruption. Lobbying by some types of organization might seem unfair, giving those with sufficient resources better opportunities than are available to the average person to attempt to influence political decision-makers, but it is only another aspect of the political inequality that exists in even the most democratic systems. It is thus as much a problem for theorists of democracy as for analysts of corruption.

Another tricky issue for both theorists and practitioners of democracy is how best to fund political parties—in particular, whether or not this can be done in a corruption-proof way. In 1999, Germany witnessed the emergence of the so-called Kohlgate scandal, in which honorary chair of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Helmut Kohl was accused of being involved in the corrupt acceptance and distribution of illicit funds for his party during his term as Chancellor (prime minister) of Germany (1982–98). The CDU was eventually found guilty of corruption, and the President of the lower house of parliament sought to fine the party a total of just under 50 million marks (approximately 25 million Euros). Although this penalty was eventually quashed, German party financing rules were substantially amended—rendered more transparent and less dependent on business contributions—as a direct result of the Kohlgate affair. The particular significance of this case was less the fact that a leading Western politician had been accused of corruption—France’s Jacques Chirac and Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi have also faced charges of corruption in recent years—but that it happened in a country reputed to have one of the best party financing systems in the world.

Corruption can undermine electoral competition, increasing inequalities between political parties, and reducing party competitiveness. Electoral fraud and impropriety assumes many forms; two of the most common are ballot-rigging and vote-buying. There have been innumerable alleged and proven cases of both in most parts of the world in recent years. But, as with so many forms of corruption, neither is either a new phenomenon or unique to developing and transition states: an early example of vote-buying is the 1768 ‘spendthrift election’ in Northamptonshire (UK).

Citizen despair can increase the attractiveness to voters of extremist politicians, whether of the left or the right, who promise to eradicate corruption. Empirical research indicates that such extremists generally prove to be ineffectual at reducing corruption if elected; but there is a widespread belief in some countries that they have a magic bullet.

Accusations of corruption by one party or politician can attract counter-accusations. This can result in increased dissatisfaction among voters, with various undesirable outcomes. One is that citizens become cynical, and therefore alienated from the political system, albeit in a passive way. Another is that they become incensed, leading to active mass unrest that delegitimizes and destabilizes the system and can lead to the overthrow of the regime, or even the system itself. In his 2012 analysis of corruption, Frank Vogl focuses on the so-called Arab Spring of 2011, and sees public anger at corruption as a major factor in the collapse of the regimes and systems in Egypt and Tunisia.

Thus corruption can undermine system legitimacy—the perceived right of the rulers to rule. Too much corruption and its reporting can result in people losing faith in the market, democracy, and the rule of law. While this tends to be more destabilizing in transition states, the point applies even to developed Western states. In January 2013, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe argued that ‘Corruption is the biggest single threat to democracy in Europe today. More and more people on our continent are losing faith in the rule of law.’

If people lose faith in the rule of law in states where it has previously existed, the likelihood of arbitrary abuse of civil liberties and human rights increases. While this problem initially affects ordinary citizens, excessive arbitrariness can be dangerous to political elites too, as their rule is threatened by mass unrest. Like so many other aspects of corruption, this danger is nothing new; in East Asia’s traditional concept of the ‘mandate of heaven’, the people had the right to remove an emperor who was inept, tyrannical, or corrupt.

For a state to exercise its defence, law enforcement, and welfare functions properly it needs adequate funding; if corruption reduces government revenue, this has detrimental effects on the state’s overall capacity to protect the populace. There is a strong correlation between weak states and high levels of corruption.

During the 1990s, when security at military bases in many Soviet successor states was frighteningly lax, various Western government reports and academic analyses claimed that corrupt officials in Russia and Ukraine were illegally selling nuclear materials to whoever would pay them. While much of the evidence on this is circumstantial, there is irrefutable proof that corrupt officials in weak states have sold various kinds of weapons to organized crime gangs and terrorists.

But this point can apply to mature democracies too. In March 2014, as a result of an FBI sting operation, a Californian state senator was arrested and charged with colluding with US-based Chinese organized crime in trafficking weapons to an Islamic rebel group based in the Philippines: the senator’s pay-off, according to the FBI, was donations to his political campaign. He was allegedly planning to expand his trafficking operation into Africa, and was indifferent to the harm his trafficking might cause; the case was kept ongoing.

A final point about mature democracies and arms dealing is that a number of Western corporations have been accused of paying substantial bribes to overseas government officials to secure contracts for the purchase of military equipment; it is not only individuals and gangs that are corruptly involved in this potentially deadly business.

Some of the effects of corruption in one country on other countries are irritating rather than a real danger. For instance, car insurance premiums in Germany increased in the 1990s partly because so many cars were being stolen there and smuggled to Central and East European states; this racket often involved gangs bribing customs officials to look the other way while the cars were in transit.

But many international ramifications of corruption are far more serious. For instance, criminal organizations involved in international trafficking—including of drugs, weapons, humans, and human parts—would be far less effective were it not for the fact that they can often bribe customs officers, police officers, and other officials to turn a blind eye to their activities, or to warn them in advance of impending raids (e.g. of illegal brothels in which there are transnationally trafficked persons).

Unfortunately, pragmatism often dominates principle in international relations, and countries that appear to have relatively low levels of corruption may de facto tolerate high levels of corruption in a country that has nuclear weapons or commodities (e.g. oil) on which the less corrupt countries are highly dependent. But occasionally, the corruption in another country becomes so intolerable that other countries decide to do something about it. A prime example is the USA’s 2012 Magnitsky Act, which was designed to punish (through visa-bans and freezing bank accounts) Russian officials deemed to have played a role in the death of auditor Sergei Magnitsky. The relevance to corruption is that Magnitsky had been investigating fraud among Russian tax officials and police officers, and had then been arrested himself for alleged collusion with an investment advisory company that had reported alleged corruption to the Russian authorities and had in turn been accused by those authorities of tax evasion. Magnitsky’s death in custody was highly suspicious. Not unexpectedly, the act soured relations between Moscow and Washington; the Russians soon produced a list of Americans who would not be granted visas, and placed a ban on US families adopting Russian children.

Many readers who prefer a broad definition of corruption will be aware of the allegations made against various international sporting bodies, including the leading soccer organization, FIFA. In early 2014, the most widely reported example related to the bidding process for the 2022 World Cup. Such allegations, whether proven or not, undermine the international legitimacy of such bodies, as well as of the states accused of involvement in corrupt practices.

Corruption is what social scientists call a ‘wicked’ problem, meaning that it is so complex that it can only ever be partly solved; it can be controlled, but never completely eradicated.  The state is only one of many actors with a role to play in controlling corruption.

I will conclude this lecture with just one sentence, 'That one of the causes of Radicalism

—or Radicalized—is CORRUPTION!"

The audience clapped their hands, and all sang,

Kisah usang tikus-tikus kantor

[An old tale of office mice]

Yang suka berenang di sungai yang kotor

[Who likes to swim in dirty rivers]

Kisah usang tikus-tikus berdasi

[The old story of mice wearing ties]

Yang suka ingkar janji lalu sembunyi

[Who always break promises and then hide]

Di balik meja teman sekerja

[Behind the coworker's desk

Di dalam lemari dari baja *)

[Inside the steel cupboard]

Before she go, Laluna said, "Many analysts maintain that the ultimate success or otherwise of anti-corruption measures, depends on political will. Political leaderships must not only be genuinely committed, i.e. have the political will to combat corruption, but must also have the capacity to implement their will.

Many cultures and languages have the phrase ‘A FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD’, meaning that corruption will be worse where the political elite sets a bad example. In this sense, it might seem that the will of the leadership is all-important. But while this is crucial, it is not the only will that matters. A leadership may be genuinely committed to fighting corruption, but nevertheless have insufficient control over its own bureaucracy to turn this commitment into reality. And Allah knows best."

Citations & References:
- Leslie Holmes, Corruption: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press
*) "Tikus-tikus Kantor" written by Iwan Fals

[Part 1]

Bahasa