Ottoman Women During the Advent of Western Feminism

by Zara Huda Faris

“As to women, as many, if not more than men, are to be seen in the streets [i.e. going about their daily activities, etc] […] I think I never saw a country where women may enjoy so much liberty, and free from all reproach, as in Turkey […] The Turks in their conduct towards our sex are an example to all other nations; […] and I repeat it, sir, I think no women have so much liberty, safe from apprehension, as the Turkish – and I think them in their manner of living, capable of being the happiest creatures breathing.”

– Lady Elizabeth Craven, A Journey Through the Crimea to Constantinople, 1789[i]

Lady Elizabeth Craven, 18th century travel writer, playwright and author, made these observations about the women of the Ottoman Caliphate (an Islamic state) in 1789, before the advent of feminism in Europe and three years before Mary Wollstonecraft would publish A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), the 300-page appeal that would become the foundation stone and herald of modern feminism.

The observations of Lady Elizabeth Craven and others, along with records of court proceedings, financial dealings and political documents, reveal that women of the Ottoman Caliphate actually experienced greater liberty and protection than their post-enlightenment Western counterparts, and notably without the need for feminism. Yet, today, feminists strive to convince Muslim women of the exact opposite: that Muslim women have always suffered because of Islam and, in a strange twist of thought, advocate feminism as the solution to the problems of the Muslim world.

This article looks at the condition of women living under an Islamic Caliphate that continued to exist until as recently as 1924 – the Ottoman Caliphate – and compares their circumstances with the Western circumstances that gave rise to feminism in the West. As we will see, the very recent historical precedent of the Ottoman Caliphate demonstrates that women of the Muslim world historically never needed feminism in order to guarantee their rights – rather, they simply needed the full implementation of their own belief system – Islam.

Muslim country v. Islamic state

Before turning to the comparison, it is important to note the fundamental difference between a Muslim country and an Islamic state. The Ottoman Caliphate was an Islamic state – i.e. the shari’ah (the sacred law of Islam) ruled supreme as the only source of law – for over 600 years and until its cessation in the early 20th century. This shari’ah provided the Ottomans with their legal framework for governing public and private aspects of daily life, including personal, political, social and economic activities, both civil and criminal. This shari’ah also enabled the Ottoman Caliphate to include and protect women of Africa, Europe and Asia – which included Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Anatolian, Greek, North African, West Asian, and women of the Balkan Peninsula.

The Muslim countries of today, however, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Turkey and much of the Middle East, are secular and not Islamic – i.e. the constitutions of these countries posit that Islam may be just one of many post-colonialist sources of the law. Otherwise, these countries are secular, corrupt, and tyrannical and cannot be looked upon for an example of Islam in practice. In fact, the ordinary men and women of these Muslim countries would be liberated by the establishing of an Islamic state in their lands.

Legal Status

In the West, women lost their own legal identity (and their names) upon marriage, at which point they could neither sue nor be sued, and their husbands would have to sue or be sued on their behalf.

In England, and most English speaking colonies, the doctrine of coverture identified women according to their marital status. A married woman did not have her own legal identity separate from that of her husband – upon marriage, hers was subsumed by her husband’s identity, and she was known as a feme covert (i.e. a married woman or, literally, a “covered” woman). This legal concept prevailed in the West from around the 12th century until the mid to late 19th century (i.e. almost alongside the entire period of the Ottoman Empire).

“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing…”

– William Blackstone, 18th century English jurist and judge, explaining coverture[ii]

Coverture was a double edged sword, hindering the lives of all women and men together – denying the free will of wives also denied their accountability. For example, a married woman could not file lawsuits in her own name, and her husband would have to do so on her behalf, but this also meant that if someone wanted to take civil action against the wife, her husband would have to be sued in her stead. This devolving of accountability from the woman to her husband was even the subject of satire in English literature. In Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, a Mr Bumble was informed that “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction“, to which Mr Bumble replied “If the law supposes that […] the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.[iii]

Coverture was only in relation to civil, not criminal, action; as we know, England and the American colonies were still reeling from burning women at the stake for criminal offences of treason and witchery – even as late as 1784![iv] Although coverture was only in relation to civil law, it is interesting to note that, as recently as 1972, two US states allowed a wife accused in criminal court to offer as a legal defence that she was obeying her husband’s orders![v]

Meanwhile, women of the Ottoman Caliphate had legal standing regardless of marital status, the like of which caused even non-Muslim Ottoman women to prefer Islamic courts to their own courts.

The Women of the Ottoman Caliphate, like men, upon reaching puberty, were considered individual subjects of the state, having their own separate legal identity, in accordance with Islamic law. They retained this legal status regardless of whether they married or remained single.[vi] Muslim women also retain their own surnames upon marriage, as a reminder of their own identity and their own accountability.

Along with men, women were granted extensive legal rights, including the right to register complaints and claim their rights before the local Islamic judge (in Arabic, the Qadi), and they could do so independently. They did not need an accompanying male relative, in fact they could take legal action against their own husbands or male relatives if need be. Ottoman women of all social levels, from the countryside and the cities, frequently used the Islamic court system to defend their interests and, in most cases, judges upheld women’s legal and property rights.[vii]

In fact, Islamic Qadi courts were perceived to be so favourable in treating issues of concern to women, that even non-Muslim Ottoman women frequently preferred to take recourse in these Islamic Qadi courts despite the fact that, under the protection of the Ottoman Caliphate, each religious community had access to its own religious or cultural proceedings, as each religious community enjoyed cultural and legal autonomy, managing its own internal affairs, under the leadership of its own religious hierarchy.[viii]

Economic Activity

In the West, women did not have control over their own property upon marriage; their husbands were responsible for their upkeep and were forced to pay off their debts.

The doctrine of coverture meant that, because the husband and wife were ‘one person’, the wife did not have control over her own property and her husband could use and dispose of her property without her permission (unless otherwise agreed before marriage).

As such, a wife could also not execute contracts. In the 19th century, in circumstances where a wife could dispose of her property (for example, if this was permitted by her husband), then a ‘privy examination’ would have to be conducted where she had to be separately examined by a judge (without her husband present), to determine whether her husband was pressuring her into signing the document. This was seen as a means of protecting married women’s property.

On the other hand, because they were seen to be the same person in the eyes of the law, the husband was also legally bound to provide for his wife, as much as himself. It also meant that if a woman entered the marriage already with debt, or she incurred debt for them, her husband was the debtor and obliged to pay off the debt – not the wife.

In Britain, this persisted at least until the Married Women’s Property Act of 1870, which altered the law so that a wife could own, buy and sell, sue and be sued, and be liable for her own debts.

Meanwhile, women of the Ottoman Caliphate had always been economically independent and active and, in some industries, so much so that guilds had to seek state intervention against women’s monopolies.

“The Turkish wife has been called a slave and a chattel. She is neither. Indeed, her legal status is preferable to that of the majority of wives in Europe, and until enactments of a comparatively recent date, the English was far more of a chattel than the Turkish wife, who has always had absolute control of her property. The law allows her the free use and disposal of anything she may possess at the time of her marriage, or that she may inherit afterwards. She may distribute it during her life or she may bequeath it to whom she chooses. In the eyes of the law she is a free agent. She may act independently of her husband, may sue in the courts or may be proceeded against, without regard to him. In these respects she enjoys greater freedom than her Chrisitan sisters.”

– Z. Duckett Ferriman, 1911

Amongst the Islamic rights delivered to women under the Ottoman Caliphate was the Islamic right to inherit, acquire, control and dispose of property according to their own will, without requiring consent from fathers or husbands. In other words, Ottoman women were legally entitled to manage their own wealth, and they very much did so.

In fact, women played a fundamental role in the Ottoman economy, including being landholders, holders of military fiefs, borrowers, lenders, private tax collectors, and partners in business. Ottoman women from various backgrounds were commonly trading and dealing in marketplaces.[ix]

It is documented that ‘upper class’ Ottoman women (who were more likely to be ‘cloistered’ behind screens) did not commonly deal directly with men, and were perceived by foreign observers as being ‘forced’ to use male employees and agents to act on their behalf. This prompted some observers to comment on this with strange sympathy, as if these ‘upper class’ women were somehow being oppressed, despite the fact that they were powerful business owners who are documented to have owned many of the shops in the market in the first place.[x] How unfortunate these women must have been to have employees running their businesses for them! Also, these ‘upper class’ women wielded further influence through the patronage of fundamental architectural projects.

Women of the Ottoman Caliphate were also involved in crafts, silk and cotton spinning. In Mosul, cotton-thread making was an industry that was by and large carried out on a part time basis in the home. At one point, this industry was actually monopolized by women, to the extent that cotton-weaving guilds were forced to seek state intervention against this monopoly![xi]

Ottoman women also played a fundamental role in the distribution of wealth and, during the 18th century, Ottoman women of all classes established 20-30% of all charitable foundations/trusts (in Arabic waqf pl. awqaf). Schools, hospitals, caravansaries, baths, fountains, soup kitchens, hostels and mosques were financed throughout the empire by women from their own personal resources, for the benefit of the public.[xii]

Political Involvement

In Britain, universal suffrage for men and women was not achieved until 1928.

In Britain, only very wealthy men could vote, which excluded the vast majority of men, and excluded women altogether! It was not until 1918 that all men over the age of 21 and women over the age of 30 could vote, and it was not until 1928 that all men and women over the age of 21 could vote.

Meanwhile, men and women of the Ottoman Caliphate were required to be politically active.

Under the Ottoman Caliphate, women had the same right as men to directly petition the Divan – the council where viziers debated the politics of the state, and men and women both had a right to pledge allegiance (equivalent of the vote) to the Ottoman Caliph.

The social segregation of women from men was most common among the upper class families, whilst women of lower classes were generally more free to circulate, partly because of their heavy involvement in economic activities.[xiii] As such, it was commonly believed by European foreigners that such upper class women must have been oppressed and restricted. In reality, the late 16th century of the Ottoman Caliphate was actually known as the “sultanate of the women”, when the mothers of the sultans and other royal women became increasingly powerful and influential from behind the veils and screens of the harem. Although the harem was not, and is not, an Islamic concept, the sultanate of the women does demonstrate emphatically that just because women are behind screens or veils, this does not mean their role in society is restricted.

Social Life

In the West, neither men nor women had the right to divorce, and if they were wealthy enough to get a legal separation, remarrying meant the death penalty.

Divorce was not legal under English law until the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. Prior to 1857, a form of legal separation could be achieved only through a complex annulment process or through the passing of a Private Act of Parliament (which entailed lengthy public debates about the couple’s intimate life in the House of Commons). Both of these measures were highly costly procedures, and so this legal separation was restricted to the very wealthy.

Not only this, but husbands and wives who had so separated were prohibited from remarrying – ‘bigamy’ was first prohibited and prosecutable by the church and then, in 1604, bigamy was made a legal felony and was punishable with the death penalty![xiv]

Meanwhile, in the Ottoman Caliphate, polygamy was rare and divorce, whilst a last resort, was initiated by both men and women.

 “Turks rule countries and their wives rule them. Turkish women go around and enjoy themselves much more than any others. Polygamy is absent. They must have tried it but then given it up because it leads to much trouble and expense.”

– Saomon Schweigger, German Protestant minister who travelled to the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 16th century.

Marriages were mostly arranged by parents and families, emphasizing the importance of family in Ottoman society. Women of the Ottoman Caliphate had the right to refuse a match, and prenuptial contracts were not uncommon. Polygamy was permitted, in accordance with Islamic law, but in practise was actually quite rare, with over 95% of men having only one wife.[xv]

Ottoman jurists “viewed married couples as enjoying reciprocal, as opposed to symmetrical rights”.[xvi] For example, a married woman of the Ottoman Caliphate was duty bound to obey the husband she consented to marry – as long as he did not ask her to do something bad or haram – the legal status and political and economic activity of women clearly demonstrates, however, that Muslim men were not overbearing or oppressive to their wives. Furthermore, because men are, in the eyes of the law, financially responsible for women and children, divorce procedures are different for men than they are from women, although both are allowed to seek divorce. In practice, women of the Ottoman Caliphate had a great deal of flexibility in ending unwanted marriages. In 18th century Istanbul, for example, separations, annulments and divorces initiated by women were frequent enough to even create concern amongst social observers. Being a union of two families as opposed to just two people, divorce was distressing regardless of who initiated it, but divorce was nevertheless an option for either the husband or the wife.[xvii]

Legitimate causes for divorce from either party included incompatibility, financial problems that led to altercations between spouses, ill treatment including physical abuse, adultery, failure of either party to keep to the basic expectations of marriage, especially not doing the work the family needed from either husband or wife. In some cases, divorce was initiated by the wife if she was not satisfied with the house to which her husband had taken her, or by the husband if his wife did not produce sons.[xviii]

After divorce, both men and women were free to marry again. For non-Muslim Ottoman women whose religions or traditions did not normally permit divorce, conversion to Islam was a common path to liberation from unhappy marriages.

Do Muslim women need feminism?

As we can see, the women of the Ottoman Caliphate had no need for feminism in order to obtain the rights ordained for them by their Creator. Not only did the Ottoman Caliphate implement and protect the rights of Muslim men and women, but it also accommodated the vast and various groups of non-Muslim women living under its protection. It should be emphasized that this justice and prosperity amongst men and women long preceded the advent of feminism in the West, and continued until very recently (the early 20th century). Unlike women of the ‘post-enlightenment’ West, Muslim women never needed the patch-work and gender-biased solution of feminism in order to seek justice and obtain their rights, which were guaranteed under the Islamic Caliphate. It would seem that Western women invented feminism out of desperation, because they did not have Islam. So the question we must ask ourselves is, given that Muslim women had always found Islam sufficient for their rights, why would they ever need feminism?

[i] Elizabeth Craven (Baroness), A Journey Through the Crimea to Constantinople: In a Series of Letters from the Right Honourable Elizabeth Lady Craven to His Serene Highness The Margrave of Brandebourg, Anspach, and Bareith, London.

[ii] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol. 1, 1765, pages 442-445)

[iii] Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, 1838, chapter 51

[v]The Law: Up from Coverture, Time Magazine, published Monday, March 20, 1972, accessed at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942533,00.html

[vi] Jenie R. Ebeling, Lynda Garland, Guity Nashat, Eric R. Dursteler “West Asia” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History. Ed Bonnie G. Smith. Oxford University Press, 2008. Brigham Young University (BYU). 1 November 2010

[vii] Ebeling, Garland, Nashat, and Dursteler

[viii] Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002

[ix] Mehrdad Kia, Daily Life in The Ottoman Empire, Greenwood, 2011

[x] Kia, M.

[xi] Ebeling, Garland, Nashat, and Dursteler

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Bernard Capp, Bigamous Marriage in Early Modern England, University of Warwick, 2009

[xv] Ebeling, Garland, Nashat, and Dursteler

[xvi] Kia, M.

[xvii] Ebeling, Garland, Nashat, and Dursteler

[xviii] Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History to 1923 (London, New York: Wesley Longman Limited, 1997)

24 replies »

  1. History is nice, but the treatment of women ( and attitude of men towards them), in Muslim majority countries is abysmal. Do women in these countries need feminism (however you might define that), I don’t know, but they certainly need something to help overcome the cultural ‘traditions’ oppressing them.

  2. Asif – the women in these countries need a return to the Islamic state. And by Islamic state I DO NOT MEAN SAUDI ARABIA, as they are anything but Islamic.

  3. I’m skeptical. Maybe Muslim women of privilege had more freedom but keep in mind countries didn’t have a middle class until fairly recently. The lower classes have never had privilege or freedom. As for recent history Afghanistan was a pure Islamic state with no colonial influence in their government prior to the war and women were treated like chattel. So I don’t see a pure Islamic state as being a guarantee of women’s rights.

    • I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms.
      The history of Afghanistan is complex at best with CENTURIES of colonial influences playing a hand.
      There has never been a situation where the country has be an Islamic state. The situation prior to “the war” was NOT an Islamic state. It was a state of revolution that was quickly reduced to a state of disarray. And to even say “the war” reveals how the information from Afghansitan has been distorted. The country has been in a state of continuous war since at least 1979.
      You have every right to remain sceptical (sic) as there is, embarrasingly, not a single Islamic state that can demonstrate the true potential of a correctly run Islamic state, including the benefits for women amongst others. However this scepticism should not prevent you from making further enquiry regards the topic. There are a great many western accounts of the equanimity of women in Islamic states through the ages that can be easily accessed.

      • I’m interested in source material. If you can direct me to historical works I’d be interested. As far as Afghanistan goes its history has been on of war and invasion. . “It was a state of revolution that was quickly reduced to a state of disarray.” that still doesn’t explain how Colonialism or Western Imperialism had any effect on how and why the Taliban treated women the way they did.

        • “that still doesn’t explain how Colonialism or Western Imperialism had any effect on how and why the Taliban treated women the way they did.”
          Why do so many people in the West have a distorted view of Islam? Same reason as the Taliban. They are not educated on Islam, and what information they are fed is used to fuel propaganda to influence and justify their actions. You don’t need to look up much source material to figure this out. Look at the high illiteracy rate in Afghanistan. Look at how the Taliban doesn’t want women going to school. They want them educated on the rights in Islam.

        • As for how the “Colonialism or Western Imperialism” influenced the Taliban, care to look back at how the Taliban was formed? Where did their funds come from?They did not exist until the US funded the extreme right wing fundamentalist Mujahadeen. Bin Laden was one of their organizers and worked alongside the US government. They were already known to hold extremist views, but hey, better the Muslims than the Communists right?

    • “Maybe Muslim women of privilege had more freedom but keep in mind countries didn’t have a middle class until fairly recently. The lower classes have never had privilege or freedom.”

      The article actually evidences the opposite; that, if anything, working/lower class women had more scope to work and move around than ‘privileged’ women under the Ottoman Caliphate, whilst those of a privileged background tend to be described as having more restrictions (e.g. as mentioned in the article re marketplaces).

      As for Afghanistan, a simple rule of thumb – if you don’t see a Caliph, its not a Caliphate/Islamic state.

  4. I find it curious that many muslim debaters compare the ideal islamic state (whether Ottoman Turkey or something else) and compare this to medieval or late-medieval Europe. In TODAY’S world, Islam gives women less freedom, legally speaking, than probably all ‘Western’ countries. All this bickering about ‘who treats women the fairest’ aside, what is difficult to discuss when it comes to Islam is how the Koran is a source of malevolance when it comes to the status of women. Does not Boko Haram rely on the Koran in its teachings? The Taliban? Wahhabism? The list goes on… A good debate would entail also how the teachings of Karl Marx, however misinterpreted, lead to the Gulags, what within European social fabric gave Hitler the possibility of creating death camps, how the Norwegian terrorist Breivik relied on far-right propaganda when planning his mass murder. So, what is it with Islamic teaching and the Koran that leads people so astray as to believe in what above mentioned, and many other, Islamic movements believe in? This question goes perhaps beyond the role of women within society, but is equally applicable. Do many men have a dream, a fantasy, to dominate and find in the teaching of Islam the room for silent maneuvering – under the guide that it is holy – to dominate their women (marrying more than one woman, women that must cover themselves from head to toe…)? As with communism, it does not really help claiming it has all been misunderstood by some people. Even today communists find it difficult to accept what the USSR did to innocent civilians, and which role communism played. Which role does Islam play?

    • None of these questions are relevant to the followers of Islam. Your ideals are fake and faulty in the eyes of the stubborn follower of Islam. The follower of Islam submits to the Will of the Creator, accepts Its grand scheme of plan and obey Its Divine Rules. For the followers of Islam – both men and women – Holy Qur’an is the guidebook and source of spiritual enlightment. It has all the prescriptions for a peaceful (co)existence. Until you study and fully understand this Book, Islamic practices will seem to be nonsensical to you as much as non-Islamic practices seem to be nonsensical to the follower. The follower seeks protection in Islamic practices and aims to build a just society. The follower knows the ill consequences of the fake ‘freedom’ that you refer to.

      • Hafeel, unlucky for you many people are not followers of Islam, and as you know various questions regarding Islam are being asked. To denounce questions by claiming that they are not relevant is not just disrespectful but also tactically silly.

        Also followers of socialism will claim that their ideology contains all prescriptions for peaceful coexistence, yet socialism practiced in reality has had fateful consequences. Just like Islam.

        • I agree with you Ingemar, The problem we Muslims have today is that most of us are ignorant of our faith. Saudi Arabia pumps billions into Wahabist organizations the world over teaching the sheep all about “Islam” . Except what they teach is not Islam but Wahabism which is the antithesis of Islam.

          Wake up fellow Muslims and READ for yourself – as we were instructed in the first revelation to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

          Stop wishing for a return to some bygone day that was supposedly an Islamic ideal. Change yourself first, the world will follow.


        • I think the answer is simply that social evolution of rights was interrupted by colonialism. It may seem too simple to an answer but its actually a very complex one as it encompasses a number of changes in society, not just women’s roles. The internal evolution of the system along discussions and debates that revolved around modifying the existing social order and framework that these societies operated in was interrupted by alien external social order and frameworks being force-fit onto them as a result of the fall of the Muslim nations from the first world nation status to colonies.

          The result was actually resulted in a reversal of a lot of movements, where now “liberal” islamic movements or trends scaled back in the face of a perceived cultural assault. Anything, resembling the colonial social systems became something alien and “like the enemy, something to be resisted.” It is in my opinion not unrelated, the rise of more radical and forceful preservtice “conservative/traditional” social movements to mirror the barrage of western cultural influence through both the media (print/tv/etc.) as well as political resistance.

          i.e. in case that was too confusing…..anecdotes of hadith about women learning would go a much longer way in creating change in Afghanistan vs. the stereotype of the liberated “loose” pin-up western women as the aspirational role model. It’s a question of appropriate social language. Change must come from within and driven by each societies own peculliarities which may seem odd to the other. i.e. freedom of speech in europe allows caricatures of the prophet but the nazi salute or holocaust denial could land you with jail sentences etc.

          • I think you had it right when you said it is too simple an answer. Yes, warfare and colonization (amongst other from the Ottomans?) certainly had a role to play in the evolution of Islam. But to solemnly blame others for one’s own shortcomings is not a satisfactory answer.

            I agree that change comes from within, but perhaps by way of influence from the outside.

            But to blame colonization for the existence of hardline movements such as Boko Haram, the Taliban, Jund al Sham, various Al Qaida affiliated groups, Wahhabism and many others is wrong.

            Again, these groups and others refer to the Quran, and oftentimes to the Hadiths, as their source. This needs to be explained properly. How is it that they interpret various Hadiths or verses in the Quran so differently, or give them more importance, than do more liberal oriented islamic groups?

        • I agree with you, many of us are not ‘lucky’ enough to acknowledge The Creator’s role in the grand scheme of things (as purported by Islam). There are Quranic statements confirming this fact. Yes, man-made ‘..isms’ have proven to be embarrassingly wrong leaving only the Islamic option for solving all of today’s problems – ALL. Let’s discover the formulas contained in this Book. It is given to man-kind from their Creator! Practice of Islam hasn’t had fateful consequences. It is to the contrary. The author of the article takes us through just one aspect of it.

    • I find it curious that many critics of Islam seem happy to form their opinions about a book by relying on the interpretations of the same people they consider to be whack-jobs.

  5. I am sorry Hafeel, but you fail to see my point. Many bad Islamic groups acknowledge the Quran as its source of law, together with the Hadiths, yet they are anything but solving the problems of society. Or do you claim that Wahhabism is solving problems in Saudi Arabia? Many muslims may deem Wahhabism not to be Islamic, but they do have the Quran and the Hadiths, don’t they? And they follow it, don’t they? So how is this, that the Quran and the Hadiths can be a source of malevolence? This question of mine you fail to see. Claiming that Islam is the solution to all ills is not an answer.

    • Ingemar if you want to find fault with individuals and groups there is plenty of bad happenings around us. My point is that you find solutions in the Quran to all your problems; you have to learn it with the right attitude if you like and implement it in your life. I am not interested in commenting about politics, name-calling and their outcomes. All I am interested is in learning the Quran and implementing it in personal and social life knowing that it is the only driver for justice and peace in the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s