Women in Islam Versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition
The Myth & The Reality
Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem
INTRODUCTION
I would like to emphasize in this
introduction that my purpose for this study is not to denigrate Judaism
or Christianity. As Muslims, we believe in the divine origins of both.
No one can be a Muslim without believing in Moses and Jesus as great
prophets of God. My goal is only to vindicate Islam and pay a tribute,
long overdue in the West, to the final truthful Message from God to the
human race. I would also like to emphasize that I concerned myself only
with Doctrine. That is, my concern is, mainly, the position of women in
the three religions as it appears in their original sources not as
practiced by their millions of followers in the world today. Therefore,
most of the evidence cited comes from the Quran, the sayings of Prophet
Muhammad, the Bible, the Talmud, and the sayings of some of the most
influential Church Fathers whose views have contributed immeasurably to
defining and shaping Christianity. This interest in the sources relates
to the fact that understanding a certain religion from the attitudes and
the behavior of some of its nominal followers is misleading. Many
people confuse culture with religion, many others do not know what their
religious books are saying, and many others do not even care.
EVE’S FAULT?
The three religions agree on one basic
fact: Both women and men are created by God, The Creator of the whole
universe. However, disagreement starts soon after the creation of the
first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. The Judaeo-Christian
conception of the creation of Adam and Eve is narrated in detail in
Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of
the forbidden tree. The serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in
turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he
did, he put all the blame on Eve, “The woman you put here with me –she
gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” Consequently, God said
to Eve:
“I will greatly increase your pains in
childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire
will be for your husband and he will rule over you.”
To Adam He said:
“Because you listened to your wife and
ate from the tree …. Cursed is the ground because of you; through
painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life…”
The Islamic conception of the first creation is found in several places in the Quran, for example:
“O Adam dwell with your wife in the
Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into
harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal
to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: ‘Your Lord
only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live
forever.’ And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser.
So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree
their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the
leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them:
‘Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed
enemy?’ They said: ‘Our Lord we have wronged our own souls and if You
forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be
lost’.” [Noble Quran 7:19-23]
A careful look into the two accounts of
the story of the Creation reveals some essential differences. The Quran,
contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for
their mistake. Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint
that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten
before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no
deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of
childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another’s
faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for
forgiveness and He forgave them both.
EVE’S LEGACY
The image of Eve as temptress in the
Bible has resulted in an extremely negative impact on women throughout
the Judaeo-Christian tradition. All women were believed to have
inherited from their mother, the Biblical Eve, both her guilt and her
guile. Consequently, they were all untrustworthy, morally inferior, and
wicked. Menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing were considered the
just punishment for the eternal guilt of the cursed female sex. In order
to appreciate how negative the impact of the Biblical Eve was on all
her female descendants we have to look at the writings of some of the
most important Jews and Christians of all time. Let us start with the
Old Testament and look at excerpts from what is called the Wisdom
Literature in which we find:
“I find more bitter than death the woman
who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The
man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will
ensnare….while I was still searching but not finding, I found one
upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all.”
[Ecclesiastes 7:26-28]
In another part of the Hebrew literature which is found in the Catholic Bible we read:
“No wickedness comes anywhere near the
wickedness of a woman…..Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all
must die.” [Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24]
Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses inflicted on women as a result of the Fall:
“To the woman He gave nine curses and
death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of
virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden
of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning;
she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her
master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after
everything–death.” [2]
To the present day, orthodox Jewish men
in their daily morning prayer recite “Blessed be God King of the
universe that Thou has not made me a woman.” The women, on the other
hand, thank God every morning for “making me according to Thy will.” [3]
Another prayer found in many Jewish prayer books: “Praised be God that
he has not created me a gentile. Praised be God that he has not created
me a woman. Praised be God that he has not created me an ignoramus.” [4]
The Biblical Eve has played a far bigger
role in Christianity than in Judaism. Her sin has been pivotal to the
whole Christian faith because the Christian conception of the reason for
the mission of Jesus Christ on Earth stems from Eve’s disobedience to
God. She had sinned and then seduced Adam to follow her suit.
Consequently, God expelled both of them from Heaven to Earth, which had
been cursed because of them. They bequeathed their sin, which had not
been forgiven by God, to all their descendants and, thus, all humans are
born in sin. In order to purify human beings from their ‘original sin’,
God had to sacrifice Jesus, who is considered to be the Son of God, on
the cross. Therefore, Eve is responsible for her own mistake, her
husband’s sin, the original sin of all humanity, and the death of the
Son of God. In other words, one woman acting on her own caused the fall
of humanity. [5] What about her daughters? They are sinners like her and
have to be treated as such. Listen to the severe tone of St. Paul in
the New Testament:
“A woman should learn in quietness and
full submission. I don’t permit a woman to teach or to have authority
over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And
Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and
became a sinner.” [I Timothy 2:11-14]
St. Tertullian was even more blunt than St. Paul, while he was talking to his ‘best beloved sisters’ in the faith, he said:[6]
“Do you not know that you are each an
Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the
guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are
the un-sealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the
divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant
enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account
of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”
St. Augustine was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors, he wrote to a friend:
“What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman……I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.”
Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas still considered women as defective:
“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”
Finally, the renowned reformer Martin
Luther could not see any benefit from a woman but bringing into the
world as many children as possible regardless of any side effects:
“If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there”
Again and again all women are denigrated
because of the image of Eve the temptress, thanks to the Genesis
account. To sum up, the Judaeo-Christian conception of women has been
poisoned by the belief in the sinful nature of Eve and her female
offspring.
If we now turn our attention to what the
Quran has to say about women, we will soon realize that the Islamic
conception of women is radically different from the Judaeo-Christian
one.
Let the Quran speak for itself:
“For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise– For them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward” [Noble Quran 33:35]
“The believers, men and women, are
protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is
evil, they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey
Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is
Exalted in power, Wise” [Noble Quran 9:71]
“And their Lord answered them: Truly I
will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or
female, you are members one of another” [Noble Quran 3:195]
“Whoever works evil will not be requited
but by the like thereof, and whoever works a righteous deed -whether
man or woman- and is a believer- such will enter the Garden of bliss”
[Noble Quran 40:40]
“Whoever works righteousness, man or
woman, and has faith, verily to him/her we will give a new life that is
good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the
best of their actions” [Noble Quran 16:97]
It is clear that the Quranic view of
women is no different than that of men. They, both, are God’s creatures
whose sublime goal on earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous
deeds, and avoid evil and they, both, will be assessed accordingly. The
Quran never mentions that the woman is the devil’s gateway or that she
is a deceiver by nature. The Quran, also, never mentions that man is
God’s image; all men and all women are his creatures, that is all.
According to the Quran, a woman’s role on earth is not limited only to
childbirth. She is required to do as many good deeds as any other man is
required to do. The Quran never says that no upright women have ever
existed. To the contrary, the Quran has instructed all the believers,
women as well as men, to follow the example of those ideal women such as
the Virgin Mary and the Pharaoh’s wife:
“And Allah sets forth, As an example to
those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: ‘O my lord
build for me, in nearness to you, a mansion in the Garden, and save me
from Pharaoh and his doings and save me from those who do wrong.’ And
Mary the daughter of ‘Imran who guarded her chastity and We breathed
into her body of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words
of her Lord and of His revelations and was one of the devout” [Noble
Quran 66:11-13]
SHAMEFUL DAUGHTERS?
In fact, the difference between the
Biblical and the Quranic attitude towards the female sex starts as soon
as a female is born. For example, the Bible states that the period of
the mother’s ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a
boy is (Lev. 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible states explicitly that:
“The birth of a daughter is a loss.” [Ecclesiasticus 22:3]
In contrast to this shocking statement, boys receive special praise:
“A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy.” [Ecclesiasticus 30:3]
Jewish Rabbis made it an obligation on
Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race. At the
same time, they did not hide their clear preference for male children:
“It is well for those whose children are male but ill for those whose
are female”, “At the birth of a boy, all are joyful…at the birth of a
girl all are sorrowful”, and “When a boy comes into the world, peace
comes into the world… When a girl comes, nothing comes.” [7]
A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father:
“Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a
sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your
enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you
to public shame” [Ecclesiasticus 42:11]
“Keep a headstrong daughter under firm
control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict
watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you”
[Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11]
It was this very same idea of treating
daughters as sources of shame that led the pagan Arabs, before the
advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Quran severely
condemned this heinous practice:
“When news is brought to one of them of
the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with
inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of
the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in
the dust? Ah! What an evil they decide on?” [Noble Quran 16:59]
It has to be mentioned that this
sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia were it not for the
power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice
[16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9]
The Quran, moreover, makes no
distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran
considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, the
same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the
female birth first:
“To Allah belongs the dominion of the
heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female
children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He
wills” [Noble Quran 42:49]
In order to wipe out all the traces of
female infanticide in the nascent Muslim society, Prophet Muhammad
promised those who were blessed with daughters of a great reward if they
would bring them up kindly:
“He who is involved in bringing up
daughters, and accords benevolent treatment towards them, they will be
protection for him against Hell-Fire.” [Bukhari and Muslim]
“Whoever maintains two girls till they
attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day like this;
and he joined his fingers.” [Muslim]
FEMALE EDUCATION?
The difference between the Biblical and
the Quranic conceptions of women is not limited to the newly born
female, it extends far beyond that. Let us compare their attitudes
towards a female trying to learn her religion. The heart of Judaism is
the Torah, the law. However, according to the Talmud, “women are exempt
from the study of the Torah.” Some Jewish Rabbis firmly declared “Let
the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to women”,
and “Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her
obscenity” [8]
The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is not brighter:
“As in all the congregations of the
saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to
inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for
it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” [I Corinthians
14:34-35]
How can a woman learn if she is not
allowed to speak? How can a woman grow intellectually if she is obliged
to be in a state of full submission? How can she broaden her horizons if
her one and only source of information is her husband at home?
Now, to be fair, we should ask: is the
Quranic position any different? One short story narrated in the Quran
sums its position up concisely. Khawlah was a Muslim woman whose husband
Aws pronounced this statement at a moment of anger: “You are to me as
the back of my mother.” This was held by pagan Arabs to be a statement
of divorce which freed the husband from any conjugal responsibility but
did not leave the wife free to leave the husband’s home or to marry
another man. Having heard these words from her husband, Khawlah was in a
miserable situation. She went straight to the Prophet of Islam to plead
her case. The Prophet was of the opinion that she should be patient
since there seemed to be no way out. Khawlah kept arguing with the
Prophet in an attempt to save her suspended marriage. Shortly, the Quran
intervened; Khawlah’s plea was accepted. The divine verdict abolished
this iniquitous custom. One full chapter (Chapter 58) of the Quran whose
title is “Al-mujadilah” or “The woman who is arguing” was named after
this incident:
“Allah has heard and accepted the
statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her
husband and carries her complaint to Allah, and Allah hears the
arguments between both of you for Allah hears and sees all things….”
[Noble Quran 58:1]
A woman in the Quranic conception has
the right to argue even with the Prophet of Islam himself. No one has
the right to instruct her to be silent. She is under no obligation to
consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and
religion.
UNCLEAN IMPURE WOMAN?
Jewish laws and regulations concerning
menstruating women are extremely restrictive. The Old Testament
considers any menstruating woman as unclean and impure. Moreover, her
impurity “infects” others as well. Anyone or anything she touches
becomes unclean for a day:
“When a woman has her regular flow of
blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and
anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies
on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be
unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with
water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she
sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be
unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting
on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.” [Lev.
15:19-23]
Due to her “contaminating” nature, a
menstruating woman was sometimes “banished” in order to avoid any
possibility of any contact with her. She was sent to a special house
called “the house of uncleanness” for the whole period of her impurity.
[9] The Talmud considers a menstruating woman “fatal” even without any
physical contact:
“Our Rabbis taught: …if a menstruating
woman passes between two (men), if it is at the beginning of her menses
she will slay one of them, and if it is at the end of her menses she
will cause strife between them.” [bPes. 111a]
Furthermore, the husband of a menstruous
woman was forbidden to enter the synagogue if he had been made unclean
by her even by the dust under her feet. A priest whose wife, daughter,
or mother was menstruating could not recite priestly blessing in the
synagogue. [10] No wonder many Jewish women still refer to menstruation
as “the curse.” [11]
Islam does not consider a menstruating
woman to possess any kind of “contagious uncleanness”. She is neither
“untouchable” nor “cursed.” She practices her normal life with only one
restriction: A married couple are not allowed to have sexual intercourse
during the period of menstruation. Any other physical contact between
them is permissible. A menstruating woman is exempted from some rituals
such as daily prayers and fasting during her period.
BEARING WITNESS
Another issue in which the Quran and the
Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that
the Quran has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions
to get two male witnesses or one male and two females [2:282] However,
it is also true that the Quran in other situations accepts the testimony
of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact the woman’s testimony can
even invalidate the man’s. If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he
is required by the Quran to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the
wife’s guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she
is not considered guilty and in either case the marriage is dissolved.
[24:6-11]
On the other hand, women were not
allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society.[12] The Rabbis counted
women’s not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted
upon all women because of the Fall (see the “Eve’s Legacy” section).
Women in today’s Israel are not allowed to give evidence in Rabbinical
courts. The Rabbis justify why women cannot bear witness by citing
Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Sara, Abraham’s wife had lied.
The Rabbis use this incident as evidence that women are unqualified to
bear witness. It should be noted here that this story narrated in
Genesis [18:9-16] has been mentioned more than once in the Quran without
any hint of any lies by Sara[11:69-74, 51:24-30]. In the Christian
West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving
testimony until late last century.[14]
If a man accuses his wife of unchastity,
her testimony will not be considered at all according to the Bible. The
accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial,
the wife faces a complex and humiliating ritual which was supposed to
prove her guilt or innocence [Num. 5:11-31]. If she is found guilty
after this ordeal, she will be sentenced to death. If she is found not
guilty, her husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing.
Besides, if a man takes a woman as a
wife and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will
not count. Her parents had to bring evidence of her virginity before the
elders of the town. If the parents could not prove the innocence of
their daughter, she would be stoned to death on her father’s doorsteps.
If the parents were able to prove her innocence, the husband would only
be fined one hundred shekels of silver and he could not divorce his wife
as long as he lived:
“If a man takes a wife and, after lying
with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name,
saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find
proof of her virginity,’ then the girl’s father and mother shall bring
proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl’s
father will say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this
man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said I did not
find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my
daughter’s virginity.’ Then her parents shall display the cloth before
the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish
him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to
the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad
name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long
as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s
virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her
father’s house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death.
She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while
still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”
[Deuter nomy 22:13-21]
ADULTERY
Adultery is considered a sin in all
religions. The Bible decrees the death sentence for both the adulterer
and the adulteress [Lev. 20:10]
Islam also equally punishes both the adulterer and the adulteress. [24:2]
However, the Quranic definition of
adultery is very different from the Biblical definition. Adultery,
according to the Quran, is the involvement of a married man or a married
woman in an extramarital affair. The Bible only considers the
extramarital affair of a married woman as adultery. [Leviticus 20:10,
Deuteronomy 22:22, Proverbs 6:20-7:27]
“If a man is found sleeping with another
man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You
must purge the evil from Israel” [Deut. 22:22]
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” [Lev. 20:10]
According to the Biblical definition, if
a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, this is not considered a
crime at all. The married man who has extramarital affairs with
unmarried women is not an adulterer and the unmarried women involved
with him are not adulteresses. The crime of adultery is committed only
when a man, whether married or single, sleeps with a married woman. In
this case the man is considered adulterer, even if he is not married,
and the woman is considered adulteress. In short, adultery is any
illicit sexual intercourse involving a married woman. The extramarital
affair of a married man is not per se a crime in the Bible. Why is the
dual moral standard? According to Encyclopedia Judaica, the wife was
considered to be the husband’s possession and adultery constituted a
violation of the husband’s exclusive right to her; the wife as the
husband’s possession had no such right to him. [15] That is, if a man
had sexual intercourse with a married woman, he would be violating the
property of another man and, thus, he should be punished.
To the present day in Israel, if a
married man indulges in an extramarital affair with an unmarried woman,
his children by that woman are considered legitimate. But, if a married
woman has an affair with another man, whether married or not married,
her children by that man are not only illegitimate but they are
considered bastards and are forbidden to marry any other Jews except
converts and other bastards. This ban is handed down to the children’s
descendants for 10 generations until the taint of adultery is presumably
weakened. [16]
The Quran, on the other hand, never
considers any woman to be the possession of any man. The Quran
eloquently describes the relationship between the spouses by saying:
“And among His signs is that He created
for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquility
with them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: verily in
that are signs for those who reflect” [Noble Quran 30:21]
This is the Quranic conception of marriage: love, mercy, and tranquility, not possession and double standards.
VOWS
According to the Bible, a man must
fulfill any vows he might make to God. He must not break his word. On
the other hand, a woman’s vow is not necessarily binding on her. It has
to be approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her
husband, if she is married. If a father/husband does not endorse his
daughter’s/wife’s vows, all pledges made by her become null and void:
“But if her father forbids her when he
hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated
herself will stand ….Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she
makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself” [Num. 30:2-15]
Why is it that a woman’s word is not
binding per se? The answer is simple: because she is owned by her
father, before marriage, or by her husband after marriage. The father’s
control over his daughter was absolute to the extent that, should he
wish, he could sell her! It is indicated in the writings of the Rabbis
that: “The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her
daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not
betroth her daughter. [17] The Rabbinic literature also indicates that
marriage represents the transfer of control from the father to the
husband: “betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession–the
inviolable property– of the husband…” Obviously, if the woman is
considered to be the property of someone else, she cannot make any
pledges that her owner does not approve of.
It is of interest to note that this
Biblical instruction concerning women’s vows has had negative
repercussions on Judaeo-Christian women till early in this century. A
married woman in the Western world had no legal status. No act of hers
was of any legal value. Her husband could repudiate any contract,
bargain, or deal she had made. Women in the West (the largest heir of
the Judaeo-Christian legacy) were held unable to make a binding contract
because they were practically owned by someone else. Western women had
suffered for almost two thousand years because of the Biblical attitude
towards women’s position vis-à-vis their fathers and husbands. [18]
In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male
or female, is binding on him/her. No one has the power to repudiate the
pledges of anyone else. Failure to keep a solemn oath, made by a man or a
woman, has to be expiated as indicated in the Quran:
“He [God] will call you to account for
your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a
scale of the average for the food of your families; Or clothe them; or
give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three
days. That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your
oaths.” [Noble Quran 5:89]
Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, men
and women, used to present their oath of allegiance to him personally.
Women, as well as men, would independently come to him and pledge their
oaths:
“O Prophet, When believing women come to
you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship
anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own
children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then
make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their
sins. Indeed God is Forgiving and most Merciful.” [Noble Quran 60:12]
A man could not swear the oath on behalf
of his daughter or his wife. Nor could a man repudiate the oath made by
any of his female relatives.
WIFE’S PROPERTY?
The three religions share an unshakeable
belief in the importance of marriage and family life. They also agree
on the leadership of the husband over the family. Nevertheless, blatant
differences do exist among the three religions with respect to the
limits of this leadership. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, unlike Islam,
virtually extends the leadership of the husband into ownership of his
wife.
The Jewish tradition regarding the
husband’s role towards his wife stems from the conception that he owns
her as he owns his slave. [19] This conception has been the reason
behind the double standard in the laws of adultery and behind the
husband’s ability to annul his wife’s vows. This conception has also
been responsible for denying the wife any control over her property or
her earnings. As soon as a Jewish woman got married, she completely lost
any control over her property and earnings to her husband. Jewish
Rabbis asserted the husband’s right to his wife’s property as a
corollary of his possession of her: “Since one has come into the
possession of the woman does it not follow that he should come into the
possession of her property too?”, and “Since he has acquired the woman
should he not acquire also her property?” [20] Thus, marriage caused the
richest woman to become practically penniless. The Talmud describes the
financial situation of a wife as follows:
“How can a woman have anything; whatever
is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hers is
also his…… Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also
his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are
his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be
stealing from her husband…” [San. 71a, Git. 62a]
The fact of the matter is that the
property of a Jewish female was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish
family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate to be
used as a dowry in case of marriage. It was this dowry that made Jewish
daughters an unwelcome burden to their fathers. The father had to raise
his daughter for years and then prepare for her marriage by providing a
large dowry. Thus, a girl in a Jewish family was a liability and no
asset. [21] This liability explains why the birth of a daughter was not
celebrated with joy in the old Jewish society (see the “Shameful
Daughters?” section). The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the
groom under terms of tenancy. The husband would act as the practical
owner of the dowry but he could not sell it. The bride would lose any
control over the dowry at the moment of marriage. Moreover, she was
expected to work after marriage and all her earnings had to go to her
husband in return for her maintenance which was his obligation. She
could regain her property only in two cases: divorce or her husband’s
death. Should she die first, he would inherit her property. In the case
of the husband’s death, the wife could regain her pre-marital property
but she was not entitled to inherit any share in her deceased husband’s
own property. It has to be added that the groom also had to present a
marriage gift to his bride, yet againhe was the practical owner of this
gift as long as they were married.[22]
Christianity, until recently, has
followed the same Jewish tradition. Both religious and civil authorities
in the Christian Roman Empire (after Constantine) required a property
agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Families offered
their daughters increasing dowries and, as a result, men tended to marry
earlier while families postponed their daughters’ marriages until later
than had been customary.[23] Under Canon law, a wife was entitled to
restitution of her dowry if the marriage was annulled unless she was
guilty of adultery. In this case, she forfeited her right to the dowry
which remained in her husband’s hands.[24] Under Canon and civil law a
married woman in Christian Europe and America had lost her property
rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example,
women’s rights under English law were compiled and published in 1632.
These ‘rights’ included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That
which the wife hath is the husband’s.[25] The wife not only lost her
property upon marriage, she lost her personality as well. No act of her
was of legal value. Her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by
her as being of no binding legal value. The person with whom she had
any contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud.
Moreover, she could not sue or be sued in her own name, nor could she
sue her own husband.[26] A married woman was practically treated as an
infant in the eyes of the law. The wife simply belonged to her husband
and therefore she lost her property, her legal personality, and her
family name.[27]
Islam, since the seventh century C.E.,
has granted married women the independent personality which the
Judaeo-Christian West had deprived them until very recently. In Islam,
the bride and her family are under no obligation whatsoever to present a
gift to the groom. The girl in a Muslim family is no liability. A woman
is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts in
order to attract potential husbands. It is the groom who must present
the bride with a marriage gift. This gift is considered her property and
neither the groom nor the bride’s family have any share in or control
over it. In some Muslim societies today, a marriage gift of a hundred
thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual.[28] The bride retains her
marriage gifts even if she is later divorced. The husband is not allowed
any share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her
free consent.[29] The Quran has stated its position on this issue quite
clearly:
“And give the women (on marriage) their
dower as a free gift; but if they, Of their own good pleasure, remit any
part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer” [Noble
Quran 4:4]
The wife’s property and earnings are
under her full control and for her use alone since her, and the
children’s, maintenance is her husband’s responsibility.[30] No matter
how rich the wife might be, she is not obliged to act as a co-provider
for the family unless she herself voluntarily chooses to do so. Spouses
do inherit from one another. Moreover, a married woman in Islam retains
her independent legal personality and her family name.[31] An American
judge once commented on the rights of Muslim women saying: ” A Muslim
girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that
of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal
personality of her own.”[32]
DIVORCE
The three religions have remarkable
differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors
divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the
indissolubility of marriage. It is attributed to Jesus to have said,
“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital
unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries
the divorced woman commits adultery.” [Matthew 5:32] This uncompromising
ideal is, without a doubt, unrealistic. It assumes a state of moral
perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple
realizes that their married life is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will
not do them any good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together
against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder the
whole Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.
Judaism, on the other hand, allows
divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the
right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her:
“If a man marries a woman who becomes
displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he
writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from
his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of
another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a
certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or
if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to
marry her again after she has been defiled.” [Deut. 24:1-4]
The above verses have caused some
considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement
over the interpretation of the words “displeasing”, “indecency”, and
“dislikes” mentioned in the verses. The Talmud records their different
opinions:
“The school of Shammai held that a man
should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some
sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel say he may divorce her
even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba says he may
divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than
she.” [Gittin 90a-b]
The New Testament follows the Shammaites
opinion while Jewish law has followed the opinion of the Hillelites and
R. Akiba. [33] Since the Hillelites view prevailed, it became the
unbroken tradition of Jewish law to give the husband freedom to divorce
his wife without any cause at all. The Old Testament not only gives the
husband the right to divorce his “displeasing” wife, it considers
divorcing a “bad wife” an obligation:
“A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast
looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man
whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it
is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or
allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your
control, divorce her and send her away.” [Ecclesiasticus 25:25]
The Talmud has recorded several specific
actions by wives which obliged their husbands to divorce them: “If she
ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled
in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her
husband” [Git. 89a] The Talmud has also made it mandatory to divorce a
barren wife (who bore no children in a period of ten years): “Our Rabbis
taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she
bore no child, he shall divorce her.” [Yeb. 64a]
Wives, on the other hand, cannot
initiate divorce under Jewish law. A Jewish wife, however, could claim
the right to a divorce before a Jewish court provided that a strong
reason exists. Very few grounds are provided for the wife to make a
claim for a divorce. These grounds include: A husband with physical
defects or skin disease, a husband not fulfilling his conjugal
responsibilities, etc. The Court might support the wife’s claim to a
divorce but it cannot dissolve the marriage. Only the husband can
dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The Court
could scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to
deliver the necessary bill of divorce to his wife. However, if the
husband is stubborn enough, he can refuse to grant his wife a divorce
and keep her tied to him indefinitely. Worse still, he can desert her
without granting her a divorce and leave her unmarried and un-divorced.
He can marry another woman or even live with any single woman out of
wedlock and have children from her (these children are considered
legitimate under Jewish law). The deserted wife, on the other hand,
cannot marry any other man since she is still legally married and she
cannot live with any other man because she will be considered an
adulteress and her children from this union will be illegitimate for ten
generations. A woman in such a position is called an agunah (chained
woman). [34] In the United States today there are approximately 1000 to
1500 Jewish women who are agunot (plural for agunah), while in Israel
their number might be as high as 16000. Husbands may extort thousands of
dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce. [35]
Islam occupies the middle ground between
Christianity and Judaism with respect to divorce. Marriage in Islam is a
sanctified bond that should not be broken except for compelling
reasons. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies whenever
their marriages are in danger. Divorce is not to be resorted to except
when there is no other way out. In a nutshell, Islam recognizes divorce,
yet it discourages it by all means. Let us focus on the recognition
side first. Islam does recognize the right of both partners to end their
matrimonial relationship. Islam gives the husband the right for Talaq
(divorce). Moreover, Islam, unlike Judaism, grants the wife the right to
dissolve the marriage through what is known as Khula’. [36] If the
husband dissolves the marriage by divorcing his wife, he cannot retrieve
any of the marriage gifts he has given her. The Quran explicitly
prohibits the divorcing husbands from taking back their marriage gifts
no matter how expensive or valuable these gifts might be:
“But if you decide to take one wife in
place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for
dower, take not the least bit of it back; Would you take it by slander
and a manifest wrong?” [Noble Quran 4:20]
In the case of the wife choosing to end
the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband.
Returning the marriage gifts in this case is a fair compensation for the
husband who is keen to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him.
The Quran has instructed Muslim men not to take back any of the gifts
they have given to their wives except in the case of the wife choosing
to dissolve the marriage:
“It is not lawful for you (Men) to take
back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be
unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. There is no blame on either
of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits
ordained by Allah so do not transgress them” [Noble Quran 2:229]
Also, a woman came to the Prophet
Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, she told the Prophet
that she did not have any complaints against her husband’s character or
manners. Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the
extent of not being able to live with him any longer. The Prophet asked
her: “Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her)
back?” she said: “Yes”. The Prophet then instructed the man to take
back his garden and accept the dissolution of the marriage. [Bukhari]
In some cases, A Muslim wife might be
willing to keep her marriage but find herself obliged to claim for a
divorce because of some compelling reasons such as: Cruelty of the
husband, desertion without a reason, a husband not fulfilling his
conjugal responsibilities, etc. In these cases the Muslim court
dissolves the marriage. [37]
In short, Islam has offered the Muslim
woman some unequalled rights: she can end the marriage through Khula’
and she can sue for a divorce. A Muslim wife can never become chained by
a recalcitrant husband. It was these rights that enticed Jewish women
who lived in the early Islamic societies of the seventh century C.E. to
seek to obtain bills of divorce from their Jewish husbands in Muslim
courts. The Rabbis declared these bills null and void. In order to end
this practice, the Rabbis gave new rights and privileges to Jewish women
in an attempt to weaken the appeal of the Muslim courts. Jewish women
living in Christian countries were not offered any similar privileges
since the Roman law of divorce practiced there was no more attractive
than the Jewish law. [38]
Let us now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet of Islam told the believers that:
“Among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God.” [Abu Dawud]
A Muslim man should not divorce his wife
just because he dislikes her. The Quran instructs Muslim men to be kind
to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of
dislike:
“Live with them (your wives) on a
footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you
dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good.”
[Noble Quran 4:19]
Prophet Muhammad gave a similar instruction:
“A believing man must not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her traits he will be pleased with another.” [Muslim]
The Prophet has also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives:
“The believers who show the most perfect
faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are
those who are best to their wives.” [Tirmidhi]
However, Islam is a practical religion
and it does recognize that there are circumstances in which a marriage
becomes on the verge of collapsing. In such cases, a mere advice of
kindness or self restraint is no viable solution. So, what to do in
order to save a marriage in these cases? The Quran offers some practical
advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband)
is the wrongdoer. For the husband whose wife’s ill-conduct is
threatening the marriage, the Quran gives four types of advice as
detailed in the following verses:
“As to those women on whose part you
fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, (1) Admonish them, (2) refuse to share
their beds, (3) beat them; but if they return to obedience seek not
against them means of annoyance: For Allah is Most High, Great. (4) If
you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family
and the other from hers; If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their
reconciliation.” [Noble Quran 4:34-35]
The first three are to be tried first.
If they fail, then the help of the families concerned should be sought.
It has to be noted, in the light of the above verses, that beating the
rebellious wife is a temporary measure that is resorted to as third in
line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the
wrongdoing of the wife. If it does, the husband is not allowed by any
means to continue any annoyance to the wife as explicitly mentioned in
the verse. If it does not, the husband is still not allowed to use this
measure any longer and the final avenue of the family-assisted
reconciliation has to be explored.
Prophet Muhammad has instructed Muslim
husbands that they should not have recourse to these measures except in
extreme cases such as open lewdness committed by the wife. Even in these
cases the punishment should be slight and if the wife desists, the
husband is not permitted to irritate her:
“In case they are guilty of open
lewdness you may leave them alone in their beds and inflict slight
punishment. If they are obedient to you, do not seek against them any
means of annoyance.” [Tirmidhi]
Furthermore, the Prophet of Islam has
condemned any unjustifiable beating. Some Muslim wives complained to him
that their husbands had beaten them. Hearing that, the Prophet
categorically stated that:
“Those who do so (beat their wives) are not the best among you.” [Abu Dawud]
It has to be remembered at this point that the Prophet has also said:
“The best of you is he who is best to his family, and I am the best among you to my family.” [Tirmidhi]
The Prophet advised one Muslim woman,
whose name was Fatimah bint Qais, not to marry a man because the man was
known for beating women:
“I went to the Prophet and said: Abul
Jahm and Mu’awiah have proposed to marry me. The Prophet (by way of
advice) said: As to Mu’awiah he is very poor and Abul Jahm is accustomed
to beating women.” [Muslim]
It has to be noted that the Talmud
sanctions wife beating as chastisement for the purpose of discipline.
[39] The husband is not restricted to the extreme cases such as those of
open lewdness. He is allowed to beat his wife even if she just refuses
to do her house work. Moreover, he is not limited only to the use of
light punishment. He is permitted to break his wife’s stubbornness by
the lash or by starving her. [40]
For the wife whose husband’s ill-conduct is the cause for the marriages near collapse, the Quran offers the following advice:
“If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on
her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an
amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best.”
[Noble Quran 4:128]
In this case, the wife is advised to
seek reconciliation with her husband (with or without family
assistance). It is notable that the Quran is not advising the wife to
resort to the two measures of abstention from sex and beating. The
reason for this disparity might be to protect the wife from a violent
physical reaction by her already misbehaving husband. Such a violent
physical reaction will do both the wife and the marriage more harm than
good. Some Muslim scholars have suggested that the court can apply these
measures against the husband on the wife’s behalf. That is, the court
first admonishes the rebellious husband, then forbids him his wife’s
bed, and finally executes a symbolic beating. [41]
To sum up, Islam offers Muslim married
couples much viable advice to save their marriages in cases of trouble
and tension. If one of the partners is jeopardizing the matrimonial
relationship, the other partner is advised by the Quran to do whatever
possible and effective in order to save this sacred bond. If all the
measures fail, Islam allows the partners to separate peacefully and
amicably.
MOTHERS
The Old Testament in several places
commands kind and considerate treatment of the parents and condemns
those who dishonor them. For example, “If anyone curses his father or
mother, he must be put to death” [Lev. 20:9] and “A wise man brings joy
to his father but a foolish man despises his mother” [Proverbs 15:20]
Although honoring the father alone is mentioned in some places, e.g. “A
wise man heeds his father’s instruction” [Proverbs 13:1], the mother
alone is never mentioned. Moreover, there is no special emphasis on
treating the mother kindly as a sign of appreciation of her great
suffering in childbearing and suckling. Besides, mothers do not inherit
at all from their children while fathers do. [42]
It is difficult to speak of the New
Testament as a scripture that calls for honoring the mother. To the
contrary, one gets the impression that the New Testament considers kind
treatment of mothers as an impediment on the way to God. According to
the New Testament, one cannot become a good Christian worthy of becoming
a disciple of Christ unless he hates his mother. It is attributed to
Jesus to have said:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate
his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and
sisters–yes, even his own life–he can not be my disciple.” [Luke 14:26]
Furthermore, the New Testament depicts a
picture of Jesus as indifferent to, or even disrespectful of, his own
mother. For example, when she had come looking for him while he was
preaching to a crowd, he did not care to go out to see her:
“Then Jesus’ mother and brothers
arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone to call him. A crowd was
sitting around him and they told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are
outside looking for you.’ ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said,’ Here
are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and
sister and mother.’” [Mark 3:31-35]
One might argue that Jesus was trying to
teach his audience an important lesson that religious ties are no less
important than family ties. However, he could have taught his listeners
the same lesson without showing such absolute indifference to his
mother. The same disrespectful attitude is depicted when he refused to
endorse a statement made by a member of his audience blessing his
mother’s role in giving birth to him and nursing him:
“As Jesus was saying these things, a
woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth
and nursed you.’ He replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the
word of God and obey it.’” [Luke 11:27-28]
If a mother with the stature of the
virgin Mary had been treated with such discourtesy, as depicted in the
New Testament, by a son of the stature of Jesus Christ, then how should
an average Christian mother be treated by her average Christian sons?
In Islam, the honor, respect, and esteem
attached to motherhood is unparalleled. The Quran places the importance
of kindness to parents as second only to worshipping God Almighty:
“Your Lord has decreed that you worship
none but Him, And that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of
them attain old age in your life, Say not to them a word of contempt,
nor repel them, But address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness,
Lower to them the wing of humility, and say: ‘My Lord! Bestow on them
Your Mercy as they Cherished me in childhood’” [17:23-24]
The Quran in several other places puts special emphasis on the mother’s great role in giving birth and nursing:
“And We have enjoined on man to be good
to his parents: In travail upon travail did his mother bear him and in
two years was his weaning. Show gratitude to Me and to your parents”
[Noble Quran 31:14]
The very special place of mothers in Islam has been eloquently described by Prophet Muhammad:
“A man asked the Prophet: ‘Whom should I honor most?’ The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother’. ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother’. ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother!’. ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your father’” [Bukhari and Muslim]
Among the few precepts of Islam which
Muslims still faithfully observe to the present day is the considerate
treatment of mothers. The honor that Muslim mothers receive from their
sons and daughters is exemplary. The intensely warm relations between
Muslim mothers and their children and the deep respect with which Muslim
men approach their mothers usually amaze Westerners. [43]
FEMALE INHERITANCE?
One of the most important differences
between the Quran and the Bible is their attitude towards female
inheritance of the property of a deceased relative. The Biblical
attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: “The continuous
and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members
of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the
family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female
members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote
from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic
enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no
male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such
conditions.” [44] Why were the female members of the family considered
part of the family estate? Rabbi Epstein has the answer: “They are owned
–before marriage, by the father; after marriage, by the husband.” [4]
The Biblical rules of inheritance are
outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband’s
estate, while he is her first heir, even before her sons. A daughter can
inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother is not an heir at all
while the father is. Widows and daughters, in case male children
remained, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. That is why
widows and orphan girls were among the most destitute members of the
Jewish society.
Christianity has followed suit for long
time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred
daughters from sharing with their brothers in the father’s patrimony.
Besides, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous
laws survived till late in the last century. [46]
Among the pagan Arabs before Islam,
inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The
Quran abolished all these unjust customs and gave all the female
relatives inheritance shares:
“From what is left by parents and those
nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether
the property be small or large –a determinate share” [Noble Quran 4:7]
Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and
sisters had received inheritance rights thirteen hundred years before
Europe recognized that these rights even existed. The division of
inheritance is a vast subject with an enormous amount of details.
[4:7,11,12,176]
The general rule is that the female
share is half the male’s except the cases in which the mother receives
equal share to that of the father. This general rule if taken in
isolation from other legislations concerning men and women may seem
unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must
take into account the fact that the financial obligations of men in
Islam far exceed those of women. A bridegroom must provide his bride
with a marriage gift. This gift becomes her exclusive property and
remains so even if she is later divorced. The bride is under no
obligation to present any gifts to her groom. Moreover, the Muslim
husband is charged with the maintenance of his wife and children. The
wife, on the other hand, is not obliged to help him in this regard. Her
property and earnings are for her use alone except what she may
voluntarily offer her husband. Besides, one has to realize that Islam
vehemently advocates family life. It strongly encourages youth to get
married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue.
Therefore, in a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and
single life is the rare exception. That is, almost all marriage-aged
women and men are married in an Islamic society. In light of these
facts, one would appreciate that Muslim men, in general, have greater
financial burdens than Muslim women and thus inheritance rules are meant
to offset this imbalance so that the society lives free of all gender
or class wars. After a simple comparison between the financial rights
and duties of Muslim women, one British Muslim woman has concluded that
Islam has treated women not only fairly but generously. [47]
PLIGHT OF WIDOWS
Because of the fact that the Old
Testament recognized no inheritance rights to them, widows were among
the most vulnerable of the Jewish population. The male relatives who
inherited all of a woman’s deceased husband’s estate were to provide for
her from that estate. However, widows had no way to ensure this
provision was carried out, and lived on the mercy of others. Therefore,
widows were among the lowest classes in ancient Israel and widowhood was
considered a symbol of great degradation. [Isaiah 54:4]
But the plight of a widow in the
Biblical tradition extended even beyond her exclusion from her husband’s
property. According to Genesis 38, a childless widow must marry her
husband’s brother, even if he is already married, so that he can produce
offspring for his dead brother, thus ensuring his brother’s name will
not die out.
“Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Lie with your
brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to
produce offspring for your brother’” [Genesis 38:8]
The widow’s consent to this marriage is
not required. The widow is treated as part of her deceased husband’s
property whose main function is to ensure her husband’s posterity. This
Biblical law is still practiced in today’s Israel. [48] A childless
widow in Israel is bequeathed to her husband’s brother. If the brother
is too young to marry, she has to wait until he comes of age. Should the
deceased husband’s brother refuse to marry her, she is set free and can
then marry any man of her choice. It is not an uncommon phenomenon in
Israel that widows are subjected to blackmail by their brothers-in-law
in order to gain their freedom.
The pagan Arabs before Islam had similar
practices. A widow was considered a part of her husband’s property to
be inherited by his male heirs and she was, usually, given in marriage
to the deceased man’s eldest son from another wife. The Quran scathingly
attacked and abolished this degrading custom:
“And marry not women whom your fathers
married–Except what is past– it was shameful, odious, and abominable
custom indeed.” [Noble Quran 4:22]
Widows and divorced women were so looked
down upon in the Biblical tradition that the high priest could not
marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute:
“The woman he (the high priest) marries
must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a
woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so
he will not defile his offspring among his people” [Lev. 21:13-15]
In Israel today, a descendant of the
Cohen caste (the high priests of the days of the Temple) cannot marry a
divorcee, a widow, or a prostitute. [49] In the Jewish legislation, a
woman who has been widowed three times with all the three husbands dying
of natural causes is considered ‘fatal’ and forbidden to marry again.
[50] The Quran, on the other hand, recognizes neither castes nor fatal
persons. Widows and divorcees have the freedom to marry whomever they
choose. There is no stigma attached to divorce or widowhood in the
Quran:
“When you divorce women and they fulfill
their terms [three menstruation periods] either take them back on
equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms; But do not take
them back to injure them or to take undue advantage, If anyone does
that, he wrongs his own soul. Do not treat Allah’s signs as a jest.”
[Noble Quran 2:231]
“If any of you die and leave widows
behind, they shall wait four months and ten days. When they have
fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of
themselves in a just manner.” [Noble Quran 2:234]
“Those of you who die and leave widows
should bequeath for their widows a year’s maintenance and residence. But
if they [the widows] leave (the residence) there is no blame on you for
what they justly do with themselves.” [Noble Quran 2:240]
POLYGAMY
Let us now tackle the important question
of polygamy. Polygamy is a very ancient practice found in many human
societies. The Bible did not condemn polygamy. To the contrary, the Old
Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to the legality of
polygamy. King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines
[1 Kings 11:3] Also, king David is said to have had many wives and
concubines. [2 Samuel 5:13] The Old Testament does have some injunctions
on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from
different wives [Deut. 22:7] The only restriction on polygamy is a ban
on taking a wife’s sister as a rival wife. [Lev. 18:18] The Talmud
advises a maximum of four wives. [51] European Jews continued to
practice polygamy until the sixteenth century. Oriental Jews regularly
practiced polygamy until they arrived in Israel where it is forbidden
under civil law. However, under religious law which overrides civil law
in such cases, it is permissible. [52]
What about the New Testament? According
to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful book, Polygamy reconsidered,
“Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that
marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding
polygamy. [53] Moreover, Jesus has not spoken against polygamy though it
was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stresses the
fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the
Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while
tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine, “Now
indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer
allowed to take another wife.” [54] African churches and African
Christians often remind their European brothers that the Church’s ban on
polygamy is a cultural tradition and not an authentic Christian
injunction.
The Quran, too, allowed polygamy, but not without restrictions:
“If you fear that you shall not be able
to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or
three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly
with them, then only one” [Noble Quran 4:3]
The Quran, contrary to the Bible,
limited the maximum number of wives to four under the strict condition
of treating the wives equally and justly. It should not be understood
that the Quran is exhorting the believers to practice polygamy, or that
polygamy is considered as an ideal. In other words, the Quran has
“tolerated” or “allowed” polygamy, and no more, but why? Why is polygamy
permissible? The answer is simple: there are places and times in which
there are compelling social and moral reasons for polygamy. As the above
Quranic verse indicates, the issue of polygamy in Islam cannot be
understood apart from community obligations towards orphans and widows.
Islam as a universal religion suitable for all places and all times
could not ignore these compelling obligations.
In most human societies, females
outnumber males. In the U.S. there are, at least, eight million more
women than men. In a country like Guinea there are 122 females for every
100 males. In Tanzania, there are 95.1 males per 100 females. [55] What
should a society do towards such unbalanced sex ratios? There are
various solutions, some might suggest celibacy, others would prefer
female infanticide (which does happen in some societies in the world
today!). Others may think the only outlet is that the society should
tolerate all manners of sexual permissiveness: prostitution, sex out of
wedlock, homosexuality, etc. For other societies, like most African
societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamous
marriage as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution.
The point that is often misunderstood in the West is that women in other
cultures do not necessarily look at polygamy as a sign of women’s
degradation. For example, many young African brides, wether Christians
or Muslims or otherwise, would prefer to marry a married man who has
already proved himself to be a responsible husband. Many African wives
urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel
lonely. [56] A survey of over six thousand women, ranging in age from 15
to 59, conducted in the second largest city in Nigeria showed that 60
percent of these women would be pleased if their husbands took another
wife. Only 23 percent expressed anger at the idea of sharing with
another wife. Seventy-six percent of the women in a survey conducted in
Kenya viewed polygamy positively. In a survey undertaken in rural Kenya,
25 out of 27 women considered polygamy to be better than monogamy.
These women felt polygamy can be a happy and beneficial experience if
the co-wives cooperate with each other. [57] Polygamy in most African
societies is such a respectable institution that some Protestant
churches are becoming more tolerant of it. A bishop of the Anglican
Church in Kenya declared that, “Although monogamy may be ideal for the
expression of love between husband and wife, the church should consider
that in certain cultures polygamy is socially acceptable and that the
belief that polygamy is contrary to Christianity is no longer tenable.”
[58] After a careful study of African polygamy, Reverend David Gitari of
the Anglican Church has concluded that polygamy, as ideally practiced,
is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as the abandoned
wives and children are concerned. [59] I personally know of some highly
educated African wives who, despite having lived in the West for many
years, do not have any objections against polygamy. One of them, who
lies in the U.S., solemnly exhorts her husband to get a second wife to
help her in raising the kids.
The problem of the unbalanced sex ratios
becomes truly problematic at times of war. Native American Indian
tribes used to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios after wartime losses.
Women in these tribes, who in fact enjoyed a fairly high status,
accepted polygamy as the best protection against indulgence in indecent
activities. European settlers, without offering any other alternative,
condemned this Indian polygamy as ‘un-civilized’. [60] After the second
world war, there were 7,300,000 more women than men in Germany (3.3
million of them were widows). There were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every
167 women in that age group. [61] Many of these women needed a man not
only as a companion but also as a provider for the household in a time
of unprecedented misery and hardship. The soldiers of the victorious
Allied Armies exploited these women’s vulnerability. Many young girls
and widows had liaisons with members of the occupying forces. Many
American and British soldiers paid for their pleasures in cigarettes,
chocolate, and bread. Children were overjoyed at the gifts these
strangers brought. A 10 year old boy on hearing of such gifts from other
children wished from all his heart for an ‘Englishman’ for his mother
so that she need not go hungry any longer. [62] We have to ask our own
conscience at this point: What is more dignifying to a woman? An
accepted and respected second wife as in the native Indians’ approach,
or a virtual prostitute as in the ‘civilized’ Allies approach? In other
words, what is more dignifying to a woman, the Quranic prescription or
the theology based on the culture of the Roman Empire?
It is interesting to note that in an
international youth conference held in Munich in 1948 the problem of the
highly unbalanced sex ratio in Germany was discussed. When it became
clear that no solution could be agreed upon, some participants suggested
polygamy. The initial reaction of the gathering was a mixture of shock
and disgust. However, after a careful study of the proposal, the
participants agreed that it was the only possible solution.
Consequently, polygamy was included among the conference final
recommendations. [63]
The world today possesses more weapons
of mass destruction than ever before and the European churches might,
sooner or later, be obliged to accept polygamy as the only way out.
Father Hillman has thoughtfully recognized this fact, “It is quite
conceivable that these genocidal techniques (nuclear, biological,
chemical..) could produce so drastic an imbalance among the sexes that
plural marriage would become a necessary means of survival….Then
contrary to previous custom and law, an overriding natural and moral
inclination might arise in favour of polygamy. In such a situation,
theologians and church leaders would quickly produce weighty reasons and
biblical texts to justify a new conception of marriage.” [64]
To the present day, polygamy continues
to be a viable solution to some of the social ills of modern societies.
The communal obligations that the Quran mentions in association with the
permission of polygamy are more visible at present in some Western
societies than in Africa. For example, In the United States today, there
is a severe gender crisis in the black community. One out of every
twenty young black males may die before reaching the age of 21. For
those between 20 and 35 years of age, homicide is the leading cause of
death. [65] Besides, many young black males are unemployed, in jail, or
on dope. [66] As a result, one in four black women, at age 40, has never
married, as compared with one in ten white women. [67] Moreover, many
young black females become single mothers before the age of 20 and find
themselves in need of providers. The end result of these tragic
circumstances is that an increasing number of black women are engaged in
what is called ‘man-sharing’. [68] That is, many of these hapless
single black women are involved in affairs with married men. The wives
are often unaware of the fact that other women are ‘sharing’ their
husbands with them. Some observers of the crisis of man-sharing in the
African American community strongly recommend consensual polygamy as a
temporary answer to the shortage of black males until more comprehensive
reforms in the American society at large are undertaken. [69] By
consensual polygamy they mean a polygamy that is sanctioned by the
community and to which all the parties involved have agreed, as opposed
to the usually secret man-sharing which is detrimental both to the wife
and to the community in general. The problem of man-sharing in the
African American community was the topic of a panel discussion held at
Temple University in Philadelphia on January 27, 1993. [70] Some of the
speakers recommended polygamy as one potential remedy for the crisis.
They also suggested that polygamy should not be banned by law,
particularly in a society that tolerates prostitution and mistresses.
The comment of one woman from the audience that African Americans needed
to learn from Africa where polygamy was responsibly practiced elicited
enthusiastic applause.
Philip Kilbride, an American
anthropologist of Roman Catholic heritage, in his provocative book,
Plural marriage for our time, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of
the ills of the American society at large. He argues that plural
marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases
in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. He
maintains that many divorces are caused by the rampant extramarital
affairs in the American society. According to Kilbride, ending an
extramarital affair in a polygamous marriage, rather than in a divorce,
is better for the children, “Children would be better served if family
augmentation rather than only separation and dissolution were seen as
options.” Moreover, he suggests that other groups will also benefit from
plural marriage such as: elderly women who face a chronic shortage of
men and the African Americans who are involved in man-sharing. [71]
In 1987, a poll conducted by the student
newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley asked the
students whether they agreed that men should be allowed by law to have
more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of male marriage
candidates in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of
the idea. One female student even stated that a polygamous marriage
would fulfill her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater
freedom than a monogamous union. [72] In fact, this same argument is
also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon women who still
practice polygamy in the U.S. They believe that polygamy is an ideal way
for a woman to have both a career and children since the wives help
each other care for the children. [73]
It has to be added that polygamy in
Islam is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a
married man. Besides, the wife has the right to stipulate that her
husband must not marry any other woman as a second wife. [74] The Bible,
on the other hand, sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. A childless
widow must marry her husband’s brother, even if he is already married,
regardless of her consent. [Genesis 38:8-10]
It should be noted that in many Muslim
societies today the practice of polygamy is rare since the gap between
the numbers of both sexes is not huge. One can, safely, say that the
rate of polygamous marriages in the Muslim world is much less than the
rate of extramarital affairs in the West. In other words, men in the
Muslim world today are far more strictly monogamous than men in the
Western world.
Billy Graham, the eminent Christian
evangelist has recognized this fact: “Christianity cannot compromise on
the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it
is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to
social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature
but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian
countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice
polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western
society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and
permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids
all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral
probity of the community.” [75]
It is of interest to note that many,
non-Muslim as well as Muslim, countries in the world today have outlawed
polygamy. Taking a second wife, even with the free consent of the first
wife, is a violation of the law. On the other hand, cheating on the
wife, without her knowledge or consent, is perfectly legitimate as far
as the law is concerned! What is the legal wisdom behind such a
contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish
honesty? It is one of the unfathomable paradoxes of our modern
‘civilized’ world.
THE VEIL
Finally, let us shed some light on what
is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women’s oppression
and servitude, the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no
such thing as the veil in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? Let us set the
record straight. According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor
of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, The Jewish
woman in Rabbinic literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go
out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the
whole face leaving one eye free. [76] He quotes some famous ancient
Rabbis saying,” It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with
heads uncovered” and “Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be
seen….a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty.”
Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the
presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman’s hair
is considered “nudity”. [77] Dr. Brayer also mentions that “During the
Tannaitic period the Jewish woman’s failure to cover her head was
considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she
might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense.” Dr. Brayer also
explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign
of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and
luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and
superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman’s
inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. [78]
The veil signified a woman’s
self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear
the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the
veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not
permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However,
prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable.
[79] Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the
nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the
surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life
in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare-headed.
Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional
veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious
Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. [80] Some
of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig. [81]
What about the Christian tradition? It
is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for
hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament
made some very interesting statements about the veil:
“Now I want you to realize that the head
of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head
of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head
covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with
her head uncovered dishonors her head – it is just as though her head
were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her
hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut
off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover
his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the
glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason,
and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority
on her head.” [I Corinthians 11:3-10]
St. Paul’s rationale for veiling women
is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is
the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for
man. St. Tertullian in his famous treatise ‘On The Veiling Of Virgins’
wrote, “Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you
should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among
strangers, then wear them among your brothers…” Among the Canon laws of
the Catholic church today, there is a law that requires women to cover
their heads in church. [82] Some Christian denominations, such as the
Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the
present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church
leaders, is that “The head covering is a symbol of woman’s subjection to
the man and to God”, which is the same logic introduced by St. Paul in
the New Testament. [83]
From all the above evidence, it is
obvious that Islam did not invent the head cover. However, Islam did
endorse it. The Quran urges the believing men and women to lower their
gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to
extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom:
“Say to the believing men that they
should lower their gaze and guard their modesty……And say to the
believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their
modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except
what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over
their bosoms….” [Noble Quran 24:30,31]
The Quran is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? The Quran is still clear:
“O Prophet, tell your wives and
daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer
garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known
and not molested” [Noble Quran 33:59]
This is the whole point, modesty is
prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is
protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection.
The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a
sign of man’s authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman’s
subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish
tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married
women. The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the purpose of
protecting women, all women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always
better to be safe than sorry. In fact, the Quran is so concerned with
protecting women’s bodies and women’s reputation that a man who dares to
falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished:
“And those who launch a charge against
chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their
allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence
ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors” [Noble Quran 24:4]
Compare this strict Quranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible:
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who
is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he
shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the
girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he
lives” [Deut. 22:28-30]
One must ask a simple question here, who
is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl
who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he
dies? Another question that also should be asked is this: which is more
protective of women, the Quranic strict attitude or the Biblical lax
attitude?
Some people, especially in the West,
would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection.
Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education,
civilized behavior, and self restraint. We would say: fine but not
enough. If ‘civilization’ is enough protection, then why is it that
women in North America dare not walk alone in a dark street – or even
across an empty parking lot? If Education is the solution, then why is
it that a respected university like Queen’s has a ‘walk home service’
mainly for female students on campus? If self restraint is the answer,
then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the
news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment,
in the last few years, includes: Navy officers, Managers, university
professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the
United States! I could not believe my eyes when I read the following
statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women’s office
at Queen’s university:
In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes,
1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives,
1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime,
1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and
A study found 60% of Canadian
university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were
certain they wouldn’t get caught.
Something is fundamentally wrong in the
society we live in. A radical change in the society’s life style and
culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed,
modesty in dress, in speech, and in manners of both men and women.
Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and,
unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price. Actually, we all
suffer but as K. Gibran has said, “…for the person who receives the
blows is not like the one who counts them.” [84] Therefore, a society
like France which expels young women from schools because of their
modest dress is, in the end, simply harming itself.
It is one of the great ironies of our
world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of ‘holiness’
when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic
Nuns, is reviled as a sign of ‘oppression’ when worn for the purpose of
protection by Muslim women.
EPILOGUE
The one question all the non-Muslims,
who had read an earlier version of this study, had in common was: do
Muslim women in the Muslim world today receive this noble treatment
described here? The answer, unfortunately, is: No. Since this question
is inevitable in any discussion concerning the status of women in Islam,
we have to elaborate on the answer in order to provide the reader with
the complete picture.
It has to be made clear first that the
vast differences among Muslim societies make most generalizations too
simplistic. There is a wide spectrum of attitudes towards women in the
Muslim world today. These attitudes differ from one society to another
and within each individual society. Nevertheless, certain general trends
are discernible. Almost all Muslim societies have, to one degree or
another, deviated from the ideals of Islam with respect to the status of
women. These deviations have, for the most part, been in one of two
opposite directions. The first direction is more conservative,
restrictive, and traditions-oriented, while the second is more liberal
and Western-oriented.
The societies that have digressed in the
first direction treat women according to the customs and traditions
inherited from their forebears. These traditions usually deprive women
of many rights granted to them by Islam. Besides, women are treated
according to standards far different from those applied to men. This
discrimination pervades the life of any female: she is received with
less joy at birth than a boy; she is less likely to go to school; she
might be deprived any share of her family’s inheritance; she is under
continuous surveillance in order not to behave immodestly while her
brother’s immodest acts are tolerated; she might even be killed for
committing what her male family members usually boast of doing; she has
very little say in family affairs or community interests; she might not
have full control over her property and her marriage gifts; and finally
as a mother she herself would prefer to produce boys so that she can
attain a higher status in her community.
On the other hand, there are Muslim
societies (or certain classes within some societies) that have been
swept over by the Western culture and way of life. These societies often
imitate unthinkingly whatever they receive from the West and usually
end up adopting the worst fruits of Western civilization. In these
societies, a typical “modern” woman’s top priority in life is to enhance
her physical beauty. Therefore, she is often obsessed with her body’s
shape, size, and weight. She tends to care more about her body than her
mind and more about her charms than her intellect. Her ability to charm,
attract, and excite is more valued in the society than her educational
achievements, intellectual pursuits, and social work. One is not
expected to find a copy of the Quran in her purse since it is full of
cosmetics that accompany her wherever she goes. Her spirituality has no
room in a society preoccupied with her attractiveness. Therefore, she
would spend her life striving more to realize her femininity than to
fulfill her humanity.
Why did Muslim societies deviate from
the ideals of Islam? There is no easy answer. A penetrating explanation
of the reasons why Muslims have not adhered to the Quranic guidance with
respect to women would be beyond the scope of this study. It has to be
made clear, however, that Muslim societies have deviated from the
Islamic precepts concerning so many aspects of their lives for so long.
There is a wide gap between what Muslims are supposed to believe in and
what they actually practice. This gap is not a recent phenomenon. It has
been there for centuries and has been widening day after day. This ever
widening gap has had disastrous consequences on the Muslim world
manifested in almost all aspects of life: political tyranny and
fragmentation, economic backwardness, social injustice, scientific
bankruptcy, intellectual stagnation, etc. The non-Islamic status of
women in the Muslim world today is merely a symptom of a deeper malady.
Any reform in the current status of Muslim women is not expected to be
fruitful if not accompanied with more comprehensive reforms of the
Muslim societies’ whole way of life. The Muslim world is in need for a
renaissance that will bring it closer to the ideals of Islam and not
further from them. To sum up, the notion that the poor status of Muslim
women today is because of Islam is an utter misconception. The problems
of Muslims in general are not due to too much attachment to Islam, they
are the culmination of a long and deep detachment from it.
It has, also, to be re-emphasized that
the purpose behind this comparative study is not, by any means, to
defame Judaism or Christianity. The position of women in the
Judaeo-Christian tradition might seem frightening by our late twentieth
century standards. Nevertheless, it has to be viewed within the proper
historical context. In other words, any objective assessment of the
position of women in the Judaeo-Christian tradition has to take into
account the historical circumstances in which this tradition developed.
There can be no doubt that the views of the Rabbis and the Church
Fathers regarding women were influenced by the prevalent attitudes
towards women in their societies. The Bible itself was written by
different authors at different times. These authors could not have been
impervious to the values and the way of life of the people around them.
For example, the adultery laws of the Old Testament are so biased
against women that they defy rational explanation by our mentality.
However, if we consider the fact that the early Jewish tribes were
obsessed with their genetic homogeneity and extremely eager to define
themselves apart from the surrounding tribes and that only sexual
misconduct by the married females of the tribes could threaten these
cherished aspirations, we should then be able to understand, but not
necessarily sympathize with, the reasons for this bias. Also, the
diatribes of the Church Fathers against women should not be detached
from the context of the misogynist Greco-Roman culture in which they
lived. It would be unfair to evaluate the Judaeo-Christian legacy
without giving any consideration to the relevant historical context.
In fact, a proper understanding of the
Judaeo-Christian historical context is also crucial for understanding
the significance of the contributions of Islam to world history and
human civilization. The Judaeo-Christian tradition had been influenced
and shaped by the environments, conditions, and cultures in which it had
existed. By the seventh century C.E., this influence had distorted the
original divine message revealed to Moses and Jesus beyond recognition.
The poor status of women in the Judaeo-Christian world by the seventh
century is just one case in point. Therefore, there was a great need for
a new divine message that would guide humanity back to the straight
path. The Quran described the mission of the new Messenger as a release
for Jews and Christians from the heavy burdens that had been upon them:
“Those who follow the Messenger, the
unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures–In
the Law and the Gospel– For he commands them what is just and forbids
them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good and prohibits
them from what is bad; He releases them from their heavy burdens and
from the yokes that are upon them” [Noble Quran 7:157]
Therefore, Islam should not be viewed as
a rival tradition to Judaism or Christianity. It has to be regarded as
the consummation, completion, and perfection of the divine messages that
had been revealed before it.
At the end of this study, I would like
to offer the following advice to the global Muslim community. So many
Muslim women have been denied their basic Islamic rights for so long.
The mistakes of the past have to be corrected. To do that is not a
favor, it is a duty incumbent upon all Muslims. The worldwide Muslim
community have to issue a charter of Muslim women’s rights based on the
instructions of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet of Islam.
This charter must give Muslim women all the rights endowed to them by
their Creator. Then, all the necessary means have to be developed in
order to ensure the proper implementation of the charter. This charter
is long overdue, but it is better late than never. If Muslims worldwide
will not guarantee the full Islamic rights of their mothers, wives,
sisters, and daughters, who else will?
Furthermore, we must have the courage to
confront our past and reject outright the traditions and customs of our
forefathers whenever they contravene the precepts of Islam. Did the
Quran not severely criticize the pagan Arabs for blindly following the
traditions of their ancestors? On the other hand, we have to develop a
critical attitude towards whatever we receive from the West or from any
other culture. Interaction with and learning from other cultures is an
invaluable experience. The Quran has succinctly considered this
interaction as one of the purposes of creation:
“O mankind We created you from a single
pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that
you may know each other” [Noble Quran 49:13]
It goes without saying, however, that blind imitation of others is a sure sign of an utter lack of self-esteem.
It is to the non-Muslim reader, Jewish,
Christian, or otherwise, that these final words are dedicated. It is
bewildering why the religion that had revolutionized the status of women
is being singled out and denigrated as so repressive of women. This
perception about Islam is one of the most widespread myths in our world
today. This myth is being perpetuated by a ceaseless barrage of
sensational books, articles, media images, and Hollywood movies. The
inevitable outcome of these incessant misleading images has been total
misunderstanding and fear of anything related to Islam. This negative
portrayal of Islam in the world media has to end if we are to live in a
world free from all traces of discrimination, prejudice, and
misunderstanding. Non-Muslims ought to realize the existence of a wide
gap between Muslims’ beliefs and practices and the simple fact that the
actions of Muslims do not necessarily represent Islam. To label the
status of women in the Muslim world today as “Islamic” is as far from
the truth as labeling the position of women in the West today as
“Judaeo-Christian”. With this understanding in mind, Muslims and
non-Muslims should start a process of communication and dialogue in
order to remove all misconceptions, suspicions, and fears. A peaceful
future for the human family necessitates such a dialogue.
Islam should be viewed as a religion
that had immensely improved the status of women and had granted them
many rights that the modern world has recognized only this century.
Islam still has so much to offer today’s woman: dignity, respect, and
protection in all aspects and all stages of her life from birth until
death in addition to the recognition, the balance, and means for the
fulfillment of all her spiritual, intellectual, physical, and emotional
needs. No wonder most of those who choose to become Muslims in a country
like Britain are women. In the U.S. women converts to Islam outnumber
male converts 4 to 1.[85] Islam has so much to offer our world which is
in great need of moral guidance and leadership. Ambassador Herman Eilts,
in a testimony in front of the committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives of the United States Congress on June 24th,
1985, said, “The Muslim community of the globe today is in the
neighborhood of one billion. That is an impressive figure. But what to
me is equally impressive is that Islam today is the fastest growing
monotheistic religion. This is something we have to take into account.
Something is right about Islam. It is attracting a good many people.”
Yes, something is right about Islam and it is time to find that out. I
hope this study is a step on this direction.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Globe and Mail, Oct. 4,1994.
2. Leonard J. Swidler, Women in Judaism:
the Status of Women in Formative Judaism (Metuchen, N.J: Scarecrow
Press, 1976) p. 115.
3. Thena Kendath, “Memories of an Orthodox
youth” in Susannah Heschel, ed. On being a Jewish Feminist (New York:
Schocken Books, 1983), pp. 96-97.
4. Swidler, op. cit., pp. 80-81.
5. Rosemary R. Ruether, “Christianity”, in
Arvind Sharma, ed., Women in World Religions (Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1987) p. 209.
6. For all the sayings of the prominent
Saints, see Karen Armstrong, The Gospel According to Woman (London: Elm
Tree Books, 1986) pp. 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion
of Women as Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and Other Sexists
(Philadelphia: Westminister Press) pp. 28-30.
7. Swidler, op. cit., p. 140.
8. Denise L. Carmody, “Judaism”, in Arvind Sharma, ed., op. cit., p. 197.
9. Swidler, op. cit., p. 137.
10. Ibid., p. 138.
11. Sally Priesand, Judaism and the New Woman (New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1975) p. 24.
12. Swidler, op. cit., p. 115.
13. Lesley Hazleton, Israeli Women The Reality Behind the Myths (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977) p. 41.
14. Gage, op. cit. p. 142.
15. Jeffrey H. Togay, “Adultery,”
Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. II, col. 313. Also, see Judith Plaskow,
Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective (New York:
Harper & Row Publishers, 1990) pp. 170-177.
16. Hazleton, op. cit., pp. 41-42.
17. Swidler, op. cit., p. 141.
18. Matilda J. Gage, Woman, Church, and State (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1893) p. 141.
19. Louis M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract (New York: Arno Press, 1973) p. 149.
20. Swidler, op. cit., p. 142.
21. Epstein, op. cit., pp. 164-165.
22. Ibid., pp. 112-113. See also Priesand, op. cit., p. 15.
23. James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) p. 88.
24. Ibid., p. 480.
25. R. Thompson, Women in Stuart England and America (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974) p. 162.
26. Mary Murray, The Law of the Father (London: Routledge, 1995) p. 67.
27. Gage, op. cit., p. 143.
28. For example, see Jeffrey Lang, Struggling to Surrender, (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994) p. 167.
29. Elsayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al Sunnah (Cairo: Darul Fatah lile’lam Al-Arabi, 11th edition, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 218-229.
30. Abdel-Haleem Abu Shuqqa, Tahreer al Mar’aa fi Asr al Risala (Kuwait: Dar al Qalam, 1990) pp. 109-112.
31. Leila Badawi, “Islam”, in Jean Holm and John Bowker, ed., Women in Religion (London: Pinter Publishers, 1994) p. 102.
32. Amir H. Siddiqi, Studies in Islamic History (Karachi: Jamiyatul Falah Publications, 3rd edition, 1967) p. 138.
33. Epstein, op. cit., p. 196.
34. Swidler, op. cit., pp. 162-163.
35. The Toronto Star, Apr. 8, 1995.
36. Sabiq, op. cit., pp. 318-329. See also
Muhammad al Ghazali, Qadaya al Mar’aa bin al Taqaleed al Rakida wal
Wafida (Cairo: Dar al Shorooq, 4th edition, 1992) pp. 178-180.
37. Ibid., pp. 313-318.
38. David W. Amram, The Jewish Law of
Divorce According to Bible and Talmud ( Philadelphia: Edward Stern &
CO., Inc., 1896) pp. 125-126.
39. Epstein, op. cit., p. 219.
40. Ibid, pp 156-157.
41. Muhammad Abu Zahra, Usbu al Fiqh al Islami (Cairo: al Majlis al A’la li Ri’ayah al Funun, 1963) p. 66.
42. Epstein, op. cit., p. 122.
43. Armstrong, op. cit., p. 8.
44. Epstein, op. cit., p. 175.
45. Ibid., p. 121.
46. Gage, op. cit., p. 142.
47. B. Ayshah Lemu and Fatima Heeren, Woman in Islam (London: Islamic Foundation, 1978) p. 23.
48. Hazleton, op. cit., pp. 45-46.
49. Ibid., p. 47.
50. Ibid., p. 49.
51. Swidler, op. cit., pp. 144-148.
52. Hazleton, op. cit., pp 44-45.
53. Eugene Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered:
African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches (New York: Orbis
Books, 1975) p. 140.
54. Ibid., p. 17.
55. Ibid., pp. 88-93.
56. Ibid., pp. 92-97.
57. Philip L. Kilbride, Plural Marriage ForOur Times (Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey, 1994) pp. 108-109.
58. The Weekly Review, Aug. 1, 1987.
59. Kilbride, op. cit., p. 126.
60. John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman,
Intimate Matters: A history of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper
& Row Publishers, 1988) p. 87.
61. Ute Frevert, Women in German History:
from Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation (New York: Berg
Publishers, 1988) pp. 263-264.
62. Ibid., pp. 257-258.
63. Sabiq, op. cit., p. 191.
64. Hillman, op. cit., p. 12.
65. Nathan Hare and Julie Hare, ed., Crisis in Black Sexual Politics (San Francisco: Black Think Tank, 1989) p. 25.
66. Ibid., p. 26.
67. Kilbride, op. cit., p. 94.
68. Ibid., p. 95.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid., pp. 9 5-99.
71. Ibid., p. 118.
72. Lang, op. cit., p. 172.
73. Kilbride, op. cit., pp. 72-73.
74. Sabiq, op. cit., pp. 187-188.
75. Abdul Rahman Doi, Woman in Shari’ah (London: Ta-Ha Publishers, 1994) p. 76.
76. Menachem M. Brayer, The Jewish Woman
in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychosocial Perspective (Hoboken, N.J: Ktav
Publishing House, 1986) p. 239.
77. Ibid., pp. 316-317. Also see Swidler, op. cit., pp. 121-123.
78. Ibid., p. 139.
79. Susan W. Schneider, Jewish and Female (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984) p. 237.
80. Ibid., pp. 238-239.
81. Alexandra Wright, “Judaism”, in Holm and Bowker, ed., op. cit., pp. 128-129
82. Clara M. Henning, “Cannon Law and the
Battle of the Sexes” in Rosemary R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism:
Images of Woman in the Jewish and hristian Traditions (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1974) p. 272.
83. Donald B. Kraybill, The riddle of the Amish Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989) p. 56.
84. Khalil Gibran, Thoughts and Meditations (New York: Bantam Books, 1960) p. 28.
85. The Times, Nov. 18, 1993.
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق