'Gender Jihad' in the Service of Women's Right

[Leyna]

Interview with Asra Nomani

'Gender Jihad' in the Service of Women's Rights

The 44-year-old US writer Asra Nomani is viewed as a prominent representative of "Gender Jihad". For the former Wall Street Journal reporter, there is no contradiction between Islam and feminism. She spoke to Alfred Hackensberger

In both western countries and Muslim societies feminism and Islam are mostly regarded as irreconcilable opposites. Why are they not compatible?

Asra Nomani Yes, I'm always hearing that view at my lectures. But as far as I'm concerned, the two go hand in hand. I think Islam was originally a feminist religion. The Prophet Mohammed was a feminist, like his first wife Khadija, his daughter Fatima and his wife Aisha. None of them allowed themselves to be pushed aside, and they all spoke their minds. I don't think Islamic feminism is an apparent contradiction.

Actually, I meet religious feminists all over the world ? Mormon, Catholic, Maronite, Jewish-orthodox, Protestant. My experience is that women have to fight male power in Islam with the same dynamics as in all other religions.

When I mentioned your name to a colleague, the response was Ah, gender jihad. What's it like to have such a tag?

Nomani Well, very good, I must say. I'm very proud to be a soldier on this front.

And what is this soldier fighting for?

Nomani For the rights of women, and at the same time for social justice. Women should not be the preserving jars of honor and purity. They should not be punished for their sexuality, by crouching in the backrooms and corners of mosques.

Women should not be gagged just because they bring men into temptation. These are all just control mechanisms to treat us as second-class citizens.

What's your view on the veiling of women?

Nomani If you cover the face of a woman, it de-personifies her. The removal of the veil is a crucial element of gender jihad, because by doing this we dispel ignorance.

Now you've received support on this matter from one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam. Mohammed Sayed al-Tantawi, the Grand Sheikhk of Al Azhar University, has described the niqab (face veil) as un-Islamic and issued a ban at the Cairo seat of learning.

Nomani Yes, it's very important to us if the Al Azhar University assumes a leading role in this. We need the leaders of the Islamic mainstream to at last inject some reason back into this religion. I'm really happy that al-Tantawi has tackled an ideology that really is terrifying.

What is the problem if someone wants to wear a face veil, even if it only leaves a slit to see through?

Nomani That's exactly the kind of western political correctness that excuses the niqab as a woman's free choice. This attitude conveniently forgets that it is symbolic of a highly puritanical and dangerous interpretation of Islam.

This justifies violence against women and suicide attacks with an allegedly literal interpretation of the Koran and suggests that a Muslim should not make friends with Jews and Christians if at all possible.

One should remember that our churches are also not allowed to preach racism. Islam should be measured by the same standards. Members of the Ku-Klux-Klan can't collect their drivers' permits with hoods over their heads.

Many Muslim women would be appalled at what you say. They wear the niqab or the hijab (headscarf) with pride.

Nomani The puritanical interpretation of Islam has presented the niqab and the hijab as a free choice. Young American women think they are strong and independent if they cover their hair or their faces. In doing so they overlook the fact that this is about the sexualization and demonization of women, who apparently distract men from the right path.

I've heard it said by many Muslim women that covering their heads acts as a kind of protection against the sexual advances of men.

Nomani In Egypt, the Center for Women's Rights published a study in 2008 that showed that women adhering to the Islamic dress code suffered the most sexual harassment. I've experienced it myself, when I was in northern India, one of the most conservative Muslim regions. My hijab did not protect me from sexual harassment. That's a myth that's peddled, and women are taken in by it.

Al-Tantawi claims the niqab is just a tradition that has nothing to do with Islam. How did the niqab come to be associated with Islam?

Nomani I'll give you an example of how that works. There are translations of the Koran from Saudi Arabia in which passages on the niqab have simply been added in order to sell it as something Islamic. It's the same with the hijab. It's made into an obligation, although it's all only based on interpretations.

What does the Koran say about female clothing? Are there rules on what women should wear?

Nomani There is nothing decreeing that she must cover her face or hair. There is nothing about a shawl, a headscarf or a veil, nothing about a color, whether it should be pink or black. There is also nothing to say that the hands must be covered, or that she can only show her eyes. These are all the rules of men. In accordance with the interpretation that I think is the right one, a woman should simply be moderate in the choice of her clothing.

In editions of the Koran from Saudi Arabia, which has conducted a missionary campaign in the mosques of the world over the last decade, it's all very different, you say.

Nomani Yes, and as a Muslim woman I feel very concerned about this. The Saudi Arabian government was able to internationally propagate ? virtually unchecked ? a rigid, inviolable and monolithic form of Islam.

As the country where the holy sites of Islam are located, Saudi Arabia produces Koran translations and distributes them to millions of pilgrims who travel to Mecca on the Hajj. The translations are sexist and intolerant.

I'm always receiving Koran translations that say I should not make friends with a Jew or a Christian and cover my face, apart from one eye that may remain visible. Another route is via the mosques that were founded all over the world.

So Saudi Arabia is responsible for the propagation of a strict interpretation of Islam. One could almost say it's a lucrative business, when one thinks of the war on terror and the increased price of oil, which is making Saudi Arabia richer than ever.

Nomani That's absolutely right. And we're not holding the Saudi government responsible for its complicity in the creation of this dangerous ideology.

First it was exported to Pakistan, which is currently a haven for militant Islamists. Then representative congregations were set up all over the world. And I'm not talking about some villages in Pakistan, but about my home city of Morgantown in West Virginia.

How does that work?

Nomani They take over mosques and teach Wahhabi and Salafi ideology, and the rest of the congregation has to fall into line. It works very well. The men grow beards of a certain length, otherwise they're not regarded as true Muslims. And the women wear veils.

But there must be a need for it somehow. Propaganda alone can't be enough. Is it about a sense of community, of fashion, of being cool?

Nomani Of course there's a need for it. You're cool if you practice a religion that lies beyond western interpretations. That's why young women think they're rebels because they wear the hijab.

A broad-based fashion protest movement?

Nomani I believe that religion here is a consumer goods industry. It's a business selling both conservative and liberal ideas within Islam. The industry also has a fashion division ? an abaya (traditional Arab cloak-like overgarment) for 10,000 dollars in a boutique in the Gulf, pilgrimage clothing or discreet Islamic bathing suits available on the Internet.

In the liberal sector for example, this happens with T-shifts printed with slogans such as "This is what a radical Muslim looks like." I'm continually astonished at what is sold as an Islamic product, and how.

Currently it's Islamic music. The funniest thing I saw recently was Islamic underwear. A G-string with the word 'bismillah' (in the name of Allah) visible on the back.

Whether it's a movement, or a fashion it all has to come to and end at some point. How much longer will it go on for?

Nomani I think the kind of Islam that wants to force women to wear a veil or a headscarf won't be around in 20 years. Mohammed Sayed al-Tantawi is one of the first leaders to say, indirectly, enough's enough. It's a good sign.

But do Muslim women have to suffer until then?

Nomani For some time yet, that's for sure. But you must remember that it's not just the women who suffer, the men are also affected. The Taliban demanded that men looked, thought and behaved a certain way, otherwise they were not regarded as true Muslims. Control mechanisms don't stop at women, they are extending further and further.

The Taliban stealthily banished women from public life. In the end, this religious control culminated in the destruction of the Buddha statues. Do you think Tantawi had that in mind?

Nomani I think he realized that it's not just about the veiling of women. At some point he could also become a target because he does not represent the same interpretation of Islam. It's not just a danger for women, but for us all.

? Qantara.de 2009

Asra Nomani teaches journalism at Georgetown University. She is the author of "Standing Alone in Mecca", of the "Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Bedroom", and of the "Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque".

[Leyna]

Bearers of Change

By Zainah Anwar

When I began to speak publicly of finding equality and justice in Islam 20 years ago, a common response was "why bother?" Muslim feminists told me it was a waste of time because religion is inherently patriarchal for every alternative interpretation I could offer to justify equality, mullahs could counter with 100 others.

The secularists said it was dangerous, as I was giving legitimacy to the position of religion in the public square. And human rights activists thought it was a losing battle. A feminist working within the religious framework, they argued, would never be recognized as having any authority to speak on Islam. For them, justice and equality could only be fought for through a human rights framework.

This decision of so many activists to ignore religion has had undesirable consequences. It has left the field wide open for the most conservative forces within Islam to define, dominate and set parameters of what Islam is and what it is not. They decide what a good Muslim is, they dictate how to be a good Muslim woman, wife and daughter, and then prescribe laws and policies that keep us shackled as second-class Muslims, indeed, second-class citizens. When we protest, they shut us up, saying we have no authority to speak about Islam.

Yet, Islam, in their own words, is a way of life. Islam has all the answers. Islam is the solution. But how can Islam be all this when those who question the orthodoxy are far too often intimidated into silence? How can it be a tenable solution when some quarters are persecuted in the name of the religion?

We've had enough. This was boldly declared by some 250 activists and scholars from 47 countries at a recent conference in Kuala Lumpur to launch Musawah (equality in Arabic), the global movement for equality and justice in the Muslim family.

The meeting brought together feminists working with religion, those working within a human rights framework, scholars of Islam and the Muslim world, lawyers, journalists and activists. All came sharing a mission to break the monopoly that authoritarian governments and religious leaders have over how Islam is understood and used to govern their lives.

Conference participants served notice to the United Nations and to Muslim governments that there would now be an alternative global force led by Muslim activists and scholars. The movement would make it its business to challenge the use of religion and culture to undo advances in human rights and women's rights.

For me and Sisters in Islam, the group I helped to found in 1987, Musawah was in some ways a vindication of a long and difficult struggle to find liberation within my faith and to translate into collective action my utter belief in a just God. This is the last frontier in the feminist movement, to break the theological stranglehold of the patriarchs that prevents Muslim women from enjoying equal rights.

The message is simple and clear For there to be justice in the 21st century, there must be equality.

For too long, Muslim women who demanded reform to discriminatory laws and practices have been told, "this is God's law" and therefore not open to negotiation and change. To question, challenge, or change would supposedly go against Shariah (God's revealed way), weaken our faith, and lead us astray. We have been accused of being Westernized elites, anti-Islam, anti-Shariah people who have deviated from our faith.

Reports are regularly made against us to the menfolk in our families to keep us under control, to the police and to the religious authorities to charge us for insulting Islam and to ban our groups.

To all this we'd like to say When Islam is used as a source of law and public policy, then all citizens must have the right to speak on the subject, Muslims or non-Muslims, secularists or Islamists. Public law and policy must necessarily be open to public debate, and pass the test of public reason.

No one demands that you have a degree in political science or economics or social studies before you can talk about politics, economics or social ills. We are deemed qualified to comment simply because we live these realities. But when it comes to talking about Islamic laws, qualifications suddenly become indispensable. We must hold a degree in Islamic studies, we must be able to speak Arabic. Once you've jumped through these hoops, a new condition is set the hijab. And when we wear the hijab, their masterstroke is delivered - they say our ideas are against Islam.

In a world where women's rights are considered part of human rights, where modern constitutions of Muslim countries hold up equality and non-discrimination, where the reality is that many women are the providers and protectors of their families, the relentless discrimination found in many Muslim family laws is unacceptable.

There is a clear disconnect between reality and the family laws that govern us. In most Muslim countries, a man can divorce his wife at will. He can have four wives, whom he can beat with impunity. Women cannot marry without a male guardian's approval, and they must obey their husbands or lose their rights to maintenance. They are not entitled to guardianship of their children even if they have custody over them and act as their sole provider and protector. The list goes on and varies from country to country.

But in 2004 a corner was turned that ushered in new energy and hope. Morocco introduced comprehensive reform of its Islamic family law, changes founded solidly on Islamic teachings and the realities of life today. Marriage was now regarded a partnership of equals, with equal rights given to men and women. So why can't other Muslim governments do the same?

Evidently, the problem is not with Islam. It is with the position that men in authority take in order to preserve their privilege. Naturally, the easiest and most effective way to safeguard this position is to employ the divine sanctity of God's will. To conflate patriarchal laws and practices with Islam is nothing more than tactical power play.

While all Muslims accept that the Koran is one, it must be recognized that the interpretation of the Koran is a human effort and has thus led to diverse opinions. Hence, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, a woman can marry without permission from her father or male guardian, but not in Malaysia or Indonesia. In Malaysia a woman's role as a wife and mother entitles her to a share of the matrimonial assets, but not in most other countries. In Indonesia, the Gambia, Morocco, Senegal, Tunisia and Turkey, men and women have equal rights to custody and guardianship of their children, but not in most other Muslim countries.

What Musawah brings to the table is a rich and diverse collection of interpretations, juristic opinions and principles that makes it possible to read equality and justice in Islam, and construe these twin values at national and international levels. It is a vital contribution at a time when democracy, human rights and women's rights constitute the modern ethical paradigm of today's world.

With its emphasis on knowledge-building, Musawah intends to bring to international attention that there is already a deep shift in perspective in Muslim theological and jurisprudential scholarship. The reform movement is hardly alien to the Muslim tradition, in which family laws have long been adapted to social standards of the time.

This time, however, the leading bearers of much-needed change will be Muslim feminists, working with progressive Islamic scholars. This last frontier will be conquered.

International Herald Tribune

[Nafi]

Good read, I am hopeful of a huge massive reform after twenty years, too bad though, I would like to have grown up in such an era.

[Fahad1]

Check these out, everyone

Lessons from The Fall Pre-Historic Indications of Qawwaama
http//tazweej.blogspot.com/2006/08/lessons-from-fall-pre-historic.html

Live for God and Live with Each Other
http//tazweej.blogspot.com/2006/08/live-for-god-and-live-with-each-other.html

LECTURE NOTES The Battle of The Sexes
http//tazweej.blogspot.com/2006/08/lecture-notes-battle-of-sexes.html

Salaam alaikum.

[Leyna]

Lessons from The Fall Pre-Historic Indications of Qawwaama
http//tazweej.blogspot.com/2006/08/lessons-from-fall-pre-historic.html

Sister Aziza's contribution was to share with me her tafseer (commentary) on the implications of these ayaat (signs/messages) for the issue of qawwaama (maintenance). According to her reading of these ayaat, the fact that it is 'Adam who is the one whispered to and yet 'Eve' appears to have gone along with - that is, accepted, concurred with, followed, or obeyed - his (that is, 'Adam's) decision to follow such errant, seductive advice implies that 'Adam stands to his complementary opposite (zawj) in the relation of qawwaam, that is, as one who is responsible for maintaining, looking after, taking care of (that is, care-taking) his complementary opposite, while she stands in a relation of ith'aat (voluntary obedience) to him.

In this way, Sister Aziza established a connection between (20120-122) and (434). I think this is a significant connection to have made because various '(post)-modernist' and so-called 'Muslim feminist' (or 'Islamic feminist&#039 authors such as Amina Wadud Muhsin, author of Qur'an and Women Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective have tried to argue that the male role of qawwaam is not an essential one, but rather a contingent, socially-constructed one. I think that the above argument calls this position into question and re-establishes the validity of the traditional, essentialist stance vis-a-vis gender complementarity and the relation of gender difference to functional difference.

"Voluntary obedience"?

Sorry, but I don't believe that any gender should be "obedient" to the other. Why? ???

I fully agree with Amina Wadud and her interpretation. There is nothing innate or genetic that makes men automatically more qualified for the position of caretakers and maintakers, even though that has been a traditionally established role for a long time. Likewise, men don't possess any innate quality that makes them more qualified to be the decision makers or entitles them to be "obeyed".

Besides, it's a fact that countless women the world over are already in the position of maintainers and care-takers. Women do two thirds of the world's work, 25% of families are supported solely by the mother. There is a large percentage of mothers who earn more than the father. Yet another percentage they support the families equally.

[Fahad1]

"Voluntary obedience"?

Sorry, but I don't believe that any gender should be "obedient" to the other. Why?

I fully agree with Amina Wadud and her interpretation. There is nothing innate or genetic that makes men automatically more qualified for the position of caretakers and maintakers, even though that has been a traditionally established role for a long time. Likewise, men don't possess any innate quality that makes them more qualified to be the decision makers or entitles them to be "obeyed".

I think you missed the point. Amina Wadud is wrong in arguing that ?the male role of qawwaam is not an essential one, but rather a contingent, socially-constructed one" because men as ?caretakers? is not a ?traditionally established role for a long time?, but a PRE-HISTORICALLY established one, for all time

(Quoting from the article)

Sister Aziza's contribution was to share with me her tafseer (commentary) on the implications of these ayaat (signs/messages) for the issue of qawwaama (maintenance). According to her reading of these ayaat, the fact that it is 'Adam who is the one whispered to and yet 'Eve' appears to have gone along with - that is, accepted, concurred with, followed, or obeyed - his (that is, 'Adam's) decision to follow such errant, seductive advice implies that 'Adam stands to his complementary opposite (zawj) in the relation of qawwaam, that is, as one who is responsible for maintaining, looking after, taking care of (that is, care-taking) his complementary opposite, while she stands in a relation of ith'aat (voluntary obedience) to him.

This is talking about Adam and his zawj, the originators of mankind, the essential human beings. There were no socially constructed roles back then. And even back then, the man was the caretaker. So it is not a ?contingent, socially-constructed? role as Amina Wadud and the feminists assert. It is a natural role.

(Quoting from the article)

In this way, Sister Aziza established a connection between (20120-122) and (434). I think this is a significant connection to have made because various '(post)-modernist' and so-called 'Muslim feminist' (or 'Islamic feminist&#039 authors such as Amina Wadud Muhsin, author of Qur'an and Women Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective have tried to argue that the male role of qawwaam is not an essential one, but rather a contingent, socially-constructed one. I think that the above argument calls this position into question and re-establishes the validity of the traditional, essentialist stance vis-a-vis gender complementarity and the relation of gender difference to functional difference.

You wrote

Besides, it's a fact that countless women the world over are already in the position of maintainers and care-takers. Women do two thirds of the world's work, 25% of families are supported solely by the mother.

I feel sorry for such mothers.

There is a large percentage of mothers who earn more than the father.

And I feel sorry for such fathers.

[Wakas]

That 20120-122 observation is rather poor, and almost laughable. If there are two children, and there is a bowl of sweets in front of them, and their mum has said "do not eat the sweets" then one of them later does and the other one also does, how does that mean the latter obeyed the former? It doesn't prove anything.
It doesn't say what happened in-between the whispering and the eating AFAIK.

The very fact the person thinks this is a "significant connection" is odd.

There is nothing innate or genetic that makes men automatically more qualified for the position of caretakers and maintakers...

This is a problematic statement. Could be classed as "wrong" but if not "wrong", it is definitely misleading.

Here is AQ's position AFAIK, men have the default role as maintainer/supporter, and we can infer from AQ that this is due to women being the ones who become pregnant, give birth, are in a position to suckle etc. Since it is very difficult for women to work during pregnancy (and to a lesser extent are naturally in the best position to bring up children, i.e. suckle), AQ balances this out, and it does this by allocating men the default role as maintainer/supporter, i.e. it is their default duty to provide for the family, of course, default does not mean only option, and husband/wife for example can do whatever as long as it is mutually agreed upon. There are also other differences to consider, inheritance, dower etc.

If a person argues there are no differences between men/women in AQ, then they will have to explain the differences in AQ without erring. I would like to see such explanations, if they exist.

As a side note, it can technically be argued that if a woman fulfils the qawwaman criteria, i.e. spent on the upkeep of the man, she is the qawwaman BUT that is not her duty to do so, if she wishes to, then that's fine.

[Fahad1]

That 20120-122 observation is rather poor, and almost laughable. If there are two children, and there is a bowl of sweets in front of them, and their mum has said "do not eat the sweets" then one of them later does and the other one also does, how does that mean the latter obeyed the former? It doesn't prove anything.

The latter followed the lead of the former. That was the only way it could be, and not the other way around Adam was the one whispered to by the Shaitan.

It doesn't say what happened in-between the whispering and the eating AFAIK.

Those details could be found in some book like the Hadiths maybe. They don?t matter to me. The detail that matters is that Eve went along with what ADAM was whispered to.

[Leyna]

peace

I think you missed the point. Amina Wadud is wrong in arguing that ?the male role of qawwaam is not an essential one, but rather a contingent, socially-constructed one" because men as ?caretakers? is not a ?traditionally established role for a long time?, but a PRE-HISTORICALLY established one, for all time

I completely agree with Amina Wadud on this one. Men are not genetically or otherwise predisposed for being "caretakers".

Fahad, you didn't answer my question

Sorry, but I don't believe that any gender should be "obedient" to the other. Why? confused

from AQ that this is due to women being the ones who become pregnant, give birth, are in a position to suckle etc. Since it is very difficult for women to work during pregnancy (and to a lesser extent are naturally in the best position to bring up children, i.e. suckle), AQ balances this out, and it does this by allocating men the default role as maintainer/supporter, i.e. it is their default duty to provide for the family

Of course it makes sense that a husband is assigned the role of caretaker (i.e. earning money, taking care of certain things etc.) during the latter phase of pregnancy, or when a wife is breastfeeding. But that is for a certain time only, and most certainly not a must in situations where husband and wife agree on a different solution.

The problem is that this injunction, which makes perfect sense, is most often interpreted to mean that men have been created for going to work, participating in public life, being the ones responsible for decisions and so on. And that women have been created for staying at home, nurturing children, taking care of domestic chores etc.

That does not take into account that men and women are individuals and personal capabilities, talents etc. are not just simply defined by gender. Anyone who opens their eyes, takes a look at the world around us, studies history, looks into human nature, can see this. Trying to assign fixed roles for each gender and claiming those roles are God-given means limiting people in living up to their full capabilities.

Women are being told that we don't fulfill our divinely ordained duty if we chose not to have children, or not be a housewife and put family life at the top of our list. If we decide to pursue a carreer, become an artist, politician or whatever, we are being told that we are not "real women" and not good Muslimas. And that's the problem.

[Leyna]

Motherhood The Baby that fooled the President

When Benazir Bhutto ran against Zia ul-Haq in 1988, she was pregnant with her first child. In her autobiography, Daughter of Destiny, Bhutto explains how her family tried to keep the date of her delivery a secret to prevent Zia from rescheduling the elections to make campaigning difficult for her

We had purposely kept the date a secret, anticipating that Zia would try to schedule the elections around my confinement. To pinpoint the date, it was reported, the regime?s intelligence agents had tried to gain access to my medical records. But I kept them with me. Twenty-four hours after the regime?s intelligence agents calculated wrongly that the birth would occur on November 17th, Zia announced the date of elections for November 16th. But the baby outmaneuvered us all. Not only was Zia off by a month, the baby actually being due in mid-October, but God must have blessed us by bringing him into the world five weeks early. That left me almost a month to regain my strength before the campaigning was to begin in mid-October (386).

After Benazir Bhutto became Prime Minister, she shared the care of her child with a nurse, her husband, and her mother. While destiny or God was certainly on Benazir?s side, especially as Zia actually died in August 1988, the potential conflict between the duties of motherhood and political life raises concerns about the effects of a woman?s political life on her child and on a her role as mother.

Motherhood holds a very high place of esteem in Islam. The Quran ordains respect for mothers immediately after God ?Reverence God, through whom/ You demand your mutual rights/ And reverence the wombs (that bore you) . The Quran emphasizes the hardship with which women bring children into the world ?We have enjoined on the human being to be dutiful and kind to his parents. His mother bears him with hardship. And she brings him forth with hardship, and the bearing of him, and the weaning of him is thirty months, till when he attains full strength? . The question therefore arises of whether a woman?s engagement in her public political life would hurt her child?s upbringing and thereby undermine her exalted Quranic status. Wadud places the monopoly of women over childbirth and motherhood on the same level as men?s monopoly over risalah, Divine messages.

May a Muslim woman choose to either not have children or, if she does have children, to leave them in the care of a nurse for the sake of her political life? As several of the Prophet?s wives did not bear children, but would not be considered incomplete Muslim women, it is difficult to say that bearing children is an obligation for women; child-bearing is a right women alone have and entails honor for mothers, but the Quran and hadith never explicitly make it the sole option for women ?there is no term in the Quran which indicates that childbearing is ?primary? to a woman. No indication is given that mothering is her exclusive role. It demonstrates the fact a woman (though certainly not all women) is the exclusive human capable of bearing children? (Wadud 64). The ability to bear children distinguishes women from men, but does not mean they do not have other abilities with which they can compete with men.

While the Quran sets the weaning period between twenty-four to thirty months, it also allows the parents to hire a wet-nurse in case of divorce ?Mothers shall suckle their children . . . (that is) for those who wish to complete the suckling? . This shows that in case of necessity, a mother has the option of not weaning her child if she and her husband both agree to hire a wet-nurse. Wadud stresses the fact that social tendencies to allot child-care duties to women do not stem from the Quran ?the tendency has always been to attach all forms of child care ? and in addition all forms of housework?to the woman. Although this division of labor suits some families, especially when the father is working outside the home and is providing materially for the family, it is, nevertheless, only one solution and does not have explicit Quranic ordinance ? (90).

The Quran says both men and women will receive rewards for their good deeds but certainly does not say women?s good deeds must be confined to the four walls of home or with regard to her child. Thus, according to Wadud, neither motherhood nor childcare is a Quranically prescribed requirement for women. By extension, Muslim women who wish to pursue political careers may choose either to not bear children or to confine to confine her children to a nurse or other family members.

As Bhutto?s story shows, men do try to use women?s periods of weakness against them, but in the Quran, God gives great respect for women during their pregnancy (see sura Miriam). Zia ul-Haq?s attempt to take advantage of Bhutto?s condition serves to show him as a violator of the Quranic mandate of respect, not to show that women should not enter politics. His action was simply an exaggerated form of a misogyny that underlies most Muslim societies as the question of whether women in politics can still adhere to Quranic injunctions of moral conduct.

http//www.bangla2000.com/islam/essay04.shtm

[Fahad1]

Those interested in gender issues must check out this website

http//SaveTheMales.ca / http//HenryMakow.com/

Exposing Feminism and the New World Order

[Leyna]

Women in Society Economic Rights

This chapter addresses economic rights of Muslim women. These rights are derived from the Quran, however the interpretation of these rights as well as their application (or lack of application) in some Muslim countries often results in some controversy.

The interpretation of verse 434 and the latter portion of verse 2233 could prevent a women's participation in the job market or promote justice and harmony.

Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former (men), than the latter (women) and with what they may spend out of their possessions. (434)

No human being shall be burdened with more than he is well able to bear neither shall a mother be made to suffer because of her child, nor, because of his child, he who has begotten it. And the same duty rests upon the heir. (2233)

An article titled "Islam and Women's Work" published in ALJUMUAH magazine is an example of the interpretation of these verses to prevent women from entering the job market. This article analyzes a woman's development in stages and finds that in each stage she should be in the care of an adult male. These stages are

1. While she is a child, she is under the care of her father.

2. After she marries, the responsibility falls on her husband.

3. If she has neither a father nor a husband, the responsibility of her care falls on her brother.

4. If she has no male relative, the obligation falls upon the Muslim community.

5. When articles as such are published what is our responsibility as Muslim women? Obviously it is to challenge this view with research having the whole context of the Quran in mind. Upon reading the above one questions why a woman requires a male to take care of her. If one assumes that the above scenario is Islamically correct then one can conclude that

6. Males are naturally superior to females.

7. It is a obligation for a male to be financially responsible for his family.

However these conclusions are at odds with other verses of the Quran.

Amina Wadud-Muhsin in her book Qur'an and Women studies verse 434 in relation to other verses in the Quran. Since there is no verse in the Quran that speaks about male physical or intellectual superiority, Wadud-Muhsin believes that the part of the verse "God has bestowed more abundantly on the former (male)" pertains to inheritance. This interpretation is derived from verse 411 "the share for a male is twice that for the female." This "preference" in 434 therefore is related to inheritance or a material gain. Thus, the male is not naturally superior to the female.

Is the male obligated to be financially responsible for the female? The interpretation of verse 2233 in the context of all the other verses of the Quran is about mutual respect and harmony. The initial part of this verse states

And the mothers may nurse their children for two whole years, if they wish to complete the period of nursing; and it is incumbent upon him who has begotten the child to provide in a fair manner for their sustenance and clothing. (2233)

This verse reveals that the decision of weaning the child for two years is an option for the mother not a command. This decision is based on the wife and husband's mutual respect for a harmonious relationship. In a situation in which both of the married couple's financial contribution is needed to maintain an existence, a wife's insistence that the only husband should provide for their livelihood would jeopardize the harmony of marriage described in the Quran

And among His wonders is this He creates for you mates out of you owen kind, so that you might incline towards them, and He engenders love an tenderness between you in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think. (3021)

Thus, the males responsibility to financially care for the women applies to a specific situation (when the mother weans her child) and the premise that a women should be cared for by a male throughout every stage of her development is false and not supported by the Quran.

A conflict arises when the interpretation of verses 434 and 2233 are limited to these verses alone without consideration for the whole Quran. In this case it is viewed as the superiority of males over females or a gender-based division of labor. This division of labor entitles the male to be the "provider" and "protector" and the woman to lead a private life and solely be the source of love, affection and care. This interpretation is not consistent with other verses of the Quran

Whereas anyone-be it man or woman-who does of good deeds and is a believer withal, shall enter paradise, and shall not be wronged by as much as the groove of a date-stone. (4124)

Men shall have a benefit from what they earn, and women shall have a benefit from what they earn. (432)

These verses address men and women in equal terms. Wadud-Muhsin concludes that, "The Quran does not strictly delineate the roles of women and the roles of men to such an extent as to propose only a single possibility for each gender."This analysis is supported by a Bukhari hadith from Kitab al-nafqat Aswad bin Yazeed narrates that I asked Ayesha What was the norm of the Prophet at home? She (Ayesha) replied he used to work for his family at home. Then, when he heard the adhan (call to prayer) he would step out. The hadith supports the fact that there is no gender-based division of labor for a married couple. The couple mutually decides what is best for their household having the harmony of their family in mind.

Even though there is no command for a division of labor in the Quran, in today's global economy, as men's horizons and occupational choices widen, women's in some Muslim counties remain comparatively narrow. What has prevented women from moving into the new activities opened by the global economy? In some Muslim countries political instability coexists with extreme conservative ideologies regarding women. Afghanistan is an example where once women were allowed to contribute to sustaining economic growth and development. Afghan women in small numbers joined public life in the 1920's with the support of King Amanullah and Queen Soraya. Queen Soraya addressed a gathering of women in the celebration of the 7th anniversary (1926) of independence stating

"Do not think, however, that our nation needs only men to serve it. Women should also take their part as women did in the early years of Islam. The valuable services rendered by women are recounted throughout history from which we learn that women were not created solely for pleasure and comfort. From their examples we learn that we must all contribute toward the development of our nation and that this can not be done without being equipped with knowledge..."

Ironically, 70 years after Queen Soraya's speech the struggle and efforts that the previous generation made to gain political and economic rights for women is threatened. Today, a woman's basic right to vote, to pursue an education, and to join the job force is threatened by the Taliban, a political group that gain the control of the country and run the government by their "Islamic" code. Noor Mohammed, a senior member of the Taliban's Centeral Committee states, "We categorically refuse to let women vote or participate in politics..." Taliban's insistence on secluding women from public life is derived from Saudi Arabia's interpretation of the Quran. This interpretation is colored by Saudi Arabia's cultural ideology. To gain financial rewards Taliban emulates Saudi Arabia's orthodox view that restricts a women's right to vote and participate in public life. Taliban's political power depends on oppressing woman.

Similarly in Iran, in an attempt to balance the national budget both civil services and private sectors have excluded women from the job market by preferentially retiring female employees and not taking new staff. The Head of the political and Ideological Section of the defense industries, Hojatoleslam Motbahri, explains his position "In principle I'm against all employment for women outside their home...In my opinion basically the access of women to the factory floor is against the laws of nature...Besides if women are employed by industry and the public sector, they will displace men and close their employment opportunities." Economic growth requires the full participation of the labor force. Total exclusion of women from the job force means not utilizing half the energy that leads to economic growth.

Interestingly enough, even with strong principles such as women work "being against the laws of nature," economic realities have taken their own path in Iran. In the city of Mazandaran, female workers spend long working hours at the local textile factory. The Director of the Cotton and Weaving factory explains, "Women's work is much finer. If you take thread winding men produce about 500 kg for every 650 kg produced by women." In this case women are hired because their service produces more profit and is an illustration of the impractical and unrealistic point of the "laws of nature argument."

Muslim men and women can apply the rights given by the Quran to revolutionize the status quo in Western societies. In the United States work at home is viewed as unproductive. According to the United Nations System of National Accounts (UNSNA) because no exchange of money takes place in a woman work at home, her work is not considered a value for the GNP (Gross National Product). If a professional woman stays home with her children up to certain time, her choice is an "unproductive activity". Accordingly, if she does not accumulate enough credit toward her social security benefits, she will not qualify to receive such benefits in her old age or in case she is disabled. If her choice is to stay at home to raise her children and perform housework, it should be considered as a contribution to the GNP. This would entitle her to social security benefits. Such a view is consistent with the economic rights given to women in the Quran.

Women were given rights in the Quran to contribute to the economy by owning and selling property 1400 years ago. Verse 432 emphasizes the equality of men and women in the economical growth of a society.

Men shall have a benefit from what they earn, and women shall have a benefit from what they earn. (432)

This verse, aside from giving women the right to earn, supports the economic theory of "equal pay for equal work.'' The core of this theory is that women and men should be compensated by the work they perform regardless of gender. The Quran addresses this issue by referring to both genders and stating that each be compensated by their work. If it was intended that women receive less than men it would have been explicit. This is a concept that even in today's Western society has not completely been adopted. In a recent study Working Women magazine reported that although women's salaries in the United States are starting to catch up with men's in recent years, still women earn 5 to 15 cents less on the dollar than men working in a similar job.

The rights that are given to women in the Quran are not theoretical without any application. In Iran Islamist women activists used texts supported by the Quran to demand a law to provide wages for housework. Accordingly in 1991 a law was passed under which a man divorcing his wife must first pay her housework wages. Furthermore, historically, the Quraish women such as Khadija bint Khuwaylid and Sawdah bint Zam'ah (wives of Prophet Muhammad) are examples of women who were mothers and nurturers as well as active participants in the economy of their society. Khadija was a business women whose wealth and business property gave the Prophet ease of circumstances and freedom from the cares of daily life to accomplish his mission. Similarly, Sawdah derived her income from her leather work industry. None of the Prophet's wives inherited anything from him so they were cared for by the state or they derived their own income. The examples of Khadija and Sawdah are important because they shed light on women's active participation in the economy during the Prophet's era.

Islamic texts and the information of the early Islamic society and the rights given to women in the Quran are strong tools needed to fight the misogynist views now promoted to serve political and cultural stereotypes that are at odds with the intentions of the Quran.

[Leyna]

Interview Asma Barlas

"It Is the Right for Every Muslim to Interpret the Quran for Themselves"

One of the scholars who try to offer a more emancipatory interpretation of the Quran is Asma Barlas. She closely examines the male-oriented interpretations of the Quran and offers an antipatriarchal alternative

Your ideas in your book, "Believing Women" in Islam Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an, are not as controversial as Prof. Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid's theses on the ontological aspect of the Quran. Instead of saying that the Quran itself is the product of culture in the Arabian Peninsula, you foremost seem to criticize the patriarchal interpretations of the Quran. Why do you not consider the Quran itself as the problem?

Asma Barlas Because as a believing Muslim I do not believe it is the problem. I have never questioned the ontological status of the Quran as a divine speech. For me as a Muslim, the starting premise is that the Quran, ontologically, is the speech of God. The problem thus lies not in the divine discourse of the sacred text, but the problem lies in that we interpret inappropriately. So for me the crux of the problem is not "the text itself", as it is for many scholars, but rather the human appropriation of it.

I do not think that the problem lies at the very notion of something being sacred; the problem lies in how we conceptualize the sacred. For me it is the content of sacredness that is at stake here, not the idea of the sacred. Those are two different things, the idea and the contents.

As Fazlur Rahman also used to say, I think it is not possible and it is not desirable to have complete unanimity of opinion, to have only one reading of the Quran. Difference of opinion could lead to new kind of synthesis that keeps the conversation alive, and keeps us thinking and keeps us stretching our minds.

I do not think we should strive towards uniformity, because that is the mark of fundamentalism. I agree to disagree, and I say furthermore that disagreement is a fact of life, which is mentioned hundreds of times in the Quran. The matters in which you disagree will be referred to back to God. The Quran says that God created different tribes and that there is diversity, so that is not necessarily bad.

Don't you think that the Quran's permission for polygamy reflects the culture of seventh century Arabs?

Barlas There are two comments I could make about that. One is that the Quran is both particular and universal and I always make that claim side by side. It is particular in the sense that its first audience were seventh century Arabs and nobody should pretend that that was not the case.

In addition, since the Quran was directly addressing seventh century Arabs it is spoken in a language and in a way that was relevant to those people's lives. But the Quran is also universal. The concept of sexual modesty, for example, is a universal concept in the Quran, while the particular mode of just is a particular instance of Arab culture. Therefore, I think it is quite possible to distinguish between what is universal in the Quran and what is particular.

Secondly, as far as polygamy is concerned, it is very important to look at certain concepts historically. No Hebrew prophet other than Jesus was either celibate or monogamous. King David, the king of Israel had 900 wives and concubines. In Islam, the practice has been circumscribed and framed into terms of certain conditionality.

I am one of those people that claim that the Quranic provision on polygamy is only with reference to female orphans and is only allowed if those two or three conditions that the Quran mentions are fulfilled. And this is very difficult to do, which is why that same Quranic verse ends by saying it is better if you marry only once. I think that most Muslims who are marrying four wives are actually acting very unquranic. Which part of the Quranic injunction on marriage do they not understand when it says that marriage should not be for lust? Do not tell me those men are accumulating those wives just out of piety!

We can speak about the historical aspect of things and look for reasons instead of blindly and ritualistically imitating things when it suits us.

Are you optimistic that your feminist approach towards the Quran and Islamic discourse can become the dominant discourse in the Muslim world?

Barlas I prefer not to call myself a feminist, because I think the concept itself needs a great deal of clarification. Many feminists condemn Islam as a patriarchal religion. Until there is a greater clarity within the Muslim community about what feminism is, I prefer to just simply say I am a believer. Am I optimistic? No. I am not optimistic, not at all, because many of the conservative forces are terribly strong.

Will I in my lifetime see a major shift in how Muslims are thinking? Again, I am not very optimistic, but I will struggle to do what I think I have to do. Because I take a historical approach to my own work, which is to say I do not know when something like this will have an impact or if it will have an impact, or how wide of an impact it will have, but I do it out of a certain ethical and moral commitment to myself and my religion.

Do you think your thoughts could have emerged in the same way if you would not have been involved with the feminist discourse in the West?

Barlas I always acknowledge that I am very indebted to feminists and feminist thinking. To say I prefer not to put that label of feminist on myself is not to say that I am not influenced by how feminists think. I work together with some feminists and I have been influenced by their ideas, but I also take a critical approach in a way that many feminists do not take.

Would I have learned to think in this particular way if I was not a product of a particular education and culture? Probably not, since one does not think outside the frameworks in which one has been educated and culturated. I am very much a cultural hybrid in the sense that my education, even in Pakistan, was very western. I was educated in a catholic school and my first language was English, which was the language we spoke at home with our parents. I am very much a product of both an Islamic sensibility and a Western education.

How does your audience perceive your way of looking at the Quran?

Barlas Many people are profoundly disturbed by what I have to say, although I do not think that some of the things I am saying are controversial at all. For example, I argue that we need to avoid masculinizing God, because certain implications will flow from that for men and for women. Some of the things I am saying are very Quranic and I do not see them as intrinsically controversial. But it is the very fact that in many Muslim communities the people that define religious knowledge are primarily men, and primarily but not exclusively conservative men. Therefore, it is disturbing for them to hear someone who comes along and say the things I say.

Particularly, surprisingly enough, the fact that I claim that it is the right for every Muslim to read and interpret the Quran for themselves. They immediately think it means a very elaborate process of exegesis that only philologists, linguists and scholars can undertake. One of my recurrent messages is that the Quran came also for the unlettered Bedouin in the desert; therefore, it cannot be preserved only for scholars and jurists.

We have no priest class, at least not in Sunni Islam. Things like that are more controversial than they need to be, because in some way those arguments seem to threaten established patterns of male authority in Muslim communities.

The way women's rights problems are discussed differs greatly from person to person. Amina Wadud, for example, led a Friday prayer in the United States. Do you think her action is a constructive contribution to the gender equality discourse?

Barlas This is such a complicated issue. Many people are criticizing her for undertaking this act while there are more urgent issues. Well, why are they not spending their time talking about those issues that are more urgent rather than about the case of Amina Wadud? At least the people who prayed behind her have democratically selected her. The authority of an imam or leader of prayer is not the same as a priest or a pope. Nobody is going to be forced to obey her. An imam can be anybody leading the prayer. If people want to pray behind her, why not? If she is the most knowledgeable Muslim in that room and she can lead the prayer why not?

An imam of course is not like a pope, but the authority of the ulama is definitely not negligible.

Barlas Well, we need to challenge the authority of the ulama, because nobody has the right to say that only he knows the meaning of the Quran and only he can define religious meaning. I believe that everybody who condemned those who prayed behind Amina Wadud are wrong, because it is not for anyone of us to determine whose prayer is going to be accepted and whose prayer is not.

Furthermore, there are adult Muslim women who pray behind there six and seven years old sons for no other reasons than that they are male children. Is that not a form of male worship and should we not be talking about those issues? Why are we just so hung up on Amina Wadud? What about the thousands of Muslim women who pray in their own homes behind little children, just simply because their child is a male? So, for me this controversy needs to be put to rest.

In the Netherlands, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is also fighting for the rights of Muslim women and gender equality. She made a highly controversial film, Submission, together with late Theo van Gogh that directly relates the abuse of women to Quranic texts. What do you think of her contribution to the debate?

Barlas I think there was more an element of sensationalism in the film and I think Amina Wadud goes much deeper than that, since she fundamentally believes that it is her right as a believing Muslim to stand before a prayer congregation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is saying that the Quran itself authorizes men to abuse their wives sexually. In my opinion, you cannot be an advocate for Muslim women when you think the Quran is oppressive. Amina Wadud, on the contrary, thinks that the Quran is libratory and she sees her action as an act of liberation.

Do you think the feminist Islamic discourse will in the future be able to change the conservative Islamic jurisprudence or fiqh?

Barlas I do not know many female scholars who are actually attacking fiqh from a feminist perspective, so it is hard for me to say whether they will be able to change it. But when ordinary average people begin to see that the shari'a in the form in which it is implemented now is not giving them what the politicians say it is supposed to be given to them, things will change. Unless Muslims as a whole begin to raise certain kinds of question, reform or change is going to be very hard.

In Indonesia there are many people who are calling for an implementation of the Islamic shari'a. Since you have experienced the shari'a yourself in Pakistan, during the Zia ul Haq regime, do you believe shari'a could be introduced and at the same time defend woman rights?

Asma Barlas From what I have heard and read so far in Indonesia, the shari'a as it is being introduced in Aceh is discriminating against women. Many people are saying it is not providing gender justice. I am of that school of thought which believes that Islamic law is a product of human thinking and that as a product of human thinking it is certainly susceptible to rethinking.

Let us look to Pakistan for example. A blind domestic servant was raped in Pakistan, and the court sanctioned her to be stoned to death. However, stoning to death is not a punishment in the Quran for any crime. Saying that stoning to death is not in the Quran and that it needs to be rethought as a punishment is to say something quite reasonable.

The people (in favor of shari'a, ed.) will then get very upset and they will start quoting hadith and say that they can derive it out of the prophet's practices. Then the conversation goes to another level. Since for me, as a believer, we cannot be one hundred percent sure of every single thing in the hadith, whereas we can be one hundred percent sure of what is in the Quran.

So, this is a kind of circular argument where you cannot pin down your critics. Muslims who defend this kind of Islamic shari'a move from the Quran to the hadith (tradition) and eventually to public reason (ijma&#039. When you chase them around and tell them the Quran can be read in more than one way they take refuge in hadith. When you point out hadith is multi-vocal and polyphonic, they say that public reason (ijma&#039 will not admit it, although public reason is a socio-cultural construct. I call this a circle of oppression and it is very difficult for Muslim women to escape from it, because they keep jumping around from topic to topic.

So, you strictly separate between the Quran and the hadith then?

Barlas Yes, absolutely. For a believer, the Quran is a divine discourse and the hadith are not. Hadith are the result of human compilation and none of the people who compiled them ever claimed they were infallible and the Quran teaches us a theory of human fallibility. Many people who are using the hadith are unhappy with the egalitarianism of the Quran. Whatever the Quran opens up, the hadith can shut down.

In Europe, the Muslim community is very static and does not seem to have a good response to Western ideas and intellectuals who criticize Islam. Do you see more criticism within the Islamic community in the US?

Barlas I think immigrant communities tend to be conservative. This question needs to be posed not just simply in terms of Islam versus the West, because Islam is in the West and it is part of the West. But it really is a problem of immigrants. The first and second-generation immigrants feel culturally marginalized and peripheral, just like Indonesia, the biggest Muslim country, can feel peripheral in the Muslim world. Take immigrants in France e.g., you have to understand that they are living in an ex-colonizing country and it is not so simple to embrace any idea that comes out of a country that has had a history of colonizing these people.

In addition, some of those immigrant communities tend to be more inward looking and more conservative than they were at home.

I think it is about feeling out of place and turning inward. Unfortunately, the primary victims of that inward-looking mentality are Muslim women. Because it is on the body of Muslim women that all of these cultural battles for meaning get played out whether you should were a hijab or not etc. It is a very sad situation because women's bodies are becoming the symbol for the struggle between the ex-colonial powers and these Muslim communities.

The backward position of women in Muslim countries, as you will agree, does not only come from religion but also from culture. Do you think your struggle could resolve in a change in this culture as well?

Barlas Patriarchy has been around for thousands of years and when the Quran was revealed it mentions people who blindly follow the ways of the fathers. That, to me, is the essential ingredient of patriarchy. I do not think it will easily be dismantled, but as we see in Western society, it has been possible to mitigate some of the harshest aspects of patriarchy. Not just by formal legal rights but also by substantive civil rights and liberties and economic opportunities.

I think cultural change is never going to happen in the absence of political and economical reform. What Muslim societies need, on a macro level, is a new consciousness that emerges out of material circumstances and conditions. These economically backward societies are politically closed societies and many of them are anti-democratic and authoritarian societies.

How can we expect patriarchy to be dismantled in these societies? I think all of these challenges are interlinked and I always argue hermeneutical and existential questions are always connected, because you cannot read text for liberation in utterly depressive societies.

Do you see Islamic reform as the basis or do you think it should start with political and economical reform?

Barlas I see these processes of being interlinked and see this (Islamic reform, ed.) as one ingredient, but an essential ingredient, because for political and economical reform to take place in Muslim countries it must also be informed by an Islamic ethos. A lot of left-leaning intellectuals have learned over the years that if you do not speak in a language that average ordinary Muslims can identify with, assimilate and understand that you risk not making real changes.

I think that was one of the shortcomings of the socialists and communists in Pakistan. Marx said, religion is the opium of the masses but he also said it is the sigh of the oppressed. These things have to happen simultaneously, which is why the challenge is so great.

Somebody asked me whether my ideas would bring liberation to women and bring democracy. I said no, you cannot just start reading the Quran and then suddenly have democracy. There are repressive institutions that should be dismantled. However, I do believe a fundamental change must happen in the way Muslim relate to the scripture and interpret their religion for there to be a meaningful democracy. I think it is complicated and things have to happen together.

Interview conducted by Novriantoni and Ramy El-Dardiry

[Leyna]

Islam from Patriarchy to Feminism

1998 by Zeeshan Hasan. First published in Bangladesh in the Apr. 14, 1998 issue of Star Weekend Magazine.

Women's rights have become the single most contentious issue for Muslim societies in this century. The result has been quite a long and involved debate over "the place of women in Islam", but almost no real progress. One of the main reasons is that progressive Muslims' arguments have been restricted by traditional ideas of Islamic law, which necessarily reduces the underlying question of gender equality to piecemeal issues such as inheritance and divorce. While this kind of legalist approach is valuable in that it raises questions about some of the traditional laws governing women, it does not provide the fundamental shift of viewpoint which is really necessary for gender equality. This can only be achieved with a broader, historical understanding of the Qur'an and its position regarding women. In fact, an analysis of the revelatory context of the Qur'an, and the compromises which it makes to accommodate that context, may allow us to seriously reconsider whether there is any basis at all for the traditional body of Islamic laws relating to women.

To fully understand the issue of women's rights in a Qur'anic framework, we need to keep in mind both the religious and social context of early Islam. As to the former, there is no question that the Qur'an sees itself as the culmination of the Biblical tradition; hence Biblical attitudes towards women become important. With regards to the social context of the Qur'an, the fact of slavery and the patriarchal nature of pre-Islamic society also need to be explored.

To begin, we may look at the religious background. Biblical analysis yields interesting results; most Muslims do not know that in the early Israelite tradition, wives could be spoken of as the property of their husbands. An example can be drawn from the commandments revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, which interestingly mention adultery twice. First comes the oft-quoted and well-known verse
You shall not commit adultery. (Exodus 2014).

Then, a few verses later, comes something quite interesting

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
(Exodus 2017)

The apparent repetition of the same commandment against adultery has a simple explanation; the first verse speaks against adultery specifically as sexual immorality, while the second speaks in general against coveting one's neighbor's property; among which his wife is included. This is remarkable, because if even free women can be viewed as property, then we have to question whether the modern concept of "free woman" existed at all in the Biblical context. In ancient times, slavery and marriage were more similar in terms of gender relations than we tend to think; the obvious difference, of course, being that wives could not be sold outright. But we often forget just how patriarchal much of human history has been, and that patriarchy does tend to view women as property. This may be because earlier societies could not determine fatherhood, which could make it difficult to assign any parental responsibility to men. But lack of paternal responsibility would be wasteful; the economic output of males could not contribute to the important task of child-rearing. A popular solution seems to have been to restrict a woman to a singe male; hence the contract we have come to know as marriage. However, we should note that the exact nature of the marital bond remains flexible. Depending on the circumstances, marital power relations could be equal or lopsided. In the ancient Middle East at least, they seems to have historically developed along the lines of owner and owned.

From the above, it becomes obvious why patriarchy is so common a phenomenon. Simply put, it helped ensure resources for children from their fathers. Interestingly, the above also points out the condition for the end of patriarchy; it is no longer useful once fatherhood can be reliably determined or a family supported by a single mother becomes economically viable. Both of these do indeed become possible with industrialization.

Islam, like many traditional religions, was at the outset faced with patriarchy as a given. The question, then, is in which direction and to what extent it changes or reforms the surrounding system. First, though, we must look at the pre-Islamic period, where we find that women were again often reduced to property. This is most obvious in the case of slavery. In addition to being the object of their owner's sexual appetites through the custom of concubinage, slave girls could be forced to be prostitutes by their masters, who would use them in this way for profit. In the pre-Islamic context there is no stigma of immorality associated with sex with slave-girls, so this is quite a logical course of events. Slaves are property, and owners have the right to rent out their property if they wish. However, the Qur'an removes this particular right on moral grounds

And constrain not your slavegirls to prostitution, if they desire to live in chastity, that you may seek the chance goods of the present life. {Surah 24 (Al-Nur), verse 33).

This is important, as it implies that even in the worst-case scenario of enslavement, there are limits on the extent to which a woman can be treated as property. This becomes more significant when we consider the Qur'an's overall discouragement of slavery.

In the pre-Islamic context, slavery has a more profound relationship with women's status that can now be dealt with. The pre-Islamic tribal economy was dependent upon caravan-raiding since the desert was poor in resources, its inhabitant tribes needed to scavenge what wealth they could from passing caravans. This gave society as a whole quite a martial character, since raids could not be restricted only to caravans; once any given tribe had successfully looted some wealth, it would naturally become the target of further raids by neighboring tribes. Hence wealth would enter the tribal economy and gradually be diffused among its members through a process of continuous raiding. But this is precisely the mechanism of enslavement; women captured from one tribe in a raid became the slaves of their captors. In this context, "freedom" is almost a misnomer for a woman; the dependence of the tribal economy on raiding makes her either property or potential property. The real power in tribe and family will always reside with the men, because women are always dependent upon them for protection. Thus slavery in tribal society takes away the independence of the free woman as well as that of the slave.

Now we are finally ready to deal with the advent of Islam. Moving from a pre-Islamic to a Muslim context, one very important change develops; the concept of woman as property begins to die. The Qur'anic reservations about slavery in general, as well as enslaved prostitution in particular, lead society eventually to the elimination of slavery and the end of explicit equation of women with property. Unfortunately, even though ownership has disappeared in law, it still survives in cultural attitudes; the common male view of women still tends to be largely proprietary. In Islamic law, the glaring example of this has been the opinion of most jurists that it was impermissible for a free man to marry another man's slave. This ruling has no support in the Qur'an, which on the contrary recommends marriage to slaves if one does not have the money to marry a free woman

Any one of you who has not the affluence to be able to marry believing freewomen in wedlock, let him take believing handmaids that your right hands own; God knows very well your faith; the one of you is as the other.

So marry them, with their people's leave, and give their wages honorably as women in wedlock, not as in licence or taking lovers.
{Surah 4 (Al-Nisa&#039, verse 25)

The implicit reasoning for Muslim jurists in their ban on marriage between free men and slaves seems to stem from a conflict of property rights. Since marriage involves an implicit ownership of a woman, it puts the husband in conflict with the explicit property-right of the slave-owner. The difficulty in sorting out these conflicting claims of ownership to the same woman made early Muslim jurists oppose marriage between free men and slaves, in apparent disregard to the Qur'anic ruling.

A less technical example of the generally proprietary attitude to which men have become accustomed can be found in the gender-segregation of society and veiling of women outside their family circles. Although this is couched in a language of morality, it is clearly not. If it were, men could simply be charged to control themselves, and that would end the discussion. Instead, the combination of veiling and seclusion is used to restrict women within the "territory" of their menfolk in what is fundamentally an assertion of exclusive rights, though these are no longer spoken of in terms of property.

Having finally gotten through all the background material, we can begin to investigate the Qur'an's view of women's rights. The approach of traditional Muslim legalists would be to look at each of the specific Qur'anic verses relating to women, and this is the trap into which progressive arguments also fall.

However, by definition this approach will never take into consideration the broader cultural context, as this influences the entire text rather than each individual verse. It makes more sense locate the Qur'an's own most general rationale behind all those individual verses about women and proceed from there. Fortunately, the Qur'an does explicitly state a general position regarding women in the following verse;

Men are managers of the affairs of women, for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. {Surah 4 (Al-Nisa&#039, verse 34}

This is from Arberry's translation; Muslim conservatives have a fondness for quoting the first portion out of context, often in yet more authoritarian language than is used above. For example, Pickthall translates the same verse as

Men are in charge of women, because God hath made the one of them to excel the other and because they spend of their property.

It is no coincidence that Pickthall's translation, and not Arberry's, had the editorial approval of an Egyptian mullah. However, Arberry's is just as correct, and arguably more faithful to the Qur'anic usage. The word Arberry translates as "manager" (qawwaam in Arabic) comes from a verbal root which basically means "to stand" (qama). It is often used with an object to mean "to stand over", in the sense of supervising or commanding (hence Pickthall's "in charge of&quot. However, when used in particular with dependents, it has the sense of "to stand with"; that is, "to maintain" or support financially. Likewise the verb which Pickthall translates as "to excel" (faddala) has a meaning of "to exceed" or "be in surplus", and is used here in a causative form, meaning "caused to exceed" (hence Arberry's "preferred&quot. But the question then arises as to what capacity God causes men to exceed in over women; Arberry uses the implicit answer, "bounty". This is justifiable as the same verbal root produces the word fadl, which the Qur'an uses frequently for "wealth". Altogether, the more economic translation of Arberry fits much better, particularly because the last part of the verse makes it clear that economics is precisely the issue here. Pickthall, by ignoring the economic context entirely until the last few words, where he is forced to acknowlege it, presents the more conservative case for unqualified and unquestionable male superiority.

When we look at the entire verse, then, we find that it is not prescribing unequal status for women at all. Rather, it is making a conditional statement about the particular circumstance specified in the last words "because they expend of their property". This condition specifies that men's role as "managers" is only applicable as long as they have the dominant economic role. The unequal status of genders described then become simply a statement of fact for the historical surroundings of the revelation, and hardly a suprising one. In the patriarchal society in which the Qur'an found itself, it was often the case that men were the controllers of wealth, and so their dealings with women would be from a position of power. But most importantly, this verse is not saying that the patriarchal situation is necessary or desirable. Rather, this is simply one of the many instances where the Qur'an acknowledges its surroundings. But the link made between women's economic and social status is of incredible significance; its implication is that when women are independent financially, they become equal to men in other respects as well.

This single verse, then, is potentially the end of all "Islamic" laws which differentiate genders. The only question which remains is to ask why all those Qur'anic verses which actually do deal with divorce and inheritance are there at all. But the answer emerges immediately from the historical analysis above; since the Qur'an was revealed in the context of a long patriarchal tradition (which would in fact continue to be so until the changes brought about by industrialization only a century ago), it was forced to provide guidelines which would work in its immediate surroundings. These are the whole body of classical Islamic laws relating to women, which in the light of the above stand revealed as temporary measures which are no longer really useful with the advent of modern economy. If we accept the above interpretation, all the laws from inheritance to divorce which have been lopsided against women lose their applicability in a modern society in which women are capable of earning wages for themselves and being independent. In a real sense, then, the much debated "place of women in Islam" no longer exists, because in religious terms gender no longer exists.

The response of many Muslim intellectuals to industrialization, with its accompanying entry of women into the labour market and ultimately the prospect of eliminating gender roles, has been horror at the breakup of the traditional family structure. But in fact families are not broken up by the modern economy; only their patriarchal structures. Conservative elements in Western societies still criticize women for abandoning the ideal of mother/housewife, and blame the emergence of career-oriented women for rising levels of drug use and other problems among youth. However, the blame should really be assigned equally to both male and female parents, as the breakdown of traditional roles for men and women leaves them with equal responsibility for child-rearing. A real shift in the patriarchal family would involve breaking down both the traditional roles of father-as-breadwinner as well as mother-as-childrearer, which should really give children the benefit of having two people looking after them rather than one.

The above argument against the traditional Muslim laws regarding women seems very incomplete from the perspective of Islamic legalism, because it does not take up each of the separate legal issues of divorce, inheritance, etc. The reason I have refused to touch on any of these specifically is that to do so is frankly useless. There are many hair-splitting arguments one can make regarding the "real meaning" of any Qur'anic verse; but the fact is that whatever we argue, these very verses have been and continue to be used against women's rights. In the face of this fact there is only one argument that remains worthwhile; whether or not the Qur'an can accept the possibility of a paradigm shift in gender relations. If we accept that the Qur'anic position on women's rights involves a self-acknowledged compromise with its historical environment and the economic role of women in that environment, then the economic changes of industrialization and modernity legitimately bring to an end all the classical Islamic laws pertaining to women.

[Wakas]

peace all,

Fahad,
On this point, I find your evidence and reasoning completely baseless. Amusingly, since your argument is based entirely upon non-evidence and opting for one of several possibilities, someone could argue satan whispered to adam because he knew women are superior and therefore not so prone to temptation and the only way he could get them both to do it is if adam did it first. This is of course equally baseless and nonsensical, but demonstrates the flaw of your argument.

Leyna,
Your statements are contradictory at worst, misleading at best.

Men are not genetically or otherwise predisposed for being "caretakers".

is not compatible with

Of course it makes sense that a husband is assigned the role of caretaker (i.e. earning money, taking care of certain things etc.) during the latter phase of pregnancy, or when a wife is breastfeeding. But that is for a certain time only, and most certainly not a must in situations where husband and wife agree on a different solution.

unless it is qualified with something like "Men are not genetically or otherwise predisposed for being "caretakers", except perhaps when women are pregnant which makes their working ability limited"

And AQ in 434 says "rijal/men" not husband.

And lastly please do not build strawman arguments against me. I know exactly what I said and what the remit of it was, no more no less.

[Leyna]

Your statements are contradictory at worst, misleading at best.

is not compatible with

unless it is qualified with something like "Men are not genetically or otherwise predisposed for being "caretakers", except perhaps when women are pregnant which makes their working ability limited"

And AQ in 434 says "rijal/men" not husband.

Peace, wakas,

I am not trying to build a strawman argument against you, just stating my thoughts.

To me, the statements above are not contradictory, maybe I didn't express myself very well. I'll try again

When I say that men are not genetically or otherwise predisposed for being caretakers, I am speaking in general. Men are not better suited for working, earning money, going out of the house, taking care of decisions etc. And women are not automatically better suited for taking care of kids, domestic chores etc.

When a woman is pregnant or breastfeeding, she is inconvenienced and many will prefer to have support in that sort of situation. But it's just that ... a temporary situation; whereas many Islamic scholars claim this is how it has to be forever and regardless of the individuals' personal preferences.

[Fahad1]

Fahad,
On this point, I find your evidence and reasoning completely baseless. Amusingly, since your argument is based entirely upon non-evidence and opting for one of several possibilities, someone could argue satan whispered to adam because he knew women are superior and therefore not so prone to temptation and the only way he could get them both to do it is if adam did it first.

Even if women were "superior and therefore not so prone to temptation"(which would be an extra-Quranic argument and conjecture), the woman still followed the man's lead, and still went along with what the man was whispered to. That's the detail that matters.

[unknownuser]

Peace All

When it comes to feminism, I do not think feminist is the most optimal way to give women their rights, and give them equal opportunities for growth and success. Femnism is based on dividing men and women into two categories, and focusing mostly on women. I think instead of feminism, it would be better to just be a women right supporter or a human rights supporters, and focus on rights for women (but also men). And it is not only women that should support the rights of women, but men should support the rights of women too.

Feminism is about women separating themselves from men (creating their own club) to give rights to women. Wouldn't it be better if both men and women cooperated with eachother to give women more rights? I accept feminism, but I do not think feminism is the best way to give women their rights. For dramatic changes to happen in countries, women have to get men on their side, to end discrimination, and to give women the rights they deserve.

[Leyna]

Femnism is based on dividing men and women into two categories, and focusing mostly on women.

That's not true. Feminism is focused on establishing equal rights for women, because that's the only way society as a whole can become healthy and productive. Feminists don't believe women are better human beings or should have more rights, but that both genders will benefit from more justice and the elimination of patriarchal thinking.

And it is not only women that should support the rights of women, but men should support the rights of women too.

Many do.

Feminism is about women separating themselves from men (creating their own club) to give rights to women.

Erm ... no. You seem to have misunderstood a thing or two about feminism. -\

Like any movement that has been created to bring about important social changes, feminism has different "branches", and, yes, some are a bit radical. But I find it sad that this small segment seems to be what many people focus on when talking about "feminism".

Think about it that way ... if you tell someone you're a Muslim, and the first thing they come up with is terrorism that's being committed in the name of Islam, you would be irritated too that they focus on a particular fringe group instead of the faith itself and its teachings.

Wouldn't it be better if both men and women cooperated with eachother to give women more rights?

Yes, definitely. But in many cases they already do. peace

[unknownuser]

That's not true. Feminism is focused on establishing equal rights for women, because that's the only way society as a whole can become healthy and productive. Feminists don't believe women are better human beings or should have more rights, but that both genders will benefit from more justice and the elimination of patriarchal thinking.

It is true. You misunderstood. What i meant was that women who are feminists mostly focus on women's rights. They don't focus much on giving men rights. Men are also abused in society. How often do you see feminists protesting against violence of women (mentally and physically) against men?

http//www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm
http//literacy.kent.edu/Oasis/abuse/husbandabuse.html

And the only way society as a whole can become healthy, is if we focus on the rights of both men and women. Therefore I believe the best thing to do is to be a women rights activist/supporter or human rights activists/supporter, not a feminist. Off course someone can specialize in women rights. This would be fair and reasonable because women have less rights than men in many societies. However, women who support the rights of women should not forget men (which most feminists do). Men are also abused in marriages and other aspects of life. I agree that patriarchal mentality should be eliminated.

Erm ... no. You seem to have misunderstood a thing or two about feminism. -\

Like any movement that has been created to bring about important social changes, feminism has different "branches", and, yes, some are a bit radical. But I find it sad that this small segment seems to be what many people focus on when talking about "feminism".

Think about it that way ... if you tell someone you're a Muslim, and the first thing they come up with is terrorism that's being committed in the name of Islam, you would be irritated too that they focus on a particular fringe group instead of the faith itself and its teachings.

It is you who misunderstood, once again. Feminism excludes men. It is about women supporting women. Therefore feminism is an excluding philosophy/mentality, not an including philosophy/mentality. When I said club i was speaking metaphorically (it was not literally). If feminists want to get more men on their sides, they should call themselves women rights activists/supporters or human rights activists/supporters. Labels and concepts can divide people, and especially labels and concepts which are mostly women-oriented.