|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
22 May 2009 By Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem
INTRODUCTION
Five years ago, I read in the Toronto Star issue of
July 3, 1990 an article titled “Islam is not alone in
patriarchal doctrines”, by Gwynne Dyer. The article
described the furious reactions of the participants of
a conference on women and power held in Montreal to
the comments of the famous Egyptian feminist Dr. Nawal
Sadawi. Her “politically incorrect” statements
included: “the most restrictive elements towards women
can be found first in Judaism in the Old Testament
then in Christianity and then in the Quran”; “all
religions are patriarchal because they stem from
patriarchal societies”; and “veiling of women is not a
specifically Islamic practice but an ancient cultural
heritage with analogies in sister religions”.
The participants could not bear sitting around while
their faiths were being equated with Islam. Thus, Dr.
Sadawi received a barrage of criticism. “Dr. Sadawi’s
comments are unacceptable. Her answers reveal a lack
of understanding about other people’s faiths,”
declared Bernice Dubois of the World Movement of
Mothers. “I must protest” said panellist Alice Shalvi
of Israel women’s network, “there is no conception of
the veil in Judaism.” The article attributed these
furious protests to the strong tendency in the West to
scapegoat Islam for practices that are just as much a
part of the West’s own cultural heritage. “Christian
and Jewish feminists were not going to sit around
being discussed in the same category as those wicked
Muslims,” wrote Gwynne Dyer.
I was not surprised that the conference participants
had held such a negative view of Islam, especially
when women’s issues were involved. In the West, Islam
is believed to be the symbol of the subordination of
women par excellence. In order to understand how firm
this belief is, it is enough to mention that the
Minister of Education in France, the land of Voltaire,
has recently ordered the expulsion of all young Muslim
women wearing the veil from French schools! A young
Muslim student wearing a headscarf is denied her right
of education in France, while a Catholic student
wearing a cross or a Jewish student wearing a skullcap
is not. The scene of French policemen preventing young
Muslim women wearing headscarves from entering their
high school is unforgettable. It inspires the memories
of another equally disgraceful scene of Governor
George Wallace of Alabama in 1962 standing in front of
a school gate trying to block the entrance of black
students in order to prevent the desegregation of
Alabama’s schools. The difference between the two
scenes is that the black students had the sympathy of
so many people in the U.S. and in the whole world.
President Kennedy sent the U.S. National Guard to
force the entry of the black students. The Muslim
girls, on the other hand, received no help from any
one. Their cause seems to have very little sympathy
either inside or outside France. The reason is the
widespread misunderstanding and fear of anything
Islamic in the world today.
What intrigued me the most about the Montreal
conference was one question: Were the statements made
by Sadawi, or any of her critics, factual? In other
words, do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the
same conception of women? Are they different in their
conceptions? Do Judaism and Christianity truly offer
women a better treatment than Islam does? What is the
Truth?
It is not easy to search for and find answers to these
difficult questions. The first difficulty is that one
has to be fair and objective or, at least, do one’s
utmost to be so. This is what Islam teaches. The Quran
has instructed Muslims to say the truth even if those
who are very close to them do not like it:
“Whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near
relative is concerned.” [Noble Quran 6:152]
“O you who believe stand out firmly for justice, as
witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or
your parents or your kin, and whether it be (against)
rich or poor.” [Noble Quran 4:135]
The other great difficulty is the overwhelming breadth
of the subject. Therefore, during the last few years,
I have spent many hours reading the Bible, The
Encyclopedia of Religion, and the Encyclopedia Judaica
searching for answers. I have also read several books
discussing the position of women in different
religions written by scholars, apologists, and
critics. The material presented in the following
chapters represents the important findings of this
humble research. I don’t claim to be absolutely
objective. This is beyond my limited capacity. All I
can say is that I have been trying, throughout this
research, to approach the Quranic ideal of “speaking
justly”.
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.
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story