WOMEN IN ISLAM VERSUS WOMEN IN THE
JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION:
THE MYTH &
THE REALITY
BY Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem
For other languages of this book
click here
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EVE'S FAULT ?
3. EVE'S LEGACY
4. SHAMEFUL DAUGHTERS ?
5. FEMALE EDUCATION ?
6. UNCLEAN IMPURE WOMAN ?
7. BEARING WITNESS
8. ADULTERY
9. VOWS
10. WIFE'S PROPERTY ?
11. DIVORCE
12. MOTHERS
13. FEMALE INHERITANCE ?
14. PLIGHT OF WIDOWS
15. POLYGAMY
16. THE VEIL
17. EPILOGUE
and Notes
1. 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 Saadawi.
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. Saadawi received a barrage of criticism.
"Dr. Saadawi'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!1 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 Saadawi, 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"
(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" (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 Encyclopaedia of Religion, and the
Encyclopaedia 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 practised 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 behaviour 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.
2. 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' " (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.
3. 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
unsealer 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" (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, practise regular charity, and obey Allah
and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah
is Exalted in power, Wise" (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" (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" (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" (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 Pharoah'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" (66:11-13).
4. 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?" (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"
(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).
5. 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. Khawla kept arguing
with the Prophet in an attempt to save her suspended marriage.
Shortly, the Quran intervened; Khawla's plea was accepted. The
divine verdict abolished this iniquitous custom. One full chapter
(Chapter 58) of the Quran whose title is "Almujadilah"
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...." (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.
6. 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 menstruant 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 practises 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.
7. 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. 13 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." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
8. 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 Encyclopaedia
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 tranquillity with
them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: verily
in that are signs for those who reflect" (30:21).
This is the Quranic conception of marriage: love, mercy, and tranquillity,
not possession and double standards.
9. VOWS
According to the Bible, a man must fulfil 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" (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" (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.
10. 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 again he 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"
(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
11. 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 undivorced. 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?" (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" (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 Dawood).
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" (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" (Tirmidthi).
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" (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"
(Tirmidthi)
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 Dawood).
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" (Tirmidthi).
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
marriage's 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" (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.
12. 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"
(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
13. 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." 45
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 century46.
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" (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 (see the "Wife's property?" section).
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
14. 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" (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 fulfil 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"
(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" (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" (2:240).
15. 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" (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 , whether 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
polygyny is socially acceptable and that the belief that polygyny
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 lives 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 'uncivilised'. 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 'civilised' 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 polyganous marriage
would fulfil 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
(see the "Plight of Widows" section),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
'civilised' world.
16. 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
dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with
her head uncovered dishonours 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...." (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"
(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" (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, civilised behaviour,
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.
17. 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 fulfil
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" (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" (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 labelling 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
fulfilment 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 neighbourhood 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.
NOTES
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," Encyclopaedia 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'ayat 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. Aisha 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 For Our 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. 95-99.
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 Christian 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.
Related Articles and Sites:
Why are so many women converting to Islam ?
http://geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/women.html
Why are Jewish Women converting to Islam ?
http://jews-for-allah.org/Why-Believe-in-Allah/Jewish-Women-Converting-to-Islam.htm
Some Misconceptions about Women in Islam
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/53056
The Distorted Image of Muslim Women
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/distort.html
The Wisdom behind the Islamic Laws Regarding Women
http://www.salafi.net/books/book2_e.html
for download :
http://www.salafi.net/zip/book2_e.zip
The Rights and Duties of Women in Islam - by Abdul Ghaffar Hassan (PDF Book)
http://www.sultan.org/books/women_rights_and_duties.pdf
The Ideal Muslimah
The True Islamic Personality of the Muslim Woman as Defined in the Qur’an and the Sunnah
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/1291