The notion of women as standalone human beings as opposed to property is a relatively new one, and while most cultures have made some attempt to move in that direction, there is still “work to be done,” if you like understatement.
Subjugation of women has been popular for millennia, and still is, largely because it is the most effective method for keeping a population in control known to man.
Literate mothers teach their kids to read. Economically empowered women are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit their children and their community than on things that will benefit the king. A few generations of this and you end up with a populace that is both less dependent and less eager to sacrifice its sons for the glory and enrichment of said king.
To get a feel for what the Prophet was up against, read volumes 1 and 2 of the series. Selling daughters into slavery, people collecting wives like Pokemon cards, infant brides, it’s not rape if it happens inside the city limits, widows forced to marry brothers in law – imagine someone who, within the framework of that cultural context, walks in and starts preaching things like women own what they earn, women cannot be married without their consent, no girl can be married before the age of nine, no more than four wives under any circumstances, and no more than one unless you can take care of them and care for them equally (which really puts a crimp in the whole harem scenario).
That was revolutionary. It was outrageous. It was in direct opposition to millennia of cultural tradition. And, as usually happens, when religion and culture clash, culture wins.
That’s why the Church has spent 2000 years very deftly syncretinizing local pre-Christian religious and cultural practices with its own, and why Christmas is celebrated in winter even though historians say Jesus was probably born in the spring, and why the Virgen de Guadalupe just happened to appear to Juan Diego and demand a basilica in the exact same spot where the temple to Tonantzin the Corn Goddess had stood before the Spanish destroyed it, and where today stands the Basilica of the Virgen of Guadalupe, and whether that stuff surrounding her traditional image in the Tilma (google it if you don’t know) are rays of heavenly light or leaves of corn is a matter of faith.
And that’s why today, in many countries with large Muslim populations, one finds very un-Islamic realities in the treatment of women.
Some of the most vocal opponents of cafeteria-style Islam are some of the most avid practitioners of it, and selective literal interpretation of scripture is popular in all religions.
“Eye for an eye” is a perennial favorite of death penalty advocates, who seldom venture an inch & a half a way to expend the same zeal on exhortations to everyone to observe the conditions and rules for selling one’s daughter as a slave.
Mohammed was a feminist and a revolutionary, but he had a tough room to play. Just getting people to start thinking of women as equal human beings, just roll the idea around in their heads, was a challenge.
As Bishop Tutu remarked to Kira Phillips (still reeling from having been told seconds before that “God is not a Christian,”) “God is not finished with us. We are a work in progress.”
Yet how many Christians, who believe that Jesus was not only a Prophet of God, but “of one substance” with Him, complain that Mohammed did not ban slavery, did not do this, or do that, when the same Jesus, whom they worship as a deity, did not even go as far as Mohammed did!?
Now 1400 years later, and pre-Islamic customs still rule the day, even in the land of the Prophet himself, and the same westerners who slam him for the spread of Islam blame him because women in Saudi Occupied Arabia can’t drive cars.
…verily, in that is a lesson to those endowed with sight.
In the west today, a woman’s greatest value is still her sexual attractiveness. In the east, her greatest value is as a producer of sons. Those who enjoy going barefoot should beware of glass shards.
Below are a few links and snippets reflecting different points of view:
The revelation of Islam established women’s equal status and equal rights. The Prophet treated women as equals and was very responsive to their thoughts and needs. There was a tendency toward “ignorance” in the society where Islam was revealed, and it crept back in after the Prophet’s death and brought back some of the negative things that Islam had reformed, including misogyny. Eventually the misogynist attitude left over from “ignorance” gained a foothold in Islamic law and took away some of women’s rights and lowered their status. Islamic feminism is just an effort to restore the equal status of women as is their God-given right in Islam from the beginning. You hear a lot of how Islam is great for women in theory. In practice, there have been many systemic abuses against women in Muslim societies. The Taliban were the worst and most extreme example. So there is an urgent need to re-establish women’s rights and dismantle the patriarchal rule that has plagued too many Muslim societies. What makes it Islamic is that it’s based on the sources of Islam: the Qur’ân and the Prophet’s example.
Islamic feminism means justice to women
(Prof Margot Badran is a historian and senior fellow at Centre for Christian-Muslim Understanding at Georgetown University (USA)…)
In the post-colonial discourses, one can argue that the discourse on “Islamic feminism” is the result of an Orientalist approach to the so-called problems of women in Muslim societies in comparison with that of western women whereas the two sets of circumstances are entirely different.
It is a brilliant observation. But there is difference between Islamic feminism and Orientalist approach. Islamic feminism goes back to the text. It’s Muslims talking to Muslims. Orientalists are people from the west and they talk back to the west. Islamic feminists are looking into the basic texts of Islam in context of real life situations for concrete ideas. Islamic feminists are using Islamic categories like the notion of ijtihad. The tools can be different like linguistic methodology or historiosizing. But the frame should be within Islam, not foreign. You don’t have to be confused with the term. The project is not alien, it’s Islamic. You’ve to work within the premises of Islam, only the descriptive term seems weird.
Whether the theory and practice of “Islamic feminism”, as an ideology, is more close to Islam or feminism?
No, you can’t put it like that. Islamic feminism is speaking for justice to women as Islam stands for. It’s a tool to remind people what Islam is for women. It’s not more Islam or more feminism. The term Islamic feminism is an idea of awareness preaching that men and women have equal rights based on re-reading the Quran, re-examining the religious texts and telling people to practice it. Some people, who do this for the sake of women, don’t call themselves Islamic feminists. They won’t say it Islamic feminism. Some have stereotypical notions about feminism, so they don’t use. Some others believe that we need a term to develop a discourse and fight the cause, so they use. It’s a rethinking process anyway. I agree that there’s difficulty in the term. At one point I also stopped using the term and started to use `gender activism’. You don’t have to term it Islamic feminism always, because people get scared. I use it now because Muslims themselves are using and people understand. What’s important is the discourse, not the term. We’ve to tell them, religion is not a problem, but it is the solution….
Islamic Traditions And The Feminist Movement: Confrontation Or Cooperation
In the case of Western feminism, the preferred
goals have been those traditionally fulfilled by the male members of society. The roles of providing financial support, of success in career, and of decision making have been given overwhelming respect
and concern while those dealing with domestic matters, with child care, with aesthetic and psychological refreshment, with social interrelationships, were devalued and even despised. Both men and women have been forced into a single mold which is perhaps more
restrictive, rigid and coercive than that which formerly assigned men to one type of role and women to another.
This is a new brand of male chauvenism with which Islamic traditions cannot conform. Islam instead maintains that both types of roles are equally deserving of pursuit and respect and that when accompanied by the equity demanded by the religion, a division of labor along sex lines is generally beneficial to all members of the society.
This might be regarded by the feminist as opening the door to
discrimination, but as Muslims we regard Islamic traditions as standing
clearly and unequivocally for the support of male-female equity. In
the Quran, no difference whatever is made between the sexes in relation to God. “For men who submit [to God] and for women who submit [to God], for believing men and believing women, for devout men and devout women, for truthful men and truthful women, for steadfast men
and steadfast women, for humble men and humble women, for charitable men and charitable women, for men who fast and women who fast, for men who guard their chastity and women who guard, for men who remember God
much and for women who remember – for them God has prepared forgiveness and a mighty reward” (33:35). “Whoever performs good deeds, whether male or female and is a believer, We shall surely make him live a good life and We will certainly reward them for the best of what they did” (16:97).[2]
It is only in relation to each other and society that a difference is made – a difference of role or function. The rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man, but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and identity are two different things, Islamic traditions maintain – the former desirable, the latter not. Men and women should therefore be complementary to each other in a multi-function organization rather than competitive
with each other in a uni-function society…
Islamic Feminism? What’s In A Name
Islamic feminist discourse is a Qur’an-centered one that distances itself from the entangled web of fiqh schools as well as existing socio-cultural realities of Muslim societies and their customs and traditions. The main concern is understanding the pure and essential message of Islam and its spirit. This can also be found in the model of the Prophet (PBUH) himself in his very treatment and compassion to his wives, daughters, and women companions, a treatment than cannot be too emphasized. Attention is being paid to instances in early Muslim history and community when women are reported to be extremely outspoken and to reveal what can be described as a feminist/oppositional consciousness (see Omaima Abou Bakr, “Reflections of a Muslim Woman on Gender,” on the Islam 21 Project web site and Mohja Kashef in Windows of Faith).
The dawn of the nineteenth century marked the commencement of an era of worldwide social change that has continued to challenge the religious and social basis of all societies to this day.1 European colonial powers formed the political and economic ideological framework that was to encroach upon the Islamic world. The gradual emergence of the global economy and the political ascendancy of the West dictated a global trend that was not easy for non-Western nations to avoid. These changes have invariably been multidimensional in nature; from the emergence of territorial states in their current format to educational reforms. One of the areas to undergo a radical transformation is relations between the sexes, as women searched for their identity and place in the new world.
While common perceptions view `feminism’ and `Islam’ as a contradiction in terms, Fatima Mernissi2 argues that throughout the history of Islam, small numbers of women have seized power in both political and military spheres where their western sisters were unable. Throughout the Islamic world, their has been a growing awareness of both feminism as a movement and feminist issues. This essay seeks to understand some of the root causes that lie behind issues currently being raised by Muslim feminist reformers asking whether these issues are essentially `religious’, `cultural’, or `social’ in nature. I will not go into details about the particular concerns. It is that which lies behind the issues that I wish to deal with. The sheer size and cultural diversity within the Islamic world renders it impossible to accurately survey all issues pertaining to feminism. Therefore, much of this essay is limited to the Arab experience.
The Nature of Islam
Before examining the issues raised by feminists, I believe that we need to ask `What is the central nature of religion?’ or in this case `What is the central nature of Islam?’ A substantive understanding of religion, where belief in either theistic beings or the supernatural is the prime objective3 comes across as inadequate when religion constructs a comprehensive world view ethic. Clifford Geertz understands religions as representations of cultural systems. Religions are influenced by the process of social change, while at the same time, able to influence such changes.4 Talal Asad takes this viewpoint a step further, arguing that religion as known today, is a modern invention tailored for military conquest.5 For Lawrence, religion is reduced to a subset of culture, and will differ between different cultures.6
This type of function view of religion, leads to Durkheim style views of religion, where religion exists to give adherents a symbolic framework that allows a total perspective on their relationships within the society.7 Religion symbolically legitimises the present order by providing a system of self understanding the community and its function in the cosmic order.8 This can be seen in the way ethnic religions, such as Judaism and Hinduism, have their basis in a social structure founded on kinship relationships. Here, religion protects the community against migration and cultural assimilation.9 Young views Islam as a more than an ethnic religion. As society moves from an ethnic to a universal identity, wide ranging cultural reformation takes place, including religious reform. Under a charismatic leader, religious principles are reformed in an attempt to bring society back to its original social and cosmic order…
We uphold the revolutionary spirit of Islam, a religion which uplifted the status of women when it was revealed 1400 years ago. We believe that Islam does not endorse the oppression of women and denial of their basic rights of equality and human dignity. We are deeply saddened that religion has been used to justify cultural practices and values that regard women as inferior and subordinate to men and we believe that this has been made possible because men have had exclusive control over the interpretation of the text of the Qur’an.
We are inspired by the active participation of women in public life during the time of Prophet Muhammad saw. Biographical collections devoted to the Companions (Sahabat) of the Prophet included the biographies of over 1,200 female Companions. Among them were transmitters of hadith, saints and sufis, matyrs, liberators of slaves, and heroic combatants.
Once again, this illustrates how religion is not separate from local culture.
Fundamental dogma is often not in line with people’s beliefs. The voice of the church eventually will go through a similar process of enlightment, or an extreme unbalance will cause great division in society.
When the church held on to power of state government through finances and armies, it could not shepard its flock and was eventually defeated.
The teachings of JC gave a practical input to strict dogmatic biblical interpretation. JC commands above all to love thy neighbor and develop one’s talent to the fullest. You need a lifetime just to meet these requirements.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
your point of view is always an addition to any conversation. Were you born in the states?
Thank YOU! In these times, it behooves us all to maintain a dynamic birthplace. I was born so long ago that details of the alleged event are pure speculation anyway.
claiming demigod status?
There are unconfirmed reports that God refers to me as “just a buggy Beta, not even a release candidate.”
Cool diary, and great resources, too, thanks. I find many religions and their relations to women (or how followers of the religion interpret the relations) interesting. This point caught my eye:
Subjugation of women has been popular for millennia, and still is, largely because it is the most effective method for keeping a population in control known to man.
Literate mothers teach their kids to read. Economically empowered women are more likely to spend their earnings on things that will benefit their children and their community than on things that will benefit the king. A few generations of this and you end up with a populace that is both less dependent and less eager to sacrifice its sons for the glory and enrichment of said king.
Sort of explains some of the stuff going on now in the US with the combined attempts of the Republican party and the Religious Right to roll back women’s rights, and to promote “traditional” roles for women. It goes well with the increased militarization of society, and the insistence that the main threats are from terrorism or something, instead of from economic disparities, failing education rates, sustainable world, and so on.
And that’s why today, in many countries with large Muslim populations, one finds very un-Islamic realities in the treatment of women.
When it’s that widespread, doesn’t it sort of become the accepted Islamic reality in the treatment of women? I haven’t read the links yet, and the answer is probably in them, but how effective are those who argue for feminism within the context of the original intent of the Islamic teachings at changing things, or getting an actual hearing within majority Muslim populations, would you say?
It was so in the Prophet’s time, and it is so today.
Any more than issuing death threats against people with whom one disagrees is a Christian reality. It may be reality, and it may be done by people who identify their religious affiliation as Christians, but it is not a Christian thing, it has nothing to do with the basic message of Jesus.
As to the effectiveness of those who advocate the teachings of Islam over ancient cultural practices, to me, it seems about as effective as with any other religion, there are certainly Christian feminists who advocate for the rights of women, but just today one of the stories in the news involves pharmacists who do not wish to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, citing their religious affiliation as Christians for this. I would not call that a Christian reality, but a cultural reality.
That makes sense… I was failing to separate the two, cultural beliefs/attitudes and actual religious teachings realities. Doing so makes understanding the issues much simpler ;).
And yes, jeeze… I am not sure how those pharmacists can get away with that (absent the politicians writing new laws saying they can do so, which some are doing). Also some medical “professionals” want the right to refuse treatment to gay or lesbian patients, which is also insane.
Sometimes one feels sort of like good old whathisname, rolling the stone uphill.
Sisyphus
Remembering the names of ancient mythological figures is not my strong point. 🙂
and it’s a very good analogy, and one I bet Mohammed thought about a lot, if he knew the story, whether he did or not is an “unknown unknown” as the war criminal Rumsfeld says.
Here’s a link to the Michigan law, for those who may not have seen it
“Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.”
link
Yet another cultural reality.
Fascinating diary! A friend told me that Mohammed shocked some of the more conventional by his kind and respectful treatment of women and his attention to their opinions and ideas. I’ll have to point her in this direction, she’ll be heartened to see this diary. As am I.
The links might be useful to her, and here’s another one: Islamic Feminista
I took an upper division course on the history of Islam, and while that does not make me an “expert” on the subject it probably means I now have more knowledge about Mohammed (or Muhammad, or whatever transliteration you prefer) than the vast majority of nonbelievers. And I just don’t buy him as a “feminist”. I grant your point that he did incorporate some property and other rights into the Qu’uran that were better than contemporary local standards. But come on: he surely didn’t need to have all those wives, or to rape (sorry, “consummate his marriage to”) nine year old Aisha. That’s just messed up regardless of “contemporary standards” and disqualifies him from being called a “feminist”.
Not that the Christian fundamentalists who run around clucking over Mohammed aren’t hypocrites! The Bible they insist must be taken literally has some terrible anti-feminist passages in it. To wit:
–If your great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother was not married when she gave birth to her children, you are considered too impure to enter church or synagogue services. (Deuteronomy 23:2)
–If, after defeating an enemy militarily, “you should see among the prisoners an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife, you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, go to your house, and lament for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife. If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.” (Deut. 21:10-14)
Deuteronomy 22 has several humdingers:
–If a man accuses his wife of not having been a virgin when he married her, and her parents cannot produce a bloody cloth from her wedding night bedsheets, she must be stoned to death. (If they can produce the proof, the man making the false accusation must pay his father-in-law 100 shekels of silver.)
–If a married woman commits adultery, both she and the man she has sex with are to be executed. (No mention of there being any problem if a married man commits adultery.)
–If a man rapes an engaged virgin woman, it’s death for him. Death for her, as well, if the rape occurred in the city (because she should have screamed louder or something).
–If he rapes a virgin woman who is not engaged, he “must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives.” Awwww…that’s sweet!
And all of the above is found in just one little section of the Bible that I happened to read one day. Not having read most of the rest of it, I can only imagine what other gems are in there…
But still: Mohammed? Not a feminist, I just don’t buy it.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Evidence that Aisha was 9 when married
Evidence that Aisha was much older than 9
This site has a whole page of other stuff about her, for those interested
People a long time ago had much shorter life spans, and girls tended to get married (or consumate marriages) at the onset of puberty, which can occur at very young ages in warm climates.
Even today, in many parts of the world, girls get married and begin their reproductive lives at a very young age. Becoming a mother at thirteen or fourteen is not unusual in some areas of rural Latin America, and in fact you may have seen some very young mothers if you live in an area with a large Latin American immigrant population.
As with Aisha, there are differing opinions regarding the age of Mary at the time of the birth of Jesus. I have seen and heard arguments that she was anywhere from 11 to 16.
Within the historical context of older traditions regarding ages of consummation for young girls, by raising it to nine, Mohammed was indeed quite revolutionary.
“GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old. What is the practical difference between them? — The school of R Jannai replied: The practical difference between them is the day preceding the first day of the fourth year.35 R. Johanan, however, replied: The practical difference between them is the rule that thirty days of a year are counted as the full year.36
An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old.” link
…explore Islam with demonizing it. Thanks. But, gotta disagree that any reading of Islam argues for equality between the sexes. Mohammed’s teachings were certainly an improvement over what was happening to women in his time, but whether it is inheritance laws, custody of children, court testimony, the dress code, or preaching in the mosque, women are second-class in Islam. Only by ignoring certain suras – the way modern Jews and Christians ignore Leviticus – can women be considered equal.
…”WITHOUT demonizing it.”
here are some links to get you started for those who are interested in becoming more informed about these issues. Sometimes it gets complicated, which probably accounts for at least some of the popularity of some commonly held views! 🙂
Inheritance
A source of significant controversy both inside and outside the Muslim community is the Islamic law of inheritance. This “law” is in fact a continuing process of interpretation of Quranic rules and principles to form the complex “laws” of inheritance under Islam. It is a dynamic process which, based on specific text in the Quran and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, continues to be discussed in each Islamic age by Muslim scholars addressing changing issues and times.
Before delving into this complicated and controversial area, one must first realize that Islam revolutionized women’s inheritance rights. Prior to the Quranic injunction — and indeed in the west until only recently — women could not inherit from their relatives, and in the case of Arabia at least, were themselves bequeathed as if they were property to be distributed at the death of a husband, father, or brother. Thus, Islam, by clearly stating in the Quran that women have the right to inherit for themselves, changed the status of women in an unprecedented fashion. The Quran states:
“Men shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind, and women shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind.” (Quran 4:7).
Thus, whether women can inherit at all is not the controversy. Rather, the dispute centers around the “share” that is to be inherited.
The same chapter of the Quran goes on to state in detail the division of property based on the number of relatives and the level of kinship of the inheritor. (See Quran 4:11) The injunction that a male relative receives a share equal to that of two females applies only to the inheritance of children by their parents. Parents who inherit from a deceased child, for example, each inherit one-sixth of the property if the deceased child is survived by a child of his or her own. In that instance, the division is equal between the mother and the father of the deceased. The verse then states what the mother shall receive if the deceased left no children or if the deceased left siblings. Presumably, the father and the mother inherit equally in those situations. The rationale behind a brother receiving double his sister’s share, on the other hand, is based on the Islamic legal presumption that he has an obligation to provide for her support. Bearing in mind that these verses were revealed in Arabia over 1400 years ago, when women had no financial security other than what was provided by men, these verses demonstrate the care and respect given to the family unit, and ensured that women’s rights would continue to be protected. Hence, brothers with sisters were given larger shares than their sisters, together with the legal obligation to spend a portion of this wealth on those sisters.
Within the field of Islamic scholarship, there is much discussion on the topic of inheritance. There are scholars who argue that these rules apply only if no will was left by the deceased and that the division can be changed by a will. Presumably, the will would be analogous to a debt and would be paid prior to any other disbursement of property. (See Quran 4:11; Fathi Osman, Muslim Women in the Family and in the Society, at 24-25.) Furthermore, a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad states that a person can will up to one-third of his or her property in any manner, thus allowing equalization of gender-based default presumptions. (It should be noted that a majority of the Sunni schools of thought state that the one-third share cannot be bequeathed to natural heirs; however, others, including the Shiite school, disagree with this limitation.) Moreover, transfers of property can be made during the life of the testator.
The majority of schools argue that the verses provide guidance as to who should be provided for and at what level. Furthermore, there are scholars who maintain that these laws are applicable only in an Islamically-based legal system and government where a woman would have recourse against a relative who was obligated to provide for her but failed to do so. One may argue that in the absence of a complete application of Islamic law, where the rights of women will have no teeth, Muslims should turn to the spirit of that law, which is justice, and find ways to accomplish this goal. link
=
=
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 century. 46
Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Quran abolished all these unjust customs and gave all the female relatives inheritance shares:
"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large --a determinate share" (Quran 4:7). link
Child Custody
Islamic law sets out three stages of childhood. The first stage is the period of weaning. This lasts from birth up to two years of age. The second stage is the period of custody (this is a term of art). This is from age two to the age of discretion, which is usually seven or eight. The third stage is the period of sponsorship. This is from the age of discretion to sexual maturity. The signs of discretion and sexual maturity are set out in the texts and judgment of the child's stage is based on those signs rather than on age. Some children may reach discretion at an earlier age than others.
If a couple divorce while the child is in the period of weaning, there are two possibilities. The couple must agree on one or the other. The first possibility is that the mother does the weaning. If so, she is entitled to full support from the father (Quran 65:6). She does not remarry during this time. The second possibility is that another woman does the weaning. If so, the father pays to support that woman. In all cases, the father has complete financial responsibility for the child and for whoever is providing care for the child.
When the child passes into the period of custody, the mother is favored as long as she is a Muslim (since the father has an obligation to raise the child as a Muslim; in custody disputes concerning non-Muslim children, the mother should be of the same religion as the child). She must also be of good character (this is a requirement for the father as well if he is to have custody) and she does not remarry. The father must provide support for her and the child.
In his discussion of the rules of custody, conservative Saudi scholar Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid writes:
Women have more right to custody of children than men; in principle custody belongs to them, because they are more compassionate and more kind, and they know better how to raise small children, and they are more patient in dealing with the difficulties involved. The mother has more right to custody of her child, whether it is a boy or a girl, so long as she does not re-marry and so long as she meets the conditions of custody. This is according to scholarly consensus... But it is best to pay attention to the interests of the child, because his rights come first.
When the child reaches the period of sponsorship, there is a difference of opinion among the Islamic scholars about which parent should sponsor the child. Shaykh Munajjid explains:
The Maalikis and Zaahiris think that the mother has more right to sponsorship of the child, whether it is a boy or a girl. The Hanbalis think that boys should be given a choice, but the father has more right in the case of a girl. The Hanafis think that the father has more right in the case of a boy and the mother has more right in the case of a girl. Perhaps the correct view is that the child should be given a choice if the parents are disputing and they both fulfil the conditions for sponsorship.
Here he lists the views of some of the major schools of thought in Islamic law.
Once the child has reached adolescence, he or she is free to make his or her own choices about where to live.
link
It should be noted that while the Koran does address the issue of divorce, practices regarding child custody are derived from various hadith, not the Koran itself.
Court Testimony
Most Qur'anic references to testimony (witness) do not make any reference to gender. Some references fully equate the testimony of males and females.
And for those who launch a charge against their spouses and have (in support) no evidence but their own, their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie. But if would avert the punishment from the wife if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that (her husband) is telling a like; And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth. (Qur'an 24:6-9)
One reference in the Qur'an distinguishes between the witness of a male and a female. It is useful to quote this reference and explain it in its own context and in the context of other Qur'anic references to testimony:
O you who believe! When you deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear his Lord, Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully. And get two witnesses out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.
The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (for evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is more just in the sight of Allah, more suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves, but if it be a transaction with you carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is not blame on you if you reduce it not to writing, But take witnesses whenever you make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If you do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; for it is Allah that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. (Qur'an 2:282)
A few comments on this text are essential in order to prevent common misinterpretations:
a. It cannot be used as an argument that there is a general rule in the Qur'an that the worth of a female's witness is only half the male's. This presumed "rule" is voided by the above reference (24:6-9), which explicitly equates the testimony of both genders on the issue at hand.
b. The context of this passage (verse, or ayah) relates to testimony on financial transactions, which are often complex and laden with business jargon. The passage does not make a blanket generalization that would otherwise contradict 24:6-9, cited above.
c. The reason for variations in the number of male and female witnesses required is given in the same passage. No reference is made to the inferiority or superiority of one gender's witness or the other's. The only reason given is to corroborate the female's witness and prevent unintended errors in the perception of the business deal. The Arabic term used in this passage, tadhilla, literally means "loses the way," "gets confused," or "errs." But are females the only gender that may err and need corroboration of their testimony? Definitely not, and that is why the general rule of testimony in Islamic law is to have two witnesses, even when they are both male.
One possible interpretation of the requirements related to this particular type of testimony is that in numerous societies, past and present, women generally may not be heavily involved with and experienced in business transactions. As such, they may not be completely cognizant of what is involved. Therefore, corroboration of a woman's testimony by another woman who may be present ascertains accuracy and, hence, justice. It would be unreasonable to interpret this requirement as a reflection on the worth of women's testimony, as it is the ONLY exception discerned from the text of the Qur'an . This may be one reason why a great scholar like Al-Tabari could not find any evidence from any primary text (Qur'an or hadith) to exclude women from something more important than testimony: being herself a judge who hears and evaluates the testimony of others.
number of male and female witnesses required is given in the same passage. No reference is made to the inferiority or superiority of one gender's witness or the other's. The only reason given is to corroborate the female's witness and prevent unintended errors in the perception of the business deal. The Arabic term used in this passage, tadhilla, literally means "loses the way," "gets confused," or "errs." But are females the only gender that may err and need corroboration of their testimony? Definitely not, and that is why the general rule of testimony in Islamic law is to have two witnesses, even when they are both male.
One possible interpretation of the requirements related to this particular type of testimony is that in numerous societies, past and present, women generally may not be heavily involved with and experienced in business transactions. As such, they may not be completely cognizant of what is involved. Therefore, corroboration of a woman's testimony by another woman who may be present ascertains accuracy and, hence, justice. It would be unreasonable to interpret this requirement as a reflection on the worth of women's testimony, as it is the ONLY exception discerned from the text of the Qur'an . This may be one reason why a great scholar like Al-Tabari could not find any evidence from any primary text (Qur'an or hadith) to exclude women from something more important than testimony: being herself a judge who hears and evaluates the testimony of others. link
------
"O ye who believe! When you acquire a loan for a fixed period, record it in writing, and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; the scribe should not refuse to write, and just as Allah has taught him to write, he should also write for others; the one who has incurred the debt should have [the document] written and fearing Allah his Lord, he should not make any reduction in it. If the debtor is indiscreet or feeble or unable to have it written, let his guardian do so with justice. And call in two male witnesses from among your men, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women from among your likable people so that if one of them gets confused, the other reminds her. And witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. And whether the loan is big or small, be not negligent in documenting the deal up to its period." (2:282)
Two implications of this verse are very clear:
Firstly, the verse relates to bearing of witness over a document and has nothing to do with the bearing of witness over an incident. Documentary evidence and circumstantial evidence, it is clear, are distinctly different from each other: in the first case, witnesses are selected by an external agency while in the second case, the presence of witnesses at the site of an incident is an accidental affair. If we have written a document or signed an agreement, the selection of witnesses rests upon our discretion, while in the case of adultery, theft, robbery and other similar crimes whoever is present at the site must be regarded as a witness. The difference between the two cases is so pronounced that no law about one can be deduced on the basis of the other.
Secondly, the context and style of the verse is such that it cannot relate to law or the judicial forums of the state. It is not that after addressing the courts it has been said that if such a law suit is presented before them by a claimant then they should call in witnesses in the prescribed manner. On the contrary, the verse directly addresses people who lend or borrow money over a fixed period. It advises them that if they are involved in such dealings, an agreement between the two parties must be written down, and to avoid dispute and damage, only witnesses who are honest, reliable and morally sound should be appointed. At the same time, their personal involvements and occupations should be suited to fulfil this responsibility in a befitting manner. The verse does not at all mean that a law suit shall stand proven in a court only if at least two men or one man and two women bear witness to it. The verse, it is reiterated, is merely a guidance for the general masses in their social affairs and counsels them to abide by it so that any future dispute can be avoided: it is for their own benefit that this procedure should be adopted.
Consequently, about all such injunctions the Quran says:
This is more just in the sight of Allah; it ensures accuracy in testifying and is the most appropriate way for you to safeguard against doubts." (2:282)
Ibni Qayyam in his treatise "Ailaam-ul-Mooqai`een" comments on this verse in the following manner:
"It relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which a person of wealth protects his rights. It has no concern with the decision of a court. The two are absolutely different from each other." (Vol:1, Pg:91)
If both these implications are kept in consideration, it can be safely said that the premises upon which our jurists have based their opinion about the testimony of women is, in fact, not valid at all. Hence, in our view, in cases of Hudood, Taaziraat, Qisaas, Deeyat and indeed in all such matters it is upon the discretion of the judge whether he accepts someone as a witness or not. In this regard, there is to be no discrimination between a man or a woman. link
-----------
QURAN, 2:282:
O Beleivers, when you contract a debt for a fixed term,
you should put it in writing....
.....And let two men from among you bear witness to all
such documents. But if two men are not available,
there should be one man and two women to bear
witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything),
the other may remind her ......
First of all, this applies ONLY to FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS where a debt contract is being put together in writing. Two men are required as the witnesses. But if they're not available then one man and two women, so that if one woman FORGETS something, the OTHER may REMIND HER, not because she's inferior, or her witness is less wrothy of a man.
Enemies of Islam abuse the meaning of this verse to try to harrass Muslims and defame Islam by saying, "This means one man, is equal to two women." Or they say, " In all Islamic courts, women's witnesses are worth half of a man's."
Both of the above allegations are false. If the woman as a witness was worth half that of a man, the verse would have STATED so clearly. But obviously that is not the case. Instead, the reason for 2 women and 1 man as witnesses is that if one woman FORGETS, the other may remind her.
Bearing a witness in an Islamic society is a burden. No Muslim desires to be a witness AGAINST another Muslim, unless it becomes incumbent upon him/her, if required by law. By having two females, as opposed to one female, further protection and encouragement for women is given, to bear witness. Women in an Islamic society are usually not invovled in employment, business transactions, and other such out-of-the-house positions. However, if they desire, they can do so, but most Muslim women prefer to stay inside thier homes. In such a society, a woman is not an expert in business transactions, and is thus prone to forgetfullness. Thus this verse protects the parties in FINANCIAL contracts. And at the same time, gives women another peer to make them more comfortable in bearing and giving witness against a party. Counter-intuitively, this verse actually protects the women and the parties involved in FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS. link
=
=
=
Modest Dress
“Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands…” (Qur’an 24:30-31)
There are also some hadith that deal with customs of dress, but as a walk down the street in many countries will show, there are millions of very devout Muslim women who do not interpret dressing modestly to mean they must wear hijab. There are also millions that do.
This is a pretty common sense thing, the operative principle here is modesty. Again, as you can see from the variety of ways in which men and women around the world dress, modesty is a relative term.
It might be considered offensively immodest for a man to walk down the street in Islamabad without a shirt on, yet you would see many women who, if they wear a head covering at all, is just a dupatta, which is a long scarf that goes with the salwar kameez and can be worn in many ways, over one shoulder, across the neck with two ends hanging down in back, or one end over some part of the hair, if the woman is really intent on keeping it there.
If you go to Jerusalem, you will see women with their heads covered who are Jewish, Muslim, and Christian, as it has been the custom there since long before Mr and Mrs Abraham ever winked at each other.
In the Bible, Paul in a letter to the Corinthians says Christian women to cover their heads. He is not suggesting a fashion innovation, he is telling them to keep up the old tradition!
Orthodox Jewish women actually shave their heads on the occasion of their marriage, and thereafter cover their heads with, depending on the custom of their particular congregation, a scarf, or even a wig. I remember reading a story from one Jewish lady whose natural hair was not very pretty, either or texture, when she married she was given a beautiful and perfectly styled wig. It amused her because while the point of the custom was that she, now married, no longer be viewed as an object of desire before men, because of her new wig, now looked much more desirable and “sexy” (in her opinion) than she ever had running around as an unmarried girl with her own mousy, unmanageable tresses!
A similar argument is sometimes made regarding hijab: The purpose of the hijab is to allow the woman to move about freely without calling to herself the unwelcome attention of uncouth men. Now if she moves to a country where few people wear hijab, if she does, she may be calling more attention to herself than if she just wore jeans and a t-shirt and a scrunchie!
It is up to each woman to decide whether and how much of her hair and face she wants to display to the general public, according to her own cultural, religious, and/or fashion precepts.
…on the subject of Islam since the arrival of my Libyan stepson, including two English translations of the Koran and a little of the Hadith.
What these scholars say is interesting, certainly, but other scholars interpret the very same suras quite differently.
And, as in the Bible, men ARE considered superior to women in the Koran. Even the claim that women are specifically considered equal spiritually in the Koran is belied by the fact that they are not allowed to preach.
Comparisons with Christianity and Judaism are also interesting, and a remedy for those who claim the Bible is somehow superior to the Koran regarding women’s role and rights. But I’m not a Jew or a Christian and don’t take kindly to biblical admonitions to treat women unequally.
Mohammed theoretically improved the situation for women; in practice, the practitioners of Islam have not been so kind.
It is not my intention to try and change anyone’s mind, or attempt to persuade anyone to adopt any religion, switch from one to another, and I am certainly not meaning to contradict anyone’s beliefs, or cast aspersions on them.
I think I have already mentioned in another thread, I do not think that it is very likely that I or anybody is going to change anybody’s mind by posting on a message board, about religion or anything else.
It would be possible, easy, even, to go and find citations of Christian scholars outlining the reasoning for their belief that women should be forced to give birth, or that gay people are condemned to hell. Then I could cite other scholars’ evidence for their beliefs to the contrary. And then I could go do the same with any religion you want to name.
I posted the links for the benefit of those who might be interested in looking into the subject more, for informational purposes, but might hesitate to do so simply because there is such an enormous amount of material out there, and lots of different points of view!
The subject of religious studies is a fascinating one, and if I have any sort of persuasion agenda, it would be to encourage people to read about all of them, if they are so inclined. (For example, most of the stuff contained in the Abrahamic series was stolen from the Zoroasterians, who have very courteously refrained from initiating any action for copyright infringement.)
You said “And then I could go do the same with any religion you want to name.”
What about someone who thinks all religions are malarkey? The statement you make here doesn’t do anything to dissuade me that “none of the above, thanks” (that is, atheism) is by far the best choice.
But your formulation will do quite well as long as the arrows coming at Islam come from a practitioner of another sort of theist doctrine.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I had thought the phrase “or attempt to persuade anyone to adopt any religion” would take care of that, but I guess not.
It is not my intention to persuade anyone to adopt any religion. No wait, that’s how I said it before.
I will try to come up with a more accessible way to express the thought.
If you were hoping for an argument or a symphony of apologetics I am sorry to disappoint. 🙂
(trying to convert anyone, that is). But you were clearly trying to defend Islam.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I didn’t realize you were attacking it. You didn’t wound or damage it.
I did think that you brought up some interesting points, and that it might be useful to post some links for those interested.
I don’t think that either religion or reading need me to defend them. They are there for those so inclined, neither means to threaten or scare you.
…were trying to convert me or anyone else. I merely wished to point out that I’ve not merely skimmed the texts and the interpretive writings. Of course, since my Arabic is nowhere good enough to read much of the discourse, and since I only started checking out Islam in some depth three years ago, I’ve a long way to go before I have as broad an understanding as you do.
The Torah/OT, were it published today by some sort of L. Ron Hubbard type, would qualify as a hate document, toward women for sure but toward other groups (like the Palestinians) as well. Yet there are Orthodox Jews (and to some extent, fundamentalist Christians) who still hold that its every edict must be followed to a “T”. And these people, though relatively small in number, wield a disproportionate influence with Israel and the U.S., two nuclear-armed nations with troubling histories of violent oppression.
But sorry, two wrongs don’t make a right. I suppose it could be argued that raping a three year old might be “worse” than raping a nine year old. But they are both fucked up.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I think you mean ‘statutory’ rape. Such a thing is problematic in the absence of a ‘statute’.
We should be careful about applying anachronistic standards. If Jefferson is dismissed for owning slaves, or the Founding Fathers for failing to abolish the practice, then we are engaging in a diversion rather than a debate. Obviously, all of them were reformers looking to improve the morals and status of citizens within their flawed societies.
You definitely get a point chalked up for that one. Nevertheless, I don’t give Mohammed or the author of Deuteronomy credit for being analogous to Jefferson. I don’t think either of them, unlike TJ, was out for much more than advancing their own interests. And Jefferson didn’t, to my knowledge (I haven’t studied that era except in the limited and pathetic way offered in junior high) publish any written arguments/propaganda for anti-progressive positions.
To my mind, both Mohammed and the author of Deuteronomy did not have the luxury of promotiing Jeffersonian principles. They lived in tribal areas that were subject to sudden, devastating invasions. Building cohesiveness and introducing principles of compassion into their violent worlds was about as far as they could go.
It’s also why it is a major problem to take many of their moral edicts seriously today. We can now do so much better.
Rather than “introducing principles of compassion into their violent worlds” it strikes me that they (the Hebrews in particular) were introducing principles of violence into their worlds with these religious texts. Such as giving God’s explicit imprimatur, his greenlight if you will, to genocide (Deut. 20).
Alan
Maverick Leftist
of standard practice. At least they made rules about it.
I’ll grant you the claim in your first sentence for the sake of argument (though I’m not convinced this was SOP for everyone). And I believe a lot of that stuff was a kind of military manual on “how to be the most ruthless and win the most battles, by hook or by crook”. But perhaps most troubling is that by writing it down, especially giving it that imprimatur of “This is what God commands you to do”, you retard social evolution away from those practices. Have you ever wondered what a particularly religious member of the IDF might think about those passages?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
check out the Mahabharata
It’s the undisputed champion! 🙂
I think that should take care of your concerns, also.
It is an important reminder that we should remember that so much of what exists in our laws and religions are a product of the norms, conditions, and necessities of the past. And should be respected as coming from traditions at diffrent stages of development.
How many here knew that in the civilised France of 2005 you can be “sold” into the slavery of arranged marriages if you are a woman, and only if you are a woman, at the age of 15?
I didn’t until I read “Le Monde” yesterday! They are enacting legislation to remove it:
” The senators stressed that they acted, by modifying a provision of the civil code unchanged since 1804, to fight against these forced unions and to align the lawful age of the marriage of women to that of the men. “
The law has been changed in order to prevent forced marriage which is still in use mainly in some muslim families…
I noticed you encyclopedic post below and I thought I’d offer you this trick that Sirocco gave me. It’s a way to put such long comments in a box with a slide bar so that people don’t HAVE to scroll through long comments. I haven’t tried it myself, but Sirocco used it and it was very cool.
[div style=”height: XXXpx; width: XXXpx; overflow: auto; border: 1px solid #666;background-color: #XXX; padding: 8px;”>TEXT GOES HERE</div]
Maybe one day I will even delve into the arcana of gray boxology 😉
<div class="blockquote">put text here</div>
That’ll make you a nice gray box.