By Farid Esack
October
2009
What Do
Men Owe to Women?
Islam
& Gender Justice: Beyond Simplistic Apologia
I saw a woman hanging from her hair [and] her brain was boiling because
she had not covered her hair. I saw a woman who had been hanged from her tongue
and hell’s water was being poured into her throat because she had annoyed her
husband. I saw a woman in a furnace of fire, hanging from her feet because she
had left home without her husband’s permission … -- Saying attributed to the
Prophet Muhammad
(Illustration: Suvajit Dey)
----
1.
Reflecting on the Topic
The question is only seemingly simple. I shall deal with a number of complexities presented by the title itself before proceeding to the question. (Original Headline: What Do Men Owe to Women? Islam & Gender Justice: Beyond Simplistic Apologia) While these questions may be of mere academic interest to the post-modernist scholar, they are of far greater ethical concern to a scholar who locates him or herself within a discourse of liberation theology as the present writer does. It is often not our theological positions on the mainstream other – gendered, racial or religious - but towards “the least” (as in “what you do to the least of my brothers…”) which reflects the integrity of our theology, depth of commitment to justice and breadth of our vision. Any form of theology which seeks to place justice, and compassion at its core would ultimately have to respond to all manifestation of injustice – be this towards the transgendered other or to the exploited non-human other, the earth and our co-inhabitants.
First,
which men and which women are we referring to? Where are they located? Is there
an “essential man” who owes something to an “essential woman”? In confining the
question to an essential man or woman, is there not a possibility of
perpetuating that very stereotyping at the heart of gender injustice? Spelman
has cogently argued that failing to address the heterogeneity of women results
in underwriting cultural and racial hierarchies (1990:133-59). One of the
implications of this is that our responses to the question, while recognizing
the universality of gender justice must also be culture specific. Ultimately,
for those committed to the transformation of society alongside others within
one’s community it is not our ideas that are the most important but the
efficacy of their implementation in Muslim society.
Second, who
asks the question and who will be present when I venture a response?
While I may
want to offer an honest answer to my gendered other, I do not live in a
socio-political vacuum and may be afraid of having my honesty exploited by the
religious and political other? In matters which evoke such deep emotions and
touches one’s sense of being such as race, religion, sexuality and gender, the
truth is either the option of those unfettered by any sense of community, the
reckless or of those who are truly at one with themselves and with the
Transcendent.
A putative
hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), probably originating in the
Torah, reflects the dilemma of the Muslim male in a world perceived as hostile.
This hadith tells of the time when the patriarch Abraham was in a strange land
accompanied by his wife. Afraid that he would be killed so that Namrud, the
King, may marry his wife on account of her beauty, he introduces her as his
sister. Namrud then goes off with her and is later subjected to divine wrath
for marrying another man’s wife. Abraham, in having to cope with the perceived
threats from the external other, seems willing to sacrifice the dignity of the
internal other. Thus, gender issues get sacrificed in the face of the
supposedly more significant issues such as global marginalization of Muslims,
the occupation of Kashmir and the oppression of Palestinians.
nayzak.deviantart.com
-----
Given the
seeming willingness – only seeming, for the voices of the women are generally
silent/silenced – we have an added dilemma; that of the willingness of many
Muslim women to go along with their own marginalization, to embrace the veil as
a symbol of their own fortress against the threatening gendered other.
So, whom am
I writing for? I write for myself. I want greater clarity about how and why it
is possible for me to be a Muslim with a passionate commitment to both the
Qur’an and gender justice. I know that as I write, others will read. I hope
that in my conversation with myself that they, however they may or may not want
to define themselves, will get some insight into the struggles of a Muslim male
trying to be faithful to different, sometimes seemingly conflictual, voices
within his spiritual / theological self. I also hope to encourage my brothers
and sisters to be a bit more daring in their pursuit of truth and to indicate
that interrogating one’s faith is, in fact, a condition of a living faith.
I am aware of the tensions between the
political or the strategic; “How do we present our message to our people in
ways that are least distasteful?” I, however, fear that this question is often
presented in order to prevent the questioner him or herself from pushing limits
and crossing boundaries; a cushion from the blows of relentless critical
scrutiny.
Third,
To Whom Is the Debt Owed?
The
question supposes that the debt is owed by men and to women and that the world
is neatly divided up into men and women.
While the
struggle for gender equality is about justice and human rights for women, it
cannot be regarded as a women's struggle any more than the battle against anti-Semitism
is a Jewish struggle, or that of non-racialism, a struggle belonging to Blacks.
While violence against women may physically and legally be a woman's problem,
morally and religiously it is very much that of men. In the words of Maryam
Rajavi, “in a society where women are second-class citizens, deprived of their
genuine rights how can any man claim to be free and not suspect his own
humanity? [...] Are men not in bondage too?” (1996, 31) While I, as a male, may
therefore owe women many debts, the debt is essentially to myself. I owe it to
my own humanity to be free and, therefore, I must work for gender justice.
Difficult
as it is to come to terms with, the Muslim theologian has to at least recognize
- without necessarily affirming - the complexity of gendered and sexual
otherness and the notion that the only certainty about these is uncertainty.
The fact that this otherness is not based on choice but on each person’s unique
nature raises profound questions about a) the depth of our commitment to “the
least”, i.e., the utterly marginalized, b) the nature of the God in which we
profess faith and c) the nature of nature and its implications for the
well-established Islamic theological notion that Islam is din al-fitrah, the
religion of nature or of humankind’s natural state.
Fourth,
Who Is the Respondent to The Question?
I am a
Muslim male, the youngest of six sons and one daughter – the latter’s
“illegitimate” existence discovered more than ten years after the death of my
mother -, the son of a mother who died in her early fifties as quite literally
a victim of apartheid, patriarchy, and capitalism and of a father who abandoned
his family when I was three weeks old. As a young South African student of
Islamic theology in Pakistan with bitter memories as a victim of apartheid, I
saw the remarkable similarities between the oppression of blacks in South
Africa and of women in Muslim society. Later in my years as a Muslim liberation
theologian cum activist in the struggle against apartheid, I deepened my
awareness of the relationship between the struggle of women for gender justice
and that of all oppressed South Africans for national liberation.
I thus
approach the question with all the gifts and baggage that come with the above,
however briefly presented.
I shall not
attempt to deal with the question in all its complexities. To begin with, I do
not have the courage to do so. Furthermore, as a socially engaged theologian I
extend the maxim attributed to the Ali ibn Abi Talib, a cousin of Muhammad, to
“address people at the level of their comprehension.” I thus focus on the
possible while never losing sight of the necessarily unthinkable – the equality
of all people and the freedom of all people to respond to the voices of their
own consciences, what the Quakers call “that of God in everyone”. In answering
the question, I shall thus confine myself to what I, as a male Muslim
liberation theologian, believe I men owe to most Muslim women. In doing so, I
shall attempt to provide a response that is sufficiently inclusive to embrace
all manifestations of debt to the other.
2. Gender
Equality in Contemporary Islam: Between Text and Context: An Overview.
The issue
of gender equality in contemporary Islam, more specifically, the position of
women, has been extensively dealt with in Muslim scholarship. This ranges from
the explicitly misogynist confessional (Ragie, 1995) to the gentler and more
apologetic (Iqbal 1989, Siddiqi, 1988 et al) to the serious scholarly which
implicitly or explicitly argue the case for gender justice (Ahmad 1984,
al-Sa’dawi 1980, Mernissi 1975, Wadud-Muhsin, Yamani, 1996, et al)
Numerous
women from Muslim backgrounds consciously avoid any attempt to locate their
ideas in a re-thought Islam. In a reversal of fundamentalism with its “Islam is
the answer” these thinkers and/or activists often engage in an identical
essentializing of religion with their “Islam is the problem”. Both move from
the rather dubious assumption that religion is a disembowelled entity that
emerged from beyond time and space and, having landed in the middle of nowhere,
can be just as easily transplanted on to another piece of time and space.
Many others
concerned with gender justice are confessional Muslims desperate to live in
fidelity to both the basis of Islamic thought and practice (the Qur’an and the
Sunnah - Muhammad’s prophetic precedent) and their commitment to their own
liberation from gender oppression. Much of what has emerged from the latter
group though, is apologetic and unwilling to address fundamental questions of
the essentially patriarchal nature of the Qur’an’s text and essential audience
and, indeed of the qur’anic portrayal of the Transcendent.
Fazlur
Rahman (d. 1988), one of the great modernist Muslim thinkers, reflects this
kind of apologia in translation of and reflections on a qur’anic text widely
discussed in any discourse on gender equality in Islam. He renders Q. 2.228 as
follows: “And for women there are rights [over against men] commensurate with
the duties they owe, but men are one degree higher”. He furthermore argues that
“it is certain that, in general, the Qur’an envisages division of labour and a
difference in function […].
The
question is whether the verse quoted is one of inherent inequality. We are told
that men are in charge of women because God has given some humans excellence
over others and because men have the liability of expenditure [on women]. This
shows that men have a functional not an inherent superiority over women for
they are charged with earning money and spending it on women. […] If a woman
becomes economically sufficient, say by inheritance or by earning wealth, and
contributes to the household expenditure, the male superiority would be that
extent reduced, since as a human [italics in original] he has no superiority
over his wife. Religiously speaking, men and women have absolute parity
“Whoever does good deeds, whether male or female, while being believers, they
shall enter paradise (4:128, 40:40, 16:97).
A more
literal translation is given further below. Looking at his reflections though,
a number of questions remain unanswered. If the excellence is as a result of
God’s grace and not economic activity then how does a shift in patterns of
income alter that excellence? Is spending a criterion of excellence? If it is,
then what about the economic value of the labour which women bring to the
relationship where the husband is the key breadwinner? Is male expenditure over
women purely a question of liability and/or social responsibility or is it more
a manifestation of power? (The phenomenon of frustration aggression by
unemployed or low salaried husbands married to employed or high salaried wives
is not an unknown one). Why should financial expenditure by any two partners in
a relationship necessarily impact on the question of equality as Rahman seems
to imply when he says “if a woman […] contributes to the household expenditure
the male superiority would be to that extent reduced”? What does it mean for
women who are marginalized and oppressed in all spheres of the daily existence
to have “absolute parity” “religiously speaking”?
The Qur’an
and the Sunnah are pivotal to Muslim theological thinking and legal practice.
However, problematic one may find these in regard to issues of gender justice,
they have to be negotiated for as long as one locates oneself within this
community or views this community as one’s essential audience.
In the
context of seventh-century Arabia, the personal example of Muhammad, also
regarded as a source of law in Islam, was exemplary in encouraging a sense of
gender justice and compassion towards all victims of oppression, including
women. “The best of you is he who behaves best with his wives” “Listen treat
women well!”. “I hold the rights of two weak types of persons sacred; the right
of an orphan and that of a wife.” Similarly, the Qur’an contains a number of
exhortations which potentially have the same effect. “And women shall have
rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable (Q.
2:118)” “Believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin
what is just and forbid what is evil (Q. 9:71).
Despite
these, both the Islamic theological cum-legal tradition as well as Muslim
cultural life are deeply rooted in various forms of gender injustice ranging
from explicit misogyny to paternalism under the guise of kindness. In part this
reflects on the ambiguity of and limitations to the text itself – both that of
the Qur’an and Sunnah – , the pliability of all texts as contested terrain and
of the resilient nature of patriarchy among the audience of these texts – the
Muslims.
Many
Muslims acknowledge the reality of gender oppression in Muslim society but
hasten to attribute this to the inadequacies of that society or the
inability/refusal of Muslims to live alongside the dictates of Islam.
(Wadud-Muhsin, 1992:94-104; Hassan, 1996:25-27, 89-103). While common, the
notion of Islam and gender as distinct from Muslims and gender is an untenable
one. There are also limits to which one can pursue the distinction between the
text and its interpretation. Meaning, as Richard Martin says, cannot avoid “the
interpretation of meaning" (Martin 1982, 363) because
exegesis is
not an interpretation but rather an extension of the symbol and must itself be
interpreted; even if these exegetical additions belong to the phase of
redaction, they are not quite exterior to the text, but belong to its
productivity (Martin 1982, 369)
Whatever
else Islam, as any other religion, may be, it is also that which is
interpreted, lived out, aspired towards, ignored, and debated about among
ordinary individuals and communities. It is thus equally valid to examine the
socio-political context of Muslims as a determinant of responses to the
question of what men owe to women.
No Muslim
state can escape factoring the Shari’ah in any matter pertaining to gender. The
myth of an essentialist ahistorical Islam and Shari’ah is, however, evidenced
by the fact that each of these societies and their numerous sub-strata have
arrived at a range of different positions and diverse practices, all of them
seemingly legitimated by or rooted in the Shari’ah. This is reflected in the
varying positions of Muslim states towards the Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and in the diversity of
Muslim Personal Law (MPL) systems in these countries. Responses to CEDAW ranged
from the outright Saudi Arabian refusal to sign it, to Egypt arguing that
article 16 dealing with the equality of men and women in all matters relating
to marriage and family relations should be implemented without prejudice to the
Shari’ah provisions in this regard, to the then Democratic Republic of Yemen
merely stating that it would not be bound by the article “relating to the
settlement of disputes which may arise concerning the application or
interpretation of the Convention” (UN, 1985g, 7).
The wide
array of interpretations and application of
MPL in Muslim countries, the way these were influenced by the
socio-political struggles against colonialism and modernity as well as the
interminable attempts to reconcile MPL with their constitutional requirements
of gender equality are detailed in Hijab (1989, 9-37).
Given the
centrality of women in the maintenance of the family as an institution and as
the essential transmitters of cultural and religious traditions, traditional
Muslim societies have a very genuine fear that, “if women allow their key role
in the family to be overtaken by other roles, then the whole social system will
fall apart” (ibid. 13). The traditional social system is, of course, already
besieged under a host of socio-economic and political forces which is loosely
described as “the west”. “The West” and its putative hegemonic designs are for
most Muslims but an extension of the Crusades and later, colonialism. The
insistence on retaining tradition, including the traditional role of women thus
becomes an important aspect of the struggle for dignity and survival. Using the
example of Algeria, Nadia Hijab explains that
[…] a major
aim of the revolution against the French occupation for both men and women had
been to restore the Algerian way of the life which the occupier had sought to
fragment. In order to preserve their cultural identity from the French
onslaught on their language and traditions, the Algerians had clung even more
closely to Islam and Islam based traditions. (ibid. 27)
Much of the
dominant discourse on gender equality or inequality in the Muslim majority
countries is thus intrinsically connected to questions of national identity and
cultural loyalty. In the words of Leila Ahmed, the Middle Eastern feminist is
really “caught between two opposing loyalties” (her sexual identity and her
religio-cultural identity] “forced almost to choose between betrayal and
betrayal.” (1984, 122). Fatima Mernissi has also detailed the psychological
impact of colonialist intervention in Muslim identity and how this has resulted
in the transformation of the Shari’ah into a symbol of Muslim identity and the
Ummah’s integrity. “Modern changes were identified as the enemy’s subtle tools
for carrying out the destruction of Islam” (1975, xix)
Given the
undeniable historicity of the question of gender equality in Islam and Muslim
society, there is equal validity for those who come from contexts free from the
socio-political and cultural factors that impact on traditional Muslims
majority societies to have their own approaches to the question informed by
their own experiences. In other words, I am as free to have a post-apartheid
South African Muslim appreciation of gender as what the post-colonialist
Algerian or Moroccan Muslim is entitled to.
3. The
Debt to Women
Finally,
what is it then that I owe to women?
In brief,
two responsibilities: First, to call for forgiveness and, second, to centre
liberation, justice and compassion in my theology and in my pastoral praxis
3.1 The
Call for Forgiveness.
Each
adherent of a religious tradition is simultaneously a shaper of that tradition
and while one cannot assume personal responsibility for all the crimes or
achievements of that tradition, there is nevertheless a sense in which each
adherent shares in the shame or glory. In Islam, as in most all other world
religions, males are the key managers and interpreters of the sacred. As a male
Muslim theologian committed to gender justice I thus have two reasons to ask
for forgiveness. First as part of privileged gender that has consistently
denied the full humanity of the gendered other even as I was being nurtured and
sustained by it. Secondly, for my own role in – even if only by identification
– in a theological tradition which fosters and sustains images of women and practices
by men that denies women their full worth as human beings created by God and as
carriers of the spirit of God. This call for forgiveness is what the totality
of Islamic traditions have done, failed to do and for our inability and/or
unwillingness to effectively challenge and eliminate the mysoginist traits
within our tradition.
3.2 The Centring
of Liberation, Justice and Compassion
This cantering
of liberation, justice and compassion in one’s theology is more subversive of
orthodoxy than what may appear the case from a superficial perusal. Every
single dogma is subject to interrogation by the standards of gender justice and
compassion and every text is read through these lenses. Every text that does
not withstand this scrutiny may be subject to a host of hermeneutical devices
ranging from contextualization and re-interpretation to abrogation in order to
arrive at an interpretation that serves the ends of justice.
Does this
not constitute violence towards the text? First, none of these devices are
unknown to the world of traditional Islam; the only difference is the starkness
with which they are spelt out and the definitiveness of the criteria employed.
Second, if a choice has to be made between violence towards the text and
textual legitimization of violence against real people then I would be
comfortable to plead guilty to charges of violence against the text.
What does
the centering of gender justice and compassion say about the centrality of God
for isn’t theology essentially about God? Yes, it is about God, but my theology
is about a God that is essentially just and compassionate.
4 The
Qur’an as Legitimation for Gender Injustice
In general,
one discerns a strong egalitarian trend whenever the Qur’an deals with the
ethico-religious responsibilities and recompense of the believers and a
discriminatory trend when it deals with the social and legal obligations of
women. With regard to both of these
aspects though, there are two further trends: a) General statements are also
made which both affirm and deny gender equality and b) when specific
injunctions are made, then they are generally discriminatory towards women.
The
following texts affirm the notion of equality in ethico religious
responsibilities and recompense:
Muslim men
and women, believing men and women, obedient men and obedient women […] for
them God had prepared forgiveness and a handsome reward” (Q. 23:35)
And
whosoever does good deeds, whether male or female and he [or she] they shall
enter the garden and shall not be dealt with unjustly
In the
following four verses, frequently invoked by Muslims committed to some form of
gender equality, we see how equality in a generalized manner is only seemingly
affirmed. My own brief comment on the limited usefulness of invoking them for
gender equality follows each verse:
1) They
(women) have rights similar to those against them (Q. 2:228)
Here we
note that ‘similar’ is left undefined and, as conservatives correctly argue, is
not synonymous with ‘equal’.
2) To
men a share of what their parents and kinsmen leave and to women a share of
what parents and relatives leave (Q. 4.7)
“A share”
is left undefined and, when another verse elsewhere does define it then it
becomes clear that it is an unclear share.
3) “To
the adulteress and the adulterer, whip each one of them a hundred lashes […]”
(Q.24.2)
The fact of
the inequality in the burden of proof in adultery is ignored. Pregnancy in the
case of an unmarried woman is automatic proof of extra-marital relations while
naming the male partner in the absence of witnesses to the act is tantamount to
slander.
4) “Say
to the faithful men that they should cast down their eyes and guard their
modesty;
that is
pure for them. And say to the faithful women that they cast down their eyes and
guard their modesty.” (Q. 24:30-31)
The
succeeding verses, usually unmentioned in apologetic works, add an array of
further specific injunctions regarding the social behaviour of women. While one may argue that men are not absolved
from these, women are the ones singled out.
In social
and legal matters, it is very difficult to avoid the impression that the Qur’an
provides a set of injunctions and exhortations where women, in general, are
infantalized “to be protected, and economically provided for by men, but
admonished and punished if they are disobedient” (Karmi, 1996, 79). The following are a few examples of this. a)
Men marry their spouses while women are “given in marriage” by their fathers or
eldest brother though they may have a say in the choice of a partner). b) The
groom purchases her sexual favours though she may have a choice in the amount.
Here we also observe the implicit notion of a one sided duty to fulfil the
sexual needs of her husband. c) In the matter of divorce, the right of males is
automatic while that of females is to be negotiated, contracted, and decided
upon by male judges. d) The male may take up to four spouses though he may be
compelled to treat them with equity and the first wife may leave him if the
marriage contract proscribes him from taking additional wives. e) Muslim men
may marry women from among the people of the Book but Muslim women may not. (Q.
2:220)
Q. 4:34,
briefly referred to earlier, is a text which most starkly represent the strand
in qur’anic morality which seemingly sanctions discrimination, and according to
most interpretations, also violence against women and marital rape. Reflections
on this text, I believe, will bring to the fore the tensions between text and
context and the difficulties presented to the progressive theologian who seeks
to centre justice for the marginalized in his or her hermeneutic.
Men are
Qawwamun (the Protectors and maintainers) of / over (‘ala) women,
Because God
has Faddala (preferred) some of them over others,
and because
they support them from their means.
Therefore,
the Salihat (righteous) women are Qanitat (devoutly obedient),
and guard
in their husbands' absence what God would have them guard.
As to those
women on whose part you fear nushuz (ill-conduct \ disobedience)
Admonish
them, refuse to share their beds and beat them
But if they
return again to obedience seek not means against them
for God is
the most high, Great above you.
In trying
to understand any text one has to address a number of key issues: Who is the
author? What is the nature of the text? What was the particular personal and
general social context that first witnessed or gave birth to the text and its
reception? Who subsequently interpreted it and thus contributed to the text by
their own mediation? What were the tools used in unlocking its meaning and how
effective were these tools? I will attempt to briefly look at some of these
questions and their implications for a gender just re-thinking of the meaning
of the aforementioned text
4.1 Who
Is The Author?
Muslims
believe that the author of the Qur’an is God who is Eternal, the utterly beyond
who exists outside history. This transcendent is neither male nor female
although the Qur’an employs the masculine form of the personal pronoun (huwa)
when referring to God and the analogy of God as a patriarchal ruler is
regularly invoked in hadith literature. The limits which this qur’anically
rooted patriarchal portrayal of the Transcendent places on the development of a
truly feminist theology becomes obvious in our consideration of the following
question.
4.2 What
Is The Nature Of The Text?
For Muslims
the 'eternal and uncreated Qur'an' is the ipsissima verba of God. It is God
speaking, not merely to Muhammad in seventh century Arabia, but for all
eternity and to all humankind. It represents, as Cantwell Smith says, "the
eternal breaking through time; the knowable disclosed; the transcendent
entering history and remaining here, available to mortals to handle and to
appropriate; the divine become apparent" (Cantwell Smith 1980, 490). Ibn
Manzur (d. 1312), the author of Lisan al-Arab, reflects the view of the
overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars when he defines the Qur'an as
"the inimitable revelation, the Speech of God revealed to the Prophet
Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel (existing today) literally and orally in the
exact wording of the purest Arabic" (n.d. 3:42).
When the
question of the genesis of a text is regarded as equally unthinkable as that of
God then the problem which such seemingly gender unjust messages as those
contained in the verses under discussion is obvious. First, there is no
possibility of developing any notion of God as “She” and all its implications
for a feminist theology for this would be tantamount to spurning the qur’anic
“He”. Second, there is no way that one can ascribe ‘discriminatory’ texts to a
misogynist Paul, or a well-meaning but time-bound David. Third, if this
All-Powerful Creator explicitly states that men are Qawwamun over women
because of what He had bestowed upon them then what right does the creation
have to demand equality as inherent and inalienable? (Cf. Proezesky 1989).
4.3 Who
Is the Essential Audience Of The Text?
The
Qur’an’s essential audience is males. While there are numerous exhortations to
kindness and justice towards men and even texts explicitly affirming the
complementarity of women, the latter are essentially subjects being dealt with
- however kindly - rather than being directly addressed. Women addressed
directly are exceptions to the nearly all-pervading rule. Thus, in the text
above, while the first verse may give the impressive of the addressees being
both male and female the second verse makes it clear that this is not the case.
While the text is about women, it is addressed to men. The following are but a
few randomly selected further such examples:
“If any of
you have not the means to marry wed free believing women they may wed believing
girls from among those whom your right hand possess.” (Q 4:25)
“If a wife
bears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if
they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves. Even though man’s souls
are swayed by greed. But, if you do good and practice self-restraint, God is
well acquainted with all you do.” (Q. 4:128)
“O you
who have attained unto faith, when you marry believing women [… ]” Q. 33:49
This does
not only hold for texts dealing with gender matters but applies to the text as
a whole. E.g., “O you who have attained unto faith! Kill not game while you are
in a state of purity for the pilgrimage […] (Q. 5:95).
The problem
of the essential audience of the Qur’an ought to present a significant problem
for scholars committed to gender justice despite the scant attention, or even
absence of any attention which it receives in such writings. How can one be content with a Transcendent
who speaks about you and rarely to you? What does it say about His relationship
to you and about where you fit into His scheme of things? How would a girl
respond to a parent who in general addresses her brother, advising and cajoling
him into kindness towards her rarely to her directly and never asks her to rise
up to defend her rights? Is the end
product not necessarily one of perpetually divinely sanctioned minority status?
In some
ways this issue is partially addressed by the following question.
4.4 What
Is The Context Of The Text?
In
reflecting on the usefulness and / or limitations of the text in sustaining or
defending a gender just position one has to consider a number of different
albeit interrelated issues. These include the impulse of scripture as a whole,
the broader historical context wherein that scripture was first revealed, heard
and interpreted, the place of that text within the rest of the scripture as
well as the immediate event, which occasioned its revelation.
The Qur’an,
wherever else it may have emerged from, as a whole has a context wherein it was
revealed as has every specific verse or set of verses. In the words of Kenneth
Cragg “the eternal cannot enter time without a time when it enters. Revelation
to history cannot occur outside it. A Prophet cannot arise except in a
generation and a native land, directives from heaven cannot impinge upon an
earthly vacuum (Cragg 1971, 112).
4.4.1
The Historical Context Wherein The Scripture Was First Revealed, Heard And
Interpreted
The Qur’an
was revealed in sixth century Arabia at a time of enormous
socio-anthropological flux in the region in general, and more specifically,
Hijaz. While Arabian society had a number of distinct matriarchal features,
these were now giving way to a wholly patriarchal system” (Karmi,
1996:77). Muslims generally hold that
this was a period when women were regarded as not only socially inferior but
“as slaves and cattle” (Siddiqi, 1972:16)
It was a time when women “basically inherited nothing but were
themselves inherited. They were a part of their husband’s property, to be owned
to by his heirs or other men of his tribe” (Rajavi, 1996:25). It was a mark of
dishonour for any man to have a daughter and many preferred to bury their
female children alive rather than face social opprobrium. In the words of the
Qur’an:
When news
is brought to one of them 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 received. Shall he retain her in contempt or bury her in the
dust? Ah what evil choice they decide on! (Q. 16:58-59).
And again:
And when
[on the Day of Resurrection] the female infant is asked for what sin she was
slain (Q.91:8-9)
4.4.2.
The Place Of This Text Within The Larger Text.
This text
is not regarded as having any legal significance and must be viewed within a
broader scriptural context that facilitates a gentler attitude towards women
and the promise of greater legal standing than hitherto enjoyed in Arabian
society. In pre-Islamic society payments were made to the father or nearest
male relative for a wife to be in a direct “sale”. The Qur’an altered this and
the women instead of being the object of a contract became a legal contracting
party with the sole entitlement to the dowry in lieu of the right of sexual
union. In the practice of divorce, the Qur’an abolished the practice whereby a
husband could summarily discard his wife and introduced a waiting period to
work through possible ways of reconciliation before divorce and separation was
effected. During this period the wife was entitled to financial support from
her husband. In the question of inheritance, the Qur’an modified pre-Islamic
rules which in general excluded females and minor children. “The [modified
qur’anic] provision […] qualifies the system of exclusive inheritance by male
agnate relatives and in particular recognizes the capacity of women relatives
to succeed” (Coulsen, 1978, 16).
4.4.3
The Immediate Occasion Of Revelation.
Most of the
classical exegetes believe that this text was occasioned by the Prophet’s
response to an incident of marital violence. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi believes that
it relates to Sa'd ibn Rabi, a prominent Ansari who slapped his wife Bint
Muhammad ibn Salma. She left her husband and went to the Prophet, showing him
the visible marks of the physical abuse on her face. The Prophet, al-Razi, says
condoned her departure from her husband and advised her against returning, and
to be patient. He is also reported to have said “he would see” (suggesting that
he anticipates revelation for further guidance). This text was seemingly
revealed in response to this anticipation to which the Prophet is reported to
have said: "We [i.e., himself] wanted something and God wanted something
else and what God wants is best"
Both Ibn
Jarir al-Tabari and Al-Zamkhshari believe that verse was revealed about someone
called Habibah bint Zayd who allegedly disclosed some confidential matters
about her husband to others for which she was slapped. The Prophet, according
to al-Zamakhshari, permitted the woman and her father to demand compensation
from her husband. Tabari adds that an additional verse was occasioned by this
verse: "Do not hurry with the Qur'an before revelation has come to
you". In other words, the Prophet should not pre-suppose God’s will.
It is
evident from the above that, whatever else the qur’anic text may be or wherever
else it may have originated from, for people it is essentially an historical
document revealed in a particular time and place and often dealing with
particular events in the lives of specific individuals. It is only when one
embraces this as a given that it becomes possible to make sense of the
seemingly contradictory qur’anic texts dealing with a host of different issues
including gender justice.
5. Who
Are the Interpreters of The Text?
Most
contemporary gender sensitive Muslim scholars rarely fail to point out that the
domain of exegesis, as with virtually all of Islamic religious scholarship, is
an entirely male affair. With the exception of Zainab bint Shab, few women have
made a mark in exegesis and the only relatively progressive comprehensive
exegetical work is that of Muhammad Asad. His Message of the Qur’an, though,
despite its extensive footnotes, is not nearly as elaborate as those of the
standard works of tafsir. Exegesis is, of course, not confined to work
exclusively devoted to this and several liberal scholars such as Engineer and
Hassan have dealt with the qur’anic texts dealing with women. While the views
of some of these scholars are dealt with when the meaning of the text are
discussed, it should be noted that their limitations regarding the Arabic
language have been a significant damper to the more gentle veneer which they
have attempted to put on the text under discussion.
These
scholars have also consistently called for greater female participation in
exegetical activity in order that women may re-read the text through the eyes
of the female experience of marginalization. This will undoubtedly be a
significant contribution to the overall process of women’s empowerment. Its
value, however, will be limited if it does not embrace the fundamental question
of the historicity of the text and the concomitant implications of the
marginalization of women in the very intended audience of the text.
6.
Reading and Meaning: For Who & What?
There is
considerable diversity among exegetes regarding the interpretation of this text
and the views of several of these have been dealt with extensively by Shaikh.
The text deals with three interrelated notions: The Qiwamah of men over
women, the righteous women (by implication subservient) and the disobedient (by
implication “unrighteous”) woman. The following may be said to be the most
salient features of their interpretation:
6.1 Qiwamah
There are slightly
nuances in the positions of classical exegetes. For Tabari, the Qiwamah
of men is rooted on the notion of preference that God has given to men in
relation to women and is based on specific material circumstances such as men
providing the dowries (mahr), financially supporting and maintaining their
wives out of the wealth they earn. Zamakhshari presents the Qiwamah of
men as a distinct location and duty of men as rulers over women, corresponding
to the relationship of that between a monarch and a subject. He supports this
view supported by arguments of putatively essential differences in the natures
of men and women and does not cater for any distinction between biological
differences and socially constructed ones. “The multi-dimensional and multi-causal
perceived and effective differences between men and women are indiscriminately
clustered together as a natural given. What are in fact skills or culturally
determined roles are constructed as "facts", "truth" and
inherent properties of maleness.” (Shaikh) Razi argues that Qiwamah is
related to God-given preference and is fundamentally concerned with economics
and "it is as though there is no intrinsic preference given to men"
He then proceeds to list a number of areas where men enjoy superiority over women
including larger brains and greater physical prowess.
The
limitation to much of the liberal Muslim discourse is also manifested in the
clear distinction which Shaikh draws between the views of Tabari and those of
Zamakhshari as well as her sharp critique of Razi who, upon closer scrutiny,
merely brought about greater clarity between the not dissimilar views of
Zamakhshari and Tabari. Shaikh makes much of the “distinction” between Tabari’s
views and that of Zamakhshari. Tabari, she argues, is “a particularly
interesting construction of the authority of men over women which is contingent
on a socio-economic phenomenon rather than some inherent quality of man or
woman per se [and…] conspicuous in its purely economic interpretation of this
gendered relationship.”
The text
specifically states that this preference, however it is premised – economical
social, biological or ontological - is based on bima faddalallah (what Allah
had bestowed), something that Tabari does not ignore. In different ways the
classical exegetes have argued a) that men are superior b) that this
superiority is both functional and essential to their maleness and c) that
while it is not intrinsic to their beings, it is nonetheless a gift from God.
Liberal Muslim scholars such Abu’l-Kalam Azad, Muhammad Asad, Amina
Wadud-Muhsin and Riffat Hassan have emphasized the caring and social
responsibility dimensions to qiwamah and suggest that this verse is, in
the first instance, a statement of the social facts as it existed in 6th
century Arabia.
In the
context of this text, there is no real difference in social terms between
gender relationships whether this putative superiority is intrinsic to their
biological beings, gifts of physical prowess or adequate financial resources.
God had decided to bestow it on men in a seemingly generalized (“Men are Qawwamun
over women”) despite the fact that only some men have been given grace above
some other (ba’duhum ‘ala ba’d) – the second ‘other’ is unspecified and gender
neutral.
Rather than
suggesting that the text is liberating because it implies that the Qiwamah
is tied to an economic relationship that may change with time, the text ought
to present two additional problems. The first is the idea that a specific
gender can acquire advantage as a group over another by virtue of some of its
members possessing enjoying some grace or virtue (even if only economical). The
second is the notion that wealth – and therefore also poverty - comes from God
and that changes in the economic relationships between men and women may, in
fact, be in violation of God’s will for humankind.
6.2
As-Salihat wa-‘l-Qanitat: The Righteous and Obedient Women
There is
agreement that the general meaning of the term “salihat” (lit. “righteous”) as
the upholders of the precepts of religion in a general sense is also applicable
to this verse. While liberal readers insist that the second characteristic,
“qanitat” (lit. “the obedient”) refers to obedience to God, (Engineer 1994,
2) most of the traditional interpreters
have viewed this as obedience to the wishes of the husband and suggest that the
obedience to one’s husband is, in fact, an extension - even a condition, of
righteousness. In the words of Shaikh, “it is a relationship of obedience of
female to male and thus condones marital hierarchy at a religious level. The
idea of sacralised male authority and marital hierarchy becomes foregrounded in
the relationship between female-believer and God […].”
The general
tone of the verse though, as well as the following more specific requirement of
the righteous/obedient/subservient wife make it fairly obvious that the
traditional exegetes are nearer to the truth in their fusion of duty to God and
to husband: The righteous wives are those who "guard in their husbands’
absence what God would have them guard."
Descriptions
of “what God would have them guard include one or more of the following: a) the
wife's sexuality b) her husband's wealth, c) her husband’s house from
impropriety and d) the husband’s secrets.
Sexual fidelity is thus portrayed as a combined duty to husband and God
and while fidelity may also be a duty of the husband, the wife is singled out
and her sexuality is joined to the husband’s property. In the process she and
her sexuality are further objectified and notions of women as owned commodities
underlined.
6.3
Al-Nashizat: The Disobedient Women
Having
elaborated on the righteous and obedient wife, the text proceeds to dealing
with the way the disobedient wife has to be dealt with.
As to those
women on whose part you fear nushuz (disloyalty \ill- conduct\ rebellion
disobedience), admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them. But if
they return again to obedience seek not means against them for God is the Most
High, Great above you.
The Qur’an
actually has a word for female disobedience, “nushuz”. Ghazali explains that
the word n-sh-z means “that which tries to elevate itself above the ground and
defines nushuz as “confronting the husband in act or word”. Ibn Manzur, the
most reputable classic Arabic’s lexicographer defines nushuz in the following
manner: “To protrude, to project, a hillock, in the fourth form - to lift up”.
He describes nushuz in the marital relationship as “one detests and dislike the
other” and says that, in the case of the women this occurs when she elevates
herself above her husband, that she disobeys him, angers him and withdraws from
him.
Classical
exegetes have confined their interpretation of n-sh-z to women. Tabari, for
example, defines it as “when the woman rises above her husband or removes
herself out of his bed, disagrees with him regarding her obedience and is
confrontational to her husband”. Razi cites Idris al-Shafi as defining nushuz
as “that which is disruptive in the wives behavior at either the verbal or
practical level.”
Several
liberal scholars such as Asad and Parvez have aged against the mono-gendered
nature of nushuz and have suggested that the remedial and/punitive measure to
be taken are equally applicable to the man and that in both cases the
implementing agent is the state. While Asad says that nushuz includes “mental
cruelty” with reference towards the husband [as well as] ill-treatment in the
physical sense towards his wife” he nevertheless acknowledges that this verse
refers to “a wife’s ‘ill-will’ [which] implies a deliberate, persistent breach
of her marital obligations.” (1980, 109). Whatever the desire of liberal
scholars, from the text it is evident that it is the male’s recourse to
attaining his will that is the subject matter of this text.
Three steps
are suggested / prescribed for dealing with the nashizah: “[a] Admonish them,
[b], refuse to share their beds and [c] beat them. While there has been much discussion on the
first two suggestions/prescriptions I wish to focus on the last one.
The
overwhelming majority of exegetes - liberal and traditional - accept the
translation of d-r-b as physical chastisement and restrict the debate to
advisability or otherwise, intensity, form and implementing agency without
questioning the legitimacy of physical chastisement itself. The way in which
these issues are addressed seem to suggest that, despite the inevitability of
rendering d-r-b as ‘beating’, that scholars of all persuasions were cognizant
of its essentially detestable nature as a means of resolving marital conflict
desperate to find ways of limiting its negativity. One can, in fact, argue that
given the many limitations which these scholars placed on the enactment of this
bit of advice that had they had recourse to any linguistic device to render
d-r-b as anything but ‘beating’ that they would have found a way to do so.
Before
dealing with the seeds for a gender-just approach to the Qur’an which goes
beyond liberal apologetics a few comments about this text and its
interpretation:
a) The
Qur’an does sanction violence against women. However it does so as a last
resort to subjugate the wife within a culture of violence against women where
this was often the first resort.
b) The
immediate context for the occasioning of this verse is still a problematic one;
The Prophet had seemingly defended the right of women to be free from physical
abuse and God had seemingly condoned it.
c) In the
text we find a reflection of what Shaikh describes as “a three-tiered spiritual
hierarchy” (She adds “in interpretations [of this text]”. The truth is that
this hierarchy is evident in the text itself). “Allah occupies the pinnacle of
this hierarchy, man comes next as primary believer addressed in the tafsir,
(who even in terms of the language which addresses men directly as
"you") and then the bottom echelon are occupied by women, who are
seen in relationship to men and then in relationship to God. In terms of the
language of the tafsir women are referred to as "they", the third
party, the other.”
d) While this
verse legitimizes violence against women, in classical and contemporary
societies where violence against women is the norm it does appear be placing
limitations on the abuser. Here Shaik draws attention to the reminder at the
end of the text that “God is above you” and argues that this was “actually an
attempt to instill accountability, to reduce the sense of power that men
enjoyed both psychologically and practically, to deflate their god-complexes in
relation to women.”
It is
evident from the above that any privileging of the text over gender justice is
a rather problematic knot for those committed to gender justice. The
confessional rhetoric of gender sensitive scholars that the Qur’an is a magna
carta of gender justice or that “the Qur’an has been more than fair to women”
(Engineer, 1994, 1) for does not withstand the scrutiny of critical
scholarship. There is a need to firmly locate the text in its socio-historical
environmental environment, to consciously depart from the letter of the text
and to focus on its core values as seen through the lenses of the marginalized.
7. The
Seeds for Gender Justice
Despite my
own critique of the recourse that many liberal and modernist gender sensitive
scholars have had to apologetic approaches to the Qur’an in general and, more
specifically, to those texts affirming gender inequality, I identify with and
invoke many of the seeds for gender justice which they have articulated for so
long.
I believe
that while the Qur’an is far from the human rights or gender equality document
that Muslim apologists make it out to be, that it, nevertheless, contains
sufficient seeds for those committed to human rights and gender justice to live
in fidelity to its underlying ethos. The following four approaches need to
cultivated by gender activists for both our intellectual and theological
integrity (in the sense of “wholeness”) as well as for advancing the cause of
gender equality: a) to God, b) to humankind, c) to the text and revelation and,
d) to interpretation.
7.1
Approaches to God.
The Qur’an
affirms the centrality of God in a believer’s life and not the law which is the
contextual means of achieving the pleasure of God. This affirmation is both
explicit in the text, the meaning of the word shari’ah and implicit in the
attention being given to God in the Qur’an rather than to the law. Here I want
to address three aspects to the nature of God and relate them to the quest for
gender justice: Tawhid (divine unity), Rububiyyat (lordship) and subhaniyyat
(Transcendence).
7.1.1
Tawhid (Divine Unity)
Tawhid is
usually understood to refer to God's absolute unicity. However, a number of
scholars are increasingly reflecting on the implications of that unicity for
humankind in particular and for creation in general. For those committed to progressive
values it has also come to mean a principle of holism that permeates all of
creation and a struggle to repair the wholeness of creation destroyed by
racism, environmental mismanagement, economic exploitation and sexism. A belief
in the unity of God can only become meaningful if we display a concern for the
way in which manifestations of it are being damaged.
Sexism and
the discrimination against women fly in the face of the holism of tawhid which
is in direct contrast to the misogynist worldview where man replaces God for a
woman and where a male-female relationship is expected to mirror that between
males and God. There is thus no place for putative sayings of the Prophet such
as “if prostration were permitted for any of God’s creation then women would
have been ordered to prostrate to their husbands.”
7.1.2
Subhaniyyat (Transcendence)
While we
acknowledge that the entire creation is a reflection of Allah's presence and
nature we also believe that He is beyond whatever is ascribed to Him. Allah is
above that community which, perhaps necessarily, limits Him by their
preconceptions and socio-religio-political horizons. Ultimately, He is even
above Islam. Hassan Askari has pointed out how this principle of Allah's
Transcendence prevents the implicit tendencies in religious traditions from
absolutizing themselves and claiming total equation between what they believe
('say') about Allah and Allah Himself.
This God is
Akbar – the eternally greater than, the eternally transcendent. In the words of
the Qur’an, “God is free from they ascribe unto him” For our present
purposes this has two implications: God is greater than the law and to elevate
the law to the level of the divine and the immutable is in fact to associate
others with God, the antithesis of tawhid. Secondly, God is greater than any
gender construction or the inescapably human device of language. Patriarchal
portrayals of God are thus also a negation of God’s subhaniyyat.
This means
that every expression of the law – including Muslim Personal Law - must be
subject to the requirements of justice and compassion. Because the law,
wherever it may originate from, is always approached and interpreted by
historical human beings, it must be interpreted in terms of the ever
approximating and developing notions of justice and compassion.
7.1.3
Rububiyyat
This God is
rabb al-nas, the rabb of humankind. Rabb is “that being who brings into life
and nurtures until perfection.” This rabb is just, compassionate and gracious
and prescribed mercy upon Himself. (Q. 2:243; 10:60; 12:38; 13:6) While this
rabb does prescribe some laws which are very few in relation to the contents of
the Qur’an, He is not a lawyer. On the contrary, we get the impression of a
Being who is essentially concerned with taking society from a given point and
wants to take them further along the path of self-actualization and recognition
of His all-pervading presence. The law, dynamic even in the limited period of
revelation, is there to serve as a means (Shari’ah) to reach Him in their
lifetimes.
7.2
Approaches to Humankind
The Qur’an
places humankind in a “world of tawhid where God, people and nature display
meaningful and purposeful harmony” (Shari’ati 1980, 86). According to the
Qur’an, the spirit of God covers all of humankind and gives them a permanent
sanctity (E.g., 15:29; 17:22,70, 21:91) Despite the regular reminders of the
inevitable return to God, the spiritualizing of human existence, which regards
earthly life as incidental, is unfounded in the qur’anic view of humankind. The
human body, being a carrier of a person’s inner core and of the spirit of God,
is viewed as sacred and physical concerns are, therefore, not viewed as
incidental to the Qur’an.
In the
context of gender relations two inviolable elements are of specific concern:
the intrinsic dignity (karamah) of all people – including women and that of
justice (`adalah). Both concepts are firmly rooted in the Qur’an while the law
is a means to facilitate their actualization. When the law fails to do this
then it must be re-interpreted, amended or abandoned in order to fulfill this
objective for people as the repositories of God’s spirit preceded the law.
I
acknowledge that both of these concepts are not uncontested – indeed, many
Muslim misogynists often seek refuge in the concept of the dignity for women as
means to support an ideology that regards women as minors who have to be
eternally protected from themselves and from the naturally predatory behaviour
of males. I, however, use these terms within a broader context of progressive
values where people make – and have the freedom to do so - informed decisions
about their lives and bodies based on the availability of knowledge and
options. In some ways this severely limits much of what has been written above
for the vast majority of women live in conditions of abject poverty, ill
health, illiteracy and political repression. In these conditions a benign male
guardianship behind chador aur char diwari (the cloak and four walls) may even
be the preferred option of many women rather than the gender equality amidst
starvation. This only serves to underline the interconnectedness of the quest
for dignity and justice. There is no gender justice without access to the
economic resources and political freedom that enables it.
The point,
however, that I seek to make here is that humankind, rather than a canon or a
set of laws are the repositories of the spirit of God. How we seek to actualize
this truth for women will vary from one society to another.
7.3
Approaches to The Text and Revelation
The
socio-historical and linguistic milieu of the qur'anic revelation is reflected
in the contents, style, objectives and language of the Qur'an. This
contextuality is also evident from the distinction made between the Meccan and
Medinan verses and from the way its supposedly miraculous nature is located in
the 'purity of its Arabic', its 'eloquence' and its 'unique rhetorical style'.
The Qur'an
is not unique in the relationship between the revelatory process, language and
contents, on the one hand, and the community which received it, on the other;
revelation is always a commentary on a particular society. Muslims, like
others, believe that a reality, which transcends history, has communicated with
them. This communication, supposed or real, took place within history and was
conditioned by it. Even a casual perusal of the Qur'an will indicate that,
notwithstanding its claim to be "a guide for humankind" (Q. 2:175)
revealed by "the Sustainer of the universe" (Q. 1:1), it is
generally addressed to the people of the Hijaz who lived during the period of
its revelation.
The picture
which the Qur'an portrays of the Transcendent is one of God actively engaged in
the affairs of this world and of humankind. One of the ways in which this
constant concern for all of creation is shown is the sending of Prophets as
instruments of His progressive revelation. Translating this divine concern and
intervention into concrete moral and legal guidelines requires understanding
the contexts of these interventions. The principle of tadrij, whereby
injunctions are understood to have been revealed gradually, best reflects the
creative interaction between the will of God, realities on the ground and needs
of the community being spoken to. The Qur'an, despite its inner coherence, was
never formulated as a connected whole, but was revealed in response to the
demands of concrete situations.
It is
understandable that gender activists who continue to locate themselves within
the religious community of Muslims (as distinct from the faith community of
Islam) find it difficult to confront the inherent difficulties which notions of
an ahistorical text presents. However, those who place gender justice at the
core of their concerns – rather than scripture - cannot but be cognisant of the
severe limitations which such notions place on them.
7.4
Approaches to Interpretation
The principle
of progressive revelation reflects the notion of the presence of a Divine
Entity who manifests His will in terms of the circumstances of His people, who
speaks to them in terms of their reality and whose word is shaped by those
realities. This word of God thus remains alive because its universality is
recognized in the middle of an ongoing struggle to re-discover meaning in it.
The challenge for every generation of believers is to discover their own moment
of revelation, their own intermission in revelation, their own frustrations
with God, joy with His consoling grace, and their own being guided by the
principle of progressive revelation.
The meaning
assigned to a text by any exegete cannot exist independently of his/her
personality and environment. There is therefore no plausible reason why any
particular generation should be the intellectual hostages of another for even
the classical exegetes did not consider themselves irrevocably tied to the work
of their previous generation. Interpreters are people who carry the inescapable
baggage and conviviality of the human condition. Indeed, each and every
generation of Muslims since the time of Muhammad, carrying its peculiar
synthesis of the human condition, has produced its own commentaries of the Qur'an
(and various kinds of interpretations with every generation). The present
generation of Muslims, like the many preceding ones, faces the option of
reproducing meaning intended for earlier generations or of critically and
selectively appropriating traditional understandings to re-interpret the Qur'an
as a part of the task of reconstructing society.
The
inevitable active participation of the interpreter in producing meaning
actually implies that receiving a text and extracting meaning from it do not
exist on their own. Reception and interpretation and, therefore meaning, are
thus always partial. Every interpreter enters the process of interpretation
with some preunderstanding of the questions addressed by the text - even of its
silences - and brings with him or her certain conceptions as presuppositions of
his or her exegesis. Meaning, wherever else it may be located, is also in the
remarkable structure of understanding itself.
"There is no innocent interpretation, no innocent interpreter, no
innocent text" (Tracy 1987, 79).
Bibliography
Coulsen, N.J. 1974. A History of Islamic Law. Edinburgh: University
Press
Engineer, Asghar Ali Engineer. 1995. Muslim Women, Veil and Qur’an.
Bombay: Institute of Islamic Studies.
Engineer, Asghar Ali Engineer. 1994. The Qur’an, Male Ego and Wife
Beating. Bombay: Institute of Islamic Studies.
Proezesky, Martin. 1989. Is the Concept of Human Rights Logically
Permissable in Theistic Religion? In Jouranl for the Study of Religion, Vol 2,
No 2, September 1989
Hassan, Riffat. N.d. Are Women and Men equal before Allah? The Issue of
Gender Justice in Islam in Women’s Rights and Islam: From the ICPD to Beijing.
Pp. 1-15
Hassan, Riffat. 1996. Rights of Women within Islamic Communities in
Witte, John Jr. & van der Vyver, Johan. (eds.) Religious Human Rights in
Global Perspective. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) pp. 361-386
Mernissi, Fatima. 1986. Femininity as subversion: Reflections on the
Muslim Concept of Nushuz in Eck, Diana L. & Jain, Devaki (eds.) Speaking of
Faith – Cross Cultural Perspectives on Women, Religion & Social Change New
Delhi: The Women’s Press) pp. 88-100
Rajawi, Maryam. 1995. Islam & Women’s Equality. Paris: Foreign
Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Shaikh, Sa’diyya. "Battered Women in Muslim Communities in the
Western Cape: Religious Constructions of Gender, Marriage, Sexuality and
Violence". MA thesis submitted to the University of Cape Town, 1997
Original
Headline: What Do Men Owe to Women?
Islam & Gender Justice: Beyond Simplistic Apologia
Source: OOCities
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-women-feminism/islamic-scholar-farid-esack-gender/d/122548