Educated, Ignorant, and Feminist
Title: Feminism and Islam, Legal and Literary Perspectives
Editor: Mai Yamani
Publisher: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Year: 1996
385 pages.
Remember when Soviet Union was a Super Power, and reading Lenin and Marx (or at least
pretending to have read them) was a sign of intellectual achievement? In those
"glorious" days claims that Islam also espoused its own brand of Socialism, and
that Islamic Socialism was the need of the hour had gripped the intellectual landscape of
the Muslim world. As Soviet Union turned into Soviet Onion, to disappear peal by peal, the
apologists and their arguments also found their way to the trash heap of history.
However, real apologists do not die. They just reappear in another guise, always
submitting to whatever seems to be the dominant ideology of the time. Enter Feminism:
Women of the world unite. And sure there are already a lot of "experts" on
Islamic Feminism. Fifteen of them have contributed chapters to this book, which is an
intellectual attempt to serve the cause of this fancy new ism. It differs from the
previous ism only in the chutzpah of its proponents. For note that the book is titled
"Feminism and Islam" and not "Islam and Feminism." For these pundits
feminism (whatever it means) is the self-evident and absolute Truth. Islam, on the other
hand, is a "man-made" religion, to be examined and reformed according to the
dictates of the former! After all, the great Islamic jurists were all men, "moved by
thirst for power" who, acting like "privileged oppressors," gave their
gender more and more privileges, usurping the rights of women [p 331]. Those who wrote the
tafsir (exegeses) of Qur'an were men, as were the people like Bukhari and Muslim who
compiled quotes "allegedly said by the Prophet [Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam]."
[p 35].
Things get a lot more sinister. The early Islamic scholars, muhadditheen, mufassireen,
as well as historians, were not only men bent upon usurping the rights of women, they were
also liars who deliberately distorted history to throw a bad light on everything which
preceded Islam [p 77]. It is because of their distortion that people generally believe
that Islam had significantly improved the lives of women. Despite the elaborate
"cover up," a dedicated researcher Ghada Karmi, Senior Research Fellow, Center
for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Durham University, through her sheer brilliance
has found that actually women were better off before Islam! The existence of goddesses
like al-Uzza, Manat, and al-Lat is proof that "society was originally organized on a
matriarchal and/or matrilineal basis." In addition in the Jahilya society a woman
could have many husbands just like the man could have many wives, thus producing balance,
which was destroyed by Islam! Moreover, when she bore a child, she would call all the
"husbands" and decide who she thought was the father. "And her word was
law." What a position of power!
To respond to any of the above arguments is to dignify unadulterated nonsense, but it
is important to note that in this "scholarly" book, she has as much claim to the
crown of ijtihad-dom as the next expert. Her ijtihad holds that the Qur'an should be
striped of those verses dealing with legislation, as they are the variable part. We should
leave other verses that deal with the spiritual content, for that is the constant part.
Afraid that this "bold" suggestion may not be accepted, other
"experts" offer new interpretations of the Qur'anic verses toward the same goal.
One suggestion that occurs repeatedly is that Islam does not require Muslim women to
observe hijab or veil. There is nothing new about the argument that the injunction about
veil applies only to the wives of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. But it is
interesting and instructive to look at their treatment of the subject. Their argument is
based on this verse: "O Wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the other
women: If you do fear Allah, be not too complaisant of speech, lest one in whose heart is
a disease should be moved with desire: but speak a speech that is just. And stay quietly
in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of
Ignorance; and establish regular prayer, and give Zakat and obey Allah and His
Messenger." [al-Ahzab, 33:32-33]. The interpretation given by all the scholars has
been that these commands apply to all the believing women and that the reference to the
Prophet's wives is only aimed at emphasizing their greater responsibility as they are the
role models for all other believers. But the feminists cannot resist the temptation for a
strictly literal interpretation as a way out of the first two commands. The problem is
that here five commands are given in the same tone, and it is obvious that the last three
apply to all the believing women. If there is a basis for selectively restricting the
first two to the Prophet's wives no one has shown that. In fact the reasoning given a few
verses later demolishes the feminist's argument completely. "And when you ask (his
ladies) for anything you want, ask them from behind a curtain: that makes for greater
purity for your hearts and for theirs."[Al-Ahzab, 33:53]. To say that veil was
required only of the wives of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, is to claim that
either the rest of the believing women have purer hearts that do not need the protection
of veil or that for them purity of heart is not required!
Unaware of this problem, but happy with her literal interpretation, A L Marsot gives
away her real reason for opposing the veil at the end of her article. Veil to her implies
an inferior role for the women [p 46]. Let's ignore whether this observation is justified
or not but it is impossible to ignore the sentiments expressed here: Veil is a sign of
inferiority, so let us restrict it to the Mothers of the Believers!
The article by Mona Siddiqui, Lecturer in Islamic Studies, Faculty of Divinity,
University of Glasgow, examines the law of Kafa'a (compatibility) in Hanafi school to
demonstrate the "tensions" between legal rights and social norms. The basic
principle underlying Kafa'a is that a Muslim woman should not marry a Muslim man below her
status and that of her family. Such a marriage would be allowed only if not only the woman
but also her guardian approves of it. The law prevents a woman from contracting herself in
an incompatible and therefore potentially disastrous marriage and it defines compatibility
in precise detail. Thus there are two possible situations. A marriage within Kafa'a and
one outside it. In the first case the woman can legally contract herself in marriage but
it is still desirable for her to have a wali or guardian to marry her off so as not to be
associated with shamelessness. In the second marriage is not valid if the wali disapproves
of it. Mona Siddiqui sees problems with both: "The taint of shamelessness that is
associated with a woman who acts within the legal parameters reflects a society reluctant
to equate the observance of a legal right with approved behavior." The tension she
sees is a result of a failure to understand the complementary relationship between law and
moral teachings. For example, legally divorce is permissible, but it is the most abhorrent
of all the permissible things. Is there a conflict? Not at all. Divorce is legally
permissible because the safety valve has to be there for the rare situation when it may be
needed. At the same time, moral teachings and societal norms aim at reducing as much as
possible the need for this valve. Should we complain that the exercise of a legal right is
being compromised under societal pressures? Similarly modesty and haya are the most
important qualities of a believing woman and anyone who is not totally deprived of these
attributes can see the need for a wali to marry her off. Why is there a conflict between
this norm and the right to accept or reject a marriage proposal?
She also notes that "In Islamic law texts the abstractions of romantic love do not
figure and thus, in the socio-structural patterns that are discussed, the potential
importance of love as affecting mate choice is denied any juristic reckoning." The
suggestion is that as intermixing of men and women in schools and places of employment
increases, thereby leading to increasing episodes of "romantic love," the law
should be changed to accommodate the new realities. Interesting. And you thought that she
understood that the whole doctrine of Kafa'a and of rights of wali is aimed at making sure
that romantic love does not run amuck!
World Bank adviser Lama Abu-Odeh also emphasizes the need for this kind of adjustment.
She calls for an end to the crimes of honor for their obvious cruelty. If a woman commits
fornication or adultery and her father, brother, or husband finds out about it and kills
her in a fit of rage, the laws in many Muslim countries consider it a special situation,
thereby reducing the sentence for murder. That is a crime of honor. The development of
these laws, many of which came from European sources, is a result of three factors. 1)
Abrogating Islamic hudood laws, 2) development of pressures that lead to illicit acts, and
3) the desire to keep the resulting mess under control. The article notes correctly that
"[the new sexual practices] are the nationalist's nightmare: they are the product of
the nationalists' own policies, yet ones that nationalist ideology consciously
rejects." The sensible remedy would be to fix the problem at the root by relieving
the pressures (Television, films, radio, magazines, newspapers features and ads that
excite the senses) and removing the opportunities (Free mixing in schools and businesses,
easy availability of contraceptives) for indecent acts that later lead to the crimes of
honor. It would also include the introduction of hudood laws according to Shari'a to act
as deterrent. What she suggests instead is simply to abrogate the provisions for the
crimes of honor and let the chips fall where they may. The author is intelligent enough to
recognize that this unilateral suggestion would face opposition on the grounds that it
will promote promiscuity. For that she suggests several rhetorical responses, thus giving
us a glimpse of the internal strategy session of the feminists: 1) Only poor women are the
victims of crimes of honor. 2) Arab women will never become like western women. 3) It does
not look good abroad 4) Proper sexual behavior should be promoted through ethical
teachings rather than violence 5) There is nothing wrong with romance. Clever propaganda
points!
This leads us to the question of the real agenda behind this book. Except for one
article by Raga El-Nimr, which may have been included to maintain the façade of
objectivity, the contents of this book contains gems like the ones mentioned above. It is
obvious that the book has nothing to do with the real problems facing Muslim women. Isn't
it intriguing that it talks about the discrimination against women in Lebanon who are not
allowed to undertake mining, foundry work, brewing and distilling, and driving heavy
equipment [p 328] yet says not a word about the plight of Muslim women in Bosnia, Kashmir,
or Palestine?
Actually, as in all feminists' works, the real issues of Muslim women are not touched
here at all. The foremost issue for Muslim women is the protection of their dignity and
prevention of their degrading and demeaning portrayal in the media, which in turn leads to
all sorts of abuses. There needs to be a total ban on displaying the pictures of their
bodies for commercial gain. They also need protection from un-Islamic practices forced by
the husband. There are husbands who force their wives to unveil in public or attend to
their friends or even discourage them from praying. A Muslim women must have legal
recourse against such coercion. Similarly there are so-called Muslim regimes that force
women to unveil in public. This is state-sponsored religious persecution and she needs her
rights restored through a total stop to it. A Muslim woman also needs an educational
system that caters to her needs, instead of forcing her to become a man in a blind quest
for equality. She needs healthcare facilities that respect her dignity and her need for
privacy. Today in many Muslim countries a women is totally helpless and a potential victim
of all kinds of assaults once she enters a hospital. A Muslim woman also needs a legal and
justice system that assures her that she can get her rights in case of disputes according
to the shari'a. She needs an Economic system in which she is not forced to leave home to
share the burden of earning a living. She needs an environment in which her natural
instincts for motherhood and homemaking are respected not crushed. And yet on all of these
issues there is a deafening silence in the feminists quarters.
Of course one should not expect any of that from a book that mentions the notorious
Cairo Conference with respect and quotes such notables as Benazir Bhutto on the need for
following the "correct form of Islam" or Suzanne Mubarak on the "importance
of democracy." There is an additional problem here for the telltale signs are all
over that this book may actually be a covert operation of the UN. Any doubts in this
regard should be removed by reading chapter 16 by Jane Connor's about Women's Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. What lurks behind those
unwieldy but innocent- sounding words, is a complete "shari'a" of the UN that
aims at overriding Islamic shari'a. It calls for ending segregation in workplace, and
ending Islam's laws of evidence, marriage, divorce, custody of children, paternity, and
alimony payment. Further in case of any disputes, it gives jurisdiction to the
International Court. The Convention went into force in 1981 while a non-binding
Declaration was adopted in 1963. This has been going on quietly, without any debate or
awareness in Muslim countries. What the Muslim countries have been doing, working
individually instead of as a common block, has been to make reservations against some of
the objectionable provisions. The UN to get its foot in the door ignored these
reservations, a right of sovereign UN members. Now in the unipolar world, the UN is making
the move to end those reservations. The article by Jane Connors, the "Islamic
expert," assures us that most of the reservations were not based on Islamic Shari'a,
which has nothing to do with these mundane matters. Sure.
Her report should be an eye-opener for the Muslim leaders who had briefly turned their
attention to these matters during the Cairo Conference, and have since seemed to have gone
back to slumber. The UN has been acting on this thing for several decades now and there is
no let up in its efforts. At one time the Convention requested the UN "to promote or
undertake studies on the status of women under Islamic laws and customs and in particular
on the status and equality of women in the family… taking into consideration the
principle of El Ijtihad in Islam." According to Connors that plan was shelved under
protest by some Muslim countries including Bangladesh and Egypt. However "Feminism
and Islam" fits the bill precisely. Its publication from University of London,
instead of the UN press, gives it additional measure of objectivity and respectability. If
only it can act as another wakeup call for the Muslim leaders.
By Khalid Baig
Book Review 