The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (33 page)

In addition to the above, one will find puritan literature prohibiting women from engaging in any form of public speaking; demanding that women attend sermons or lectures behind a curtain or wall; teaching that a woman’s entry into Heaven is hinged on her husband’s being pleased with her; claiming that the angels curse any woman who upsets her hus- band; alleging that an education beyond basic literacy is un- necessary for women; and preaching that women were created to act as a source of temptation and test for men.

Puritans flood the Muslim markets with this genre of litera- ture, which pretends to represent the Divine law. The unfortu- nate reality is that many Muslims who are not experts in Islamic law are likely to believe that this is genuinely what their religion demands of them. They are likely to believe that this compulsive obsession with sexual enticement is truly the will of God. What is truly incredulous is that at the same time that puritans advocate the total seclusion of women from the public arena, they will also claim that their vision of Islam lib- erated and honored women by protecting them from the evil gazes of lustful men and from being exposed to humiliation or molestation while in the public arena. Accordingly, women should not work outside their homes, should be forced to veil either their hair or their face, and are not qualified to take po- sitions of leadership.

The moderate position is fundamentally at odds with the puritan approach. At a minimum, the puritan rulings are not objectively mandated by Islamic sources. In fact, moderates

argue that a fair and balanced reading of the Qur’an, the tra- ditions of the Prophet, and the precedents of the Compan- ions would not support the claimed Islamicity of the puritan positions. Aside from betraying a profound obsession with sexual enticement and allures, the puritan determinations have the clear effect of denying women their intellect and soul, and they exclude women as viable and necessary contributors to society. They turn women into a heaving bundle of sexual en- ticement and allure, and then punish them for the sexual fan- tasies men have projected onto them.

This, in the moderate view, is entirely inconsistent with the history and ethics of Islam and the nature and role of Divinity. In an earlier chapter, I explained the difference between Shari’a and
fiqh,
two terms often used interchangeably to de- scribe Islamic law today. Shari’a, contrary to
fiqh,
is the Di- vine potential fulfilled in the Divine reality. Shar’ia represents law in its pristine perfection as it exists in God’s mind—the ideal, immutable, and eternal laws of goodness, justice, beauty, and ultimately Divinity as conceived in God’s mind. And
fiqh
is the human effort to reach this ideal, which is al- ways, by definition, faulty and incomplete. In the case of the relationship between women and men, the Divine ideal—the moral eternal law of Shari’a—is justice; and justice, provided that the circumstances are appropriate, demands equality in value, worth, and opportunity.

This moral principle and objective comes from the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an emphasizes that in the eyes of God, there is no distinction between genders, races, or classes. In God’s eyes, women are equal to men because they are rewarded and punished exactly in equal measure, and they have equal access to God’s grace and beneficence.
13
In principle, women have rights equal to their obligations, in accordance with what is recognized as just and fair.
14
Of great significance is the fact

that when the Qur’an speaks of the solemn duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, it obligates men and women in equal measure. The Qur’an states: “The believers, men and women, are aides and support for one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. They keep up their prayers, and give alms [to the poor] and they obey God and His Prophet. God will bestow His mercy upon them. God is almighty and all wise.”
15
Hence, according to the Qur’an, men and women are not just equal partners in building the moral fabric of society, but they must fully cooperate by supporting and aiding each other.

This solemn obligation means nothing less than bearing the duty of struggling to come as close to Godliness as one’s ef- forts would make possible. Therefore, the task is to bring men and women to a position where they have an equal opportu- nity to pursue Godliness in equal measure. To reach that point, however, means becoming engaged in the process of pursuing Godliness. This is not an objective that can be achieved overnight; it has to be a moral goal that men and women patiently pursue.

The thorough and fair-minded researcher will observe that behind every single Qur’anic revelation regarding women was an effort seeking to protect women from exploitative situa- tions and from situations in which they are treated in- equitably. In studying the Qur’an it becomes clear that the Qur’an is educating Muslims on how to make incremental but lasting improvements in the condition of women that can only be described as progressive for their time and place. In addi- tion, women at the time of the Prophet Muhammad were very active in the social and political life of the community. And as is commonly known, several wives of the Prophet, after his death, took on the important roles of being teachers and ju- rists in the community.
16
Significantly, in this context the ma-

jority of the Qur’an’s progressive reforms came about as a re- sult of social demands
expressed and advocated by women
. Moderates start by observing that the ideal expressed in the
eternal
law is equality—equality in responsibility before God, and in responsibility on this earth. Furthermore, moderates focus on studying the Qur’anic methodology in bringing about reform and analyzing the progressive, forward motion evident in the Qur’anic text. That is to say, the Qur’an itself antici- pates the passage of time and articulates the manner in which

Muslims must change in order to adapt to their time.

In this context, through the use of the systematic tools of ju- risprudential analysis, the task of
fiqh
is to seek how to make earthly reality as close as possible to the Divine ideal. The Qur’an introduced reforms that were appropriate within the confines of the social reality existing at the time the Qur’an was revealed, and in doing so the Qur’an achieved justice. Moder- ates recognize that the Qur’an sought to empower women by setting in motion a process according to which women gained greater rights in direct proportion to their social status—a social status that they (women) played the critical role in defining. Moderate Muslims believe that since the Qur’an is their teacher, the burden is on them, as men and women, to set in motion the same process of helping women achieve an upward trajectory of empowerment and reach results appropriate for each generation and its time. But the Qur’an makes a point to illustrate that so- cial change comes when those who are entitled to a right de- mand it. Therefore, it is imperative that women play the critical role in initiating the process of change. Since men and women are, as the Qur’an puts it, aides and supporters to each other in enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, they must also be partners in helping women achieve their due rights.

This necessarily means that the rules of law that apply to women cannot be static and unchanging. Islamic law has to

keep charging forward to achieve the moral objectives ex- pressed in the Qur’an. To achieve justice, there has to be a constant effort to achieve a more authentic proportionality be- tween duties and rights in the lives of Muslim women. So, for instance, if within the social dynamics of the time, women carry a financial responsibility equal to men, it is more consis- tent with Shari’a to allow women an equal share to men in in- heritance. Puritans define the social status of women by strictly limiting the rights and duties of men and women for every age and place, and then coercing women to accept their predetermined status in society. Moderates, on the other hand, recognize that social status shifts according to human con- sciousness and knowledge, and thus they strive to achieve jus- tice through a legal proportionality between rights and duties. Puritans read the Qur’an verse by verse on matters relating to women, and from each verse they come up with an uncom- promising and unchanging legal rule that is set in stone for- ever. But what they always ignore is the moral message and the ethical objectives of the Qur’an.

For moderate Muslims, it is clear that there are ethical and moral objectives that the Qur’an unfailingly pursues. For moderates, the Qur’an does not set a bunch of unconnected and unwavering rules applicable to women, but addresses par- ticular problems that arose in specific historical contexts. Moderates read the Qur’an as having illustrated an ethical and moral methodology on how to deal with situations that at one time were abusive and dismissive toward women.

I will give a few examples to illustrate the moderate’s ap- proach. These examples will also help explain why the moder- ates and puritans reach conclusions that are so dissimilar about the relationship of Islam to women:

Consider the law of inheritance in the Qur’an, which in various circumstances dictates that women inherit only half of

what men inherit. According to various sources, in pre-Islamic Arabia, the only class of individuals qualified to share in the inheritance were people who fought in battles. Since normally men fought in battles and women did not, in pre-Islamic Ara- bia women were excluded from receiving any inheritance. After Muslims established a city-state in Medina, on several occasions women
did
participate in battles that Muslims fought, and so a controversy arose. The men of the city in- sisted that women should continue to be disqualified from any possible inheritance because women were not
expected
to fight. In other words, the men argued, in effect, that if women go to battle, they do so as volunteers, and therefore, the pre- Islamic rule should not be amended to allow these fighting women a share of the inheritance. After all, the men argued, if these women had chosen to stay home, no one would have blamed them.

A number of women in Medina, however, strongly dis- agreed with the men’s reasoning, and they were vocal about their opinions. The protesting women complained to the Prophet Muhammad that although they may not have partici- pated in every battle, they, as women, contributed in material and crucial ways to the well-being of the city-state in Medina, which put the men in a better position to fight, and therefore, they saw no reason for being excluded from inheritance. After listening to the women’s argument, the Prophet told them that he was unable to give them an immediate response and asked them to wait because God might reveal something to him about this matter. Shortly thereafter, the Prophet received rev- elation giving women a share of the inheritance that often is half of the share received by men.
17

Not surprisingly, men protested. They argued that it was unfair that most women did not take part in battle and yet women, depending on their relationship to the deceased, were

entitled to a share equal to that of men or, more often, half of that received by men. In response to the men’s protest, a Qur’anic revelation addressing men and women instructed: “Do not covet what God has favored some of you with over others. For men is a share in accordance with what they earned and for women is a share in accordance with what they earned. And ask God for His favors for God is all know- ing.”
18
What happened here was that women were given a part of what they demanded. As to the protests of the men, the Qur’an reprimands them by saying, in effect: “Behave your- selves and don’t envy women the share they got!”

Interestingly enough, puritans often cite this Qur’anic verse: “Do not covet what God favored some of you with over oth- ers,” as a way of suppressing women’s rights—effectively, as a way of telling women not to desire more rights than they have been given. But understood in its proper context, the Qur’anic verse takes on an entirely different meaning.

It is important to notice that the verse advises people not to begrudge each other the favors that God has bestowed
in ac- cordance with what they have earned
. The verse even goes on to leave open the possibility that one may earn more of God’s favors by praying to God for such favors. Far from implying that there is a stable and static condition in which men and women have a set of unchanging, predetermined rights, the verse indicates that there is a dynamic and evolving situation in which men and women gain rights in accordance with what they have earned, and in which, instead of envying and work- ing to undermine each other, people supplicate to God for fur- ther rights—further favors. Whatever rights or favors are enjoyed are not bestowed as a matter of status (or gender), but are earned by the dual engagement between the human and the Divine—by work and prayer. Theologically, what this means is that by praying to God, but also by working to earn

further rights, people will (with God’s help) reach their just de- serve. From the point of justice, if people take on certain du- ties, their rights must change in proportion.

The same dynamic is found in another verse that has often been cited to legitimate inequality between men and women. Puritans always cite this verse as a way of convincing women that they should be obedient and subservient before their hus- bands. There are two main alternative ways to translate this verse. The verse I am referring to could be read to say: “Men are the
guardians
of women in accordance with the favors God has bestowed upon some over others, and in accordance with the wealth they spend to provide for others” (emphasis mine). The verse could also be read to say: “Men are the
sup- porters
of women in accordance with the favors God has be- stowed upon some over others, and in accordance with the wealth they spend to provide for others” (again, emphasis mine).
19
In Arabic, the word that I emphasized is
qawwamun
and the variant translations depend on the way that the word
qawwamun
is understood and interpreted—the word could mean “guardians,” “supporters,” “masters,” or “servants.” Either way, the important point is that the verse does not de- fine the relationship of men to women in an absolute and non- contingent fashion. Rather, the verse explicitly states that whatever the status—whether as guardians or supporters—it is a status contingent on the actions of human beings (that is, “in accordance with wealth they spend to provide for the oth- ers”) and on the action of the Divine (that is, by the favors the Divine has bestowed upon one over the other).