I am dismayed at your response. You talk about a human individual and then proceed to define this individual as a man, not as a woman. The way you describe Islam, it is from the erspective of a man and for me, as a Muslim woman, this is unacceptable. Allah is neither male nor female and yet, when His laws are discussed on earth, they are inevitably gendered.

Please do not tell me that when you say "he", you also mean "she". I have heard this response before. Why dont you say "she" and also mean "he'???? This kind of approach DOES have an impact on the way Islam engages with women and the way in which Muslim men perceive their position vis a vis women. To say that something is mutual means that you must truly engage in the discussion with a mutual perspective in mind and you must adopt a MUTUAL gaze. This means, for a start, imagine the "human individual" to be a woman, at least for some time, before you imagine her to also be a man. Do you understand how women feel? I dont think so. You lack awareness and sensitivity to the creation of gender roles in society whereby people think automatically that an individual is a man. Secondly, I am appalled at the way in which you distort facts. Women are head of households and were the head of households during the time of the Prophet Mohammad, May peace be upon him. Just read history, the the history that is written in the way that you have written about the "human individual" as a man, but history that is sensitive to women and gender. I dont have time to go into it, but if you search -- as a true Muslim with a conscience -- you will find enough examples of women being responsible for their husbands. YES. So that argument does not hold water. Throughout history, and in many parts of the globe, man has NOT been the sole breadwinner. It is only the capitalist society, where labour is exploited for capital and production and there is a commodification of all goods and services, has women's work been regarded as "informal" and monetary benefits have been gained by men. About two hundred years ago, in a barter economy, women were equal to men in economic terms. In the farmland of Bangladesh, where I come from, without women, farmers could not survive. And there are more and more single female headed households around the world. Why cant we accept that the social, political, economic laws in the Quran are guidelines which must be amended from time to time, as was done consistently until the 10th Century AD and more recently, as an example, by the Family Laws Ordinance in Pakistan, with respect to the number of wives a Muslim could have. To amend guudilines is NOT to question Allah but to follow the spirit of His message which is to be just to all humankind. The five pillars of Islam are not guidelines but injunctions that are the foundation of my faith. They have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF FAMILY AS A KEY TO ISLAM!!!!! The five pillars are known to all of us and they do not discriminate, they are not gendered, they are universal: Belief in Allah and the Prophet Mohammad as the messenger of Allah; prayer, fasting, zakat and Haj. All have to do it, whether they are male, female, married, divorced or widowed!!!RIGHT????

These are foundational principles. You should not take something from the Quran and Hadith that suits the way YOU perceive reality. Think of the millions of poor women in the world you have condemned to be abnormal because you have declared 'family' in the way you see it, to be the one and only desirable social arrangement in Islam. And if that were not enough, you take the admonitions of one incident in the Quran and apply it to all women, for all time. As though "authority" has the same meaning in this day and age. Allah is Merciful and Allah is Compassionate and He is also the most Liberal. You say "Islam wants to preserve this set-up as much as possible" I say, Muslim men want to believe in this set up as much as possible! Come on. Open your eyes and start believing in Allah. Not in your patriarchal visions. No more will Muslim women keep quiet and take this kind of paternalistic, prejudiced interpretations! I am my own authority and I bow ONLY TO ALLAH. So all this talk of "authority" is simply out of place.
AZ

Thank you for the comments. I would like to respond to some of the points you have made. You think that the author has committed gender discrimination even in his expression by not bifurcating between the genders In this connection you write:

“Why dont you say "she" and also mean "he'????”

I am afraid there is not much to do in this regard. We need to communicate our message to the people who already use the word individual for a human being irrespective of their gender. Therefore one who goes for using ‘she’ instead of ‘an individual’ will not be able to communicate with the rest of the world for the whole world has the same usage. I don’t understand that roots of this style of expression lie in intentional gender discrimination. Therefore, you have to wait for the time when this usage and implication is replaced with the one you desire. Man has been always using the male gender in their communication in the oldest known literature and historical and religious records.

Some of your remarks are really heart rendering and not befitting in academic world. Of course every one has the right to disagree with others but please consider the fact that we have presented our viewpoint duly argued not on the basis of our status etc. Therefore you can very rightly oppose and reject these and present a counter opinion, which we are supposed to analyze on the yardstick of the religious sources with true intent using the faculties of our sense and reason.

You write:

“Women are head of households and were the head of households during the time of the Prophet Mohammad, May peace be upon him. Just read history, the the history that is written in the way that you have written about the "human individual" as a man, but history that is sensitive to women and gender. I dont have time to go into it, but if you search -- as a true Muslim with a conscience -- you will find enough examples of women being responsible for their husbands.”

This is sure to negate the Qur’anic and historical evidence in this regard. Apart from the historical account the fact has been transmitted down to us through generation-to-generation mode of transfer and Muslims have always been clear on the issue over the history that they are made responsible to provide for the family. The fact that some women are reported to have entered into business does not mean that the women were considered the head of the families. You need to prove that whether the fact we present is an established reality. Or I need to understand what you say is a proven fact and what the world knows is distortion of facts?

I would request you kindly to give your explanation of the Qur’anic exhortations in this regard. I would love to know your interpretation of the following verses of the Holy Qur’an.

1. Men are the guardians of women because Allah has given one superiority over the other and because they [--- men ---] support them from their means. (4:34)

2. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them [first] and [next] refuse to share their beds and [last] beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. (4:34)

How would you explain the family structure that has existed ever since the conception of human civilization on earth? If we suppose for the sake of argument that Qur’an does not consider the element of physical and psychological set up of members of different genders then how can we explain that women are excused from attending the congregational prayer and are not obliged to offer obligatory prayer and observe fasts during menstrual periods etc. Do you have me believe that the Qur’anic statement given in number two above is a directive not a factual statement? If yes then does the Qur’an give a statement in general term that is bound to be proved false in another culture and time?

We try to present our views duly argued and expect you to do the same. Otherwise all this exercise will be meaningless. I assure you that we will be reluctant to accept the truth even when it runs contrary of our views. This in fact is binding upon us and we will never fail to acknowledge the truth in any circumstances.

I pray to the Almighty that he guides us the right path and bestows us with the courage to remain steadfast in the truth.

Tariq Mahmood Hashmi

Thank you for your response. You say that regarding the use of the pronoun "he" or "she" (I quote you below) I am afraid there is not much to do in this regard.

I dont think this is an adequate explanation. There is much to do in this regard and I believe since you are taking such an important responsibility, you must be aware of what you say and imply. Each of us is responsible for what we say or do. You seem to be saying that nothing can be done. Why not? My objection is that you are a source which we -- myself particularly -- have been relying on as a source of balanced guidance on Islam. You have a responsibility to use the correct term or word. Your email messages go far and wide. Let me give you an exampleto explain why the term we use is important: I am 55 years old, I remember when in the early 1980s, the forces that were fighting against Russian occupation of Afghanistan were referred to as 'terrorists'. Then, in the mid 1980s there was a move, led by Pakistan's government, to start referring to them as "mujahideen". I was a journalist then and remember clearly the day our editor told us to start using this term as it was more appropriate. We made the change and slowly, others followed and today, no one recalls that awful term "terrorist" was once used for the freedom fighters in Afghanistan. Even the American media, when they refer to that time, they still use the term "mujahideen". A similar case applies to the freedom fighters in Palestine, they too were called "terrorists".

Today, when the western media are labelling all Muslims as terrorists, dont you feel the word is used misguidedly, prejudicially, dangerously? If you agree, you must also appreciate that the use of a single word can mean a great deal. I could go on and on, but I am confident you will have understood my point.

I give you this example to explain why it is important to 'name the word correctly". You have further stated that:

We need to communicate our message to the people who already use the word individual for a human being irrespective of their gender.

I wish to explain: in many parts of the world, what people do is the following, they write: he/she or they write he or she. They use both words as both words are necessary!

I also refer you to Surah Al Ahzab ayah 35. I am sure you know this ayah, I dont need to tell you. I am fully aware that the Quran is the only known revealed scripture to directly address women as well as men. No other revealed religion addresses women directly. This ayah in which Allah subhanat'ala addresses man and woman is very important.

According to my humble knowledge, Umm Salamah asked the Prophet may peace be on him why women were not mentioned in the Quran and the revelation that came in the surah mentioned above answered both her question and the questions that other believing women might have had. If Allah in the Quran has made it clear that we must say women and men, not just men and think by this word we are also addressing women, WHY DO YOU THINK people dont follow this guidance? Why do you think, as you say in your response:

Therefore one who goes for using ‘she’ instead of ‘an individual’ will not be able to communicate with the rest of the world for the whole world has the same usage. I don’t understand that roots of this style of expression lie in intentional gender discrimination.

I suggest and argue that it is culture and tradition as developed by male thinkers and scholars that has become accepted as authentic . The word for this kind of thinking is "patriarchy", it is something so deep and entrenched that most people are not even aware it is there. If you allow yourself to be guided by patriarchal values instead of Islam, you will say that it is okay to keep on using the term "man" when actually we mean woman and man, or women and men.

I am sad to read what you have to say after this:

Therefore, you have to wait for the time when this usage and implication is replaced with the one you desire. Man has been always using the male gender in their communication in the oldest known literature and historical and religious records.

Yes, "man has been using the male gender"? What have women been using? Why did Umm Salamah ask the Propher (pbuh) about women not being mentioned in the Quran? When you state that Man has been always using the male gender in their communication in the oldest known literature and historical and religious records, I beg you to reconsider your statement. Man has not been living alone in this world and hence he is not the only gender to be considered. Yes, women are not visible in the same way as men, in public life, in "official" history and so the impression is that what man says, women agree totally with him. The "oldest' record, the Quran, addressed women directly, to make it clear that women are distinct from men and must be seen to be individuals.

Please read Amina Wadud's work on the Quran. She is a scholar of Arabic and she has done some excellent seminal work on the words used in the Quran, especially the inferences of masculine and feminine. Also, Fatima Mernissi has written at lenght on "The Forgotten Queens of Islam'. I suggest you read that book as well. She is also an Arabic scholar, known best for her work, "The discourse of the veil".

I appreciate what you have said about the Quran and I do not have time to discuss these in detail with you. I do suggest you read some more and widen the scope of your basis for what you regard as history. Historical evidence as recorded by men is not necessarily the 'truth". And what has been transmitted from generation to generation is not known to you or me either. What we know is what we hear today: we cannot swear that it was the same in the days of of our ancestors. As a scholar of history, believe me when I tell you this is reality. We have been influenced by colonisation and what we believe to be the truth is often what others want us to believe.

Yes, Muslims have always been clear that they are made responsible to provide for the family. But Each person has to answer to Allah. Will a husband take responsibility for his wife's sins? If she does not pray or fast, will the husband be asked by Allah or will the woman be asked? If she is responsible for her actions to Allah, how can anyone be her authority in this world? Yes, we have to live in mutual understanding, there must be give and take and a man must be able to trust and rely on his wife, so should his wife trust and rely on her husband. The Quranic verses you cite, are to my mind, responses to a social environment in Arabic in the 8th century. They are not immutable laws, they were not meant to be.

You write:

The fact that some women are reported to have entered into business does not mean that the women were considered the head of the families.

Firstly, it is not "some women". Booty was shared equally between men and women in Arabia during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) -- this is a historical fact, which many male written history books have conveniently left out -- and also, women worked for a living, owned property, took part in matters to do with the community, even lead prayers when they were the head of their households. You may not have read the history books, but I have. I am too tired now to give you a full list, but inshallah, I will do so soon.

Meanwhile, please read Surah Al Imran, ayah 195:

And their Lord hath accepted Of them and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female, You are members, one of another..

The labour of men is the same as that of women. Yes, it is sad that women get paid nothing in this world, but the Quran is clear on the autonomy of women.

You write:

I would request you kindly to give your explanation of the Qur’anic exhortations in this regard. I would love to know your interpretation of the following verses of the Holy Qur’an.

1. Men are the guardians of women because Allah has given one superiority over
the other and because they [--- men ---] support them from their means.
(4:34)

Please refer to Mohammad Asad's translation of this ayah:

Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which Allah has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter.

Asad explains: The grammatical form qawwam is more comprehensive than qa'im and combines the concepts of physical maintenance and protection as well as moral responsibility: and it is because of this that I have rendered this phrase as "men shall take full care of women"

This is an injunction to men to undertake responsibility. To misuse it as a means of controlling women is quite wrong.

2. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them [first] and [next] refuse to share their beds and [last] beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. (4:34)

Regarding this ayah, please read ayah 128 in the same surah. Here the reference is to possible bad behavior on the husband's side. Regarding beating, please read Asad's notes on this, pages 109 and 110. I cannot go into it in detail, but I would say that the guidance was to chastise a wife symbolically, not to actually beat her. (there are many sources to support his view and also to show us that the Prophet himself abhorred the idea of beating a wife).

The point also is, there are many details in the Quran that are not taken literally by us. For instance, we do not actually see the sun set before we pray at maghrib. We follow our watches and nowadays, what the computer tells us! But in the Quran, there is no mention of this, nor of a time, such as 6.15 p.m. Does that mean that we are breaking a Quranic law? Of course not!

My point is, that Allah left many matters to our individual conscience. Fasting, for instance, is something we do: there is not way of testing or policing our fast. Furthermore, the Quran is in Arabic and the language has many inflections and inferences. Every language has different cultural and time-bound characteristics. The word "programme" did not exist in urdu until it was borrowed from English. The word "ghareeb" in Arabic means stranger; in urdu it means poor. And so on.

How would you explain the family structure that has existed ever since the conception of human civilization on earth?

Which family structure are you talking about? There are hundreds of ways in which people have arranged their lives, socially, politically, economically and have lived as couples, as single people, as large groups, with women as leaders. Matriarchal socieities existed in the past and still do today. "Family" could mean a single woman, a widow, with many children. That, too, is a "family". The assumption that "family" means a man taking care of his wife and children is correct but it is not the only arrangement known to humankind.

If we suppose for the sake of argument that Qur’an does not consider the element of physical and psychological set up of members of different genders then how can we explain that women are excused from attending the congregational prayer and are not obliged to offer obligatory prayer and observe fasts during menstrual periods etc.

The Quran, to my knowledge, does not excuse women from fasting. Women have to fast later. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is not an excuse, it is a postponement.

Why did Allah make it compulsory on women to say their prayers five times a day? If He had thought of women as less than men, he could have said that women should pray half the times that men pray? That is a preposterous suggestion. Right? Women are excused from congregational prayer and ritual prayer during menstrual periods because of social and hygenic reasons. I am ashamed that you bring this point up in a discussionon whether women are under the authority of their husbands, or whether they can be beaten! Surely, biology is not the only way in which we should approach an understanding of women. Whether a woman has her menstrual periods or not, she can pray to Allah ALL THE TIME. SHE CAN RECITE ANY SURAH SHE WANTS. There is not a single sentence in the Quran that says that a woman cannot recite verses from the Quran, or pray to her Lord, Allah, just because she has her menstrual periods!!! Yes, she cannot stand and pray in ritual prayer. But this is purely for social and hygenic reasons that are obvious.

When you bring up biology, it saddens me. You look only at the biological differences, not at the similarities between men and women. Men have two eyes, women have two eyes. Men have two hands, a nose, two legs. Do women have a different number of bodily parts? Man has one heart. Do women have two hearts? Men have a soul. Woman have a soul. Men are born. Women are born. Men will die. Women will die. We will all have to face our Creator.

I pray to the Almighty that He guides us on the right path and bestows us with the courage to remain steadfast in the truth.
[b] AZ [b]




Edited by - tariq hashmi on March 05 2004 13:12:24

quote:

---

Can we discover new meaning in the words used in the Qur'an or we have only to restrict to the meaning of the words known to its first addressees? Please comment. Can we say that the Qur'an uses certain words the meaning of which have recently been discovered and have never been known by any till today and still consider it a CLEAR BOOK; a claim that Qur'an repeatedly asserts?
Can this we say of any other work of the old times?

---

Correct understanding would instead be a better word to use in this context. The Holy Qur'an, since it has been revealed in Arabi Mubeen , Quintessential Arabic, was understood by its addressees only too clearly.

The meaning of words does evolve. Therefore, we cannot take meaning of a word, which has evolved today, but were inexistent in the time when Qur'an was revealed though there remains the task to know which is a modern meaning and which was classical.

Of course laguages evolve and the words acquire new meanings but an author writes a word or a phrase only to convey a single meaning which is clear to the addressee. He cannot accept the new meaning the word has acquired and will never be comfortable with them for his message then will continuously be enriched with new implications thus distorting his message. So the actual meaning of the words are the one which the author has in his mind and he leaves many indicators in a piece of discourse to suggest the true meaning. I think this is a very well known principle of interpeting a text and it is indeed really surprizing that anyone should deny it. The Qur'an or any book cannot use a word a meaning of which are discovered centureies later and then claim to be 'a clear message'. How could it be one when even the primary addressees could not understand the meaning implied. Many opposed the messenger and his book the Qur'an but none ever said, 'How strange is the Book and how empty its claim to be a clear book.' If the Qur'an uses the word alaq and the direct addressees knew that the word meant a leech then the only acceptable interpretation of the word is the one understood by the people it was sent to. We may have grown able to discover why did the Arabs and the Qur'an used the word but we cannot say that the actual meaning of the word were something different from what they took it to be. For then it remains no more clear to them.

Had the Almighty enjoined the Muslims to beat their wives at prescirbed intervals then certainly we would have been at loss knowing that the Prophet (Sws) never discharged this obligation. My dear brother, the verse only allows people to use physical admonition if all other efforts fail. Even if one sees that this actoin will not do any good he must not proceed for the basic purpose is to correct the state of affairs and not to beat the wives.
(please refer to the following discussion on meaning of the word Alaqah: http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=102