Women in Islam: Standard and Practice

Post 23--:

I continue the series that originally started in Post 19. Please check out the context of this material there.

The questions I was to answer were:
(a) How does the Qur’an say women should be treated?
(b) How does the above conform to or contradict what is practiced in many
Muslim countries or cultures?

Here is my response to those questions:

I interpret the questions as intended to evoke a discussion about Muslim suppression of women, since that is such a major Christian concern.

If you ask the same question about the Bible, you will get a wide variety of (contradictory) answers. There are OT texts about women from which pretty well all Christians distantiate themselves. For one thing, they are written from a male point of view—what the male should do for, with or to women. They were subject to men and valued mainly as wives and mothers. A father could sell his daughter into slavery. A father could annul his daughter’s vows or pledge, as could a husband his wife’s. Adultery could lead to stoning, but for both partners. The husband had various unilateral rights over his wife. A woman was worth half a man. Women could be taken as booty after victorious battles. They could become ceremonially unclean. Etc., etc. In the NT, women were restricted in their leadership roles. Christians have long rejected all or most of these ideas for sound Biblical and theological reasons, somewhat parallel to the Islamic doctrine of abrogation.

You find similar situations in the Qur’an and in the Muslim community. There is a wide range of interpretations from the literal to contextual-historical. Just as Christians have largely rejected the OT perspectives on women, especially those they see as oppressive, so do many educated Muslims argue their way out of similar Qur’anic texts. Most Muslim men tend to agree that women are honourable but fragile creatures that need to be protected from other men. Hence, the elaborate precautions to which some are subjected in terms of movement and dress code, while others dress and move about as they please. Most men regard women as too emotional and therefore insist that they, the men, should do the thinking and make decisions for them. They are seen as powerful when they play their legitimate role as mothers and wives who bring up and teach the next generation. They are allowed to conduct business and own property, but not at the expense of their primary role in the family. There is currently a dynamic at work in many Muslim communities that tends to restrict women more than was the case in the past, especially with respect to dress. One American female Muslim medical doctor practicing in Saudi was absolutely amazed at the restrictions placed on women in Saudi and condemned it outrightly as a retrograde form of Islam.

At the levels of militant fundamentalism and folk Islam, the literal interpretation tends to hold sway. Folk Islam is intimately mixed up with local pre-Islamic cultures. Its adherents often identify these foreign accretions as part of core Islam, with the result that anyone critiquing some cultural tradition may be accused of attacking Islam itself. In Saudi, public amputations constitute public entertainment after Friday prayers, but many educated Muslims are horrified.

The reality is that there is hardly any consistent pattern around the Muslim world. In many Muslim communities, women play a much larger role than the above would lead us to expect, while in most countries stoning and amputation form only a distant memory. And yet there have been several female Muslim heads of state in the largest Muslim countries! If Islam or the Qur’an were really as reprehensible and violent in its core as we witness today in some quarters, then the high civilization and culture they once reached would hardly have been possible.

A major difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former has experienced the philosophical developments from the Renaissance on—initially spurred on by Cordovan Islam—up to the current climate in the West. Before those developments, Christian individuals, religious leaders and nations were cruel and intolerant in ways hard to believe today, even though we already had the Bible. The change towards more civilized relationships is due as much to those philosophical developments as to our reading of the Bible. Most Muslims have not gone through this development.

How should women be treated according to the Qur’an? Your answer will be determined by the approach you prefer, literal or contextual-historical. Does the practice of some countries reflect the Qur’an correctly? To the extent that it is the result of a literal interpretation and mixed up with traditional cultural accretions, in agreement with more liberal Muslims, I would say “No.” But those who practice various forms of suppression of women, will, of course, answer “Yes!” They are the literalists. So, how and on what basis do I, a non-Muslim, answer these questions? Which is the true Islam or the right interpretation of the Qur’an?

I will interrupt my series and continue the subject of the treatment of women in the next post by reproducing an article on the subject by Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, an Indian moderate Muslim scholar.

The Other Side of the Coin

Post 16—

Dr. Aliyu Tilde is formidable Nigerian Muslim journalist whose columns can be found on < www.Gamji.com >, a Nigerian news website. He is fiercely critical of corruption and oppression wherever he sees it in Nigeria, whether perpetrated by Muslims or Christians or those who merely claim such epithets for themselves. Some of my Christian friends in Nigeria dislike him, for they strongly disagree with his stance on the violence that has racked Nigeria’s Plateau State and its capital Jos, a city I have lived in for two decades. Yes, they strongly disagree with him, for you can only react strongly to his equally strongly worded columns, whether you agree or disagree. In the case of Plateau State, he is squarely on the Muslim side. Having come to know him a bit more personally through recent correspondence, I should re-read his articles on the Plateau situation. Sometimes knowing a person personally can bring a change in interpreting him.

Recently Tilde published a column under the title “Poor Northerners!(2), referring to Nigerian Northerners, mostly Muslims. He unhesitatingly admitted that “countries in the Muslim world are not democratic and they represent perhaps some of the worst living specimen of tyranny and oppression.” But then he goes on to explain how this situation arose. While most Westerners are convinced that the reasons are internal to Islam, Tilde shows the other side of the coin and locates the cause in the hypocritical and oppressive behaviour of Western nations. Listen to him:

“However, that is neither the tenet of Islam nor the choice of its Muslim citizens. It is the practice of their puppet leaders in strong collaboration with the western powers that support them with aid, intelligence, equipments of torture, guns, etc. Take Saudi Arabia for example. That kingdom is a monarchy which, in the first place, could not have come into existence without the support of the British or survived this long without deploying American might. In fact this is the root cause of the terrorism that America so much complains about these days. The same thing applies to Egypt and other tyrannical regimes in the Muslim world. Let America and the Western world support the democratization of the Muslim world by withdrawing its support for those oppressive regimes and you will see them collapse in less than five years. But the West cannot risk that because of its entrenched strategic and economic interests.”

I largely agree with Tilde that this Western behaviour is a major cause of the situation we all bemoan. A major cause; not the only one. Forty years ago I might have disagreed with him, but since then I wrote a doctoral dissertation on colonialism and was forced by the facts to recognize the nefarious and oppressive nature of Western colonialism. It was an eye opener for me. The facts that I unearthed had been carefully hidden from me by a domesticated educational process right through undergraduate university as well as post-graduate theological seminary. What I leaned was not pretty. If you turn to volumes 2, 4, 6 and 8 of my Studies in Christian Muslim Relations, you can find it all there as well. (You can access these free of charge by typing < Jan H Boer> in the opening page of < www.lulu.com >.)

Yes, the pre-Renaissance/Enlightenment internal Muslim factors play the other major part. Note that I said “Muslim” factor, not necessarily Islamic factor. They are no more the same as are “Christian” and “nominal Christian.” Both these internal and external factors need to be recognized and admitted by both sides. Writing as a Christian, we must heed the word of Jesus Christ who warned us to first take out the beam in our own eyes, before we reach for the splinter in the eye of the other.

(ForTilde’s article turn to his columns on www.Gamji.com and check Discourse 308, November 2010.)