Why all that women get is bad news?!
Question:
My question is, why do men go all happy news but women all they get is bad news on top of bad news on top of bad news in Islam? Men get to have more than one wife in Islam. and even in life after death. they get at least two women from this world in addition to hurs. what a woman gets is not clear at all. women by nature love only one man and so she doesn’t need more men. It is a painful thing to see the man you love, love another woman. yet all women are asked to do is to be patient. Men go through nothing of this sort, no emotional sadness. Islam greatly prohibits anything and everything that may cause men’s emotional distress. is there any explanation as to why this is? If it’s like this why were women created in such a way that they feel great distress and emotional sadness to see their husbands with other wives, why do women have emotions? Is it a sin to be sad about seeing your husband with another wife or wives? Why is it that man don’t have to go through any emotional distress while all women are asked to do is to be patient? If a woman cause pain to her husband, she goes to hell. and it’s very clear in Islam. Why are men allowed to cause emotional sadness and distress on women? Why are women treated as objects of men’s desire and satisfaction but still women are created to have emotions?
Answer:
This is one of the most honest and heartfelt inquiries that I have ever received on this website. I will try to answer it with the best of my intentions and very honestly devoid of any political considerations. I think the main question that you are asking is this:
“Why in Islam, as it is dominantly presented, women seem to be at a significant disadvantage compered to men?"
I will first try to answer this question and then I make some specific comments on some of your statements:
The reason you see that what is dominantly presented to you as Islam is practically treating women as the second-class citizens is that the literalist scholarship of Islam, by taking the words of the Quran at face value only, does not appreciate that the form of the shari’ah of Islam was supposed to evolve as time passed. They consider the rules that were revealed about 1400 years ago for the Arab tribal society to be eternal and universal. Further even in understanding these rules some scholars ended up with serious mistakes due to not differentiating between the primary sources of understanding Islam (Quran) and the secondary sources (hadith), and also due to not recognising what the rule and what the application of a rule is.
When the shari’ah was revealed in the Arabian society it was formulated so that it would easily establish itself in the society. To this end, it was tailored and fitted with the Arabs norms, customs and rules. Of these, the ones that were fundamentally against the objective of the shari’ah (that is purification) were eliminated (like riba). The ones that could be accepted with some revisions were adjusted and became part of the shari’ah law (like polygamy for men). The ones that were acceptable without any need for adjustment were directly included in the shari’ah law (like dower for the bride).
Unlike the popular belief that is promoted by literalist scholars, not all of the shari’ah law was meant to be implemented for all times. Due to the evolvement of societies and change of conditions, no law, whether civil or divine, is guaranteed to remain fit and relevant forever. This is why you see that even during the period of revelation, some of the laws changed (abrogation). The idea was to understand the wisdom behind a law and to then evolve it as the society evolves. If this does not happen, the law that was at the time of revelation a liberating and superbly just law, will gradually become unfit and irrelevant and will lead to injustice.
This is exactly what happened to the shari’a law about women. In the society where with some exceptions (among individuals or some tribes) women in general were hugely oppressed, Islam adjusted the already in place practices and norms in a way that at the time its regulations were seen fair and liberating. Men could no longer beat their wives before trying milder measures. They could no longer exploit widows for their money. Women could now definitely inherit part of the wealth of the deceased. Men could no longer exploit their wives by divorcing them countlessly and returning to them before the divorce becoming finalised. They now could do this only twice. Men could no longer leave their divorced wives in poor and hopeless conditions. They were advised to provide them with a one-off maintenance and to not throw obstacles in their way if they wish to marry again. Men could no longer put their wives in awkward situation by announcing them to be like mothers to them. Divorced wives were made entitled of receiving maintenance money while suckling their babies. These and many other rules and advice significantly improved the life and the rights of the women at the time.
This was of course a society in which men were the main sources of finance, security and power and women had to live under their protection and support. It was befitting for such a society to give more rights to men and to make women, in many cases, subject to men’s authority. The shari’ah law about women was revealed to fit this society so it had to follow its principles while improving and adjusting the conditions within these principles.
The key verse in the Qur’an on the relationship between the husband and wife is verse 4:3. Every other shari’ah law is in fact the implication and the result of the relationship that this verse describes. Verse 4:3 considers men (husbands) to be guardians and superiors to women (wives). There is of course no doubt about the meaning of this verse. However what many literalist scholars do not seem to appreciate is the social conditions that the verse counts as the reasons for this relationship. These conditions are as follows:
Many of the scholars of the past consider the privilege in condition (a) to be referring to physical strength and better intellect while consider condition (b) to be referring to the fact that it was dominantly men who were sources of finance in the society. None of these conditions apply or are relevant in most of the modern societies of today.
The societies have evolved and the needs and challenges faced by both women and men have changed. Today in many societies women too are sources of finance or are perfectly fit to play this role. No longer physical strength (that is an advantage of men to women) is an essential qualification for survival and security. In fact most of the jobs that need physical strength are low paid jobs compared to those that do not need physical strength. Even the generally held historic view that women are more emotional than men is under question by some experts. A significant factor for survival and security is education and in this there is absolutely no difference between men and women. The statement that men are more intellectual than women is no longer a favourable statement among the scholars and even among our traditional scholars many do not believe in this anymore. Of course, where a woman is oppressed and opportunities for growth are taken from her then she will have less chance to develop her thinking and knowledge. Fortunately this is no longer the case in many societies. Women can and are equally contributing in many of the main affairs of everyday life. Women are holding high level business, social, educational and governmental jobs, including heads of states.
Since verse 4:3 considers the above-mentioned conditions to be the justifying basis for superiority of the husband to the wife, the lack of these conditions in the society will cancel out the prescribed superiority as well.
Yes it can be argued that even at the time of the prophet (pbuh) there were women who used to be financial resources and were very much capable of making decisions, just as today there are many families in which only men are the financial resources and their wives may find it difficult to be decision makers. The argument here however is not about counting the number of families in which women are also bringing money and can be decision makers. I am referring to the major structural and infrastructural change and evolvement in the society compared to 1400 years ago.
More fundamentally speaking, unlike the tribal system of Arabia centuries ago, today in many societies it does not seem necessary for every family to run like a social unit with a specific leader. In many families there is no ultimate leader and the husband and wife (and sometimes even children) each take responsibility for leading on some of the aspects of life, not based on gender but based on merits. In some families a leader naturally emerges regardless of gender. Successful, happy and pious families can be found among all the above groups.
The reason many Muslim women rightly feel that the shari’ah law on women is not fair, is because the societies evolved but the shari’ah law was kept fixed by the literalist scholars. To think that the shari’ah law for women that was revealed for a tribal society of Arabs 1400 years ago also fits the drastically different societies that exist now to me is an insult to religion, shari’ah and divine laws. This way of thinking practically associates an obvious fault to God and His religion! We now often face situations where a husband and wife are not suitable for each other. The wife is much more educated and wise than her husband and is financially independent of him, yet the key to divorce is in the hands of her husband and she is advised to remain obedient and patient. We face situations where the woman is successfully working at a very high rank at work and is capable of making decisions for the country, yet, is denied making decisions for her family. We see situations where a sports woman or a female scientist is invited to attend international events but is not able to participate due to the restrictions that are imposed on her by her not very intellectual husband.
If our scholars could see that the whole wisdom behind the rules of the shari’ah of husband and wife was to bring peace, security, purity and stability among them, they could then do ijtihad on the law itself (not on its application) to keep it fitting with the society and to sustain its purpose.
So, no my sister! It is not Islam that makes women oppressed by putting them at a significant disadvantage compered to men. It is the shortcoming of Muslims who have fixed their minds and laws for centuries on words, with no appreciation of the wisdom behind the word. God has given us, Muslims, two gifts. The first one is a tool, that is intellect (which is in common with other human beings). The second one is a source, the Qur’an. We will not be able to benefit from the second one without utilising the first one.
**********
The above was my answer to your main question. There are certain statements in your question that to me are the result of misunderstanding the law. I would like to clarify these as follows:
- You wrote: “Men get to have more than one wife in Islam”
Unlike the popular belief, Islam has not prescribed having more than one wife. Men in Arabia used to have more than one wife. Islam simply limited the number to four. Yet, we see that in the story of Adam, when God says a spouse was made for Adam, only one spouse (wife) is mentioned. If it was the case that having more than one wife was a universal norm according to the Qur’an, then the Qur’an would have narrated existence of more than one wife for Adam.
- You wrote: “even in life after death. they get at least two women from this world in addition to hurs”
Firstly, I don’t know from where you are deducting that men will get at least two women from this world in the hereafter. Secondly please note that descriptions of heaven and hell in the Qur’an are only examples. No one knows the reality of heaven and hell. We cannot even begin to understand the hereafter due to the human limitations that we are restricted with in this world. The Qur’an’s basic promise is that heaven is somewhere very pleasant, and hell is somewhere very unpleasant. Then to bring this close to the mind of the audience the Qur’an illustrates these with things that in the male dominated society of the Arabs at the time could be understood, valued and appreciated.
This is like you saying to your (assuming) two years old brother that grand ma’s house is full of yummies or that if he goes out alone a wolf may catch him! What actually you are trying to get your brother to appreciate is that grand ma’s house is a good place to be and that it is dangerous for him to be at the streets alone. You however have to say these in a language that he appreciates. Do consider that you and your two years old brother are both human, living in this world and talk the same language. You can only imagine how impossible it is for us to understand the reality of the hereafter. So God talks to us with a language and references that the Arabs at the time would understand, including hurs, honey, fruits, rivers, etc., like you would talk with a language and references that your brother understands, including, yummies and wolves.
- You wrote: “Islam greatly prohibits anything and everything that may cause men’s emotional distress”
I do not agree with this. Yes, there are verses that appear to be in favour of men rather than women, however the purpose of these verses is only to protect the sanctity of family and purification of the society, not to take care of emotions of men. By 'society' hear I mean the Arab society at the time of revelation, as discussed above.
- You wrote: “Is it a sin to be sad about seeing your husband with another wife or wives?”
The answer is ‘No’.
- You wrote: “If a woman causes pain to her husband she goes to hell”
Again, I am not sure from where you have taken this. As far as I know Islam prohibits both husband and wife to cause pain for each other.
- You have also made some statements on the nature of men and women. I just want to make it clear that I am neither approving these statements nor negating them. I think it is the job of experts in the field (not me) to talk about the nature of men and women.
The above is a very important and at the same time very sensitive subject, prone to misunderstandings. Please read it carefully and if you require any clarifications or if you have any follow up questions please do not hesitate to let me know.
--------
Related Topics:
- Beating wife?
--------
Farhad Shafti
September 2018
My question is, why do men go all happy news but women all they get is bad news on top of bad news on top of bad news in Islam? Men get to have more than one wife in Islam. and even in life after death. they get at least two women from this world in addition to hurs. what a woman gets is not clear at all. women by nature love only one man and so she doesn’t need more men. It is a painful thing to see the man you love, love another woman. yet all women are asked to do is to be patient. Men go through nothing of this sort, no emotional sadness. Islam greatly prohibits anything and everything that may cause men’s emotional distress. is there any explanation as to why this is? If it’s like this why were women created in such a way that they feel great distress and emotional sadness to see their husbands with other wives, why do women have emotions? Is it a sin to be sad about seeing your husband with another wife or wives? Why is it that man don’t have to go through any emotional distress while all women are asked to do is to be patient? If a woman cause pain to her husband, she goes to hell. and it’s very clear in Islam. Why are men allowed to cause emotional sadness and distress on women? Why are women treated as objects of men’s desire and satisfaction but still women are created to have emotions?
Answer:
This is one of the most honest and heartfelt inquiries that I have ever received on this website. I will try to answer it with the best of my intentions and very honestly devoid of any political considerations. I think the main question that you are asking is this:
“Why in Islam, as it is dominantly presented, women seem to be at a significant disadvantage compered to men?"
I will first try to answer this question and then I make some specific comments on some of your statements:
The reason you see that what is dominantly presented to you as Islam is practically treating women as the second-class citizens is that the literalist scholarship of Islam, by taking the words of the Quran at face value only, does not appreciate that the form of the shari’ah of Islam was supposed to evolve as time passed. They consider the rules that were revealed about 1400 years ago for the Arab tribal society to be eternal and universal. Further even in understanding these rules some scholars ended up with serious mistakes due to not differentiating between the primary sources of understanding Islam (Quran) and the secondary sources (hadith), and also due to not recognising what the rule and what the application of a rule is.
When the shari’ah was revealed in the Arabian society it was formulated so that it would easily establish itself in the society. To this end, it was tailored and fitted with the Arabs norms, customs and rules. Of these, the ones that were fundamentally against the objective of the shari’ah (that is purification) were eliminated (like riba). The ones that could be accepted with some revisions were adjusted and became part of the shari’ah law (like polygamy for men). The ones that were acceptable without any need for adjustment were directly included in the shari’ah law (like dower for the bride).
Unlike the popular belief that is promoted by literalist scholars, not all of the shari’ah law was meant to be implemented for all times. Due to the evolvement of societies and change of conditions, no law, whether civil or divine, is guaranteed to remain fit and relevant forever. This is why you see that even during the period of revelation, some of the laws changed (abrogation). The idea was to understand the wisdom behind a law and to then evolve it as the society evolves. If this does not happen, the law that was at the time of revelation a liberating and superbly just law, will gradually become unfit and irrelevant and will lead to injustice.
This is exactly what happened to the shari’a law about women. In the society where with some exceptions (among individuals or some tribes) women in general were hugely oppressed, Islam adjusted the already in place practices and norms in a way that at the time its regulations were seen fair and liberating. Men could no longer beat their wives before trying milder measures. They could no longer exploit widows for their money. Women could now definitely inherit part of the wealth of the deceased. Men could no longer exploit their wives by divorcing them countlessly and returning to them before the divorce becoming finalised. They now could do this only twice. Men could no longer leave their divorced wives in poor and hopeless conditions. They were advised to provide them with a one-off maintenance and to not throw obstacles in their way if they wish to marry again. Men could no longer put their wives in awkward situation by announcing them to be like mothers to them. Divorced wives were made entitled of receiving maintenance money while suckling their babies. These and many other rules and advice significantly improved the life and the rights of the women at the time.
This was of course a society in which men were the main sources of finance, security and power and women had to live under their protection and support. It was befitting for such a society to give more rights to men and to make women, in many cases, subject to men’s authority. The shari’ah law about women was revealed to fit this society so it had to follow its principles while improving and adjusting the conditions within these principles.
The key verse in the Qur’an on the relationship between the husband and wife is verse 4:3. Every other shari’ah law is in fact the implication and the result of the relationship that this verse describes. Verse 4:3 considers men (husbands) to be guardians and superiors to women (wives). There is of course no doubt about the meaning of this verse. However what many literalist scholars do not seem to appreciate is the social conditions that the verse counts as the reasons for this relationship. These conditions are as follows:
- Men have privilege (fadhl) over women
- Men pay money to women
Many of the scholars of the past consider the privilege in condition (a) to be referring to physical strength and better intellect while consider condition (b) to be referring to the fact that it was dominantly men who were sources of finance in the society. None of these conditions apply or are relevant in most of the modern societies of today.
The societies have evolved and the needs and challenges faced by both women and men have changed. Today in many societies women too are sources of finance or are perfectly fit to play this role. No longer physical strength (that is an advantage of men to women) is an essential qualification for survival and security. In fact most of the jobs that need physical strength are low paid jobs compared to those that do not need physical strength. Even the generally held historic view that women are more emotional than men is under question by some experts. A significant factor for survival and security is education and in this there is absolutely no difference between men and women. The statement that men are more intellectual than women is no longer a favourable statement among the scholars and even among our traditional scholars many do not believe in this anymore. Of course, where a woman is oppressed and opportunities for growth are taken from her then she will have less chance to develop her thinking and knowledge. Fortunately this is no longer the case in many societies. Women can and are equally contributing in many of the main affairs of everyday life. Women are holding high level business, social, educational and governmental jobs, including heads of states.
Since verse 4:3 considers the above-mentioned conditions to be the justifying basis for superiority of the husband to the wife, the lack of these conditions in the society will cancel out the prescribed superiority as well.
Yes it can be argued that even at the time of the prophet (pbuh) there were women who used to be financial resources and were very much capable of making decisions, just as today there are many families in which only men are the financial resources and their wives may find it difficult to be decision makers. The argument here however is not about counting the number of families in which women are also bringing money and can be decision makers. I am referring to the major structural and infrastructural change and evolvement in the society compared to 1400 years ago.
More fundamentally speaking, unlike the tribal system of Arabia centuries ago, today in many societies it does not seem necessary for every family to run like a social unit with a specific leader. In many families there is no ultimate leader and the husband and wife (and sometimes even children) each take responsibility for leading on some of the aspects of life, not based on gender but based on merits. In some families a leader naturally emerges regardless of gender. Successful, happy and pious families can be found among all the above groups.
The reason many Muslim women rightly feel that the shari’ah law on women is not fair, is because the societies evolved but the shari’ah law was kept fixed by the literalist scholars. To think that the shari’ah law for women that was revealed for a tribal society of Arabs 1400 years ago also fits the drastically different societies that exist now to me is an insult to religion, shari’ah and divine laws. This way of thinking practically associates an obvious fault to God and His religion! We now often face situations where a husband and wife are not suitable for each other. The wife is much more educated and wise than her husband and is financially independent of him, yet the key to divorce is in the hands of her husband and she is advised to remain obedient and patient. We face situations where the woman is successfully working at a very high rank at work and is capable of making decisions for the country, yet, is denied making decisions for her family. We see situations where a sports woman or a female scientist is invited to attend international events but is not able to participate due to the restrictions that are imposed on her by her not very intellectual husband.
If our scholars could see that the whole wisdom behind the rules of the shari’ah of husband and wife was to bring peace, security, purity and stability among them, they could then do ijtihad on the law itself (not on its application) to keep it fitting with the society and to sustain its purpose.
So, no my sister! It is not Islam that makes women oppressed by putting them at a significant disadvantage compered to men. It is the shortcoming of Muslims who have fixed their minds and laws for centuries on words, with no appreciation of the wisdom behind the word. God has given us, Muslims, two gifts. The first one is a tool, that is intellect (which is in common with other human beings). The second one is a source, the Qur’an. We will not be able to benefit from the second one without utilising the first one.
**********
The above was my answer to your main question. There are certain statements in your question that to me are the result of misunderstanding the law. I would like to clarify these as follows:
- You wrote: “Men get to have more than one wife in Islam”
Unlike the popular belief, Islam has not prescribed having more than one wife. Men in Arabia used to have more than one wife. Islam simply limited the number to four. Yet, we see that in the story of Adam, when God says a spouse was made for Adam, only one spouse (wife) is mentioned. If it was the case that having more than one wife was a universal norm according to the Qur’an, then the Qur’an would have narrated existence of more than one wife for Adam.
- You wrote: “even in life after death. they get at least two women from this world in addition to hurs”
Firstly, I don’t know from where you are deducting that men will get at least two women from this world in the hereafter. Secondly please note that descriptions of heaven and hell in the Qur’an are only examples. No one knows the reality of heaven and hell. We cannot even begin to understand the hereafter due to the human limitations that we are restricted with in this world. The Qur’an’s basic promise is that heaven is somewhere very pleasant, and hell is somewhere very unpleasant. Then to bring this close to the mind of the audience the Qur’an illustrates these with things that in the male dominated society of the Arabs at the time could be understood, valued and appreciated.
This is like you saying to your (assuming) two years old brother that grand ma’s house is full of yummies or that if he goes out alone a wolf may catch him! What actually you are trying to get your brother to appreciate is that grand ma’s house is a good place to be and that it is dangerous for him to be at the streets alone. You however have to say these in a language that he appreciates. Do consider that you and your two years old brother are both human, living in this world and talk the same language. You can only imagine how impossible it is for us to understand the reality of the hereafter. So God talks to us with a language and references that the Arabs at the time would understand, including hurs, honey, fruits, rivers, etc., like you would talk with a language and references that your brother understands, including, yummies and wolves.
- You wrote: “Islam greatly prohibits anything and everything that may cause men’s emotional distress”
I do not agree with this. Yes, there are verses that appear to be in favour of men rather than women, however the purpose of these verses is only to protect the sanctity of family and purification of the society, not to take care of emotions of men. By 'society' hear I mean the Arab society at the time of revelation, as discussed above.
- You wrote: “Is it a sin to be sad about seeing your husband with another wife or wives?”
The answer is ‘No’.
- You wrote: “If a woman causes pain to her husband she goes to hell”
Again, I am not sure from where you have taken this. As far as I know Islam prohibits both husband and wife to cause pain for each other.
- You have also made some statements on the nature of men and women. I just want to make it clear that I am neither approving these statements nor negating them. I think it is the job of experts in the field (not me) to talk about the nature of men and women.
The above is a very important and at the same time very sensitive subject, prone to misunderstandings. Please read it carefully and if you require any clarifications or if you have any follow up questions please do not hesitate to let me know.
--------
Related Topics:
- Beating wife?
--------
Farhad Shafti
September 2018
