Why in Islam women seem to be at a significant disadvantage compered to men?
By: Farhad Shafti
This is taken from an answer that was provided for a question about women’s right in Islam. Due to the importance of the subject I thought it was worth making it into an article as well. In this article I have tried to provide a direct and non-apologetic answer to a question that is raised by many Muslim women. The original answer also contains brief clarification on some misunderstandings.
Based on the text of the Qur'an, husbands are supposed to be guardians to their wives and this gives them a legal authority (4:34):
- Based on this authority if the wife has a rebellious attitude towards the husband, the husband can go as far as beating her (4:34), although it can be derived from the hadith that the beating was supposed to be light, painless and not on head.
- In comparison if the wife is facing a husband that does not do his duties then the wife is advised to compromise (4:128).
- The husband has the right to directly divorce his wife while the wife can only do so through the court (2:228).
- Daughters get half of the share of sons in inheritance (4:11).
- It is recommended if not enough men are available for testimony on financial issues, two women should be taken to fulfill the duty of a man as a witness (2:282).
The above can raise so many questions at our time. Perhaps one way of formulating these questions into one will be as follows:
“Why in Islam, as it is dominantly presented, women seem to be at a significant disadvantage compered to men?"
The reason that the above question rightly emerges in the mind of many, in particular many Muslim women, is that the literalist scholarship of Islam 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 in serious mistakes due to not differentiating between the primary sources of understanding Islam and the secondary sources, 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 adjustments were adjusted and became part of the shari’ah law (like polygamy for men). The ones that were acceptable without any needs for adjustment were directly included in the shari’ah law (like dower for the bride).
Unlike the popular belief that is promoted by the literalist scholars, not all of the shari’ah law was meant to be an all time excellent law. Due to the evolvement of the 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 law 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’ah 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 advises 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 society to give more rights to men and to make women, in many cases, subjective to men’s authority. The shari’ah law about women was revealed to fit such 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 above fundamental different societies, to me, is an insult to religion, shari’ah and divine. This way of thinking practically associates an obvious false with God and His religion! We now 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 to 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 in 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 sport woman or a female scientist is invited to attend international events but is not able to participate due to the restrictions that are imposed to 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.
It is therefore 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 themselves 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.
--------
Farhad Shafti
September 2018
This is taken from an answer that was provided for a question about women’s right in Islam. Due to the importance of the subject I thought it was worth making it into an article as well. In this article I have tried to provide a direct and non-apologetic answer to a question that is raised by many Muslim women. The original answer also contains brief clarification on some misunderstandings.
Based on the text of the Qur'an, husbands are supposed to be guardians to their wives and this gives them a legal authority (4:34):
- Based on this authority if the wife has a rebellious attitude towards the husband, the husband can go as far as beating her (4:34), although it can be derived from the hadith that the beating was supposed to be light, painless and not on head.
- In comparison if the wife is facing a husband that does not do his duties then the wife is advised to compromise (4:128).
- The husband has the right to directly divorce his wife while the wife can only do so through the court (2:228).
- Daughters get half of the share of sons in inheritance (4:11).
- It is recommended if not enough men are available for testimony on financial issues, two women should be taken to fulfill the duty of a man as a witness (2:282).
The above can raise so many questions at our time. Perhaps one way of formulating these questions into one will be as follows:
“Why in Islam, as it is dominantly presented, women seem to be at a significant disadvantage compered to men?"
The reason that the above question rightly emerges in the mind of many, in particular many Muslim women, is that the literalist scholarship of Islam 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 in serious mistakes due to not differentiating between the primary sources of understanding Islam and the secondary sources, 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 adjustments were adjusted and became part of the shari’ah law (like polygamy for men). The ones that were acceptable without any needs for adjustment were directly included in the shari’ah law (like dower for the bride).
Unlike the popular belief that is promoted by the literalist scholars, not all of the shari’ah law was meant to be an all time excellent law. Due to the evolvement of the 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 law 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’ah 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 advises 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 society to give more rights to men and to make women, in many cases, subjective to men’s authority. The shari’ah law about women was revealed to fit such 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 above fundamental different societies, to me, is an insult to religion, shari’ah and divine. This way of thinking practically associates an obvious false with God and His religion! We now 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 to 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 in 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 sport woman or a female scientist is invited to attend international events but is not able to participate due to the restrictions that are imposed to 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.
It is therefore 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 themselves 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.
--------
Farhad Shafti
September 2018