Women in Islam

Having finally triumphed Mecca in the 8^th year of Hijra (630 AD) from the hands of his arch enemy Abu Sufiyan, Mohammed is said to have asked Hind Bint Utbah, Sufiyan’s wife, to lead a delegation of Meccan women in taking the oath of allegiance to Islam. Detesting the Prophet and his religion, when Hind was asked to swear not to commit adultery (zina), she replied rather mockingly “Does a free woman commit adultery?” Hind’s oath, to put in Mernissi’s words, was “a masterpiece of humour and political insolence by a woman forced to submit.”

Renowned for her sexual liaisons with many men, including the second caliph Umar, Hind was the last of the “jahilyya” women desperately clinging to her sexual and financial independence before Islam stomped on it. Many a woman believed, as Leila Ahmed tells us, that Islam expunged their rights and rebelled against it in full gusto once Mohammad was dead. The women of Hadramaut rejoiced at his death and were duly executed for their blasphemy by Abu Bakr. Similarly, Salma bint Malik, a slave captured by Mohammad’s followers, rebelled post the Prophet’s death to avenge the death of her mother, apparently tied to the foot of two elephants and torn apart. Mohammad’s own lineage is said to harbor such views. Sukaina, the great granddaughter of the Prophet when asked why she was merry and her sister Fatima somber replied that it was because the former was named after her pre-Islamic great-grandmother and the latter after her Islamic grandmother!

To credit Islam with the lofty achievement of liberating women from the clutches of jahillya would be an overstatement. That the jahillya was largely fabricated in the Islamic texts in order to portray Islam as the other, rescuing Arabia from its barbarian clutches, is hardly news. But to what extent did Islam rescue the women? If the example of Khadija is to go by, Islam instead suppressed whatever little freedom women enjoyed in pre-Islamic Arabia. Khadija, a wealthy widow was Mohammad’s employer and a dabbler in the highly profitable Meccan trade. At 40, she proposed to and married Mohammed (then 25). Freed from the burdens of having to earn a living Mohammad could now go meditate in the caves of Mount Hira and be visited by Gabriel. Khadija thus was not only financially independent but also sexually liberated. She not only initiated her own marriage but also did not require a father/son/brother to give her away in marriage. To Ahmed, Khadija is wrongly attributed as the first lady of Islam. To her she is a jahillya woman reflecting pre-Islamic values and prevalent customs. Pre-Islamic Arabia, largely tribal in nature, followed the norm of an uxorilocal marriage and a matrilineal family. Polyandry was the common practice and Mohammad’s own mother Amna bint Wahb stayed with her maternal clan even after she was married and bore a child. In fact Mohammad had to stay with her mother till she breathed her last and only then was he passed on to his paternal kin.

Yet, with the growth of the Meccan trade things began to change for Arabia, particularly Mecca. Exposure of Mecca to “culturally and materially advanced north” made it vulnerable to Christian and Judaic influences both of which were predominantly patriarchal. Thus, the old nomadic ways were being shed and communal property now gave way to individual property. Rich Meccan traders now needed an heir to pass it on. In essence, what Islam did then was to consolidate the change from matrilineal to a patrilineal society. As Ahmed points out, perhaps this is why “Islam introduced the greatest reform in the area of marriage and sexual relations” most of which sought to suppress rather than empower women. 

The one thing that greatly secluded women from the public sphere was the hijab. Islam spread far and wide primarily by conquest. Thus, most places in Arabia during this time were in turmoil and women on the streets were being harassed and molested. Women, including the Prophet’s wives were being pursued by men asking them to commit ta’arrud (literally, taking up a position along a woman’s path to urge her to fornicate). Hence the hijab descended on Islam. The observance of the hijab involved covering oneself with a jilbab. Literally, a piece of cloth worn by a woman, a jilbab could range from a simple chemise to a cloak. Thus, God in a revelation post Uhud advised the Prophet’s wives to cover themselves with a jilbab. The jilbab was exclusive. Only the elite women were to observe it. A woman wearing a jilbab on the street was not to be harassed. As Mernissi puts it, “Islam sacrificed women slaves in order to protect women aristocrats.” So, slaves/lower class women could be approached by men on the streets for ta’arrud. If hijab came in response to sexual aggression it also came as a support to it. It legitimized the street as a place to commit zina with the “uncovered women”. Hence, a woman’s body came to be considered in Islam as essentially naked/vulnerable without a jilbab.

This seclusion became rigid with time. Women of aristocratic families were now not to be seen in the streets. Their names were not to be known to men other than those of their family. Moralists like Ibn Abdun advised men to keep their women, a family’s honour, be kept out of sight of unrelated males. If necessary, women should go out veiled. Women’s seclusion meant purity of the male lineage. She was less at a danger to commit zina when inside the home than when outside of it. A common way to shame/dishonor a man was to name his women in public or mention them in satirical poems.

The seclusion of women in the streets was met by seclusion of women in political and religious leadership positions. There were no female imams or qazis. Women were thought unfit to preside over men. The only exception to this rule seems to be the Fatimid Arwa and the Ayyubid Shajar al Durr. While the former reigned over Yemen after her husband abdicated in favour of her, the latter, of slave origins, controlled the Ayyubid army and finances for while. Shajar was only a titular sovereign though. She couldn’t preside over public ceremonies and military parades and was finally “murdered in obscure circumstances”

Mernissi informs us of a hadith duly noted by al-Bukhari. When Kisra, a Persian king, died the Prophet is said to have asked Abu Bakra, “Who has replaced in command?” Abu Bakra informed him it was the King’s daughter. The Prophet upon hearing this is said to have remarked “those who entrust their affairs to a woman will never know prosperity.” Abu Bakra is said to have revealed this hadith at the opportune time of the Battle of Camel when Aisha, the Prophet’s wife rallied against Ali for not having adequately punished the murderers of Uthman. Mernissi, highly doubts the character of Abu Bakra, a low born man who owed his fame and fortune to Islam. Islam on paper makes no difference between men. They only differ in terms of their piety. Thus, male slaves found this religion to be rather emancipating and quite correctly so (Slave dynasties of India and Egypt). So to Abu Bakra the schism came as a jolt. He thought of this as a warning sign of Islam’s downfall. Thus, holding Aisha responsible for the Battle of Camel, Abu Bakra narrated this hadith. He used the schism as an example to show what happens when women try and wrest power. Mernissi accuses Bakra of forging the hadith just as he lied when he was summoned as a witness before Uthman for a case involving zina. Whether Bakra was lying or not, the hadith stuck. Notable tarikh and tafsir writers included this in their treatises and hence the tradition of having no women rulers continued.

Mernissi makes a pertinent point. There is a plethora of fake hadith. She records other hadith such as one recalled by Abu Hurayra that if a dog, ass and woman interrupt prayer if they pass in front of the worshipper.  Aisha is said to have refuted the hadith but her refutations have been ignored by several authors, according to Mernissi. Again, Mernissi raises serious doubts on Hurayra’s character and contends the veracity of the hadith. Even if we discount several misogynist hadith as fake we still are left with considerable instances which inform us that Islam since its inception was never in any way emancipatory for women.

In terms of marriage too Islam was no messiah for women. Although on paper men and women were equal in marriage, yet in practice women suffered. Pre-Islamic jahillya had four distinct types of marriage out of which temporary marriage in which a man and a woman could cohabit with each other without getting married for a stipulated amount of time. Islam abolished all forms except for the “nikah”. Moreover, polyandry was abolished and polygyny was upheld. A Muslim man could have four wives but a woman could only have one husband at a time. The latter was forbidden to have sexual liaisons with anyone else except her husband (otherwise she committed adultery, zina, which attracted death by stoning) but a man could keep as many concubines and slaves as he liked for his sexual fulfillment.

Like marriage divorce was also biased in favour of the superior sex. The wife could be repudiated by her husband any time but when the wife wanted divorce she had to initiate proceedings in a court of law. In khul (literally, to free), a form of divorce, a woman could buy her way out of marriage. Khul was a divorce for personal reasons (like impotency) and a woman either had to forego payment of the delayed part of their dowry by their husbands or they had to compensate them by giving them a share of their property. Many a men would force their wives to divorce them in order to avoid paying a part of their dowry. Divorce rules, reckons Ahmed, were skewed towards men for Mohammad’s personal reasons. It was because many women, primarily daughters of tribal leaders, divorced him before consummation of their marriage and this irked Mohammad enough to make divorce a tougher nut to crack for women.

Post divorce/widowhood, women could remarry just as men could. Yet, women had to wait for a stipulated amount of time, usually a few menstrual cycles (idda), before she could remarry. The practice ensures that the woman was not pregnant with her previous husband, in a sense, that she would now not corrupt the lineage of the man she marries next. Moreover, it was the man who retained custody of the kids. Men, in Islam, had unconditional rights over their offspring, as soon as the nurturance period of the child was over.

Islam did nothing to eradicate the female infanticide and child marriage prevalent in the pre-Islamic society. If anything it encouraged the former by the Satanic verses. In order to appease the Meccans, Mohammad in a verse sanctioned the worship of Lat, Manat and Uzza alongside that of Allah. Yet, soon these verses were abrogated. Mohammad dismissed these as verses coming from Satan and not God. After all “the absurdity of Allah’s daughters while mortals could have the preferred sons” was a serious consideration. As for child marriage, Islam if anything encouraged it. Aisha, the Prophet’s favourite wife, was only 6 when she was betrothed to him and only 10 when Mohammad consummated their marriage.

While women could inherit, much like jahillya times, their inheritance was more often than not managed by men, either husbands or brothers. Thus, many women preferred to sell their estates and obtain cash instead. This cash was then dispensed of either as loans to the family or in charitable endowments or awqaf to religious institutions. Jurists such as Malik ibn Anas even defined the goods fit to be owned by a woman as opposed to a man. For women household wares, clothes, linen, jewellery, cooking utensils etc were the possessions. Women possessed no books, weapons or riding animals.

The condition of slave women was even worse than their veiled elite counterparts. Not only was an owner of a female slave legally allowed to use her sexually but could also if wanted give her the status of the mother of his child or umm al walad. Having too many slaves was considered unhealthy for the patriarchal family as that could produce many kids and confuse/corrupt the patrilineage.

Women’s sexuality was another hotly debated issue. For all its faults, Islam acknowledges the sexual desires of both men and women and does not advocate its suppression as does Christianity. As Manuela Marvin tells us, “Islam is a sex positive religion” devoid of the “repressive aspects” of Western cultures towards sexuality. Yet, for women, it had to be regulated or controlled. The reason was crystal clear; protection of the male lineage. A woman was forbidden to meet unrelated men and could only enjoy sex with her husband. Girls were married early in order to keep their virginity intact. Men, however, enjoyed far more sex than women. They could have coitus interruptus with slaves to avoid having children and they could of course keep more than one wife. Thus, Islam, despite acknowledging the sexual desires inherent in both men and women, let only their men have complete sexual independence.

Old women and mothers enjoyed a considerable position of power in Islam. While the Prophet emphasized that parents should be taken due care of, he mentioned that the person deserving the most love and care was one’s mother. Annemarie Schimmel informs us that the word reham or mercy is derived from the word, rahim or womb. Thus, the mother was privileged due to her abilities to give birth. Mothers were then in this respect hailed by Rumi as the “men of God”, those who the Quran says “carry and bear the names of God in themselves”.  The old women were revered for their wisdom and for their piety. It was assumed that an old woman’s piety was stronger than the “mightiest prince on earth”. 

Schimmel also makes us aware of the embodiment of women in the sufi tradition as the soul or nafs. The connotation of nafs here although is a negative one. Nafs is the soul inciting to evil. Thus, in several sufi poems, God is the male beloved and poet is the feminine lover. Forever striving to unite with the Beloved, the struggle of the nafs was according to the Prophet the greatest jihad. But each one of the nafs can become a true “man of god” if it wills so. The nafs is the ascetic’s fear of lust and desire, the merchant’s fear of avarice and worldliness. She is the tempting seductress enticing men to herself and deviating them from the path of God. This concept of nafs has been portrayed in Sassi’s wandering for her King Punhu, whom she lost as she slept a little too much, in Eve’s frivolity, her expulsion from paradise and her separation from Adam and in Bilqis’ attempt to charm Solomon with her wealth and her repentance for it. All of them yielded to their desires and were lost till they wandered and struggled to become one with their beloved.

Islam prides itself on making no distinction between the worshippers of Allah except in their degree of piety. Yet when a bleary old woman is said to have asked the Prophet if women like her go to heaven he is said to have replied, “No. Old women like you do not go to heaven. You are all transformed into beautiful virgins." No matter how much they try, Muslim women will always be the inferior sex according to their religion, even in terms of their piety, in which case they become a man of God. The nafs, she can only suffer in vain and it is in her sufferance that her salvation lies.