Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bes
From: bes@tybalt.caltech.edu ( Behnam Sadeghi )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on common questions regarding religion
Keywords: WOMEN & ISLAM
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.004816.5176@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 00:48:16 GMT
Sender: bes@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 197
Approved: bes@tybalt.caltech.edu

(Note:  the message I am replying to originally cross-posted to several 
newsgroups.  Since I read only s.r.i., I will miss any replies posted 
in the other newsgroups).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I will reply to comments about the status accorded to women by Islam.

>Islam had greatly enhanced women's role in society with respect to the then
>prevalent conditions in Arabia. But it is not just the institution of 
>marriage where Islam falls short of the currently socially acceptable status
>of women. Islam limits the weight of a woman's testimony in court to one half

When you mention "currently socially acceptable status of women" what
are you referring to?  If you are referring to the currently socially
accepted position of women in Muslim societies, then I am afraid that
in some regions women are denied the most basic rights specified
by the Holy Quran. In some areas, this includes even the rights 
recognized by the most traditionalist interpretations, including the rights
to property and inheritence.  So, in these regions, one could say that 
actual practice lags behind both the traditional interpretations of Islam as 
well as the law of the land. (On the other hand, in other areas this 
situation does not exist).

>of that of a man.  Her rights of inheritance are also much more curtailed than
>that of men. Salman Azhar's reply implies that it is only in marriage that

The Quranic law of inheritence may seem unfair if taken out of the context 
of the totality of Quranic laws.  But when this law is viewed along with
other Islamic injunctions, it is evident that at least in the realm of 
financial rights of men and women, not only women are not unfairly
discriminated against, but also they probably enjoy an advantage.  Here I 
list the financial rights of men and women:

1)  Men have the right to own property and conduct business

2)  Women have the right to own property and conduct business

3)  Upon marriage, men have to pay the women a piece of 
    property or sum of money  (this may be a negligibe "symbolic"
    sum or substantial).  This is called "mahr."  

4)  If a husband initiates divorce (talaq), the wife gets to keep the mahr.
    If a wife initiates divoce (khul'a), she has to return part
    or all of the mahr.

5)  DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE WIFE CAN WORK AND EARN MONEY
    FOR HERSELF, SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO SPEND ANY OF HER EARNINGS ON HER
    HUSBAND OR CHILDREN.  SHE CAN KEEP ALL THE EARNING FOR HERSELF.  ON 
    THE OTHER HAND, THE HUSBAND HAS TO PAY FOR THE MAINTAINANCE OF BOTH 
    THE WIFE AND THE CHILDREN.

6)  The wife is not responsible for doing housework.  If she so wishes, 
    she has the right to demand a salary for any work she does inside 
    home, including the upkeep of children.

7)  When inheriting from parents, a daughter`s share is one-half the
    son's share.  [If I remember correctly, though, a person can will
    1/3 his property as he wishes. ]

It's obvious that in most cases, # 5 is far more to the advantage of women
that # 7 is to their disadvantage.  And this is not to mention any other
injunctions favorable to women, such as mahr (# 3) or # 6.  Also, please
note that if somebody quotes # 5 without providing the proper context of
Islam's financial regulations, he could give the misleading impression that
Islam unfairly discriminates against men!

A question that you must now ask me is "according to who?".  The rights
I listed above are held by traditionalist scholars and are based on the
Qur'an.  

I will try to make clear who believes the things that I say, 
because there are instances where my views are a "minority perspective"
(and in these instances, it wouldn't be reasonable for me to speak for
all Muslims).  

>Islam allows men to have a degree of superiority over women. This is probably
>the only aspect of Islam's "men's precedence over women" that is palatable by 
>the standards of the male dominated American culture. Curtailment of their 
>right to vote and right to rule were not even mentioned. 

The Ahadith show that during the lifetime of the Prophet, women participated
in the social life of the community, to the extent of participating in
jihad (though jihad --defense of the Islamic state-- was not required of
women).   

Contrary to your view, there's nothing in anybody's interpretation of Islam
that prohobits women from voting.  In the "Islamic Republic" of Pakistan and
the "Islamic Republic" of Iran, women can vote and are also elected to 
Parliament.  This probably wouldn't have been tolerated if the ulama of
these so-called Islamic Republics believed it went against their 
interpretation of Islam.

So far as it concerns the position of the ruler of the state, the majority
opinion is that a woman must not become the ruler of the Muslim state.  
This is one area where I have a minority view.  You'll find that the Quran
does not restrict the position of caliph to men.  The Quran mentions Queen
Sheba who was the ruler of a state, and who converted to Islam after being
invited by Solomon to accept the faith.  The Quran doesn't say that Sheba
gave up her throne after her conversion.  The majority view is based a hadith
attributed to the Prophet.  But I have read a very compelling and rational
argument about why the hadith appears to be spurious (the argument concerns
the fact that the content of the hadith indicates that it can't possibly have
been narrated by the person to whom the act of narration is attributed).

>Women as Witness:
>	2:282	O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other, in 
>transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce
>them to writing ............ and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and
>if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for
>witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The 
>witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (for evidence).

This Quranic verse corresponds to the very 
specific task of witnessing in financial matters.  Although I have seen
different arguments explaining the reason behind this injunction, I notice
that it is sometimes ignored that this verse itself contains the reason why in 
financial matters two women witenesses or one male witness were required.  
The verse says that if one woman forgets or makes a mistakes, the 
other one can correct her.  It is clear that since women were rather unfamiliar
with financial transactions (or at least less familiar than men), they were
more likely to make a mistake when serving as a witness.  In the interest
of justice, another woman was required to accompany the first woman to correct
her if she made a mistake.  You will find that in areas other than financial
transactions, the Qur'an talks about necessity of witnesses as well as the
number of witnesses required, but does not state that two female witnesses are
equivalent to one male witness.

>Women share in Inheritance:
>	4:11	God (thus) directs you as regards your children's 
>(inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if 
>only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance;
>if only one, her share is a half.  For parents, a sixth share of the 
>inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and
>the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased
>left brothers (or sisters), the mother has a sixth.  (The distribution in
>all cases is) after the payment of legacies and debts. .....

Regarding inheritance, see above.

>Women role in Marriage:
>	2:228	Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three
>monthly periods, nor is it lawful for them, to hide what God hath created 
>in their wombs, if they have faith in God and the Last Day.  And their 
>husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they
>wish for reconciliation.  And women shall have rights similar to the
>rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a
>degree (of advantage) over them and God is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Obviously, this verse is more related to divorce than marriage.
Muhammad Asad, in his translation of and commentary on the Qur'an, states
(based on the views of some past ulama), that the advantage men are given
in the matter of divorce is the rule that if the woman initiates divorce,
she must return part or all of the mahr that she received from her husband.
(If you continue to quote the succeeding verse you'll note that is what the
Quran says next).  Otherwise, with the exception just mentioned, the verse
states that women "shall have rights similar to the rights against them,
according to what is equitable."  

Another interpretation of the verse is that the advantage given to the
men is that men have an authority over women (as some have interpreted 
verse iv:34 to imply).

I personally tend to prefer the first interpretation since it takes into
account the context of the verse.
 
>	4:34	Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because
>God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they 
>support them from their means.  Therefore the righteous women are 
>devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would 
>have them guard.  As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty 
>and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their
>beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience,
>seek not against them means (of annoyance): for God is Most High, 
>Great (above you all).

I am aware of about a dozen different interpretations and translations
of this verse.  The only thing I care to comment on right now is the
sentence "the righteous women are devoutly obedient."  The phrase
"devoutly obedient" is what Yusuf Ali (whose translation I believe you
are using) chose as the translation for the Arabic word "qanitat."  Another 
translation of the word qanitat is simply devout, pious, or obedient to God.
(Perhaps that's why Y. Ali uses the qualifier "devoutly.").  You'll find 
that this is, for example, the translation chosen by Ahmed Ali, or Muhammad 
Asad.  

The word qanitat appears also in the chapter of the Holy Qur'an called
Sourah Ahzab.  You'll see that in this verse, the only possible interpretation
of the word is "devout" or "pious."  And that's how all 
translators/interpretors have translated/interpreted the word qanitat 
in Sourah Ahzab.

>--
>
>                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                  Sarmad Adnan (adnan@rice.edu)
>                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Behnam Sadeghi