Muslim
Women And Gender Justice
By Yoginder Sikand
15 October, 2004
Countercurrents.org
A
recently concluded two-day conference in New Delhi, organised at the
Jamia Hamdard, brought together a number of Muslim women activists from
different parts of India, as well as some members of the All-India Muslim
Personal Law Board to discuss a range of issues relating to Muslim women.
The theme of the conference was broad, reflecting the organisers' concern
that the discussion not remain confined to simply legal issues, but
also to include matters related to Muslim women's empowerment, education
as well as the plight of women victims of what are euphemistically termed
'communal riots'.
That, however, was
not to be, as women activists and 'ulama and members of the Board hotly
debated the questions of triple talaq in one sitting, a model nikah
namah and polygamy, issues that have been tirelessly talked over for
decades now without any consensus seeming to emerge. It was almost as
if all the problems of Muslim women owed simply to a patriarchal understanding
of Islamic jurisprudence, and that they could somehow be put an end
to simply by mere legal reform. As one participant put it in a private
conversation, 'We don't seem to be discussing wider issues, such as
the lack of empowerment of the community as a whole, or communal violence,
which impacts particularly seriously on Muslim women. And this focus
simply on legal reform, to the exclusion of much else, is precisely
what seems to happen in all the many conferences on Muslim women that
I have been attending all these years. I don't deny the need for legal
reform, but surely it isn't a magic wand that can solve all our problems'.
Yet, the discussions
on the nitty-gritty of Islamic jurisprudence did serve a valuable purpose,
given that the marginalisation of Muslim women does, in part, owe to
patriarchal interpretations of family law. Several participants were
critical of the Muslim Personal Law Board for dragging its feet on even
so simple a matter as drafting a model nikah namah or written marriage
contract which would clearly specify the rights of both spouses. 'For
years they have been talking about it, but they've done next to nothing',
quipped an irate woman. A member of the Board hurriedly defended his
organisation by claiming that the problem owed, in part, to the fact
that the Board consisted of representatives of several different schools
of Islamic thought and hence it was difficult to reach a consensus on
crucial and contentious issues on which there was no unanimity among
the different schools themselves.
The matter of triple
talaq in one sitting, expectedly, was the subject of intense discussion.
Many of the participants denounced the practice as obnoxious and demanded
an immediate end to it. Sheriffa, woman from Tamil Nadu, who has earned
the wrath of the conservative 'ulama by setting up a women's mosque,
related one instance after another of Muslim women being arbitrarily
divorced by their husbands, including through email and over the telephone,
and being left to fend for themselves. The amount of mehr agreed to
at the time of marriage, she said, is generally a mere pittance, and
not even enough to enable a divorced woman to survive for more than
a month or two. She related how, like their Hindu sisters, Muslim women
are routinely harassed for dowry. Although dowry is 'un-Islamic', it
is a widespread practice among Muslims as well. 'Why is it that the
'ulama and our male leaders conveniently overlook this practice, while
doing next to nothing for the plight of divorced women?', she demanded
to know.
Several other Muslim
women echoed Sheriffa's demand for an end to the practice of triple
talaq in one sitting. They pointed out that this practice was frowned
upon by the Prophet Muhammad himself, and that the 'ulama have all along
recognised it as a condemnable 'innovation'. They argued that several
Muslim countries had done away with the practice, and so there was no
need for it to remain in force in India. Islam was a religion of justice,
they stressed, and, hence, such a patent injustice as this was clearly
contradictory to Islamic teachings. Provoked by the debate on the question,
a senior member of the Board recognised the fact that this legal provision
was being misused, and announced that the Board had decided to launch
a nation-wide programme to create awareness among the Muslims about
the 'correct' method of divorce. Yet, he also added, since the Imams
of the four generally accepted schools of Sunni jurisprudence had allowed
for the practice of three talaqs in one sitting, the Board had no authority
to ban it outright.
This declaration
was greeted with considerable opposition from many women participants.
'If the Board recognises the practice to be a reprehensible innovation,
how can it be considered to be part of the shari'ah? How can the shari'ah
include or sanctify reprehensible innovations?', argued an activist
from Uttar Pradesh. 'Much as I respect the Imams of the four schools
of Sunni jurisprudence, I don't regard them as infallible. They were
products of their times, and now times have changed, which demands that
we reflect on the Qur'an and Prophetic traditions and develop new ways
of understanding our laws', she insisted. Another woman, something of
an expert in Islamic law, argued, 'The practice of borrowing from other
schools of Islamic law on a particular matter if the prescriptions of
one's own school are not appropriate is widely recognised. The Hanafi
school, which is dominant in India, allows for triple talaq in one sitting,
but the Shia Jafari school as well as the Sunni Ahl-i Hadith school
do not recognise this practice, so why can't the Board adopt the Jafari
or Ahl-i Hadith position on this matter and declare triple talaq in
one sitting to be null and void', she asked.
Muslim Personal
Law, in the form that it exists in India today, also allows a Muslim
man to have up to four wives at a time. This question also provoked
considerable discussion, although one scholar, seeking to put the question
in a proper perspective, pointed out that the incidence of polygamy
(as well as divorce through triple talaq in one sitting) was not particularly
widespread, contrary to media reports that tend to sensationalise the
oppression of Muslim women. In fact, he claimed, citing census figures
to back his argument, Muslims were less polygamous than Hindus, although
the reformed Hindu law has outlawed polygamy.
Several women insisted
that Islam did not sanction unrestrained polygamy, but allowed for it
only in exceptional circumstances. They demanded that a clause be inserted
in the proposed nikah namah clearly specifying the conditions under
which a man could be allowed to take a second wife. This was, they said,
was fully Islamically legitimate. In fact, the wife could even demand
that her nikah namah include a clause stating that that her husband
would not be allowed to marry another woman while he was married to
her.
A particularly interesting
aspect of the hair-splitting discussions on Islamic jurisprudence was
the fact that numerous women participants sought to argue their case
from within an Islamic paradigm, quoting verse after verse from the
Qur'an and citing traditions attributed to the Prophet to argue their
case for gender justice. Feminist demands are routinely dismissed by
religious conservatives (Muslims as well as others) as 'western' ploys
to promote divisions and dissensions. Articulating their views and concerns
through appeals to Islamic scriptural sources themselves gave the women
the moral authority that feminists who are seen as alienated from their
own societies and traditions lack. 'The Qur'an is an open book, and
Islam demands that all believers, men and women, read and understand
it. There is no priesthood or church in Islam', explained one woman.
'Obviously', added a woman sitting next to me, whispering in hushed
tones in the middle of a particularly boring speech, 'such a stance
constitutes a challenge to the authority of the conservative 'ulama,
who presume that they have the last word on every matter. This explains,
in part, their reluctance to listen to alternate voices, which are often
condemned as anti-Islamic'.
Some participants
were plainly upset that the conference did not go beyond quibbling over
narrowly defined legal questions. 'It is a tiresome repetition of the
same contentious debates over precisely the same issues that numerous
such conferences in the past have focussed on', complained a woman activist.
Some were plainly upset by what they saw as the lack of enthusiasm on
the part of the Board to listen to their voices. Others, however, advised
caution. 'The very fact that the Board now has some women members, a
few of whom are indeed vocal on women's issues, is itself significant',
they said. 'Social reform cannot come about all at once, and we have
to take everyone, women as well as men, including the 'ulama, with us',
they stressed.
Whether or not the
conference, or similar meetings as this, would nudge the Board, and
the 'ulama as a whole, to seriously consider the demands of Muslim women
activists remains a moot point. But the very fact that Muslim women
are now increasingly demanding to be heard is itself significant. Forums
such as this conference are providing them new spaces to interact and
network and to relate their stories and struggles. Equally significantly,
through efforts such as these gender-sensitive and gender-just interpretations
of Islam are beginning to be articulated by Muslim women activists themselves,
and a few men as well. In a country where all established religious
traditions are thoroughly embedded in a patriarchal ethos this is surely
no small step forward.