In his Book of Counsel for Kings, Al-Ghazali sums up all that a woman has to suffer and endure because of Eve’s misbehaviour in the Garden of Eden. When Eve disobeyed Almighty God and ate fruit which He had forbidden to her from the tree in Paradise, the Lord punished women with eighteen things:
“When Eve ate fruit which He had forbidden to her from the tree in Paradise, the Lord, be He praised, punished women with eighteen things: (1) menstruation; (2) childbirth; (3) separation from mother and father and marriage to a stranger; (4) pregnancy; (5) not having control over her own person; (6) a lesser share in inheritance; (7) her liability to be divorced and inability to divorce; (8) it’s being lawful for men to have four wives, but for a woman to have only one husband; (9) the fact that she must stay secluded in the house; (10) the fact that she must keep her head covered inside the house; (11) the fact that two women’s testimony has to be set against the testimony of one man; (12) the fact that she must not go out of the house unless accompanied by a near relative; (13) the fact that men take part in Friday and feast day prayers and funerals while women do not; (14) disqualification for rulership and judgeship; (15) the fact that merit has one thousand components, only one of which is attributable to women, while 999 are attributable to men; (16) the fact that if women are profligate they will be given [only] half as much torment as the rest of the community at the Resurrection Day; (17) the fact that if their husbands die they must observe a waiting period of four months and ten days before remarrying; 18) the fact that if their husbands divorce them they must observe a waiting period of three months or three menstrual periods before remarrying.” (Tannahill, p.233-234).
Imam Al-Ghazali has blatantly written that ‘it is enough to say that marriage is a kind of slavery, for a wife is a slave to her husband. She owes her husband absolute obedience in whatever he may demand of her, where she herself is concerned, as long as no sin is involved’.’ (Al-Ghazali, 1998, p.89)
Al-Ghazali says, “A woman has ten awrat (dishonourable aspects). If she gets married, the husband covers one. Then if she dies the grave would cover all” (Manna, p.33)
Al-Ghazali, summarized the state of women in the mind of Medieval men in these words: As for the distinctive characteristics with which God on High has punished women, the matter is as follows:
Imam Ghazali did not allow women to hold the post of Khilafah though she may be more qualified than the man. Like Imam Shafi`i, he did not allow her to hold the post of justice. (Al-Ghazali, 1964, p.180).
Al-Ghazali, in the “Proof of Islam,” sums up the traditional view: [a man marries] in order to have an untroubled mind as far as house work is concerned: kitchen, cleaning, bedding. A man, supposing he is able to do without sex, is not capable of living alone at home. If he were to take on himself the task of doing all the housework, he would no longer be able to dedicate himself to intellectual work or knowledge. The virtuous wife by making herself useful at home is her husband’s helpmate … and at same time satisfies his sexual desires. (Ibn Warraq, p.599)
Imam Ghazali writes in his book Ihya Uloom al Din: “She should prefer her husband before herself, and before all her relatives, she should keep herself clean at all times for her husband to enjoy her whenever he wishes” (Al-Ghazali, 1997, p.235).
Regarding women’s behavior, al-Ghazali’ stresses how wives ought to impart to spouses “loads of life,” how she ought to be faithful, and how she should regard him. He describes the role of a woman in Adab al-Nikah by ordering her to stay at home and tend to her spinning, to go in and out only in emergencies and not excessively, to visit neighbours infrequently and only when necessary, and to look after the house and tend to all the requirements of the husband. Also for the benefit of the husband and his pleasure are recommendations on the female’s personal hygiene. Besides these requirements, the female should also be dedicated to practicing religious rituals. (Al-Ghazali, 1984, p.124.)
Al- Ghazali found some redeeming features in women: “(A man’s wife) fears him, while he fears her not, a kind word from him satisfies her, where nothing of hers has importance in his eyes, it is she who must tolerate the presence of concubines, and it is she who worries when he is ill whereas even her death would leave him indifferent.” (Al-Ghazali, 1995, p.205)
It is no surprise that some thinking women from Islamic backgrounds rebel against such teachings. One such woman Dr. Sa’dawi wrote: “The institution of marriage remained very different for men to what it was for women, and the rights accorded to husbands were distinct from those accorded to wives. In fact, it is probably not accurate to use the term ‘rights of the woman’ since a woman under the Islamic system of marriage has no human rights unless we consider that a slave has rights under a slave system. Marriage, in so far as women are concerned, is just like slavery to the slave, or the chains of serfdom to the serf.” (Sa’dawi, 1980, pp.139, 140)
Al-Ghazali’s tendencies toward misogyny may have been a reason for the public burning of his books in Córdoba around 1108, for such notions contradicted the values of the Almoravids, who believed in the equality of women and men. (Aderinto, p.10)
Al-Ghazali considers women to be a dangerous source of sexual desire. In The Book of Marriage, he says that “if a man’s penis is erect, two thirds of his mind is gone.” According to Kecia Ali, a professor of Islamic studies in Boston University, “Al-Ghazali frames his discussion of the sexual act in terms of a husband’s responsibility for keeping his wife satisfied; it is a matter of the husband’s duty, rather than the wife’s right” (Ali, K, 2006, p.7).
Al-Ghazali sees civilisation struggling to contain women’s destructive, all absorbing power. He believes women exert a fatal attraction which erodes the male’s will to resist her and places him in a passive and pliable role. This power is seen as the most destructive element in the Muslim social order, because men become distracted from their social and religious duties. Society can only survive by creating institutions that foster male dominance through sexual segregation and polygamy. He casts the woman as the hunter and the man as the passive victim. (Bo Utas, p. 5).
As Moroccan feminist writer and sociologist Fatima Mernissi explains, according to Imam Ghazali: “Women are a dangerous distraction that must be used for the specific purpose of providing the Muslim nation with offspring and quenching the tensions of the sexual instinct. But in no way should women be an object of emotional investment or the focus of attention” (Mernissi, p.45).
Al-Ghazali vs Ibn Rushd
The school of Al-Ghazali’ emerged from the Ash’ari school of religious thought, and is considered the representative of al-Ash’ari in today’s major scholastic school in the Muslim world, Al-Azhar. Ibn Rushd is viewed as a progressive thinker among Muslim and Western scholars, and, by al-Ghazālī’’s followers, as a rival. This is largely a result of his book Tahafut al-Tahafut, which Ibn Rushd wrote in response to al-Ghazālī’’s Tahafut al-Falasifa. Ibn Rushd’s works were explored and adopted in the West centuries before he became acclaimed as a Muslim thinker. Known as Averroes in the West, Ibn Rushd’s contributions to the West’s Enlightenment era have been highly appreciated and acknowledged. Therefore, it will be beneficial to shed light on Ibn Rushd’s views on women through exploring some of his works, including the commentary on Plato’s Republic, Fasl al-Maqâl, and Bidayat al-Mujtahid.
Al-Ghazali’s Tahafut al-Falasifa, an argument in support of religion, was so debatable, yet widely adopted by his supporters, that he has been held responsible for the diminishment of logic and reason in Islamic thought; his beliefs resulted in Ibn Rushd’s composition of Tahafut al-Tahafut, a direct response to al-Ghazali’s Tahafut.
Al-Ghazali’ made many disputable proclamations about women, endorsing beatings as punishment for defiance and portraying marriage as a form of acceptable servitude. He also insisted on the belief that women’s nature is mixed with that of the devil, that women’s minds aren’t suited for education, and he was quick to provide a rundown of intrinsic female imperfections. In his trademark style, in the majority of his work al-Ghazali’ used the Quranand the hadith as his sources, thus appearing to complement the Quran and the recorded expressions and activities of Prophet Muhammad.
C. Farah, a translator of the Ihya’, highlights in his preface that “It is important to note while working on al Ghazali’ texts, that there is no precise citation of ḥadith sources where scholars of Islamic tradition are in agreement. Al-Ghazali’, however, relies often on much less verified ḥadīth, some of which have been relayed on weak or relatively unreliable authority. It seems that he was more interested in the didactic message, used often in the Ihya’ to support a contention, than in what purists of later years might perceive as precision. Apparently he was willing to risk the judgment of posterity and criticism for incorporating traditions that could not be verified.” (See: Al-Ghazali 1992).
In stark contrast to some of his contemporaries, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) held women in high regard. He rejected the notion that women were intellectually inferior or inherently sinful. His writings advocated for women’s education, believing their minds were just as capable as men’s. He even challenged the idea that women were unfit for leadership roles, suggesting that a woman with the necessary qualifications could govern just as effectively as a man. This progressive stance on female potential and education placed Ibn Rushd firmly ahead of his time.
Despite being an Aristotelian philosopher, Ibn Rushd diverged from Aristotle’s negative views on women. He envisioned an ideal state where women possessed equal standing to men. He rejected the reductive notion of women solely for domestic tasks. Instead, he saw them as capable of governing, leading armies, and pursuing wisdom. He advocated for women’s access to knowledge and opportunities vital for achieving societal justice. Furthermore, he openly criticized the oppressive and unjust treatment of women in his time. His reasoning followed a clear line: “If men and women share the same fundamental nature, then women of all classes are inherently equal to men in every domain, including leadership, warfare, and philosophy.” This perspective implied that women were not inherently limited by gender and could excel in various fields.
In his book Intellectuals in Arab Civilization al-Jabiri, also draws our attention to the special position of Ibn Rushd in regard to equality between the sexes, but with some reservation: One of the issues that drew the attention of contemporary researchers and thought to Ibn-Rushd was his call for equality (fairness) to a woman, as well as his not excluding her from becoming a philosopher or a governor. It is adequate to say that Ibn Rushd was clarifying Plato’s thought on the subject. And although he accepted Plato’s thought willingly, it was with the cautionary position of Islamic law. (Al- Jabiri, p.141.) Ibn-Rushd does point out that some laws entitle women to such positions as long as they are deemed appropriate; they also consider that a woman can be a philosopher, as well as a ruler, and hence can be the Imam.
Ghazali vs Ibn Arabi
Al-Ghazali wasn’t exactly a champion for women’s rights. In fact, he saw keeping women down as part of being a good Muslim. This paper suggests it had a lot to do with the times he lived in. The Seljuks were running a pretty tight ship in Iraq back then, and nobody wanted to rock the boat, especially not on something as sensitive as gender roles.
Ibn Arabi (1165–1240), a Spanish Arab scholar, mystic, poet, and philosopher, on the other hand, was all about equality for women, spiritually, intellectually, and legally. That’s a pretty progressive view for his time! Maybe it had something to do with growing up in Muslim Spain, where women mystics were teachers and nobody was breathing down his neck about religious doctrine. Plus, Ibn Arabi believed everything in the universe, including women and our bodies, was a part of God. Unlike some religious thinkers who saw women and worldly things as roadblocks to God, Ibn Arabi saw the divine connection in everything.
Here’s the thing: unlike al-Ghazali, who had to watch his back because of the political climate, Ibn Arabi wasn’t afraid to challenge the status quo. He wrote a bunch of influential books that showed little respect for traditional interpretations of religious texts, especially when it came to women. In fact, he was a big supporter of women being involved in all aspects of religion.
Ibn Arabi’s experiences with female mystics and his belief in everything being part of God explain his super-egalitarian views. Free from the political pressures al-Ghazali faced, Ibn Arabi’s mysticism used the power of spiritual experience to challenge deeply ingrained ideas about women’s place in society. The contrasting views of these two Sufi thinkers show how different things can be within Sufism. That direct connection to God can be used to either enforce the old ways or fight for social justice and spiritual equality for women.
Historians have written a great deal more on Ibn ‘Arabi’s views on gender and sexuality. Henry Corbin, the first Western historian to examine the works of Ibn Arabi, provides a thorough investigation into Arabi’s cosmological philosophy, even examining Arabi’s theory that a feminine element of God, namely Compassion, is responsible for creation. (Corbin, pp. 157–159)
As Sadiyya Shaikh has thoroughly explained, Ibn Arabi asserts not only the spiritual equality of men and women, but also advocates for equal treatment in law and society. (Shaikh, pp.82–105) Women can reach the highest level of sainthood, speak as an imam before a congregation, and share legal obligations equal to men. (Shaikh, p.133–138) Arabi even claims that “there is nothing in the created universe greater in power than women.” (Shaikh, p.231)
Degeneration of women’s status in the Muslim world
In one of the most thorough examinations of gender in Islamic history, Leila Ahmed traced the decline of women’s opportunities in the Near East, from relative freedom during the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammed and immediately after, to exceptional subjugation by the mid-ninth century. She argues that women in the tribal Near East during jahilia (pre-Islam period), and in the first few generations after the Prophet’s lifetime, were largely free to contract their own marriages, own and handle property, and even had a voice in politics and religion. Unfortunately, as Ahmed puts it, “such free participation in community affairs would soon be curtailed by the formal introduction of seclusion.” (Ahmed, 2010, pp.84–87)
While the Prophet’s wives were the first to be restricted, seclusion and other patriarchal practices were codified into legalist Islam to such an extent that, by the beginning of the ‘Abbasid Caliphate in 850, religious authorities assumed that a patriarchal interpretation of the Quran was applicable in all circumstances and for all time. Moreover, with the rising wealth of the 9th century came a thriving sex trade industry in the Near East, resulting in the severe devaluation of women. As Ahmed argues, everyone in ‘Abbasid society, by “virtue of the knowledge of the ordinariness of this transaction, and for elite men in particular because of the intimate and direct level on which they experienced that knowledge, one meaning of woman in a very concrete, practical sense, was ‘slave, object purchasable for sexual use.” (Ahmed, 2010, p.100)
The practices of polygamy, concubinage and unconditional divorce for men, Ahmed argues, all meant a significant loss of position for women in the urban Middle East. (Ahmed, 2010, p.53)
Like many scholars in the Middle East during the early Seljuk period, and perhaps characteristic of thinkers in patriarchal systems more broadly, most of al-Ghazali’s concern with the place of women relates to satisfying men’s sexual desire. (Ahmed, 2010, p.100)
While more recent scholars of gender in the Medieval Muslim world complicate Ahmed’s arguments to some extent, they largely agree that women lost significant opportunities as Muslim religious texts were codified into legal practices. As Kecia Ali contends, between the late 8th century, when important legal scholars lived, and the early 10th century, when schools of jurisprudence systematized Islamic theological doctrines, “a coherent notion of marriage and licit sexuality, centred on exclusive male dominion of female sexual capacity, emerged.” (Ali, p. 15)
Laws regarding marriage, divorce, slavery, and reproduction were largely constructed so as to allow men and male institutions absolute control over female sexual and reproductive behaviour. Kecia Ali further states that, while Muslim women enjoyed rights of property ownership unrivalled anywhere in the medieval world, marriage laws and customs for women closely mirrored the institution of slavery. (Ali, K, p.114)
It is important to note, as Marion Holmes Katz does, that legal restrictions on women’s movement could result from an aversion to women’s prominent participation in public life. She contends that women’s mosque attendance throughout the 11th century, especially in Iraq and Syria, was quite significant, and that “the most vehement and categorical prohibitions on women’s mosque attendance were produced in contexts where women were highly visible.” (Katz, p.11)
In other words, proscriptions against women’s mosque attendance were reacting to women’s significant presence. Nevertheless, throughout the 10th and 11th centuries, the prohibitions from legal scholars became more effective as jurisprudence placed more emphasis on sexuality. Increasingly, discourse among theologians and political authorities became more concerned with the extent to which female sexuality could distract and corrupt male worshipers. Fears surrounding women’s bodies and sexuality served as a “global rationale for restrictions on women’s participation in public worship.” (Katz, p. 23) Further, as Katz notes, social norms, which placed a woman’s reputation in severe danger if she appeared publicly, were often far more effective than legal prohibitions in controlling women’s movements. (Holmes, p.149)
Contextualizing Al-Ghazali’s Views
It’s crucial to understand the historical and social context in which Al-Ghazali lived. Like many scholars of his time, he was inevitably influenced by the prevailing cultural norms. The prevailing view of women’s roles in society, shared by thinkers like Aristotle, was one of domesticity and subordination. However, attributing these views solely to Islam risks overlooking the historical realities of the era.
While acknowledging context, we must avoid historical determinism. Islam itself is a dynamic and evolving tradition. The Quran, the foundational text, promotes equality and respect for all people, including women (Q.4:1). Early Islamic society witnessed women playing significant roles in various spheres, including scholarship and leadership.
Al-Ghazali’s views were informed by his specific context and may not represent the universal message of Islam. We should emphasize the importance of ijtihad, independent reasoning, in interpreting Islamic sources to address contemporary realities. For instance, the concept of marriageable age is not explicitly defined in the Quran. Historically, puberty was seen as a marker for marriage, reflecting the social norms of the time. However, modern interpretations emphasize the emotional and intellectual maturity necessary for a successful marriage, pushing back against child marriage practices.
One of the Islamic world’s most authoritative commentaries on the teachings of the Quran Tafsir al-Qurtubi (Vol. 17, p. 172), states, “Women are like cows, horses, and camels, for all are ridden.”
Scholarly studies show that Al-Ghazali relied heavily on Abu Talib al-Makki’s (d. 386) Qut al-qulub fi mu`amalat al-mahbub wa wasf tariq al-murid ila maqam al-tawhid (The nourishment of hearts in dealing with the Beloved and the description of the seeker’s way to the station of declaring oneness), in developing his Ihya’, and that many of the stories Al-Makki used (and attributed incorrectly to ahadith) in fact contradicted Islamic law, especially as it related to women. This suggests that some of Al-Ghazali’s conclusions and assertions that might be interpreted as misogynist may have inadvertently been based on false writings. Al-Makki’s book includes many contradictory reports and unsubstantiated stories, which Al-Ghazali then used and repeated verbatim. The Ihya’ refers to some 4,000 Prophetic sayings, with 900 of them being understood today to be unreliable and based on weak reports (i.e., 21.5% of the Prophetic sayings he cites cannot be completely validated). This indicates that a detailed examination is in order, taken on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that only authentic and valid Islamic principles are included in any program designed to facilitate true Islamic education.
As Ahmed writes: Cultural exchange seems to have led above all to the pooling and reinforcement of such ideas and to the triumphant endorsement throughout the region of a notion of woman in which her humanity was submerged and all but obliterated by a view of her as essentially and even exclusively biological—as quintessentially a sexual and reproductive being. (Ahmed p.18). Dehumanizing women is also a salient social feature in the region, in which al-Ghazali, a fervent defender of the Abbasids, originates. It is during the Abbasid era, one of unprecedented misogyny in Muslim history, that most institutions and laws considered today ‘Islamic,’ or constituting what is now known as the shari’a, had been elaborated. With the Abbasid age, Ahmed argues, an epoch of prosperity and wealth, the words ‘woman,’ ‘slave,’ and ‘object of sexual use’ had become indistinguishable. (Ahmed, p.67). The belief that the wife is the slave of the man by Imam Al-Ghazali, is also shared by great scholars such as Razi. (Razi, commenting on the Quran 33:51)
Similarly, while the Quran does not explicitly prohibit women’s travel or education, Ghazali’s views on these matters might have been influenced by societal limitations. Progressive interpretations emphasize the importance of education for both men and women, recognizing its crucial role in personal and societal development.
Consequently, we know now that al-Ghazali’ saw women as subordinates whose role in the household was one of obedience. We also know that, outside of weaving and spinning, women have no place in the workforce or in leadership. It is true that al-Ghazali’’s and Ibn Taymiyya’s schools influenced family relations and women’s status in the Muslim world by maintaining a subordinate and inferior role for the woman.
A progressive reading of Islam challenges the notion that Ghazali’s views on women are inherently Islamic. Recognizing the influence of his historical context, we can strive for interpretations that uphold the Quran’s message of equality and dignity for all. This requires ongoing dialogue and ijtihad, ensuring that Islamic principles remain relevant and empowering in a constantly evolving world. By engaging in these conversations, we can move towards a more inclusive and just interpretation of Islam, one that respects the rights and dignity of all individuals.
Al-Hibri asserts that, “we need to devote a great deal more time and effort to critiquing various elements of our traditional jurisprudence that are based on domination and suppression. We also need to contribute to the evaluation of a better Islamic jurisprudence based on Divine logic” (Al-Hibri, p. 1).
Annmarie Schimmel encourages a hermeneutic re-examination in terms of the original sacred texts, because “there ought to exist no difference between man and woman in the realm of spiritual life” (Schimmel, 1997, p.181).
Quranic Islam-Championing Women
There’s no denying that the Quran offers a more level playing field for women compared to the Western Christian tradition, heavily influenced by the downer view of women in ancient Greek thought. Perhaps the most fundamental difference is the Islamic God’s lack of gender (Q.112:2). While Arabic uses a masculine pronoun, He’s never described as “father” or “lord” like in Judeo-Christianity.
In fact, the Islamic God has qualities traditionally seen as feminine. One of His most important titles is al-Rahman (the All-Compassionate), derived from the Arabic word “rahma,” which itself comes from “rahim,” meaning womb. These scholars argue that the association with shame and repression surrounding women in the West stems from Christianity’s hostility towards sexuality and the legacy of guilt it bequeathed. Islam, on the other hand, promotes a healthy outlook on human sexuality, evident in the detailed guidance within Islamic law.
Islam doesn’t subscribe to the myth of Eve tempting Adam and triggering the Fall. Unlike Christianity, where sex is seen as a consequence of humanity’s fallen state and traditionally viewed with disdain (celibacy being seen as a way to channel sexual energy towards God), nothing stands in starker contrast than the life of Prophet Muhammad. He married several times after his first wife Khadija’s passing, and his love and intimacy with his wives are mentioned in the hadith.
One Islamic injunction even requires husbands to satisfy their wives sexually. The Prophet himself advised foreplay, and Imam Ghazali, a revered scholar, warned men against premature ejaculation. Islam has always recognized women’s active sexuality, unlike Western Christianity that conditioned women into accepting passivity.
Aisha and Khadija emerge as role models for Muslim women. Khadija, the Prophet’s first wife, was considered old (40) when she proposed to the 25-year-old Muhammad. His first believer and confidante, she remained his sole wife until her death.
The Quran itself provides ample support for women’s rights: education, work, and keeping their earnings (Q.4:32). The Shafi school of thought even suggests women don’t have to do housework for free! The Prophet himself, according to Aisha, was a changed man who helped with chores when not praying. Furthermore, the Quran praises the nurturing and patience associated with motherhood, echoing the Prophet’s call to honour one’s mother.
Islamic teachings emphasize the principles of equality, reciprocity, and mutuality within marital life, challenging patriarchal norms. The Quranic verses such as 9:71 and 30:21 are foundational in highlighting these values, underscoring the importance of a balanced and respectful relationship between spouses.
Quran 9:71 states, “The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong”. This verse promotes a vision of mutual support and cooperation between men and women. It emphasizes that both genders are allies (‘awliya’) of each other, suggesting a relationship based on partnership and mutual responsibilities rather than hierarchy. By affirming that men and women are equally responsible for enjoining good and forbidding wrong, the verse dismisses the notion of male dominance in moral and spiritual leadership within the family. Quran 30:21 adds another dimension to marital relations: “And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy.” This verse highlights the spiritual and emotional aspects of marriage, emphasizing tranquillity, affection, and mercy as core elements. The terms “tranquillity” (sakan), “affection” (mawaddah), and “mercy” (rahmah) imply a relationship grounded in emotional intimacy and compassion. These qualities necessitate a reciprocal dynamic where both partners actively contribute to each other’s well-being.
Together, these verses advocate for an anti-patriarchal framework within marriage. The emphasis on mutual responsibility and emotional support challenges traditional patriarchal models that prioritize male authority and control. By advocating for equality and shared spiritual and moral duties, the Quran promotes a vision of marriage where both partners are equal contributors to the family’s welfare. The hermeneutic analysis of Q.9:71 and 30:21 advocate for a balanced, equitable, and compassionate partnership, challenging patriarchal norms and highlighting the importance of mutual respect and support in achieving a harmonious and fulfilling marital relationship.
Male dominance and its attempt to control women exist everywhere, just in different forms. When women are educated and understand the true meaning of Islam, they can push back against these attempts. They reject the notion that some Sharia law provisions, like requiring a woman’s testimony to be corroborated by another woman, institutionalize inequality.
From the beginning of Islam (622 CE), men and women were instructed in both the spiritual and intellectual aspects of Muslim life as part of the learning process.
Ibn ‘Umar (in Al-Bukhari, 1999, No. 212) reported that the Prophet said: All of you are shepherds, and all of you are responsible for your flocks. A trustee is a shepherd, and he is responsible. A man is a shepherd for his family, and he is responsible. A woman is a shepherd over the home, and she is responsible. Verily, all of you are shepherds. The Prophet also taught that, “Women and men are equal halves” (Ahmad & AbuDawud, in Al-Albani, 1986, Vol. 1, p. 399).
The Prophet’s wife, ‘Aishah, reported that the Prophet “would be involved in the service of his family, and when the time for prayers was due, he would wash up and go out for prayers.” (Elkadi, p. 56).
Karen Armstrong (Armstrong, p.16) asserts that the “emancipation of women was a project dear to the Prophet’s heart. The [Quran] gave women rights of inheritance and divorce centuries before Western women were accorded such status.”
Leila Ahmed suggests that the Prophet’s commitment to seeking women’s opinions demonstrated his affirmation of their perspective, even concerning matters of spiritual and social importance. This inclusiveness continued to be a feature of the Muslim community in the years immediately following the Prophet’s death. One demonstration of this is the acceptance of women’s contributions to the collection and narration of the ahadith. (Ahmed, p.72).
El Saadawi, a feminist scholar, writes from the perspective of conflict theory. She maintains that there are positive aspects in Islamic culture which must be sought and emphasized, and negative aspects that should be exposed to bring about further change. She points out that “women in the time of the Prophet obtained rights, which today, are denied in most Arab countries” (El Saadawi, p.212).
Prophet Muhammad was highly sex-positive: He said: “No one among you should throw himself on his wife like beasts do. There should be, prior to coitus, a messenger between you and her. People asked him, what kind of messenger? The Prophet answered, kisses and words.” (Mernissi, p.40)
However, there is a “sizeable gap between the Islam ideal and Muslim practice concerning the rights of women as provided in the Quran”, pointed out by Murad Hofman, a German scholar of Islam. (Hoffman, p.99).
Bewley, a feminist scholar, points to colonialism as marking the beginning of the downfall of women’s rights in Islam. She offers examples such as how, at the end of the Mameluke period in the 14th century CE, it was hard to find a woman without a teaching license. Even before this period there were large numbers of such women, such as Fatima Al-Samarqandiyah, who not only had an ijazah (license) for teaching, but also had the capacity to authorize fatwas (legal opinions). Fatima read law with her father, and her husband used to consult her (Roded, 1994).
Bewley’s meticulous research throws light on female scholars and leaders in early Islam. Several pages in her book detail the accomplishments of women who, like Fatima, served as Quran and hadith teachers, market inspectors (muhtasibah), legal scholars (faqih), and active participants in political and civic life.
However, Bewley’s preface also delves into the factors that eroded these hard-won rights. She identifies a confluence of forces that led to women’s disempowerment and a decline in their educational and public roles. These factors echo Barazangi’s findings and include: A resurgence of pre-Islamic patriarchal norms. The persistence of non-Islamic practices among some converts, further entrenching patriarchy. The influence of Western ideas that, historically, have also viewed women as inferior. The legacy of colonialism, which portrayed Islam as barbaric and championed Western notions of civilization. Bewley argues that this colonial legacy was perpetuated by the new Islamic ruling elite. They inherited this power structure and imposed it on the Muslim world, effectively “dethroning” women from their positions of prominence in education, politics, and religion. (Barazangi, p.22-47)
Over time, interpretations of Islamic texts (hermeneutics) became increasingly biased towards a patriarchal viewpoint within the Muslim world. This shift resulted from a confluence of factors, including cultural exchange with patriarchal societies, the rise of feudal systems that concentrated power in male hands, and a general strengthening of patriarchal structures within Muslim communities. Furthermore, throughout Islamic history some scholars, like that of Al-Qurtubi, have embraced competing reports, mostly weaker, less specific ahadith, alleging that women were not entitled to the same educational and social opportunities as men. (Al-Qurtubi, 1966) The foundations of the faith, however, emphasize that it is incorrect to restrict a woman’s education or social life, and the Prophet did not differentiate between the genders regarding what each was supposed to or entitled to learn. Some of the Prophet’s lectures were addressed specifically to women. Despite the fact that the Prophet was confident enough to act on his own, he did not disregard the advice of others, females included.
Scholars with this orientation have failed to read the scripture as both a complex network of verses that gives its totality and a setting with historical leaning. Rather, it has been handled on a formula described by Mustansir Mir, a great Quranic scholar as “linear-atomistic” method where individual verses are interpreted in isolation free from whole surahs (chapters) and contexts, that is, “ignores the wood for the trees—the surah for the verse.” (Mir, p.212)
The only way to echo the voice of the Quran on the rights of women is to reverse the monopoly of its interpretation from the adherents of patriarchies to one that would be meaningful to women in contemporary times, hence the need to reinterpret the Quran from the women and humanistic perspective.
This is an excerpt from the book “Al-Ghazali-An Enlightened Critique” available from Amazon.
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an Indian scholar on Islam and contemporary affairs who receives his mail: [email protected]
