Women Studies 313: Islamic Feminism
Understanding Structural Problems in Religion Through Islam and Feminism
Final grade: B
Although Islam, like any religion, has certain inherently personal aspects that must be defined by the individual, Islamic societies are generally oppressive in their application of a patriarchal text. There is lots of literature pointing to the ways in which the Quran has actually been misinterpreted in the past and primarily from a man’s perspective, such as Amina Wadud’s Quran and Woman. In this paper, I will not attempt to devalue any interpretation of the text, or argue that any interpretation is wrong per-se, only to point out the relevancy-or irrelevancy-to the pursuit of equality. My focus will be on the place Islam has on a societal level, not the individual level, and includes my observations of Islamic society and generally how this institution can work against an egalitarian society. This is an important note in reading my criticism of interpretations of the Quran; that my criticism are not meant to devalue the significance of such an interpretation, especially when it is from a perspective not usually taken, but rather to criticize this interpretation in its sociopolitical context. Any text has the ability to be reinterpreted from a different perspective. The fact that the Quran was originally interpreted in a way that privileged men in certain regards makes Islam a fundamentally sexist religion.
I will analyze four passages from the Quran that are difficult to reinterpret because of their blatant sexism. Even if some of the following passages were not written with the intention of being sexist, they have been key players in enabling the sexism of a patriarchal society and fail to challenge an existing infrastructure. The first two passages are in regard to companions in the hereafter, and address the idea of man’s greatest desire. The passages read as follows:
Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return. Say, "Shall I inform you of [something] better than that? For those who fear Allah will be gardens in the presence of their Lord beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally, and purified spouses and approval from Allah . And Allah is Seeing of [His] servants.
The important thing to note in the first verse is “...of that which they desire - of women…” indicating that women are among the desires of those reading the Quran, meaning the passage was probably intended for men. Wadud explains this idea of huri or companions in the hereafter by saying the following: “The descriptions given of the huri are specific and sensual-youthful, virgin females with large dark eyes, white skin, and a pliant character … The specific depiction here of the companions of Paradise demonstrates the Qur’an’s familiarity with the dreams and desires of those Arabs.” I chose this passage specifically for Wadud’s use of “those Arabs” and show her perceived cultural separation from the Arabic world, where Islam is not just a religious choice, but integrated into many aspects of everyday living. However, Wadud’s basic argument here is that the specific description of the companions of paradise were thus described to appeal to the readers of the Quran in their specific socio-cultural context and make paradise a desirable place. She argues that the Quran is not giving a basis for paradise, but rather an example of paradise so that certain groups of people might begin to understand what the highest pleasures are for man/woman that await them in paradise. Wadud states that “for the Jahili Arab patriarch, the primary audience of the Makkan period, it might be young virgin women with white skin and large, dark eyes. However, the Qur’an’s descriptions of the companions of Paradise must be viewed on the basis of its entire system of justice and its objective of universal guidance…” This interpretation is important for an individual-especially female-reading of the Quran to justify why it seems to be objectifying women into prizes for men to win once they have reached paradise. In theory, the Quran remains a liberating text by allowing paradise to remain theoretical and pure without any concrete descriptions that are easily understood by man/woman.
However, there are two important realities about this description of Paradise from the Quran. The first is the assumption that the only audience worth appealing to during the Makkan period was the 50% of the population that was male. A text cannot be justified in objectifying women by arguing that it was speaking to a patriarchal society. The text is still submitting to a problematic society and allowing misinterpretation by appealing to the privileged group in the society. If the Quran really was a text that spoke through time and space and was universally equal, there would not have been a need to appeal to one group over another, or make understanding easier to contextualize. The Quran was produced in a way that enabled patriarchal societies to justify their sexism, and is therefore a text that has created sexist societies when used politically.
The third passage I will look at has to do with the privileges and duties of women as outlined by the Quran. The passage has classically been interpreted as explaining men’s superiority over women and although it can be interpreted differently, its language has institutionalized sexism. The passage reads as follows:
Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority].
In this passage, Wadud makes the argument that the “degree” - or “darajeh” in arabic - that men are said to hold over women is an inaccurate interpretation of the language. To interpret the word “darajeh” in a way that justifies men’s superiority would be to go against the “equity established throughout the Qur’an with regard to the individual: each nafs shall have in accordance to what it earns.” Although this interpretation is compelling, it does not account for the sexism that exists in Muslim societies in the Middle East. There are many examples of sexism, but in a study performed by Jaime Kucinskas with youth aged 18-25 from Saudi Arabia and Egypt showed a negative relationship between orthodoxy and gender egalitarianism for men. In other words, the more religious the man, the more conservative his views on an egalitarian society, though there was no correlation for women. This study is significant in the fact that it shows a correlation between Islam and sexism in men specifically, meaning that the Quran might provide some measure of justification for an already sexist man to employ his patriarchal opinions upon his society. According to Kucinskas’ analyzation of her findings, “young men who are orthodox or who frequently attend a mosque have significantly more traditional gender attitudes.” This finding seems to make sense; that a person who attends mosque frequently would buy into the narrative told by that religion, more so than a person who does not frequent a mosque. What is significant, however, is the idea of “traditional gender attitudes.” This seems to indicate the idea of women being subservient to men, or that perhaps men have a “degree” over them. The fact that “traditional gender attitudes” are being supported by Islamic mosques indicates that the Quran is still being used to justify a patriarchal society. So regardless of the ways in which the above passage can be contextualized, the fact that it continues to be applied to gender structures in Islam makes the religion institutionally problematic.
The final passage I shall analyze is one that has been historically contentious because it could be interpreted to allow violence against women. Although there is lots of literature condemning this behavior, I will suggest that the existence of this passage in the Quran makes the religion inherently sexist because men can point to this passage to justify violent behavior against women. The passage reads:
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Wadud makes the argument that a few critical words have been misinterpreted, or single-mindedly understood, in a way that does not reflect the reality of what the Quran is calling on believers to do. One of these words is “faddala” which has been translated to mean “preference.” However, instead of interpreting this to indicate the inherent preference for men over women, Wadud argues that this preference is referring to purely the economic stance of the married couple, which is managed by the man. Wadud shows how the language is not inherently sexist, but rather supporting the distinct but egalitarian roles of a husband and wife. With the word “daraba,” it has been translated to mean “to strike” and therefore used to defend domestic violence. Wadud shows that this word is used elsewhere in the Quran to indicate a separation, and a restriction of violent practices against women.
Regardless of the different ways in which this passage can be interpreted, my focus is on the detrimental effect the passage has on women and how they are viewed by muslim men. In a critical analysis of these two passages and the societal context in which they were interpreted, Sa’diyya Shaikh points out that the dominant exegeses have used these to justify the intellectual and physical superiority of men over women. What is problematic in this passage is that even exegeses who criticize violence do not doubt the inherent right of the man to do so if he wishes. What is thus inherently problematic about this passage is that it is written in a way in which was consistently understood to refer to physical violence. It does not matter that this passage can be read in a different way, the very fact that the writer left out the woman’s narrative by using “you” to refer to men and “they” to refer to women. From the very writing of the Quran, societies were encouraged to interpret its text in a patriarchal manner, and thus this text failed to challenge the gender structures it meant to change.
In both of these passages, Wadud evaluates the language used by the Quran to show that they have been misinterpreted by societies to justify sexism and domestic violence. From the individual stance, this interpretation is valid and meaningful because it reclaims women’s authority over child-bearing and the equally hard work they must do in the house. However, these passages, especially 4:34, have been used to justify violence in Islamic societies. So regardless of the intent behind these Quranic verses, they have been used in a sexist way for centuries. The problem with having a text is that problematic perceptions of the world can be justified by selectively finding passages that support those ideas and then using them as universal truths. So because the Quran came to being within a patriarchal society it will continue to justify oppressive practices by allowing the privileged group to speak for it. Although the Quran may be a holy text that is theoretically perfect, it cannot speak for itself, especially in politics. The political sphere then takes the interpretation of the majority, or the privileged group in the society, and turns this into law.
I am not attempting to argue about the theory behind the Quran, or make the argument that the text itself is sexist. Amina Wadud’s interpretation of the Quran is compelling and important to Muslim men and women searching for a more liberal understanding of the text of their religion. Rather, I am making the argument that the Quran has certain verses that appear initially as justification for devaluing women and this is problematic on an institutional scale. However I want to draw this conclusion into a bigger scale and make the suggestion that it is not Islam that entrenches society in sexism and keeps it from being more egalitarian, but religion as an institution. As I stated earlier, Islam has been used as a means of liberation for women such as Wadud, and if the personal quality of the religion is upheld, it can be a means of liberation. But there is always a blurred line between politics and religion, especially when the majority of the population is religious and the government attempts to reflect the desires of the people. As was seen in Jaime Kucinskas’ research, a religious society can tend towards “traditional gender roles” which are then reflected in politics.
Bibliography
Kucinskas, Jaime. "A Research Note on Islam and Gender Egalitarianism: An Examination of Egyptian and Saudi Arabian Youth Attitudes." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49, no. 4 (2010): 761-70. http://www.jstor.org.knox.idm.oclc.org/stable/40959062.
Shaikh, Sa’diyya. “Exegetical Violence: Nushuz in Quranic Gender Ideology.” Journal for Islamic Studies 17, (1997): 49-73.
Wadud, Amina. Quran and Woman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Final grade: B
Although Islam, like any religion, has certain inherently personal aspects that must be defined by the individual, Islamic societies are generally oppressive in their application of a patriarchal text. There is lots of literature pointing to the ways in which the Quran has actually been misinterpreted in the past and primarily from a man’s perspective, such as Amina Wadud’s Quran and Woman. In this paper, I will not attempt to devalue any interpretation of the text, or argue that any interpretation is wrong per-se, only to point out the relevancy-or irrelevancy-to the pursuit of equality. My focus will be on the place Islam has on a societal level, not the individual level, and includes my observations of Islamic society and generally how this institution can work against an egalitarian society. This is an important note in reading my criticism of interpretations of the Quran; that my criticism are not meant to devalue the significance of such an interpretation, especially when it is from a perspective not usually taken, but rather to criticize this interpretation in its sociopolitical context. Any text has the ability to be reinterpreted from a different perspective. The fact that the Quran was originally interpreted in a way that privileged men in certain regards makes Islam a fundamentally sexist religion.
I will analyze four passages from the Quran that are difficult to reinterpret because of their blatant sexism. Even if some of the following passages were not written with the intention of being sexist, they have been key players in enabling the sexism of a patriarchal society and fail to challenge an existing infrastructure. The first two passages are in regard to companions in the hereafter, and address the idea of man’s greatest desire. The passages read as follows:
Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return. Say, "Shall I inform you of [something] better than that? For those who fear Allah will be gardens in the presence of their Lord beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally, and purified spouses and approval from Allah . And Allah is Seeing of [His] servants.
The important thing to note in the first verse is “...of that which they desire - of women…” indicating that women are among the desires of those reading the Quran, meaning the passage was probably intended for men. Wadud explains this idea of huri or companions in the hereafter by saying the following: “The descriptions given of the huri are specific and sensual-youthful, virgin females with large dark eyes, white skin, and a pliant character … The specific depiction here of the companions of Paradise demonstrates the Qur’an’s familiarity with the dreams and desires of those Arabs.” I chose this passage specifically for Wadud’s use of “those Arabs” and show her perceived cultural separation from the Arabic world, where Islam is not just a religious choice, but integrated into many aspects of everyday living. However, Wadud’s basic argument here is that the specific description of the companions of paradise were thus described to appeal to the readers of the Quran in their specific socio-cultural context and make paradise a desirable place. She argues that the Quran is not giving a basis for paradise, but rather an example of paradise so that certain groups of people might begin to understand what the highest pleasures are for man/woman that await them in paradise. Wadud states that “for the Jahili Arab patriarch, the primary audience of the Makkan period, it might be young virgin women with white skin and large, dark eyes. However, the Qur’an’s descriptions of the companions of Paradise must be viewed on the basis of its entire system of justice and its objective of universal guidance…” This interpretation is important for an individual-especially female-reading of the Quran to justify why it seems to be objectifying women into prizes for men to win once they have reached paradise. In theory, the Quran remains a liberating text by allowing paradise to remain theoretical and pure without any concrete descriptions that are easily understood by man/woman.
However, there are two important realities about this description of Paradise from the Quran. The first is the assumption that the only audience worth appealing to during the Makkan period was the 50% of the population that was male. A text cannot be justified in objectifying women by arguing that it was speaking to a patriarchal society. The text is still submitting to a problematic society and allowing misinterpretation by appealing to the privileged group in the society. If the Quran really was a text that spoke through time and space and was universally equal, there would not have been a need to appeal to one group over another, or make understanding easier to contextualize. The Quran was produced in a way that enabled patriarchal societies to justify their sexism, and is therefore a text that has created sexist societies when used politically.
The third passage I will look at has to do with the privileges and duties of women as outlined by the Quran. The passage has classically been interpreted as explaining men’s superiority over women and although it can be interpreted differently, its language has institutionalized sexism. The passage reads as follows:
Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority].
In this passage, Wadud makes the argument that the “degree” - or “darajeh” in arabic - that men are said to hold over women is an inaccurate interpretation of the language. To interpret the word “darajeh” in a way that justifies men’s superiority would be to go against the “equity established throughout the Qur’an with regard to the individual: each nafs shall have in accordance to what it earns.” Although this interpretation is compelling, it does not account for the sexism that exists in Muslim societies in the Middle East. There are many examples of sexism, but in a study performed by Jaime Kucinskas with youth aged 18-25 from Saudi Arabia and Egypt showed a negative relationship between orthodoxy and gender egalitarianism for men. In other words, the more religious the man, the more conservative his views on an egalitarian society, though there was no correlation for women. This study is significant in the fact that it shows a correlation between Islam and sexism in men specifically, meaning that the Quran might provide some measure of justification for an already sexist man to employ his patriarchal opinions upon his society. According to Kucinskas’ analyzation of her findings, “young men who are orthodox or who frequently attend a mosque have significantly more traditional gender attitudes.” This finding seems to make sense; that a person who attends mosque frequently would buy into the narrative told by that religion, more so than a person who does not frequent a mosque. What is significant, however, is the idea of “traditional gender attitudes.” This seems to indicate the idea of women being subservient to men, or that perhaps men have a “degree” over them. The fact that “traditional gender attitudes” are being supported by Islamic mosques indicates that the Quran is still being used to justify a patriarchal society. So regardless of the ways in which the above passage can be contextualized, the fact that it continues to be applied to gender structures in Islam makes the religion institutionally problematic.
The final passage I shall analyze is one that has been historically contentious because it could be interpreted to allow violence against women. Although there is lots of literature condemning this behavior, I will suggest that the existence of this passage in the Quran makes the religion inherently sexist because men can point to this passage to justify violent behavior against women. The passage reads:
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Wadud makes the argument that a few critical words have been misinterpreted, or single-mindedly understood, in a way that does not reflect the reality of what the Quran is calling on believers to do. One of these words is “faddala” which has been translated to mean “preference.” However, instead of interpreting this to indicate the inherent preference for men over women, Wadud argues that this preference is referring to purely the economic stance of the married couple, which is managed by the man. Wadud shows how the language is not inherently sexist, but rather supporting the distinct but egalitarian roles of a husband and wife. With the word “daraba,” it has been translated to mean “to strike” and therefore used to defend domestic violence. Wadud shows that this word is used elsewhere in the Quran to indicate a separation, and a restriction of violent practices against women.
Regardless of the different ways in which this passage can be interpreted, my focus is on the detrimental effect the passage has on women and how they are viewed by muslim men. In a critical analysis of these two passages and the societal context in which they were interpreted, Sa’diyya Shaikh points out that the dominant exegeses have used these to justify the intellectual and physical superiority of men over women. What is problematic in this passage is that even exegeses who criticize violence do not doubt the inherent right of the man to do so if he wishes. What is thus inherently problematic about this passage is that it is written in a way in which was consistently understood to refer to physical violence. It does not matter that this passage can be read in a different way, the very fact that the writer left out the woman’s narrative by using “you” to refer to men and “they” to refer to women. From the very writing of the Quran, societies were encouraged to interpret its text in a patriarchal manner, and thus this text failed to challenge the gender structures it meant to change.
In both of these passages, Wadud evaluates the language used by the Quran to show that they have been misinterpreted by societies to justify sexism and domestic violence. From the individual stance, this interpretation is valid and meaningful because it reclaims women’s authority over child-bearing and the equally hard work they must do in the house. However, these passages, especially 4:34, have been used to justify violence in Islamic societies. So regardless of the intent behind these Quranic verses, they have been used in a sexist way for centuries. The problem with having a text is that problematic perceptions of the world can be justified by selectively finding passages that support those ideas and then using them as universal truths. So because the Quran came to being within a patriarchal society it will continue to justify oppressive practices by allowing the privileged group to speak for it. Although the Quran may be a holy text that is theoretically perfect, it cannot speak for itself, especially in politics. The political sphere then takes the interpretation of the majority, or the privileged group in the society, and turns this into law.
I am not attempting to argue about the theory behind the Quran, or make the argument that the text itself is sexist. Amina Wadud’s interpretation of the Quran is compelling and important to Muslim men and women searching for a more liberal understanding of the text of their religion. Rather, I am making the argument that the Quran has certain verses that appear initially as justification for devaluing women and this is problematic on an institutional scale. However I want to draw this conclusion into a bigger scale and make the suggestion that it is not Islam that entrenches society in sexism and keeps it from being more egalitarian, but religion as an institution. As I stated earlier, Islam has been used as a means of liberation for women such as Wadud, and if the personal quality of the religion is upheld, it can be a means of liberation. But there is always a blurred line between politics and religion, especially when the majority of the population is religious and the government attempts to reflect the desires of the people. As was seen in Jaime Kucinskas’ research, a religious society can tend towards “traditional gender roles” which are then reflected in politics.
Bibliography
Kucinskas, Jaime. "A Research Note on Islam and Gender Egalitarianism: An Examination of Egyptian and Saudi Arabian Youth Attitudes." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49, no. 4 (2010): 761-70. http://www.jstor.org.knox.idm.oclc.org/stable/40959062.
Shaikh, Sa’diyya. “Exegetical Violence: Nushuz in Quranic Gender Ideology.” Journal for Islamic Studies 17, (1997): 49-73.
Wadud, Amina. Quran and Woman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Comments
Post a Comment