Some misconceptions about women in Islam

islam gave women rights and privileges at a time when only barbaric manners and values dominated.

yet, some people argue that islam has alienated women in some domains. in fact, this belief is a misconception. people who say so, may have read about it in a magazine or seen it on tv. a quick examination of the issues judged as unjust to women will certainly correct the misunderstanding.

man as the head of the household:

some people believe that a woman in islam is regarded as inferior to man since allaah says (what means): {men have one degree above women.} [quran 2: 228]

in fact, to understand this quranic verse, you should see another one, related to the issue in question. it reveals the wisdom behind this concept.

allaah also says (what means): {men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because allaah has given the one more than the other and because men support them from their means.}[quran 4:34]

this verse implies that it is a man's duty to support his wife, and not the reverse, but this, in no way, makes him superior to her.

in fact, the rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man but they are not necessarily identical. since men and women are not created identical, they have different physical and emotional qualities, jobs and privileges. this does not mean that women are inferior.

on the contrary, women are considered crucial members of society in islam since they are assigned the job of bringing up future generations. people today tend to look down at housewives but, in fact, raising children is one of the most important and difficult tasks. the way a mother brings up her child determines the way he will behave in the future. this duty, which requires patience, love, understanding and wisdom was significantly assigned to women in islam because her nature suits this job.

allaah the exalted, in his wisdom, has assigned a role for each member of the family so that there would be no arguments concerning who should do what. if a sailboat has two leaders, each will want to follow a path, leading ultimately to chaos and even a crash. in the same manner, how many times have your parents fought over some decision because each had their own point of view and wanted to apply it? this is precisely why it is preferable to have one leader for each household. however, this does not give the leader the right to be a dictator, or to neglect the role of his companion. this does not make him superior to other members of his family. it just gives him a larger duty.

inheritance:

some people claim that islam is unjust towards women because it entitles them to inherit half of what men get. in fact, those people only know one side of the truth.

first, the principle of women inheriting half the money is only applicable in 45 percent of the cases. in the other 55 percent, women inherit the same amount or sometimes even more. for example, a mother and a father each inherit the sixth of their son's property when they are not the only inheritors.

in addition, the laws of inheritance in islam are proportional to the duties of spending. indeed, a man in islam has the responsibility of supporting his family, his brother's children (when his brother dies), his parents (when they retire and do not have an income), his children from his previous marriage (if he has them) and his household, including his wife and children. a woman, on the other hand, does not bear this responsibility. she has the freedom to use the money she collects from her dowry or work as she pleases.


you might object here, saying that women today are working and helping their husbands pay the expenses, which entitles them to share equality with men. in fact, you should know that women's economic assistance to their husbands, which has become the norm today, is only an answer to the females’ wishes. islam does not oblige women to spend on their households. it is a free choice many women have themselves taken today to feel more liberated, so it does not entitle them to a bigger portion of the inheritance.

polygyny:

polygyny is one of the most questioned principles that islam grants men and women. indeed, many people wrongfully accuse islam of injustice because it allows a man to have up to four wives. nevertheless, like every instruction in the quran, polygyny has a reason. you see, islam is a practical religion that acknowledges the needs and temptations of human beings and provides laws that deal with them, thus preserving harmony and morality.

·         polygyny might be the solution for a couple if the wife is barren, the husband wants children of his own and the option of separation does not appeal to both parties.

·         if a woman is chronically ill and is unable to perform her marital duties. polygyny may also be the solution when the couple does not want divorce.

·         polygyny is the religion's answer to cases where some men have excessive sexual needs that cannot be fulfilled by one wife. this in no way means that men should abuse this right and use it whenever they fancy a woman. it is rather a chance islam has provided to prevent men from committing adultery. many people who condemn polygyny cheat on their wives, calling this phenomenon a 'swift affair.' islam, at least, has offered the second woman the option of being called 'a wife' rather than 'a mistress', especially in some countries where women remarkably outnumber men.

·         polygyny may settle the problem of an increased number of unmarried women, especially during wars.

however, polygyny has some limits and conditions to be met. indeed, the quran instructs the man to be fair with his wives on all levels, including treatment, money, house, etc. the only level where the man may have an uneven stance is the level of the feelings that he cannot control:

allaah says (what means): {you will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, so do not incline too much to one of them [by giving her more of your time and provision] so as to leave the other hanging [i.e. neither divorced nor married]. and if you do justice, and do all that is right and fear allaah by keeping away from all that is wrong, then allaah is ever-forgiving and all-merciful.} [quran 4:129]

finally, it is worth knowing that islam gives a woman the right to refuse polygyny for her husband by setting it as a condition during the marriage procedures. if this condition is set, then the woman is granted divorce if her husband marries another while he is still married to her.

you might ask, why could not there be polyandry (a woman having more than one husband)? the answer is simple. islam did not allow it because allaah is all-aware that it will create a problem of kinship. this means that the child may not know who is actually his father (it could be anyone of the four husbands). in addition to the psychological damage it may cause, this problem also complicates the issue of inheritance. even birds and animals do not allow polyandry.

divorce

islam considers marriage a basis for the islamic family, since it develops bonds of love and caring and a secure atmosphere for the growth and progress of the human race. this, in turn, produces a sound society. this is why the prophet, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, (may allaah exalt his mention) taught us in a narration, that although classified ‘weak’, has a valid and important meaning. he, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said:"the most detestable of all lawful things in the sight of allaah is divorce." however, this does not mean that divorce is prohibited. on the contrary, it can sometimes be the best alternative. divorce is a right for both women and men if their problems cannot be solved. two french legislators, planoil and ripert, have said: "divorce is a mischief. however, it is a measure that cannot be avoided for the welfare of the community, because it is the only remedy for another harm which may be more dangerous, i.e. murder."

the above statement applies to cases where the husband and wife have lost their love for each other and where harmony in the marriage is over. indeed, any other alternative will make them unhappy and will affect their children in the long run.

in these cases, islam advises the couple to try to reconcile their differences in the presence of some immediate relatives belonging to both sides. if they are unable to do so, they are instructed to seek counseling through a third party, such as friends or other relatives. if there is still no solution, then they should seek a solution through a judge.

the judge will advise the couple to be patient and think of the children. however, if the problem remains unsolved, the family life becomes unbearable and the children are affected, then divorce becomes the only alternative, to enable them to have other spouses.

when it is inescapable, divorce is neither harmful to men nor to women. it is also definitely not unjust to women.

 first, the couple must seek divorce in an amicable way. they are instructed to separate without hard feelings towards each other. they should keep a minimum of understanding that will secure the children's situation after the divorce.

the quran says (what means): {divorce is twice. then [after that], either keep [her] in an acceptable manner or release [her] with good treatment. and it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep [within] the limits of allaah, and then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself. these are the limits of allaah, so do not transgress them. and whoever transgresses the limits of allaah -- it is those who are the wrongdoers [i.e. the unjust].}  [quran 2: 229]

in islam, the woman is not neglected after the divorce. indeed husbands are instructed to provide housing to the divorced wife until her waiting period is completed, as in the saying of allaah (which means): {lodge them (during their waiting period (referring to wives whose divorce has been pronounced) [in a section] of where you dwell out of your means and do not harm them in order to oppress them (so that they would be forced to leave or to ransom themselves). and if they should be pregnant, then spend on them until they give birth. and if they breastfeed for you, then give them their payment and confer among yourselves in the acceptable way; but if you are in discord, then there may breastfeed for him [i.e. the father] another woman.} [quran: 65:6]

finally, although it is true that only men are allowed to pronounce divorce, yet a woman has the right to ask for a divorce, which is called ‘khul’. in this case, she has to return the dowry given by the husband, so that he utters the divorce.

attestations

in islam, one male witness equals two females: the quran says (what means): {and get two witnesses out of your men. if there are not two men, then a man and two women such as you choose [maybe in place of two men as the witnesses]; so that if one of the women errs, the other one will remind her...}[quran 2:282]

here again, many people tend to denounce islamic principles as unjust to women. they tend to interpret this requirement as proof of men's superiority over women. again, this assumption is not true. in fact, various psychological and biological studies conducted on the psyche and hormonal functions of women, have proved that men generally tend to react more rationally and less emotionally, than women.

in cases of crime, for example, torn bodies and pouring blood are more likely to spur an emotional reaction among women than among men. this reaction is alone capable of distorting the female's perception and/or memory.


on the other hand, men are also bound by rules concerning their testimony. for instance, they must not be parents, friends or enemies of the accused. can we then conclude that, if it was the case for women, that male parents and friends of the accused must be considered inferior too? of course, they are not

finally, one should note that there are matters where a woman is the only witness required. these are related to areas where women are the experts, for example, in issues of breast feeding, bringing up children and the question of kinship (who is her child's father).

the veil


how many times have you seen an educated veiled woman, working and acting normally on television ? very, very rarely. on the other hand, how many times have you seen a veiled woman being hit by her husband, in tears or fighting and rioting along with fundamentalists?

just think: what does a black 'hijaab' veil evoke in your mind? certainly not the image it is meant to evoke -- religious commitment and peaceful, deep-rooted faith. how many times have you seen a veiled young girl and said: "haraam! poor thing! she has not seen the world yet..." is all this just a coincidence?

veiled women today are either associated with alienation or fundamentalism. they are either looked upon with pity or fear. have people ever asked the question: where is the woman's will to surrender to god in this? where is her choice of protecting her dearest possession, her body?

when islam ordered women to wear the veil, it did it to privilege her, not constrain her:

allaah says (what means): {o prophet! tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw upon them their over-garments. that is more appropriate so that they may be recognized and not molested.} [quran 33: 59]

the above verses show that islam aims to protect women from being considered sexual objects. it instructs women to uncover their faces in front of their husband, close relatives whom she cannot marry (mahaarim) and other women. in front of strangers, she must conceal everything but her face and hands.

why does one need to show a semi-clad woman in a car's advertisement? why do we not see a veiled woman? in the first case, because the advertisers are trying to sell the image of the woman with the car. unconsciously, you buy the car wishing it will provide you with such a "babe." in the second case, the woman has refused to be treated as an object for trade and has worn the veil, a sign of dignity rather than humiliation.

Clarification on Female Circumcision - al-Khitaan

Main Points 

I have always condemned Female Genital Mutilation, or FGM. Moreover, I have unequivocally voiced both orally and in written form the condemnation of all harmful forms of Female Genital Cutting FGC, justifiably known as FGM. Furthermore, I have taught that nothing in Islamic Law and religious texts supports such a heinous crime. In fact, it is repugnant to Islamic principles and values to inflict such trauma and suffering on any female. The severest forms of this practice are akin to killing in Islamic Law

. What is Stopping the World from Stopping FGM? 

The statements I have made, that have now being unfairly distorted against me, are those regarding a subtype of Female Genital Cutting FGC, a harmless procedure called the ritual nick. This subtype doesn’t involve any form of clitorectomy. It is merely an incision (or a minimal excision, as explained in the details below) of part of the clitoral hood, the counterpart to the foreskin in males, and does not remove any part of the clitoris. This opinion is scientifically irrefutable and shared by many American non-Muslim pediatricians. It is the position expressed by the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Pediatrics Vol. 125 No. 5 May 1, 2010 pp. ‎‎1088 -1093‎.], which noted: “

This [the ritual nick] is no more of an alteration than ear piercing. A legitimate concern is that parents who are denied the cooperation of a physician will send their girls back to their home country for a much more severe and dangerous procedure or use the services of a non–medically trained person in North America.” “However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting.

There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries…” As for the usage of “makrumah” (translated by some as “honorable” or “virtuous”) in the context of female circumcision, I was quoting the various opinions of religious scholars of the past regarding this minimal form of female genital cutting FGC, which is not considered mutilation as explained in the policy statement by the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Pediatrics Vol. 125 No. 5 May 1, 2010 pp. ‎‎1088 -1093 

A better translation of the word “makrumah” may be “advantageous” since the word infers that the procedure is of benefit for the person undertaking it. The claim that I said, “Female genital mutilation is an honor” is so repugnant. The statement sounds to me like an intractable conflict. However, my opponents have used against me every other logical fallacy in their campaign, such as generalization, poisoning the well, straw man, etc. Therefore, it does not surprise me that they ascribed such statement to me. Despite my acknowledgment of the harmlessness of the ritual nick, I have unwaveringly discouraged all people from having it done because of its illegality in the US.

I have never advised, suggested or encouraged any of my patients or their families to undertake any type of female circumcision, including the ritual nick. Whenever I have addressed the topic as a speaker or writer, I have warned that although studies show its harmlessness, the ritual nick is a criminal offense in the U.S. and other Western countries and should not be performed. Beyond that, as a Sharia Law professor, I have taught that FGM is an immoral practice and a grave offense against Islamic principles and values. Some people may wonder why I should defend the harmlessness of an illegal procedure.  

The answer to this is because it is harmless, and it is not illegal for an eighteen year old to have it if she desired to do so, and lastly, because I am entitled to defending the teachings of my religion and clearing any misconceptions about them, even if they are controversial and the clarification is inconsequential. The smear campaigns against me are unfounded in that they are based on religious bias, ignorance and misconceptions of my real positions and actions on the issues at hand.

. Details Some websites known for their Islamophobia have been waging a campaign against me because of statements I made regarding female circumcision, known as female genital cutting. Many of them unjustifiably insist on calling all of its forms, female genital mutilation.[1]

The War of Terminology and Female Genital Cutting 

Some of those individuals behind the campaign may themselves be victims of an atmosphere of conflict and mistrust that has been created and promoted by people who have an interest in its existence. They may be feeling threatened, because they were told that the six million Muslims in America (Pew says 2.6) are here to destroy America from within and change their way of life forever. It is hard to imagine how six million people of diverse ideological orientations, many of whom are recent emigrants working hard to make a living, can force their way of life on more than three hundred million people with all the power in their hands. It is also hard to imagine how vicious human beings can become against someone they have never had any contact with, because of his position regarding a subtype of a medical procedure or an ethnic practice. I feel it is necessary to explain my position to the public

 Background and chronology About seven years ago I worked on my PhD thesis in Islamic law entitled ‎‘The Impact of Medical Advancements ‎on Religious Edicts and Judgeship.’‎ One of the issues to be discussed in my thesis was female circumcision. Around that time, there was a concerted campaign to condemn, criminalize and demonize all forms of female genital cutting, by generalizing that all subtypes of the practice are also called female genital mutilation. I had known that the permissibility of some form of this practice was agreed upon within Islamic orthodoxy of the past, so this made me set out to research the form that is sanctioned and the science behind this campaign. I didn’t find a shred of evidence that the form sanctioned by Islam, which I will call here ‘ritual nick,’ was proven by any science to be harmful. Around the same time, I received several questions from concerned Muslims about this practice and its position in our religion.

It was expected that I would answer them with my convictions about the matter from the Islamic and scientific angles. However, I didn’t stop there. Knowing that the practice is illegal in America and other Western countries, I discouraged the enquirers and audience every time I spoke about the issue from having it done. After all, the practice is not obligatory according to the vast majority of Muslim scholars, and nowhere is it emphasized like male circumcision. Also, it is not practiced in many conservative Muslim countries such as Saudi-Arabia. I couldn’t stay out of this discourse, being a medical doctor with a PhD in Shari’a (Islamic law), who is aware of the issue from its theological and medical angles. I felt obliged to make the truth known, and to clear the name of my religion. 

 addressing the above from five angles: scientific, theological, ethical, professional, and legal:

Scientifically, the one form of circumcision that is sanctioned in Islam, according to the position of the vast majority, as detailed in my thesis, has never been proven to be harmful. The part that is cut in this form is the counterpart of the male foreskin, and the procedure is comparable to it though less extensive. [2] To spare you the details of the scientific discussion, I will say that there was not a single study that meets any scientific standard, which looked separately at this type of circumcision, let alone proved its harm. - 

The WHO Study on Female Genital Mutilation The harm is also not conceivable, and there have been some potential benefits mentioned by some physicians [3] and sexologists. However, as I indicated in my thesis, their claims are not supported by studies that meet the scientific standards of today, so I wouldn’t count on them. Nonetheless, the irrefutable fact is that no harm can be ascribed to this form of circumcision, to the extent that the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics said that the ritual nick is “no more of an ‎alteration than ear piercing.” ‎[4] 

They also clearly said, “Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, ‎and pediatricians should decline to ‎perform them, even in the absence of any ‎legal constraints. However, the ritual nick ‎suggested by some pediatricians is not ‎physically harmful and is much less ‎extensive than routine newborn male ‎genital cutting.” [5] I had also indicated that a minimal excision of part of the hood has never been proven harmful. I challenge the opponents to prove the contrary with credible studies that examined this sub-type separately. I even explained the quoted hadeeth to mean, “Make the slightest cut possible.” In the video recording from 4/2010, I explained that the word used in the hadeeth comes from the root “shamma” (smelled), which indicated that the cutting was likened to smelling, since it shouldn’t reduce the mass of what is cut in any significant way, just like smelling wouldn’t reduce the mass of what is smelled.

Theologically, the position I chose is that of the vast majority who expressly indicated the permissibility of the procedure, and that it is to an extent, recommended as well. The permissibility is an irrefutable consensus. - 

The Greatness of Sharia and Female Circumcision

Ethically, I must begin by saying that ethics are to be seen within certain frames or contexts, including cultural ones. According to the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics, “The American Academy of Pediatrics ‎policy statement on newborn male ‎circumcision expresses respect for ‎parental decision-making and ‎acknowledges the legitimacy of including ‎cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions ‎when making the choice of whether to ‎surgically alter a male infant’s genitals.” [6] It is noteworthy that for the Chinese, male circumcision, which they don’t practice, may also be called male genital mutilation. Will those who practice it in the West approve of this characterization? I think that when there is no medical harm, people of various cultures may decide what to do to their bodies.