Shabana Azmi is right about one thing…

Excerpts from Logic does not apply by Barry Rubin (Link courtesy Sh. Krishen Kak).

…Let me stress that the following is not typical but it is revealing.

On November 12, 2008, MEMRI published its video clip No 1903 which you can see at http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1903.htm. It is from a television show aired on October 31, 2008.

First, I will tell you what it says, which is profoundly shocking. But then I will give you reasons why it is far more shocking than you thought.

The person being interviewed proposes that Arab men sexually harass Israeli women as a new means of resistance against Israel. “They are fair game for all Arabs,” the interviewee explains, because they “rape the land” by their very existence.

Might this cause a legal problem if an Egyptian or Jordanian rapes an Israeli tourist? No problem, the interviewee explains, “Most Arab countries do not have sexual harassment laws. Therefore, if (Arab women) are fair game for Arab men, there is nothing wrong with Israeli women being fair game as well.”

…Now you might say that is pretty shocking. Even in the context of Arab political discussion, the above-quoted position is very different. There are many Arabs who would disagree and even ridicule such an idea.

And yet it still tells us a great deal about mainstream thinking and the weakness of moderation.

Consider these points:

The person saying this, Nagla al-Imam is a woman…

…She is a secular young woman, not an Islamist or even a traditionalist.

…She is a lawyer, meaning she has a high level of modern education and intelligence.

…She is from Egypt, not Saudi Arabia. Egypt is a country which has been formally at peace with Israel for almost 30 years and an ally of the United States.

*** End of Excerpts ***

Below are excerpts from a somewhat related article on the position of women in Islam by Sh Kak, provocatively titled, “HOW SHOULD MY HUSBAND BEAT ME?“.

In The Hindu, Magazine section, Oct 19, 2003, Nighat Gandhi wrote an eloquent piece titled “In the shadow of inequality” in which the oppression of Muslim women by Muslim men and Muslim male systems was bemoaned, and that Muslim women read the Koran in translation and become aware of their God-given rights was recommended.

In an open correspondence (copies to others) I responded as follows (23/10/03):

“…..You advocate that Muslim women should read the Quran translated into their mother tongues, and not in the original Arabic. But wasn’t the Word of God revealed only in Arabic, so how is a Muslim woman – or anyone else – to know that the translation reports God’s Word authentically?

Assume I am a Muslim woman and my mother tongue is English. Here are six translations of the Koran 4.34 that is the basic verse in regard to us:

“Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband’s absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!” (Rodwell’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.” (Dawood’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

“Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.” (Pickthall’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great.” (Arberry’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

I understand the sixth translator interpolated the bracketed words. You will see that there are significant variations in the six versions. Now, as a disobedient wife, not only can my husband deprive me of sexual relations (with him, and therefore totally, since I’m told – I don’t know Arabic – only men are authorised by God to have sex outside marriage) but the degree of pain/humiliation God authorises my husband to inflict on me is naturally of considerably import to me: there is a major difference between beating (lightly?) and scourging. Does God want my husband to tap me on the cheek, give me a tight slap, buffet me, or whip me, or any or all according to his mood? Of course, I don’t suppose it matters to me as a woman (Muslim or not) that God does not give females any comparable right over their errant males. And while my husband can deny me sex, I must always be availabe to him (2.223).

You refer to oppression by Muslim men, and Muslim women claiming their God-granted rights. Do I presume correctly that here we must distinguish between sub-categories of women (Muslim/infidel/slave/captive – e.g., 23.6, 70.30) since not only has God apparently granted preferential rights to all Muslim men over women as a category, but the rights appear to vary amongst the sub-categories.

In the context of your impassioned plea for enabling “Muslim women to climb out of the black hole of ignorance, inequality, and indignity”, and your very valid critique that historically almost all interpretation of God’s Word has been by men, I am not quoting from the Hadith but only from the Quran (because only the latter is actually God’s Word; the former are interpretations mainly by males and, as you note, “it is safe to say that they can’t be relied upon to produce interpretations that are favourable to women’s rights”). Again, I don’t suppose it matters to me as a woman (Muslim or not) that God, the Archangel Gabriel, and The Prophet are also all male – but, perhaps, as is suggested from your essay, these three are really pre-Islamic (“the first person to accept Islam was Khadija”) and we may define them as incapable of gender bias.

You report Khadija was “an independent and wealthy businesswoman”. Clearly, pre-Islamic women had civic and commercial rights in addition to the freedom/right to choose their husbands, even much younger men and from amongst their employees. In the context of the “struggle for the rights to Muslim women” of which you write, please do clarify whether Khadija, after accepting Islam, retained her civic/commercial rights, or did she become subordinate in these and all other respects to her former employee? We know that God granted Muslim men polygamous rights – but did God grant women comparable rights to polyandry and divorce?

From the feminist perspective, the only Islamic law should be the Quran itself. As you suggest, all else is interpretation, and women have as much a right to interpret as men, including interpretation of the Quran itself. I’m not clear why you lay so much stress on the translated Quran. Instead, for Muslim women to understand God’s Word correctly, I believe it is imperative that they all learn to read the Quran in Arabic. Or alternatively, that authorised versions by women scholars be brought out…..”

In reply, Gandhi (now writing as Majid) clarified (24/10/03):

“…..The Quran is written in classical Arabic, and even native Arabic speakers are unable to understand classical Arabic easily. So that’s one reason for my suggestion. Secondly, there is a tradition among muslims in the sub-continent to make their children learn to read the Quran in Arabic, without understanding a word of it. You’ll come across many many women whose only education consists of reading and /or memorizing the arabic script of the Quran. Which is why I think, it would be better for such women to read it in their own language, provided they are literate in that language….

As far as interpretation goes, even when scholars have read the Quran in Arabic, they have come up with differring interpretaions. There is no guarantee that reading it in Arabic would give somebody an interpretation which is unanimous across history and across cultures. As you yourself cite from the verses about women, in which men are supposed to be the protectors and maintainers of women, there can be several interpretations of it, even when interpreted by those who know Arabic. The verses you have quoted are the subject of active discourse among muslim women scholars of the Quran….They propose that the Quran can’t be interpreted in isolation from the socio-cultural and historical context in which it was revealed.

Men were (or can be ) a degree above women because of their financial superiority over women, and can claim to be protectors or maintainers of women if the woman is not economically independant. If a woman is economically independant, no man has a right to be her maintainer or protector. This is a contextual interpretation of those verses by some contemporary women scholars.

AS far as I know, Khadija was able to maintain her business and her independance after marriage. Islam grants women the rights to retian their property after marriage, and there is no need for the wife to hand over her property or other income to her husband. Or to even change her surname. However, this is a far cry from what happens in reality today……”

But my very specific question about how I’m to be beaten hadn’t been answered. So I wrote again (24/10/03):

“…..As far as I understand, the Quran is a defining and a definitive text – it is THE and only identifying text for Muslims…Morever, the Quran literally represents the Word of God. And God’s Word was revealed in (classical) Arabic. To a true Muslim, adherence to God’s Will as revealed through His Word is NECESSARY. Okay, given the revelation was in classical Arabic, it needs authorised interpreters to translate it AUTHENTICALLY, so that the true Muslim knows s/he is conforming to God’s Will.

To interpret contextually, which is clearly what you favour, is to go beyond and outside the defining/definitive text. For example, you interpret 4.34 only in terms of financial superiority. But isn’t this sociocentric? Why must superiority be linked to earning capacity? Why not to learning? So that a learned wife can be considered superior to her husband even as he provides for her financially? A plain reading of 4.34 (I use the Pickthall translation) has God DEFINING men as superior to women. That women earn or have their own property does not – at least in 4.34 – change their hierarchical inferiority in relation to men. It is as the Ali Brothers said of Mahatma Gandhi, that even the worst Muslim is definitively superior to the Mahatma.

Context can also be disputed. In a letter in The Pioneer, Sept 5, 2003, Mr Badrul Islam of Aligarh wrote that “before Islam’s advent, women in Saudi Arabia were treated worse than animals. They were buried alive, and the birth of a girl in any family was thought of as a curse. Islam gave to women status and honour equal to men domestically and socially”. I’ve heard this version of pre-Islamic history from a leading Indian (woman) feminist too. Indeed, it seems to be the popularly accepted version. Yet, surely Khadija’s example that you gave was not a unique case. And she was socially and financially superior to the man she married. So, in acquiring equality, she actually lost status!

Whom are we to believe?

And so who is to approve an interpretation as authentic? So far, generally speaking, in the Islamic world such interpretation has been by mullahs and through fatwas. There was a recent news item that there are now mullahnis (do I have the words right??) in Hyderabad who have been deemed competent (note, by males!!) to issue fatwas but (if I recall correctly) only in matters pertaining strictly to women. However, at least that is a beginning. Frankly, in regard to determining God’s Word for ourselves across the world, I don’t see any alternative to authorised versions in the different languages – though, as we know, every translation takes away from the original (especially crucial in this case, because it is the original that is God’s Word) and, as we know from the history of the Bible or, from the example of the six versions of 4.34 that I quoted, meanings do change across versions.

I think the essence of the point I’m trying to make is in my question that you did not answer. A “good” woman is an “obedient” woman – this has nothing to do with my earning capacity, but is as God says it. As a disobedient wife, must I be tapped on my cheek, or flayed with a whip? If you say wives who are not obedient should not suffer corporal punishment because times have changed, I respectfully submit to you that you are committing blasphemy.”

And Majid replied (29/10/03):

“According to Muslims, the Quran is the definitive text for them. Agreed. However, I don’t see a problem in interpreting it in the light of prevailing contemporary social and clutural conditions. As an example, Islam does not outright abolish the institution of slavery. What are we to make of that? it does place great emphasis on freeing slaves, and provides several methods and opprotunites for doing so. Islam also allows men to have sexual relationships with their slave women. Since the institution of slavery does not exist in our culture, it follows that, the passages pertaining to it, can’t be applied in our present time. I think that’s the approach I would take with the question of men being the maintaners/protectors of women. If the socio-cultural context for such superiority can be abolished, then that precept can’t be applied to present-day gender relations. Which is why my great emphasis on the educational and economic empowerment of muslim women.

And if the first step towards this empowerment can come from a thorough knowledge of their religious book, the Quran, well, let’s use it as an empowerment tool. It’s a tool, and if used with creativity, like all tools, the fruits of this endeavor may offer some happy and unexpected consequences.

My reference to economic reasons for men’s perceived superiority over women was simply an assertion of the fact that so often, it is due to their superior financial assets that men are able to exercise their power over women, and even over other men.

The Ali brothers may have said that illogical thing about Gandhi, but no enlightened muslim or other human being can possibly endorse such a statement. I would again urge that we (esp women) need to pay more attention to the ethical and egalitarian voice of Islam, where it is clear that the most righteous person (man or woman) is the closest to God. And not one who is muslim only through birth or conversion.

As far as the status of women in pre-islamic Arabia, I’m not an expert in that area. My limited knowledge tells me that it wasn’t an all out bleak scenario, which is what most male Muslim scholars would have you believe. There were aspects of women’s lives that afforded them more independance then. Some tribes allowed the practice of polyandry, and women were also renowned as poets and ran their own businesses. Did Islam lower that status? it might be appropriate to say that it refashioned it. It did allow women more rights in many areas. But it restricted others, for instance, it abolished polyandry. Then again, I’m not an expert in this area, and my concern is more with the plight of women in our present times.

Adherence to social roles is stressed in Islam. So wives are expected to perform their duties, but so are husbands. My reading tells me that each has to adhere to their roles, in order to maintain the family, familial harmony and social order. The gender heirarchy that you mention in spousal relationships is something that the male ulema have reinforced, to their own advantage and ofcourse, to maintain the status quo. And unless a substantial number of new women (re)interpreters of the Quran free themsleves from the patriarchal mindset, and take a woman-centered approach to Islam, I don’t see much change taking place in gender relations in muslim societies.”

Fair enough, but note my unanswered question – how am I to be beaten by my husband?

So I wrote once more (3/11/03):

“The basic point, as you so very rightly indicate, is whether the Quran is to be taken literally or contextually. My submission is that, given that it is the Word of God, an interpretation can be contextual only when there is an ambiguity in the Word. When the Word is unambiguous, there is no scope for interpretation. Such is the case with the (at any rate, sexual and role) submissiveness mandated by 4.34 and 2.223. Interpreting differently from the plain text would be to question the Word of God, and that is blasphemy punishable (if I am not mistaken) by death. How else, Nighat ji, am I to interpret your repeatedly avoiding answering a very specific question I’ve requested you more than once to answer ??

A useful analogy in regard to literalism vs contextualism can be drawn from the historical development of Christianity. I shall be happy to place it before you for your comments but, Nighat ji, you must forgive me for suggesting that a rational discussion to be continued fruitfully needs to face issues – and answer questions – boldly and honestly !”

And that was that!!
Till today Majid/Gandhi has not explained how a good Muslim husband must obey God’s commandment to beat a disobedient wife.

My position is very straightforward:

The Holy Koran is God’s Word revealed to His Only Prophet.
To question God’s Word is blasphemy; to deny it is apostasy, punishable with death.
Through Koran 4.34, God DEFINES women as subordinate to men and ORDAINS that a disobedient wife be beaten. There is NO ambiguity about this whatever, and the husband – or other interpreter of Koran 4.34 – commits blasphemy by questioning this, or apostasy by denying it. (Hence the woolly evasion by Majid/Gandhi?).

The only ambiguity is apparently in how the disobedient wife must be beaten. It is here that interpretation can be contextual. (But that would require Majid/Gandhi to publicly accept women are subordinate to men, so the answer is to be carefully evaded – see what is happening to Taslima Nasreen).

Perhaps my reasoning is erroneous. In which case, would some kind reader reply on behalf of Majid/Gandhi.

How does God want my husband to beat me??.

PS
As for Majid/Gandhi claiming “the Ali brothers may have said that illogical thing about Gandhi, but no enlightened muslim or other human being can possibly endorse such a statement “, Mahatma Gandhi himself held up the Ali Brothers as “good Mussalmans”, as being among the “purest and most patriotic representatives” of the Muslim!

Full article here

***************

Re. Islam and bblasphemy, placing this here for the record:
Islamic TV channel fined £85,000 for inciting violence:
…
Noor TV, which is owned by Al Ehya Digital Television, broadcasts both in the UK and internationally on Sky.

Nizami answered that “there is no disagreement about this. There is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death.”