DEBATE: “Are these verses sexist?”

by Kashif Shahzada


Are these verses sexist?

Kashif Shahzada vs Madeleine Bunting

Excerpts from The Guardian Debate

Blogging The Qur’an


MADELEINE BUNTING:

“The Qur’an is fascinating in its ability to turn from the sacred to the mundane. There were some aspects of these verses, however, that troubled me

I marvel at these verses. There is such an attention to the practical details of human life and how to organise it. This is religion at its most prosaic, verging on a kind of legal guide on divorce than spiritual truths. It’s one of the fascinating things about the Qur’an that it switches from the metaphysical to the most mundane of details relating to maintenance arrangements.

Having said that, the verses also included several points which alarmed me. I noticed the reference to slavery in verse 221 and was reminded of Rosalinda’s comments on slavery. I was left uncomfortable with the way that a book which is the direct word of God for all time accommodates without the bat of an eyelid the idea of slavery. To my mind, such references make the Qur’an such a historically defined text which may have been inspired by God but surely cannot be literally word for word true for all time.

Just as problematic for me was the patriarchalism of these verses. Menstruation is regarded as unclean and dirty. Wives are likened to fields and men are encouraged “to go into your fields whichever way you like.” Fields are inert, passive – they lie there waiting for men’s activity. And women are being compared with fields as possessions – “your” fields.

The sexism continues with husbands being explicitly given a “degree (of right) over” their wives but wives do not have a comparable right over their husbands.

I know that there are comparable verses in the Bible, but that is precisely why I find the Christian fundamentalist position that the text is the infallible word of God so problematic. They are ancient texts loaded with the significance and meanings of their histories and thus can never be taken literally. The history of Christianity has been profoundly patriarchal and in many respects still is today – that process of reinterpretation is painfully continuing.

On a more positive note, I found the first verse of this section – verse 219 – symptomatic of a remarkable kind of wisdom. Referring to intoxicants and gambling, the Qur’an acknowledges there is “some benefit” in them, but concludes that the sin outweighs the benefits.

I like that kind of pragmatic realism. It seems much more honest than descrying such activities as completely abhorrent; it acknowledges that there are benefits but warns that the dangers outweigh them – a measured response which seems uncannily accurate as we struggle with our current problems with binge drinking and rising alcoholism.”

____________________________________________

KASHIF SHAHZADA:

I fail to understand what led Ms Bunting to concur that the Qur’an in her words “…accommodates without the bat of an eyelid the idea of slavery…”, while 2:221 does not speak of slaves in human possession.

Perhaps Ms Bunting is unaware that the Qur’an speaks of human-God relationship as that of a master to his slave (51:56), and in numerous passages believers in God are referred to as his “Ibaad”, Arabic for slaves.

How can it be said that the Qur’an accommodates slavery, when we clearly read that humans subjugating and enslaving other humans is strongly detested by God, children of Israel were in the bondage of Pharaoh and Moses was commissioned to free them (cf 26:22, 44:18) , the freeing of slaves is seen as a meritorious act (cf 2:177), and finally the very act of enslaving humans is forbidden as it declares that no human being has the right to declare:

“… be slaves of me instead of Allah….” 3.79 Pickthall

Perhaps Ms Bunting has failed to make a distinction between slaves of God and slaves of men. 2:221 does contain the words “Abd” (male slave) and “Ammah” (female slave), but does not state that these are in the possession of believers.

It is commonplace in them to name children as “Abd Allah” (bondman of God) and “Ammat-Allah” (slave-girl of God).

Same has been her problem with 2:223 and her suggestion that it refers to women as fields, thereby implying (in her view) that women are the property of men.

This approach of hers is again wrong. If Ms Bunting were to refer to other passages that speak of women, then she would see that in fact, Qur’an forbids women from being treated as property of men, and then should not attribute such to 2:223, but infer the relationship of a farmer to his field, the manner in which he protects, and nurtures it so it can deliver its true potential:

“O ye who believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will..”4:19 Sher Ali

As the above prohibits men to take women as ‘inheritance, as property is iinherited therefore, Bunting’s suggestion that the Qur’an recommends such in 2:223 is wrong.

If Ms Bunting were to cross reference themes and get the whole picture about a matter, instead of a truncated and selective reading, and study the Qur’an, in the light of Qur’an itself, such problems can be easily resolved.

____________________________________________

RESPONSES

“MISKATONICUNIVERSITY”:

“Kashif Shahzada – you piece seems selective in the extreme, especially when the context for the Quran provided by the hadiths and biographies makes it clear that slavery and enslaving people was actively pursued.

Medieval Islamic theologians concurred with this even arguing that marrying a slave would lead to the children being slaves themselves – echoes of the Austrian abuse case.

“It was for the purpose of freeing the heart that marriage with the bondmaid was permitted when there was fear of hardship, even though it results in enslaving the son,99 which is a kind of attrition; such marriage is forbidden to anyone who can obtain a free woman. However, the enslaving of a son is preferable to destroying the faith, for enslavement affects temporarily the life of the child, while committing an abomination results in losing the hereafter; in comparison to one of its days the longest life is insignificant.”
Of course, Kashif, you may be more knowledgable about Islam than Al-Ghazali.

Literalists like Maududi endorsed the institution of slavery in the modern world because they thought the most noble thing would be to imitate the social relations followed under Mohammed.
As for being a slave of god – I don’t come from an eastern tradition. Compare the Arab master-slave relationship in the Quran to the European tradition in Beowulf: “Blessed is he who after death is greeted by god as a friend.”

____________________________________________

“DRJAZZ”
Kashif Shahzada: Medeleine Bunting did not say that 2:232 refers to women as the property of men. She refers to the passivity of the image of women in that verse. Yes, I accept that fields were precious in those times, painfully cleared of stones, walls or hedges to protect against wild animals and irrigated perhaps – the subject of much careful attention. But the inherent passivity of the image is much the same as you find in Aristotle with man as the sole provider of the seed which led to life. You reinforce her point with your reference to the farmer (man) protecting and nurturing his field (woman) so it (field/woman) can deliver her full poetential. If that’s the case, where in the Koran is there any mention of the full potential of women, not just their ability to bring forth children?
God makes it clear that women are inferior to men in the verses before and in 43:18, in 4:15 and 4:16, in 2:240, and in the verses on inheritance at the beginning of chapter 4.
As regards slavery, verse 2:221 accepts real, not metaphorical, slavery. The verse is nothing to do with the God-human relationship in 51:56 which is metaphorical. 2:221 refers to real slaves captured during the frequent violent battles of the 7th Century. Other references to freeing slaves are among the many contradictions in the Koran, often within a few verses of each other as in 2:177 and 2:221.”

____________________________________________

KASHIF SHAHZADA:
What poor logic! Yet again, MISKATONIC makes a logically errant comment!

Proof was furnished from the Qur’an about its stance on slavery, humans enslaving humans, but instead of producing counter proof from the same text, he resorts not to the Qur’anic text but soemething else – hadiths, biographies, medieval theologians, maududis, ghazzalis and what not!

I was discussing the Qur’an here, for this is THE QUR’AN BLOG, not the medieval theologian blog, the hadith blog or the maududi or ghazzali blog or anything else for that matter.

What the Qur’an says about the subject this is what is to be seen and this is what was refered to, and not what other views and opinions are on the matter.

If one believes that the Qur’an has upheld slvery, then what he or she needs to do is supply textual evidence from the Qur’an to support his or her claim, and not from any other source, for it is the Qur’an against which an allegation is made.

What kind of a logic is this, that you accuse the Qur’an of something, but refer not to the Qur’anic text but to other books and writings in response???

If one makes a claim about the Qur’an, then it is expedient that they furnish proof from the the Book citing its text – otherwise they should don’t waste time – others as well as their own.

As Miskatonic has repeatedly failed to provide counter proof from the text in question that is under discussion, i.e. the Qur’an, his comment is widely off the mark and is a mere expression of his fanciful thinking.

Dr Jazz is very much out of tune when he suggests that: “..God makes it clear that women are inferior to men in the verses..” On the contrary we read in the Qur’an that men and women are equal in terms of their spiritual life. In the Qur’an men are commanded to perform Salah (prayers), and so are women, men are to fast, and so are women, men are to give Zakat and so do women, men are to do hajj and so do women, men are to perform umrah and so do women, men are to receive education, and so do women, men can own property, and so do women, men are to teach and preach, and so do women, men can participate in government and so do women, men have the right to marry, and so do women, men can initiate divorce, and so can women, and so on and so forth in many other aspects. In fact there are instances in the Qur’an, where women can be seen to have an advantage over men:

1) “..and it is a duty upon the father to bear the expenses and sustenance of the mother and child…” 2.233
This means that a woman is not responsible for this, but a man is. Can we say that women are superior than men? Also:

2) A woman’s testimony over rules that of a man (24.8).

3) Two women are cited as an example to follow for believers (66.11-12).

4) It is about a woman that we read: “God has chosen thee, and purified thee above the women of all worlds..” (3.42)We do not read such an honour about any man in the Qur’an, that he is chosen and purified above all men.

That men and women are of equal spiritual worth is a consistent theme in the Qur’an.

However, what is not equal in them is their biological and psychological make up – a plain fact, rarely denied.
Women have menses, while men don’t, women can get pregnant, while men can’t, women have post natal depression, while men don’t, women breastfeed, while men don’t, women have maternity leaves, while men don’t. Women have menopause, while men don’t, Accept in rare instances, men have more strength. These are facts of life that are apparent in all times and cultures.

After all men’s roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, even in the so called liberal societies. E.g. 100 meter athletics events are separate for men and women – why? Because they are both biologically different. Social scientists and psychologists also identify psychological differences between the two.

I hope that DrJazz doesn’t go out of his way advocating absolute equality for men and women. If he were to become an ardent supporter of such a view and were to one day venture into ‘the ladies’ whilst taking a passionate stand on absolute gender equality, I am sure, he will come out with more than a splash on his face!

He suggests that: “..2:221 refers to real slaves captured during the frequent violent battles of the 7th Century. ..” however, this again is his wishful thinking because nowhere in the Kuranic text is such a view advocated.

He states that: “…Verse 43:18 trivialises women after chiding the pagans.”

The expression : “..wa HUWA fee alkhisami ghayru mubeen.” translated as “..and unable to give a clear account in a dispute.” 43:18 Yusuf Ali refers to the masculine unbelievers, and not the female.

The pronoun “HUA” is masculine and means “HE”. Exact translation of this verse would be:

“..wa (AND) HUWA (HE) fee (IN) alkhisami (A DISPUTE) ghayru mubeen. (UNABLE TO GIVE A CLEAR ACCOUNT)”

“..and *HE* (not she) is unable to give a clear account in a dispute.” refering to the unbelievers inability to give a clear and logical reasoning for their beliefs.

For feminine gender the pronoun HIYA is used. If the verse were to say “..wa HIYA fee alkhisami ghayru mubeen.” then it would be eligible for reference to females i.e. and SHE is unable to give clear account in a dispute, but as HUA is used instead of HIYA, it is a clear reference to the masculine in preceeding verses, and not the females.

____________________________________________

“MISKATONICUNIVERSITY”:

I don’t follow your point. Happy to stick to the Quran, although that seems to leave Muslims struggling to explain the Quran without external references as it has no internal chronology, no footnotes to give context or thematic development. Hence the need for all the extensive multi-volume exegesis. Re slavery, the Quran is quite nonchalant in its acceptance of this institution. Certainly no call for its rejection – that wouldn’t have fit with the economic logic of its time after all:023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
024.058
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! let those whom your right hands possess, and the (children) among you who have not come of age ask your permission (before they come to your presence), on three occasions: before morning prayer; the while ye doff your clothes for the noonday heat; and after the late-night prayer: these are your three times of undress…
033.050

YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee;…
033.055

YUSUFALI: There is no blame (on these ladies if they appear) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers, or their brother’s sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess. And, (ladies), fear Allah; for Allah is Witness to all things.

____________________________________________

“DRJAZZ”:

Of course men and women are equal in the spiritual life. The overarching theme of the Koran is that we must all believe in the one God, worship the one God, be good, look after orphans, pay the alms tax and believe in the Day of Judgement when we will get our just deserts. Almost every Chapter says at least some of these things.

If only men or women had the right to marry, there would be problems, so that is not equality is it? 2:233 says “And the mothers should suckle their children for two whole years for him who desires to make complete the time of suckling; and their maintenance and their clothing must be– borne by the father according to usage; . . .

I fail to see how this puts women at an advantage to men, although I do see that later in the verse a wet-nurse can be engaged and then the man and woman would achieve equality. I don’t see that a woman’s testimony overrules that of a man in 24:8 when read in conjunction with 24:6. Chapter 66 is all about Mohammed breaking a promise. The fact that only two women from ancient history can be invoked as examples demonstrates the dearth of examples.
You’re scraping the barrel with 3:42

“However, what is not equal in them is their biological and psychological make up – a plain fact, rarely denied.” The biological facts won’t be denied, but that statement and every one of the differences you mention has been used to deny women equal opportunity. (In Britain you can now have paternity leave btw). Many women will laugh with scorn at your examples and cite the psychological make up of men, starting with ‘men don’t understand women’. I do indeed advocate absolute gender equality (except for sporting events and activities involving strenghth) and I don’t see what would be wrong with me wandering into the ladies. I’ve seen it done, and my sister-in-law usually takes her disabled husband into the ladies when out and about. Slaves. Nowhere is the capturing of slaves advocated, but it isn’t condemned either. It is accepted as given. As it is accepted that women are to be obedient. Translation seems to be a barrier to understanding the Koran, yet it isn’t a barrier to understanding other scriptures (although I accept there are differences in translation). What is it about Arabic that makes it so difficult to translate into English properly, and do the same problems arise with translations into other languages?

____________________________________________

KASHIF SHAHZADA:

MisktonicUniversity presents verses which in his view lend support to slavery. However his ‘evidence’ is really no evidence at all, because the references he has cherry picked do not speak of slaves in the original Arabic. The Arabic word for slave is ABD (masculine) and AMMAH (feminine), and whenever the Qur’an speaks of slaves, these terms are used, but the citations by Miskatonic do not contain this terminology.

Therefore, as the subject matter of the verses is not slaves and slavery, but those under the authority of ‘YAMEEN’, his claim once again remains null and void.

I had already responded to this view and clarified the difference between ABD and MALAKAT AYMANIKUM, when it was raised by DPavett, (see Comment No. 1016800 March 28, under ‘Your Say dated 28 March) and interestingly, Miskatonic had then very well acknowledged my reply, but yet again, very interestngly he uses the same argument one more time.

The Arabic expression “AYMANIKUM” which is usually rendered as ‘those whom your right hands posses’, are not slaves under the possession of the right hand of the slave owner, but refers to the oaths and covenants that people have pledged to undertake: This is absolutely clear in Qur’anic inflection, and even majority of contemporary translators do not render the expression as slaves. One need not be an expert in Arabic, but a mere word search can reveal this clear phenomenon.

“Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in YOUR OATHS (AYMANI-KUM), but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths (AYMAN)…..” 5.89 Shakir “…..and as to THOSE WITH WHOM YOUR RIGHTS HANDS (AYMAN) HAVE RATIFIED AGREEMENTS, give them their portion; surely Allah is a witness over all things. 4.33 Shakir

In above the same word “AYMAN” which was cited earlier to prove slavery has been used. Can we say that the term means slaves by exploring its inflection in other Qur’anic passages and checking its meaning in Arabic lexicons? Certainly not. Linguistically “AYMAN” is the plural form of “YAMEEN” which means “Right”, directional as well as conceptual. An oath and covenant is also called “YAMEEN” as it involves swearing by the ‘right hand’, and it is in this shade of meaning that the word and its plural occur. For proof see Lanes Arabic English Lexicon, pp 3064. Also see 5.89, 5.108, 16.91, 9.12.

As the verses cited by Miskatonic speak of relations with those under the protection of oath of believers, and not about EBAAD i.e. slaves, to suggest that they speak of EBAAD or AMAAT is wrong.