O’Jeary, Barbara, 110

Okada, Yukiko, 111

O’Leary, Hazel, 66

Omaha, 110

Onassis, Aristotle, 84

Osherson, Dr. Sam, 108

Russell, Bertrand, 45

Pakistan, 104 , 211

Pandora, 21

Paris, 40

Parrot, Andrea, 104

Pentagon, 116

Pharaoh, 152

Plain Truth, 95

Plato’s Symposium, 18

Poland, 188

Prince Charles, 116

Prince Khurram, 244

Princess Diana, 116

Psychology Today, 58

purdah, 225

Pyrrhic, 115

Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-’Arabi, 162

Qadsiya, 156

qa’im, 31

Qais ibn Hajjaj, 19

qanitat, 178

qawwam, 31 , 177

qunut, 127

Qur’an, 13 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 49 , 100, 123 ,

124 , 126 , 131 , 132 , 140, 141 , 146 ,

147 , 153 , 157 , 159 , 161 , 162 , 173 ,

175 , 177 , 179 , 180, 181 , 182 , 185 ,

186 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 201 , 202 , 203 ,

214 , 219 , 225 , 226 , 229

Quraysh, 151 , 154 , 157 , 162

Rabi’ah Aslami, 215

rahib, 151

rajul, 162 ,

Ramadan, 127

Reader’s Digest, 101 , 102

Reagan, Ronald, 87

Reedy, George, 118

Renault Motor Company, 85

Reno, Janet, 66

Reuters, 145

Rice, Miss Donna, 117

Robbins, Harold, 82

Roberts, J. M., 49

Roger, 63

Rolls Royce, 85

Romans, 25

Rome, 45

Russia, 34

sabr, 127

Sachar, Rajindar, 46

sadaqah, 128 , 225

Safa Marwah, 163

Safia, 160

Sahaba, 131 , 205

Sahih, 134

sa’i, 163

Sa’ib ibn Jubayr, 230

Sa’id ibn Mussayyib, 160

St. Paul, 46

Sakti, 156

Salima Khatun, 240

San Francisco, 41

Sanjarpur, 164

Sape, Suzanne, 62 , 63

Satan, 105 , 128

sawrn, 128

Scandinavia, 76

Schechter, Susan, 101

Schuman, Ken, 109

Seberg, Jean, 81

Senate, 66

Shafi’is, 217

Shah Jahan, 244

Shaharyar, 244

Shaikh ‘Abdul Ghafur, 167

Shaikh ‘Abdun Nabi. 170

Shalala, Donna, 66

Sharh Ma‘ani alAthar, 131

Shari’ah, 53 , 105 , 106 , 123 , 149 . 174 , 176 ,

177 , 179 , 185 , 191 , 199 , 200, 202 , 203 ,

204 , 205 , 208 , 214 , 217 , 218 , 227 ,230

Shawwal, 185

Should Daddies Be Mummies?, 61

Shu’ayb, Prophet, 216

sidq, 127

Singh, Khushwant. 195 , 207

sirah, 162

Sisterhood Is Powerful, 58

Hasan, 230

Hassan ibn “’habit, 161

al-Haythami, 228

Health and Human Services, 66

Help Abused Women and their Children, 102

Hephaestus, 21

Heuber, Marcia, 63

Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, 93

Hickman-Maslin, 145

Hijab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah fil Kitab wasSunnah, 225

hijab, 164 , 225 , 226 , 227 , 228 , 229

hijrah, 18, 161 , 245

Hindustan Times, The, 87 , 98 , 106

Hindu Code Bill, 46

Hira, Cave of, 151 , 154

Hodgkins, 40

Holland, 107

Hollywood, 145 , 85

Homer, Marina, 75

al-Hudaybiyyah, 154 , 161

Hulagu, 245

‘ibadah, 129

Iblis, 144 , 144

Ibn ‘Abbas, 225

Ibn Daqiq al-’Id, 228 Ibn Hazm, 225

Ibn Kathir, 229

Ibn Luhai’a, 19

Ibn Mas’ud, 230

Ibn Qayyim, 160

Ibn Sirin, 230

Ibrahim Nakh’i, 230

Ibrahim (son of the Prophet Muhammad), 18

iddah, 198

idkhar, 212

ihsan, 128

ijma’, 205

Ikramah, 160, 230

Illustrated Weekly of India, 36

Imam Abu Ja’far Tahavi, 131

Imam Ahmad, 219

Imam ibn Asakir, 156

Imam Raghib Asfahani, 129

Imam Rani, 162

Imam Shafi’i, 230 imam 12

‘imran, 150

India Today, 190

India, 13 , 104 , 164 , 211

Indian Express, 95 , 97

Inevitability of Patriarchy, The, 34

Intimate Violence in Families, 103

‘isha, 166

Islam, 27 , 46 , 47 , 85 , 124 , 127 , 131 , 143 ,

148 , 151 , 156 , 157 , 159 , 164 , 167 , 180,

183 , 198 , 211 , 217 , 219 , 245

Islam and the Modern Age, 225

Islamic Centre, The, 139

Italy, 188

Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah, 144

Jackson, Betty, 61 , 62

jahaz, 211

jahhaza, 212

Jain, 26

Jami’ al-Bayan, 201

Japan, 33 , 88 , 89

Jeans, Sir James, 17

Jehangir, 244

Jesus, Prophet, 149 , 152

Jewish, 149

jihad, 143 , 160

jilbab, 227

Johnson, Lyndon, 118

Johnston, Jill, 107

Junor, Penny, 116

Ka’bah, 163

Kagan, Jerome, 74 , 75 , 76 , 77

Kaufman, Sue, 64

Kelly, Kitty, 84

Kelly, Ronald D., 108

Kennedy, Jacqueline, 83

Kennedy, John F., 57

Kentucky State, 104

Khadijah bins Khuwaylid, 150, 151 , 154 , 155

khamil, 212

Khan, ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, 165 , 169

Khan, Barka, 245

Khan, Fariduddin, 165

Khan, Ghazan, 245

Khan, Wahiduddin, 139

Khansa, 156

Khawlah bins Tha‘labah, 152 , 153

Index A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 14 , 32

Abdi, Jared, 153

‘Abdul Muttalib, 160, 161

‘Abdullah ibn al-’Abbas, 131 , 178 , 183 ,

188 , 218 , 230

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, 212

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir, 160

‘Abdullah ibn Ja’far, 235

‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, 162

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, 160, 230

‘Abdur Rahman al-Jaziri, 217

‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Auf, 219

Abraham, Prophet, 163

Abu ad-Dahdah, 162 , 163

Abu ash-Sha’tha, 230

Abu Bakr, 148 , 157 , 158 , 204

Abu Dawud, 129 , 230

Abu Hurayrah, 124 , 142

Abu Jandal, 161

Abu Musa al-’Ashari, 149

Abu Muslim Asfahani, 132

Abu Qahafa, 157

Abu Said al-Khudri, 160

Abu Simbel, 27

Abu Suhayl, 240, 241

Abu Talib, 212

Abu Umamah, 129

Abul Jawza’, 230

Abyssinia, 218

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

(AIDS), 37 , 39 , 41 , 99 , 101

Adam, 18, 22 , 23 , 24 , 131 , 132

Addas, 151

Africa, 41

ahadith, 227 , 228

‘Aishali, 130, 148 , ISO, 156 , 230

‘ajilah, 215

‘Alaqamah, 160

Albani, Muhammad Nasiruddin, al-, 225 ,

227 , 229

Al-Filth ‘ala’l Madahib al-Arba’ah, 217

‘Ali, ‘Abdullah Yusuf, 147

‘Ali ibn abi Talib, 150, 189 , 201 , 205 , 211 ,

212 . 215

‘alim, 205

Al-Risala, 169 , 170

America, 14 , 32 , 40, 51 , 57 , 70, 71 , 83 , 87 ,

88 , 89 , 100, 106 , 187

‘Amr ibn al-’As, 19 Angelo, Bonnie, 57 , 58 , 65

anti ‘alayiya ka zahr ummi, 152

Arabic, 24 , 152 , 162 , 196

Arabs, 152

Aristophanes, 17

Arnold, Matthew, 138

Arnold, Professor T.W., 245

Asma’ bins Abu Bakr, 157 , 158 , 212

athar, 156 , 230

Athens, 45

auqiyah, 218

Australia, 95 , 97

Austria, 188

Aws ibn as-Samit, 152

Azamgarh, 164

Babior, Sharmon, 88

buhu, 95

Baitul Mal, 205 , 208

Baltimore, 112

Banu Qurayza,

160 Banu Salim, 156

Bardot, Brigitte, 85

Bardwick, 59

Bauna, 19

BBC, 116

Beauvoir, Simone de, 95

Benaras Hindu University, 169

Better Homes and Gardens, 108

Bible, 21 , 22 , 24 , 45 , 132

Bilal ibn Rabah, 226

Blackington, Barbette, 74

Blake, Dr. Afton, 98 , 99

Blotnick, Srully, 106

Brodie, Ian, 98 , 99

Borman, Frank, 81

Britain, 14 , 40, 42 , 190

Buddhism, 26

al-Bukhari, 134 , 150, 158 , 162 , 188

Burairah, 188 , 189

Burma, 188

Bush, George, 66

work, can also certainly be performed by women, without passing beyond the threshold of their own homes.

An outstanding instance of the power wielded by Muslim women is their conversion of the Tartars (Mongol), who laid waste the world of Islam in the thirteenth century Hijra. Having been the direct enemies of Islam, the Tartars accepted its tenets and proclaimed themselves its guardians. ‘Ghazan Khan (reigned 1295-1304) was able to embrace Islam amid general acceptance by his army, and his successors were all Muslims. Within less than 40 years, after Hulagu’s terrible invasion, his descendants had become patrons of Muslim culture.2

How this miraculous conversion took place is explained by Professor T.W. Arnold:

It is interesting to note that the propagation of Islam has not been the work of men only, but that Muslim women have also taken their part in this pious task. Several of the Mongol princes owed their conversion to the influence of a Muslim wife, and the same was probably the case with many of the pagan Turks when they had carried their raids into Muhammadan countries.3

After the Tatars had slaughtered the male Muslims on a massive scale, they took the women captive and brought them into their homes as mistresses and wives. From within the Tartar homes, these Muslim women were to play a crucial role, for, filled as they were with the zeal and fervor of Islam, they burned with the desire to serve its cause, and set about converting their capturers with a large measure of success. Those Tartars who were not immediately converted by their womenfolk at least softened to such a degree in their attitude towards Islam that when they came into contact with Muslims elsewhere in the world, they were very easily converted. This was thanks to the preliminary seeds having been sown within their very own homes.

The first Tartar ruler who converted to Islam was Barka Khan, who ruled from 1256 to 1267. It appears that his mother was a Muslim and had trained him in the ways of Islam from early childhood. His formal conversion came just after his coronation, when he had a conclusive discussion on Islam with a Muslim merchant. Ghazan Khan’s brother, Aljai, whose wife was a Muslim, succeeded him in 1304. It is said that it was his wife’s persuasion which brought about his conversion. Indeed, most of the Tartar chiefs and military men

Conclusion

If it were put to a writer that he could the better serve humanity by stepping out of his study and jumping into the boxing ring, he would surely retort that there is more to solving the problems of the world than just punching people on the nose. He would, indeed, point out that the intellectual can best operate in his own chosen sphere, and that it is not physical brashness which counts in this “life, but the sharpening of awareness.

Imagine a reversal of the social structure which entailed a surgeon working in a butcher’s shop, a teacher sitting on the roadside selling vegetables, or a microbiologist digging ditches. In each case, the change of workplace and role would render useless and irrelevant the innate and acquired skills, the knowledge and the moral excellence of these highly qualified, highly experienced professionals. Their competence and effectiveness would, moreover, be eroded by the sense of frustration and disorientation engendered by surroundings which clearly degraded them.

In luring women out of their natural sphere—the home and the bosom of the family—“emancipation” has pitchforked women into the same humiliating situation as our imaginary professionals. Once out of their homes, they find themselves forced, in uncongenial surroundings, to play unfamiliar roles for which neither training nor biology has fitted them. They are even worse off than our surgeon, teacher and microbiologist, for they have not only to contend with the professional hostility of their male counterparts but must constantly be on their guard against being exploited and debased. In the meanwhile, their valuable domestic skills, innate material instincts and fine moral acuity become submerged and nullified in the treadmill of their daily working existence.

True progress for women cannot be achieved by encouraging them to make their entry into every field of life. A better approach would

no change in her attitude. She continued to be “mother of Abu Suhayl.” Her own son, Dr. Salman Nadwi,3 is a famous personality, but she never referred to herself as “mother of Salman.” She was a deeply religious lady. She outlived her husband by 34 years, but her old ways did not change.

This trait was reflected in all aspects of her dealings. Quite naturally she must have been very fond of her own children, but she did not make it obvious. The result was that Abu Suhayl got along well with his stepbrothers and sisters as if they were his real brothers and sisters. There was never any tension in the family.

Ninety percent of domestic problems are psychological in nature and ought to be dealt with as such. Whenever a mother-in-law has a complaint, she should ask herself if she would have complained if her daughter had done the same thing. Similarly, a daughter-in- law should do some soul-searching, putting her mother in place of the mother-inlaw.

If they seriously think about it, both the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law will find that their differences do not have any solid basis in fact. Most of their complaints are imaginary and as such, should never find expression in word or deed. They deserve to be confined where they originate, i.e. in the mind.

Notes

1. Time, March 20, 1972.

2. A noted scholar. After the death of ‘Allama Shibli Nu‘mani, he completed the remaining five volumes of Sirah an-Nabi. He died in 1953.

3. He is now the professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Durban in South Africa and has written several books.

himself has not paid for them? If a girl looks at her problems without bias, she will realize that balancing up the two sides of the question is really the crux of the matter. If she does not deliver what the in-laws expect, she cannot expect to get what she wants either.

The truth is that the in-laws’ house is a place where one learns the secret of living. It is only when the girl is no longer under the protective cover of her parents that the facts unravel. Then the reality of the inlaw’s home makes the parental home seem like an illusory world. Any girl who fails to learn this secret is bound to have an unsatisfactory married life, while the girl who comes to terms with reality can look forward to an untrammelled life of wedded bliss.

THE JOINT FAMILY

These days girls consider living in a joint family a problem. They would much rather live elsewhere with their husbands. Educated girls in particular try to convince their husbands that they, as a couple, should live separately after marriage. On the face of it, this appears to be a good idea. But often the initial charm wears off, and they feel that their situation is worse than if they had opted for the joint family system. I have seen many girls who managed to wean their husbands away from their parents. But then after living alone for some time, life became so burdensome for them that it seemed little better than a treadmill. In a joint family, a woman makes only psychological sacrifices, whereas in a nuclear family it is her whole existence which is sacrificed. The latter is much more difficult than the former.

Making an assessment of the woman’s role in western society, Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Middle-class woman acquired education and a chance at a career at the very time she lost her domestic servants and the unpaid household help of relatives living in the old, large family; she had to become either a household drudge or carry the intolerably heavy load of two simultaneous fulltime jobs.”1

It is because girls are upset by certain unpleasant aspects of joint family living that they opt for living alone with their husbands. Such decisions are emotional. If only they worked half as hard in the joint family situation as they did when living alone with their husbands, their lives could be considerably more comfortable and convenient.

This was the beginning of a long and trying period. It took not months, but years for things to change. But finally, a stage came when she was the most popular member of the family, having earned everyone’s affection and respect. No better than a maid when she had arrived, she had now become the virtual mistress of the house.

The secret of a successful marriage is the ability to forge bonds of loyalty. Such bonds come into being quite naturally with one’s own parents, brothers and sisters. They are so strong that they can never be broken. There can be no doubt about this. But similar bonds do not exist in the in-law’s house. They have to be established. The only solution for the new bride entering her parents-in-law’s home is to transfer her loyalty to all of the people to whom she is now related by marriage. When she says ‘my home’ it should mean her new abode. The focus of her attention should now be her in-laws, from whom she should seek support, rather’ than from her parents. She must become a part of the family and have everyone’s well-being at heart. Experience teaches us that this is the way to make a success of married life.

GUARANTEED SOLUTION

It is undeniable that happiness in marriage is closely linked with awareness. Awareness can make a marriage. Its absence can mar it.

If it were given any serious thought, it would become evident that trouble with the in-laws is a problem created by default. It is also more imaginary than real. Unfortunately, ours is not an aware society. And we are paying the price for that in different ways. One of them is the increasing discord between brides and their in-laws.

Certain historical factors have caused the members of our community to live in a world of make-believe.

They are ignorant of the realities of life, and, because of this lack of awareness, they are suffering for it in every walk of life. Marital problems are part of this inheritance.

The parental home is a haven where a girl receives natural affection. The in-law’s home is a place where, by her own efforts, she has to create a niche for herself. A daughter, being the flesh and blood of her parents, will be loved by them, regardless of whether she is good or bad, whether

Success in Marriage

When ‘Abdullah ibn Ja’far’s daughter was about to be married, he gave her this piece of advice: ‘O my daughter, avoid being haughty or making a prestige issue of anything, for both are keys to the lock of divorce. A void anger and discontent too, for they engender malice.’

This is the best counsel a father could give his daughter at the time of her marriage. After the wedding, she goes to live in another’s home. Now, instead of living with her own kith and kin, she is under the roof of people with whom she had no blood relationship. Where, in her parents home, displays of anger or arrogance, or other shortcomings, were overlooked by her parents and siblings, it is a very different story in her in-law’s home, where even the smallest of errors may cause her to fall from grace.

The in-laws do not have the same soft comer for her that comes naturally to her parents. In the new house, every action sets off a reaction. There, overweening pride cannot just be ignored, and no one is willing to forget the slightest misdemeanor.

The only way that a new bride can make things easier for herself is to adjust to her new environment. She should avoid doing or saying anything which could possibly invite an unpleasant reaction. It also helps if she is tolerant of things which are not to her liking and, if someone’s behavior is contrary to what she expected, makes allowances for this and refrains from brooding over it. This is the only way for a girl to make a success of her life in her new home. No other course is possible.

It is an unwise father who teaches his daughter to be assertive in her in-law’s house in the mistaken belief that this will give her the upper hand. A wise man would tell his daughter to adopt a conciliatory stance. The success or failure of married life depends entirely upon the bride’s willingness or unwillingness to adapt.

18. Ibid., p. 80.

19. Ibid., p. 110.

20. The Quran, 24:31 .

21 . Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab al-Libas, 4/62 .

22 . Muhammad ‘Ali as-Subuni, Rawai‘ al-Bayan, (Beirut, 1980), 2/155 .

23 . At-Tafsir al-‘Uthmani, with notes by Shaikh Mahmud ul-Hasan (Bijnor, 1950), p. 458 .

24 . Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. 7, p. 163 .

to display adornment of any kind before anyone not permitted by the shari’ah. If a woman cannot keep these parts veiled as ordained for reasons beyond her control, or for any compelling reason, she cannot be held responsible for that (provided it is not likely to generate any mischief.)

It is evident from the Hadith and athar (the sayings and deeds of the Prophet’s Companions) that the face and hands are exempt because it is not possible to keep them covered while performing various chores of daily life and even religious rites. If they are ordered to be strictly covered, it will create great difficulties for women in carrying out their jobs. The theologians have considered the feet also to be exempted parts. It must be clearly understood, however, that unveiling is permitted strictly on the basis of necessity. Men are forbidden to set their eyes on them. Perhaps this is why before exempting women from covering their face and hands (verse 31), men are commanded to lower their gaze and guard their modesty in verse 30. Thus, the permission to unveil a part of the body does not give license to others to set their eyes on them. 23

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION

Of all the family problems in advanced countries, divorce tops the list. The fact that the majority of marriages in these countries end up in divorce has ruined family life completely, for children do not enjoy the love and care of parents who are still alive, whereas it was formerly only death which separated children from their parents. Children there grow up like uncared-for weeds, adding to the list of criminals. It is generally accepted that the majority of juvenile delinquents are the product of broken homes.

Divorce was not so common in former times. Then how has it reached such proportions now? The sole reason for this is traceable to the promiscuity of what in religious terminology is called unrestricted society. This lifestyle devoid of moral constraints has made it possible for men and women to live together like the fish in the sea. With such a lifestyle, permissiveness is unavoidable. One’s loyalties keep changing. In a segregated society, where interaction between men and women is almost non-existent, a man associates only with his spouse, which keeps him from forming new loyalties, while in a free society he comes upon new faces every day, one better than the other. He then feels like abandoning the old face in preference to the new and more attractive one. What is happening in the West is

From this tradition the writer comes to the conclusion that a garment which in most parts resembles those of men is not permissible for women, even if it covers her adequately. 14

The seventh rule of hijab is that it should not resemble that worn by non-believers. Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani says that any similarity to non-believers must be avoided, in matters of worship, festivals and dress. 15 The Quran states this briefly, but the sunnah provides the detail. One of the verses of the Quran on which he bases this argument states that it is “so that they may not be like those who were given the scriptures before this…” 16 He quotes Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathir who construe this verse as meaning that imitation of nonbelievers is not allowed in Islam.

Then he quotes the tradition in which the Prophet forbade adopting the ways of non-believers in’ prayers, funeral prayers, sacrifice, food, dress, etiquette, etc. 17

The eighth rule of hijab is that a woman’s garments should not reflect worldly honor. Here is a hadith to this effect:

One who wears the mantle of fame in this world will be made to wear the robe of dishonor in the hereafter.18

His concluding remarks are: “The garment should cover the entire body of a woman except the face and hands and should not become an attraction in itself. Neither should it be thin, nor tight. It should not accentuate the body. It should not be perfumed or resemble those worn by men or non-believing women. It should not suggest fame.”19

THE TRANSLATOR’S VIEWS

The Quran says: “Say to the believing women to turn their eyes away (from temptation) and to preserve their chastity; to cover their adornments except such as are normally displayed.”20

The wording of the verse, “except such as are normally displayed,” gives rise to the question of what it is that has been exempted here from being covered. The theologians and the commentators have two views on the subject. These two views are based on the fact that beauty is of two kinds—one natural (by birth)

except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their step-sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women-servants, their slave girls, male attendants lacking in natural vigor, and children who have no knowledge of sex. And let them not stamp their feet when walking so as to reveal their hidden trinkets. Believers, turn to Allah together in repentance, that you may prosper.5

The second verse in this connection is as follows:

Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close round them. That is more proper, so that they may be recognized (as virtuous women) and not molested. God is Forgiving and Merciful.6

The author interprets the wording of 33:59, “to cover their adornments except such as are normally displayed,” to mean that the hands and face are exempt from covering. He draws his argument in support of this from the Hadith.

After studying many ahadith in connection with the verse from surah 33 of the Quran, he writes: “It is clear from the instances drawn from the Quran and the Hadith that, although it accords with the shari’ah and it is preferable for a woman to cover her face, it is not compulsory for her to do so. It would be better if women followed this practice, but there is no harm if they do not.”7

The second rule of hijab, according to Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani’s research, is that hijab in itself should not be a source of attraction. It should not become a display of finery referred to in the Quran as tabarruj:

Stay in your homes and do not display your finery as women used to do in the days of Jahiliyah (period before Islam). Attend to your prayers, give alms to the poor, and obey God and His Messenger. God only wishes to remove uncleanliness from you (members of the family), and to purify you.8

According to the author, the intention of this verse is that a woman should not display her beauty and attraction in such a way as to produce carnal desires in the hearts of men. Since the purpose of the gown (jilbab) is to hide such attractions, it is, therefore, unimaginable that the gown itself should become a source of attraction.9

He states, moreover, that in Islam the displaying of feminine attractions is a habit so important to avoid that it has been bracketed

Hijab in Islam

HIJAB IN THE LIGHT OF THE QURAN AND HADITH

This chapter is based on an authoritative Arabic book titled Hijab alMar’ah al-Muslimah fil Kitab was-Sunnah, by Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, a famous scholar and traditionist. It was translated by this writer and initially published in condensed form in the quarterly, Islam and the Modern Age. 1

The third edition of the original work with some additions is before me. The question of hijab (veil), or purdah in Urdu, the author tells us, has been discussed in light of the Quran and Hadith.

From the author’s point of view, a woman’s face is not included in the parts of the body that need to be compulsorily covered. He suggests, however, that it is better to cover it. He agrees with those who, in spite of holding the view that the face is not to be covered as a rule, nevertheless advocate the covering of the face in order to discourage mischief, in view of the general moral degradation in present-day society. Here is one of the traditions referred to by him to support his argument.

‘Aishah says that Muslim women used to attend the morning prayer led by the Prophet wrapped in a sheet of cloth. Afterwards, when they returned home, it was so dark that they could not be recognized.

This narrative makes it clear that their faces were not covered. Had their faces been covered, the question of their being recognized would not arise. The phrase “because of the darkness they could not be recognized” makes sense only if the faces, by which individuals are recognized, were uncovered.

Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani takes a similar stand as regards

Notes

1. An-Nasa’i, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 5/135.

2. Al-Haythami, Majma‘ az-Zawa’id wa Manba’ al-Fawa’id, Kitab al-Manaqib, 9/210.

3. Ibid., 9/209.

4. See, The Quran, 12:70 .

5. Al-Haythami, Majma‘ az-Zawa’id wa Manba‘ al-Fawa’id, Kitab al-Adkhar, 10/122.

6. The Quran, 4:34 .

7. Ibn Kathir, As-Sirah an-Nabawiyah, 2/544.

8. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Masnad, Kitab al-‘Ilm, 4/58 .

9. See, The Quran, 28:27-29 .

10. Abdur Rahman al-Jaziri, Al-Fiqh ‘ala’l Madahib al-Arba‘ah, 4/153-156 .

11 . Ibid., 4/107 .

12 . Al-Haythami, Majma‘ az-Zawa’id wa Manba‘ al-Fawa’id, Kitab an-Nikah, 4/281.

13 . Al-Baihaqi, Sunan al-Kubra, Katib as-Sudaq, 7/235.

14 . Kanz al-‘Ummal, Kitab an-Nikah, 16/322.

15 . Ad-Darimi, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 2/141 .

16 . Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 2/235 .

17 . Ibn Hajar al-‘Athqalani, Fath al-Bari, 9/167.

18. Al-Haythami, Majma‘ az-Zawa’id wa Manba‘ al-Fawa’id, Kitab an-Nikah, 4/255.

19. Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 2/336.

20. Ibid, 2/336.

21 . Thomas Patric Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p. 91 .

The bride comes from her parent’s home where she has had the unstinted affection of her father, mother, sisters and brothers. This relationship, and the place in the family which it gives her, are usually taken for granted, and seldom regarded as factors in life which have to be striven for. She is seldom conscious that these very valuable elements in family living are not just hers for the taking when she enters her new home as a married woman. They have to be worked for, and she has to show herself deserving of them; only then can she claim the kind of love and regard which she had had as a matter of right from early childhood in her parents’ home. This initial lack of awareness on her part is very often the cause of major rifts later on in her married life.

A girl is the flesh and blood of her parents. She is loved by them whether she is good or bad, whether she is active or idle, whether she helps her parents or not, and she can safely expect them to continue to love her, regardless of the circumstances of her life, and regardless of how her own character develops. But she has no such blood relationship with her in-laws. Love from them will never be unconditional, but will exist, cease to exist, increase or decrease, in direct relation to the impression which her character and abilities make upon them in the general round of daily living.

For the bride, entering the marriage bond is like undergoing a series of tests, the outcome of which will determine whether her married life will be stable and happy, or exactly the reverse. If a girl feels like a fish out of water in her new home, it simply means that she has to make greater efforts to understand and adapt herself to her new environment. Wise parents will warn their daughters in advance that they must learn to mold themselves to new sets of circumstances.

A girl who enters marriage with a correct appreciation of what is required of her will make the transition with the greatest of ease. She will soon, by virtue of her character and accomplishments, earn the same honorable position in her parents-in-law’s home as she had in her parents’ home solely on account of their love for her. For such a girl, entering marriage will be as easy as changing her habits of dress with the change of the season.

In the case of a girl who enters marriage, uninstructed by her

minimal, it did not become a burden on either family. The wedding celebrations of the Companions were, in keeping with this principle, quite free of any ostentation. There is a saying of the Prophet that “the most blessed marriage is one in which the marriage partners place the least burden on each other.”18 Certainly, the most trouble-free marriage is one in which the existing resources are sufficient to meet all normal requirements.

There was once a case of a certain individual having become engaged without having anything to give as dower. When this came to the attention of the Prophet, he asked him over and over again if he really had nothing to give. When the man replied in the negative, the Prophet, far from telling him that he should borrow money and then get married, asked him if he had not learned certain parts of the Quran by heart. On receiving an affirmative answer from him, the Prophet said, “I therefore marry you to that woman. The dower you give will be that part of the Quran which you have committed to memory.”19 In other words, he should have to teach that part of the Quran to his wife.

The simplicity which marked the occasion of marriage in the days of the Prophet is well illustrated by ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Auf, one of the foremost of the Prophet’s Companions, who was married in Medina with as little ceremony as possible, not even thinking it necessary to invite the Prophet or any of the Companions. Imam Ahmad tells of how the Prophet came to know that ‘Abdur Rahman was married: ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Auf came to the Prophet with the scent of saffron upon him, and when the Prophet asked him about this, he said, “I have married.” The Prophet then enquired as to how much dower he had given his bride. “Gold equal in weight to one date stone,” he replied.20

A WRONG CUSTOM

In modern times the Islamic spirit has almost vanished from the responsibilities connected with the arranging and performing of a marriage. Muslims nowadays prefer to follow local custom rather than the guidelines of Islam. One manifestation of such a misguided practice is the fixing of heavy dowers—much in vogue in the brides’

The system of dower favored by the shari’ah entails immediate handing over of mahr. This was the practice followed by all of the Prophet’s Companions. Deferred dower is an alternative but is not ranked equal in merit of a prompt discharging of this responsibility. It is simply a form of concession made to those who are unable to meet the requirements of mahr at the time of marriage.

Further details on this subject may be found in the books of Fiqh. In his book, AI-Fiqh ‘aIa’l Madahib al-Arba’ah, ‘Abdur Rahman al-Jaziri devotes 85 pages to the subject of dower. The issue of the two systems of dower, mu‘ajjal and muwajjal, is discussed in four pages. Although jurists have their differences on this matter, these are of a minor nature.

The different sects of sunnis don’t differ in usul, or the fundamentals of religious belief, but only in minor rules of practice and in certain legal interpretations. Since, in some respects, separate doctrines are broached, four schools of jurisprudence have been established, known as Hanafi, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Maliki.

All of these schools agree that delay in handing over the dower, whether in full, or in part, is lawful, provided that the period fixed for payment is not indefinite. The Shafi’is also stipulate that the “period of payment should have been, fixed in time.”10

NO HEAVY BURDEN

The dower, which may be in cash or in kind, has to be fixed taking into account the bridegroom’s position in life. That is, it should never be more than he is easily able to afford, whether it be a lump sum in cash or some article of value. The jurists have different views to offer on what the minimum amount should be, but all are agreed that it should be substantial enough for something to be bought against it. Any amount which is sufficient for a purchase is acceptable as dower. 11

There are no traditions which encourage an increase in the dower, whereas there are many traditions which enjoin the fixing of smaller dowries. In all such cases, Islam lays down guidelines rather

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because God has made some of them to excel others and because they support them from their means. All the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has (ordained to be) guarded.6

For largely biological reasons, women are well adapted to domestic pursuits while men, for similar reasons, are better suited to work outside the home. These physical and mental differences between men and women are, in practice, what underlay Islam’s division of familial responsibilities into internal and external spheres, with the woman dealing exclusively with the home and family and the man providing the funds.

MAHR MU‘AJJAL

At the time of the marriage, the groom hands over to the bride a sum of money called mahr (dower) which is a token of his willing acceptance of the responsibility of bearing all necessary expenses of his wife. This is the original meaning of mahr, although this custom has come to have different connotations in modern times.

There are two ways of presenting mahr to the bride. One is to hand it over at the time of the marriage, in which case it is known as mahr mu’ajjal, or promptly given dower. (The word mu’ajjal is derived from ‘ajilah, meaning “without delay.”) During the time of the Prophet and his Companions, mahr mu’ajjal was the accepted practice and the amount fixed was generally quite minimal. The giving of mahr by ‘Ali to Fatimah, the Prophet’s daughter, is an illustration of how this custom was respected. (It has been recorded in detail in the books of Hadith.) After the marriage had been arranged, the Prophet asked ‘Ali if he had anything he could give as dower in order to make Fatimah his lawfully wedded wife. ‘Ali replied, “By God, I have nothing, O Messenger of God.” The Prophet then asked, “Where is the coat of armor I once gave you?” ‘Ali replied that it was still in his possession (although he later admitted “by the Master of his soul” that it was in a dilapidated condition and, as such, was not even worth four dirhams). The Prophet then instructed him—“since I have married you to Fatimah”—to send the coat of armor to Fatimah, thereby making his union lawful. This then was the sum total of Fatimah’s dower.7

new home with ease. But this is a wholly non-Islamic concept and has no bearing whatsoever on the ideal of marriage in Islam. Had it been a traditional Islamic practice, we should certainly have seen the precedents set for it in the Prophet’s own lifetime. As it happened, the Prophet gave household items only to Fatimah, largely on account of his close relationship with ‘Ali and gave nothing at all to his other three daughters on the occasion of their marriages. Had dowry-giving been an established sunnah of the Prophet, he would surely have given it to his other daughters as well.

THE REAL GIFT

One regrettable aspect of dowry-giving in recent times is that it is becoming more and more a matter of ostentation. Nothing could be more un-Islamic in motivation than this. Even the practice of performing a marriage quietly, without any flamboyant display of wealth, but subsequently giving a lavish dowry to enable the bride to set up her home is contrary to Islamic practice. It was certainly not the sunnah of the Prophet. Fatimah was his favorite daughter, but he neither gave her a lavish dowry nor did he send things to her home after the wedding. Even when Fatimah made a request to him for something of a material nature, he only gave her the benefit of his counsel.

Different versions of Fatimah’s request have been recorded in many of the books on Hadith. It seems that she had to do all the housework herself, which she found physically very taxing. During the early period of her marriage, the Prophet had received a number of captives who were to be used as slaves. ‘Ali told Fatimah about this and suggested that she should go and ask her father to give her one of them. When Fatimah came to the Prophet, he asked what had brought her there. But, feeling too shy to ask anything of him, she merely said, “I have come to say salam to you,” and she went back home without having explained her difficulties to him. The Prophet later came to her house and asked why she had really come. Then Fatimah said, “O Prophet of God, both of my hands have boils on them. I have to keep grinding and kneading the flour, so I wanted a servant.” The Prophet replied, “Whatever God has decreed, that you will receive. And I will tell you something better than that. That is,

Dowry

THE CUSTOM OF DOWRY IS NOT ISLAMIC

The custom of giving dowry—a practice which has never been sanctioned by Islam—is greatly on the increase among the Muslims of India and Pakistan. As this custom is not prevalent among the Muslims of other countries, it seems quite clear that it has been borrowed by Indian and Pakistani Muslims from the Hindus of the sub-continent. The latter, in accordance with their ancient law, did not give their daughters any share in the family property, but on the occasion of their marriage—as a measure of compensation —they gave them dowries, part of which took the form of household goods.

In imitating this Hindu custom in India, Muslims are denying their daughters their rightful share in the family property to which they are entitled under Islamic law. The practice of “compensating” for this by giving them wedding presents and labelling these jahaz or “dowry” (jahez in Urdu) is, in reality, a deliberate evasion of the Islamic law of inheritance.

There is a body of opinion among certain Muslims which has it that jahaz is the sunnah (way) of the Prophet, because he himself gave his daughter, Fatimah, a “dowry” on the occasion of her marriage to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.

FATIMAH’S DOWRY

As a justification for giving dowry, in the modem sense of the word, this proposition is clearly unacceptable, for, according to early records, the “dowry” which the Prophet gave to Fatimah consisted of only the barest of household necessities.

11 . The Quran, 4:21 .

12 . Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah.

13 . Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab at-Talaq, 2/255 .

14 . Muslim, Sahih, Kitab ar-Rada‘, 2/1091.

15 . The Quran 2:229 .

16 . Fath aI-Bari, 9/275.

17 . Fath aI-Bari, 9/275.

18. Rawai‘ al-Bayan, 1/334.

19. A standard book on Islamic Law.

20. Al-Shaokani, Fath al-Qadir, 3/344.

21 . Ibn ‘Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala ad-Durr al-Mukhtar, 2/733.

enforced just as it was in the past, provided that whoever made such a ruling was vested with the same political power as ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. The right to pass an executive order belongs only to an administrator. The common man has no such right, whatever the circumstances, because, he does not have the requisite power to deal with the social consequences of such a ruling.

AFTER DIVORCE

The question that arises immediately after divorce is of ways and means to meet one’s necessary expenses. One’s answer is to resort to the Islamic law of inheritance. If women were to be given their due share according to Islamic law, there would be no question of a woman becoming destitute. But, sad to say, the majority of Muslim women fail to get their due share of inheritance from their deceased fathers and husbands as stipulated by Islamic law. If they could do so, this would be more than enough to meet such emergencies.

However, Islam has not just left women’s financial problems to the vagaries of inheritance, because parents are not invariably in possession of property which can be divided among their children. Further arrangements have been made under the maintenance law, but this has no connection with the law of divorce. The answer to this question must be sought therefore in the Islamic law of maintenance. Here we shall briefly describe some of its aspects:

1. In case the divorced woman is childless, or the children are not earning, according to Islamic law, the responsibility for her maintenance falls on her father. That is, her situation will be the same as it was before marriage.

To quote from Path al-Qadir19:

The Father is responsible for bearing the expenses of his daughter till her marriage, in the event of her having no money. The father has no right to force her to earn, even if she is able to. When the girl is divorced and the period of confinement is over, her father shall again have to bear her expense.20

2. If the divorced woman has a son who is an earning member of the family, the responsibility for her maintenance falls entirely upon him.

shari’ah. The rulings he gave on these occasions were in the nature of executive orders which were consistent with his position as a ruler. If he acted in this manner, it was to punish those who were being hasty in finalizing the divorce procedure.

It is a matter of Islamic historical record that when any such person was brought before ‘Umar for having uttered the word talaq three times on one occasion, he held this to be rebellious conduct, and would order him to be flogged on the back. 17

Perhaps the most important aspect of this matter is that when ‘Umar gave his exceptional verdict on divorce being final after the third utterance on a single occasion of the word talaq, his position was not that of a powerless ‘alim (scholar) but of a ruler invested with the full power to punish—as a preventive measure—anyone who went against Quranic injunctions. This was to discourage haste in divorce. By accepting a man’s three talaqs on the one occasion as final and irrevocable, he caused him to forfeit his right to revoke his initial decision, thus leaving him with no option but to proceed with the divorce.

On the other hand, the Caliph had it in his power to fully compensate any woman affected by this ruling. For instance, he was in a position to guarantee her an honorable life in society and if, due to being divorced, she was in need of financial assistance, he could provide her with continuing maintenance from the government exchequer, baitul mal, etc.

Today, anyone who cites ‘Umar’s ruling as a precedent in order to justify the finality of a divorce based on three utterances of the word talaq on a single occasion should remember that his verdict will remain unenforceable for the simple reason that he does not have the powers that ‘Umar, as Caliph, possessed. ‘Umar’s verdict was that of a powerful ruler of the time and not just that of a common man. It is necessary at this point to clear certain misunderstandings which have arisen about the extent of agreement which existed on ‘Umar’s ruling. Of all the Prophet’s Companions who were present at Medina at that time, perhaps the only one to disagree was ‘Ali. As a result of this, certain ‘ulama have come to the conclusion that the Prophet’s followers (Sahabah) had reached a consensus (‘ijma) on this matter.18

But the consensus reached was not on the general issue of divorce,

home and destroying the children’s future. It is only when tempers have cooled down that the dire consequences of divorce are realized, and the necessity to revoke the decision becomes clear.

When a man marries a woman, he has to say only once that he accepts her as his spouse. But for divorce, the Quran enjoins a threemonth period for it to be finalized. That is, for marriage, one utterance is enough, but for a divorce to be finalized, three utterances are required, between which a long gap has been prescribed by the shari’ah. The purpose of this gap is to give the husband sufficient time to revise his decision, and to consult the well-wishers around him. It also allows time for relative to intervene in the hopes of persuading both husband and wife to avoid a divorce. Without this gap, none of these things could be achieved. That is why divorce proceedings have to be spread out over a long period of time.

All these preventive measures clearly allow frayed tempers to cool, so that the divorce proceedings need not reach a stage which is irreversible. Divorce, after all, has no saving graces, particularly in respect of its consequences. It simply amounts to ridding oneself of one set of problems only to become embroiled in another set of problems.

Despite all such preventive measures, it does sometimes happen that a man acts in ignorance or is rendered incapable of thinking coolly by a fit of anger. Then on a single occasion, in a burst of temper, he utters the word “divorce” three times in a row, “talaq, talaq, talaq!” Such incidents, which took place in the Prophet’s lifetime, still take place even today. Now the question arises as to how the would-be divorcer should be treated. Should his three utterances of talaq be treated as only one, and should he then be asked to extend his decision over a three-month period? Or should his three utterances of talaq on a single occasion be equated with the three utterances of talaq made separately over a three-month period? There is a hadith recorded by Imam Abu Dawud and several other traditionists which can give us guidance in this matter: Rukana ibn Abu Yazid said “talaq” to his wife three times on a single occasion. Then he was extremely sad at the step he had taken. The Prophet asked him exactly how he had divorced her. He replied that he had said “talaq” to her three times in a row. The Prophet then observed, “All three count as only one. If you want, you may revoke it.” 16

of this maxim and consciously adopt it as the main guiding principle in their lives, they will have a far better chance of their marriage remaining stable.

However, it sometimes happens, with or without reason, that unpleasantness crops up, and goes on increasing between husband and wife, with no apparent indication of their being able to smooth things out by themselves. Their thinking about each other in a way that is conditioned by their maladjustment prevents them from arriving at a just settlement of their differences, based on facts rather than on opinions. In such a case, the best strategy according to the Quran is to introduce a third party who will act as an arbiter. Not having any previous association with the matters under dispute, he will remain dispassionate and will be able to arrive at an objective decision acceptable to both parties.

For any arbiter to be successful, however, the husband and wife must also adopt the correct attitude. Here is an incident from the period of the four pious Caliphs which will illustrate this point.

When ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib reigned as fourth Caliph, a married couple complaining of marital discord came to him to request a settlement. In the light of the above-mentioned Quranic guidance ‘Ali ordered that a board of arbiters, one from the husband’s family and one from the wife’s family, be set up, which should make proper enquiries into the circumstances and then give its verdict. This verdict was to be accepted without argument by both sides.

As recorded in the book, Jami’ al-Bayan, by at-Tabari, the woman said that she gave her consent, on the book of God, whether the verdict was for or against her. But the man protested that he would not accept the verdict if it was for separation. ‘Ali-said, “What you say is improper. By God, you cannot move from here until you have shown your willingness to accept the verdict of the arbiters in the same spirit as the woman has shown.”

This makes it clear that a true believer should wholeheartedly accept the arbiters and their verdict in accordance with the Quranic injunctions. Once their verdict is given, there should be no further dispute.

In various ways God helps such distressed people. For example, when a woman is divorced, it is but natural that the sympathy of all her blood relations should be aroused. And, as a result, without any pressure being put on them, they are willing to help and look after her. Besides, a new willpower is awakened in such a woman and she sets about exploiting her hidden potentialities, thus solving her problems independently. Furthermore, previous experiences having left her wiser and more careful, she feels better equipped to enter into another marital relationship with more success.

DIVORCE IN ISLAM

Nature demands that men and women lead their lives together. The ideal way of leading such a life is, according to the shari’ah, within the bond of marriage. In Islam, marriage is both a civil contract entered into by mutual consent of the bride and groom, and a highly sacred bond to which great religious and social importance is attached. As an institution, it is a cohesive force in society, and worth protecting and preserving for that reason. To that end, detailed injunctions have been prescribed to maintain its stability and promote its betterment.

However, in the knowledge that an excess of legal constraints can lead to rebellion, such injunctions have been kept to a realistic minimum and have been formulated to be consistent with normal human capabilities. Moreover, their enforcement is less relied upon than the religious conditioning of the individual to ensure the maintenance of high ethical standards and appropriate conduct in marital affairs and family life.

The state of marriage not only lays the foundations for family life, but also provides a training ground for individuals to make a positive adjustment to society. When a man and woman prove to be a good husband and a good wife, they will certainly prove to be good citizens in the broad spectrum of their social group. This has been aptly expressed in a hadith: “The best of you is one who is best for his family.”10

The family being the preliminary unit for the training of human beings, its disintegration has an injurious effect on the society to which those human beings must individually make a positive contribution,

must have scholars to act on her behalf is that women are more emotional than men—as has been proved by scientific research—and it is to prevent hasty and ill-considered divorces taking place that she is thus advised. If we seldom hear of Muslim women committing suicide, or being murdered by their in-laws, it is because they have the alternative—separation.

Separation, of course, is strongly advised against in the case of minor provocations. Are we not commanded by God to be tolerant and forgiving? It is meant only as a last resort, when it has become truly unavoidable.

Islamic law is thus fair to both husband and wife, unlike occidental law, which places an undue burden on the man, while Hindu society forces the woman into familial rejection, destitution and social ostracism.

“THE MOST HATEFUL OF ALL LAWFUL THINGS”

While marriage is the rule of life, and divorce only an exception, the latter must also be accepted as a reality. Indeed, there already exist commandments to deal, accordingly, with such cases in both divine and human laws.

The only true, authentic representation of divine law now exists in the form of the Quran, it having been preserved in its entirety by God and free, therefore, from all human interpolations. In the Quran, and in the Hadith, there are various commandments regarding divorce, the main point being that divorce should be sought only under unavoidable circumstances. The Prophet spoke of it as being the most hateful of all the lawful things in the eyes of God, and said that when it does take place, it should be done in an atmosphere of good will. In no way should one harbor ill-will against the other.6

THE MEANING OF PROVISION

In Islamic jurisprudence, the material arrangements which a man makes for his divorced spouse are termed “divorce provision.” There is a consensus among Muslim scholars that this provision in no way means life-long maintenance, there being absolutely no basis for this

who had to resort to divorce. But when people began to realize that divorce inevitably led one into financial straits, the marriage bond began to be dispensed with altogether. Men and women simply started to live together without going through the formality of the marriage ceremony. Now more than fifty percent of the younger generation prefers to live in an unmarried state.

It was only natural that a reaction should have set in against a law which so patently disfavored men and brought corruption, perversion and all kinds of misery in its wake. Children—even newborn babies— were the greatest sufferers.

Now take the situation prevailing in Hindu society, in which the extreme difficulty of divorce acts as a deterrent. Obviously, this was a bid to reform, but this has served only to aggravate the matter. The ancient Indian religious reformers held that separation was illegal: they even prohibited women from remarrying, so that they would be left with no incentive to seek divorce. The laws were made in such a way that once marriage ceremonies were finalized, neither could a man divorce his wife, nor was it possible for a woman to remarry after leaving her former husband.

But such reformations were unnatural and have been generally detrimental to individuals in Hindu society. When a man and a woman are unable to satisfy one another, the whole of their lives is passed in great bitterness because of there being no provision for remarriage. They are doomed to continue to live a tormented life alongside partners with whom they have nothing in common. I shall cite here only one of the hundreds and thousands of such instances which are reported in newspapers almost every day leaving aside those cases which go unreported. Manu, 25 , was a cousin of Khushwant Singh. He has written in detail about her tragedy in his “Malice” column.5 Manu had a flourishing business selling ready-made garments in Los Angeles. As she did not want to marry a foreigner, she decided to come to India to find a husband and return with him to the States. She found her own husband in a tall, handsome, powerfully built Hindu boy who was anxious to go abroad. The marriage took place with all pomp and splendor in a five-star hotel. It took her some months to arrange for her husband’s visa, during which time she maintained him and paid for his passage. The marriage was a disaster. The boy turned out

Concerning Divorce

When a man and a woman bind themselves together by tying the knot of marriage, they cherish the hope of living together for the whole of the rest of their lives. Then, when nature blesses their union with a child, it strengthens the bond of marriage, providing a guarantee of its greater depth and stability. On the basis of data collected in western countries, the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1984 confirms this with the statement that “childless couples tend to have a higher divorce rate than couples with children.”1

A divorce court judge in the West holds that “every little youngster born to a couple is an added assurance that their marriage will never be dissolved in a divorce court.”2

In spite of these apparently favorable psychological factors and natural, traditional attachments of parents and children, the rising incidence of divorce is a new and observable phenomenon of the modern world. One of the most important contributing factors is the ease with which women can now make a living. On this the Encyclopaedia Britannica says: “Industrialization has made it easier for women to support themselves, whether they are single, married, divorced, or widowed. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Great Depression of the 1930s stopped the rise in the number of divorces in the United States for a time.”3

In the modern age, western civilization has been beset by many problems, many of which are more artificial than real. In many things western civilization has adopted unnatural ways, thus giving rise to unnatural problems. The matter has further been worsened by attempts to solve them unnaturally. Problems have thus gone on increasing instead of decreasing. The problem of divorce is one of them. The initial stimulus of the women’s liberation movement in the West was not wrong, but its leaders did not care to define its limits. In a bid to make

real problem is not whether or not to adopt polygamy. The real problem is whether or not to legalize its adoption. The problem of surplus women in society can be solved only by polygamy, whether we choose to consider it legal or not.

THE ISLAMIC WAY

The solution to this problem in the Islamic shari’ah is the giving of permission to men, under special conditions, to marry more than one woman. This principle of polygamy as enshrined in the Islamic shari’ah is designed, in actual fact, to save women from the ignoble consequences mentioned above. This commandment, although apparently general in application, was given only as a solution to a specific social problem. It provides an arrangement whereby surplus women may save themselves from sexual anarchy and have a proper stable family life. That is to say, it is not a question of adopting polygamy rather than monogamy. The choice is between polygamy and sexual anarchy.

If the commandment to practice polygamy is seen in the abstract, it would appear to be biased in favor of men. But when placed in the context of social organization, it is actually in favor of women. Polygamy is both a proper and a natural solution to women’s problems.

The permission to practice polygamy in Islam was not given in order to enable men to satisfy their sexual urges. It was designed as a practical strategy to solve a particular problem. Marrying more than one woman is possible only when there are more women than men. Failing this, it is out of the question. Is it conceivable that Islam, just to satisfy man’s desires, would give us a commandment which is neither possible nor practical?

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984) aptly concludes that one reason for adopting polygamy is the surplus of women. Among most peoples who permit or prefer it, the large majority of men live in a state of monogamy because of the limited number of women. 11

To have more than one wife is not an ideal in Islam. It is, in essence, a practical solution to a social problem.

Burairah said to the Prophet, ‘Is that a command?’ The Prophet replied, ‘No, it is only a recommendation.’ Then Burairah said, ‘I don’t need your recommendation.’”8

There was an interesting case of polygamy which took place during the Caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. A certain widow, Umm Aban bint ‘Utbah had four suitors for marriage. All four—‘Umar ibn alKhattab, ‘Ali ibn abi Talib, Zubayr and Talhah—were already married. Umm Aban accepted the proposal of marriage made by Talhah and, of course, refused the other three, whereupon she was married to Talhah.9

This happened in Medina, the capital of the Islamic State. Among the rejected suitors was the reigning Caliph. But no one expressed even surprise or dismay, the reason being that in Islam, a woman is completely free to make her own decisions. This is a right that no one can take away from her-— not even the ruler of the day.

These incidents show that the Islamic commandments giving permission to marry up to four women does not mean having the right to seize four women and shut them up inside one’s home. Marriage is a matter of mutual consent. Only that woman can be made a second or a third wife who is willing to be so. And when this matter rests wholly on the willingness of the woman, there is no cause for objection.

The present age gives great importance to freedom of choice. This value is fully supported by Islamic law. On the other hand, the upholders of “feminism” want to turn freedom of choice into restriction of choice.

THE SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM RATHER THAN A COMMANDMENT

The above discussion makes it clear that the difference in number of men and women is a permanent problem existing in both war and peace. Now the question arises as to how to solve this problem. What should those women do to satisfy their natural urges when they have failed to find a husband in a monogamous society? And how are they to secure an honorable life in that society?

One way—hallowed in Indian tradition—is for widows to burn

The proportionately higher numbers of women in society can be traced to a variety of causes. For instance, when war breaks out, the majority of the casualties are men. In the First World War (1914-18) about 8 million soldiers were killed. Most of the civilians killed were also men. In the Second World War (1939-45) about 60 million people were either killed or maimed for life, most of them men. In the IraqIran war alone (1979-1988), 82 ,000 Iranian women and about 100,000 Iraqi women were widowed. All in the space of ten years.

Another drain on the availability of men in society is imprisonment. In the U.S., the most civilized society of modern times, no less than 1,300,000 people are convicted daily for one crime or another. A number of them— 97 % of whom are men—are obliged to serve lengthy prison sentences.3

The modem industrial system too is responsible for the lower proportion of men in society, death by accident having become a matter of daily routine in present times. There is no country in which accidents do not take place every day on the streets, in the factories and wherever sophisticated, heavy machinery is handled by human beings. In this modern industrial age, such accidents are so much on the increase that a whole new discipline has come into being—safety engineering. According to data collected in 1967, in that year a total of 175,000 people died as the result of accidents in fifty different countries. Most of these were men.4

In spite of safety engineering, casualties from industrial accidents have increased. For instance, the number of air accidents in 1988 was higher than ever before. Similarly, experimentation in arsenals continues to kill people in all industrialized countries, but the death toll is never made public. Here again, it is men who have the highest casualty rate.

For reasons of this nature, women continue to outnumber men. This difference persists in even the most developed societies, e.g. in America. According to data collected in 1967, there were nearly 7,100,000 more women than men. This means that even if every single man in America got married, 7,100,000 women would be left without husbands.

We give below the data of several western countries to show the ratio of men to women.5

Polygamy and Islam

In terms of the birth rate, men and women are almost equal in number. But subsequently, for a variety of reasons, the number of men in society decreases, leaving an excess of women. Now the question arises as to what the solution to this problem should be. In view of the inevitability of this imbalance, how is a healthy relationship between the sexes to be established? The choice for us, therefore, is not between monogamy and polygamy, but rather, between the lawful polygamy of Islam or the illicit polygamy of non-Islamic peoples.

One of the commandments given in the Quran as a matter of social organization concerns polygamy, that is permission for a man to marry up to four women:

If you fear that you cannot treat orphans with fairness, then you may marry such women (widowed) as seem good to you: two, three or four of them. But if you fear that you cannot do justice, marry one only.1

This verse was revealed after the Battle of Uhud (Shawwal 3 A.H.) in which seventy Muslims were martyred. Suddenly, seventy homes in Medina were bereft of all male members, and the question arose as to how all these widows and orphans were to be cared for. This was an acute social problem. It was solved by the revelation of this verse asking the people who could afford it to take care of the orphans, by marrying the widows and keeping their orphaned children under their guardianship.

The background and wording of this verse appear to express a commandment which should be only temporary in effect. That is to say that it applied only to a particular state of emergency when, due to loss of men in battle, the number of women exceeded the number of available men. But the Quran, despite its having been revealed at a particular time and place, is universal in its application. One of the

The guidance of Islam regarding the relationship between husband and wife, is, in some respects, based on this principle. From the physiological standpoint, the woman is the weaker and the man the stronger party. That is why in its guidelines Islam keeps this difference in mind, so that more and more harmony and cooperation may build up between the two, and the task of home building may proceed smoothly and without any hindrance.

While Islam enjoins women to become obedient to their husbands, the Quran says that virtuous women are already obedient to their husbands. 26 ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas has interpreted this verse in these words: “women obedient to their husbands.” 27

What is intended by making women obedient to their husbands is to cultivate in them the kind of fine temperament that will make them true partners to their husbands. This will result in a positive and constructive atmosphere at home rather than one of confrontation and discord. An obedient wife wins the heart of her husband and thus gains the upper hand. Hers is the highest place at home. A disobedient wife, on the contrary, keeps quarrelling with her husband so that her whole life in consequence is marred with bitterness.

So far as men are concerned, Islam aims at cultivating fair mindedness on all occasions. Being the maintainer of the house, the man should not lose sight of the fact that after death he will be faced with the greatest of the Lords and Masters. There he will not be able to justify himself for being hard to those who were under him in the world, while those who were kind to people under them will be given kind treatment by God. Here is a hadith to this effect, related by ‘Aishah: The Prophet said, “The best of you is one who is best for his family, and I am best of all of you for my family.” 28

According to this hadith home is not a place for ruling, but a place for training. One who does well in the system of his home, will prove to be good for the whole of society and the nation. On the other hand, one who is bad for his home will be bad for the whole of society and the nation. The former is a blessing for the vaster humanity while the latter is a curse.

The rights of men and women, in reality, are not a matter of legal lists, but rather it is a matter of good living. The points or the lists mentioned here are not exhaustive. They are only pointers to what

After facing the hardship of the outside world, the man comes back home. Now the best wife is one who can bring him comfort and cheer. She should become a regular source of solace to her husband. Even when, on occasion, he asks her to do something without explaining all the pros and cons, she should—if she is a successful life partner—create no trouble over this at home, but do her utmost to see that her husband’s plans come to fruition. Her husband should also be able to trust her personally in her conduct, and rest assured that all his belongings will be properly looked after by her. The loyal wife then becomes the husband’s trustee in the fullest sense of the word.

As well as being a comfort to her husband, she has to act as his deputy at home. The best kind of woman is one who fulfills both these responsibilities. There is a hadith which very aptly says: “Of the worldly goods, there is nothing better than a virtuous wife.” 21

GIVING IMPORTANCE TO THE INWARD RATHER THAN THE OUTWARD

On the subject of their wives, the Quran enjoins men: “Treat them with kindness; for even if you do dislike them it may well be that you may dislike a thing which God has meant for your own good.” 22

The same point has been made in a hadith: “No believing man should hate a believing woman. Even if he does not like one of her habits, another of her ways will be of his liking.” 23 To put it differently, this teaching means that even if outwardly unpleasant, a wife should not cause aversion, because God has not made anyone imperfect in all respects. All men and women, if deficient in some respects are gifted in other respects.

Once, a newly married man found when he brought his wife home that she was not gifted with feminine graces. Instead of having a slender figure she was stout like a man. He was put off by her not being slim as he would have liked. But events soon took a strange turn. Having met with an accident, he was not able to work hard. Now his stout wife decided to support her husband and worked hard to make money. Being sturdy, she succeeded in earning money as well as looking after the home. In this way the family suffered no setback. Now the husband realized that the woman he had taken as a curse was indeed a blessing

Having more experience of the outside world, a man is somewhat more broad-minded than a woman. His thinking is more realistic. A woman’s thinking, on the contrary, is often marked by limitations. She easily falls prey to emotion. She inherits this as part of her nature, and so far as her sphere of home-based activity is concerned, her limitations or emotions are in no way a deficiency. However, a woman must be aware of her natural shortcomings. She can advise the man, but inflexible insistence on her part is not proper.

The system of the house is similar to a miniature democracy. But every democratic system has a leader. And according to shari’ah the leader of the democracy at home is the man.

THE GUARDING OF THE SECRET

Another right of man over woman has been described in the Quran in these words: “... and guard in (the husband’s) absence what God would have them guard.” 16

Woman is man’s garment. Just as a garment is closest to man so a woman is closest to man. A husband and a wife are the only companions between whom there is no secret even of hidden parts.

Due to this close relation a woman comes to have access to all of man’s secrets. She comes to learn the most private and concealed facts of his life. This is a delicate state of affairs. Every man has his secrets. He dislikes their being brought to the knowledge of others. But a man cannot hide these things from his wife. So, he makes no effort to do so. Such an attempt would neither be useful nor practically possible.

The solution offered by the Islamic shari’ah is to make it binding upon the woman to guard the man’s secrets. In no circumstances may she reveal them to others. If she shows carelessness in this regard, she should fear God for revealing her secrets to others. If God unveils her in the next life, no one will ever be able to come to her rescue.

It is a fact that when two people live together, it is inevitable that differences and complaints will arise. Keeping this fact in mind, the Quranic injunction on the guarding of man’s secrets specifies that, even if a woman bears her husband a grudge it will still be unlawful for her to reveal his secrets. Even if she has differences with her

mentioned verse ( 4:34 ) means that everyone is superior to others in some particular respect. The distinguishing features required for becoming a maintainer (qawwam) are more numerous in men than in women, that is why he has been selected as the qawwam of the house. Conversely, the distinguishing features required for maintaining the home, for the bringing up and training of new generations are more numerous in women than in men. It is due to this kind of superiority in women that they have been entrusted with the internal affairs of the home.

A woman has a legal right to maintenance, which devolves upon her husband. If he fails in this regard, the woman can receive it through the court. The amount of maintenance will, however, be fixed in relation to the man’s means. If his income is low, the amount of maintenance will be reduced, and if it is high, the rate of maintenance will go up.

PROPER BEHAVIOR

Man has been bound at all events to treat women kindly:

Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing and God brings about through it a great deal of good.9

This shows that man has been bound to behave gently with women not only in pleasant, but also in unpleasant circumstances. This is an absolute injunction applying to all situations. A man has to be kind to his wife, whether or not she is to his liking.

The injunction on gentle behaviour with women is so important that this is held to be the essential condition for having more than one wife. That is the permission to have more than one wife is given only to those who can treat all of them with perfect justice. The Quran says: “But if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them) then only one.”10

The Quranic injunction of “gentle behavior” 11 covers all those things human nature demands, and whatever is considered necessary, by reason or by the shari’ah. This fair treatment is considered so important in Islam that the Prophet said: “The best among you is one who is best for his family.” 12

A RELIGION OF NATURE

Islam being a religion of nature, its teachings are based on simple principles of nature. When these principles are earnestly adhered to, the family becomes a cradle of peace and amity.

Many details have been formulated by the jurists of Islam regarding the relationship between men and women. Here we are not concerned with legal details. I would like here to state only those basic principles which are laid down in the Quran and the Hadith, which serve as the basis of the Islamic way of life. (Legal details are available in all the standard books, which may be consulted by anyone who is interested in the legal aspects of marriage.)

THE POSITION OF MAN VIS-A-VIS WOMAN

When a man and a woman enter into the marital bond, they bring into existence a social unit called the family. Like any other social unit, this requires an organizer or supervisor. For this special role, Islam has chosen man.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has made some of them to excel others, and because they support them from their means.6

Making man the maintainer in no way indicates that man is superior to woman. This choice is based on man’s capacities for management rather than on his superiority. In a democratic system, everyone has been granted an equal status yet when a government is formed, one particular individual is entrusted with supreme political power. This does not mean that this possessor of power is superior to other citizens. In a democratic system, the president or the prime minister has one vote like all the other citizens. Even then, in the interest of good management authority is entrusted to a single individual.

Except for man’s role as manager, man and woman have completely equal status. For instance, if a woman kills a man, and the crime is proved, the woman will be required to pay the penalty (Quran, 2: 178 ). Similarly, as a hadith tells us, if a man kills a woman, after the crime is proved, “Verily the man will be killed for having killed a woman.”7

The Rights of Husband and Wife

The Quran states: “They (women) are your garments. And you (men) are their garments.”1 These words from the holy scriptures define how men and women relate to each other—like body and its garments. Without garments a body is meaningless, and without a body garments are meaningless. The two must go together, for apart they have little reason to exist. This symbolizes the closeness of the two sexes in the material and. spiritual senses.

How beautiful a bird appears with its feathers, but if all the feathers are to be removed, it would be totally disfigured. The importance of the feather to the bird is similar to the importance of the garment to a man. A man without a garment is just like a bird without its feathers.

This example of garments shows the great importance men and women have for each other, (or, without each other, they are incomplete. They are the closest of companions—a relationship which is both natural and inevitable. Each derives strength from the other, and each act as a shield for the other. They are described by a commentator of the Quran as “fitting into each other as a garment fits the body.”2 Men and women were created to find sexual attraction in one another. The Quran makes this point in these words:

And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): Verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.3

It is in the context of this natural relationship that men and women are attracted to each other. This attraction finds expression in the free mixing of men and women. But this goes against the human grain. A man would normally want whatever belonged to him to be

Notes

1. The Quran, 4:19 .

2. The Quran, 2:228 .

3. The Quran, 4:7 .

4. The Quran, 30:21 .

5. The Quran, 40:40 .

6. The Quran, 4:124 .

7. The Quran, 16:97 .

8. The Quran, 9:71 .

9. The Quran, 3:195 .

10. Kanz al-‘Ummal, 16/371.

11 . Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 1/636.

12 . Muslim, Sahih, Kitab ar-Rada‘, 2/1091.

13 . At-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Abwab ar-Rada‘, 2/1091.

14 . An-Nasa’i, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 6/68 .

15 . Ibid., 6/69 .

16 . Abu Dawud, Sunan.

17 . At-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Abwab at-Tafsir, 11/238.

18. Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 1/596.

19. AI-Haythami, Majma‘ al-Zawa’id wa Manba‘ al-Fawa’id, Kitab an-Nikah, 4/273.

20. AI-Bukhari, Sahih, Kitab an-Nikah, (Fath al-Bari, 9/206-207).

21 . Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab at-Taharah, 1/61.

22 . Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab al-Manasik, 2/1025.

23 . Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, AI-Jami‘ as-Saghir fi Ahadith al-Bashir an-Nadhir, 1/536.

24 . Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab al-Adab, 4/338.

25 . Ibid., 4/337.

26 . Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab al-Adab, 2/1209-10.

27 . At-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Abwab al-Birr was-Silah, 8/105.

28 . Quran, 3:195 .

29 . Quran, 33:35 .

30. Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab al-Jihad, 3/5 .

31 . The Quran, 22:46 .

32 . The Quran, 4:1 .

33 . Bible, Genesis, 2:21-23 .

34 . The Quran, 16:72

35 . The Quran, 30:21 .

36 . The Quran, 42:11 .

37 . AI-Bukhari, Sahih, Kitab an-Nikah (Fath al-Bari, 9/207).

38 . Ibid., 9/207.

39 . Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Kitab al-Adab, (Fath al-Bari, 10/454).

40. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), 19/907.

41 . Criminal Appeal No. 103-1981—dated April 23, 1985.

42 . Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Kitab as-Salah, (Fath al-Bari, 2/160 ).

43 . The Quran, 3:195 .

44 . Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Kitab al-Libas, (Fath al-Bari, 10/273).

45 . The Quran, 4:21 .

46 . Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 1/593.

47 . The Quran, 4:19 .

48 . Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Kitab al-Adab (Fath al-Bari, 10/329-330).

49 . The Quran, 4:20 .

50. Al-Baihaqi, as-Sunan al-Kubra, Kitab as-Sudaq, 7/533.

51 . Kanz al-‘Ummal, 16/411.

circumstances was, as it were, an unconscious process stimulated by my mother’s training. This capacity for detachment having become a permanent trait in all of us, we were able to steer clear of confrontations, and chose instead a course of action which should be free of disputes. We three brothers may all have followed different paths, but our basic attitude remained unaltered. That is to say that we studiously ignored the injustice of our immediate environment and endeavored to pursue a morally correct course of action in the broader spectrum of the outside world. If we were deprived by man, we would seek from God. My elder brother, Abdul Aziz Khan, went into business when he grew up, “emigrating” to the town of Azamgarh in 1944. At the outset, he had a long, hard struggle, for he never borrowed, never accepted credit. Only after 40 years of strenuous effort, did he attain the position of Chairman of the Light & Company Ltd., an Allahabad firm which produces electrical goods. From being considered the least important member of our very large family after father’s death, he became its most respected member. He even succeeded in having his share of the family lands restored to him by having the property re-divided in a just manner. The most noteworthy feature of this redistribution is that he caused it to come about without once resorting to litigation.

My younger brother, who opted for scientific studies, received his degree in engineering from the Benaras Hindu University. He later entered the Department of Technical Education run by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, from which he retired as Deputy Director. By virtue of his hard work, faultless character and principled life, he commanded the respect of his whole department.

As for myself, I was interested in religious education, having been initially educated in an Arabic school. I later worked hard to learn the English language and made a thorough study of whatever academic literature was available to me in English. Now, by the grace of God, I am able to work in a positive and constructive manner, as I am sure the readers of my works will confirm.

One special aspect of my work—the call to Muslims to rise above negative thinking and become more positive in their approach — has found an effective vehicle in the Al-Risala monthly which I started in 1976. Al-Risala’s mission has, by the grace of God, assumed

four walls of her home—such as it was—she contrived to influence the external world. She gained the upper hand over her circumstances where such circumstances might well have proved too overwhelming. The most remarkable feature of her attainments is that she succeeded in achieving, within the limits set for her by Islam, all those objectives for which it is now considered necessary to make women emerge from the Islamic fold—in the process, divesting themselves of their essentially feminine virtues.

Whatever she did, she did in the true spirit of Islam. Instead of turning to man, she turned to God. Instead of thinking in terms of the world, she focused her attention on the hereafter. All her actions were perfectly in consonance with traditional religious thinking. She had received no such higher education as would have led her to consider the philosophical implications of the course she took. But now, at the mature age of 60, when I look at her strivings through the eyes of a scholar, I see in them the manifestations of human greatness. Even if she had left her home in quest of such higher education as would have fitted her for a post in some secular organization, I do not think she could have done any better for us than she did. Even to imagine her taking such a course of action is quite meaningless.

My mother’s sacrifices made it possible for her not only to give us a satisfactory upbringing, but also to demonstrate what the Islamic bent of mind—positive thinking and a realistic approach—is capable of achieving. My brothers and I were greatly influenced by the example she set. In fact, this was the greatest gift that she could have bestowed upon us. In giving us this awareness of the virtues of Islam, she fulfilled the duties of both father and mother.

I can still recall that after my father’s death, a maternal uncle, Shaikh Abdul Ghafur, used to pay us frequent visits. A great expert in legal matters, he insisted that my mother should file a suit to recover the land which had been willed to her by her father, but which relatives by marriage were unwilling to relinquish. He assured her that all she had to do was to append her signature to the legal documents relevant to her claim on the land and that he would do whatever else was required. He promised her that she would soon have control of all the land of which she was the rightful owner. He continued to pay

My father, Fariduddin Khan, died when I was very young —on December 30, 1929, to be exact. He was the biggest landlord in that part of the country, with lands spread over several villages. One day, on a routine visit to his farm in Newada, he suffered a paralytic stroke, fell unconscious and had to be carried home on a bedstead. There could be no words of final parting, for he passed away the next day without having regained consciousness. My mother, quite suddenly, found herself a widow. I had two brothers and two sisters. My elder brother, Abdul Aziz Khan, was barely 8 years old, I was 5 and my younger brother was just one year old. My sisters were older, but not even in their teens. Both of my sisters died during my mother’s lifetime. By the grace of God my younger brother and I are still alive. My elder brother died in June 1988.

The death of our father at that time was a great blow, not only because we had lost a loving parent, but because of the treatment we received at the hands of certain members of our joint family. After father’s death, these relatives took over the management of the entire family property. My grandfather, under the joint family system, was the person who had actually been entrusted with the management of the farm. But he was so honest that he would not take a single penny more than what was actually required to meet the barest of necessities. After his death, those who then took charge of the orchard exceeded all limits of injustice in their treatment of us. From being landowners of some substance, we suddenly found ourselves landless. There was no easy way out of our problems.

Our family home had been very commodious, but after father’s death, we found ourselves in a disused, half-ruined stable. We lacked even the basic necessities of life and were unable even to find enough money to buy food. At this juncture, people began to advise my mother to remarry, or return to her parents’ home, or go to court to recover the land which was lawfully hers. But mother refused to follow any of this advice. Like the brave Muslim woman that she was, she resolved to face up to those circumstances on her own. This decision was backed up by just two things: faith in God and hard work.

Although my mother’s parents owned a vast tract of land, 20 acres100 of which had been willed to her by her father, she never demanded her share of the land, nor did she seek any help from the

replied in the affirmative, Abu ad-Dahdah took him by the hand, and said, “I hereby lend my orchard to God.”

Abu ad-Dahdah’s orchard was a sizeable one with six hundred date palms and, at the time he donated it to the cause of Islam, his wife, Umm ad-Dahdah, was staying in it with her children. Nevertheless, having made his pledge to the Prophet, Abu ad-Dahdah came to the orchard, called his wife and told her that she would have to leave, as it had been loaned to God. Umm ad-Dahdah’s reaction was that he had made a good bargain. That is, that God would reward him many times over in the hereafter. So saying, she left the orchard with her children, taking with her all her bags and baggage. 99

From this incident we can gather that Umm ad-Dahdah worked on the date orchard. There are many such incidents in the early phase of Islam (the exemplary phase) which show that certainly women were not confined indoors. They certainly went out in order to attend to many necessary outdoor duties. However, one point should be made clear: these outdoor activities of women were not engaged in entertainment but as a matter of necessity. They were meant to build up the family on proper lines and were in no sense intended to establish women’s equality with men in the outside world.

WOMEN’S POSITION

The honorable position accorded by Islam to woman is symbolically demonstrated by the performance of the rite of sa’i, as an important part of the pilgrimage to Mecca, made at least once in a lifetime as a religious duty by all believers who can afford the journey. The rite of sa’i is performed by running back and forth seven times between Safa and Marwah, two hillocks near the Ka ‘bah. This running, enjoined upon every pilgrim, be they rich or poor, literate or illiterate, Kings or commoners, is in imitation of the desperate quest of Hajar (Hagar), Abraham’s wife, for water to quench the thirst of her crying infant when they arrived in this dry desert country, four thousand years ago, at God’s behest, long before there was any such city as Mecca. (God’s aim in leading Abraham and his wife and child to this barren, inhospitable land was to bring into being a live community which, free of all superstitions and all other corruptions of civilization, would play

Jew who is walking all around our fort is a danger to us, because he might go and inform the Jews of the insecure position we are in. The Prophet and his Companions are in the thick of battle, so it is your duty to go down and kill him.’ But Hassan replied, ‘By God, you know I am not fit for such a task.’”

At this, she tied a cloth round her waist, picked up a stick, went down to the outside of the fort and beat the man to death. “This done, I came back inside the fort and asked Hassan ibn Thabit to bring the things the Jew had on him, as I, a woman, did not want to touch him. Hassan ibn Thabit replied, ‘Daughter of Abdul Muttalib, I have no need of his possessions.’”90

THE SUCCOR OF GOD

In the sixth year of Hijrah, a 10-year peace treaty was concluded at alHudaybiyyah, one article of which specified that anyone emigrating to Muhammad’s camp without the permission of his guardian would have to be returned to Mecca; whereas any Muslim emigrating from Muhammad’s camp to Mecca would not have to be returned. 91 This was adhered to in the case of men, one notable instance was that of Suhayl ibn ‘Amr’s son, Abu Jandal, who in spite of having walked 13 miles from Mecca to al-Hudaybiyyah in a badly injured condition with his feet in shackles, was promptly returned to his persecutors. Similarly, other Muslims having managed to free themselves from Quraysh were returned one after another. 92 This pact, however, was not regarded as covering the case of Muslim women. This verse of the Quran was revealed on this occasion:

Believers, when believing women seek refuge with you, test them. God best knows their faith. If you find them true believers, do not return them to the infidels. 93

Many incidents have been recorded of women managing to free themselves from the clutches of the Quraysh, coming to Medina, and then not being returned to the Quraysh in spite of the latter invoking the terms of the peace treaty. For example, when Umm Kulthum bint ‘Uqbah ibn Abu Mu’ayt escaped to Medina, she was not returned even when two of her brothers came to take her back. 94 The Quraysh considered this refusal a violation of the pact and quickly seized this

his sense of honor. To this Zubayr replied. “By God, your carrying date stones home on your head is harder for me to bear than that.” 84

Such instances of how women toiled during their stay in Medina are numberless. At that time women worked not only in their homes, but outside as well. This was because their menfolk were so preoccupied with preaching Islam that there was little time left in which to discharge their household responsibilities. It was left to the women then to deal with both internal and external duties. They even tended the animals, did the farming and worked in the orchards.

THE VIRTUE OF BELIEVING WOMEN

When this verse was revealed in the Quran— “They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the- way of God, unto them give tidings of a painful doom” 85 —then the Prophet said: “Woe to gold, woe to silver.” When the Companions of the Prophet learned of this they were upset. They began to ask one another what things they were going to store then. At that time ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was with them. ‘Umar said, if they liked, he could put this matter to the Prophet. Everyone agreed, so ‘Umar went to the Prophet and said, “The Companions are saying, ‘Could we but learn which kind of wealth is better, we would store that and no other.’ The Prophet said: ‘Everyone should possess a tongue which remembers God, a heart that thanks God and a wife that helps him in his faith.”’ 86 Another version has used the word “Hereafter” for faith.

WOMEN IN EVERY FIELD

Once Umm Salmah was having her hair combed when she heard the sermon starting in the mosque. The Prophet began with the words, “O people ...” On hearing this she told the woman who was combing her hair to braid it just as it was. The woman asked her why she was in such a hurry. Umm Salmah replied, “Are we not counted among ‘people’?” And so saying, she promptly braided her hair herself, went to the comer of the house nearest the mosque and listened to the sermon.

the news of the deaths of all of her sons, she neither wrote elegies, nor did she bewail their passing. Instead, she heard the news with great calm and fortitude, and said: “Thank: God who has awarded me the honor of their martyrdom. I hope God will bring us together in the life Hereafter.” 79

PATIENCE FOR PARADISE

It is related that in the early days of Islam, the Prophet was once passing in the vicinity of Yasir and his family in Mecca when they were being subjected to the violence of the Quraysh. When Yasir set eyes on the Prophet, the only question he asked him was, “O Prophet of God, is this all there is to the world?” The Prophet replied, “O family of Yasir, be patient, for you have been promised heaven.”80 Yasir and his wife Summaiyah were the first to succumb to persecution by the Quraysh. Yet, even after seeing the painful fate which his parents had suffered, ‘Ammar, their son, being strong of will, did not flinch from his faith. It is said that ‘Ammar ibn Yasir was the first Meccan Muslim to have built a mosque in his home. It is believed that it is he who is referred to in this verse of the Quran:81

Can he who passes his night in adoration, standing up or on his knees, who dreads the terrors of the life to come and hopes to earn the mercy of his Lord, be compared to the unbeliever? ... Truly, none will take heed but men of understanding. 82

IN THE FIELD OF ACTION The general lot of women in the early days of Islam was frequently a hard one, but they bore themselves with remarkable fortitude and adapted themselves to whatever conditions they found themselves in. One shining example is that of Abu Bakr’s daughter Asma’, who was born 27 years before the Emigration. When she accepted Islam in Mecca, the Muslims were just 17 in number.

When Abu Bakr emigrated to Medina, he possessed 6000 dirhams, all of which he took with him. When his father, Abu Qahafa, beard of this, he came to his family to console them and said, “I think that

The Prophet, dismayed at the resentment shown by the Muslims, returned to his tent and to the company of his wife, Umm Salmah. Seeing him look so grieved, she asked him what ailed him. The Prophet then told her of this unprecedented refusal to obey his order. Umm Salmah then said, “O Messenger of God, if you are convinced that your judgement is right, you should go outside, and, without a word to anyone, slaughter your animal and shave you head.” 76

The Prophet did exactly as she had suggested. He went out, sacrificed his animal and shaved his head. When the people saw what he had done, they immediately began to follow suit.

Their anguish was so great that it seemed they would cut one another’s heads as they began to shave them after the sacrifice.

The reason that Khadijah and Umm Salmah were able to arrive at a correct judgment in such delicate situations was that they were detached from them and, therefore, in a position to offer objective opinions. If they too had been seriously involved, they might have been too subjective in their thinking.

WOMAN—AS A SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE

There is a famous saying of the Prophet that the acquisition of knowledge is the duty of all Muslims. 77 In this saying, the word muslim is in the masculine form, muslimah being the feminine form, but the work of scholars carried out on the traditions makes it clear that muslimah may be legitimately inferred. That means that the acquisition of knowledge is likewise the duty of Muslim women.

In the biographies of the narrators of Hadith literature, mention is made of the academic services of women, which is a clear indication that during the first era of Islam, there was a strong tendency among women to acquire knowledge. The benefits ensuing from their efforts were far-reaching. For example Imam Bukhari, whose al-Jami’ asSahih is by far the most authentic source of Hadith learning, set off, when he was 14 years of age, to acquire knowledge from far distant scholars: if he was in a position to appreciate the lessons given by the great teachers of the time, it was because his mother and sister had given him a sound educational background at home. It is said that Imam ibn Jauzi, the famous religious scholar, received his primary

On hearing this, Khawlah began to lament the ruin of her home and the penury into which she and her children would sink. She also told the Prophet that her husband had not expressly stated that he was divorcing her. But the Prophet could give her no positive answer because he thought that by Arab custom, the separation must already have taken place. Then Khawlah could only weep and pray to God to save her from ruin. 71

It was on this occasion that the surah 58 of the Quran entitled, al-Mujadilah (She Who Pleaded), was revealed. It begins with these words:

God has indeed heard the statement of the woman who pleads with thee concerning her husband, and carries her complaint to God. And God always hears the argument between both sides among you, for God hears and sees all things. 72

On the basis of this revelation, the justice of her plea was recognized, and this iniquitous custom, based as it was on a false set of values, was finally abolished.

Much later, when Khawlah was an old woman, she once met ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, who had by that time become the Caliph of the Islamic Empire. ‘Umar greeted her and she returned his greeting. Then she said: “O ‘Umar, there was a time when I saw you in the marketplace of ‘Ukaz. Then you were called ‘Umayr73 and you would set your goats to grazing with a stick in your hand. Then, the times changed and you came to be called ‘Umar. Later you became the Chief of the Faithful. Be God-fearing in dealing with your subjects and remember, that for one who fears God’s chastisement, a distantly related man is like a close relative; and one who does not fear death risks the loss of all that he seeks to gain.”

One Jarud Abdi, who was in the company of ‘Umar at that time, exclaimed, “O woman, you have been impudent to the Chief of the Faithful!” But ‘Umar immediately silenced him by saying, “Let her speak. You know who she is. She is the one whose plea was heard above the seventh heaven. She, above all others, deserves to be heard out by ‘Umar.” 74

In every age, there is a need not only for men but also for women to devote themselves to the mission of Islam. Ideally, they should be individuals who are willing in the way that Khadijah was, to involve themselves unstintingly in the scheme of God. Such people are like small cogs which revolve strictly according to the motion of a larger wheel—in this case, the will of God. This is undoubtedly a trying task; but it is also one that carries a great reward. To perform this task is “to help God.” There can be no doubt about the excellence and superiority of those whom God chooses to enlist as His helpers.

THE IDEAL LIFE COMPANION

One of Khadijah’s most significant contributions to the furtherance of Islam was the reassurance which she gave to the Prophet on the occasion of his receiving the first divine revelation in the solitude of the Cave of Hira from the Archangel Gabriel. This was an experience which left the Prophet awestruck and trembling with fear. When he returned to his home, he was still overwhelmed by a feeling of dread and, as he entered, he asked Khadijah to wrap him in a blanket. After some time, when in some measure he had regained his mental equilibrium, he related the entire experience to her, expressing his fears that his life was in danger. She hastened to reassure him, and comforted him by observing, “It cannot be. God will surely never forsake you. You are kind to your kin; you always help the weak; you solace the weary; you take care of whoever crosses your threshold; you speak the truth.” 67

Then it occurred to Khadijah that she had best make enquiries of some learned Christians who, well-versed as they were in the scriptures, were bound to have knowledge of revelation and prophethood. She went first to a rahib (hermit) who lived near Mecca. On seeing her, the priest asked, “O noble lady of the Quraysh, what has brought you here?” Khadijah replied, “I have come here to ask you about Gabriel.” To this the rahib said, “Glory be to God, he is God’s pure angel. He visits prophets: he came to Jesus and Moses.” Then Khadijah went to another Christian called Addas. She put the same question to him, and he too told her that Gabriel was an angel of God, the very same who had been with Moses when God

almost half a century, during which period she became a great and authentic source of religious learning for the ummah (community). This was largely thanks to the accuracy with which she had preserved in her memory the speeches, conversations and sayings of the Prophet. In all, she related about 2210 of his sayings and was extraordinarily gifted in being able to formulate laws from them. It is said that no less than one quarter of the shari’ah injunctions have been derived from her narrations. Her knowledge and deep perception in religious matters was so established that whenever the Companions of the Prophet found themselves in disagreement over any religious matter, they would come to her to seek her assistance. According to Abu Musa ‘Ashari, whenever they were in any doubt as to the meaning of any part of the hadith, they would turn to ‘Aishah. It was seldom that she was unable to solve their problems. 62

Although the Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions her as ‘Aishah, the third wife of the Prophet Muhammad, who played a role of some political importance after the Prophet’s death,’ 63 her real importance is not that of her own individual superiority in Islamic history, but the indication her position gives of the high status women were accorded within the sphere of Islam, and of the vastness of the field in which their talents might honorably be used. It was owing to the distinctive character of Islam that she was able to render such important social and political services.

We present below some additional examples of women who played an effective role in Islam.

TWO REMARKABLE WOMEN

When the Judaic era was drawing to a close, a woman had to be singled out who would in every way be fit to become the mother of one so miraculous in nature as the Prophet Jesus, on whom be peace. God had ordained that the final prophet of the Jewish people was to be born without a father: the character of his mother had, therefore, to be one of irreproachable innocence and chastity. Mary, who subsequently became known as the Virgin Mary, was found to have lived her life according to this exacting standard, and, by her extraordinary chastity, had proved herself fit to be chosen as the mother of Jesus.

AN ADDITIONAL, NOT A SUPERIOR QUALITY

Here is a verse of the Quran which reads: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has made some of them to excel others.” 58

Fadilah is the Arabic word used in the scriptures to indicate the additional, masculine quality of protectiveness. For a household to be properly run, it should, of necessity, have a guardian. Guardianship is rightly entrusted to the family member who is best qualified to undertake this responsibility—namely, the husband, for protectiveness is a virtue which has been granted by nature in greater measure to men than to women. Far from mentioning absolute masculine superiority, the abovequoted verse only implies that man is the master in the home because of the additional attributes with which he has been endowed by nature.

Faddala ba’dahum ‘ala ba’d is an Arabic expression meaning “excelled some on other,” which occurs several times in the Quran. For instance, various kinds of crops and fruits grow from the same soil and water. Of this the Quran says: “And in the land, there are adjoining plots: vineyards and corn fields and palm-groves, the single and the clustered. Yet We make some excel others in taste. Surely in this there are signs for men of understanding.” 59

The following is an excerpt from a commentary on this verse by ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali, well known Commentator on the Quran: “The date palm, the crops of food grains, and the grape-vine are all fed by the same kind of water: yet how different to all vegetation. The fruit or eatable produce may vary in shape, size, colour, flavour, etc. in endless variety.”60

All Commentators on the Quran have placed emphasis on this difference and variety, rather than on some fruits being superior, in an absolute sense, to some others. That is to say, each fruit has some particular quality to it as regards color, and taste, which is not found in other fruits. Similarly, there are differences between men and women. Just as women have uniquely feminine qualities, so also do men have uniquely masculine qualities.

That is why God enjoins us not to be jealous of others’ qualities:

Do not covet the favors by which God has exalted some of you above

When the rot of perversion sets in at home, the whole of society is affected and, ultimately, it is the entire nation which has to bear the brunt of it. The only reason for this widespread moral degeneration is the violation of the sanctity of marriage, which has come to be regarded as an unwelcome bond.

WOMEN IN POSITIONS OF POWER

A film called Kisses for My President, made in Hollywood in 1964, tells the story of a married American woman who is elected the U.S. President. She almost immediately becomes pregnant and finds herself faced with so many problems because of this that she decides to leave the presidential home and go and live in her own home. Finally, she resigns from the office of president. Even the modern world still finds it unimaginable that a woman should be given a high government office. In a poll taken in 1972, the majority of American voters said that they would rather have a black man than a woman as president. The idea of a woman president was ridiculed. Someone joked: “When the lady president delivers her child, the hospital bulletin will have to announce that ‘the President and baby are doing well.’” 53

Opinion polls were conducted on this particular issue in 1987 in the U.S. Reuter reported from Washington that according to a poll conducted for a women’s rights group, nearly one third of American voters believed men to be better suited than women to the role of U.S. President. The study released by the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) said only 8 percent of those polled believed a woman could do better than a man in the White House, 40 percent said there was no inherent difference between the sexes, and 31 percent believed men made better presidents. The poll, conducted by the Washington-based Hickman-Maslin political research firm, showed that women were credited with being more capable of dealing with social issues, such as poverty, health care, education, drug abuse, and civil rights. 54

The Persian emperor Chosroes died during the life of the Prophet. His courtiers crowned Chrosroes’ daughter queen. On hearing this news, the Prophet said: “A nation which makes a woman its ruler will not make progress.” 55

The researches of the modern age now testify to the truth of this

dowers. Feeling that this was an unhealthy trend, ‘Umar once addressed an assembly of his people from the pulpit, saying that he did not know who had increased the amount of dower to more than 400 dirhams. ‘The Prophet and his Companions handed over 400 dirhams or even less. Nobody should fix a dower of more than 400 dirhams. If it comes to my knowledge that anyone has exceeded this amount, I will confiscate the excess amount for the State Treasury.”

When he had had his say, a woman got up from one corner of the gathering and said, “O Chief of the Faithful, is the Book of God (Quran) to be followed or what you have to say?” ‘Umar replied that it was certainly the Book of God that was to be followed. The woman then retorted, “You have just forbidden people to increase the amount of dower, whereas God says in His book: ‘O believers, it is unlawful for you ... to force them to give up a part of what you have given them.’” 49

The woman had misquoted the text, but ‘Umar did not choose to assert himself and simply said, “Everyone knows more than ‘Umar.”50 With these words he relented on the question of the dower.

Here was a common woman criticizing the ruler of an empire, and the latter withdrawing his words. The right of absolute freedom of expression as we find in this incident, is a clear indication that woman has been granted her full rights in Islamic society.

HOME MANAGEMENT IS NOT AN INFERIOR TASK

A certain woman called Nasibah once came to the Prophet Muhammad and said: “O Messenger of God, Men have excelled in meriting the rewards of the Hereafter. They join the Friday prayer, attend congregations and perform jihad. Then what is left for us women to do?” The Prophet replied, “O Nasibah, if your manner of living with your husband is proper and obedient, such conduct in itself is equal to all the actions performed by men, which you have just mentioned.” 51

In modern times, as a result of perverted thinking, managing a home is considered inferior to work done outside the home. But Islam gives the same place of honor to both kinds of work, it being a fact that

the Almighty is akin to breaking down the whole system of nature, a procedure which can lead only to destruction.

Man and woman in the eyes of Islam are not the duplicates of one another, but the complements, there being in each quite incontrovertible, biological differences which lead to the natural separation of sphere and occupation. This division of labor permits the shortcomings of one sex to be compensated for by the strengths of the other.

Islamic precepts for men and women are based on their respective, natural constitutions. It is now an established biological fact that there is a difference in their physiological structure, a difference which gears men to work which is external to the home, and women to a life led mainly indoors within the home. This biological difference has not only been the determining factor in the societal division of labor but has also necessitated the framing of special Islamic laws to ensure justice for both sexes.

THE CONTRACT OF LIFE

The relationship formed by marriage in Islam is described in the Quran as a “firm contract.” 45 It is exactly the same as any ordinary contract in that it is bilateral in nature: where it differs is in its spelling out of the rights and responsibilities which bind a man and a woman together in a vital partnership, making them companions for life. There is a saying of the Prophet Muhammad on this subject: “Beware, your women have rights over you and you have rights over your women.” 46

WOMAN—SOURCE OF GOODNESS

Here are some verses from the Quran and some traditions which elaborate this point.

Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may well be that you dislike a thing which God has meant for your own abundant good. 47

This verse draws our attention to the fact that nothing is perfect in this world and that apparent imperfection may conceal some virtue. If in certain respects a woman is imperfect, there will be other respects

Mr. Y.V. Chandrachud Ex-Chief Justice May 14, 1986

A-503 Som Vihar

R.K. Puram

New Delhi 110 022

Dear Mr. Chandrachud,

I am taking the liberty of addressing myself to you because, on going through your verdict on the Muhammad Ahmad-Shah Bano case, I find that one of the statements you make casts unfair aspersions on Islam. You allege that women have been “traditionally” subjected to unjust treatment, and that the “fatal point in Islam is the degradation of woman.” To support this, you quote Manu as having stated that woman did not “deserve independence,” and the Prophet of Islam as having said, “Woman was made from a crooked rib, and, if you try to bend it straight it will break; therefore, treat your wives kindly.”

While Manu’s dictum bears out your statement, I must point out that you have badly misquoted the Prophet. Nowhere in the Hadith is it stated that woman was made from a crooked rib, this being an ancient biblical version of God’s creation of human life. The word “rib” was used by the Prophet in a purely metaphorical sense and his actual words were: “Woman is like a rib, if you try to straighten her out, she will break, so treat her kindly.”

The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “With respect to personality traits, men are characterized by greater aggressiveness, dominance and achievement motivation, women by greater dependency, a stronger social orientation and the tendency to be more easily discouraged by failure than men” (19/907).

Presumably the Prophet, with his great understanding of human nature, had a fine intuitive grasp of the fundamental, biological and psychological differences between men and women, particularly the latter’s fragility and passivity—and, for this reason, found it necessary to admonish lesser men to treat their wives kindly.

I fail to see how “the degradation of women” can ensue from such an injunction. It would be fitting, to say the least, if you were now to retract, or amend, your statement, now that this point has been clarified.

I remain,

Yours faithfully,

Wahiduddin Khan

President, The Islamic Center

them be, in their natural state. If one treats them as though they were tough metal, one will only break them.

REMARK OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Giving his verdict in the Muhammad Ahmad-Shah Bano case, Mr. Y.V. Chandra Chud, Chief Justice of the Indian Supreme Court, has written a special note in which he says:

Some questions which arise under the ordinary civil and criminal law are of a far-reaching significance to large segments of society which have been traditionally subjected to unjust treatment. Women are one such segment. “Na stree swatantramarhati” (The woman does not deserve independence), said Manu, the law giver. And, it is alleged that the “fatal point in Islam is the degradation of woman.” To the Prophet is ascribed the statement, hopefully wrongly, that “woman was made from a crooked rib, and if you try to bend it straight, it will break; therefore treat your wives kindly.” 41

I would like to make it clear that the phrase in this passage, “hopefully wrongly,” does not mean that this saying has been wrongly attributed to the Prophet. It means rather that although the Prophet said that woman is born of a “crooked rib,” those who want to establish equality between man and woman should take heart, as this saying of the Prophet was contrary to the fact. This phrase of the Chief Justice is meant to deny the statement itself and not the attribution.

Only a man of law can give a final opinion as to the relevance of this remark of the Chief Justice from the purely legal point of view, but it is certainly not correct from the academic point of view. He has quoted this saying of the Prophet to support his claim that Islam advocates the unjust treatment of a segment of society, whereas, on the contrary, this saying enjoins men to treat women with justice. The remark of the honorable Chief Justice does apply to Manu’s statement, but it does not apply at all to the sayings of the Prophet.

When it has been clearly stated that women should be treated gently, how can it be claimed that unjust and unfair treatment of women was advocated in a saying of the Prophet (as it clearly was in Manu’s dictum)?

to the metaphor of the rib, in saying that if one tries to straighten a woman one will break her, the Prophet was referring to her delicate nature. Physically, women are weaker than men: psychologically, they are more highly strung, more prone to emotional upset. This is a fact of life which everyone realizes, irrespective of whether he is educated or not. A father, for instance, will not be as hard on a daughter as he might be on his son, for he knows that boys are made of sterner stuff than girls. The latter tend to break under severe pressure. For this reason, females are more prone to suicide than males. Sometimes a trivial matter can drive a woman to suicide or cause her to have a nervous breakdown. In likening a woman to a rib, the Prophet was expressing this fact of life in metaphorical terms. Ribs have a slight curve in them. There is good reason for them to be made that way. They should be left in their natural state. No attempt should be made to straighten them.

The Prophet used a parable to explain the delicacy of women’s nature, pointing out that they should be treated in accordance with their nature. Their delicate emotional constitution should always be borne in mind. God has created them that way, and He has done so for good reason. They should be treated kindly. If they have to be told something, it should be done tactfully, in a gentle tone. Abruptness and severity will break them, as a rib is broken by any attempt to straighten it. Once, when the Prophet was on a journey, he saw some women riding on a camel. The man leading the camel made to drive the animal on faster, forgetting that this would cause undue discomfort to his passengers. So, the Prophet said to the camel driver: “You have glass cases there. Be gentle with them.” 39

MODERN RESEARCH

In recent times, it has been accepted as fact, on a purely academic level, that fundamental, inborn differences do exist between men and women. A detailed article on the status of women in the Encyclopaedia Britannica includes a section on “Scientific Studies of Male-Female Differences.” Here the author points out physical differences in the respective constitutions of the male and female of the human species. “With respect to personality traits,” he writes,

Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you spouses of your own kind, and the cattle He has also created in pairs. 36

From a perusal of these verses, one can see that the same word has been used for the spouses of ordinary human beings as was used for Adam’s spouse in the verse quoted above. Just as Eve was created from Adam’s nafs, so other women have also been created from the same nafs—or kind—as their male counterparts.

Clearly there is no question, in these other verses, of inferring that every female spouse has been created from the body of the male. There is no alternative but to take the word nafs, occurring in these verses, as meaning ‘kind.’ God has created for you spouses of your own kind, the Quran is telling us, in order that they may provide you with true companionship in your journey through life.

To summarize, women and men are from the same species. Biologically speaking, women have not been extracted from the bodies of their male counterparts. God fashioned them according to His Will, just as He fashioned men in accordance with His Almighty Will and Power.

SAYINGS OF THE PROPHET

Now we come to certain sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad, in which the Arabic word dil ‘has been mentioned for the word “rib.” The first thing that has to be remembered here is that these traditions are about ordinary women, and do not refer to the creation of Adam and Eve. It is the manner of every woman’s creation that is being dealt with, not specifically that of Eve. One of the relevant sayings is as follows:

Treat women well, for they have been created from a rib. 37

Now this cannot be taken to mean that women have actually been created from a rib, for this has no connection with the point conveyed in the rest of the sentence, which is that women should be treated well. A correct interpretation of the word ‘rib’ has to be one that fits in with the underlying purpose behind the Prophet’s statement.

The statement, “women have been created from a rib,” should be taken metaphorically, not literally. What the Prophet wished to convey

great detail everything that she had learned from him during their very close companionship, so that for about half a century she was able to fulfill a highly informative role. In short, she became a living cassette recorder for the ummah. ‘Abdullah ibn al-’Abbas, a Companion of great stature, and one of the Quran’s best commentators, was one of ‘Aishah’ s pupils. The greater part of his knowledge of religion was learned from her. Similarly, many other Sahaba (Companions of the Prophet) and Tabi’un (companions of the Sahaba) acquired their religious knowledge from her. So here we have the very fine example of a Muslim woman imparting to others the religious knowledge which she had imbibed directly from the Prophet.

Another example of a woman making a signal contribution to the spread of religious learning is that of the daughter of Imam Abu Ja’far Tahavi (229-321 A.H.), the famous traditionist whose book, Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar, is regularly included in the syllabuses of Arabic schools. He dictated his book of traditions to his daughter and, as he read out the hadith, he would explain its finer points to her and then she would write it all down. The whole book was prepared in this way. This is one of the finest examples of a woman helping her family members in matters of religion.

The above examples show the nature and extent of the contribution which can be made by believing Muslim women to the cause of Islam.

WOMANHOOD IN ISLAM

Fear of God and honoring one’s fellow men—this is the twin foundation of Islam laid down in the Quran in these words:

Mankind, fear your Lord who created you from one soul and created man’s mate from the same soul, from these two scattering on earth many men and women. Fear God, in whose name you entreat one another, and be careful not to sever your ties of kinship. God is watching over what you do. 32

The words, “and created man’s mate from the same soul” have been explained as meaning that first Adam was created from earth; then a rib was taken from his body, out of which Eve—his mate— was formed. But there is nothing in the Quran to support this

God and repents one’s misdeeds. This repentance acknowledges God’s greatness as compared to man’s insignificance. Those who are truly repentant find the greatest favor in God’s eyes.

IBADAH (worship). This is the act performed to acknowledge supernatural exaltedness. It is familiarly known as worship, and its object should be none other than the Almighty. Believing men and women worship God and God alone.

SIYAHAH (itinerancy). The virtues of undertaking journeys for God’s cause are best explained in the hadith recorded by Abu Dawud: “According to Abu Umamah, a certain individual once asked the Prophet’s permission to become a dervish. The Prophet replied that the dervishism of his ummah (community) meant struggling in the path of God.”30

Travelling for the cause of God includes, according to Imam Raghib Asfahani, taking such action for His sake as necessitate moving about from one place to another. Examples of such travel are: covering long distances in order to acquire a knowledge of religion; emigrating for the sake of religion; visiting scenes of natural beauty or places of historical interest which have some lesson for mankind; and, especially, undertaking journeys in order to convey God’s message to His creatures. 31

These qualities, separately enumerated above, when taken together constitute an ideal, not just for men, but for both sexes. These are the qualities that form the basis of Islam and are the true means of salvation in the world to come.

THE EXAMPLE OF MUSLIM WOMEN

Just as men function on different planes of religiosity, so do women have their own separate spheres of religious effectiveness.

Let us first consider their everyday level of existence in which adherence to their religion broadly means paying the dues of God and men in purely personal matters. In particular, it means true belief in God and the carrying out of His commandments; strict adherence to justice in all worldly transactions; withstanding the temptations of the self as instigated by Satan; paying what is due to God in terms of one’s wealth and life; giving the hereafter priority over the present

Men and women who have surrendered,

believing men and believing women,

obedient men and obedient women,

truthful men and truthful women,

enduring men and enduring women,

humble men and humble women,

men and women who give in charity,

men who fast and women who fast,

men and women who guard their chastity,

men and women who remember God in abundance—

for them God has prepared forgiveness and a great reward. 29

These then are the basic attributes which both men and women must cultivate if they are to endear themselves to God and become His favored servants:

ISLAM. The initial step to be taken is to embrace Islam, which means that one should willingly obey God, leading one’s life within the bounds of God’s commandments.

IMAN (faith). Islam begins really to take root with the conscious discovery of God, which is known as iman (faith). When iman is genuine, the men or women concerned cannot but surrender themselves to God. Discovering God as their Creator causes them to treat Him as an object of worship and to mold their thinking upon the truth. They control their desires and dedicate their wealth tothe cause of God. They even stop eating and drinking the whole day throughout the month of Ramadan in obedience to God’s will. Their consciousness of their to servitude to God makes them remember God constantly, on all occasions and at all times.

QUNUT (sincere obedience to God). This entails the adoption of the path of piety as shown by God and His prophet. It means the ‘fullest concentration of the heart and mind on the will of the Almighty.

SIDQ (truthfulness) means living an honest, straightforward life in the sense of saying plainly what one is going to do, and then actually doing as one has said. In other words, it means leading a life of principle.

SABR (patience) is a quality which enables one never to deviate religious teachings, even if one is faced with difficulties and persecution. It is the quality one needs if one is to follow the path of truth, surmounting all obstacles which have been placed there

expresses remembrance, a heart which gives thanks and a believing woman who helps one to be more steadfast in one’s faith.” 17

Next to piety itself, the best thing that a believer can find is a pious wife. She should be such that if he asks her to do anything, she obeys, and when he looks at her she should make him happy. When she swears upon him, she should fulfill her pledge and, in the absence of her husband, she should devote herself earnestly to keeping his wealth and preserving her chastity.18

They have found all the good of this world and the hereafter who are in possession of these four things: a heart that gives thanks, a tongue that remembers God, a body which is patient when persecuted, and a wife who can be trusted to remain chaste and refrain from misusing her husband’s wealth.19

Treat women well, for they have been created from a rib. The rib is most curved in its upper part, so that if you try to straighten it out, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain intact. Therefore, follow my advice on giving women fair treatment.20

Women are the other half of men. 21

Fear God in respect of women. 22

Heaven lies beneath the feet of mothers. 23 (That is, those who serve their mothers well are deserving of Paradise.)

One who brings up three daughters, teaches them good manners and morals, arranges their marriages and treats them with fairness, deserves to be ushered into Paradise. 24

If a man to whom a girl is born neither buries her alive, humiliates her, nor gives his sons preference over her, he will be allowed to enter heaven by God, as a reward. 25

Shall I not tell you what the best object of your charity is? It is your own daughter who has returned to you as a widow, or a divorcee, and who has no one to earn for her except you. 26 (That is, to spend on a daughter in need is the best form of charity.)

When a man is tested through his daughters by God, and he treats them well, his actions will guard him from hellfire. 27

THE QUALITIES OF A BELIEVING WOMAN

Umm Salmah, Prophet Muhammad’s wife, once remarked to the Prophet, “I hear of God mentioning men but not women.” It was in this context that the following verse was revealed to the Prophet:

Position of Woman in the Islamic Shari‘ah

QURANIC VERSES

The Quran and Hadith give detailed commandments regarding women, and also lay down clear guidelines for the relationship between men and women. The following quotations from the Quran and Hadith highlight the most important aspects of feminine virtue and the standing which a woman should have vis-à-vis her husband and father:

Treat them with kindness; for even if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing which God has meant for your own abundant good.1

Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a degree (of advantage) above women. God is mighty and wise.2

Men shall have a share in what their parents and kinsmen leave; whether it be little or much, it is legally theirs.3

And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts).4

Those that do evil shall be rewarded with like evil; but those that have faith and do good works, both men and women, shall enter the Gardens of Paradise and receive blessings without measure.5

But the believers who do good works, whether men or women, shaI1 enter the gardens of Paradise. They shall not suffer the least injustice.6

We shall reward the steadfast according to their noblest deeds. Be they men or women, those that embrace the faith and do what is right We will surely grant a happy life: We shall reward them according to their noblest actions.7

The true believers, both men and women, are friends to each other. They enjoin

DEGRADATION INSTEAD OF PROGRESS

The 29th December 1986 publication of Time was a special number which was titled, “A Letter to the year 2086.” This issue covered the happenings in the following century in the U.S. One part of it related to the state of the family as could be foreseen for the next century. A part of it is reproduced here: “The American family, not 50 years ago the rock on which the country built its church, has fractured into atoms with separate orbits. The American woman, having shunned motherhood and house-wifehood 15 years ago to establish herself in the labor market, now seeks to balance all three lives like dinner plates on sticks. The American man finds himself in new and scary territory and scrambles for adjustment. When the American man and woman part company, as half the newly married couples are expected to do these days, the American child is suddenly stranded, growing taller without a structure.” 46

As they near the close of the twentieth century the American intellectual class are acknowledging that what they thought of as the ladder of progress, at the beginning of the 20th century, has turned out to be the ladder of destruction. Taking women out of their homes has only resulted in the total disruption of the American family system. The rosy plan of liberating woman has, in practice, resulted in so many social evils.

Now new thinking is emerging from a revision of past errors, but modem woman is not ready to go back to her former role as a housewife, even if the life adopted by her of necessity involves her bearing the burdens of both the home and the workplace. What kind of progress is it which culminates in destruction? How strange is this freedom which, in practice, has turned into a new kind of bondage!

Notes

1. Time, January 26, 1987.

2. Indian Express (New Delhi), January 14, 1987.

3. The Hindustan Times (New Delhi), January 12, 1987.

4. Indian Express (New Delhi), January 14, 1987.

5. Plain Truth, September 1986.

6. Ibid.

7. Indian Express (New Delhi), January 14, 1987.

insemination from 1976 to 1986 in the U.S. There are about one dozen surrogate centers at the moment in the U.S. The number is expected to increase because there are about fifteen percent married people who are infertile. 43

William Stern and Elizabeth Stern had no issue, so they decided to secure one through using the womb of someone on payment. In 1985 they made a contract with Mary Beth Whitehead for $ 20,000 to carry their child. Mr. Stern’s sperm was then injected into her womb, resulting in the birth of a baby girl. After carrying the child in her womb for nine months, her motherly instinct was aroused. She refused to hand over the child to the Stern couple. This case was taken to the court which decreed the handing over of the baby to Mr. Stern in view of the contract. After having won the case, Mr. Stern came with five policemen to Mrs. Whithead, who had already escaped through the back door with the child. However, she was later traced to another town and finally the child was delivered to the Sterns.

Such cases have set out ethical arguments in the U.S. on the matter of surrogacy. The Bishop of New Jersey commented: Surrogacy exploits a child as a commodity and exploits a woman as a baby-maker.’ 44 The woman who bears a child for another person suffers severe psychological complexes. One such woman, by the name of Elizabeth Kane, said: “I miss my baby. I had to suppress those feelings for years.” The unnatural concept of sexual freedom results in unnatural problems, the above case being only one of many such examples.

WOMAN AND WAR

When Germany invaded the erstwhile U.S.S.R. in 1941, the Soviet government made emotional appeals to its citizens to treat the saving of their motherland as a sacred duty. Of those who joined the military in response to these appeals, 800,000 were girls between the ages of 15 and 16. A book has recently been published in Moscow entitled War’s Unwomanly Face45 which deals with the experiences of these girls. During her four years of research, the authoress travelled to one hundred cities and interviewed 200 women who had participated in the war.

bond in the matter of sexual relationships is not trustworthy. Through such a moral lacuna, an enemy can find an access to our secrets.

THE SCANDAL OF GARY HART

Mr. Gary Hart, the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidential election of 1987, had every chance of success. An incident, however, took place which set off such a storm of protest that Mr. Hart had to resign from the contest.

Fifty-year-old Mr. Hart was busy in the election campaign, for which he had borrowed one million dollars. During this time, he quietly left for Miami on May I to spend the weekend there. He spent one day and one night with a 29-year-old actress, Miss Donna Rice. An American newspaper, Miami Herald, got an inkling of this, and brought out a sensational story with this heading: “Miami Woman Is Linked to Hart.” 39 The news was given priority coverage by radio, television, newspapers and journals. Mr. Hart’s photographs along with Miss Donna Rice began to appear on the pages of newspapers. Wherever he went he was asked if he had committed adultery. “He stood in the public dock accused of adultery.”40

Had the Miami Herald published the news that in a certain house Mr. Hart had spent the night with his wife, no one would have cared. But when the news broke of Mr. Hart’s spending a night with a woman he was not married to, it caused quite a furor. This incident is a clear indication that establishing sexual relations with a woman, who is not one’s wife, is against human nature. Had such an act not been against human nature, the agitators would never have succeeded in their plans.

Mr. Hart did his utmost to overcome this setback. First, he refuted the allegation; and, then he started giving evasive answers. Then he persuaded his wife, Lee Hart, to travel 1300 miles from New Hamshire to Denver to give her statement to the press. She said: ‘If it doesn’t bother me, I don’t think it ought to bother anyone else.’ When Mr. Hart saw that all his devices had been rendered useless, he finally admitted to the illicit relationship in these words: “Adultery is not a crime. It’s a sin. And that is between me and Lee, and me and God.”

However, this attempt at justification failed to satisfy the American

Single households, headed by women trying to play the role of “super-moms,” are on the increase, she revealed. In the next ten years, therefore, 40-50 percent of the children will be living in female-headed households, an unhealthy phenomenon, which has its repercussions in increased suicides amongst children. “Due to a lapse in the dependency structure, suicide is becoming endemic amongst children,” she said.

Socialist feminism, which takes into account the intrinsic differences between men and women, is the call of the hour, Ms. Lerman believes. We have had an excess of the American dream—of a husband who works, a house in the suburbs, two children, two cars and a mother who stays at home and bakes cookies. With the family structure falling apart, she feels that only government support in the form of day-care centers, maternity leave benefits and subsidies to override the economic limitations of single women can hold the social fabric together. “Otherwise, our victories will be merely Pyrrhic victories,” 34 she predicts, similar, perhaps to the freedom experienced on the funeral pyre.’ 35

The feminist leader has acknowledged that the successes of feminism are little short of Pyrrhic victories. This is the most appropriate word to describe the victory of modem woman. She secured “equality” after a long and hard struggle. In the process, however, of achieving this imaginary equality, she has lost everything. Ms. Lerman feels that only large-scale government support can compensate for the deprivation of western women. This means placing herself under the guardianship of a government, which is completely in the hands of man. Woman was not willing to accept the guardianship of man at home; at her own cost, she has had to come to terms with the guardianship of men in the government.

TWO EXAMPLES

The problems created in western homes by this artificial concept of equality are confined not only to the lower or middle class but have also spread throughout the upper classes and the highly educated classes.

Recently some letters written by Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric

are unable to make full use of the available protein necessary for their growth.

This is an example which shows how fatal it is to deviate from the path of nature. Man cannot make another world of his own by deviating from the world created by God. On the contrary, he must live out his life in accordance with this world. If he abandons the path of nature in favour of some other path, this will only end in failure, if not actual disaster.

THE EXPERIMENT OF UNRESTRICTED FREEDOM

On the question of abortion, Americans have now divided themselves into two opposing groups, one unreservedly upholding abortion, and describing themselves as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion,” while the other is against abortion and calls itself “pro-life.” The American magazine Newsweek illustrates the current mood with a photograph of a procession of American women, whose leader, a young woman, is holding aloft a placard bearing in bold lettering the orders: “Keep your laws and your morality off my body.” 33

Modern western thinkers hold their greatest asset to be freedom. But the experiment in the West of having fewer and fewer restrictions on freedom has demonstrated that personal liberty cannot be the highest good. Had it been so, it would never have resulted in the ugly extremes which the above example suggests.

There is no disputing the fact that freedom as a quality of life is something of great value. But, for man, the highest good is freedom within limits, rather than absolute freedom. Personal liberty, however, must never be subject to man-made restrictions, for no man is superior to his fellow men, and no one has the right, therefore, to curtail another’s freedom. Restriction is a matter of God, and man must bow to God’s dictates when He so wills it.

Every man stands between God and his fellow men. So far as the man-to-man relationship is concerned, every man has his full freedom. But the great, overriding consideration is that man is in complete subjugation to God. As compared to the Almighty, no man has any freedom. This means that in the modern world, man has to use his freedom so that he abides by God’s commandments in all

consequence, has become common. Any children born to such couples, who subsequently opt to separate, are little better than orphans, though both parents are alive. Another cause of family fragmentation is traceable to the end of the joint family system, the main symptom of which is the increasing number of elderly parents and grandparents being sent to old people’s homes, where they live separately from the rest of the family. In the joint family system, grandparents were always present to look after grandchildren, but in western society, their place is no longer in the home.

In a sense, the focus of parental life is likewise no longer on the home, although for different reasons. Formerly, the mother was always at home to look after the children. But now, with both parents working, the children meet them only in the evenings when they are both already too tired to give them their proper attention, or on weekends, when they are generally too concerned with their own recreations. The western child is deprived of his mother because, like his father, she has gone to her office, and he is deprived of his grandparents, because they have conveniently been put away out of sight in old people’s homes. It is such children who become so emotionally unbalanced that they see no further point in going on living.

SUICIDE OF A WOMAN SINGER

When the 18-year-old pop singer Yukiko Okada jumped to her death from the roof of a high building in April 1986, because of an unhappy love affair, she ‘inspired’ many young people to follow her example. A large number of young people actually threw themselves off high rooftops because they felt sorry for her and wanted to be in heaven with her. A few left suicide notes mentioning the singer by name. 31

This is the ultimate damage done by making a woman a mere object of the “screen,” a mere plaything of the imagination. If a woman devotes her life to managing her home, she becomes the giver of life to the young, whereas when she leaves her home to become a means of entertainment for others, she can do them the greatest injury—even becoming a morbid stimulus to annihilation.

handed over to babysitters and day-care centers. After the ruination of several generations, Americans have come to understand that there is no substitute for the upbringing and training of children by their own parents. Now more and more parents in the U.S. are taking time off work and other activities to give time to their children.

There is the example of Ken Schuman. He was being offered a high post, but he contented himself with a job at a lower salary. This was because high posts keep people so busy that there is hardly any time left to spend on the upbringing and care of the children. He said that in his present job he couldn’t have lunch at high class hotels, nor could he travel first class by air. But he felt happy at his decision, as he had ample time to help his children in their formative stage. Being one of these new breeds of fathers, he said, “I’m a convert to this way of life.”

Having reached the culmination of his ideology, modern man is acknowledging his mistakes, but due to the powerful domination of previous concepts in modern society, the advocates of this change in thinking do not dare to reveal their names. 27

THE PROBLEM OF POPULATION

A book published in the U.S., entitled The Birth Dearth, has become a hot subject of discussion in various circles. In the light of statistics, the author showed that the population of the U.S. and other western countries had decreased to a dangerous extent. On the other hand, the birth rate in the socialist block was increasing. And so far as the third world was concerned, its population will double that of the western world in the next fifty years. Consequently, America in the 21st century will lose its world power status. Similarly, the whole western world will acquire second class status in international politics. The solution, according to one critic of the book, lies is slipping back to “the traditional woman as exclusive child-raiser.” 28

The place given to woman in modern civilization bears no true relation to life’s realities. Now western thinkers are beginning to feel that in order to have a successful life, the ancient concept of woman shall have to be fully reinstated.

Due to this experience, feminist extremists in western countries demand a complete withdrawal from dependence on men, including sexual ties. Village Voice columnist Jill Johnston, for example, insists that “feminism is lesbianism,” and that it is only when women do not rely upon men to fulfill their sexual needs that they are finally free of masculine control. 24

Living together like husbands and wives is not so simple a matter. Many problems have to be faced. For instance, if the couples want a child, how to find one? Modern medical science has provided the answer in the form of artificial insemination.

Two women from Holland, Paula Deijs and Jeanine Haaksman lived together like husband and wife. Then they felt a desire to have a child. For this purpose, they contacted the Lydden Institute of Birth Control. Their first attempt did not succeed, but in the second attempt Paula Deijs became pregnant. Through the semen of an unknown person a child was born to them. The child was named Thomas. But after the birth of the child they realized they again were in need of the same “man” whom they had shunned to become lesbians. The women are sensitive to the fact that Thomas needs men as role models. Uncles, a grandfather, brothers-in-law and male neighbours are encouraged to visit frequently. “We have a good friend not too far from here whom we have chosen to be a father image for Thomas,” says Haaksman. “We’ll send Thomas over to him for all the technical instructions.” 25

Providing a “father” to Thomas in this artificial way is in no way an alternative to a real father. It is certain that some strangeness must remain between such “sons and fathers.” And when Thomas grows up, this unconscious strangeness will turn into conscious strangeness. Thomas will know his mother, but not his father. This vacuum in Thomas’s life will produce different kinds of mental complications, which will most probably make it impossible for him to become a useful member of society.

It is as if in the system of lesbianism there is scope for producing girls but not boys. Even then, to produce a girl, lesbians will depend upon the same man whom they had rejected in order to have their own independent ways

the opposite sexes began to lead with increasing frequency to rape, the pendulum of opinion began to swing back in favor of traditional restrictions as being the healthiest social principles to follow. It has become all too obvious that the path of sexual freedom can lead society only to its own destruction.

A HADITH

The prevalent custom of dating, which permits unmarried boys and girls to meet and remain together unchaperoned for unlimited periods in complete seclusion, has been little short of disastrous in its consequences, thus illustrating the meaningfulness of the shari’ah in no uncertain manner. The following hadith, taking full account of the evil inherent in the situations arising from this custom, gives us a clear injunction prohibiting them:

One who believes in God and in the Judgement Day ought not to stay with a woman in private while no mahram (i.e. a near relative with whom marriage is not permitted, e.g. brother, father, uncle, etc.) is with her, because in such cases the third is Satan.20

When an unmarried boy and girl meet alone, Satan immediately grasps this opportunity to tempt them. The presence of a third person guarantees that such a meeting will not go beyond limits.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VIRGINITY

Sexual permissiveness has become such an all-pervasive feature of modern life that the forming of sexual relationships before marriage has become a commonplace, the current philosophy being that advance experimentation is a better and safer way of choosing one’s partner for life. Pre-marital encounters between men and women are, therefore, marked by the same openness and lack of inhibition as those which take place within the sanctity of the marriage bond. This runs counter to nature itself. In fact, deviation from tradition has created problems which have become insoluble in the presentday social set-up. The very intractability of these problems has led to a general reappraisal of sexual permissiveness. Even those who were the greatest champions of permissiveness as a way of life are now beginning to turn against it.

find you and kill you.’ Many of the worst injuries—and deaths—happen as women try to get away.” The battered woman often feels trapped. “Imagine you are such a woman,” suggests’ Richard Gells, a sociologist and author of Intimate Violence in Families. “Right now, leave your job. Leave your wallet, everything on the desk. Take nothing but a one-way ticket to a strange town. Could you do that? Could you also take away the children?” 17

By nature’s division, man was given authority over woman. Now, if attempts are made to change this division artificially, the consequences will be as pictured in the above report. This beating of women in their own homes is just one more symptom of the malaise of modernity. Never before has there been so many instances of male violence against women as there are at present in modern civilization. It is true that there were cases of wife-beating in earlier periods, but these were the exceptions rather than the rule, and occurred mostly amongst the lower classes, who were poor and uneducated. In modem times, even the upper classes are no longer innocent on this score. What was formerly considered uncivilized behavior is now becoming a commonplace amongst so-called civilized members of society. This is a direct consequence of upsetting the natural balance of daily living in the futile quest for unnatural equality.

THE PROBLEM OF MODERN WOMEN

A tourist on a visit to America was once sitting in a club during a dance, when he was suddenly approached by an American girl who said to him, quite sadly, “Mr. Tourist, don’t I have any glamour?” ‘‘Why, of course you do, replied the tourist. “Then why don’t the boys date me?” the girl asked.

“Dating” in western countries refers to the social custom of boys inviting girls to go out somewhere with them. In this way, boys and girls become acquainted with each other before marriage. This practice has become so common in western life that a girl who is not “dated” by one or more boys begins to feel herself of inferior value on the marriage market. In former times, dating, as a system of courtship, was confined to meetings during which conversation could take place. But then morals became so lax that such meetings became occasions

shown that this is the only right and natural way. Marital relationships and fornication are not just matters of approval or disapproval by religious authorities, but matters of life and death. The married state is a blessing for human society; any other is a curse.

It is significant that the new education plan released by the U.S. 12 government stresses sexual abstinence as a preventive measure. This public exhortation to observe the rules of old-fashioned morality is a clear indication of the superiority of divine law over man-made law.

A believer in divine law, who errs by entering into an illicit sexual relationship, and contracting AIDS in the process, will be considered to have deviated from the principles of divine law. However, one who belongs to western civilization and contracts such a disease as the result of promiscuity will be said to have shown the error of the principle of western civilization itself. The former case proves the error of a man while the latter case proves the error of the principle of a civilization.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNNATURAL EQUALITY

“No one who has ever known me can believe what I did,” said a 35-year old American whose demeanor suggested innocence and seriousness of mind. He related how he had beaten the wife he loved, choked her till she was unconscious, pushed her face in the mud and held a kitchen knife to her throat. 13 “How could I have done that?” he now wonders. “People know me as a good man. I own my own business. I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t chase other women.” In spite of all such contrary indications, he repeatedly beat his wife.

Reader’s Digest gives many instances of wife-beating by Americans in an article entitled, “Why Men Hurt the Women They Love.” According to one survey, in America a woman is battered by a husband or boy- friend every 18 seconds. And every year, it is estimated that more than a million of these need medical help. Every day, four die. 14

Why should the developed and civilized society of America be infested with the evil of wife-beating? A great deal of research has been done on this subject and its findings have been put in a nutshell by Mrs. Susan Schechter, a researcher at the Women’s Educational Institute in

Dr. Blake told Brodie that “there was one occasion when Doron got angry with me. He said he was going off to live with his Dad.” For Dr. Blake, what had started off as an interesting experience, latterly seems to have developed into a series of delicate problems. She now says with regret, “One thing Doron is deprived of is a Daddy.”

Deviation from nature has given rise to problems which were hitherto inconceivable.

MARRIAGE VERSUS FORNICATION

“The Big Chill?” a specially researched Time magazine cover story of February 16, 1987, startled the world with horrifying details of a new disease—AIDS. Since AIDS is infectious and fatal, it has produced a new breed of untouchables from whom both men and women flee in fear of their very lives. Publicity on the subject has created such a scare that barber shops in western countries often display signboards bearing the unlikely legend: “No Shaves Here.”

Government officials have described such a reaction as “AIDS hysteria.” Barbers, however, maintain that even the AIDS victims’ perspiration, or drops of blood from tiny cuts made during shaving, can transmit the virus and that it was, therefore, necessary to keep away from them.8

After making detailed investigations, Time’s team of experts confirmed that the prime cause of this deadly disease is promiscuity. Since it is transmitted mainly by homosexuals, it has come to be known as the “gay disease.” This disease spreads so rapidly that its explosion in the world of today has been geometric. Chilled by the fatality of AIDS, one of its victims exclaimed: “Oh, what will happen in this world, if we have to die when we make love? AIDS is the century’s evil.”9

Promiscuity, euphemistically referred to as “free love” in the western world, has brought down a curse upon humanity. It was estimated that by 1991, 270,000 people will have contracted this disease in the U.S., and that doctors will find it impossible to treat such a large number of patients. The situation will be completely beyond control. The government has started an anti-AIDS campaign whose slogan is “Love carefully.” This same advice, differently

When I was 8 years old I first had sex with a boy of 15. I did it because I lack love and attention from my parents. I need love, and my parents never show me any. Nothing really changed at home, and at 15 I became pregnant. My boyfriend blamed me and left. I had nowhere to turn, I was trapped, so I had an abortion. Now I’m afraid to date anyone, and I cry myself to sleep every night.5

“For every 1000 girls between 15 and 19 in America,” wrote New York correspondent George Gorden, “ 96 of them are pregnant.”6

Such are the tragic consequences of deviation from nature. This is the result of deliberately ignoring the fact that when God created men and women, He laid down rules for their relationship with each other: on reaching a sufficiently mature stage of development, they were to marry, have children and, by a process of mutual co-operation, make a home in which to bring up those children, thus providing a stable base for the progress of mankind. But western modernity became so preoccupied with the concept of freedom, that it dispensed with the kind of bonds which held men and women together in a healthy family relationship. The resulting disregard for the institution of marriage gave birth to various kinds of evils in western society, as may be judged from the above-mentioned examples.

The free mixing of men and women, with the sexual liberation it implies, is wholly against nature. In matters of sex, a woman prefers a single partner. It is in her nature to love only one man faithfully. Men, on the other hand, are promiscuous by nature. In a situation, therefore, where freedom of sexual relationships is damaging to faithful sexual partnerships, it is the women who suffer psychologically. Emotionally, they have to pay a very high price for their emancipation.

The famous Australian feminist, Ms. Germaine Greer, has acknowledged, now that she is of a more mature age, that her zeal for the sexual liberation movement in her youth was not realistic. In an interview with the Indian Express she lamented over the present state of affairs: “What is worrying today is the results of the sexual liberation movement—the number of teenaged girls who have been on the pill since they were 12 and 13, the number of teenaged girls who get pregnant by the time they are 15 and 16. What is happening to them? Sex means something quite different for men. They can love

discriminatory attitudes which the women’s liberation movement came into being to end.

WHITHER “WOMEN’S LIB”?

From the 12th to the 16th of January 1987, a conference was held in Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi, in which philosophers, scientists, writers and artists from 15 countries participated. This five-day conference was arranged by the Government of India on the topic, “Towards New Beginnings.” Many distinguished ladies of the western world, who have now grown old, were among those who participated. They had spent all their lives working for Women’s Lib, but their mood was one of frustration. The Indian Express cites Germaine Greer of Australia as a case in point:

They are feminists of different hues—Ms. Germaine Greer, the outspoken, aggressive writer from Australia, and Ms. Gisele Halimi, a Tunisian-born lawyer who spearheaded the women’s movement in France along with Simone de Beauvoir and others. But both voice a concern that is troubling feminists in the West today—Whither women’s lib? Ms. Greer seems more mellow today: the fire that raged in The Female Eunuch is strangely missing. “The movement has solved some problems and left us with a different set of problems,” exclaimed Ms. Greer. “Perhaps the problem was that we didn’t take our mothers with us. We left them behind, found them antiquated. And now that many of us are mothers ourselves with teenaged daughters, perhaps we understand our mothers better.”2

“The West has no answers to the problems of inequality between sexes,” says the internationally acclaimed writer Germaine Greer. The erroneous belief of western women that the females in veils are unequal and the ones with make-up minus the head-cover are free and liberated has to be rejected. Referring to the prevalence of “wifebeating” even in the so-called civilized West, she asks, how about the unequal treatment meted out to females in the U.S. and England in the areas of wages and jobs? Well, one-fourth of the crimes in England emanate from violence against women. The man-woman relationship understood in the West as an extension of role-models is the primary cause of strain in the sexual relationships. All the western women identify themselves with the bahu—the bride—forgetting that the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law are also the specific role models

after prolonged litigation—five years to be exact—Thurgood Marshall, former Justice of the American Supreme Court, gave his ruling in January, 1987, that the state requires an employer to provide special job protection for workers temporarily disabled by pregnancy.

This ruling triggered a tremendous controversy. On the one hand, women are happy that they have secured the protection of the law for the bearing and rearing of children. On the other hand, serious American thinkers maintain that this ruling will harm the cause of women.

The debate over pregnancy leave has thus created a deep rift among feminists. One side argues that pregnancy leave, even though it benefits individual women, poses a general danger to female workers because it singles them out for special protection. Historically, they point out, such privileged treatment has eventually led to discrimination against women, says Marsha Levick of the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund: “That almost always backfires.”

Don Butler, President of the Los Angeles-based Merchants and Manufacturers Association, said that the decision “spells disaster.” To this he added: “Larger companies can makeshift to fill a hole, but small ones cannot do that very easily. If I employ ten females, and two or more get pregnant at one time, I might as well file for bankruptcy.” Discrimination against women might increase. Many companies “just won’t hire women in their childbearing years,” says the Chamber’s Attorney Lamp.

A well-known feminist, Betty Friedan, said in support of the ruling regarding Garland’s case, “Equality does not mean that women have to fit the male model.” There is something very incongruous about this argument. When women are so different in their biological structure that they cannot “fit the male model,” where is the necessity to bring women into every sphere of life to do the same work as men, and then attempt, by passing laws, to enforce an artificial equality of the sexes.

As economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett puts it: “This decision means that there is recognition at the highest legal levels that, in order to get equal status for women in the workplace, you have to create family supporters.” This is an indirect acknowledgement of the rationality

The Problems Facing Modern Civilization

PERVERSION IN MUSLIM SOCIETY AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION

A contemporary commentator once observed that of perversion has set in in western society, so also has it taken root in Muslim society. Then how do you regard western civilization as being wrong and Islamic civilization as being right? This objection, if we examine it, will be found to be ill-judged, because our comparison of western and Islamic civilizations makes a judgement on the basis of standards versus behavior. The rot of Muslim society is the result of deviation from Islam, while the rot of western society is the result of putting into practice the very principles in which it believes.

The evils of Muslim societies stem from the gap between principle and practice, whereas the evils of western society are the result of a clash between principles and realities. Western civilization of modern times has formed principles, independent of religious principles, to govern social life, and has maintained that modern principles were superior to older principles. Through colonization and the industrial revolution, etc. the western nations achieved political and material domination over large areas of the world, which placed them in a position to reject the old principles of life and construct a human society based on modern principles of life.

This experiment in ethics has now been going on with the dominance of western nations for more than a century, but practical experiments have failed to verify the new principles. All that has been accomplished is to effectively demonstrate that the new principles favoured by the West are completely incompatible with what nature intends for mankind. The clash between ideals and reality has, in fact, given rise to ever-increasing manifestations of depravity in western life.

acknowledging the difference between Japan and America in this matter comments: “I don’t think American women would tolerate the Teishukanpaku (the husband is the ruler of his home) behaviour.”40

Notes

1. Time, March 20, 1972.

2. Ibid., p. 26 .

3. Ibid., p. 28 .

4. Ibid., p. 47 .

5. Ibid., p. 47 .

6. Ibid., p. 89 .

7. Ibid., p. 47 .

8. Ibid., p. 47 .

9. Ibid., p. 47 .

10. Ibid., p. 33

11 . Sara M. Evans, “Women in Twentieth Century America: An Overview,” The American Woman 1987-88. A Report In Depth, Ed. Sara E. Rix (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987).

12 . Time, op. cit., p. 29 .

13 . Ibid., p. 55 .

14 . Ibid., p. 30.

15 . Ibid., unnumbered pages following p. 29 .

16 . Ibid., pp. 70-71.

17 . Sara M. Evans, op cit., p. 34 .

18. Time, op cit., p. 28 .

19. Ibid., p. 27 .

20. All of the data in this and the following two sections has been taken from two sources: The American Woman 1987-88. A Report in Depth, edited by Sara E. Rix (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), and The American Woman 1992-93, A Status Report, edited by Paula Ries and Anne J. Stone (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992).

21 . Andrew Cherlin, “Women and the Family,” The American Woman 1987-88, A Report in Depth,

op cit., pp. 74-75.

22 . Ibid., p. 76 .

23 . Newsweek, May 18, 1981.

24 . Reader’s Digest, October 1981.

25 . Time, op. cit., pp. 43-46 .

26 . Anton Nemilov, The Biological Tragedy of Woman (London, 1932), p. 76 .

27 . Ibid., pp. 194-95.

28 . Ibid., p. 77

29 . Ibid., pp. 102-103.

30. The Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 21, 1980.

31 . The Times of India (New Delhi), February 8, 1978.

32 . Ibid., November 8, 1981.

33 . Harold Robbins, The Lonely Lady (London: New English Library, 1976), p. 448 .

34 . Ibid.

35 . Ibid

women were in demand, and the moment they lost their youthful attraction, no further value was attached to them as personalities.

Thanks to “women’s lib” having done away with all barriers between men and women in western countries, women now find themselves in the marketplace. It is only those who have obvious feminine charms who attract attention, become popular and manage to make something of their lives as objects of entertainment. Once launched on such a course, they begin to regard marriage as an obstacle to their further progress. They have no further taste for the quiet satisfaction of domestic life, preferring the glamour of the outside world.

But the glitter of such a life is short-lived, for the moment their youth shows signs of waning, these women find themselves cast off like so many rags. Having shirked all domestic responsibilities at an earlier, marriageable age, they can now stake no claim to domestic comfort and bliss. Forgotten and deserted, such women of the western world live on into a forlorn state of decrepitude.

The kind of life that takes shape from being associated with the family is very different from the above example. When a woman begins her life as a wife, she finds herself at the center of all activity, being in charge of everything and everyone within the domestic sphere. In her own little world, she builds up a reputation for herself as a wife, mother and grandmother. Each day adds to the honor and respect shown to her by her family, and she goes on increasing in worth in the eyes of her husband. If she shone as a young wife, how much greater is her luster as a mother and grandmother. This position of the woman is quite natural. That is why in the western world itself in circles where the matrimonial fold is still intact, a woman on the strength of nature, comes to acquire the same position. Here is an explicit example from the life of Ronald Reagan, former President of America. According to one American report published in the Hindustan Times: “Mr. Reagan is known to be deeply attached to his wife, whom he calls ‘mommy’ away from the public, according to their close associates.” 38 Having made the home and the family her whole world, a woman can certainly count on familial support in her middle and declining years. None of the sorrows of solitude for her!

While western civilization supports the liberated woman only

lives is dimmed, bit-by-bit, until at the end, life seems little more than a dreary vacuum.

It is a fact that women are temperamentally unfit for solitude. Few women can endure loneliness over long periods of time. But the path along which western civilization pushes a woman can lead to nothing but isolation. Islam, on the contrary, leads a woman to a life where she is never alone, but a member of a united family. The Islamic way is natural, that of the western world quite the reverse.

THE BURDEN OF FAME

Brigitte Bardot (b. 1934), the most famous star in the history of the French cinema, scaled higher peaks of renown than even Marilyn Monroe or Marlene Dietrich. It was said that she brought more currency into France than the Renault Motor Company, and some even declared her to be the most famous Frenchwoman since Joan of Arc. English writer Tony Crawley calculated that by 1958 her photograph had appeared no less than 29, 345 times on the covers of European and American magazines. 37

Film followed film, her popularity soared, and, at times, she even gave up trying to go out because the crowds of photographers outside prevented her from doing so. Every day, she was swamped by fan mail, so that it became impossible even to read a selection of the letters which poured in.

Despite all this ostensible glamour, she was so unsatisfied from within that just the fact of being a celebrity became a burden to her. One night, worn out by her own fame, Brigitte swallowed an overdose of tranquillizers. Even at that crucial moment, when her life hung in the balance, photographers forced the ambulance which was rushing her to the hospital to stop halfway so that they could take pictures of her. BB (as she was known in the film world) was once reported as saying that she never really felt at ease in front of the camera.

At the age of 39, after making 48 films, she suddenly ended her career, refusing even to accept the most enticing offers from Hollywood. She sold her Rolls Royce and went to live alone in her house on the Riviera “to cease to be considered a beautiful object and become a human being like any other.”

her just that. Too late, she realizes what it means to possess no family of her own. “Here is a loneliness born of independence, of honest individualism in a society where only dishonesty brings profit.” 35

The system of human life is a web of extremely delicate balances and counterbalances, in which even a minor change can wreak havoc. It is no different from the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms in which the secret of success lies in never deviating from the pattern laid down by nature. Achieving the desired result is possible only when the established structure of nature is understood and accepted. But the very people who adhere strictly to this precept as regards the world of matter, forget that this is an eternal truth which applies to their own lives too. Nature’s system for men and women takes shape in the institution of marriage. A woman’s physique, psychology, familial urges and social relations all demand that she led a married—and, therefore, moral— life. This is a pattern which has been laid down for her own good.

Being free and independent seems an attractive phrase when applied to a woman, but the practical experience of personal liberty can range from the purely unpleasant to the downright disgusting.

In her youth a woman may easily fall prey to what strikes her— because of her inexperience—as an appealing way of life. But, as she grows older, and goes from one bitter experience to the next, she realizes that she has made a wrong choice. But this dawns on her only when things have gone too far for her to make amends. Now her only alternative is to console herself with her pet dogs, cats, parrots, etc., as it is too late to find a life partner with whom to share the ups and downs of her daily existence. When she finally leaves this world, it is in despair.

THE END OF PLEASURE

Married to John Kennedy (1917-1963), America’s 35th President, Jacqueline Kennedy basked in the limelight of her husband, and enjoyed the fame of being America’s First Lady. But this did not last for long, because Kennedy was shot dead in November 1963, just three years after being elected President. Jacqueline was suddenly bereft of all the fame and honor that went with her place in society

BE A GOOD WIFE

Frank Borman, an American astronaut went into space with a woman astronaut in the same spacecraft. After his return from the voyage he said: “Having women on the spacecraft was okay except that it would be upsetting to put a male and a female too close together for a long time.” Borman’s comment certainly upset the feminists. One American lady remarked in the course of a fiery speech: “Mr. Frank Borman would never have existed had his parents not come together.”

Scientific research together with the realities of practical life have shocked the cherished concepts of feminists leading some of them to rethink their ideals. An American lady, Mrs. Marabel Morgan, a mother of two, recently published a book entitled Total Woman. Here is the simple magic formula she divulged to her American sisters so that they may lead successful married lives. “Be nice to your husband, stop nagging him and understand his needs.” In less than a year this book sold three million copies. To the writer the perfection of womanhood lies in her ability to become a good companion of her husband rather than seek an independent life. 31

The truth is that the total woman is one who can be a total companion to her husband.

ADMITTING DEFEAT

Another example of the baneful consequences of western civilization’s deviation from nature’s course is that of Jean Seberg, an American actress who also achieved extraordinary fame and popularity because of her charming personality. Not only in the U.S., but also in Europe, she was the cynosure of all eyes. At an early stage in her career, she opted to become an object of entertainment to millions in preference to making a home for herself on the traditional pattern. But when her diary was gone through after her death, the last line turned out to be: “I wish I had stayed home.” 32 How ironic that such a “successful” career should have ended in helpless failure.

God has endowed everything pertaining to the world of matter with particular characteristics. The objects of His creation are, therefore, able to perform satisfactorily only if they function strictly in

find something or the other in it which will expose as superficial his concept of woman as equal to man. 27

The reason is that this revolutionary concept clashes with an extremely important fact, i.e. that in respect of biology, both sexes are not equal, both are not meant to shoulder an equal amount of burden. 28

Deviation from nature not only fails to achieve any positive gain, but also entails the loss of desirable features of human existence. The correct place for a thing is that assigned to it by nature. Any bid on our part to displace or reorient it inevitably leads to a variety of evils.

This is exactly what has happened in the case of women who have been taken out of their homes in order to make them men’s equal. The result has not for them been the achievement of equal position. The result has been their becoming the objects of a flood of licentiousness and pornography.

Of this situation, Anton Nemilov writes:

The truth is that all signs of sexual anarchy have become apparent in the workers. This is a situation fraught with grave dangers threatening to destabilize the whole socialist system. It should be countered in all possible ways. Great difficulties will be faced to fight on this point. I can cite thousands of instances of sexual licentiousness, which goes to show that this has spread not only in the lower echelons but also on the top rungs of the ladder as well as among the intellectuals. 29

Nemilov’s view, published as long as fifty years ago, has been substantiated by recent experience. In fact, his words may be applied with even greater force and accuracy to the state of affairs prevailing today.

Modern man, regarding the old concept of man and woman as outdated, attempted to create equality between the two sexes. But this amounted to waging war with nature itself, to clashing with reality and his efforts proved counterproductive. Far from ‘achieving equality between the two sexes, efforts made to reach this artificial goal paved the way to the spread of various evils in society.

its members.” As Kagan sees it, “complementarity” is what makes relationships stable and pleasurable.

Psychoanalyst Martin Symonds agreed. “The basic reason why unisex must fail is that in the sexual act itself, the man has to be assertive, if tenderly, and the woman has to be receptive. What gives trouble is when men see assertiveness as aggression and women see receptiveness as submission.” Unisex, he sums up, would be “a disaster” because children need roles to identify with and rebel against. ‘You can’t identify with a blur. A Unisex world would be frictionless environment in which nobody would be able to grow up.”

The crucial point, however, is that a difference is not a deficiency. As one biologist put it: “We are all human beings and in this sense equal. We are not, however, the same.”

AT WAR WITH NATURE

In practice, men still have the upper hand. The cause is not social conditioning, as feminists would have us believe. It is wholly biological and psychological. It is the biological factor which—we are forced to conclude after 100 years of feminist struggle—is the stumbling block in according women an equal position (that is, in the outside world) with men. It is the cruelty of nature rather than the cruelty of society which is to blame. Now that this has been established, the more militant among the feminists have started demanding that, in the womb itself, the science of eugenics should be applied to changing the genetic code in order to create a new biological system which will in turn produce a new breed of women. They maintain that, in this way, the male-dominated society could be replaced by one in which the sexes are equal in ability and performance. This suggestion is rather like saying that fish, like goats, should be able to produce milk, and then, when, in spite of every encouragement the fish fails to produce milk, proclaiming that one will create, with the help of medical science, a new strain of milk-producing fish. Exactly like goats.

If, one fine day, it occurred to a doctor that the mouth should be situated not on the face but on the stomach, and he thereupon set about removing the mouth from the face, the world would ridicule

superiority may be caused by sex-linked differences in the brain. While girls outdo boys verbally, they often lag behind in solving analytical problems, those that require attention to detail.

It is a paradox that even though the number of educated women is at an all-time high, the representation of women in traditionally male professions is still extremely low. Harvard psychologist Matina Horner guessed that one reason for this may be that women actively fear success, and began seriously looking into this when she discovered that the few studies that had been made of women’s motivation for achievement showed they had high anxiety. Reasonably certain that this meant women were afraid of competition, Horner decided nonetheless to test that assumption. Putting men and women into competitive and noncompetitive situations, she found that males showed a spurt of motivation in competition. Females did not. It was anxiety about competition that apparently held the women back.

There are personality differences between the sexes too. Some distinctions turn up remarkably early. At New York University, for example, researchers found that a female infant stops sucking a bottle and looks up when someone comes into the room; a male pays no attention to the visitor. Another experiment showed that girls of twelve months who become frightened in a strange room drift toward their mothers, while boys look for something interesting to do. At four months, twice as many girls as boys cry when frightened in a strange laboratory. And, according to Jerome Kagan, since similar differences can be seen in monkeys and baboons we are forced to consider the possibility that some of the psychological differences between men and women may not be the product of experience alone but of subtle biological differences.

Many researchers have found greater dependence and docility in very young girls, greater autonomy and activity in boys. When a barrier is set up to separate youngsters from their mothers, boys try to knock it down; girls cry helplessly.

Animal studies suggest that there may be a biological factor in maternal behavior; mothers of rhesus monkeys punish their male babies earlier and more often than their female offspring; and, they also touch their female babies more often and act more protective toward them.

dominated society, but to their own biology which fits them for an altogether different sphere of living.

It has now been established that hormones play an important role in creating this difference between the two sexes. When the male hormone testosterone was experimentally injected into females, they began to develop masculine characteristics. Girls who had been injected with male hormones while still at the foetal stage showed less fondness for playing with dolls, and even developed aggressive temperaments like boys. Researchers found that hormones can change the structure of the brain itself, so that if the male and female brain structures differ, the cause may be traced to the difference in hormones.

Although this research has clearly established that a difference does exist, physically and mentally, between men and women—obviously indicating separate spheres of activity for them—old adherents of the male-female equality concept are still reluctant to accept the reversal of a favorite theory. As a western scholar says: “Whether these physiological differences destine men and women for separate role in society is another and far more delicate question.” 24

Almost a decade prior to the Newsweek report, Time magazine, in its special issue on the status of American women, asked the question: “Are women immutably different from men?” Their review of the research findings at that time, summarized in the following pages, is instructive. 25 Women’s liberationists believe that any differences other than anatomical are a result of conditioning by society. The opposing view is that all of the differences are fixed in goes. The idea that genetic predispositions exist is based on three kinds of evidence. First, there are the ‘cultural universals’ cited by anthropologist Margaret Mead: Almost everywhere, the mother is the principal caretaker of the child, and male dominance and aggression are the rule. Some anthropologists believe there has been an occasional female dominated society: others insist that none has ever existed.

Then there is the fact that among most ground dwelling primates, males are dominant and have as a major function the protection of females and offspring. Some research suggests that it is true even when the young are raised apart from adults, which seems to mean that they do not learn their roles from their society.

Already climbing in the 1960s, the divorce rate in America literally soared from 1970 to 1990. In 1990, the divorce ratio (i.e., the number of currently divorced persons per 1000 currently married persons) was at an all-time high of 166 for women and 118 for men. In that year 56 percent of American women over age 18 were married, with husband present; 3.7 percent were married with husband absent; 12 .1 percent were widowed; 9.3 percent were divorced; and 18.9 percent were single (i.e., never married).

Though most women continued to marry, the average age at first marriage increased from 21 to 24 years between 1970 and 1988, and marriage tended to become a kind of way-station for many, only one of several different, and now acceptable, “family types.” After entering adulthood, many women will live with a man prior to marriage. Such “co-habitation” outside of marriage, as it is called, was uncommon prior to 1970. In that year the U.S. Bureau of the Census counted 523,000 households with two unrelated adults of the opposite sex; by 1984 the number had grown to nearly two million. For most women such co-habitation is a temporary stage before marriage. But statistics do show that while at least five out of six young women in 1985 will marry, lifelong singleness (possibly in combination with one or more co-habiting relationships) is becoming more acceptable and common. 21

Not only has the divorce rate soared, but the birth rate (i.e., the number of live births for each 1000 women of childbearing age) plunged—down from 118 in 1960 to 67.2 in 1988, a nearly 50 percent drop. By the early 1980s voluntary childlessness had become so acceptable and common—among married couples as well as among never-married women—that one researcher estimated that perhaps as many as 25 percent of the young women of the 1970s would in fact never have children. 22 In 1990, four out of every ten American families contained children, though the presence of children was more common in families maintained by women than either those maintained by men or in married couple families.

Simultaneously, the number of legal abortions has more than doubled. In 1987 in the United States, 13 , 54 ,000 pregnancies were terminated by abortion, up from 5, 88 ,000 in 1972. Approximately 70 percent of the legal abortions are obtained by unmarried women, and

in 1975, 13 .2 percent of employed women worked in the traditional professions (i.e., as physicians, lawyers, registered nurses), and 2.7 percent worked in technical and related professions but, by 1990 this had increased to 15.1 percent and 3.5 percent respectively. In 1975, 63 .7 percent of female employees were confined to four areas—namely, sales, administrative support, private household and other service occupations. In 1990 58.6 percent of employed women still worked in these fields.

So, although women in America are now 13.9 percent of all police and detectives, 19.3 percent of all physicians, 36 percent of all computer programmers, 43 .5 percent of all manufacturing assemblers, 44 .3 percent of all financial managers and 51.5 percent of all bus drivers, they are also 99 percent of all secretaries, 89 .2 percent of all textile sewing machine operators, 84 .8 percent of all health aides and 80.8 percent of all waitresses.

Among government employees, though women are a minority at the highest grade levels, their representation there has been increasing sharply. For instance, in 1982, 22 .4 percent of the employees in Grades 11-12 and only 9.7 percent in Grades 13-15, were women. By 1988, 31 .9 percent of Grades 11-12 employees and 15.9 percent of Grades 13- 15 employees were women. Still, the bulk of women in government employment are concentrated at the six lowest grades. In 1982, and still in 1988, fully 75 percent of the employees in the lowest six levels were women.

Though the pay gap between men and women has closed somewhat, and more so in some occupations than in others, discrimination in earnings and benefits remains pervasive. In 1980 women earned, on average, 64 cents for every dollar earned by men in the United States; by 1990 it was 72 cents. In certain areas, such as technical, sales, administrative support and service jobs, the male-female wage gap narrowed in recent years as much because of declines in men’s salaries (due to recession condition) as of increases in women’s wages. As of 1989, women were still more likely than men to be working at minimum wage jobs. Female workers were less likely than males to have employer or union-sponsored pension plans in 1987 (but between 1980 and 1987 the proportion of male workers with pension plans dropped by 6 percentage points).

 Women have also broken into the front ranks of the media, with Connie Chung holding a prized anchor position on the evening news for one of the three major commercial television networks and scores more women in the position of network reporters, and even more women anchoring and reporting for local news stations, not to mention hosting some of the most popular talk and variety shows.

 In 1989, a survey of ‘Fortune 500’ companies found that women made up 12.7 percent of corporate board membership, up from a single digit figure in 1970. And businesses owned by women soared in the decade 1977-1978, from 7.1 to 30 percent of all business.

 In education, where women have historically lagged behind men, especially in post-secondary education, over the decade from 1970 to 1990 women’s achievements converged with and in some cases surpassed men. From 1966 to 1987, the percentage of female high school graduates who completed four years of college increased from 16 to 25 percent, to equal that of men.

In 1989, the majority of degrees at all levels except doctorate were earned by women: whereas in 1970, 43 percent of the Bachelor’s degrees and 39 percent of the Master’s degrees were awarded to women, in 1989 it was 53 and 52 percent respectively. Though only 36 percent of the doctorates were awarded to women, that was a substantial jump from 13 percent in 1970.

Significantly, too, the proportion of degree in science and engineering earned by women showed a dramatic increase from 1960 to 1990. In 1989, 50 percent of all biological science degrees were earned by women, up from 28 percent in 1970. The proportion of degrees awarded to women in computer science and the physical sciences doubled from 14 percent in 1970 to 31 and 30 percent respectively in 1989. Mathematics, also a traditional preserve of men, saw an increase in degrees awarded to women during the same period of from 37 to 49 percent. And in business, 47 percent of the degrees went to women, compared to 9 percent in 1970. Though in 1989 women earned only 15 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees in engineering, this was up from just 1 percent in 1970.

In the medical and other professional areas too, women have become increasingly qualified. In 1989, 26 percent of the dentistry degrees, 33 percent of the medical degrees, 50 percent of the

would be easier to visualize,” concluded Bonnie Angelo in her overview of American women’s status in 1972.18 “The demand for equality, not domination, is immensely complicated. True equality between autonomous partners is hard to achieve even if both partners are of the same sex. The careful balancing of roles and obligations and privileges, without the traditional patterns to fall back on, sometimes seems like an almost utopian vision.

While nearly everyone favors some of the basic goals of the New Feminism—equal pay for equal work, equal job opportunity, equal treatment by the law—satisfying even those minimum demands could require more wrenching change than many casual sympathizers with the women’s cause have seriously considered. Should women be drafted? Ought protective legislation about women’s hours and working conditions be repealed?

WOMEN INTO THE MARKETPLACE

Complex currents of social change converged to produce the “new feminism” of the 1970s, but British historian and writer Arnold Toynbee identified an essential dilemma years earlier. Middle-class woman acquired education and a chance at a career, wrote Toynbee, at the very time she lost her domestic servants and the unpaid household help of relatives living in the old, large family; she had to become either a “household drudge” or “carry the intolerably heavy load of two simultaneous full-time jobs.”19

In 1972, though American women already made up more than one third of the national workforce, they were concentrated in lowerskilled and lower-paying positions. An average woman employed in a full-time job earned only two thirds of the salary paid to a man with a similar job. Childcare facilities were few and far between, and often too expensive. The same number of women as men graduated from high school that year, but only 41 percent of the women compared to 59 percent of the men went on to college. There had never been a woman justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, and less than 3 percent of the nation’s lawyers were women. The first five female agents for the U.S. Secret Service were only then beginning training. And politically, women were barely visible: in 1975, only

“If you are a career woman, how can you bring the child up?” Suzanne asked. “If a woman has a child, it should be a fulltime occupation for at least the first year, perhaps two or three. Three years is an awful big bite out of a career, and I’ve spent a long time preparing for my career.”

 Noraine O’Callaghan is against abortion—“It’s murder she told Time—and she worried that some mothers use day care centers as a substitute for child rearing. But she sympathizes with most of the aims of women’s liberation, she said. Her one reservation: “In order to get into the system, a woman has to become like a man, and is therefore, probably no better.”

 Marcia Heuber’s world is one of seasons and crops, dawn-todusk farm chores, the kitchen and children in a rambling farmhouse. When she was in high school, Marcia told Time, “My biggest goal was to get married.” Though she works just as hard as her husband, Roger, she has no doubts about where she stands in relation to him: “I still feel the male sex should be dominant. I want my husband to feel he is the head of the household. We decide things together, but I think the final word should mostly be his.”

Marcia also found time for social service activity like teaching Sunday school, playing the church organ, and so on. She is deeply proud of the life she has carved out for herself: “Being married and having a family were the most important things for me. I’m very happy with my profession.”

 Lynn Young is 33, attractive, unmarried and likes it that way. “I wanted to be a surgeon,” she admitted, “but a friend at Stanford medical school discouraged me. He showed me how tough medicine is for a woman.” Lynn never feels the least pressure to marry. “There simply aren’t that many marriages I envy,” she said. “A lot of women are just hanging in there for the security, but that’s a dumb reason to get married.”

 I used to call my husband, “AB—arrogant bastard,” started Eleanor Driver. “And he was, but he was strong and dominant, and I liked that. When the university offered me a job, he said, ‘Go ahead— but I want my socks washed.”

A revealing portrait of the average American housewife and her

“congressone”—instead of “congressman”—have begun to be heard in the West. Likewise, “sportsoneship” instead of “sportsmanship,” “herstory” instead of “history,” and “spokesone” instead of “spokesman.” More well-known is the feminists’ rejection of “Mrs.” and “Miss.” as a form of address—because it allegedly stigmatizes women by revealing their marital status. Instead, “Ms.”—pronounced miz—has been widely adopted.

At the extreme radical fringe, the “new feminists” are waging an assault not just on society, but on the limitations of biology. Some argue that through the science of eugenics the genetic code could be altered to produce a different kind of man or woman. Sputnik magazine of October 1987 gave substance to this view with an article titled, “Should Daddies Be Mummies?” The article dealt with the theory of sex change forwarded by a German doctor, in which the uterus of a woman is taken out by surgery and placed into a man’s stomach so that the man, too, can perform the child-bearing task, thus putting an end to the inequality created by nature itself between the sexes. Short of that, extremist feminists demand a complete withdrawal from dependence on men, including sexual ties, and advocate embrace of lesbianism. 14

The views and aims of the women’s liberation movement are wideranging, and sometimes contradictory. Likewise, the broad response to the “new feminism” has been as varied as the circumstances in which ordinary American women have found themselves. A series of Vignettes of women interviewed by Time magazine in 1972, and excerpted below, makes this variety clear. 15

 Betty Jackson dreamed of being a singer or a nurse and, someday, a wife. Instead, at 15 she had an illegitimate child. “I live in dope city and on one of the worst streets,” said Betty. “We have no heat. We get hot water once in a while. The wall is coming apart from the leaks. Roaches are everywhere. The rats minuet and waltz around the floor.” The Welfare Department paid Betty’s rent, but the two additional checks they provided monthly barely covered the purchases of necessities, much less “luxuries” such as a telephone, radio, TV or vacuum cleaner. “I am a slave to my financial problems,” Betty said, “and my life is meaningless as far as having things that people are supposed to have.” Whatever hopes she had of returning to work were

that cannot be exercized.”6 But in the view of University of Michigan psychologist Judith Bardwick, instead of liberating women to enjoy sex, the Pill has replaced fear of pregnancy with fear of being used. “Far from giving young women the sexual license that men have so long enjoyed, the Pill has caused some women to resent male freedom even more,” Bardwick stated. “Far from alleviating anxiety over sexual use of the body, the Pill has exacerbated it.”7

The pill notwithstanding, unwanted pregnancies still occur by the tens of thousands, and the fight over legalization of abortion-on demand remains on center stage. And, the effects of long-term use of the Pill, which acts to prevent ovulation, are now a matter of public record. The changed hormonal balance caused by the Pill is blamed for headaches and weight gain in some women. British and other medical studies have found a connection between the Pill and the formation of blood clots that can cause strokes as well as an increased susceptibility to various forms of uterine cancer. Successive generations of female contraceptives—oral, sub-dermal and all the rest—have become even more potent and questionable in their long-term effect.

It should not be surprising to find that as of the 1970s female suicide was on the rise in the United States. Though it has always been the case that more men than women kill themselves, trends had begun to change in certain large cities. In Los Angeles, for example, whereas in 1960 of those who committed suicide 35 percent were women, by 1970 the percentage of women among suicides had jumped to 45 percent.8 Another indication that women had begun to experience more conflict came from a University of Wisconsin study during the same period, which found that women psychiatric patients complained of more anxiety, depression, alienation and inability to cope with stress than did their counterparts of ten years earlier.9

THE “WOMEN’S LIB” MOVEMENT

“Women’s liberation” began formally with the founding in 1966 of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the largest and most influential movement group. In 1985 NOW had a nationwide membership in the United States of some 185,000 women and men. NOW was conceived as a civil rights lobby for women, active in

Western Woman

The “New Woman” has been proclaimed with a certain regularity for a century or more, Time magazine reminded its readers in a 1972 special edition devoted to an exploration of the status of women in America.1 In 1989 the Scots traveller James F. Muirhead observed that it was man who was subservient in American life because he was “the hewer of wood, the drawer of water and beast of burden for the superior sex” (i.e. females). The feminists disagreed, insisting it was they who were dominated.

In 1920 American women won the right to vote, and in the 1920s and 1930s began to go to college in considerable numbers, with the expectation of entering the professions. Women believed that “the battle had been won.” But, after the vicissitudes of the Great Depression of post-World War II economic boom, the feminist movement was reborn. It was a time of turmoil in American society: President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated in 1963, and the U.S. engagement in the Vietnam War prompted radical protests and widespread questioning of traditional values and institutions, especially among the youth.

The “new feminism” movement was a phenomenon of the restlessness found in the American woman of the 1960s and 1970s. “By all rights, the American woman today should be the happiest in history,” Bonnie Angelo observed in Time’s 1972 cover story. “She is healthier that U.S. women have ever been, better educated, more affluent, better dressed, more comfortable, pampered by gadgets. But there is a worm in the apple. She is restless in her familiar familial role, no longer quite content with the homemaker-wife-mother part in which her society has cast her ... Many are in search of a new role that is more independent, less restricted to the traditional triangle of— children, kitchen and church.”

been deprived of blessings which God had intended to provide for them through their parents. Sometimes they are denied the attention they need because their parents are out at work for the whole day in some office. Sometimes it is because their parents have separated that they are left alone; and sometimes it is because they were born out of wedlock, that the parents do not consider it their responsibility to look after them.

In western countries, where the marriage bond has weakened to a very great extent, and even quite trifling differences can result in separation, divorce has become common, and the resultant broken homes have had the same disastrous effects on children as illegitimacy. It is little wonder that children, who are deprived of the normal tender, loving care of a united family, degenerate into animal-like creatures and frequently develop criminal tendencies. One glaring example is Charles Sobhraj, the internationally notorious criminal. Sobhraj’s Indian father and European mother did marry, but separated soon after his birth, so that he never knew what it was to live in a united home. He was brought up independently without receiving any proper education, and it is not, therefore, surprising that he gradually developed criminal tendencies. Later a life of the most horrifying crime, he is now serving out a lengthy sentence in an Indian jail.

Should not this give pause to the headlong rush into women’s emancipation and all the social instability which ensues?

Notes

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. 19, p. 909 .

2. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1976), p. 17 .

3. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. 19, p. 909 .

4. Bible, I Corinthians, 11:8 .

5. J.M. Roberts, The Pelican History of the World (New York, 1984), p. 334 .

6. Statesman (New Delhi), April 26, 1986.

7. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. VIII, p. 127 .

8. The Times of India (New Delhi), July 11, 1986.

9. Ibid., May 23, 1986.

10. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. III, p. 586 .

11 . Plain Truth, May 1987.

12 . Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. II, p. 913

13 . Ibid., vol. 5, p. 273 .

14 . Time, October 19, 1987, p. 60.

etc., have played a major role in encouraging the acceptance of such behaviour as the norm.

The marriage bond, as a result, has come to be viewed as burdensome, superfluous and outdated. So many young men and women have started to live together without being married that the term “unmarried couple” has now come to be considered just as lawful a term as “married couple.”

Where the divine shari’ah has established a balance between men and women such as renders them complements to each other, “women’s lib” claims that they are duplicates of each other—almost like clones. This ill-judged concept has become tremendously popular in recent years, upsetting the balance which had existed for hundreds of years between men and women. The results, however, have been no gain to humanity, while the harm done is too much even to quantify.

The first and most obvious result of women’s new-found economic independence has been the higher incidence of divorce. Scientific research has proved that women are more emotional than men, and, as such, can take hasty, ill-considered decisions. Before the industrial revolution, having no permanent, independent, economic footing acted as a check to their emotionalism. When, for example, they felt aggrieved at what they considered the negative aspects of married life, the question of how and where they would live if they opted for divorce inevitably acted as a deterrent. But such fears have been swept away in modern times. On this point the Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

Industrialization has made it easier for women to support themselves, whether they are single, married, divorcees, or widowed. In this connection it is interesting to note that the Great Depression the 1930s stopped the rise in the number of divorces in the United States for a time.10

In some western countries the divorce rates have increased to an alarming degree. In France half the number of marriages end in divorce, while in Canada the divorce rate is about 40 percent. In the U.S. the divorce rate is as high as the marriage rate. Ten percent of American women have gone through the experience of divorce. 11

and the women will fail to excel: the men will do better due to their natural abilities. As a result, the women will suffer a fall in status vis-àvis the men.

Inspired by false notions of equality, a certain country girl once fled her home to seek an independent life in a city intending to make money as men do. She failed, however, to find a place in the world of men. What remained at her disposal now was her femininity. This she traded for an independent life. This independent life was not, however, gained by securing “equality” in social life, it was gained rather by having condescended to become the plaything of men.

Somewhat similar, but on a larger scale, has been the case of western women. The West encouraged women to come out of their homes to earn like men. They did so only to find that it was impossible to have an independent life by working like men in the outside world. The only alternative available to them to making money was their femininity. Like the country girl who fled her home, they had to sell their femininity in the marketplace. Such unnatural and immoral acts failed to give women an equal status. This resulted rather in the creation of innumerable new problems. One of them is pornography, which is not a separate problem in itself, but the inevitable result of unrestricted freedom having given way to licence.

PORNOGRAPHY

Pornography is the representation of erotic behavior, as in books, pictures, or films, intended to cause sexual excitement. Pornographic matter has fallen under legislative prohibition in most countries in the world on at least one of the following assumptions: (1) pornography will tend to deprave or corrupt the morals of youth, or of adults and youth; and, (2) consumption of such matter is a cause of sexual crimes.7

The demand for pornography has become so great that, in western countries, it has developed into a regular industry. In America itself this industry has an annual turnover of $ 8 billion. The problems created by it are of such magnitude that a U.S. government commission has issued a report linking sex crimes with hard-core pornography. The commission, headed by then U.S. Attorney General Mr. Edwin Meese, called for a law enforcement effort of unprecedented scope against the

conventions. All of this was done under the banners of “reason,” “empiricism,” “logic,” “liberalism,” and so on, but, in actual fact, the whole “liberation” movement has been swamped in a welter of emotion, creating a number of social problems.

UNNATURAL EQUALITY

Selected readings from the Quran were prepared in English by the English Orientalist, Edward William Lane, and were first published in London in book form in 1843. In his foreword, Lane wrote that “the fatal point in Islam was the degradation of woman.” Since then this remark has been regularly taken up as a stick with which to beat Islam. In fact, whenever Islamic affairs were mentioned, it became such a common observation, that not only the enemies of Islam, but also relatively fair-minded writers such as the historian, J.M. Roberts, who did justice to Islam in pointing out its virtues, mentioned it as if it were an established fact.

We have shown in detail, at another point in this book, that this allegation is entirely baseless. The facts are quite the reverse. Islam has, in actual fact, raised the status of woman. If the truth were told, woman’s degradation has come about at the hands of two major civilizations, one ancient and polytheistic, the other modern and atheistic. The former has been culpable both in theory and in practice, while the latter has been so in practice, despite its theorizing to the contrary.

We must never lose sight of the fact that what governed the ethics and lifestyles of ancient polytheistic civilizations were myths. Certain highly fanciful, but obviously baseless suppositions were believed in as truths, and all aspects of human existence were subordinated to them. For instance, ancient man regarded certain natural phenomena, such as the sun and the moon, with the awe of ignorance, and venerated them as deities. Conversely, he supposed certain other phenomena to be inferior, therefore, undeserving of respect. It was into the latter category that women fell, possibly because menstruation and their inability to fight alongside their men folk were interpreted in an adversely superstitious manner. Woman was regarded as the inferior sex and, therefore, deserving of degrading treatment by men.

rights, Islam set up an important precedent which had as far-reaching an effect on the civilization of the times as western civilization has had on the world of today. If Islam was able to accomplish such an ‘evolution in human affairs, it was because it did not remain just a philosophical creed but went on to conquer most parts of the inhabited world of the times.

In the world of today, even those commentators who generously acknowledge the virtues of Islam often repeat the dictum that Islam has relegated women to an inferior status. But to say that Islam gives women a share in property and then to say at the same time that Islam has degraded women is contradictory. From ancient times till today, the question of inheritance has been the most important social issue and might well be considered the sole criterion of status in society. Entitling women to have a share in property, contrary to the custom of the time, is a clear proof that Islam had no desire to degrade them. Had this been so, the first demonstration of this desire would have been to deprive them of their share in property, a correct and justifiable practice according to the traditions of the times.

It is interesting to see the reverse side of the coin as presented by a recent convert to Islam, namely, the English pop singer, Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam. Asked by a Jewish woman how he intended to deal with the problem of Islam’s “degradation” of women, he said that he had not actually made a study of women’s status in Islam, but that for his own part, he had, since his conversion, asked his mother to come and stay with him and that he loved looking after her. His relations with his wife had also considerably improved.

In its assessment of the status of women, the western mind has made the same error as was made by ancient man: it has formed opinions based on irrational beliefs. This accounts for latter-day distortions of thought regarding women in the advanced western countries and for the resultant grave distortion in the concept of women.

WOMEN IN MODERN CIVILIZATION

Where modern western man fell deeply into error, was in his blind acceptance of the concept of the equality of the sexes without giving

Woman in Society

WOMEN IN ANCIENT SOCIETY

In almost every inhabited corner of the globe, the societies of ancient times regarded the status of women as being inferior to that of man. “In Athens,” says the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “woman’s status had degenerated to that of slaves. Wives were secluded in their homes, had no education and few rights, and were considered by their husbands no better than chattels ... In ancient Rome, a woman’s legal position was one of complete subordination, first to the power of her father or brother and later to that of her husband, who held paternal power over his wife. In the eyes of the law, women were regarded as imbeciles.”1

The reason for the ill-treatment of women in ancient times was the prevalence of superstition. There were, in fact, very few matters upon which irrational beliefs of one sort or another had not been adopted. Such perverted thinking became elevated to the status of religion and, as such, had a pervasively baneful influence upon all human relations.

Speculation was another mode of thought which produced strange, and often pernicious results. Ridiculing the thought processes of the ancient Greeks, Bertrand Russell writes: “Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wive’s mouths.”2

Christianity did little to improve this situation, having attached great importance to the erroneous belief given in the very first book of the Bible, that it had been Eve’s wrongdoing which had caused Adam’s ejection from the garden of Eden. Referring to women in

7. Bible, Genesis, 3:1-24 .

8. The Quran, 7:19-25 .

9. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. 3, p. 1040.

10. Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 1040-42.

11 . Ibid., vol. 16 , p. 599 .

12 . An-Nasa’i, Sunan, Kitab ‘Ishrah an-Nisa’, 7/61 .

13 . Alexis Carrel, Man, The Unknown (London,1984), p. 91 .

14 . The Quran, 3:83 .

15 . The Quran, 55:7-9 .

16 . The Quran, 57:25 .

17 . The Quran, 7:85 .

18. Alexis Carrel, Man, The Unknown, pp. 79-80.

19. The Quran, 30:41 .

20. The Quran, 4:34 .

21 . Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. X, p. 732 .

22 . Daily Express (London), July 4, 1977.

23 . Alexis Carrel, Man, The Unknown (New York, 1949), p. 91 .

24 . Illustrated Weekly of India (Bombay), April 2, 1978.

25 . Indian Express (New Delhi), August 3, 1986.

26 . The Times of India (New Delhi), June I, 1986.

27 . Ibid., July 5, 1986.

28 . Ibid., July 4, 1986.

29 . Ibid., June I, 1986.

30. The Hindustan Times (New Delhi), August 23, 1986.

Research in zoology has brought to light the “green monkey,” a native of the jungles of Africa. Of all the known species of monkey, this is the only one which indulges in homosexual practices and suffers from a disease similar to AIDS. Perhaps God created it with its perversions and afflictions in order to provide a salutary lesson for mankind. But all such lessons have been swept away by the wave of permissiveness which is carrying all before it in the western world of today. A glaring example is provided by San Francisco:

AIDS is sweeping San Francisco, the city known as the ‘gay capital of the world,’ according to medical statistics published on Wednesday. Of the 520 new cases of AIDS recorded in the first six months of the year, more than two out of three— 67 per cent—proved to be fatal. This compared with the previous record of 58 per cent fatalities last year. 28

Now AIDS victims are being fled from as plague victims used ‘to be in the old days. Localities which used to be the happy hunting grounds of “gays” now wear a deserted look. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, homosexuality had been practised in western countries long before the recent spate of publicity given to it, but it had not been studied scientifically until early in the 20th century. It was only after World War II that there was any proper collection of data on the subject. A.C. Kinsey, who conducted a large-scale, systematic appraisal of the incidence and social correlates of homosexuality (1948,1953), found that 37 percent of all U.S. males, and 13 percent of all U.S. females had at least one overt homosexual experience with orgasm. In other western countries, the facts largely corresponded with these figures.

In most countries, there are no laws against homosexuality perse, almost all of them having repealed the laws against homosexual activities between “consenting adults in private,” and, whereas homosexuals used to be denoted by a term loaded with opprobrium— sodomites—they are now referred to by the newly coined expression, “gay,” which would appear to lend a harmless aspect of lively cheerfulness to their activities. Society now only draws the line at an adult having homosexual relations with a minor or with an unwilling partner by force. It appears to have forgotten that it was exactly this practice which led to the destruction of the Prophet Lot’s

in a reversion to nature. They can never be solved while continuing on the path of rebellion from nature.

A flower, for instance, finds a prestigious position for itself as part of a bouquet, but if the same flower is placed under a rock, it will get crushed beyond all recognition. The same is true of a woman. In her own natural setting—the home—she is in a position of honour and prestige, and all her qualities shine forth as a result. But the moment she steps out of it to enter a crassly competitive world, she descends from the pedestal on which her family has placed her, and sinks deep into the mire of masculine oppression. Instead of her feminine talents coming into play quite naturally within the domestic framework, and bringing joy to herself and to her nearest and dearest ones, they become the object of the lustful exploitation of total strangers, and sources of frustration and stultification to the woman herself. The humiliations of the office, the shop and the factory are no fair exchange for the honor of family life. Outside the home, a woman feels constantly under siege.

There is no doubt that nature has cast men in the stronger, and women in the weaker mold. This accounts for nature making different demands upon men and women, resulting in a convenient division of labor. Any divergence from this pattern only creates problems in the home, especially for children. Many solutions have been sought to these problems, but the only effective way of setting matters right is to return to the order established by nature.

THE CURSE OF AIDS

AIDS, the most terrible scourge of modern times, has proved how fatal it is to deviate from nature. The high-risk groups are promiscuous homosexuals, bisexual men, intravenous drug-abusers and those having multiple sexual partners. Its highest incidence is among male homosexuals. For such people, AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is the ultimate in divine retribution. With the defence mechanisms of the body rendered completely useless, the AIDS victim has as little hope of recovery as malaria victims used to have before the advent of modern therapeutics. AIDS renders medication ineffective, fevers do not respond even to injections and the body’s

unequal status. In whatever sector of the western economy a woman may be working, she is considered second rate as compared to a man. Even to achieve this second-rate position, a woman has to pay a certain price. She must willy-nilly become the plaything of men, allowing herself to be subjected to masculine cruelty and lasciviousness. The following is an extract about a report on American working women:

They sound like experiences in a Delhi bus. Lewd gestures, offensive language, attacks on your person—the American workplace is for its women workers what public transport is for women in Delhi. A bank teller, Michelle Vinson, suffered physical abuse and alleged rape by the bank’s vice-president Sidney Taylor for four years until finally, assisted by a women’s organisation, she went to court. The district court rejected her appeal, largely because she had remained silent for four years and had not used the bank’s complaint procedure to ask for help. It held that any relationship between the two was voluntary. The higher court of appeal rejected every finding of the district court and the matter finally found its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that sexual harassment is a direct infringement of a woman’s right to employment. It creates a hostile and abusive work environment in which she may be forced to leave her job or in which she cannot function to her full potential, even if such unwelcome sexual demands are not directly linked to concrete employment benefits. In other words, the court ruled that it violates U.S. civil laws against sex discrimination in the workplace.

Sexual harassment of working women is endemic, said the friends-of-thecourt brief filed by numerous women’s organisations for this case. In the last five years, about half the American female working force has suffered this type of harassment at work. This does not just happen to women in factories or at blue collar workplaces. Within the fibreglass, multi-storied skyscrapers, the American office is not as pleasant for its women secretaries, lawyers, and other professionals as its air-conditioned, carpeted and muted decor makes it appear.

About 42 percent of federally employed women were harassed in their jobs, stated a recent two-year survey done by the Official Merits Protection Board. Another 60 percent of the members of the American Federation of State, Country and Municipal Employees said that sexual harassment was a frequent problem for them. And between 1981 and 1985, the number of such complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, established to monitor employment practices, shot up by 70 percent. The complaints vary from the physical violence of rape and assault to the insidious harassment of unwanted pushing and touching, persistent sexual demands, offensive sexual

Unquestionably women have greater emotional awareness even before they have children. Little girls are commonly more thoughtful and sensitive to parental moods than little boys.

Professor Goldberg’s proposition is quite simply, that they are much less likely to get to the top—and all because of testosterone. The masculinization of the brain by this hormone has been demonstrated conclusively by experiments on female rats and other mammals. “And we have now found the same thing with human beings,” says Goldberg. The professor concludes: “The central fact is that men and women are different from each other from the gene to the thought to the act. These differences flow from the biological natures of man and woman.”

Women who deny their natures and covet a state of second rate manhood are forever condemned to argue against their own juices. The experience of men is that there are few women who can out-fight them and few who can out-argue them, but when a woman uses feminine means she can deal with any man as an equal. In this and every other society men look to women for gentleness, kindness and love. The basic male motivation is protection of women and children. The feminist cannot have it both ways: If she wishes to sacrifice all this, all that she will get in return is the right to meet men on male terms. She will lose. 22

FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE

Nobel Laureate Dr. Alexis Carrel (1873-1944) has discussed this issue great perception. After enumerating the biological facts which crucial to the issue, he sums up the profundity of the difference between men and women:

The differences existing between man and woman do not come from the particular form of the sexual organs, the presence of the uterus, from gestation, or from the mode of education. They are of a more fundamental nature. They are caused by the very structure of the tissues and by the impregnation of the entire organism with specific chemical substances secreted by the ovary. Ignorance of these fundamental facts has led promoters of feminism to believe that both sexes should have the same education, the same powers and the same responsibilities. In reality woman differs profoundly from man. Every one of the cells of her body bears the mark of her sex. The same is true of her organs and, above all, of her nervous system. Physiological laws are as inexorable as those of the sidereal world. They cannot be replaced by human wishes. We are obliged to accept them just as they are. Women should develop their aptitudes in accordance with their own nature, without trying to imitate the males. Their

to demonstrate her capabilities, a woman would be able to work shoulder to shoulder with men in every walk of life. In no respect would she lag behind.

This movement is now over two hundred years old and, in modem developed countries, it has been so successful that neither the law nor tradition now places the slightest obstacle in the path of women who wish to step into the shoes of men. Yet women still lag far behind men, there being very few instances of their having actually placed themselves on an equal footing with them.

Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say on the subject of women in modern society:

In the economic sphere women who work outside the home are heavily concentrated in the lowest paying work and that having the lowest status. Women also earn less than men in the same kinds of jobs. The median pay of women workers in the U.S. was 60 percent that of men in 1982. In Japan the percentage of average pay was 55. Politically, women are greatly underrepresented in national and local government and in political parties. 21

Today the social boundaries set by time-honored conventions have broken down, and all countries now have laws favoring equality of the sexes. Yet modern woman still finds herself on a lower rung than man, not having been able to achieve equal status in any of the economically or professionally important areas of modern living. This state of affairs would appear to indicate that, contrary to the women’s libbers’ way of thinking, social conditioning cannot be blamed for the centuries-old difference in the status of men and women. If this had been so, surely by the end of the 20th century women would have been enjoying an equal status with men. Obviously, we must search for the reasons elsewhere.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN

In every period of history—even today in western developed countries— women have remained subordinate to men. The western upholders of the so-called women’s lib movement are still saying that this is not a natural division and that the difference should be attributed to artificial social conditioning. Recent research, however, has discredited this supposition.

they would have flown about like kites, and civilization, as we know it would hardly have been possible.

It is fortunate that the order of the universe is not in the hands of men. If it were, we should experience intermittent tampering with the immutable laws of nature. Gravity would wax and wane, the earth would move nearer to or further from the sun and, on the pretext that nature had been cruel to insects in fixing the size of their breathing tubes, the said creatures would be encouraged to grow to elephantine proportions, thus filling the whole earth with them. None of these developments would, however, be encouraging to the human species!

Luckily, man cannot effect such changes in the universe, since he has no power over its ordering. But he is free to act as he wills in his own world, and the result has been chaos on a grand scale. The extremes to which he has gone are thus referred to in the Quran: “Evil appears on land and sea as a result of the (evil) which men’s hands have done.”19

WOMAN VERSUS MAN

In view of the divine law of balance, let us consider the relationship between man and woman. According to divine law, this relationship was set up on the principle of the division of labor, i.e. it is the responsibility of the man to carry out tasks outside the home, while the woman takes charge of tasks within the home. The Quran states that “men are the protectors and maintainers of women.”20

This does not make a man a woman’s superior, or her master. This only means that in running a home and bringing up a family, it is for the man, with his more active capabilities, to earn a living, deal with all official matters, and, when called upon, defend his country. A man is by nature more suited to such tasks, and that is why it is in the nature of things that they should be his responsibilities and not woman’s. The word qawwam in the above verse, is an intensive form of qa’im meaning, “one who is responsible for or takes care of a thing or a person.” Thus, the use of this word is indicative of the wisdom of the division of labor rather than the superiority of man over woman. It should be conceded that if the woman finds herself in a position of responsibility in running the home, it is because her more passive

that you might not transgress the balance. Give just weight and full measure.” 15

The universe is not composed of just one item. It is rather a collection of highly disparate elements. Besides this, each and every one of its components is in motion. Not a single constituent, from the minutest atom to the most gigantic galaxy, can ever for a second remain static. For the precise functioning of this infinitely complex assemblage of moving components, limits in space and time had to be applied so that the different parts did not come into conflict with each other. God, therefore—besides creating all these things—established a systematic balance between them. This principle is known as the “Law of Nature.”

Similarly, in the human world—also a vast assemblage of disparate individuals—everyone is in motion. And in order that each should continue on his life’s journey without colliding with his fellow men, it was likewise necessary to establish boundaries, both moral and physical, for all human beings without exception: a balance had to be struck so that there should be no clash between individuals or societies. It is, indeed, this law of nature which has been revealed to humanity through the medium of the prophets. God’s will on this subject is recorded in the Quran: “We have sent our Messengers with clear signs and brought down with them scriptures and the scales of justice so that men might deal with fairness.” 16

That is to say that God sent a balance of justice in the form of a book through His prophets. This book was supported by arguments and evidence so that people could believe in its authenticity and would not hesitate to order their lives according to this balance, that is, the just law. While the law of balance is inherent in the rest of creation, for man, it has been provided externally through the revelations of this divine book.

THE BANEFUL EFFECTS OF DEVIATION

Any deviation from the divine balance established by God leads to chaos and confusion. It is, therefore, laid down in the Quran that no changes should be made in the balance God has created by means of His laws of reform. 17

Far from considering marriage with a woman to be a shameful act, Islam, which is basically a realistic religion, considers it praiseworthy for a man to marry a woman. This is a clear indication that the teachings of Islam are wholesomely consistent with modern scientific findings and in complete consonance with nature.

ORDER OF NATURE

Sculpture is an ancient form of art. There is, no doubt, an obvious resemblance between living beings and statues, but if someone were to presume that the concerns of human beings were the same as those of statues and began to study man under the heading of sculpture, what would be the outcome? This method of study would certainly lead to strange conclusions. A carved image has no need of food and drink; therefore, the student of sculpture would naturally assume that arrangements to this effect were not necessary for man either. He would proceed to the assumption that if a statue can be locked inside a room for any length of time, so could a man be put inside a locked room for years without anyone having to worry about him.

During the time of the former President of Egypt, Jamal Abdun Nasir, an ancient statue of Abu Simbel, 20 meters high and firmly fixed in the rocks, had to be removed from its place to make way for the construction of a huge dam. This work, undertaken between 1964 and 1966, necessitated the use of special machines which could cut the statue into several pieces so that they could be shifted to a safer place, and then reassembled. Now, on this parallel, the student who views man as a statue, can also, as part of some scheme, start chopping up the human body.

Of course, there is no sculptor in this world who would do such a thing. But in another department, that of education, such experts have come into being in modern times as are experimenting with man as if he were a statue and doing everything to him that could be done to a statue. This branch of knowledge is called “anthropology.” This field of study began at the turn of the 19th century. In the light of data collected on external information regarding the conditions of ancient man, his beliefs, customs, traditions, certain conclusions about human beings in general were arrived at.

both were equally held responsible and both suffered equally in consequence. This surely demonstrates that they were on an equal footing in the eyes of God.

CELIBACY

Celibacy has existed in some form or another throughout man’s religious history and has appeared in virtually all the major religious traditions of the world.9

It is true that prior to Islam, in almost every religion, celibacy was considered to be the highest criterion of piety, the fundamental reason for this being the inferior status of women. There were periods in the history of certain countries when women were considered almost subhuman and a source of sin. Those who associated with them were, therefore, regarded as being inferior. By contrast, those who lived a life of celibacy had an aura of sanctity about them and basked in the esteem of society.

The basic function of celibacy was to establish the internal wholeness and spiritual self-sufficiency of the truly religious person, so that he might become a living symbol of sacredness and purity. It was meant to prove to him that the ultimate reality was beyond his physical needs, so that he in turn might demonstrate to others that fulfillment may be achieved by total dependence upon what is sacred. Throughout the history of primitive religions, priests have been forbidden sexual activity, and abstinence there from has been regarded as ritual purification. Religious literature has perpetuated such notions about celibacy with the objective of enhancing the moral and spiritual advancement of the religiously inclined. The exemplary perfection attained in this way was supposed to make it possible to induce certain altered states of mystical consciousness which gave one direct experience of the spiritual absolute. Those who wished to attain this state or perform certain special religious services were required to make a vow of celibacy in the presence of another.

Celibacy probably derives originally from taboos of sexual power as being a rival to religious power, and of sexuality as being a polluting factor, especially in situations where sanctity was all-important. The Romans, for example, adhered to the dictum of ascetic philosophers

the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10. And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 . And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 . And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 . And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 . And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 . And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 . Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 . And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20. And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21 . Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothes them.

22 . And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 . Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 . So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of

with more of the active qualities which make them better qualified to shoulder responsibilities outside the home. This ensures a natural and effective complementarity in family life.

SUPERSTITIONS CONCERNING WOMEN

This downgrading of women, because they came to be identified with “inferior” tasks, resulted in their debasement in society. In the eyes of the law, women could not enjoy the same rights as men and, therefore, were not considered deserving of a share in family property. In practice, there was little distinction made between women and slaves. The opprobrium attaching to womanhood became so great that in certain tribes it led to female infanticide: it was considered humiliating to be the father of a female child.

Ancient legends which perpetuated these erroneous ideas grew out of the all-too-common human tendency to exalt the supposedly great and to deprecate the supposedly inferior. Woman then became not only inferior, but truly despicable in the eyes of society. These ideas, which spread with the legends, were quite false, but took root so firmly in the cultures of many nations, that they came to be universally accepted as the truth. We shall mention here two such stories.

The first is an ancient Greek tale which later gained currency in Europe. It concerns the very first woman, who was created out of earth by Hephaestus at the instance of Zeus, the king of the gods, and sent down into the world with a box containing all kinds of misery and evil. It was the intention of Zeus in so doing to set at naught the blessing of fire which Prometheus had bestowed upon mortals by stealing it from heaven. The story goes that from the moment the box was opened, the world has been plagued with wickedness and sorrow. This woman was given the name Pandora, a Greek word which originally meant “all-giving,” but which came to be synonymous with “giver of all evils.”

The second story has certain points of similarity. It too concerns the first woman, Eve, and having already become famous among Jews, was even incorporated into the Bible, which meant, of course, that it

due to the death of the Prophet’s son. The Prophet, therefore, felt it necessary to gather his people together and explain the truth to them. This account of his is set forth in the Hadith of two writers of peerless authenticity, Muslim and Bukhari:

After praising and glorifying God, he said: “Eclipses of the sun and moon are not due to the death of any human being; they are just two signs given by God. When you observe an eclipse, you should pray to God, praise Him, ask for His mercy and blessings, and give something in charity.”3

He again stressed the fact that they were signs from God, had no connection with the life or death of any particular individual, and that, through them, God wished to convey to man His warnings. Therefore, when you see any such thing, remember God, fear Him, pray to Him and ask His forgiveness.4

Thus Islam put an end to myths and superstitions of this kind for the first time in human history. Another incident of this nature which took place during the time of the second Caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, has been recorded in history as follows: “Ibn Luhai’a relates that, according to Qais ibn Hajjaj, when Egypt was conquered, its inhabitants went to

‘Amr ibn al-’As, the Amir (governor) of Egypt at that time, and told him that when, according to the local calendar, the month of Bauna came round, the river Nile had to be offered the customary sacrifice, without which it would not flow. It seemed that after the twelfth night of that month, they had to find a young girl who was a virgin and the only child of her parents, then they had to persuade her parents to give her in sacrifice, whereupon they dressed her in the finest clothes and jewels and cast her into the river Nile.” ‘Amr ibn al-’As told them that such practices were prohibited by Islam, which indeed had put an end to all idolatrous practices which had been prevalent prior to its advent.

The people of Egypt, therefore, refrained from making the sacrifice, and waited for the water to flow into the bed of the Nile, but the entire month of Bauna passed without the water making its appearance. They then decided to migrate.

At this point, ‘Amr ibn al-’As wrote to explain the entire situation to the Caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. The latter replied that the action

A Survey

Human intelligence having its limits, the universe seems difficult to interpret. Man can only guess at facts: he is in no position to comprehend them. The history of man’s struggle to come to grips with the baffling factors in his terrestrial and celestial environment has been recorded throughout the ages in the writings of sages, philosophers and men of religion, one more recent, and very commendable effort being a book by Sir James Jeans (1877-1946) which gives us prior warning in its very apt title—The Mysterious Universe—of just how impenetrable the secrets of the cosmos can be.

It was this mystery surrounding the universe which gave rise in ancient times to many stories, now called myths. On the basis of pure conjecture, man developed many suppositions which, in the course of time, became widespread beliefs, rooted in the human imagination.

We find that in every age man has had a set of beliefs which molded his thoughts and deeds. In ancient times this set of beliefs was entirely based on myths. It was not until the 7th century A.D. that there was any change in this pattern of thinking. Now importance was attached to facts instead of superstitions. A revolution indeed, and it was brought about by the advent of Islam.

Myths were developed to account for the cosmos. How did the gods bring heavens, earth, plants, beasts and men into existence? What is the divine origin of human institutions and of the ecumene? What divine process is responsible for prosperity or failure? To explain such basic questions etiological (origin or causal) myths were developed. For example, the attraction between man and woman (and the consequent institution of marriage) is explained by the myth that primeval man was one creature, subsequently divided into two parts, male and female, which are attracted to one another to regain their pristine unity. Aristophanes expresses this theory of sexual attraction

Now the question arises as to why it is that once science has supported the religious concept of man and woman as being the right one, the allegation continues to be made that Islam has “degraded” woman. For instance, the Indian freedom fighter, S.M. Joshi, who was interviewed in connection with a government-sponsored scheme to record the voices of freedom fighters for posterity, stated that “the Shariat of the Muslims and the Manusmruti of the Hindus—followed by both communities for centuries—were equally socially reactionary.”3

Such remarks are made so indiscriminately and so frequently that it is high time we concerned ourselves less with our own sense of injury and more with the possible root causes. The main reason is that the results of research on the differences between man and woman have remained only an academic finding and have not yet formed the basis of a popular intellectual revolution. The social penetration of these ideas will have to take place in the same way as monotheism replaced polytheism, that is, through the kind of intellectual revolution set in motion by the Prophet Muhammad and his Companions with the special succor of God.

Such an intellectual revolution in our own times is certainly not far-fetched, since modern science has provided all the arguments in its favor. It is only a question now of sufficient number of believers engaging themselves wholeheartedly in the dissemination of those findings for a popular, intellectual revolution to take place. It is my earnest desire that the following chapters should provide the inspiration for this historymaking task.

Wahiduddin Khan

May 19, 1994

New Delhi, India

Notes

1. Edward William Lane, Selections from Kuran (London 1982), p. XC.

2. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. 10, p. 733 .

3. The Times of India, April 6, 1986.

Foreword

An anthology of the Quran, prepared by English Orientalist Edward William Lane (1801-1876), was published in 1843. It carried a foreword by way of introduction to Islamic teaching, which, inter-alia, stated that “the fatal point in Islam is the degradation of woman.”1

This ill-considered observation gained such currency that it was commonly repeated as if it were an established fact. Almost a century and a half has elapsed since then, and, with the passage of time, this conviction has, if anything, deepened. It has even been quoted as if it were gospel truth in a judgement passed in the Supreme Court of India by the Chief Justice of India, Mr. Y.V. Chandra Chud, in the now notorious Muhammad Ahmad-Shah Bano divorce case.

To interpret the Islamic concept of woman as “degradation” of woman is to distort the actual issue. Islam has never asserted that woman is inferior to man: it has only made the point that woman is differently constituted.

Let us suppose that a doctor tells his patient that his eye is a very delicate organ of the body, to be treated gently and with great care, unlike his fingernails, which can be cut and filed, if necessary. The doctor’s instruction does not mean that he is degrading the eye vis-àvis the nail. He is only pointing out the difference between the nail and the eye.

If all the laws relating to men and women in Islam are based on this fundamental reality that men and women are of two different sexes, it is because distinctive differences between man and woman are established biological facts.

This being so, male and female spheres of activity cannot be one and the same, whether in family or in social life. There must necessarily be differences in the kind of work that they do, and also in their places of work.