WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN ISLAM
Protected or Subjugated? :
M.Haris Z Deen, Ph.D., MBA., BSc., LLB (Hons).,
FRICS
Against this background the question whether Muslim women have any
rights at all has been questioned by women’s rights lobbyists world
over. They continue to target Islamic values in respect of treatment of
women. The areas of contention that such protagonists highlight in
support of their case are:
a. Men are allowed to marry four women at any one time while women do
not have the same privilege under Islam;
b. Inequality of the evidential burden – the evidences of women are
worth half that of men;
c. Inequality in division of inheritance – women getting less than
men under the Shari’ah;
d. The pressures brought upon women if they have to bring cases
against men or their husbands by male dominated courts;
e. Segregation of women from men in public or private gatherings;
Concerns aired by Baroness Cox an independent British peer when she
introduced a Private Members Bill in the UK House of Lords to ensure
that Shari’ah tribunals and councils in Britain operate within the law
and do not form a parallel legal system within the UK contain some of
the issues I have listed above.
When presenting the “Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality)
Bill, the Baroness expressed the particular concern that women are being
discriminated against under Islamic law and deprived of their legal
rights. The same arguments were more or less used by former Canadian
Premier Dalton McGuinty when he yielded to pressure from women’s rights
movements and other political opportunists to introduce the “Family
Statute Law 2005 Act” to curb the settlement of Muslim family and
matrimonial disputes under Canada’s existing Arbitration Act.
It is not my intention to discuss the UK Bill or the Canadian Act,
but to discuss the concerns expressed broadly in terms of the points I
have listed above. It is important to understand the genuine concerns
about gender inequality between men and women in Muslim societies. In
analysing these points in the context of the Qur’an and the teachings of
the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) it is important to stress that God forbids
compulsion as contained in the Qur’an that “Let there be no compulsion
in religion” (2:256). As much as there are laws, rules and regulations
that are to be observed if one adopts to live in any country or join a
club or association, Islam has its own code of conduct for one who
wishes to be a Muslim.
A person can be a Muslim or a Non-Muslim that is a free choice. Being
born into a “religion” similarly does not mean that the person is
compelled to adopt the parental religion. They have the choice of
continuing in the religion of their birth or to embrace some other faith
or even to be atheists and reject all religious beliefs.
If however one desires to accept Islam or (if born to Muslim parents)
to remain as Muslims as their freely chosen religion, they will have to
strictly follow its rules and the required code of conduct. In a long
Hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah (RA) recorded in Sahih Muslim, the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have pointed to his heart and
said “Taqwa is here”, meaning righteousness is in the heart. God
emphasises in the Qur’an that “And whoever seeks a religion other than
Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be
one of the losers” (3:85)
Keeping these factors as the basis, let us examine the points (a) to
(e) which I have listed in the opening statement.
Permission for polygamy Not for Polyandry
If one reads the Holy Qur’an in the correct context, God in his
divine wisdom did not grant Muslim men the carte blanche right to marry
more than one woman willy nilly. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to marry
upto four women under certain circumstances and strict conditions. This
has been ordained clearly to dignify the status of orphans and for
protection of women. The Qur’an affirms this as follows:
“To orphans restore their property (when they reach their age). Nor
substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not
their substance (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a
great sin. If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with
the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four, but if
you fear that you shall not be able to deal with them justly, then only
one, or that which your right hand possess. That will be more suitable,
to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:2,3).
Firstly, the verse cited had been revealed after the Battle of Uhud
where several men were martyred leaving a number of widows and orphans.
It would have been easy for those men who survived to have appropriated
property belonging to the martyred men.
This being the property of orphans there must be some prescribed
manner to protect these at a period of time where no laws were known to
exist for dealing with any such cases. Therefore, Allah in his absolute
wisdom prescribed the divine decree cited in verses 2 and 3 of Surah 3,
An Nisa in the Holy Quran. Men, whether in a state of bachelorhood or
even married men, might find it extremely difficult to take and care for
orphans on their own. Therefore, some guideline as to the care of
orphans to be dealt with equitably would be taking more than one wife
who would be better suited to look after and care for such orphans.
This right of polygamy is an exception than the rule as there are
strict conditions that have to be satisfied by the man before deciding
on taking additional wives. Thus it is clear that polygamy (upto the
limit specified) rather than being permitted is prohibited unless the
man acts justly between his wives thereby protecting the rights of the
wife.
That means that if a man by necessity needs to take another wife, he
must in the first place be just to the first wife. He must demonstrate
that he will spend time equally between the two and provide both of his
wives with equal housing facilities and financial support etc. If the
man opts for four wives, then he must deal justly with all four provide
equal facilities without any discrimination. Thus Islam protects the
rights of the wife.
Furthermore, all issues emanating from each of the wives will have
similar and equal rights and in the distribution of inheritance they
will all be treated equally. This is an important principle that
supports the prohibition on polyandry. The man has to be completely
transparent in his dealings with all the wives and the children born out
of them.
Why are Muslim women not given the same privilege of having four
husbands at the same time? In the first place the Qur’an prohibits a man
from marrying a woman who is already married (4:24). That means a woman
already married cannot take another husband. However, women have argued
that this injunction will not apply if they were to marry four men at
the same time. Such argument cannot be sustained because logistics of
the marriage ceremony requires the marriage pledge to be given one at a
time and once the first man has given the pledge the marriage is thus
solemnised, then there is no way that the woman can get legally married
to another man.
The Quran does not specifically spell out any prohibition. It is
therefore, for women, if they want to get married to more than one man
they can certainly do so, one at a time not altogether. No religion or
any laws permit this. In this connection Islam has provided women the
rights and benefits of a “Khul” divorce, where the wife can gain a
divorce on her own right. The importance of the khul divorces to women
is beautifully asserted in the case of Khurshid Bibi v. Muhammad Amin, a
Pakistani case. This is one of the leading cases of judicial khul. In
this case the wife applied for khul despite the unwillingness of her
then husband to release her.
Judge Abdul Rahman in The Supreme Court of Pakistan decided that the
application is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Quran which
place the husband and the wife on equal footing and that the wife can
claim judicial separation (khul) despite the unwillingness of the
husband. Judge Abdul Rahman also refers to Ibnu Rushad who states that
khul is provided for woman in the opposition to the right of divorce
vested in a man.
Therefore it is clear that far from denying women any rights of
marrying more than one husband they have that right under certain
circumstances but not at the same time. The logistics of the family
structure does not permit such multiple associations at one and the same
time.
Another point to consider is the complexity of the family structure
that would result if women were also allowed to marry more than one man.
First, it would be difficult to determine the father of any children
that such a woman would have. Recently, DNA testing can be used to
determine this. However, it is inevitable that conflicts will arise
disputing DNA test results, and some will even forge DNA results to
prove their case.
Polygamy does not have this problem, because the mother can always be
easily determined, and each mother is married to only one man. This
makes it easy to determine with full certainty whom the two parents of
the child are. Also, conflicts between the multiple husbands of a single
woman would frequently turn to violence, which would likely lead to
increases in violent crime. This is less common between multiple wives
of a single man, because women do not usually resort to violence as
quickly or as frequently as men.
Additionally, the family structure becomes impossibly complex if both
men and women are allowed to marry multiple spouses. Endless chains of
people could be engaged in a huge marital relationship. For example, if
a man marries four women, and each of those women marries four men,
there would be 21 people in this family! If those men are also married
to four women each, the family gets even bigger! And this marital chain
can continue with no end, resulting in a complex situation that would
not be manageable.
Would all of their children be considered step-brothers and sisters?
Would it be appropriate for those children to marry amongst each other?
Who would inherit from whom? Clearly, the disadvantages of such a system
would be immense, and would clearly outweigh any possible benefits.
Given the previous discussion, it can be seen that the basic rule in
Islam is monogamy, which means that each man marries a single woman.
However, Islam does permit polygamy in order to accommodate certain
circumstances where it is a better option, and as a way to reduce the
number of secret affairs and illicit relationships that exist in every
society. Islam simply allows these relationships to become legitimate
and open, if certain conditions are met, and if the rights and interests
of all parties are protected.
Therefore, although polygamy is not the ideal situation and in fact
may be harmful if not practiced in the proper way, Islam allows it in
order to avoid the greater harm of keeping such relationships secret and
illegitimate.
Polygamy protects the rights of women by giving them the full rights
of a wife. Instead of being a secret “mistress” involved in an affair
with a man, where the woman whom has no rights, and is in fact kept a
“dirty secret” that no one is allowed to find out about, she becomes an
honoured wife with all the rights and privileges that come with being a
wife.
Instead of any children being "illegitimate" and having to possibly
resort to the court system to prove who their father is and to get
alimony or child support, these rights are protected by the institution
of marriage. For these reasons, Islam regards polygamy as being
preferable to adultery. So even if polygamy has many disadvantages, it
is still a better option than having adultery become common in the
society. This is why Islam allows polygamy but does not permit
polyandry.
Inequality of the evidential burden - the evidences of women are
worth half that of men;
The position of women in this regard has been completely misstated.
It is true that the Quran stipulates that the evidence of two women (one
corroborated by the other) is required in certain circumstances. When
examined in detail, the Quranic stipulations are meant to protect women
from embarrassing examinations in a court of law rather than to
discriminate them.
Any evidence once corroborated needs no further examination.
The rules of evidence contained in the Quran are in respect of four
specific situations as follows:
a. evidence in respect of civil transactions;
b. evidence in support of bequests
c. evidence in respect of charges against chaste women
In respect of civil transactions the Quran stipulates as follows:
"O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other in transactions
involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to
writing ..................... and get two witnesses, out of your own
men. And if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you
choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs the other can remind
her .........." (2:282)
As regards evidence in support of bequests the Quran states:
"O ye who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take) witnesses
among yourselves when making bequest, two just men of your own
(brotherhood) or others from outside if ye are journeying through the
earth and the chance of death befalls you .............." (5:106)
And in the case of charges against chaste women the Quran explicitly
states:
"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not
four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty
stripes and reject their evidence .........." (24:4)
The above stipulations in the Quran taken in the right context does
not discriminate against women nor do they suggest the myth that women's
evidences are worth half that of a man's in front of the law.
Hallaq (2010 - An Introduction to Islamic Law - Cambridge University
Press), in his erudite exposition of women's rights in Islam, has
dismissed the myth that Muslim women (or even non-Muslim females in
Muslim lands for that matter) had been treated in the presence of law
differently from men. Gender inequality or discrimination in front of
the law has not been recorded historically. It is however conceded that
'Islamic law, reflecting the social make-up of great majority of Islamic
communities, promoted gendered social and legal structures'. Also, the
fact that the "court language" privileged Muslim men and Muslim men
generally over Muslim women and non-Muslims is true.
Hallaq points out that yet 'nothing in this language or the court
itself could diminish the rights of women or even discourage them of
approaching the court, much less take away from them the full right of
property ownership, of juridico-moral rectitude or of suing whomever
they pleased'. This is not only true of Muslim women but is also true in
respect non-Muslim women in an Islamic state, where the court considers
such women "doubly underprivileged" as a result of being women in
addition to being non-Muslims. These women had enjoyed the same rights
and privileges in the presence of the court as those enjoyed by Muslim
women.
Thus, it is abundantly clear that despite differing social and
cultural factors, in front of the law, whether it be Islamic Shariáh,
Civil law or common law, women have and have had equal rights as men to
sue and be sued and they have not been denied access to Muslim courts in
the same manner as would their male counterparts. In this respect Hallaq
asserts that 'Like men, they approached the courts not only with prior
knowledge of their rights, but with apparent conviction that the courts
were fair and sympathetic and operated with the distinct inclination to
enforce their rights'. These facts Hallaq states in his opening
paragraph were obtained from court records, in my therefore these must
be treated as authentic. Representation in such courts was by the Muslim
women themselves at most instances and sometimes by proxy by a male
relative, a servant or a business manager. Hallaq emphasises that "when
they approached the court in person, they did so on the same terms as
did men, and asserted themselves freely, firmly and emphatically".
The range of claims varied from civil damages, dissolution of
marriages, alimony, child custody and expenses, remedies against
defamation, charges against other women on charges of insolvency and
physical assault. It does not mean that men did not bring charges
against women and such charges included physical abuse of them by women.
Thus it is clear that women enjoyed as much right as men or any other
litigant in front of a Shariáh court.
Inequality in division of inheritance - women getting less than men
under the Shari'ah;
The Quran provides clear and concise instructions on bequests and
inheritance as follows:
"It is prescribed, when death approaches you, if he leave any goods,
that he makes a bequest to parents and next of kin, according to
reasonable usage. This is due from the God fearing" (2:180). Thus it is
a condition that ensures that parents and next of kin who otherwise
might not receive anything left intestate by the deceased are provided
for preferably in a will.
Widows and divorcees are also to be comprehensively provided for as
stipulated in the following verse:
"Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their
widows a year's maintenance without expulsion............." (2:240)
"For divorced women is a suitable gift. This is the duty of the
righteous" (2:241).
Bequests and provisions in respect of widows and divorcees obviously
have to be set out in a will. The Quran however provides clear
instructions for disbursement of intestate property in the following
verses:
"From what is left by parents and those nearest related, there is a
share for men and a share for women. Whether the property be small or
large - a determinate share" (4:7)
"But if at the time of division, other relatives or orphans or poor
are present, give them out of the (property) ................." (4:8)
"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance)to
the male, a portion equal to that of two females. If only daughters, two
or more, their share is two thirds of the inheritance. If only one, her
share is a half.
For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the
deceased left children. If no children and the parents are the (only)
heirs, the mother has a third. If the deceased left brothers (or
sisters), the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is)
after the payment of legacies and debts..................." (4:11)
"In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no
child. But if they leave a child, you get a fourth; after payment of
legacies and debts. In what you leave; their share is a fourth, if you
leave no child. But if you leave a child, they get an eighth, after
payment of legacies and debts.
If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question has left neither
ascendants or descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one
of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third,
after payment of legacies and debts..............." (4:12)
"They ask thee for a legal decision. Say, Allah directs (thus): About
those who leave no descendants and ascendants as heirs, if it is a man
that dies leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the
inheritance. If (such a deceased was) a woman who left no child, her
brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have
two thirds of the inheritance (between them): If there are brothers and
sisters, (they share) the male having twice the share of the
female..........." (4:176).
The main objection of women is against the distribution of "twice of
their share to male children". In the first place, male children have
greater responsibility upon the family as a Wali Ul Amr - the main
guardian and protector of the family after the father. The
responsibility extends to the guardianship of all the siblings including
any divorced or widowed sisters. Secondly, when the distribution of
inheritance stipulated by Allah in the above verses are analysed it is
very clear that females are not discriminated against and they get a
substantial contribution in aggregate.
The pressures brought upon women if they have to bring cases against
men or their husbands by male dominated courts:
It is a fact that women cave in to pressures brought about by the
presence of men sitting in as Qadis. Thus it is argued that women are
reluctant to bring in any cases of ill treatment by husbands in Islamic
courts. This argument has been adequately dismissed by Prof. Hallaq
cited in the first part of this article. Therefore, further discussion
is unnecessary.
Segregation of women from men in public or private gatherings;
This is a personal choice. As much as there are segregated Muslim
gatherings there are also many joint gatherings. There is no compulsion,
therefore the claim that such segregation is a Islamic creed is a myth
and has no basis. The segregation is mainly to protect women from
unnecessary exposure to ogling by men.
By virtue of the above brief analysis, it is submitted that Muslim
women rights are protected and Islam does not subjugate women. If that
was not so, how was it possible for Mrs Khaleda Zia and Sheikha Hasina
to be elected by a male dominated populace as Prime Ministers of Bangla
Desh, for Megawathi Sukarnaputhri to be elected by a radical
fundamentalist Muslim nation as President of Indonesia, Rafiqa Azeez to
be elected and to hold the influential Ministry of Trade of Malaysia and
the number of Muslim women appointed to high Ministerial and Diplomatic
positions by the governments of Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Email:
[email protected]
|